IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Mon, 6 May 2019 09:57:28 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 04.05.2019 um 01:02 schrieb John B.:
There's a right way and a wrong way to take the lane. Merges to the left
have to be done carefully. Want details?

Ah, but they didn't merge to the left, it was a merge to the right:-)
But I think I understand now, it really isn't "TAKE THE LANE!" it is
more like "take the lane if you know my special way of doing it." So
tell us, how does one merge into traffic that is traveling anywhere
from 70 to 120 kph when you are traveling 20 kph?

How is a tractor doing it? How does a truck moving at 90 km/h merge into
a freeway lane where the cars are doing 200 km/h to overtake a truck
doing 85 km/h?

Over here trucks use the outer lane on most highways and as you say
are usually traveling at, say 90 - 100 kph. They do use the next lane
closer to the center of the highway to pass but in practice trucks
don't pass each other a great deal as generally they are all going
about the same speed.

Auto traffic is usually traveling 100 - 120 kph and a truck traveling
90 - 100 and merging is somewhat different than a bicycle traveling 20
kph merging with a line of cars going 100 kph faster.

You merge to into the lane only if you can see that the lane is free for
a sufficient length of time.

As I told Frank depending on the time of the day and the day of the
week you may wait a long time to merge into motor vehicle traffic on
any of our major highways.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 6 May 2019 10:01:55 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 06.05.2019 um 00:38 schrieb John B.:
I'll again recommend_Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Anyone who is really
into cycling should have read it long ago.

Why? Does he know some secret stuff that out weighs my lifelong
philosophy of "don't get hit by a car/truck"?

A philosophy of not doing something is not very constructive. John
Franklin gives lots of explanations and recommendation *how* to achieve
your aim 'don't get hit'.

"Not doing something is not very constructive"? So what do you do? Run
out and get hit by cars and trucks? Do you do this daily? Weekly?
Annually?

As an aside, Aircraft pilots have a philosophy of not crashing.
Sailors have a philosophy of not sinking. House painters have a
philosophy of not falling off the scaffolding.... I could go on.

Given that, as I believe I've mentioned, my mother told me when I was
5 or 6 years old all about looking both ways before crossing the road
and not to get in front of autos. That was, lets see, 81 years ago
and strange as it may seem I haven't never been hit by a car, or have
I hit a car.

How much experience does Franklin have in avoiding accidents?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/6/2019 12:20 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
James wrote:
On 3/5/19 3:16 pm, John B. wrote:


What kind of roads do you ride on. Over here the majority of the roads
that I use, both in Bangkok and the country side, have paved shoulders
as much as 6 feet wide which serve for a motorcycle and bicycle lane,
bus lane, breakdown lane, you name it lane. I honestly can't remember
when I impeded anyone else.

So the bus (between stops) isn't faster than John B. Are these oxen- or
solar-powered buses?

In my area, it's definitely faster to ride a bicycle than to ride the
regular city bus. The speed between stops on the bus is low plus buses
are stuck waiting in traffic. On a bicycle you don't have to sit through
multiple traffic light cycles. For the express buses, which stop only
every couple of miles, a bicycle is a little slower. But when you factor
in the distance between the bus stop and your origin and destination, a
bicycle is probably faster than even the express bus for trips of less
than five to eight miles.

On 5/5/2019 11:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 6:47:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I remain amazed by the number of cycling enthusiasts who are willing to
see all sorts of money spent by themselves or by others, to attempt to
make their cycling experience better. I'm talking about everything from
new tires, new wheels, new drivetrains, new frames, new complete bikes,
new bike lanes, new bike paths, or entirely new transportation systems.

But they won't spend a few bucks on a book that teaches real world
riding techniques, let alone take a cycling course. They somehow assume
they know everything there is to know.

It's the famous Dunning-Kruger effect.

Hey, the Dunning-Kruger effect works both ways. The Officious Cycling experts claim to know everything there is to know -- based on a book and a ride-around-some-cones skills class. Half the time, they don't even know the VC -- but they can tell you about "position one."

OK, Jay, you've attempted to raise a valid point: Almost everyone is
very confident that they know all that's necessary for competent
cycling. But yet, avid cyclists disagree strongly on certain points. So
how do we know who actually knows?

Perhaps we should consider an analogy. Employers have a big financial
interest in judging who is likely to be knowledgeable, or who will be
competent in a position. How do they judge?

