Harnett County bicyclist hit by car, killed...

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 7:52:27 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-31 11:10, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 8:03:11 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-30 19:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2016 6:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-30 12:52, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:17:09 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:

Unfortunately that is how many people see it. The proof
could not have been any clearer than in Folsom, for
example.

Has the mode share changed any in Folsom? This website has it
at less than a percent.
http://www.bestplaces.net/transporta...ifornia/folsom




Most sources I saw have it at 1.2%. Not much but in the 90's it was
close to zero.

1.2% _IS_ close to zero, Joerg. IOW, the bike mode share has
increased from negligible to negligible.


By now I know that you seem to be a glass-half-empty pessimist :-)


I wonder about your grasp of numbers. You're willing to view
one fatality in over 8 million miles as "dangerous." And you're
willing to view a mode share of 1.2% as significant, a great
return on millions of dollars of infrastructure investment.


Healthwise it is a tremendous return.


How would you know its a tremendous return healthwise? Is there a
study of the pre and post disease rates in Folsom? What were the
exercise habits of the people who are now riding because of the MUPs?
Did all the sick fat people leap off their sofas and on to their
bikes when a particular MUP was opened? There is no way of proving
that any MUP or collection of MUPs in the small town of Folsom made
any dent in healthcare usage, mortality, morbidity or any other
health-related metric.


http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/0901747/

And many others.

No . . . you need evidence that people who decided to ride because of the MUP had better health outcomes and not just people who ride.

You are the perfect example of what I'm getting at. You practically refuse to ride on the road; you will ride on MUPS, and you ride all the time on trails. How would you ever prove that your cardiac health improved because of a MUP between two neighborhoods in Folsom?

I understand that the MUP is convenient for you and get's you out of harm's way, but it has no measurable effect on your cardiac or pulmonary health. Similarly, one of my partners finds riding on the road very scary, so she doesn't ride much. But she runs all the time and is exceptionally fit. Now, if those Folsom bike lanes magically compelled fatties to get off their sofas and on to bikes, then we could see how that affected their health outcomes and usage -- and maybe you could tie the bike lanes to at least one good outcome.

--- Jay Beattie.

On 2016-08-01 17:41, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 7:52:27 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-31 11:10, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 8:03:11 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-30 19:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2016 6:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-30 12:52, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:17:09 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:

Unfortunately that is how many people see it. The
proof could not have been any clearer than in Folsom,
for example.

Has the mode share changed any in Folsom? This website
has it at less than a percent.
http://www.bestplaces.net/transporta...ifornia/folsom






Most sources I saw have it at 1.2%. Not much but in the 90's it was
close to zero.

1.2% _IS_ close to zero, Joerg. IOW, the bike mode share
has increased from negligible to negligible.


By now I know that you seem to be a glass-half-empty pessimist
:-)


I wonder about your grasp of numbers. You're willing to
view one fatality in over 8 million miles as "dangerous."
And you're willing to view a mode share of 1.2% as
significant, a great return on millions of dollars of
infrastructure investment.


Healthwise it is a tremendous return.


How would you know its a tremendous return healthwise? Is there
a study of the pre and post disease rates in Folsom? What were
the exercise habits of the people who are now riding because of
the MUPs? Did all the sick fat people leap off their sofas and on
to their bikes when a particular MUP was opened? There is no way
of proving that any MUP or collection of MUPs in the small town
of Folsom made any dent in healthcare usage, mortality, morbidity
or any other health-related metric.


http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/0901747/

And many others.

No . . . you need evidence that people who decided to ride because of
the MUP had better health outcomes and not just people who ride.


Because many of those people would _not_ ride at all if MUPS were not
there. Is that so difficult?


You are the perfect example of what I'm getting at. You practically
refuse to ride on the road; you will ride on MUPS, and you ride all
the time on trails. How would you ever prove that your cardiac
health improved because of a MUP between two neighborhoods in
Folsom?

I understand that the MUP is convenient for you and get's you out of
harm's way, but it has no measurable effect on your cardiac or
pulmonary health.


Sure it does. Because without these path I and scores of other people
would not ride. As I mentioned before I had a 15 year phase after
moving here where I essentially did not ride at all. Then ... trails
were opened up, I tried them out and then left a big chunk of money at
the LBS.

