|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/15/2019 12:14 AM, John B. wrote:
snip A "chain saw helmet"? I understand the face shield, but the helmet? Maybe cut down a tree and it falls on your head? I could have sworn that many years ago someone in r.b.t. said that they carried clippers to trim branches that were in their way. I will search for that post in Google Groups. |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:50:45 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: 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 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. Let me rephrase. I don’t know what the highway system has to do with bike paths needing trees to be trimmed. Well, O.K. we'll use your terms. Pick one to describe the network of roads, streets, lanes, highways, toll roads and all the other designated places to drive a wheeled vehicle, that exist in a country? -- cheers, John B. Again, you were referring to his comment about trees overhanging bike paths. Though that initial post seems to have disappeared from this thread. You were apparently disagreeing by saying that where you are the highways don’t have overhanging trees. There is also mention, much later of having to call the city out to remove a branch of a low hanging tree that interfered with riding on a road shoulder. Are you claiming such things don’t exist? FWIW I’ve been on rural highways in Quebec where there are trees overhanging the road shoulder. As recent as last Sunday. So even given your highway comment, you are wrong. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:26:58 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote: John B. wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:50:45 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: 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 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. Let me rephrase. I don?t know what the highway system has to do with bike paths needing trees to be trimmed. Well, O.K. we'll use your terms. Pick one to describe the network of roads, streets, lanes, highways, toll roads and all the other designated places to drive a wheeled vehicle, that exist in a country? -- cheers, John B. Again, you were referring to his comment about trees overhanging bike paths. Though that initial post seems to have disappeared from this thread. You were apparently disagreeing by saying that where you are the highways don’t have overhanging trees. There is also mention, much later of having to call the city out to remove a branch of a low hanging tree that interfered with riding on a road shoulder. Are you claiming such things don’t exist? FWIW I’ve been on rural highways in Quebec where there are trees overhanging the road shoulder. As recent as last Sunday. So even given your highway comment, you are wrong. I wrote, "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" The reply was,"Though I don't know what the highway system has to do with anything. " And it digressed from there. But if " rural highways in Quebec where there are trees overhanging the road shoulder" I would have to say that Canada must be a far more backward place than here. Admittedly the area I live in has tree limbs overhanging the road in places but the branches are probably 12 - 15 feet in the air, certainly higher than a school bus van. Nothing to create fear in the cyclist's breast. To be honest, the reason for no low overhanging branches is probably the , literally, hordes of small motorcycles we have here. If a branch is low enough to interfere with motorcycle passage someone will cut it down. -- cheers, John B. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/14/2019 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 06:04:54 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle wrote: 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. Tell me more about the cow paths that grew into roads and highways? I really can't imagine why in the world anyone would want to have a road from the South Pasture to the back of the barn. As for logging roads, well that were usually sort of single ended. From the paved road to somewhere up in the woods. Maybe well enough to drive a few yards off the highway if you wanted to "have it off" with your girlfriend in the back seat but hardly a means to get anywhere. As for memory, well one can recount things that they saw with their own eyes with a certain amount of veracity. But perhaps I should have specified that my memory also included things that were told to me by others. My maternal grandfather was born in 1875 and I would assume that by the time he was ten he probably was reasonably alert and in later years he made his fortune in the lumber business and he never told any stories about logging roads and cow paths turning into roads. So we are back to, say, 1885. No, I think that you exaggerate :-) 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. I wouldn't argue that where you go there are overhanging limbs and bushes. Mostly I'm arguing that New England roads did not evolve from cow paths and logging roads, although I will admit that saying so does add a bit of color to one's otherwise rather drab tales. -- cheers, John B. It's unclear but not certainly wrong: http://www.celebrateboston.com/strange/cow-paths.htm -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/15/2019 7:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip Don't make it political. All of us make pronouncements based on our personal experience, and Frank is fundamentally right that on most paved streets, branches are rarely a problem. Sorry, but when most of us make pronouncements we don't try to extrapolate our own personal experience onto the rest of the world unless there's no doubt that it's applicable. And if we happen to make a mistake and do that, we don't double-down, we gracefully admit the error and move on. Some of