For people just entering the workforce, they often look at education.
Law firms demand appropriate education, and passing appropriate tests.
So do engineering firms. So do machine shops, etc.

For people who have been at the job, they look at performance. Has the
guy succeeded at the job? Has the guy failed? What's his record?

They may check references. Are the guy's colleagues willing to say he's
good? Does he have a good reputation?

By analogy, perhaps we should give more credence to people who have
taken the cycling classes you disparage (and describe very badly). And
to people who have taught the classes, and contributed to the curricula.
People who have written or reviewed or helped edit books and articles on
the subject, and gotten good reviews as a result. And perhaps give bonus
points to people who have ridden avidly for many decades in many
environments but not had many crashes.

If those should not be the criteria, what should the criteria be? We
can't just ask people if they're competent or knowledgeable. Almost
everyone claims they are. Even those who complain about lots of close
calls, or confess to lots of crashes and injuries.

Neither riding a bike nor driving a car is rocket science. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/programs...ist-manual.pdf

:-) Funny that you disparage "a book and a ride-around-the-cones skills
class," then imply that all you need is a 20 page booklet to be an expert!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/6/2019 5:44 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2019 10:01:55 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 06.05.2019 um 00:38 schrieb John B.:
I'll again recommend_Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Anyone who is really
into cycling should have read it long ago.

Why? Does he know some secret stuff that out weighs my lifelong
philosophy of "don't get hit by a car/truck"?

A philosophy of not doing something is not very constructive. John
Franklin gives lots of explanations and recommendation *how* to achieve
your aim 'don't get hit'.

"Not doing something is not very constructive"? So what do you do? Run
out and get hit by cars and trucks? Do you do this daily? Weekly?
Annually?

As an aside, Aircraft pilots have a philosophy of not crashing.

The aircraft pilots I know have been absolutely dedicated to _learning_
about flying. (In fact, one popular pilots magazine has a regular
column, "I learned about flying from that.")

I suppose back in the unlicensed barn storming days that wasn't true.
But the culture changed, and for the better.

ISTM a cyclist who refuses to ride toward the center of a traffic lane
when necessary might be a lot like an untrained 1920s pilot - a guy who
says "I don't want to crash, so I'm always going to fly just 50 feet
above the ground."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/5/2019 11:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2019 21:47:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/5/2019 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2019 09:38:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

John, if you'd put as much effort into learning as you put into
misunderstanding, you'd have had this all figured out by now.

Ah but Frank. I simply listened to what you said and interpreted what
you said using common, garden verity, English.

In reality, you've MISinterpreted what I've said. Or at least,
misrepresented it. You've done this multiple times, so it seems deliberate.

You mean I misrepresented the word "Seize" or the word "Take"?

Don't pretend I've never said more than "take the lane." That's
deliberate misrepresentation.

I'll again recommend _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Anyone who is really
into cycling should have read it long ago.

Why? Does he know some secret stuff that out weighs my lifelong
philosophy of "don't get hit by a car/truck"?

I am absolutely positive he knows much more than you do about cycling in
traffic.

And how did he learn, or was he blessed from birth with the knowledge?

The knowledge base that is distilled in _Cyclecraft_ has grown for
decades, mostly starting from seminal writings by John Forester, but
improved by contributions from many, many people who tested various
techniques and strategies. There is a good-sized community of people who
dedicate serious time to these topics. There are active discussions,
debates, writings, classes and more. This is the source of the courses
like Cycling Savvy in the U.S., Bikeability in Britain, Can-Bike in
Canada, etc.

John Franklin is not the type of person who just writes what pops into
his mind. That's much more likely to be a characteristic of those who
disparage the work of others.

I might comment that I have been riding in Bangkok traffic, usually
rated as some of the most chaotic in the world for about 20 years now
and Thailand normally comes in second as having the most traffic
deaths in the world, without a collision and can't even remember
having a close call. Not to say that I never had a "close call" but it
certainly wasn't terrifying enough to be memorable.
...
But I don't have to seize any lanes as I ride on roads with big wide
shoulders. And, I might add, that is exactly where the traffic laws of
this country require me to ride.

If you ride only on roads with "big wide shoulders" and stay in those
shoulders, then your experience has precious little to do with where
most people ride, at least in the U.S. And, at least based on my
experience, in Canada. And Britain. And Ireland. And Estonia. France.
Austria. Poland. Italy. Switzerland... etc.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 6 May 2019 23:21:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/6/2019 5:44 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2019 10:01:55 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 06.05.2019 um 00:38 schrieb John B.:
I'll again recommend_Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Anyone who is really
into cycling should have read it long ago.

