|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/1/2017 10:45 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-30 19:46, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/30/2017 7:18 PM, Joerg wrote: but 1.5% is a respectable number for the US. IOW, you've lowered your standards to the point that you consider any non-zero number to be respectable. No, I just do not have a glass-half-empty mind like you seem to have. Don't pretend it's a "half empty" vs. "half full" situation, Joerg. You're bragging about 1.5%. Those who understand math know that 1.5% is nowhere near half full. Numbers matter! Broaden your horizon and visit an area where they do better. Like Davis, CA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHdbIhL0eso Interestingly, one of my friends just returned from a cycling-related conference in Davis. She was one of the presenters. She liked most of the segregated bike paths, but she mentioned that they existed because the campus greatly restricts the use of cars, something you've denied. She was also pleased that there is only one 200' stretch of "protected" bike lane, installed to solve a particular intersection problem. (She agrees with me that most "protected cycletracks" are nuts, and she's got some data to back that up.) 1% is negligible in this field, just as it's negligible in almost every other field. So you want to promote spending bundles on segregated infrastructure to get negligible results. With that attitude we would never have had MRI machines, space shuttles, jet aircraft, satellites, and so on. I have a different philosophy. If MRI machines detected only 1% of the problems doctors looked for; if space shuttles failed to reach orbit 99% of the time; if jet aircraft successfully took off only one time out of a hundred, etc. then we would have rightly called them failures. Somehow the same math doesn't matter to bike segregationists. It does if designed right. Ok, the head back into the sand now :-) Your thinking is weird! You say that Stevenage facilities were not designed right, and that's why the place has only about 2.7% bike mode share. But you point to photos of Folsom's bike facilities that look exactly like Stevenage's. And you brag that Folsom does it right. Yet Folsom's bike mode share is less than half of Stevenage's! I'm beginning to think you don't understand numbers at all! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/1/2017 11:19 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 7:15:13 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: Bike lanes along all major roads. What more do you want? We don't have that on most roads in my neighborhood. Hence hardly anyone rides. I thought we were arguing about separated facilities? I have no problem with wide shoulders or striped bike lanes. There are plenty of places with no bike lanes around here, and people still ride -- because that is what people do around here, but it is nice having a bike lane. When I moved up here in '84. I rode to work on a 55mph arterial on a fog line. I do like the fact that there is now a bike lane. Once out of town, however, I ride on the same types of shoulderless roads as you do. Most people do in rural areas.. I did yesterday, 60 miles worth. A very pleasant ride with absolutely no hassle from any motorist. Actually, I started on our 30,000 to 40,000 vehicle per day arterial. Much of it has shoulders, which I sometimes used. Trouble is, the shoulders often have debris. Yesterday they weren't terrible (as they are in early spring, before the sweeper trucks make their semi-annual visit) but it's a bit worrying to be on the shoulder as traffic passes, then see stuff ahead that could be gravel or could be glass. So my general policy is ride roughly in the center of the right lane if traffic is sparse enough that they can easily change lanes to pass. I'll ride the shoulder if it's clean and the traffic is dense (which, BTW, varies minute by minute). And if traffic's dense and the shoulder has significant debris, decide as I ride, sometimes taking the lane even though it slows some cars. BTW, with moderate to heavy traffic, I find 2+1 lanes to be pretty pleasant. That's one lane each direction, plus a bi-directional turning lane. Almost all motorists will pass quickly and smoothly using at least part of that center lane. Most of the country roads, of course, had none of the above, and were very pleasant indeed. There is a very heavily used road that is part of the commute to Silicon Valley. Occasionally I will take it to Livermore. You enter a freeway and almost instantly take an exit onto this road. There is about 100 feet of road that is only the two lane width. Timing this is absolutely necessary since the cars entering this road are often doing 90-100 mph. Then the two lanes are in the center and the shoulders are at least 10 feet wide. I'm not clear why they did this but it certainly is a better way to ride on what is essentially a freeway. Especially since for the first half of it the climb pulls your speed down to 9 mph or so. Down in the Santa Clara Valley there are a couple of Interstates that cross.. There is a light at the crossing The times I've ridden on them I always knew that I could cross and turn 90 degrees but for some reason every time I've ridden up to the light there was a large opening so that I could pull over into the left turn lane as heavy trucks roar by. Interstate trucks generally respect speed limits so it isn't like being on a commuter freeway where the speed limit is "as fast as your car will go." |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 9/30/2017 9:24 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:15:06 -0700, Joerg wrote: There are also some that quantify the cost savings to health care systems but the ones I read unfortunately behind a (steep) paywall because published in high-class medical journals. You don't get to publish in those unless your underlying data has been properly vetted. Unfortunately not necessarily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias Besides the outright fraud epidemic which has infested peer-reviewed papers published in (formerly) respected journals for 20 years. With a basic-research scientist in the family, I hear about this a lot; it's out of control. http://retractionwatch.com/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c3f375995d67 The kind explanation is utter ineptitude. