VELORUTION! (bike revolution)

On Apr 20, 6:49*pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:
One of the problems we've got is that everybody is armed and
dangerous.

Like usual, you are grossly exagerating. Not "everyone" is armed and
dangerous. Me -- for instance -- I am not usually armed and
dangerous. Even when armed, I'm not dangerous to you.

Nowadays the good-ol'-fashioned finger is not enough. Some
carry a gun, and some simply use their vehicles as the weapon. What's
a cyclist to do in such a jungle? I'm going to write a book, "Monkey
survival skills for the cyclist." First advice...

http://www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954...49274811492050

Road rage runs rampant
on Bay Area highways

...

For whatever reason, one's genitalia grow exponentially while moving
at 40 mph in a steel and aluminum cage. Being at the helm of a 2-ton
machine makes people feel powerful, I would assume, leading to extreme
reactions from otherwise rational people.

Unfortunately, those extreme reactions are becoming more deadly.

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, a man driving on
Interstate Highway 280 was shot from a passing car. The man who died,
Luis Solari, died in front of his kids in the car. His offense: He cut
someone off.

The worst part is that this wasn't the first on Bay Area freeways this
month.

A woman was shot and killed April 3 on Interstate Highway 80 near
Pinole, and a man was shot along the same stretch of freeway April 1.
An arrest has been made in the former incident.

A gun is unnecessary, and says a lot about violence in our society.
Few problems, especially ones relating to cars, have ever been solved
by use of a gun. Words, even hand gestures, are better answers to the
whole problem. No one gets hurt with any of those.

Even fisticuffs are better. Bruises go away over time.

But expressing one's disgust at other people's driving by shooting a
gun at them is revealing because it's solving the problem of anger
with violence. Those who could angrily waive guns at you from passing
automobiles and potentially use them, may be showing their small
children in the back seats how not to act.

Until this point, the worst I got for cutting someone off was the
finger, not a bullet in the chest.

http://media.www.thespartandaily.com...r852/news/2008...

On Apr 21, 11:24*am, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote:
[snip]

Goodness gracious. All this is very un-British. I live, and ride
my
bicycle in London, which seems to be the far-away land that you
are
talking about. London's a pretty good city to ride a bicycle in,
no
need for new laws or conventions.
Oh, c'mon. The article was written by a Briton about Great Britain.

As, indeed, was my previous e-mail. As indeed is this one. *I can
look out of my window, right here, at actual London traffic.

I just wanted to know much better was in 1992 when I was there. I
guess that's much better, due to the recent changes introduced.


I've said your driving laws are very good

Thankyou. *I missed that posting, I guess. *My apologies. *What is it
about our laws that impresses you? *Are we unique, or do other places
have similar laws?

No, I was indeed teasing you, but a few GOOD SUGGESTIONS are found in
that article. For example, the 20mph limit on the slow lane makes so
much sense. We would start though by explaining to people there's such
a thing as a slow lane.

but I trust the
writer's statement that cyclists still live under the law of the
jungle in London to be right.

Hmm. *As one who lives here, and cycles here, I would say that is
unwise. *Cycling is safe enough here that, if you do choose to live
by the law of the jungle, your mean free path between collisions
might be long enough for you to get away with it, but it's still not
a good idea.

Things haven't changed here (Miami) in the last 15 years. I don't
think they ever will.

How many people ride bike in London?

The should be new annual figures out any time now - watch for a press
release from Transport for London on their web sitewww.tfl.gov.uk.
Last years figures estimate 480 000 journeys a day. *I would guess
that most people take around two journeys a day, rather than getting
on the train with their bike to come home again. *Whether this
includes journeys to a train station, I don't know. *Most London
statistics count only the "main leg" of a journey, so riding to the
station to catch a train might not be counted

How about BIKE FACILITIES? It seems cyclists still must negotiate the
streets. Copenhagen made bike lanes on major streets lately.

Anyway, I'd rather ride a bike in London than in places where still
the drivers ignore any civilized rules of the road. In America we
have
to tame the beast first.

Having ridden many miles on both sides of th Altlantic, I would say
that there is not much in it, though there are, of course, many
places in the USA where I have not ridden (Chicago, for example).
Civilized or not - that might depend on your definition of civilized,
which doesn't always seem to be the same as everyone's on this
newsgroup - I would say that there always are rules, and when you
ride or bike, or are anywhere among other people, it's advisable to
know what those rules are.

I think the most basic rule of the road is LANE DISCIPLINE, without
which the whole road becomes a zigzagging mess. If we don't have that
we are left with the law of the jungle.


I read the reviews of the book, but I'm sure even bullfighting can
be
done in a safe way if you know the tricks of the trade

[snip]

The moral of which, I take it, is to know the tricks of the trade.
Buy a copy of "Effective Cycling"

I'll check into it. But don't forget here's more bullfighting.