Similar in Germany were I did ride on weekends and mostly offroad (on my
road bike since there weren't MTB) but rarely commuted. While living in
teh Netherlands before that I rode north of 6000mi/year, all the time,
regardless of weather. Because they always had an excellent bike path
system.


... Similarly, one of my partners finds riding on the
road very scary, so she doesn't ride much.


You honestly do not think that has negative long term side effects on
her health? In the Netherlands or out here she'd be riding all the time.


... But she runs all the time
and is exceptionally fit. ...


Until shooting pain from a hip or knee sets in. That is what happened to
a coworker recently. The doc said no more running, none at all, and to
use a road bike instead or there'd be surgery soon.


Now, if those Folsom bike lanes magically
compelled fatties to get off their sofas and on to bikes, then we
could see how that affected their health outcomes and usage -- and
maybe you could tie the bike lanes to at least one good outcome.


They obviously did, as evidenced by the major increase of cyclists there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-08-01 17:13, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/1/2016 6:17 PM, Joerg wrote:

[...]


Other facilities such as our
singletrack to Placerville or to Latrobe and Folsom cost almost nothing.
It is not maintained by any taxpayer-funded entity, just by a small
group of volunteers who occasionally go out there to cut up a downed
tree, clear vegeration and spray poison oak.

If you want to organize bunches of people to hack and maintain trails
through the wilderness, have at it - assuming you're not violating
someone's property rights.

But it's beyond fantasy to think that a dirt track through the brush is
going to get any significant number of people out of their cars and
using bikes for transportation. The idea is crazy.


It isn't out here. Some of the easier trails are so busy that I avoid
certain times because I ride a bit faster than average.

In Europe I saw many that they call "forest autobahns". Essentially bike
paths made from former logging, forest and farm paths by tamping in
gravel. You just need good tires on them. That is a very cheap way to
build fully segregated bike paths.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 7:25:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-01 17:41, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 7:52:27 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-31 11:10, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 8:03:11 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-30 19:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2016 6:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-30 12:52, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:17:09 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:

Unfortunately that is how many people see it. The
proof could not have been any clearer than in Folsom,
for example.

Has the mode share changed any in Folsom? This website
has it at less than a percent.
http://www.bestplaces.net/transporta...ifornia/folsom






Most sources I saw have it at 1.2%. Not much but in the 90's it was
close to zero.

1.2% _IS_ close to zero, Joerg. IOW, the bike mode share
has increased from negligible to negligible.


By now I know that you seem to be a glass-half-empty pessimist
:-)


I wonder about your grasp of numbers. You're willing to
view one fatality in over 8 million miles as "dangerous."
And you're willing to view a mode share of 1.2% as
significant, a great return on millions of dollars of
infrastructure investment.


Healthwise it is a tremendous return.


How would you know its a tremendous return healthwise? Is there
a study of the pre and post disease rates in Folsom? What were
the exercise habits of the people who are now riding because of
the MUPs? Did all the sick fat people leap off their sofas and on
to their bikes when a particular MUP was opened? There is no way
of proving that any MUP or collection of MUPs in the small town
of Folsom made any dent in healthcare usage, mortality, morbidity
or any other health-related metric.


http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/0901747/

And many others.

No . . . you need evidence that people who decided to ride because of
the MUP had better health outcomes and not just people who ride.


Because many of those people would _not_ ride at all if MUPS were not
there. Is that so difficult?

Yes, actual science is difficult. Those people who would not ride might be going to the gym instead. They might be hiking, walking, yoga -- and on and on. Putting in a particular MUP may or may not produce any health benefit, and you can't say that it "would be tremendous" -- unless you're Donald Trump.



You are the perfect example of what I'm getting at. You practically
refuse to ride on the road; you will ride on MUPS, and you ride all
the time on trails. How would you ever prove that your cardiac
health improved because of a MUP between two neighborhoods in
Folsom?

I understand that the MUP is convenient for you and get's you out of
harm's way, but it has no measurable effect on your cardiac or
pulmonary health.


Sure it does. Because without these path I and scores of other people
would not ride. As I mentioned before I had a 15 year phase after
moving here where I essentially did not ride at all. Then ... trails
were opened up, I tried them out and then left a big chunk of money at
the LBS.

