|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Age and Heart Rates
On 2016-12-23 11:07, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:37:13 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-21 14:07, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:39:12 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-19 18:35, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:22:20 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote: [...] When there are enough cyclists, there are also enough of them to be a significant voting block, and cycling infrastructure gets funded, particularly as it's seen as a way to speed the flow of motor traffic by getting all those pesky cyclists (for whom the roads were originally sealed and who use the roads by right) out of the way of the motorists (who only use the roads by permit and under strict conditions). In this day and age it only works if the planning guys take a leap of faith and build it. Like they did in Folsom, with resounding success. Same in Manhattan, and Portland, and ... Stevenage, and Milton Keynes, and Telford, and Basingstoke - none of which had 1/10th the cycling levels of Oxford, never mind Cambridge, neither of which had any dedicated cycling infrastructure at all. Where on earth do you think that "leap of faith" came from, if it wasn't demand? From lots of examples where demand was not being voiced. One example of many is the city of Folsom. They just built the bike infrastructure. They were smart. Despite your claims, they must have been able to show suppressed demand to get the funding. They didn't. There are very rare occurrences where politicians have true vision and the ones in Folsom truly belong in that class. The ones in our community here clearly do not. Magical thinking is not rational, and city planners who attempt to waste money by building facilities (never mind the constant maintenance of such facilities while waiting for the users to actually arrive and start reporting things like vegetation overgrowth, cracked surfacing, etc.) where they can't show a demand find themselves looking for other employment. The maintenance issue is a very real one - if facilities aren't used, they DO disappear through things like encroachment of vegetation, become crime ridden places where litter and even large-scale duping takes place, drug users hang out to get stoned/high and dealers congregate. Example: The El Dorado Trail which I use a lot. Maintained completely by volunteers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHU4zg_V3LY Now that traffic picks up in some areas they are paving another long section. I am not in favor of that because the money could be better used to a commuter bike path in the busier western parts. So you have some leisure trails - so do we, but they are not (as you correctly point out), used much for commuting, and in most cases are impassable on a normal road-going bike without advanced skills. So how come that there are now lots of well-worn bicycles in the Intel parking lots where they used to be almost non-existent? People do not go there for leisure. Same with stores. People need to buy groceries. You need an existing pent-up demand to make sure that facilities start being used from day one, or they very quickly become places where even those who might want to use them (at least for their intended purpose) daren't! As long as there are very few cyclists, you don't get any pressure from either the motorists (who perceive, usually wrongly, delays from having to wait to pass cyclists - it's only less time waiting in the next queue of motor traffic, after all) or from the timid or less capable road cyclists, who don't know how to ride in motor traffic safely (or those who worry on their behalf, regardless of real danger, just because of perceived danger based on their own competence level instead of that of the rider or that of the overwhelming majority of motorists). Smart cyclists know of the real danger. They know how to ride correctly and as the law demands. It does demand AFRAP here unless taking the lane is allowed. Which it is in every example that has been quoted in this group - sometimes explicitly, sometimes just by use of the word "practicable". What you need to learn is the difference between practicable and possible. The law says so. That practicable is not the same as possible, yes - unless you can cite a law which says otherwise. California Vehicle Code. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ionNum= 21202. Exceptions are clearly outlined. In practice only what an officer says counts in court. Because he or she de facto is the law, regardless of what we think about it. It may be possible to share a 13' lane with an 11'6" semi, as long as you are prepared to overhang the road edge and duck as the door mirror skims your head, but it is certainly not practicable, which many states seem to directly address in the legislation as an example case of where it is not practicable. Others seem to make the assumption (apparently wrongly) that people are intelligent enough to figure that out for themselves. Example: I was riding a road like the one you described above every week, a "utility ride". There is one narrow bridge where I always took the lane. Until one fine day when a guy gunned it, passed me, realized opposing traffic and almost pushed me over the railing of that bridge. Since that day I use the car unless a bush road is passable via MTB (it floods a lot and I have to show up non-muddy). It's safer. What action did you take against the dangerous driver? Let me guess - none. Has it ever occurred to you that someone struggling to avoid a crash cannot at the same time keep a 2nd pair of eyes on a license plate because humans only have one pair? Besides, as most of the people here know the police will do ... nothing. Then you take private action. Like what exactly? Load the rifle and ride out there, like the Cochise Cowboys? ... The right to bring prosecutions is not reserved to the police and DA there, is it? US law is allegedly based on UK law (even to the extent of being able to use UK court decisions as precedent, unless they obviously conflict with US law). As precedent is generally used for decisions which are "edge cases", and the language is at least commonly based, the same decisions make the same sense. And if the problem is as bad as you claim, run a camera, which will turn everyone who views the video into a witness. Even if you did you will need to convince a lawyer to takes your case or be independently wealthy so you can plop a (big) was of cash on his desk. And then you have to fight people who lie the blue out of the sky. "Oh, no, Joey did not drive that day, must he been someone else. We have 15 witnesses who'll declare under oath he was with them". We just had a case in court where someone deliberately mowed down three cyclists. One of them will likely never be normal again due to brain injury. Was the perp convicted of attempted murder? Oh no. All he got was a hit-and-run conviction (he had fled the scene). http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...118031133.html Did you even make any obvious signal that it was unsafe for him to pass you? Like what? A fist in the air, with a loudly screamed expletive? Or throw a ballpeen hammer? Here the right (presumable there, the left) hand raised to shoulder height with a flat vertical palm, although not an officially recognised hand signal, seems to be well understood, even by our much more aggressive motor traffic. All you need to do is confuse them, so many things would probably be equally effective - but adopting an unofficial standard does have benefits, as it does stand a chance of becoming recognised in law. You cannot confuse a guy like that with a dose of road rage in his belly. ... If so, could he even see it past your daytime driver blinding lights? If you had read carefully you'd know that he saw me full well. Then he blew a mental gaskets because he was inconvenienced and floored it. Well, unless you are posting from the grave, the situation clearly wasn't all that bad - had you not been taking the lane, you'd have had nowhere to swerve to avoid him. The call was close enough that from then on I only traveled that road by car and that's how it is going to be until they build a bike path or lane. I am not stupidly waiting for next time when a guy kills me or cripples me. Countless other examples. Some ended fatally for the cyclists, hit from behind at high speed. Sticking the head into the sand and hoping it's not going to happen to you might work. Or it might not. For those of us who have to provide for families it's not just about our lives. Yeah - becoming a stroke victim or diabetic helps your family far more than staying fit and healthy - NOT! It's actually far more likely (between 12 and 30 times more, according to which to studies you accept, although they all agree that it's highly significant) that you will suffer that or a similar fate (one causing death or permanent disability) through lack of exercise than from a cycling injury. Cycling (even on roads!) is that many times safer than not doing so. Just check on life insurance rates - do you think that the companies just make them up on a whim? There is a whole