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 10:33:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/1/2017 10:29 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-30 18:55, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/30/2017 6:57 PM, Joerg wrote: A couple of weeks ago I took this from Rancho Cordova to Sloughhouse (where the farmer's market is): http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/phot..._22551636.jpeg Wide, no speed limit, no slowpoke cyclists. That MUP would be fine with me. Last week we used a similar one with our novice cyclist friend. It was perhaps not quite as nice, but still nice enough. It was very pleasant. Why was it pleasant? Mostly because there were almost no other users on the MUP. I like them fine if they don't cross many roads, if they are smooth and wide enough, and if there's almost nobody else using them. However, that set of criteria isn't very useful for getting funds to build one. They did in Folsom, big time. Most look like this: https://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bph...BeiCSIPQ/o.jpg Major roads are crossed either via tunnels or via MUP bridges. At one busy road you even have your pick, a tunnel or this bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/w5QGBnkE9852 It's great. I can go through there in the thick of rush hour and roll right through. No cars. They are all above doing a slow crawl while I don't even have to tap my brakes are intersections. Ok, 15mph speed limit but nobody minds if you are a few mph above and ride carefully. This is how a successful bike path system is built. Looks just like Stevenage. I forget: What's the bike mode share in Folsom now? Ah, I found some data. About 1.2% in 2010. But apparently it's less now. This site http://cal.streetsblog.org/2016/03/0...uting-by-bike/ alludes to California cities in the nation's top 20 for cycling commuter mode share in 2016. But Long Beach makes #18 with just 1%, and Folsom isn't listed. Build it an over 99% won't come after all. Worse than Stevenage! I would guess that the percentage of bike traffic in San Francisco is at least 2%. I know that most BART cars have four or more bikes per car during commute hours and the cars carry maybe 200 passengers in a crush load. Also ALL of these people have cars parked at a BART lot. So just the commuters are 2%. There is a much higher use in the city itself. Though that number is still low enough that you seldom see others unless you're at sight-seeing areas. At the Golden Gate Bridge and the hill on the Marin side seeing a hundred bikes isn't unusual on a weekend day. The ride down into Sausalito and out to Tiburon probably sees thousands in a day. A lot are rentals with a substantial percentage being electric assist. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 10:37:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/30/2017 8:35 PM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:21:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 9:36:53 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020302/ Quote "During 1991β2008, obesity prevalence for US-born adults increased from 13.9 to 28.7%, while prevalence for immigrants increased from 9.5 to 20.7%". Joerg - obesity in and of itself is not an illness. If you go into emergency rooms all over California you find the majority of people to be immigrants either legal or otherwise. This is major reason that the US isn't near the top of the healthy list. And even in this the life expectancy in the US is only a couple of years off of Switzerland who are on the top. :-) Switzerland has the second longest life expectancy in the world. The U.S. is number 31 on the list, between Costa Rica (30) and Cuba (32). -- Cheers, John B. Complex comparisons as we drive a lot more, and faster, than most populations, we're more violent generally and we use drugs (often fatally) more than many nations. It's not all death by untreated hangnail or some such health-facility deficit. This violence is something you have to be ready for at all times. That's why I often get angry with people on this group. But in fact I'm very easy going. I never start fights. I only end them. And that's pretty easy since most people don't know how to fight and are more likely to hurt themselves than someone else. Punching someone with your fist and wrist out of alignment can break your wrist. Definitely not fun for anyone but the person you tried to start a fight with. My wife doesn't understand why I have these quirks such as not having shade open at night with lights on so people can see the layout of your home. I can get to a pistol very rapidly in case of a home invasion but even after telling the cops that time where it was it took them 15 minutes to find it. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 10:48:51 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/30/2017 9:24 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:15:06 -0700, Joerg wrote: There are also some that quantify the cost savings to health care systems but the ones I read unfortunately behind a (steep) paywall because published in high-class medical journals. You don't get to publish in those unless your underlying data has been properly vetted. Unfortunately not necessarily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias Besides the outright fraud epidemic which has infested peer-reviewed papers published in (formerly) respected journals for 20 years. With a basic-research scientist in the family, I hear about this a lot; it's out of control. http://retractionwatch.com/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c3f375995d67 The kind explanation is utter ineptitude. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 None of this is more violently fraudulent than the papers on Anthropogenic Global Warming. One thing that you can be sure I know is chromatography since I designed and programmed both liquid and gas chronographs. It requires VERY little research to see that added CO2 cannot have any negative impacts to the troposphere. And yet virtually every newspaper or news program will blame everything from Hurricane Irma to a case of the hives on Anthropogenic Global Warming. With Trump in there now more and more scientists are willing to step forward and voice their concerns about either being misrepresented or having to remain silent for fear of losing their research grants if they dared to criticize anyone making these false claims of man-made global warming. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/1/2017 1:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/30/2017 9:24 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:15:06 -0700, Joerg wrote: There are also some that quantify the cost savings to health care systems but the ones I read unfortunately behind a (steep) paywall because published in high-class medical journals. You don't get to publish in those unless your underlying data has been properly vetted. Unfortunately not necessarily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias Besides the outright fraud epidemic which has infested peer-reviewed papers published in (formerly) respected journals for 20 years. With a basic-research scientist in the family, I hear about this a lot; it's out of control. http://retractionwatch.com/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c3f375995d67 The kind explanation is utter ineptitude. I think Joerg does not understand what publication bias really is. Simply speaking, it's the tendency to report "This worked" more often than to report "This didn't work." It has relatively little to do with shortcomings in the peer review process. Which is not to say that peer review is perfect. One of my favorite failures is the 1989 Thompson & Rivara claim that bike helmets are 85% effective in preventing head injuries. After literally decades of non-corroboration, the NHTSA finally admitted that claim cannot be proven and thus doesn't meet government standards for accuracy. It's no longer supposed to appear in government (including NHTSA) publications. It is, however, still referred to unquestioningly by many helmet promoters and other helmet effectiveness researchers. About the Washington Post article: It's a hack piece. Of course there are scientific mistakes even in "hard science" and some do make it into publication. But as someone said in the comments, there was no data or estimate given on the frequency of occurrence of this problem, and it's essentially certain that such mistakes get caught and corrected. Science makes heavy use of replication and corroboration. One might say (to paraphrase the article's headline) "No, science reporter's mistakes are not limited to the headlines." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/1/2017 1:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/1/2017 1:48 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 9/30/2017 9:24 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:15:06 -0700, Joerg wrote: There are also some that quantify the cost savings to health care systems but the ones I read unfortunately behind a (steep) paywall because published in high-class medical journals. You don't get to publish in those unless your underlying data has been properly vetted. Unfortunately not necessarily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias Besides the outright fraud epidemic which has infested peer-reviewed papers published in (formerly) respected journals for 20 years. With a basic-research scientist in the family, I hear about this a lot; it's out of control. http://retractionwatch.com/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c3f375995d67 The kind explanation is utter ineptitude. I think Joerg does not understand what publication bias really is. Simply speaking, it's the tendency to report "This worked" more often than to report "This didn't work." It has relatively little to do with shortcomings in the peer review process. Which is not to say that peer review is perfect. One of my favorite failures is the 1989 Thompson & Rivara claim that bike helmets are 85% effective in preventing head injuries. After literally decades of non-corroboration, the NHTSA finally admitted that claim cannot be proven and thus doesn't meet government standards for accuracy. It's no longer supposed to appear in government (including NHTSA) publications. It is, however, still referred to unquestioningly by many helmet promoters and other helmet effectiveness researchers. About the Washington Post article: It's a hack piece. Of course there are scientific mistakes even in "hard science" and some do make it into publication. But as someone said in the comments, there was no data or estimate given on the frequency of occurrence of this problem, and it's essentially certain that such mistakes get caught and corrected. Science makes heavy use of replication and corroboration. One might say (to paraphrase the article's headline) "No, science reporter's mistakes are not limited to the headlines." Not defending reporters, nor reportage, but the issue is mentioned with increasing regularity in Science News and in conversations with researchers of my acquaintance. http://sciencenordic.com/basic-resea...-be-replicated http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-sci...bility-1.19970 "...asked researchers is there a reproducibility crisis in research? Over half of 1,576 respondents, 52 per cent, said yes. More than 70 per cent had tried to reproduce a colleagues experiment without success, and over half had tried, and failed, to reproduce their own experiments." -- 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 |
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily | [email protected] | UK | 0 | February 16th 08 09:41 PM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 5 | September 14th 06 09:59 AM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 0 | August 25th 06 11:05 PM |
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions | osobailo | Techniques | 2 | October 5th 04 01:55 PM |
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? | Andrew Short | Techniques | 16 | August 4th 03 04:12 AM |