Trails were opened up. Do you mean MUPs or actual trails? Bike lanes? We're talking about the "tremendous" health benefits of the Folsom MUPs.


Similar in Germany were I did ride on weekends and mostly offroad (on my
road bike since there weren't MTB) but rarely commuted. While living in
teh Netherlands before that I rode north of 6000mi/year, all the time,
regardless of weather. Because they always had an excellent bike path
system.

Again, what does this say about the people in Folsom? You can't just point to Holland and claim that it proves that putting in some MUPs in Folsom produces a tremendous health benefit.




... Similarly, one of my partners finds riding on the
road very scary, so she doesn't ride much.


You honestly do not think that has negative long term side effects on
her health? In the Netherlands or out here she'd be riding all the time.


... But she runs all the time
and is exceptionally fit. ...


Until shooting pain from a hip or knee sets in. That is what happened to
a coworker recently. The doc said no more running, none at all, and to
use a road bike instead or there'd be surgery soon.

My friend seems to be doing quite well.



Now, if those Folsom bike lanes magically
compelled fatties to get off their sofas and on to bikes, then we
could see how that affected their health outcomes and usage -- and
maybe you could tie the bike lanes to at least one good outcome.


They obviously did, as evidenced by the major increase of cyclists there.

Really? Have you determined who it is that wouldn't ride without a MUP. If you have, how do they get from one MUP to the next? It doesn't look like a seamless web of MUPs in Folsom.

It might be that Folsom experienced a major increase in cycling for the same reason as PDX (except we have a mode share that is more than twenty times Folsom in some neighborhoods) -- we got a young, hip population located in the close-in eastside that wanted to ride and we got some on-road bike lanes and a few MUPs. The increase in ridership occurred before the big MUPs (Springwater, Eastside Esplanade).

I'm open to actual evidence that the Folsom MUPs are responsible for the increase in cycling and that they have produced a health benefits, but just saying they did isn't evidence.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2016-08-02 11:04, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 7:25:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-01 17:41, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 7:52:27 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-31 11:10, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 8:03:11 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-30 19:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2016 6:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-30 12:52, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:17:09 AM UTC-7,
Joerg wrote:

Unfortunately that is how many people see it. The
proof could not have been any clearer than in
Folsom, for example.

Has the mode share changed any in Folsom? This
website has it at less than a percent.
http://www.bestplaces.net/transporta...ifornia/folsom








Most sources I saw have it at 1.2%. Not much but in the 90's it was
close to zero.

1.2% _IS_ close to zero, Joerg. IOW, the bike mode
share has increased from negligible to negligible.


By now I know that you seem to be a glass-half-empty
pessimist :-)


I wonder about your grasp of numbers. You're willing to
view one fatality in over 8 million miles as
"dangerous." And you're willing to view a mode share of
1.2% as significant, a great return on millions of
dollars of infrastructure investment.


Healthwise it is a tremendous return.


How would you know its a tremendous return healthwise? Is
there a study of the pre and post disease rates in Folsom?
What were the exercise habits of the people who are now
riding because of the MUPs? Did all the sick fat people leap
off their sofas and on to their bikes when a particular MUP
was opened? There is no way of proving that any MUP or
collection of MUPs in the small town of Folsom made any dent
in healthcare usage, mortality, morbidity or any other
health-related metric.


http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/0901747/

And many others.

No . . . you need evidence that people who decided to ride
because of the MUP had better health outcomes and not just people
who ride.


Because many of those people would _not_ ride at all if MUPS were
not there. Is that so difficult?

Yes, actual science is difficult. Those people who would not ride
might be going to the gym instead. They might be hiking, walking,
yoga -- and on and on. Putting in a particular MUP may or may not
produce any health benefit, and you can't say that it "would be
tremendous" -- unless you're Donald Trump.


IME it's different. Yes, some will sign up for the gym. Almost every
time I ask it's "Yeah, I know, I should go more often". You cannot use
the gym or yoga to get to the pub or restaurant. Walking maybe but due
to the dreaded split into residential and commercial zones in the US
combined with a lack of side walks, not so much either.