us may see exceptions to the rule more often than others -- maybe a lot more often. Those people would benefit from a non-StVZO light. Having used a StVZO Luxos B -- a well respected dyno light with reportedly good light output -- it falls short for me in many places, but then again, I often commute on trail or narrow roads with trees and really bad pavement. Most urban riders on MUPs and flat, well paved streets would be well served by a dyno light with cut-off. The people I see on the super-colossal bicycle facility through the South Waterfront with mega lights should be shot -- in a humane fashion, of course. Dynos are perfect for that facility, particularly with all the traffic. OMG, I would dispute that part about "flat, well paved streets." Are you familiar with "PCI" Pavement Condition Index? It varies wildly between cities, even adjacent cities. Ride from Cupertino, where I believe our average is about 85 now, with only a handful of streets in poor condition across the border into San Jose which has many streets with a PCI of 49 or less, and an average of about 70. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/02/nearly-400-miles-of-san-jose-road-are-in-bad-shape/ San Francisco is so bad that I stopped using my Brompton there because the potholes are so big that it could be swallowed up whole. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/15/2019 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/14/2019 10:48 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: 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. So mount two lamps on the front of the bike somewhere with a small switch on the handle bars. Back in the halogen bulb days, I had two headlights mounted on my commuting bike, for purposes of comparison and other experiments. These were driven by an ancient Soubitez roller dynamo that's still in use on another bike. I had two switches on the handlebar. One could select either headlamp or both. (They were wired in series.) The other switch controlled the taillight, so I could see the effect on the headlight(s) of turning it on and off. Once headlights like the Cyo were developed, I stopped that experimenting. I judged the problem solved. But I suppose if I lived in a town whose mayor couldn't keep the streets clear of very low branches, I might repeat that experiment. Well, why not. The new LED lights are so small and light that one could have several mounted on the handle bars. High beam, low beam, beam in the middle beam, flash his eyes beam, watch out for the branch beam. The mind boggles. There's chatter about new technology for auto headlight beams. Instead of the currently common scheme of one light source (whether tungsten, LED or whatever) there would be an array of light sources each focused on a small area forward of the car. This would be coupled with a vision system that would instantaneously dim only that portion of the forward beam that would dazzle an oncoming driver. You'd have high beams everywhere except where they'd blind motorists. I haven't read anything about that system mentioning bicyclists or pedestrians, so I don't know if it would blind them. This would be an even worse problem in those areas where bike paths and sidewalks have bicyclists traveling contraflow and close to oncoming cars. The other night, I did have a problem with a motorist (driving a pickup truck, naturally) on a quiet, dark residential street. He kept his high beams and his auxiliary lights on while driving toward me. I'm sure his bilateral optical system detected our tandem. I'm sure his jelly-like CPU recognized it as an oncoming bicycle. But his software lacked the "elementary courtesy" module that should have dimmed his lights. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/15/2019 6:10 AM, sms wrote:
I've never subscribed to the whole "Danger Danger" philosophy that we see one person incessantly repeating. Bicycling is not that dangerous! Again, we're deeply into the surreal. Mayor Scharf is now agreeing with my main arguments - that bicycling is not very dangerous - while somehow pretending he's arguing against me. He is the person who has argued longest and hardest for bicycle helmet use, saying that riding without one is foolish. He has argued long and hard for blinding headlights and even marine strobe taillights, night and day, saying that riding without them is foolish. He has argued long and hard for bike segregation, for keeping bikes off roadways. He has shilled for flags sticking out laterally from bicycles, to keep cars away. He has touted the electric horn he cobbled together for his bike as an additional safety necessity. He has mocked my comparisons of bicycling data vs. data for other activities, comparisons that prove that cycling is not dangerous. (See http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm for example, an article I wrote decades ago.) Those are the sorts of statements that I've characterized as "Danger! Danger!" warnings. He now pretends I was saying precisely the opposite. Scharf is doing what so many politicians do: lying blatantly and repeatedly. I wouldn't be surprised if his skin tone was turning orange. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/15/2019 6:26 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:50:45 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: 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 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. Let me rephrase. I don’t know what the highway system has to do with bike paths needing trees to be trimmed. Well, O.K. we'll use your terms. Pick one to describe the network of roads, streets, lanes, highways, toll roads and all the other designated places to drive a wheeled vehicle, that exist in a country? -- cheers, John B. Again, you were referring to his comment about trees overhanging bike paths. Though that initial post seems to have disappeared from this thread. You were apparently disagreeing by saying that where you are the highways don’t have overhanging trees. There is also mention, much later of having to call the city out to remove a branch of a low hanging tree that interfered with riding on a road shoulder. Are you claiming such things don’t exist? FWIW I’ve been on rural highways in Quebec where there are trees overhanging the road shoulder. As recent as last Sunday. So even given your highway comment, you are wrong. Duane, you're simply not keeping the conversation straight in your mind. Everyone agrees that backwoods paths can have tree branches lower than six feet above the surface. That's what it takes to whack a cyclist's head, but off-road bikers know that. It's part of the game. Scharf and others have claimed that branches lower than six feet are to be expected on roads, or perhaps on MUPs. Design standards and elementary practicality say that's got to be false on roads, except in very unusual situations. Yes, there may be branches over a road; but they are normally 14 feet high or higher. Even MUPs, as badly as they are sometimes maintained, only rarely have hazardous overhead branches. Even the worst maintained typically have users who will voluntarily fix such problems. If you have public roads where branches are six feet or less above the road surface, please post photos. And please explain how such a thing is allowed to remain, given that many motor vehicles are far taller than that. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/15/2019 11:07 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2019 12:03 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/14/2019 10:48 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: 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. So mount two lamps on the front of the bike somewhere with a small switch on the handle bars. Back in the halogen bulb days, I had two headlights mounted on my commuting bike, for purposes of comparison and other experiments. These were driven by an ancient Soubitez roller dynamo that's still in use on another bike. I had two switches on the handlebar. One could select either headlamp or both. (They were wired in series.) The other switch controlled the taillight, so I could see the effect on the headlight(s) of turning it on and off. Once headlights like the Cyo were developed, I stopped that experimenting. I judged the problem solved. But I suppose if I lived in a town whose mayor couldn't keep the streets clear of very low branches, I might repeat that experiment. Well, why not. The new LED lights are so small and light that one could have several mounted on the handle bars. High beam, low beam, beam in the middle beam, flash his eyes beam, watch out for the branch beam. The mind boggles. There's chatter about new technology for auto headlight beams. Instead of the currently common scheme of one light source (whether tungsten, LED or whatever) there would be an array of light sources each focused on a small area forward of the car. This would be coupled with a vision system that would instantaneously dim only that portion of the forward beam that would dazzle an oncoming driver. You'd have high beams everywhere except where they'd blind motorists. I haven't read anything about that system mentioning bicyclists or pedestrians, so I don't know if it would blind them. This would be an even worse problem in those areas where bike paths and sidewalks have bicyclists traveling contraflow and close to oncoming cars. The other night, I did have a problem with a motorist (driving a pickup truck, naturally) on a quiet, dark residential street. He kept his high beams and his auxiliary lights on while driving toward me. I'm sure his bilateral optical system detected our tandem. I'm sure his jelly-like CPU recognized it as an oncoming bicycle. But his software lacked the "elementary courtesy" module that should have dimmed his lights. "naturally" ?? I don't doubt your report but since there are more pickups sold than sedans, it wouldn't surprise me that truck driver behavior spans the full range from inexplicable to abhorrent, just like every other vehicle with 2 or more wheels. https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/...parison_v2.png -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/15/2019 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2019 6:10 AM, sms wrote: I've never subscribed to the whole "Danger Danger" philosophy that we see one person incessantly repeating. Bicycling is not that dangerous! Again, we're deeply into the surreal. Mayor Scharf is now agreeing with my main arguments - that bicycling is not very dangerous - while somehow pretending he's arguing against me. He is the person who has argued longest and hardest for bicycle helmet use, saying that riding without one is foolish. He has argued long and hard for blinding headlights and even marine strobe taillights, night and day, saying that riding without them is foolish. He has argued long and hard for bike segregation, for keeping bikes off roadways. He has shilled for flags sticking out laterally from bicycles, to keep cars away. He has touted the electric horn he cobbled together for his bike as an additional safety necessity. He has mocked my comparisons of bicycling data vs. data for other activities, comparisons that prove that cycling is not dangerous. (See http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm for example, an article I wrote decades ago.) Those are the sorts of statements that I've characterized as "Danger! Danger!" warnings. He now pretends I was saying precisely the opposite. Scharf is doing what so many politicians do: lying blatantly and repeatedly. I wouldn't be surprised if his skin tone was turning orange. Add to list: you're both on the "Orange Man Bad" team. But hey Hizzoner is Mayor and you're not! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |