|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote: It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups. By far. We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6 car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago. Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions. +1 As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and say, "Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" I note that there's never an omelette. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course. Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to drive is no longer necessary? And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It makes no sense. We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists? Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving school teachers if the family uses that avenue. Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense. We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount educational campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give clearance to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about riding better? Campaigns? What? Spend money on glossy prints and posters? Nah. You're apparently in favor of ignorance. Campaigns like that should use far more than prints and posters. We have mass media - radio that people listen to while driving, TVs that people watch at home. There are billboards along almost every roadside. There are magazines and newspapers, both in print and online. This country has education efforts about everything from "don't drive drunk" to "vaccinate your kids" to "stay in school" to "take your dogs inside in cold weather." None of them have had 100% success, but many have helped significantly. Yet you don't want to educate motorists about bicyclists. Instead, you want to spend billions of dollars to build separate paths. You make no sense. You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails. Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I show up on a bulldozer and do it myself. You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies, while ignoring much less costly improvements. You're not making sense. And BTW, if you did somehow get your fantasies built, you'd _still_ have to educate both cyclists and motorists. We've just looked at cyclists who weren't aware of crossing conflicts with segregated facilities, and motorists who didn't or couldn't scan properly before turning. You shouldn't pretend that stripes or barriers make things simpler. They don't; they complicate things at intersections. It takes education to learn about those complications. You know what I think about your "taking the lane" stuff. Don't pretend it's just _my_ "taking the lane" stuff. It's taught by every nationally recognized cycling education course. It's written into most state laws, including yours. Your failure to understand does not invalidate the principles - both legal principles and traffic principles. But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the cyclists will enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this really look good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067 In a rural setting, yes. In a dense city, no. OK, let's start from that statement. So we should NOT do those cycle tracks in a dense city, despite all the bike advocates who claim we need them precisely there? Fine. So instead, you want to do these million dollar per mile facilities out in rural areas, where there are countless more miles to cover, and only 1/100 the number of cyclists who will ever use them? Yet again, Joerg, you're not making sense. And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to reduce 5%. It's nuts. Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed. "A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is: http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm I read newspapers and those reports were not fake news. sigh I've run across your mindset regarding other issues too. "It doesn't matter what national data says. It doesn't matter what the largest and most disciplined studies say. It doesn't matter what competent engineers say. I've got a few anecdotes - but I won't say how many! - and my anecdotes trump any and all science." I honestly don't know how to respond to such deep ignorance except to say: You're Not Making Sense. -- Cheers, John B. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:00:40 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote: It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups. By far. We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6 car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago. Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions. +1 As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and say, "Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" I note that there's never an omelette. The Communists, if they said that, were Johnny-come-lately as the phrase seems to have originally been attributed François de Charette in reference to the fatalities caused by his troops during the Vendee war (revolt against the French First Republic). "on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des oeufs" (1742 or earlier), -- Cheers, John B. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state. And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It makes no sense. To you it may not. To the vast majority of cyclists it does. Come here and ask them. We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists? Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving school teachers if the family uses that avenue. Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense. Can you try to think a bit harder and more logically? A parent teaching a kid will be fully concentrated on the task at hand. When that same parent is on the way to work, daily grind, same old same old, he or she will become ever more complacent, glance over who just might have texted them ... OH DANG ... a cyclist ... I didn't see him! [...] You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails. Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I show up on a bulldozer and do it myself. You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies, while ignoring much less costly improvements. _My_ tax Dollars, _not_ other people's money. You're not making sense. Well, obviously you don't get it or don't want to so I'll end it here. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-20 19:00, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote: It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups. By far. We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6 car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago. Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions. +1 Andrew, you are in the perfect position because you run a bike shop and undoubtedly 95% of people coming through the door are cyclists (discount the grandparents buying a tricycle for li'l Joey). What if you'd ask every one of them for a week or so whether they prefer riding on bike paths or on roads? As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and say, "Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" I note that there's never an omelette. Oh there is but it's always being eaten by the politically connected. Regular people must stand in line to get one, only one per family, and when it's their turn all omelettes are already gone. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/21/2018 10:36 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 19:00, AMuzi wrote: On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote: It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups. By far. We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6 car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago. Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions. +1 Andrew, you are in the perfect position because you run a bike shop and undoubtedly 95% of people coming through the door are cyclists (discount the grandparents buying a tricycle for li'l Joey). What if you'd ask every one of them for a week or so whether they prefer riding on bike paths or on roads? What a nonsense response. Even if every one said "I'd prefer riding on a bike path," what would that prove? That we must build bike paths absolutely everywhere so they never have to ride on a road? It should be obvious that such a thing is impossible. And if you build the typical American bike path for them, it will probably increase the amount of driving, because most path users drive to and from the paths in their cars. Your question, Joerg, is like asking people in a grocery store "Would you rather taste this ice cream, or these mashed potatoes?" We know how the majority would answer. But basing dietary policy on it would result in a grossly fat and unhealthy population, increasing societal medical expense. Which is the same effect as your message that "Roads are dangerous, don't ride a bike until you have a separate bike path." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/20/2018 10:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course. Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to drive is no longer necessary? I think that public school driver's education classes are far less common than they used to be. I took such a class as a summer option, but that was over 50 years ago. AFAIK it's not available around here at all. It's been replaced by for-profit driving schools and/or online classes. And those ignore interactions with bicyclists. I know a smart and dedicated bike advocate who has worked a long time trying to influence them to teach respect for cyclists, care when passing cyclists, etc. She's also lobbied to get appropriate questions into the official driver's license exams. She's been repeatedly rebuffed, but she keeps trying. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/21/2018 10:29 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state. Here's the problem: I've stopped kids riding facing traffic (because they were headed directly at me) and was told "My parents told me to ride on this side." I've seen two parents and their three kids riding facing traffic (all wearing pretty helmets, so I guess they were "safe.") I've ridden alongside other adults, me riding on the right, they riding on the left, and had conversations about which side of the road is proper. Heck, I had one conversation with a bike cop who asked _me_ which side of the road was really legal! It makes no sense to say the ignorant should do the educating. And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It makes no sense. To you it may not. To the vast majority of cyclists it does. Come here and ask them. Joerg, most bike trails might as well be paved circles in a big field, for all the good they do. You should just lobby for those. The "vast majority" of cyclists would like them just as well. Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense. Can you try to think a bit harder and more logically? A parent teaching a kid will be fully concentrated on the task at hand. I suspect you have no kids. You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies, while ignoring much less costly improvements. _My_ tax Dollars, _not_ other people's money. If _your_ tax dollars can pay for even one mile of a segregated bike facility, you must be paying millions in taxes. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:29:53 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state. I understand that you're not from this country, so FYI, US schools have traditionally offered driver's education, sometimes as a free class along with health education (my generation in California) and then as a privately provided class, paid for by the student -- current practice in Oregon. Driver training is not required, but it makes it easier to get a regular license. It's also a good idea, and it lowers accident and insurance rates for young drivers. Professional instructors know more than parents, sorry to say. Most parents know how to drive, but don't know the vehicle code except for what they read on signs. Many parents have no idea of the laws applicable to bicycles.. Many parents are poor drivers themselves, talk on cellphones and are the people about whom you constantly complain and fear. BTW, the "nanny state" is building all the roads and facilities you use. It is providing you with water, fire and police protection -- even in your CSD. You have a hard-on for the nanny state and yet you live in a development where you you have to select a house paint color from an approved pallet.. http://www.cameronpark.org/ccrs/ccrs...-9785b252-af54 It's self-imposed super-nanny wet-nurse state. -- Jay Beattie. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-21 09:52, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:29:53 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state. I understand that you're not from this country, so FYI, US schools have traditionally offered driver's education, sometimes as a free class along with health education (my generation in California) and then as a privately provided class, paid for by the student -- current practice in Oregon. I know but AFAIK schools around here do not have such free service a anymore. ... Driver training is not required, but it makes it easier to get a regular license. It's also a good idea, and it lowers accident and insurance rates for young drivers. It is a good idea but should not be on the taxpayer dime. Besides, driving is a privilege, not a right. When I was young I paid my driving school fees myself. Every penny of it. Professional instructors know more than parents, sorry to say. Most parents know how to drive, but don't know the vehicle code except for what they read on signs. Many parents have no idea of the laws applicable to bicycles. Many parents are poor drivers themselves, talk on cellphones and are the people about whom you constantly complain and fear. Sure, just like there are parents who are abusive or have next to nothing in social skills. It still does not warrant the state to barge in and take over unless it's really bad and dangerous. BTW, the "nanny state" is building all the roads and facilities you use. It is providing you with water, fire and police protection -- even in your CSD. As I said that is because I do not have the right to hop on an excavator and tear up some turf in the wilderness. In the old days people could do that but not anymore. For example, just a few miles from here people pump their own water and operate septic tanks. We live in a more urban area where that right is not afforded to residents. ... You have a hard-on for the nanny state and yet you live in a development where you you have to select a house paint color from an approved pallet. They do not. We went to Sherwin-Williams, picked a color and painted the house. http://www.cameronpark.org/ccrs/ccrs...-9785b252-af54 It's self-imposed super-nanny wet-nurse state. The reason we live in California was job-related and we stayed (so far). We don't like moving. However, if we ever want to downsize while getting older my sights are on the southern parts of Utah. Good weather, conservative area, pristine mountain biking. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OUCH | Nuxx Bar | UK | 56 | March 11th 11 09:56 PM |
Ouch! | B. Lafferty | Racing | 0 | August 30th 06 01:16 PM |
Ouch! | Danny Colyer | UK | 0 | January 11th 06 10:41 PM |
Ouch again! | Bill C | Racing | 0 | July 15th 05 11:55 PM |
ouch | audrey | UK | 5 | May 11th 05 11:29 PM |