And here is the kicker: MUPs in Folsom have also greatly increased the
number of people walking. When we moved here it was so bad that someone
stopped and asked my wife whether her car had broken down and she needed
a ride. "No, I just wanted to walk into town" ... "WHAT?!". Nobody would
do that today anymore because you see lots of people hoofing it.

That is no wonder. 20 years ago you could not safely walk to many large
stores. There were no sidewalks, no bike lanes, just major very busy
roads. So everyone did everything by car. Now you can safely walk and
cycle to pretty much anywhere in town.


You are the perfect example of what I'm getting at. You
practically refuse to ride on the road; you will ride on MUPS,
and you ride all the time on trails. How would you ever prove
that your cardiac health improved because of a MUP between two
neighborhoods in Folsom?

I understand that the MUP is convenient for you and get's you out
of harm's way, but it has no measurable effect on your cardiac
or pulmonary health.


Sure it does. Because without these path I and scores of other
people would not ride. As I mentioned before I had a 15 year phase
after moving here where I essentially did not ride at all. Then ...
trails were opened up, I tried them out and then left a big chunk
of money at the LBS.

Trails were opened up. Do you mean MUPs or actual trails? Bike lanes?
We're talking about the "tremendous" health benefits of the Folsom
MUPs.


Yes, the MUPs in Folsom do provide a health benefit. What I meant here
is that even a village which does not have the money or like ours isn't
willing to properly invest it can reap benefits, via trails.



Similar in Germany were I did ride on weekends and mostly offroad
(on my road bike since there weren't MTB) but rarely commuted.
While living in teh Netherlands before that I rode north of
6000mi/year, all the time, regardless of weather. Because they
always had an excellent bike path system.

Again, what does this say about the people in Folsom? You can't just
point to Holland and claim that it proves that putting in some MUPs
in Folsom produces a tremendous health benefit.


Please at least try to think outside the box. Fact is: When Folsom had
no MUPs to write home about I did not ride and hardly anyone else was.
When Folsom built MUPs I started riding and so did a lot of other
people. In the Netherlands peole were riding all the time _because_ they
have good bike paths.


... Similarly, one of my partners finds riding on the road very
scary, so she doesn't ride much.


You honestly do not think that has negative long term side effects
on her health? In the Netherlands or out here she'd be riding all
the time.


... But she runs all the time and is exceptionally fit. ...


Until shooting pain from a hip or knee sets in. That is what
happened to a coworker recently. The doc said no more running, none
at all, and to use a road bike instead or there'd be surgery soon.

My friend seems to be doing quite well.


I assume she is young. Wait until she is 65. And not everyone gets hip
or knee issues. However, a lot of joggers and runners do. Any sports
doctor worth their salt will confirm.

Also, if she lived in Folsom 20 years ago she'd have to drive to some
place to do her running. Now she could run right from where she'd live.
Or take the bicycle and hit the neighborhood MUP.


Now, if those Folsom bike lanes magically
compelled fatties to get off their sofas and on to bikes, then
we could see how that affected their health outcomes and usage --
and maybe you could tie the bike lanes to at least one good
outcome.


They obviously did, as evidenced by the major increase of cyclists
there.

Really? Have you determined who it is that wouldn't ride without a
MUP.


I have eyes. I saw Folsom 20 years ago - Hardly any cylists other than
after-work training riders. Today - Lots of cyclists. It's that simple.


... If you have, how do they get from one MUP to the next? It
doesn't look like a seamless web of MUPs in Folsom.


They are nearly seamlessly connecting to either each other, a bike lane
or a residential street with little and most of all slow traffic. Folsom
is by now almost like what we had in the Netherlands 30 years ago.
Unfortunately much of that ends at the city limits while in the
Netherlands it didn't.


It might be that Folsom experienced a major increase in cycling for
the same reason as PDX (except we have a mode share that is more than
twenty times Folsom in some neighborhoods) -- we got a young, hip
population located in the close-in eastside that wanted to ride and
we got some on-road bike lanes and a few MUPs. The increase in
ridership occurred before the big MUPs (Springwater, Eastside
Esplanade).