profession (actuaries) that is dedicated to quantifying those risks, and insurance companies depend on the accuracy of their data for their very survival. It's far less expensive to insure your life if you are fit and exercising regularly than if you are an obese and diabetic couch-potato, and cycling related physical trauma is so far down their radar that they don't generally even ask about utility cycling (although I'm sure they'd be interested in your constant string of near-death experiences). If the danger was really as bad in your area as you suggest, it would stand out in statistical studies and actuarial data as a glaring anomaly, yet somehow it doesn't. Except in your head, of course. Read the Sacramento Bee, then you know. I prefer to avoid sensational journalism, That's why you are missing the real news. The last cyclists was killed in Sacramento this week on Monday. What exactly is sensational about this report? http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...121964764.html It's cold, hard, sad fact. ... in favour of scientific studies, modified to a certain extent by trying to find out the circumstances of as many incidents as I can. Incidents which happen in circumstances which don't apply to me, (idiots riding after dark with not lights, for example) clearly don't affect my risk level - but very few journalistic accounts include such details. You have to go through police and coroners reports to find that out. It's exactly the same way as pilots are expected to stay current, and despite no longer being able to obtain a medical certificate to fly, I still keep up to date on that out of habit (although detailed reports are easier to come by, being actually sent to every licenced pilot). Sometimes such reports are things you can learn by, more often they don't - but why risk missing something significant? I'd like there to be similar arrangements for other forms of transport, for which the data does exist, but is more difficult to find. You don't get that for cyclists that are hit. Because they aren't an aircraft that crashed. Still, they get hit and I prefer to stay abreast of where the danger spots are. It allows me to avoid those. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Age and Heart Rates
On 12/23/2016 4:26 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-23 11:07, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:37:13 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-21 14:07, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:39:12 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-19 18:35, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:22:20 -0800 the perfect time to write: Smart cyclists know of the real danger. They know how to ride correctly and as the law demands. It does demand AFRAP here unless taking the lane is allowed. Which it is in every example that has been quoted in this group - sometimes explicitly, sometimes just by use of the word "practicable". What you need to learn is the difference between practicable and possible. The law says so. That practicable is not the same as possible, yes - unless you can cite a law which says otherwise. California Vehicle Code. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ionNum= 21202. Exceptions are clearly outlined. We've been through this before, but: The law says a cyclist "shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations... "(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." And California has a law requiring a motorist passing a cyclist to give a minimum of three feet clearance. If he can't do that within the lane, the lane is substandard. The cyclist is then NOT required to be "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge," and it's better if he moves further left to dissuade motorists from violating that three feet minimum. Which is what all cycling education programs teach. You should take a class. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Age and Heart Rates
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:19:25 -0800, Joerg
wrote: In this NG there will hardly be any lazy people since nearly all are already experienced cyclists. I'm an experienced cyclist. I'm also very lazy. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Age and Heart Rates
On 2016-12-23 17:43, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:19:25 -0800, Joerg wrote: In this NG there will hardly be any lazy people since nearly all are already experienced cyclists. I'm an experienced cyclist. I'm also very lazy. We all are to some extent. Ask my wife and she can rattle off half a dozen issues about me when it comes to laziness. However, nearly all of us regularly get off our keisters, hop on the saddle and ride. The majority of people in industrialized countries does not because it's ... work. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Age and Heart Rates
On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote: [...] ... They have the luxury of getting to work rapidly and then sitting at a desk for the rest of the day. And if you eat some protein you can limit the muscle damage. Where I live is different. If I get a job in the area I want I could be commuting 50 km each way. And because of the traffic I could even be faster counting both the stop and go traffic and the more direct path I could take as a bicyclist. That's over 30mi each way. A lot. Not sure if I'd do that but if not many hills probably yes. The furthest I've commuted was a daily trip of 21 miles each way, but I know of one cyclist who commuted about double that for several years, from Dunstable to central London. We hired away a UK engineer, a very skinny guy. He had a commute somewhere north of 30mi, also near London. This guy rode a bike every day even in the driving rain. When he and his family arrived here in the US he no longer rode. Considering the absence of bike facilities this was fully understandable back then since that also caused me to stop riding. When did you hire this guy? Where, exactly, did he ride in Britain? In 1998. I forgot the exact route. There weren't ANY in the UK that long in 1998. Zero, none, zilch, that were even half that long! As I have said before side roads, residential roads and agricultural roads with little vehicle traffic are quite acceptable in lieu of bike paths. Smart cyclists tend to find those. Anywhere which would be regarded in the UK as "near London" would include negotiating barriers like major trunk roads and motorways, which only provide crossings for other major roads, forcing you to use them. The same is true for natural barriers like rivers, of course. Same here. Crossing them is not a problem. Riding on them for more than a few miles is a problem for most people. Or at least so uncomfortable that they won't do it. I think you missed the point - crossing them is only possible on other major roads - side roads, agricultural roads and residential roads, even if they existed before the barrier was created, are almost always severed by it, so you have to move onto the network of major roads just to be able to cross, and once on that network, it's very difficult to move back onto minor roads, because the major roads have limited junctions. We have a nice tool for that in the old colony: The traffic light :-) Which aren't used at all on motorways (our version of your interstate highways) which not only surround London, but radiate outwards from it. Those have bridges or tunnels around here. Some for cyclists look spooky, like this one to the Folsom South Canal bike path: http://city4.учпроект.рф/i...som-usa-10.jpg However, on the other side you have unfettered racing opportunities. No speed limit, no traffic, straight line. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3gnLIUum0 When going into the valley there is one major traffic artery where the bike path doesn't have the usual grade separation. I stopp, press a little button, 10 seconds later all traffic is stopped and I step on the pedals again. On the other roads in Folsom I can just barrel through regardless of traffic. Either under the road or on a cycle path bridge above. One even has both to pick from, beats me why. This one tops them all: http://www.traillink.com/trail-photo...rail.aspx#leaf Bridges and subways are an example of useful facilities, and we do have a few of them. See? [...] Again, I _never_ use that in front of people I want to convince to cycle. Sometimes laziness comes up but it's them bringing it up. It is good to be on their minds so they get off the couch because they don't want to be "those people". In this NG there will hardly be any lazy people since nearly all are already experienced cyclists. Doctors discuss a dire prognosis very openly among colleagues but, of course, not necessarily in front of a sensitive patient. The company I used to work for with an office in Tulsa used to send me out a few times a year, and people in the building where the office was located were alarmed at my walking to work - from the hotel NEXT DOOR! Utterly ridiculous, as I actually traveled further vertically after entering the building than I did horizontally to reach it - so much so, that I used the stairs some of the time, just for the exercise. If I'd had a bicycle out there, I'd have used it for going