Why? Does he know some secret stuff that out weighs my lifelong
philosophy of "don't get hit by a car/truck"?

A philosophy of not doing something is not very constructive. John
Franklin gives lots of explanations and recommendation *how* to achieve
your aim 'don't get hit'.

"Not doing something is not very constructive"? So what do you do? Run
out and get hit by cars and trucks? Do you do this daily? Weekly?
Annually?

As an aside, Aircraft pilots have a philosophy of not crashing.

The aircraft pilots I know have been absolutely dedicated to _learning_
about flying. (In fact, one popular pilots magazine has a regular
column, "I learned about flying from that.")

Exactly, if one wishes to use the term they have a "philosophy" of not
crashing.

I suppose back in the unlicensed barn storming days that wasn't true.
But the culture changed, and for the better.

The saying that there are old pilots and there bold pilots but there
are no old, bold pilots seems to date back to the "airmail" pilots
(1918, the U.S. Post Office inaugurated regular airmail service so it
might be said to date back to barnstorming days..

ISTM a cyclist who refuses to ride toward the center of a traffic lane
when necessary might be a lot like an untrained 1920s pilot - a guy who
says "I don't want to crash, so I'm always going to fly just 50 feet
above the ground."
--
cheers,

John B.

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 8:17:09 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/5/2019 11:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 6:47:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I remain amazed by the number of cycling enthusiasts who are willing to
see all sorts of money spent by themselves or by others, to attempt to
make their cycling experience better. I'm talking about everything from
new tires, new wheels, new drivetrains, new frames, new complete bikes,
new bike lanes, new bike paths, or entirely new transportation systems..

But they won't spend a few bucks on a book that teaches real world
riding techniques, let alone take a cycling course. They somehow assume
they know everything there is to know.

It's the famous Dunning-Kruger effect.

Hey, the Dunning-Kruger effect works both ways. The Officious Cycling experts claim to know everything there is to know -- based on a book and a ride-around-some-cones skills class. Half the time, they don't even know the VC -- but they can tell you about "position one."

OK, Jay, you've attempted to raise a valid point: Almost everyone is
very confident that they know all that's necessary for competent
cycling. But yet, avid cyclists disagree strongly on certain points. So
how do we know who actually knows?

Perhaps we should consider an analogy. Employers have a big financial
interest in judging who is likely to be knowledgeable, or who will be
competent in a position. How do they judge?

For people just entering the workforce, they often look at education.
Law firms demand appropriate education, and passing appropriate tests.
So do engineering firms. So do machine shops, etc.

For people who have been at the job, they look at performance. Has the
guy succeeded at the job? Has the guy failed? What's his record?

They may check references. Are the guy's colleagues willing to say he's
good? Does he have a good reputation?

By analogy, perhaps we should give more credence to people who have
taken the cycling classes you disparage (and describe very badly). And
to people who have taught the classes, and contributed to the curricula.
People who have written or reviewed or helped edit books and articles on
the subject, and gotten good reviews as a result. And perhaps give bonus
points to people who have ridden avidly for many decades in many
environments but not had many crashes.

If those should not be the criteria, what should the criteria be? We
can't just ask people if they're competent or knowledgeable. Almost
everyone claims they are. Even those who complain about lots of close
calls, or confess to lots of crashes and injuries.

Neither riding a bike nor driving a car is rocket science. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/programs...ist-manual.pdf

:-) Funny that you disparage "a book and a ride-around-the-cones skills
class," then imply that all you need is a 20 page booklet to be an expert!

The silly notion is that any of the Officious Cycling crowd are experts. Experts at what? Following the rules of the road? I know the Oregon UVC which is summarized nicely in the Oregon Bicyclist Manual, although there are some laws that are a bit more subtle. But really, what is the fully trained, black-belt, Operating Thetan Cyclecraft expert so good at? Taking the lane? Oooooooh. That is arcane knowledge. Wow. http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...ident-cyclist/


And what does any of this have to do with riding on ice or in the dark in 6" of standing water or on slick steep aggregate, e.g., the places where I crashed. I'll put my bike handling skills up against any of the 12mph safety mavens.


-- Jay Beattie.

