Where the cyclists in America belong: back alleys, gutters andsidewalks

Eric Vey wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 5:49 pm, h wrote:
"ComandanteBanana" wrote in message

...


Something funny happens though. The more you move to the right, the
more they squeeze you. It's a power game, I believe, where only the
strong (read SUVs and cars) survive.

It's an evolution game where the smart survive. Trying to win the
Darwin prize is not smart.


When gas gets expensive enough, even Jack will be walking. His whole
outlook will change. Right now, only "poor" people walk and get mown
down by drivers, but wealth is relative.

Especially when Jack's job is sent to someone in India who makes $10K US
per year.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Sornson wrote:
Pat wrote:

If you can't keep up to road speed, get off the road or you'll get
killed.

Moronic POTW.


OMG - I agree with Sorni!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Apr 14, 10:27*pm, wrote:
On Apr 14, 9:54 pm, Pat wrote:



If you can't keep up to road speed, get off the road or you'll get
killed. *If you can keep up with traffic, you wouldn't have the
problems.

It's not the bike that people dislike, it's the speed you're going.
Get over the whole bike thing and look within.

Pat (who?), Jack May, and "donquijote" all manage to be very wrong,
although the first two come at it from a different direction than our
"banana" boy.

No, you won't get killed riding a bike, despite what Jack and Pat
claim. *No, the world doesn't have to be transformed to make bicycling
safe, despite donquijote's paranoid whining.

All three of you need to learn a lot about the real data. The fatality
rate from bicycling is infinitesmal. *There are roughly fifteen
million miles ridden between bike fatalities. *People who cycle
regularly have been shown to live longer than typical motorists. *Many
researchers have found that the risk of cycling is less, per hour,
than the risk of motoring, or less than the risk of walking near
traffic.

Pat, get over the self-centered motorist thing. *The roads are NOT
intended for only the uses you prefer. *Slow down, share the road.
The few seconds it takes you to get past a bicyclist will not change
your life. *You're not going to use that time to save the world.

Jack, the Darwin award should go to the bulk of the population that
sits on fat asses in oversized vehicles and prepares for early heart
attack. *It has nothing to do with people keeping themselves healthy
by safe, healthy exercise. *Your remark on evolution shows a dismal
lack of science understanding. *Quit posting from a position of
ignorance.

Donquijote/comandante banana, quit your obnoxious whining. *If you're
too much of a wimp to ride without whining, leave us alone and do
something else.

To all three: *Sorry, I usually try not to be so harsh. *But massive
ignorance becomes grating after a while.

- Frank Krygowski

You missed my point. I don't think that biking is particularly
dangerous and I don't care if anyone does it. But donquijote
constantly complains how dangerious it is and how he takes his life
into his hands every time he gets on a bike because he thinks SUVs are
aiming for him. I think that if he feels that way, or if cars are
really endangering him, then HE is doing something wrong and he needs
to look at it. In the example he gives, he is on a bridge and other
bikers decide to walk or take precautionary measures but he decides
not to and then complains how he almost go runned over. Well, he
needs to look within. It ain't the bike that's causing his problems.

I ride a motorcycle and I often say that if you ride like you're
scared and hesitant, bad things will happen to you. If you ride with
confidence and control (and you ride in a predictable manner), then
you cut down on the odds of having something bad happening.

I think the odds of something bad happening to the average biker is
quite low. I think the odds of something bad happening to dq is
pretty high, but it's his own doing.

In ,
ComandanteBanana tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

That's where the cyclists in America belong: back
alleys, gutters and sidewalks.

Remind me again why BRITONS should care?

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
If you want a bicycle, buy a bicycle. If you want something
that folds, buy a deckchair.

On Apr 14, 9:54 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT), donquijote1954

wrote:
Something funny happens though. The more you move to the right, the
more they squeeze you. It's a power game, I believe, where only the
strong (read SUVs and cars) survive.

Evidently you have never heard the phrase "Right or Dead Right"

Might want to ponder on that one for a bit.

Yep, and I have changed my survival strategy accordingly.

I have realized that America, despite her claims to democracy and
Christianity, is now ruled by the Law of the Jungle. The world seems
to know it now too. It's evident in her foreign policies that she's
getting hungrier. And it's even more clear when you live inside and
you notice that the top predators want to have an SUV to show their
power and wealth --if not to impose their might...

However dinosaurs are not forever. Actually, the hungrier they get,
the quicker they exhaust the resources, and the quicker they
disappear. But they were not known for having big brains either.

Someone may ponder about that too.

On Apr 15, 12:33*am, Pat wrote:
On Apr 14, 10:27*pm, wrote:





On Apr 14, 9:54 pm, Pat wrote:

If you can't keep up to road speed, get off the road or you'll get
killed. *If you can keep up with traffic, you wouldn't have the
problems.

It's not the bike that people dislike, it's the speed you're going.
Get over the whole bike thing and look within.

Pat (who?), Jack May, and "donquijote" all manage to be very wrong,
although the first two come at it from a different direction than our
"banana" boy.