out in the evenings, but it was easier to get hold of a car (the office manager out there used to lend me her son's z28 Camaro, in return for service advice (the suspension was best described as a project!), which got less necessary as things got fixed and he learned how to look after it. A Z28 is real fun to drive. It is when it's properly maintained. Initially, it was almost unbeatable in a straight line and undrivable anywhere else! And even maintaining that straight line was challenging, with poor tracking and all the suspension joints loose giving bump-steering, torque steering, and all the other ills that afflict vehicles on which maintenance has been neglected over a long period - particularly powerful high performance ones. By my last visit, it was a pleasure to drive. By then, almost every joint and pivot in the suspension and steering had been replaced and fully re-aligned. That is a problem with many American passenger cars. Stuff does not last. Very different with many pickup trucks which seem to last forever. Bicycles have similar problems :-) But are much cheaper and easier to work on. Not at all. The only thing I ever did to my SUV was changing the oil, battery and (once) the tires. The timing belts were also changed once but only because the car is now 20 years old and I got concerned. They were still fine. But you just said that it is a problem with many American passenger cars. It's hard to keep up with the speed at which you move the goalposts. Think a bit farther: Both of our cars are Japanese, and there are reasons for that. The bicycles, however, need weekly maintenance or stuff will quickly go south. The difference in maintenance effort per mile between car and bicycles vastly exceeds 1:10. The same would be true of any vehicle used at or very close to it's limits. Remember that most mountain bikes above a fairly low price point are designed with sports use in mind, where a rebuild between each meeting is regarded as an acceptable price to pay for the capability to win races. I've worked on motorcycles built the same way - heck, we used to change the piston rings for each day's use, and pistons for each weekend meeting. Colin Chapman famously said that the perfect racing car was one that disintegrated completely as soon as it completed the race. If parts lasted longer, he reduced weight. That is exactly the approach taken by the makers of sporting bicycles. I bought strictly a trail bike or XC bike. It has a very stout frame which is the main reason for picking this model. It is not used in race conditions and I do not have anything close to the power my bike dealer has (competition mountain biker). Yet repairs are needed all the time and the same goes for all of my riding buddies. Much of this can be avoided by smarter engineering. Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes, and tools, and food, and ... When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so easily as in all the states I know about, .... It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their little virtual cyber world. Sad. Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of them gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do need to travel, particularly for local trips. Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want one. They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they can't get a job. Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20. That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help. Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are unfit. Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow 2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly. So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit! People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there. Meanwhile, one census point in Cambridge (and not in one of the busiest cycling areas - the site was chosen so that a linked display counter would be highly visible to a very congested road, so that motorists would be encouraged out of their cars, not because it carried the most cycle traffic) was passed by over a million cyclists this year, with only about 280,000 people living in what would conventionally be called cycle commuting range, and around 130,000 actually in the city and it's semi-attached necklace of former villages. Your sprawling cities will need to collapse in on themselves and become far more compact for anything like that level of popularity there though. Most American do not want that. They want space and breathing room. ... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone. A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all. Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while simultaneously making them more cycle friendly. That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that it isn't done. ... There's little that encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers. I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?". ... nearly all types of business have drive through facilities, and they even build big parking lots at schools, driving to school becomes a status thing (and the first personal and private space that most teenagers enjoy!), people stop using anything else, and it's hard to get them back into the habit. The topper and this was in the early 80's: We returned a long term rental car. The rental place's owner was completely stunned when we presented the invoice for changing oil and air filter. We obviously were the first to think of such stuff and he profoundly thanked us, then handed us a check. The place had no cash but he sad the bank is right across the street. However, drive-through only. We came back "Hey, can we have that car for another couple hundred yards and five minutes to cash the check?" ... of course we could. It was weird. LMAO - that's a classic example of how non-motorists are marginalised when "everyone drives". Yup :-( And it's something we have far less of in the UK - drive through facilities are almost entirely at fast-food outlets. That's bad enough. Last time I frequented a fast food place was some time in the previous century and only because I got badgered into it by youngsters. Which does at least show that it's a class of use you can choose to ignore if you want to. And even with those, it relatively unusual for them to be ONLY drive through. If you can stand the food, noisy atmosphere, and horrible decor, you can park up and sit down inside, and sometimes outside as well. It's the same here with fast food places. You can go in there. The atmosphere is usually that of a large tiled waiting room in an ancient railroad station. While I have your attention and you are from the UK, a question if I may: Among some parts for my MTB repair I just received some Clarks brake pads for Shimano caliper brakes on the road bike. No instructions, of course. I assume the rubber flags must be pointing down, correct? Since you said they are significantly lower performing than KoolStop I'll mount then on the back for now. $3/pair certainly is better than $20/pair. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Age and Heart Rates
On 2016-12-25 02:00, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:26:17 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-23 11:07, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:37:13 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-21 14:07, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:39:12 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-19 18:35, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:22:20 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote: [...] When there are enough cyclists, there are also enough of them to be a significant voting block, and cycling infrastructure gets funded, particularly as it's seen as a way to speed the flow of motor traffic by getting all those pesky cyclists (for whom the roads were originally sealed and who use the roads by right) out of the way of the motorists (who only use the roads by permit and under strict conditions). In this day and age it only works if the planning guys take a leap of faith and build it. Like they did in Folsom, with resounding success. Same in Manhattan, and Portland, and ... Stevenage, and Milton Keynes, and Telford, and Basingstoke - none of which had 1/10th the cycling levels of Oxford, never mind Cambridge, neither of which had any dedicated cycling infrastructure at all. Where on earth do you think that "leap of faith" came from, if it wasn't demand? From lots of examples where demand was not being voiced. One example of many is the city of Folsom. They just built the bike infrastructure. They were smart. Despite your claims, they must have been able to show suppressed demand to get the funding. They didn't. There are very rare occurrences where politicians have true vision and the ones in Folsom truly belong in that class. The ones in our community here clearly do not. Magical thinking is not rational, and city planners who attempt to waste money by building facilities (never mind the constant maintenance of such facilities while waiting for the users to actually arrive and start reporting things like vegetation overgrowth, cracked surfacing, etc.) where they can't show a