A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Where "Safety Inflation" leads



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old October 14th 19, 04:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking,
he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very
infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical:
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until
those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers
love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.



HeÂ’s not talking about trees overhanging roads. HeÂ’s talking about trees
overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue.


Ah, I see. But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the
highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here :-)
--
cheers,

John B.



Of course. Though I don’t know what the highway system has to do with
anything.

Ads
  #82  
Old October 14th 19, 06:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking,
he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very
infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical:
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until
those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers
love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.



He?s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He?s talking about trees
overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue.


Ah, I see. But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the
highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here :-)
--
cheers,

John B.



Of course. Though I don’t know what the highway system has to do with
anything.


Well, I didn't know how else to describe the system of routes that
one can use for vehicles transporting goods and people. Where one can,
of course, ride a bicycle.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #83  
Old October 14th 19, 10:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking,
he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very
infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical:
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until
those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers
love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.



He?s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He?s talking about trees
overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue.

Ah, I see. But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the
highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here :-)
--
cheers,

John B.



Of course. Though I donÂ’t know what the highway system has to do with
anything.


Well, I didn't know how else to describe the system of routes that
one can use for vehicles transporting goods and people. Where one can,
of course, ride a bicycle.
--
cheers,

John B.



Let me rephrase. I don’t know what the highway system has to do with bike
paths needing trees to be trimmed.

  #84  
Old October 14th 19, 01:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sepp Ruf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:39:46 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle wrote:


On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once
merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown
vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content
to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when
I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are
blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see
oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years
without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience
of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but
that doesn't happen everywhere.



Gee, I grew up in New England and I don't remember any secondary roads
that were cow paths or even logging roads :-) Quite the apposite and some
of the roads must have dated back to the late 1700's for sure (the town
was chartered in 1761). In fact we lived on a dirt, secondary road, and
there wasn't any low branches and overhanging vegetation. Big tall maple
and elm trees, yes, but no bushes.
http://www.happyvermont.com/2015/10/...ds-to-explore/
Although the road pictured is actually in the next state it is typical of
the "secondary" roads I grew up on. Note the lack of overhanging
branches.

Note the orange traffic sign indicating that every morning, children who've
missed the bus will knock branches out of the way with their racing helmets.
And stuka^Wbazooka downhill goggles...
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/-w4AAOSwgWddeUJv/s-l1200.jpg
  #85  
Old October 14th 19, 02:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Zen Cycle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:13:56 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:39:46 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").


On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.



Gee, I grew up in New England and I don't remember any secondary roads
that were cow paths or even logging roads :-)


I doubt that you would remember them as such, unless you have a memory that predates your existence.

Quite the apposite and
some of the roads must have dated back to the late 1700's for sure
(the town was chartered in 1761). In fact we lived on a dirt,
secondary road, and there wasn't any low branches and overhanging
vegetation. Big tall maple and elm trees, yes, but no bushes.
http://www.happyvermont.com/2015/10/...ds-to-explore/
Although the road pictured is actually in the next state it is typical
of the "secondary" roads I grew up on. Note the lack of overhanging
branches.


All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience.


--
cheers,

John B.


  #86  
Old October 14th 19, 02:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On 10/14/2019 6:04 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

snip

All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience.


How many times have you seen a post on Usenet, or other forum, where the
poster proclaims that something couldn't possibly exist because they
haven't personally experienced it and dismiss the possibility that
others that have experienced it must be lying?

It's one of the most common mistakes in the language of argument, it's
the "Wishful thinking fallacy" a statement made according to what might
be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.

Frank took it a step further and offered an explanation as to why others
could not possibly have experienced this situation--the "Tree Branch
Knocker-Downer Trucks" that provide a free service to municipalities by
eliminating the need to spend public funds on tree trimming. If only it
were true.

I managed to find two examples of these incredible trucks at work:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/photos+truck+hits+tree+vancouver+neighbourhood/11741170/story.html.
Unfortunately it knocked down the whole tree, proving that judicious
tree trimming is probably a better option that tall trucks.

https://poststar.com/news/local/truck-hits-tree-tree-wins/article_6672c3bb-387a-5389-a4c7-1c214c105e97.html
proves that sometimes the tree wins when a truck tries to remove
low-hanging branches.

But the reality is that trucks try to steer clear of low hanging
branches, as do cyclists. That's why it's important to be able to see
these branches.

  #87  
Old October 14th 19, 03:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:57:12 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/14/2019 6:04 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

snip

All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience.


How many times have you seen a post on Usenet, or other forum, where the
poster proclaims that something couldn't possibly exist because they
haven't personally experienced it and dismiss the possibility that
others that have experienced it must be lying?

It's one of the most common mistakes in the language of argument, it's
the "Wishful thinking fallacy" a statement made according to what might
be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.

Frank took it a step further and offered an explanation as to why others
could not possibly have experienced this situation--the "Tree Branch
Knocker-Downer Trucks" that provide a free service to municipalities by
eliminating the need to spend public funds on tree trimming. If only it
were true.

I managed to find two examples of these incredible trucks at work:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/photos+truck+hits+tree+vancouver+neighbourhood/11741170/story.html.
Unfortunately it knocked down the whole tree, proving that judicious
tree trimming is probably a better option that tall trucks.

https://poststar.com/news/local/truck-hits-tree-tree-wins/article_6672c3bb-387a-5389-a4c7-1c214c105e97.html
proves that sometimes the tree wins when a truck tries to remove
low-hanging branches.