No, you won't get killed riding a bike, despite what Jack and Pat
claim. *No, the world doesn't have to be transformed to make bicycling
safe, despite donquijote's paranoid whining.

All three of you need to learn a lot about the real data. The fatality
rate from bicycling is infinitesmal. *There are roughly fifteen
million miles ridden between bike fatalities. *People who cycle
regularly have been shown to live longer than typical motorists. *Many
researchers have found that the risk of cycling is less, per hour,
than the risk of motoring, or less than the risk of walking near
traffic.

Pat, get over the self-centered motorist thing. *The roads are NOT
intended for only the uses you prefer. *Slow down, share the road.
The few seconds it takes you to get past a bicyclist will not change
your life. *You're not going to use that time to save the world.

Jack, the Darwin award should go to the bulk of the population that
sits on fat asses in oversized vehicles and prepares for early heart
attack. *It has nothing to do with people keeping themselves healthy
by safe, healthy exercise. *Your remark on evolution shows a dismal
lack of science understanding. *Quit posting from a position of
ignorance.

Donquijote/comandante banana, quit your obnoxious whining. *If you're
too much of a wimp to ride without whining, leave us alone and do
something else.

To all three: *Sorry, I usually try not to be so harsh. *But massive
ignorance becomes grating after a while.

- Frank Krygowski

You missed my point. *I don't think that biking is particularly
dangerous and I don't care if anyone does it. *But donquijote
constantly complains how dangerious it is and how he takes his life
into his hands every time he gets on a bike because he thinks SUVs are
aiming for him. *I think that if he feels that way, or if cars are
really endangering him, then HE is doing something wrong and he needs
to look at it. *In the example he gives, he is on a bridge and other
bikers decide to walk or take precautionary measures but he decides
not to and then complains how he almost go runned over. *Well, he
needs to look within. *It ain't the bike that's causing his problems.

I ride a motorcycle and I often say that if you ride like you're
scared and hesitant, bad things will happen to you. *If you ride with
confidence and control (and you ride in a predictable manner), then
you cut down on the odds of having something bad happening.

I think the odds of something bad happening to the average biker is
quite low. *I think the odds of something bad happening to dq is
pretty high, but it's his own doing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Though you are usually dimwitted, you have made an interesting
point.

The SPEED DIFFERENTIAL puts me at odds with traffic, which I
experience on the bicycle and not on a scooter or motorcycle. That's
the reason I suggest LANE DISCIPLINE, where the right lane is kept at
a 20MPH limit. Actually the whole road may move faster that way since
the faster vehicles overtake on the left and don't have the need to
zigzag and put others at risk.

Priority #1 when the revolution comes.

On Apr 15, 3:48*am, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:
,
ComandanteBanana tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

That's where the cyclists in America belong: back
alleys, gutters and sidewalks.

Remind me again why BRITONS should care?

Man, we are like brothers! Our headaches are tied up to OIL, but bikes
could at least be aspirine!

Don't you have Britons dying over oil supplies?

ComandanteBanana wrote:
On Apr 15, 3:48 am, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:
,
ComandanteBanana tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

That's where the cyclists in America belong: back
alleys, gutters and sidewalks.
Remind me again why BRITONS should care?

Man, we are like brothers! Our headaches are tied up to OIL, but bikes
could at least be aspirine!

Don't you have Britons dying over oil supplies?

Not as many since they left Basra in September.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6975375.stm

On Apr 14, 10:27*pm, wrote:
On Apr 14, 9:54 pm, Pat wrote:



If you can't keep up to road speed, get off the road or you'll get
killed. *If you can keep up with traffic, you wouldn't have the
problems.

It's not the bike that people dislike, it's the speed you're going.
Get over the whole bike thing and look within.

Pat (who?), Jack May, and "donquijote" all manage to be very wrong,
although the first two come at it from a different direction than our
"banana" boy.

DonQuijote and ComandanteBanana are the same thing. Only that when one
account gets saturated I use the other. (I think I'm a little more
clever under DonQuijote though. ComandanteBanana is more like a jungle
leader, very appropriate for dealing with traffic.)


No, you won't get killed riding a bike, despite what Jack and Pat
claim. *No, the world doesn't have to be transformed to make bicycling
safe, despite donquijote's paranoid whining.

All three of you need to learn a lot about the real data. The fatality
rate from bicycling is infinitesmal. *There are roughly fifteen
million miles ridden between bike fatalities. *People who cycle
regularly have been shown to live longer than typical motorists. *Many
researchers have found that the risk of cycling is less, per hour,
than the risk of motoring, or less than the risk of walking near
traffic.