demand find themselves looking for other employment. The maintenance issue is a very real one - if facilities aren't used, they DO disappear through things like encroachment of vegetation, become crime ridden places where litter and even large-scale duping takes place, drug users hang out to get stoned/high and dealers congregate. Example: The El Dorado Trail which I use a lot. Maintained completely by volunteers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHU4zg_V3LY Now that traffic picks up in some areas they are paving another long section. I am not in favor of that because the money could be better used to a commuter bike path in the busier western parts. So you have some leisure trails - so do we, but they are not (as you correctly point out), used much for commuting, and in most cases are impassable on a normal road-going bike without advanced skills. So how come that there are now lots of well-worn bicycles in the Intel parking lots where they used to be almost non-existent? People do not go there for leisure. Same with stores. People need to buy groceries. You need an existing pent-up demand to make sure that facilities start being used from day one, or they very quickly become places where even those who might want to use them (at least for their intended purpose) daren't! As long as there are very few cyclists, you don't get any pressure from either the motorists (who perceive, usually wrongly, delays from having to wait to pass cyclists - it's only less time waiting in the next queue of motor traffic, after all) or from the timid or less capable road cyclists, who don't know how to ride in motor traffic safely (or those who worry on their behalf, regardless of real danger, just because of perceived danger based on their own competence level instead of that of the rider or that of the overwhelming majority of motorists). Smart cyclists know of the real danger. They know how to ride correctly and as the law demands. It does demand AFRAP here unless taking the lane is allowed. Which it is in every example that has been quoted in this group - sometimes explicitly, sometimes just by use of the word "practicable". What you need to learn is the difference between practicable and possible. The law says so. That practicable is not the same as possible, yes - unless you can cite a law which says otherwise. California Vehicle Code. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ionNum= 21202. Exceptions are clearly outlined. In practice only what an officer says counts in court. Because he or she de facto is the law, regardless of what we think about it. Did you miss this? (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane†is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. Note that it is "including but not limited to" so just a few examples, not a list of clearly outlined conditions, as you seem to misunderstand.. It does not matter what you or I think. It only matters what the police and then the judge think. BTDT. And if, as you say, the law is whatever the local cop says, prosecutions would never, ever, fail. Congratualtions on your police state, but most USians would disagree with your assertion. It's the same in Europe. BTDT. ... Remember that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty, and proof requires more than the word of one cop who doesn't know the law. No, it does not. If it comes down to a disagreement of what is "reasonably necessary", proving that it wasn't is going to be a tough job, and the odds are weighted in your favour, unless you have a "judge" who merely rubber-stamps police complaints, but that is what appeals courts are for. The onus of proof is on the cop, and you only need reasonable doubt. So in a one to one disagreement, the cop doesn't stand a chance. Print out that law and carry it with you, so that you can deal with any police officers who obstruct your legal use of the roads. Note also that you can take the lane to avoid right hooks (section 4). It seems to me that the exceptions are all that any cyclist would want, and certainly all that is needed. If you hold up traffic and the cop thinks this wasn't warranted you get to pay. Big time. It may be possible to share a 13' lane with an 11'6" semi, as long as you are prepared to overhang the road edge and duck as the door mirror skims your head, but it is certainly not practicable, which many states seem to directly address in the legislation as an example case of where it is not practicable. Others seem to make the assumption (apparently wrongly) that people are intelligent enough to figure that out for themselves. Example: I was riding a road like the one you described above every week, a "utility ride". There is one narrow bridge where I always took the lane. Until one fine day when a guy gunned it, passed me, realized opposing traffic and almost pushed me over the railing of that bridge. Since that day I use the car unless a bush road is passable via MTB (it floods a lot and I have to show up non-muddy). It's safer. What action did you take against the dangerous driver? Let me guess - none. Has it ever occurred to you that someone struggling to avoid a crash cannot at the same time keep a 2nd pair of eyes on a license plate because humans only have one pair? Besides, as most of the people here know the police will do ... nothing. Then you take private action. Like what exactly? Load the rifle and ride out there, like the Cochise Cowboys? No, prosecute privately. Yeah, right. Prosecute every driver of every silver-colored lower Honday Civic. Here, that merely means "laying informations" with the local magistrates court, who have a staff to help with filling in all the right forms so that it is filed correctly. Then you just wait until the case comes up and appear as the complainant. I'm sure there must be a functionally equivalent process there. If you have deep pockets because the attorney is going to want upfront payment for their efforts. Lots of money. Hundreds of Dollars per hour and the hours are going to tick away. ... The right to bring prosecutions is not reserved to the police and DA there, is it? US law is allegedly based on UK law (even to the extent of being able to use UK court decisions as precedent, unless they obviously conflict with US law). As precedent is generally used for decisions which are "edge cases", and the language is at least commonly based, the same decisions make the same sense. And if the problem is as bad as you claim, run a camera, which will turn everyone who views the video into a witness. Even if you did you will need to convince a lawyer to takes your case or be independently wealthy so you can plop a (big) was of cash on his desk. I rather doubt it. You've obviously never tried. And then you have to fight people who lie the blue out of the sky. "Oh, no, Joey did not drive that day, must he been someone else. We have 15 witnesses who'll declare under oath he was with them". And you show the video, and let the court decide. The camera can see through a tinted window and then further through a baseball cap and a skull? We just had a case in court where someone deliberately mowed down three cyclists. One of them will likely never be normal again due to brain injury. Was the perp convicted of attempted murder? Oh no. All he got was a hit-and-run conviction (he had fled the scene). http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...118031133.html Under charging is rife here too, but that isn't a reason not to do anything about it. Mostly nothing at all will be done if nobody died. I have been on the witness stand in Germany and actually encouraged the cyclist that was brutally pushed into a ditch to press charges. Result: The trucker lied and went free. The case was iron-clad. Didn't matter. Did you even make any obvious signal that it was unsafe for him to pass you? Like what? A fist in the air, with a loudly screamed expletive? Or throw a ballpeen hammer? Here the right (presumable there, the left) hand raised to shoulder height with a flat vertical palm, although not an officially recognised hand signal, seems to be well understood, even by our much more aggressive motor traffic. All you need to do is confuse them, so many things would probably be equally effective - but adopting an unofficial standard does have benefits, as it does stand a chance of becoming recognised in law. You cannot confuse a guy like that with a dose of road rage in his belly. ********. The overwhelming majority of cases like that are just mistakes - people not looking past the vehicle they are catching up with to see the other traffic coming towards them. If it had been road rage, you wouldn't be posting here - he'd have got you no matter what you'd have done, as you had (by your own account) no way off that bridge to avoid him. Or are the goalposts going to suddenly jump sideways again? You seem not to really comprehend such situations. It clearly was a case of starting road rage. The guy became p....d. Not all guys guys with road intend to kill. ... If so, could he even see it past your daytime driver blinding lights? If you had read carefully you'd know that he saw me full well. Then he blew a mental gaskets because he was inconvenienced and floored it. Well, unless you are posting from the grave, the situation clearly wasn't all that bad - had you not been taking the lane, you'd have had nowhere to swerve to avoid him. The call was close enough that from then on I only traveled that road by car and that's how it is going to be until they build a bike path or lane. I am not stupidly waiting for next time when a guy kills me or cripples me. Chicken. All because you won't just learn to ride properly in traffic. You have no clue, were not there yet profess to know it all better. Makes no sense to continue the discussion. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Age and Heart Rates
