Bicycle related YouTube videos

On 2/24/2021 5:03 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:54:34 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Bicycle troops were found not to be very effective because while
horses were a pain in the ass, they could charge into battle much
faster than bicycles. So while bicycles were good at moving fairly
large numbers of troops from place to place relatively rapidly
(as opposed to marching) they were no form of attacking vehicle.

Bicycles were never intended to be used as an attack vehicle.

My parents were both from Poland. Among those emigrating with them
from Poland to the US was a former Polish soldier who was at Krojanty,
where the Polish cavalry allegedly attacked German tanks. Contrary to
various creative modern accounts, it was not a cavalry charge. The
Polish troops were mounted infantry. The horses were to be ridden to
the designated battlefield, the troops dismount, and then fight as
infantry, not as hussars (shock cavalry). The idea was to keep the
horses away from the battle as they tend to make very large soft
targets. As a clue, my father's friend mentioned that they were never
taught to fire their rifles while riding their bicycles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_at_Krojanty
Bicycles were treated much the same as horses. They were intended to
be a fast way for infantry to arrive at the battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_infantry

I recall my father's friend mentioning that they did have a major
problem with using bicycles. They had been training to ride them in
all manner of weather. Visibility was always good so that the
officers running the training and maneuvers, as well as the observers,
could see what was happening. During the opening days of WWII, the
battlefield was obscured by the smoke from shells, burning forests,
tanks, etc that the bicycle troops could not easily see the road.
There were plenty of obstacles on the dirt roads of Poland which I
assume produced some casualties. He mentioned something about having
to walk the bicycles. Also, riding at night was impossible because of
the lack of lighting which would have made a perfect target.

In my ancient copy of the book _The Best of Bicycling!_ there's an
article by Clifford Graves, MD about how his bike saved his life in WW2
in Europe. He had smuggled his bike along with him in his medical supply
truck, hidden in a large box. When the Germans attacked in the Battle of
the Bulge, he used his bike to get out of danger.

And riding in the dark was part of it. He led a truck carrying Allied
soldiers to freedom on a dark road, guiding the novice truck driver. The
truck driver couldn't use his headlights, but Graves was able to see a
bit by the light of a burning farmhouse. He was also able to (barely)
convince a German tank commander that he was actually German. The story
is called "The Day My Bicycle Saved My Life."

(The book's title refers to "Bicycling!" with an exclamation point, when
it was a small circulation magazine not yet taken over by Rodale press.
Rodale stripped off the punctuation and, effectively, turned it into
Buycycling.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

John B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:17:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/23/2021 4:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
While waiting for the current political discussion to run its course
and die out (Yes, I know I'm part of the problem), I thought it might
be distracting to watch some recent and interesting bicycle related
YouTube videos:

Why Canadians Can't Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU (15:13)

There's no shortage of videos claiming the world will be transformed if
we just install segregated bike paths everywhere. That particular
video's a bit unusual in using a town in Finland as an example; most use
Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

As one good friend of mine once told me about a different but similarly
idealistic solution* to a purported bike problem: "Frank, it's so
simple!!" (The solution was made of styrofoam. And she has since changed
her mind.) I believe that most such "simple" solutions are both
simplistic and wrong.

My first question for the author might be "If this is all so obvious,
why have only a few places in the world implemented it?" I believe the
answer is that where segregated bike lanes cause lots of biking, they
are not the cause; they are more of an affect. That is, other influences
have predisposed a large percentage of the citizens toward bicycling.
Those citizens then, effectively, agreed that the local government
should spend unusual amounts of money to make cycling more pleasant.
(Like it or not, building an independent network of segregated and/or
separated bike paths is damned expensive. Plowing it reliably in winter
is a continuing expense. For an American city where perhaps 0.5% of its
citizens ride in winter, that plowing is the first item on the "no
money" chopping block.)

My next question is "Why ignore the places where this has been tried and
has failed?" In Britain, Stevenage and Milton Keynes are famous for
having separate path networks that reach all parts of town,
purpose-built when the towns were founded. Their bike mode shares are
less than one seventh that of Oulu, despite much better climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...pped-stevenage

That makes the video's claim at 12:14 false: "It's a proven fact that
people of all ages will ride a bicycle in the winter, but only if the
city's designed for it." Maybe some people will, but that number is more
likely to be very small. Other factors will likely prevent mass cycling,
and the most important may be simple fashion. (IIRC, even Portland's
bike mode share has dropped in recent years.)

BTW, at https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?t=606 the speaker touts
Yellowknife's impressive bike infrastructure. Gosh, you can ride for
dozens of feet before the bike path runs into a curb!

Someone said the key to happiness is low expectations. The corollary is
"Any bike facility is a good bike facility." But I don't buy that.

I believe that if you look into the matter you will find that nobody
implemented some change in the highway system and thus encouraged the
use of bicycles in great number, I believe that in every case where
bicycles are used in great numbers it is a matter of bicycles being
used in great numbers and subsequently highways were adapted to
accommodate this use.

Ish, while it certainly true that just because there is a bike path even a
decent one doesn’t mean it will be used, my commute is a long segregated
bike path, which is all mine as it’s empty.

Possibly because it’s on the side of a bypass so well bypasses the Center
of towns on way, no buses use route as well.

But in central london one down the embankment from Westminster to and
though the city is now segregated and while it had a fair number of cyclist
it was only one type ie fast Lycra roadies, it now is not only busier but
has much wider type of riders such as kids, and so on. I appear to be
slightly faster on the original but it’s within the margins of error ie
luck of the draw with traffic lights!

In short with these things if they are done well they work, but only if
done well, so not simple or cheap!

Roger Merriman