On Mon, 6 May 2019 23:35:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/5/2019 11:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2019 21:47:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/5/2019 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2019 09:38:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

John, if you'd put as much effort into learning as you put into
misunderstanding, you'd have had this all figured out by now.

Ah but Frank. I simply listened to what you said and interpreted what
you said using common, garden verity, English.

In reality, you've MISinterpreted what I've said. Or at least,
misrepresented it. You've done this multiple times, so it seems deliberate.

You mean I misrepresented the word "Seize" or the word "Take"?

Don't pretend I've never said more than "take the lane." That's
deliberate misrepresentation.

Frank you have said a lot of things, some of which I agree with and
some of which I don't. I was commenting specifically on your Seize
the lane and take the lane advice.


I'll again recommend _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Anyone who is really
into cycling should have read it long ago.

Why? Does he know some secret stuff that out weighs my lifelong
philosophy of "don't get hit by a car/truck"?

I am absolutely positive he knows much more than you do about cycling in
traffic.

And how did he learn, or was he blessed from birth with the knowledge?

The knowledge base that is distilled in _Cyclecraft_ has grown for
decades, mostly starting from seminal writings by John Forester, but
improved by contributions from many, many people who tested various
techniques and strategies. There is a good-sized community of people who
dedicate serious time to these topics. There are active discussions,
debates, writings, classes and more. This is the source of the courses
like Cycling Savvy in the U.S., Bikeability in Britain, Can-Bike in
Canada, etc.

John Franklin is not the type of person who just writes what pops into
his mind. That's much more likely to be a characteristic of those who
disparage the work of others.

Right Frank. Someone wrote a book and therefore they became all
knowing and wise beyond their years.

Rather like the Ptolemaic system (the Sun orbits the earth) , isn't
it. A guy "writes a book" and for 1500 years it is the truth, the
only truth and nothing but the truth. In fact it was so true that it
had become a Tenet of the Church. Then it was refuted.

Or Humorism, a system of medicine detailing the makeup and workings of
the human body, Which was apparently first theorized by Alcmaeon of
Croton (C. 540- 500BC) and remained valid until refuted in 1628 by
the findings of William Harvey. The truth for some 2,000 years.

I might comment that I have been riding in Bangkok traffic, usually
rated as some of the most chaotic in the world for about 20 years now
and Thailand normally comes in second as having the most traffic
deaths in the world, without a collision and can't even remember
having a close call. Not to say that I never had a "close call" but it
certainly wasn't terrifying enough to be memorable.
...
But I don't have to seize any lanes as I ride on roads with big wide
shoulders. And, I might add, that is exactly where the traffic laws of
this country require me to ride.

If you ride only on roads with "big wide shoulders" and stay in those
shoulders, then your experience has precious little to do with where
most people ride, at least in the U.S. And, at least based on my
experience, in Canada. And Britain. And Ireland. And Estonia. France.
Austria. Poland. Italy. Switzerland... etc.
--
cheers,

John B.

James wrote:
On 6/5/19 5:20 pm, Sepp Ruf wrote:
James wrote:

Most roads I ride on have no shoulder at all, and many don't even have
fog lines. On some roads you might find a narrow shoulder (maybe 0.5m
wide if you're lucky).

Use them and you'll keep getting flats and keep bailing, like The Great
Joerg, into the ditch because motorists tend not to take standard driver
action (brake or move to adjacent lane) if you ride outside of the perceived
standard traffic position.


Along one major road there is a shoulder for quite a distance, and
though I ride just within the lane, I often move into the shoulder as
motor vehicles are driven past.

Along another road that has as much traffic but no shoulder, despite
riding in lane, I've had numerous close calls and feel far less comfortable.

In lane like this guy?
https://twitter.com/Natenom/status/1124022735846486025
https://twitter.com/Natenom/status/1116590779986669570
(videos) He has all this video gear, has a rear-view mirror, but fails to
move to the center of his lane (12 ft, probably) until the opposing lane is
free again. He gets 100 kph/mph close calls regularly, wastes his time
complaining to useless or hostile Mercedes State Police. But demands "safe
bike paths," of course.

I haven't had a flat since ... I can't remember. Possibly 5,000 -
10,000 km. I've never taken to the ditch either. YMMV.

Similar here. I have become too superstitious to brag about flat-free
distances traveled, it seems to end a lucky streak.

--
When in Rome, do as the Romans do -- if their statistic beats your own.