On 2016-12-25 09:01, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote: [...] ... They have the luxury of getting to work rapidly and then sitting at a desk for the rest of the day. And if you eat some protein you can limit the muscle damage. Where I live is different. If I get a job in the area I want I could be commuting 50 km each way. And because of the traffic I could even be faster counting both the stop and go traffic and the more direct path I could take as a bicyclist. That's over 30mi each way. A lot. Not sure if I'd do that but if not many hills probably yes. The furthest I've commuted was a daily trip of 21 miles each way, but I know of one cyclist who commuted about double that for several years, from Dunstable to central London. We hired away a UK engineer, a very skinny guy. He had a commute somewhere north of 30mi, also near London. This guy rode a bike every day even in the driving rain. When he and his family arrived here in the US he no longer rode. Considering the absence of bike facilities this was fully understandable back then since that also caused me to stop riding. When did you hire this guy? Where, exactly, did he ride in Britain? In 1998. I forgot the exact route. There weren't ANY in the UK that long in 1998. Zero, none, zilch, that were even half that long! As I have said before side roads, residential roads and agricultural roads with little vehicle traffic are quite acceptable in lieu of bike paths. Smart cyclists tend to find those. Anywhere which would be regarded in the UK as "near London" would include negotiating barriers like major trunk roads and motorways, which only provide crossings for other major roads, forcing you to use them. The same is true for natural barriers like rivers, of course. Same here. Crossing them is not a problem. Riding on them for more than a few miles is a problem for most people. Or at least so uncomfortable that they won't do it. I think you missed the point - crossing them is only possible on other major roads - side roads, agricultural roads and residential roads, even if they existed before the barrier was created, are almost always severed by it, so you have to move onto the network of major roads just to be able to cross, and once on that network, it's very difficult to move back onto minor roads, because the major roads have limited junctions. We have a nice tool for that in the old colony: The traffic light :-) Which aren't used at all on motorways (our version of your interstate highways) which not only surround London, but radiate outwards from it. Those have bridges or tunnels around here. Some for cyclists look spooky, like this one to the Folsom South Canal bike path: http://city4.учпроект.рф/i...som-usa-10.jpg However, on the other side you have unfettered racing opportunities. No speed limit, no traffic, straight line. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3gnLIUum0 When going into the valley there is one major traffic artery where the bike path doesn't have the usual grade separation. I stopp, press a little button, 10 seconds later all traffic is stopped and I step on the pedals again. On the other roads in Folsom I can just barrel through regardless of traffic. Either under the road or on a cycle path bridge above. One even has both to pick from, beats me why. This one tops them all: http://www.traillink.com/trail-photo...rail.aspx#leaf Bridges and subways are an example of useful facilities, and we do have a few of them. See? [...] Again, I _never_ use that in front of people I want to convince to cycle. Sometimes laziness comes up but it's them bringing it up. It is good to be on their minds so they get off the couch because they don't want to be "those people". In this NG there will hardly be any lazy people since nearly all are already experienced cyclists. Doctors discuss a dire prognosis very openly among colleagues but, of course, not necessarily in front of a sensitive patient. The company I used to work for with an office in Tulsa used to send me out a few times a year, and people in the building where the office was located were alarmed at my walking to work - from the hotel NEXT DOOR! Utterly ridiculous, as I actually traveled further vertically after entering the building than I did horizontally to reach it - so much so, that I used the stairs some of the time, just for the exercise. If I'd had a bicycle out there, I'd have used it for going out in the evenings, but it was easier to get hold of a car (the office manager out there used to lend me her son's z28 Camaro, in return for service advice (the suspension was best described as a project!), which got less necessary as things got fixed and he learned how to look after it. A Z28 is real fun to drive. It is when it's properly maintained. Initially, it was almost unbeatable in a straight line and undrivable anywhere else! And even maintaining that straight line was challenging, with poor tracking and all the suspension joints loose giving bump-steering, torque steering, and all the other ills that afflict vehicles on which maintenance has been neglected over a long period - particularly powerful high performance ones. By my last visit, it was a pleasure to drive. By then, almost every joint and pivot in the suspension and steering had been replaced and fully re-aligned. That is a problem with many American passenger cars. Stuff does not last. Very different with many pickup trucks which seem to last forever. Bicycles have similar problems :-) But are much cheaper and easier to work on. Not at all. The only thing I ever did to my SUV was changing the oil, battery and (once) the tires. The timing belts were also changed once but only because the car is now 20 years old and I got concerned. They were still fine. But you just said that it is a problem with many American passenger cars. It's hard to keep up with the speed at which you move the goalposts. Think a bit farther: Both of our cars are Japanese, and there are reasons for that. The bicycles, however, need weekly maintenance or stuff will quickly go south. The difference in maintenance effort per mile between car and bicycles vastly exceeds 1:10. The same would be true of any vehicle used at or very close to it's limits. Remember that most mountain bikes above a fairly low price point are designed with sports use in mind, where a rebuild between each meeting is regarded as an acceptable price to pay for the capability to win races. I've worked on motorcycles built the same way - heck, we used to change the piston rings for each day's use, and pistons for each weekend meeting. Colin Chapman famously said that the perfect racing car was one that disintegrated completely as soon as it completed the race. If parts lasted longer, he reduced weight. That is exactly the approach taken by the makers of sporting bicycles. I bought strictly a trail bike or XC bike. It has a very stout frame which is the main reason for picking this model. It is not used in race conditions and I do not have anything close to the power my bike dealer has (competition mountain biker). Yet repairs are needed all the time and the same goes for all of my riding buddies. Much of this can be avoided by smarter engineering. Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes, and tools, and food, and ... When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so easily as in all the states I know about, .... It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their little virtual cyber world. Sad. Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of them gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do need to travel, particularly for local trips. Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want one. They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they can't get a job. Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20. That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help. Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are unfit. Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow 2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly. So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit! People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there. Meanwhile, one census point in Cambridge (and not in one of the busiest cycling areas - the site was chosen so that a linked display counter would be highly visible to a very congested road, so that motorists would be encouraged out of their cars, not because it carried the most cycle traffic) was passed by over a million cyclists this year, with only about 280,000 people living in what would conventionally be called cycle commuting range, and around 130,000 actually in the city and it's semi-attached necklace of former villages. Your sprawling cities will need to collapse in on themselves and become far more compact for anything like that level of popularity there though. Most American do not want that. They want space and breathing room. ... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone. A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all. Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while simultaneously making them more cycle friendly. That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that it isn't done. ... There's little that encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers. I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?". ... nearly all types of business have drive through facilities, and they even build big parking lots at schools, driving to school becomes a status thing (and the first personal and private space that most teenagers enjoy!), people stop using anything else, and it's hard to get them back into the habit. The topper and this was in the early 80's: We returned a long term rental car. The rental place's owner was completely stunned when we presented the invoice for changing oil and air filter. We obviously were the first to think of such stuff and he profoundly thanked us, then handed us a check. The place had no cash but he sad the bank is right across the street. However, drive-through only. We came back "Hey, can we have that car for another couple hundred yards and five minutes to cash the check?" ... of course we could. It was weird. LMAO - that's a classic example of how non-motorists are marginalised when "everyone drives". Yup :-( And it's something we have far less of in the UK - drive through facilities are almost entirely at fast-food outlets. That's bad enough. Last time I frequented a fast food place was some time in the previous century and only because I got badgered into it by youngsters. Which does at least show that it's a class of use you can choose to ignore if you want to. And even with those, it relatively unusual for them to be ONLY drive through. If you can stand the food, noisy atmosphere, and horrible decor, you can park up and sit down inside, and sometimes outside as well. It's the same here with fast food places. You can go in there. The atmosphere is usually that of a large tiled waiting room in an ancient railroad station. While I have your attention and you are from the UK, a question if I may: Among some parts for my MTB repair I just received some Clarks brake pads for Shimano caliper brakes on the road bike. No instructions, of course. I assume the rubber flags must be pointing down, correct? Since you said they are significantly lower performing than KoolStop I'll mount then on the back for now. $3/pair certainly is better than $20/pair. Figured it out. There was a faint L and R stamped on top. I need better light in the garage. Those fluorescents are a bit dim when it's cold. Let's see how they fare. They sure don't let you use up as much rubber as in the good old days until metal shows up. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Age and Heart Rates
On 2016-12-26 13:10, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sun, 25 Dec 2016 09:01:18 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote: [...] ... They have the luxury of getting to work rapidly and then sitting at a desk for the rest of the day. And if you eat some protein you can limit the muscle damage. Where I live is different. If I get a job in the area I want I could be commuting 50 km each way. And because of the traffic I could even be faster counting both the stop and go traffic and the more direct path I could take as a bicyclist. That's over 30mi each way. A lot. Not sure if I'd do that but if not many hills probably yes. The furthest I've commuted was a daily trip of 21 miles each way, but I know of one cyclist who commuted about double that for several years, from Dunstable to central London. We hired away a UK engineer, a very skinny guy. He had a commute somewhere north of 30mi, also near London. This guy rode a bike every day even in the driving rain. When he and his family arrived here in the US he no longer rode. Considering the absence of bike facilities this was fully understandable back then since that also caused me to stop riding. When did you hire this guy? Where, exactly, did he ride in Britain? In 1998. I forgot the exact route. There weren't ANY in the UK that long in 1998. Zero, none, zilch, that were even half that long! As I have said before side roads, residential roads and agricultural roads with little vehicle traffic are quite acceptable in lieu of bike paths. Smart cyclists tend to find those. Anywhere which would be regarded in the UK as "near London" would include negotiating barriers like major trunk roads and motorways, which only provide crossings for other major roads, forcing you to use them. The same is true for natural barriers like rivers, of course. Same here. Crossing them is not a problem. Riding on them for more than a few miles is a problem for most people. Or at least so uncomfortable that they won't do it. I think you missed the point - crossing them is only possible on other major roads - side roads, agricultural roads and residential roads, even if they existed before the barrier was created, are almost always severed by it, so you have to move onto the network of major roads just to be able to cross, and once on that network, it's very difficult to move back onto minor roads, because the major roads have limited junctions. We have a nice tool for that in the old colony: The traffic light :-) Which aren't used at all on motorways (our version of your interstate highways) which not only surround London, but radiate outwards from it. Those have bridges or tunnels around here. Some for cyclists look spooky, like this one to the Folsom South Canal bike path: http://city4.????????.??/images1/folsom-usa-10.jpg 404 error. Maybe this works: https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_pi...026ed2d5844401 It's the tunnel underneath Highway 50. Quite spooky because in summer there can be rattlesnakes in there that want to cool off. Or some muggers with knives jump into the path when you emerge. However, on the other side you have unfettered racing opportunities. No speed limit, no traffic, straight line. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3gnLIUum0 That looks moderately similar to our route to St Ives, except that ours has significant cycle traffic. When going into the valley there is one major traffic artery where the bike path doesn't have the usual grade separation. I stopp, press a little button, 10 seconds later all traffic is stopped and I step on the pedals again. On the other roads in Folsom I can just barrel through regardless of traffic. Either under the road or on a cycle path bridge above. One even has both to pick from, beats me why. This one tops them all: http://www.traillink.com/trail-photo...rail.aspx#leaf Bridges and subways are an example of useful facilities, and we do have a few of them. See? [...] But the big problem is that they put them where it is convenient to build them, not where they are much use - you can go many miles out of your way to find a crossing, so people use the roads instead most of the time. In Folsom, Davis and some areas around there the traffic planners are smarter. They put them where they are really needed. http://www.villagelife.com/news/ride...il-new-bridge/ https://jennyimaine.files.wordpress....som-bridge.jpg However, some communities like ours do ... nothing :-( Again, I _never_ use that in front of people I want to convince to cycle. Sometimes laziness comes up but it's them bringing it up. It is good to be on their minds so they get off the couch because they don't want to be "those people". In this NG there will hardly be any lazy people since nearly all are already experienced cyclists. Doctors discuss a dire prognosis very openly among colleagues but, of course, not necessarily in front of a sensitive patient. The company I used to work for with an office in Tulsa used to send me out a few times a year, and people in the building where the office was located were alarmed at my walking to work - from the hotel NEXT DOOR! Utterly ridiculous, as I actually traveled further vertically after entering the building than I did horizontally to reach it - so much so, that I used the stairs some of the time, just for the exercise. If I'd had a bicycle out there, I'd have used it for going out in the evenings, but it was easier to get hold of a car (the office manager out there used to lend me her son's z28 Camaro, in return for service advice (the suspension was best described as a project!), which got less necessary as things got fixed and he learned how to look after it. A Z28 is real fun to drive. It is when it's properly maintained. Initially, it was almost unbeatable in a straight line and undrivable anywhere else! And even maintaining that straight line was challenging, with poor tracking and all the suspension joints loose giving bump-steering, torque steering, and all the other ills that afflict vehicles on which maintenance has been neglected over a long period - particularly powerful high