But the reality is that trucks try to steer clear of low hanging
branches, as do cyclists. That's why it's important to be able to see
these branches.


Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and certainly not a justification for retina burning mega lights on city streets and in bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings -- and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark sections where tree attacks might be expected.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #88  
Old October 14th 19, 03:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Zen Cycle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:57:12 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 10/14/2019 6:04 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

snip

All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience.


How many times have you seen a post on Usenet, or other forum, where the
poster proclaims that something couldn't possibly exist because they
haven't personally experienced it and dismiss the possibility that
others that have experienced it must be lying?


+1

  #89  
Old October 14th 19, 03:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 9:01:03 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:17:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.


First, please understand: When I talk about the absence of low,
head-hitting branches on roadways, I'm not talking about just my local
area. To date, I've bicycled in 47 U.S. states and about a dozen foreign
countries. I've done dozens of bike tours, here and abroad, from two or
three day trips to a 2.5 month coast-to-coast.

Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a road are more rare
than hen's teeth. Tree branches thick enough to cause injury to a
cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original claim, years
ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while immediately after a
storm or other unusual event.

After all, how could a thick low tree branch be allowed to remain? A
typical head height for a cyclist is about six feet. Most modern pickup
trucks are taller than six feet. Standard U.S. Postal Service trucks are
far taller. The now-ubiquitous Amazon Prime delivery trucks, UPS trucks,
FedEx trucks etc. are even taller. Hell, even Amish buggies are taller
than bicyclists.

There may be a very few remote and rarely traveled back roads where
leafy branches occasionally hang down, but those must be vanishingly
rare. Even the Amish would trim them quite soon.

Scharf's original claims were that cyclists must wear helmets and must
use headlights that shine upwards (into the eyes of other road users) to
prevent head injury from low hanging branches. He occasionally
resurrects those claims by snarky allusions. The claims remain
fundamentally stupid.



Oddly, I encounter branches fairly frequently just commuting, and If I'm not paying attention in the dark, I can get whacked. This is the ride home: https://tinyurl.com/y3wdaxdu That crazy fir can get unruly, and one just up the street too, if I'm too far right. My commute also involves trails with branches, and for about two months last year after a storm, I had to ride through an alder to get home. Yes, that's unusual -- but it was helpful having a light with some spew to see where the branches were. Upward spew is also helpful in twisting climbs in the dark and for seeing pedestrians uphill in the dark. There are lots of times with my dyno/Luxos B when all I could see were the shoes of pedestrians -- including on that road in the link -- and the road next door that I take with equal frequency. https://tinyurl.com/yy5ornj2 If you're on flats under street lights, it's no big deal. Upward spew is nice in some places, but that doesn't mean I run a stadium light or need one for commuting -- certainly not on the MUPs and facilities downtown.

-- Jay Beattie.


I did a 75 mile ride yesterday with 3500 feet of climbing. While riding down a main street I was concentrating on missing potholes and was struck so hard by an overhanging branch that I was almost knocked off of my bike. Without that helmet on I would no doubt have been nearly knocked unconscious. And I was only riding about 14 mph.
  #90  
Old October 14th 19, 04:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On 10/14/2019 7:23 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and certainly not a justification for retina burning mega lights on city streets and in bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings -- and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark sections where tree attacks might be expected.


There have been such bicycle lights in the past. They didn't succeed.
Either too complicated or too expensive.

There are still dual beam lights available, but it's not for high and
low beam. One model has optics on one beam for close up wide-angle and
on one beam for longer distance but narrow angle,
https://www.brightbikelights.com/product/starry-light-rx02-dual-angle/.
Other lights use dual beams because of thermal management issues.

The reality is that a single light mounted on your handlebar can
properly illuminate the road, as well as having a beam that illuminates
slightly up so you can see street signs and branches, without blinding
other users. In the rare cases where there's a bicycle blinding you with
their light it's because they haven't aimed their light properly and/or
they're using off-road lights at maximum intensity while on the road.
Even with a high/low beam they'd likely still not be aiming their light
properly.

There's a kick-starter for a new light that shines on both the road and
the rider
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613046396/shineon-dual-beam-the-new-bike-light-standard.

Personally, I don't see the need for the "mega-lumen" lights that some
people advocate, at least for on-road use. Even a light with only 1200
lumens is sufficient for on-road use. Proper optics is the key to a good
bicycle light, it makes no sense to just do mega-lumens without proper
optics.

I'm currently using a light with peak output of 1800 lumens but I only
need the maximum when on trail sections or on unlit, unfamiliar roads.
What I really like about this light is that the DRL has "breathe mode"
rather than a strobe. I think that breathe mode is adequate as a DRL,
and not annoying like a strobe. The fact that they sell extra mounting
brackets an a non-extortionate price is also nice. It also serves as a
battery pack to charge a phone. It's pricey at about $100, though it
often is available for $85 or so
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32952179005.html.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Blackfriars cyclist safety debate 'evaded by Tories'" Doug[_12_] UK 11 September 27th 11 12:10 PM
"Blackfriars cyclist safety debate 'evaded by Tories'" Doug[_10_] UK 14 June 11th 11 04:22 AM
"Cycle safety mirrors to be mounted to London’s traffic lights" Doug[_10_] UK 7 June 28th 10 08:03 PM
"Biking off-road leads to trail erosion and tree root damage" Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 2 June 30th 07 02:21 AM
"Biking off-road leads to trail erosion and tree root damage" Mike Vandeman Social Issues 1 June 29th 07 05:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.