Pat in Upstate New York, not Texas, wrote:
On Apr 20, 6:49 pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:
One of the problems we've got is that everybody is armed and
dangerous.

Like usual, you are grossly exagerating. Not "everyone" is armed and
dangerous. Me -- for instance -- I am not usually armed and
dangerous. Even when armed, I'm not dangerous to you.[...]

For most people, a motor vehicle is a more dangerous weapon than a firearm.

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

On Apr 22, 5:03 pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:


How about BIKE FACILITIES? It seems cyclists still must negotiate the
streets. Copenhagen made bike lanes on major streets lately.

Streets _are_ bike facilities. Those thousands of London trips made
by bicycle prove it. The trips I make every day prove it. The
fifteen million miles ridden between bike fatalities are almost all
done on streets, and that also proves it.

Get over your irrational terror. Learn to ride properly, and stop
whining.

- Frank Krygowski

Jeremy Parker wrote:

[snip]

Goodness gracious. All this is very un-British. I live, and ride
my
bicycle in London, which seems to be the far-away land that you
are
talking about. London's a pretty good city to ride a bicycle in,
no
need for new laws or conventions.

Oh, c'mon. The article was written by a Briton about Great Britain.

As, indeed, was my previous e-mail. As indeed is this one. I can
look out of my window, right here, at actual London traffic.

I've said your driving laws are very good

Thankyou. I missed that posting, I guess. My apologies. What is it
about our laws that impresses you? Are we unique, or do other places
have similar laws?

and your new laws
restricting traffic into London are very encouraging,

Well, I have to admit that we haven't quite reached perfection yet.
Oxford Street, for example, from which private cars were already
banned before the congestion charge, has obviously - all too
obviously - not had its congestion reduced at all, because all those
buses, taxis, and delivery vehicles still clog it up. The "City"
part of London probably benefited more from the "ring of steel" anti
terrorism precautions which were introduced somewhat before the
congestion charges reduced motorised traffic still further.

but I trust the
writer's statement that cyclists still live under the law of the
jungle in London to be right.

Hmm. As one who lives here, and cycles here, I would say that is
unwise. Cycling is safe enough here that, if you do choose to live
by the law of the jungle, your mean free path between collisions
might be long enough for you to get away with it, but it's still not
a good idea.

Either London is like Amsterdam, or it's not a welcoming place for
cyclists.

Now you are just being silly. Cambridge is the British city which
has more cycling than Amsterdam, but I think that London is a better
city to cycle in than Cambridge. Of course, London has a good enough
public transport system for really the only reason to ride a bike in
London to be because it is fun. People travel thousands of miles to
come and ride on our buses, and our taxis, and their drivers, really
are wonderful. A London taxi can carry a bike, too, in case of
emergency.

London is rather bigger than Amsterdam. London was the largest city
in the world when I was growing up, although other ciries have long
since overtaken it. Amsterdam is such a dinky little town that you
can **walk** from the center of town - the main train station - to
the Ring Road, their beltway, in an hour.

london public transport is good outer to inner, going outer to outer,
tends to be more probmatic at least by bus/train. which leaves car or
bike or rather it can do.

How many people ride bike in London?

The should be new annual figures out any time now - watch for a press
release from Transport for London on their web site www.tfl.gov.uk.
Last years figures estimate 480 000 journeys a day. I would guess
that most people take around two journeys a day, rather than getting
on the train with their bike to come home again. Whether this
includes journeys to a train station, I don't know. Most London
statistics count only the "main leg" of a journey, so riding to the
station to catch a train might not be counted

Give me a percentage to
show.

About 1.5% averaged over all London. Around 7% in Central London
(roughly the congestion charge zone). The south western part of
London seems to have a higher rate of cycling than average, nobody
knows why. London is tending now to base its statistics on the
automatic bike counters on the TLRN (Trunk London Road Network)
Because of the nature of the TLRN this might lead to some
undercounting in Outer London.

has some big parks, bushy park and richmound together with the river and
the mostly fairly narrow roads lends it's self to bike more than say the
large freeways.

quite a few use back roads etc, i will tend to go though bushy park than
round it, something thats not usefully possible with the car, (the park
has a road that connects teddington with hampton court but never really
much use for me.

Anyway, I'd rather ride a bike in London than in places where still
the drivers ignore any civilized rules of the road. In America we
have
to tame the beast first.

Having ridden many miles on both sides of th Altlantic, I would say
that there is not much in it, though there are, of course, many
places in the USA where I have not ridden (Chicago, for example).
Civilized or not - that might depend on your definition of civilized,
which doesn't always seem to be the same as everyone's on this
newsgroup - I would say that there always are rules, and when you
ride or bike, or are anywhere among other people, it's advisable to
know what those rules are.

I read the reviews of the book, but I'm sure even bullfighting can
be
done in a safe way if you know the tricks of the trade

[snip]

The moral of which, I take it, is to know the tricks of the trade.
Buy a copy of "Effective Cycling"

Jeremy Parker

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com