Folsom actually went the other way, it had a serious influx of what we
call "Bay Area Transplants". People who worked in Silicon Valley, made a
lot of money there, owned a small home there that now was worth a
million or more, sold it and bought a new bigger house for half here.
Plus new bicycles.


I'm open to actual evidence that the Folsom MUPs are responsible for
the increase in cycling and that they have produced a health
benefits, but just saying they did isn't evidence.


You don't have to believe me. I have talked to a lot of people down
there and so I know it's true. Good enough for me to make such a
statement and I stand by it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 8/2/2016 3:11 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-02 11:04, jbeattie wrote:


Really? Have you determined who it is that wouldn't ride without a
MUP.


I have eyes. I saw Folsom 20 years ago - Hardly any cylists other than
after-work training riders. Today - Lots of cyclists. It's that simple.

What's that bike mode share, again?


I'm open to actual evidence that the Folsom MUPs are responsible for
the increase in cycling and that they have produced a health
benefits, but just saying they did isn't evidence.


You don't have to believe me. I have talked to a lot of people down
there and so I know it's true. Good enough for me to make such a
statement and I stand by it.

Proof by assertion. Channeling Trump!

"Multi-User Paths will make this country great again!!!"


--
- Frank Krygowski

coocooocadooo ....we have a world class bike path maybe 100 miles to the beach n back ..... no tell me why these nuts in Halloween costumes ride on the road ?

the pathers are oblivious. They will not stop at an intersection. The Godhead bestowed infinite passage.

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 8:41:24 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 7:52:27 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-31 11:10, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 8:03:11 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-30 19:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2016 6:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-30 12:52, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:17:09 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:

Unfortunately that is how many people see it. The proof
could not have been any clearer than in Folsom, for
example.

Has the mode share changed any in Folsom? This website has it
at less than a percent.
http://www.bestplaces.net/transporta...ifornia/folsom




Most sources I saw have it at 1.2%. Not much but in the 90's it was
close to zero.

1.2% _IS_ close to zero, Joerg. IOW, the bike mode share has
increased from negligible to negligible.


By now I know that you seem to be a glass-half-empty pessimist :-)


I wonder about your grasp of numbers. You're willing to view
one fatality in over 8 million miles as "dangerous." And you're
willing to view a mode share of 1.2% as significant, a great
return on millions of dollars of infrastructure investment.


Healthwise it is a tremendous return.


How would you know its a tremendous return healthwise? Is there a
study of the pre and post disease rates in Folsom? What were the
exercise habits of the people who are now riding because of the MUPs?
Did all the sick fat people leap off their sofas and on to their
bikes when a particular MUP was opened? There is no way of proving
that any MUP or collection of MUPs in the small town of Folsom made
any dent in healthcare usage, mortality, morbidity or any other
health-related metric.


http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/0901747/

And many others.

No . . . you need evidence that people who decided to ride because of the MUP had better health outcomes and not just people who ride.

You are the perfect example of what I'm getting at. You practically refuse to ride on the road; you will ride on MUPS, and you ride all the time on trails. How would you ever prove that your cardiac health improved because of a MUP between two neighborhoods in Folsom?

I understand that the MUP is convenient for you and get's you out of harm's way, but it has no measurable effect on your cardiac or pulmonary health.. Similarly, one of my partners finds riding on the road very scary, so she doesn't ride much. But she runs all the time and is exceptionally fit. Now, if those Folsom bike lanes magically compelled fatties to get off their sofas and on to bikes, then we could see how that affected their health outcomes and usage -- and maybe you could tie the bike lanes to at least one good outcome.

--- Jay Beattie.

No Cooper returns ....repeatitive light exercise in very healthy probabbbbbly reducing interim health care costs increasing longevity....which increases ...

so riding would increase health ..toss in the accident ER....???

wait wait what abt lung cancer ? prostate problems ? back trauma ? megalomania ?

I'm open to actual evidence that the Folsom MUPs are responsible for the


running the path thru town out to the park and ....is very Ohio....AAA Americana for our social levels....as an exercise venue, the path is in their face, used by nabs, has the prob genetic positive promenade value...eg you can go out n sell drugs n your children .....

and off course if the ath does go to the hardware store ....eyeyhahhhahah .... your reality became normal.

tho seeing anyone here as normal takes 2 lumps