Man, you need to go in the jungle more often... "Riding a bicycle in
peak-hour traffic is at best harrowing, and at worst downright
treacherous." The predators are everywhere... "Driving really seems to
bring out the animal in us; put an otherwise considerate and socially
adapted person in a metal cage and stick them into peak hour traffic
and you'll see them shout, swear and punish other road users in ways
they'd never dream of in a social situation." You are the bottom of
the food chain... "Size is everything; trucks intimidate 4WDs, who
muscle out compact cars. Commuting motorcyclists learn quickly to be
hyper-vigilant around anything with 4 wheels - but even their lot
can't compare to the vulnerability of bicycle riders, who travel much
slower than the speed limit, are able to own very little road space,
and typically wear only the bare minimum of protective gear." Hey, but
you may learn to use some camouflage and pretend to be from the
opposite gender... "Furthermore, Dr. Walker wore a long wig on some
trials to see if perceived gender had any effect on overtaking
distances. It certainly did - drivers gave him an average 14cm more
room." It's fascinating to know how the power games are played in the
jungle... "Perhaps, as the vehicle size data suggests, drivers simply
see overtaking a cyclist as an opportunity to stamp their road
authority on a weaker, more vulnerable competitor for tarmac space."
COMPETITION IS NOT ALLOWED, says the lion.

I'm NOT saying though that we should avoid the predators and become
couch potatoes. What I'm saying is that WE MUST GET ORGANIZED if we
want to come out from the back alleys, gutters and sidewalks.

And it's all science...

Bicycle helmets - a road safety hazard?

May 14, 2007 A British scientist has proved that wearing a bicycle
helmet actually exposes cyclists to further risk. Overtaking traffic
passed helmeted cyclists with significantly less room than unhelmeted
cyclists - and the bigger the vehicle, the closer the average passing
distance was. As civilised as we pretend to be elsewhere, we
consistently act like might is right on our roads.

Road psychology is fascinating. Driving really seems to bring out the
animal in us; put an otherwise considerate and socially adapted person
in a metal cage and stick them into peak hour traffic and you'll see
them shout, swear and punish other road users in ways they'd never
dream of in a social situation. It's mankind at its prmitive worst;
the thinnest point in our fragile veneer of civilisation, where the
law of the jungle underpins our actions and social conventions go out
the window.

Size is everything; trucks intimidate 4WDs, who muscle out compact
cars. Commuting motorcyclists learn quickly to be hyper-vigilant
around anything with 4 wheels - but even their lot can't compare to
the vulnerability of bicycle riders, who travel much slower than the
speed limit, are able to own very little road space, and typically
wear only the bare minimum of protective gear.

Riding a bicycle in peak-hour traffic is at best harrowing, and at
worst downright treacherous. While cyclists are able to feel in some
control over what's happening in front of them, car drivers in the
outermost lane tend to see them as an annoying chicane and overtake
leaving a fraction of the space they'd give another car. And research
from the University of Bath shows that where a cyclist is wearing
protective clothing, drivers are likely to cut in even closer.

Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath,
used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance
sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in
Salisbury and Bristol last September.

Dr Walker, who was struck by both a bus and a truck in the course of
the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half
the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was
struck. He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get
particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches)
closer with the helmet than without. The research has been accepted
for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.

Size of vehicle also played a role: the average car passed 1.33 metres
away from the bicycle, the average white van was 10cm closer. The
average truck was a further 9cm closer, and the average bus 4cm closer
again - 23cm closer on average than a car.

Furthermore, Dr. Walker wore a long wig on some trials to see if
perceived gender had any effect on overtaking distances. It certainly
did - drivers gave him an average 14cm more room.

What are the implications? Perhaps when drivers see male riders suited
up with all the correct gear they assume they'll be more predictable
and able to get themselves out of trouble. Maybe there's some sort of
chivalrous courtesy going on when female riders are left wider gaps.
Perhaps, as the vehicle size data suggests, drivers simply see
overtaking a cyclist as an opportunity to stamp their road authority
on a weaker, more vulnerable competitor for tarmac space.

Either way, the research throws a very interesting slant on the
mandatory bicycle helmet laws found in many areas. While helmets are
clearly an advantage in a fall, there's little to suggest they do much
when the rider is hit by a car or truck. And if a helmeted cyclist
experiences around 20% more close overtaking moves than his unhelmeted
contemporary, does wearing a helmet actually make bicycle commuting
more dangerous?

A fascinating psychological study. Want to see a person's true
character? Study them alone, in a car, in traffic. And prepare to be
shocked.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/7255/

ComandanteBanana wrote:

Somebody IS organized.
http://spokesnfolks.blogspot.com/200...sponsible.html

Riders cheered the news last night that one of the toll lanes onto the
Rickenbacker Causeway is soon to be kept open for bicycles only on
weekdays and early weekend mornings. Jeff Cohen, of Miami-Dade Public
Works, said the change will take place when current modifications of the
toll gates are complete.

About four dozen cyclists turned out for the bicycle town hall session
in Coral Gables. We heard encouraging news about some South Dade streets
that will be redone to include bike lanes (details later), and an update
on the long series of bike-safety improvements on the Rickenbacker
between Miami and Key Biscayne. Most of us were getting our first look
at a path solution that will take westbound riders off the Rickenbacker
smoothly onto Brickell Avenue without having to mix it up with cars and
boat trailers in the flyover. There's more, but I'll have to report
later. It's tax day, you know...