Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On 10/14/2019 7:32 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:57:12 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 10/14/2019 6:04 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

snip

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.

How many times have you seen a post on Usenet, or other forum, where the
poster proclaims that something couldn't possibly exist because they
haven't personally experienced it and dismiss the possibility that
others that have experienced it must be lying?


+1

Thank you.

There are non-snarky ways for people to discuss their own personal
preferences and experiences in their own locales. Not all equipment is
necessary or relevant everywhere in the world.

Explaining why you use, or do not use, certain equipment, without
insisting that everyone must do what you do, is a more effective
technique to get your point across.

On 10/14/2019 5:50 AM, 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 donÂ’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.

And I don't know what bike paths have to do with Scharf's claim of road
riders getting injured by hitting tree branches with their heads.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/14/2019 9:04 AM, 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 :-)

... 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.

So, please tell us more about your experience! I've been talking about
riding on normal public roads and (rarely) on normally designed paved
multi-use paths. These seem to all meet the FHWA standard for 14 feet
road clearance and 8 foot path clearance. A few ancient railroad
underpasses at the edge of my extensive riding area have warning signs
for trucks, but those say things like "Clearance 10 ft 8 in".
https://goo.gl/maps/Vk1Pfepvp7xrLcGD8
Woodland paths are a different matter entirely.

Where are you riding that you daily have to duck under branches that
would hit your head? And are you riding a normal height bicycle? Do you
have photos?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/14/2019 11:06 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/14/2019 7:23 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and
certainly notÂ* a justification for retina burning mega lights on city
streets and in bicycle facilities.Â* 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.

There have been such bicycle lights in the past. They didn't succeed.
Either too complicated or too expensive.

Which is direct proof that upward beams are NOT essential, as Mayor
Scharf has claimed.

The reality is that a single light mounted on your handlebar can
properly illuminate the road, as well as having a beam that illuminates
slightly up so you can see street signs and branches, without blinding
other users.

Precisely correct! I have those on various bikes. The best examples are
our Busch & Muller Cyo headlamps. They are StVZO compliant, they
illuminate the road evenly and extremely well, they light up stop signs
nearly a quarter mile away, they don't blind oncoming motorists or
cyclists, and mine did better than my friend's headlight on our recent
nighttime MUP ride, to show us the one leaning tree that could have
caused a problem. (That leaning tree was the first example of such a
hazard in the 20+ years that trail has existed.)

Personally, I don't see the need for the "mega-lumen" lights that some
people advocate, at least for on-road use. Even a light with only 1200
lumens is sufficient for on-road use. Proper optics is the key to a good
bicycle light, it makes no sense to just do mega-lumens without proper
optics.

I'll claim another rare chance to agree with Mayor Scharf.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/14/2019 10:41 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:


I did a 75 mile ride yesterday with 3500 feet of climbing. While riding down a main street I was concentrating on missing potholes and was struck so hard by an overhanging branch that I was almost knocked off of my bike. Without that helmet on I would no doubt have been nearly knocked unconscious. And I was only riding about 14 mph.

Got a photo? Got an address?

You're talking about a stout branch hanging less than six feet over a
main street, which is a VERY rare occurrence and typically corrected
very quickly, for reasons that _should_ be obvious. You were riding in
daylight, I assume, and you didn't notice it, which has to be even more
rare. And this happened during the exact time that the issue was being
discussed on this tiny discussion group, which is also quite a coincidence.

You've multiplied three infinitesmals, and still come up with a perfect
example? Sorry, dude, without a photo I'm not prepared to believe that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/14/2019 12:18 PM, wrote:


Frank has trouble empathizing with someone else's situation and needs.

I have trouble believing fanciful "Danger!" tales and extreme demands
for supposed "safety" equipment.

I'm not talking about riding woodland trails. If that's someone's
situation or need, it's a separate topic. I'm talking about riding
_roads_, using a good German standard headlamp. Scharf says it's
dangerous because tree branches can cause head injury.

Tell us your experiences, Lou. Has that really happened to you?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/14/2019 9:18 AM, wrote:

snip

Oh, and a tree branch doesn't have to be 80mm diameter to be
a problem. Even something smallish in the face while riding
is a safety hazard. I'm not generally much excited about
safety but really anything that smacks a rider in the face
presents some unwanted aftermath scenarios. I've listened to
enough riders to believe them.

You've conflated this with putative urban killer trees in
traffic lanes, which is ridiculous and unrelated.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank has trouble empathizing with someone else's situation and needs. That the reason he getting on the nerves of some of us including me.

Lou

As Andrew stated, even something smallish in the face is a safety
hazard, especially when it's unexpected.

You can ride right through a few leaves hanging down when you're aware
that they're there, without reacting. But something unexpected in the
face, even small, could trigger a reaction that puts the rider in
danger, i.e. causing them to swerve into traffic.

It's not just a matter of empathizing with someone else's situation,
it's first accepting that it just might be possible that someone else
could have a situation that's different than what you've personally
encountered. How many times have you seen in a forum someone say "well
I've never had that problem," implying that the world revolves around
them and anyone else with that problem is of no concern.

On 10/14/2019 3:08 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/14/2019 9:18 AM, wrote:

snip

Oh, and a tree branch doesn't have to be 80mm diameter to be
a problem. Even something smallish in the face while riding
is a safety hazard.Â* I'm not generally much excited about
safety but really anything that smacks a rider in the face
presents some unwanted aftermath scenarios. I've listened to
enough riders to believe them.

You've conflated this with putative urban killer trees in
traffic lanes, which is ridiculous and unrelated.

--
Andrew Muzi
Â*Â* www.yellowjersey.org/
Â*Â* Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank has trouble empathizing with someone else's situation and needs.
That the reason he getting on the nerves of some of us including me.

Lou

As Andrew stated, even something smallish in the face is a safety
hazard, especially when it's unexpected.

You can ride right through a few leaves hanging down when you're aware
that they're there, without reacting. But something unexpected in the
face, even small, could trigger a reaction that puts the rider in
danger, i.e. causing them to swerve into traffic.

It's not just a matter of empathizing with someone else's situation,
it's first accepting that it just might be possible that someone else
could have a situation that's different than what you've personally
encountered.

But Mayor Scharf, you've taken it much farther. You've claimed that this
is a well-known hazard in your area (although you haven't yet admitted
it applies in the city you're personally paid to govern). You've said
that because it's such a hazard, a bicyclist cannot safely ride with an
StVZO compliant headlamp - that he needs one that shines as much light
upward as downward.

Is it really true that you let branches hang just six feet over roadways
in your city?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/14/2019 9:18 AM, wrote:

snip

Frank has trouble empathizing with someone else's situation and needs. That the reason he getting on the nerves of some of us including me.

Has he ever said, "Oh, I didn't realize that others had an issue with
xyz, I've never experienced it. I stand corrected?"

I suppose not. Since he knows everything about everything, how everyone
else should live their lives, and every issue to do with bicycling in
the entire world, there's never been a need to make such a statement.

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.