performance ones. By my last visit, it was a pleasure to drive. By then, almost every joint and pivot in the suspension and steering had been replaced and fully re-aligned. That is a problem with many American passenger cars. Stuff does not last. Very different with many pickup trucks which seem to last forever. Bicycles have similar problems :-) But are much cheaper and easier to work on. Not at all. The only thing I ever did to my SUV was changing the oil, battery and (once) the tires. The timing belts were also changed once but only because the car is now 20 years old and I got concerned. They were still fine. But you just said that it is a problem with many American passenger cars. It's hard to keep up with the speed at which you move the goalposts. Think a bit farther: Both of our cars are Japanese, and there are reasons for that. I've had reliability problems with Japanese vehicles as well - they aren't immune. Before I bought my car I went on Edmund's and researched that out. There are scores of failure and repair statistics, also by auto clubs. Not necessary for my wifes car because I had lots of rental experience with that model. So far not even the dome light bulb has dared to burn out and it's been two decades. The bicycles, however, need weekly maintenance or stuff will quickly go south. The difference in maintenance effort per mile between car and bicycles vastly exceeds 1:10. The same would be true of any vehicle used at or very close to it's limits. Remember that most mountain bikes above a fairly low price point are designed with sports use in mind, where a rebuild between each meeting is regarded as an acceptable price to pay for the capability to win races. I've worked on motorcycles built the same way - heck, we used to change the piston rings for each day's use, and pistons for each weekend meeting. Colin Chapman famously said that the perfect racing car was one that disintegrated completely as soon as it completed the race. If parts lasted longer, he reduced weight. That is exactly the approach taken by the makers of sporting bicycles. I bought strictly a trail bike or XC bike. It has a very stout frame which is the main reason for picking this model. It is not used in race conditions and I do not have anything close to the power my bike dealer has (competition mountain biker). Yet repairs are needed all the time and the same goes for all of my riding buddies. Much of this can be avoided by smarter engineering. You mean adding weight, which most riders don't want. That is where the industry is wrong. There is a small market for such bikes but the potential profit margins are high because those people are willing to pay for a nice ride. They don't even shy away from custom stuff. I am having a piece made in a machine shop right now from aircraft aluminum. Can't buy it. There are a few fully suspended touring bikes, which would seem to fit your needs better than an MTB. They'd break on the trails. Trail riding is a necessity out here. They aren't cheap mind you, but that is as much because of the tiny market for them as the actual building cost. I have not seen anything with the robust trail performance of a Fuji Outland or similar. Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes, and tools, and food, and ... When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so easily as in all the states I know about, .... It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their little virtual cyber world. Sad. Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of them gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do need to travel, particularly for local trips. Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want one. They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they can't get a job. Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20. That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help. Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are unfit. Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow 2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly. So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit! People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there. Yeah, we know. Danger, Danger! As long as you and your friends keep telling people it's dangerous, they'll use it as a reason not to ride. We know better. The last rider here died a week ago. With the right training, they are as safe or safer than the routes you prefer (I noticed the very solid bollards hidden nicely in the shade of the bridge over that route you posted the link to - how long before you were even found after hitting one of them, never mind how long for an ambulance to get there? It's about car drivers, not cyclist. Hence no training effect. I know perfectly well not to careen into a bollard and this is fully under my control. However, I cannot control the driver coming from behind, slowly drifting because he is looking at who may have just text-messaged him. Meanwhile, one census point in Cambridge (and not in one of the busiest cycling areas - the site was chosen so that a linked display counter would be highly visible to a very congested road, so that motorists would be encouraged out of their cars, not because it carried the most cycle traffic) was passed by over a million cyclists this year, with only about 280,000 people living in what would conventionally be called cycle commuting range, and around 130,000 actually in the city and it's semi-attached necklace of former villages. Your sprawling cities will need to collapse in on themselves and become far more compact for anything like that level of popularity there though. Most American do not want that. They want space and breathing room. And to be enslaved to the car (which makes a bit of a mockery of the "breathing room" part). I've also found that city centre gentrification is happening just as much there as here, so clearly you aren't speaking for all Americans. There are clear downsides to living a long way from work (and all the other facilities) like wasting a lot of your life traveling to and from work, stores, and other necessary facilities, and poor internet speeds (which is a matter of physics). You should come visit. Then you'd know that this isn't true. One has to be smart and find the best way to handle any potential impact. For example, my work today happens right here in this office, at home. As it does every day. My commute is 10 seconds and it's a leisurely stroll instead of standing jam-packed in some subway. ... Increasingly, that is being taken into account in people's home purchase decisions. You want fast internet, you have to be close to a major exchange, because fast digital signals don't get far on existing telco cabling, and running fibre to your door is expensive, particularly if it's a long way from the nearest concentrator. It'll be a longer process in the US, as you have further to go, but it'll happen. Nope. We figured this out a long time ago. I have 6MB/sec and could have a lot more. But since it's used mainly for biz I don't need more. ... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone. A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all. Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while simultaneously making them more cycle friendly. That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that it isn't done. You LIKE your cities choked with cars? No, I do not like cities at all. I have lived in them and cannot understand why anyone would lile to like like in a can of sardines. What I certainly do not want is some government entity telling me that I cannot drive to and from my house. Like today where I need to buy fuel pellets. It is a wee problem to haul half a ton on a bicycle in hilly terrain. ... There's little that encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers. I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?". Car use is not discouraged in the Netherlands? They TAUGHT the rest of the world how to do it! Nope. Unless it has changed. I lived there for many years in the 80's and car use was easy. We just _chose_ to take the bikes. Sure, you can get most places by car if you really need to, although the entry cost is high compared to most places (both for the car and the driver testing and licensing) but with very low (i.e cycle friendly) speed limits in cities, and often very convoluted routes to get from one part of a city or town to another. And nowhere to leave your motor vehicle except briefly as you load or unload it. Not to mention the cost of running a car in the NL - how many times as much as in the US is it now? Slightly higher than in Germany. No big deal for regular people. In the US it is cheaper than probably most of Europe mainly because of lower gasoline taxes but that's got almost nothing to do with car use. If people want a car they have one. ... nearly all types of business have drive through facilities, and they even build big parking lots at schools, driving to school becomes a status thing (and the first personal and private space that most teenagers enjoy!), people stop using anything else, and it's hard to get them back into the habit. The topper and this was in the early 80's: We returned a long term rental car. The rental place's owner was completely stunned when we presented the invoice for changing oil and air filter. We obviously were the first to think of such stuff and he profoundly thanked us, then handed us a check. The place had no cash but he sad the bank is right across the street. However, drive-through only. We came back "Hey, can we have that car for another couple hundred yards and five minutes to cash the check?" ... of course we could. It was weird. LMAO - that's a classic example of how non-motorists are marginalised when "everyone drives". Yup :-( And it's something we have far less of in the UK - drive through facilities are almost entirely at fast-food outlets. That's bad enough. Last time I frequented a fast food place was some time in the previous century and only because I got badgered into it by youngsters. Which does at least show that it's a class of use you can choose to ignore if you want to. And even with those, it relatively unusual for them to be ONLY drive through. If you can stand the food, noisy atmosphere, and horrible decor, you can park up and sit down inside, and sometimes outside as well. It's the same here with fast food places. You can go in there. The atmosphere is usually that of a large tiled waiting room in an ancient railroad station. While I have your attention and you are from the UK, a question if I may: Among some parts for my MTB repair I just received some Clarks brake pads for Shimano caliper brakes on the road bike. No instructions, of course. I assume the rubber flags must be pointing down, correct? I'm not familiar with the rubber flags you describe - the ones I've seen have all been fairly standard block shapes, with nothing I could imagine being described as a flag on them anywhere. But I wouldn't recommend having anything which sticks out towards the tyre, as it'll make a right mess of the sidewall, and anything with an open ended holder must be aligned so that it is forced INTO the holder by normal braking, not out of it. All I can recommend is starting from those basic principles and working it out from there. I've figure it out. A faint L and R was on there. Since you said they are significantly lower performing than KoolStop I'll mount then on the back for now. $3/pair certainly is better than $20/pair. That is a pretty extreme difference. When I bought them $20 bought two pairs. Now only one. ... Keep an eye on rim wear though - hard blocks can rip through rims pretty fast. Of course, they may have improved since my encounters with them, and you may find they are fine. A brief spin hinted that the performance is not as good as KoolStop but I'll see on the next 45 miler into the valley. If the difference is manageable by pulling harder on the levers it's ok, considering the huge price difference. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Age and Heart Rates
On 2016-12-27 13:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 27 Dec 2016 08:03:05 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-26 13:10, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Sun, 25 Dec 2016 09:01:18 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write: [...] Maybe this works: https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_pi...026ed2d5844401 It's the tunnel underneath Highway 50. Quite spooky because in summer there can be rattlesnakes in there that want to cool off. Or some muggers with knives jump into the path when you emerge. Similar to the one under the A14 near Stow-cum-Quy, but ours doesn't have lights - I can't remember if they are fitted but broken or simply not there. You'd have to stand in there for a few minutes for your eyes to adjust enough to be able to see broken light fittings, which would be foolish at best, given the high level of cycle use and the fact that most are riding blindly towards the light at the other end. I never rely on road lighting, my bikes both have powerful headlights. In our tunnel that can really save the day because rattlesnakes in "cooling off mode" are often coiled up and they blend into the pavement color. Coild up snakes can strike if you see them too late. So far I only ran over one on a trail and it was stretched out where they'd have a hard time striking. [...] There are a few fully suspended touring bikes, which would seem to fit your needs better than an MTB. They'd break on the trails. Trail riding is a necessity out here. They're designed for unsupported expedition touring around the world, mostly on tracks and unsealed roads. They would survive even your abuse, unless you set out to deliberately destroy them to prove a point. I never saw anything like that here. Or in Europe for that matter. A good trail bike must survive undamaged when the whole enchilada becomes airborne and lands hard. I never do that on purpose (except with the front wheel, of course) but it happens. They aren't cheap mind you, but that is as much because of the tiny market for them as the actual building cost. I have not seen anything with the robust trail performance of a Fuji Outland or similar. Try looking at something like the ToutTerrain PanAmericana - you can even have it with a generator and full wiring harness, with a power take off for satnav or whatever. http://www.en.tout-terrain.de/bicycl...ricana-xplore/ Probably very expensive. I have seen this kind of classic construction, it was popular in the 90's even for forks. The suspension linkage at the axle is too weak. Could be beefed up by a custom made part though. However, where it would most likely fail first is where the upper welds to the seat tube are and then the frame is toast. The gearbox is cool though. Their are a bit skimpy on specs but it looks like the front axle is the standard QR deal. Like on my bike. In conjunction with a large diameter disc brake up front and lots of load on the bike that would be a big design mistake. Well, maybe not, hard to see. They should learn more about web site design. The bike is ok for rough forest roads, gravel roads and such but not for real singletrack like we have. The best would be to mimic offroad motorcycles. Those manufacturers understand how it's done right. Simple pivot and shock in back, triangular structure jutting out back for gear or in a pinch another rider. Ok, my bike has a Horst link which is unnecessarily compicated but that (so far) only had two urgent maintenance events. The triangular structure is what I am building up myself. When I am done with the mods to my bike I'll post pictures. Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes, and tools, and food, and ... When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so easily as in all the states I know about, .... It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their little virtual cyber world. Sad. Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of them gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do need to travel, particularly for local trips. Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want one. They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they can't get a job. Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20. That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help. Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are unfit. Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow 2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly. So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit! People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there. Yeah, we know. Danger, Danger! As long as you and your friends keep telling people it's dangerous, they'll use it as a reason not to ride. We know better. The last rider here died a week ago. We don't, because we don't know why. If he was riding along at night without lights or even reflectors, you can't claim it's any indication of a general level of danger - 9pm wasn't it? They get hit during day and during night. Typically a high speed impact from behind. With the right training, they are as safe or safer than the routes you prefer (I noticed the very solid bollards hidden nicely in the shade of the bridge over that route you posted the link to - how long before you were even found after hitting one of them, never mind how long for an ambulance to get there? It's about car drivers, not cyclist. Hence no training effect. I know perfectly well not to careen into a bollard and this is fully under my control. However, I cannot control the driver coming from behind, slowly drifting because he is looking at who may have just text-messaged him. Those bollards are a hazard, and if you are following another rider (I know that's very unlikely as long as you keep scaring them off, but still, it is a slight possibility) who swerves at the last moment to avoid it, your first sight will be too late to avoid it. Seriously? You swerve Kamikaze-style where you can't see? Yikes! A cyclist coming the other way might swerve into the lane you've just committed to, in order to pass a slower one or avoid a hazard (like broken glass) that you can't see (if there were any other cyclists, of course). That would put you straight into the bollard - you only need to clip the thing for it to bring you down. If a cyclist swerves into my lane and there is no escape for me I stand my ground. Have to. Meanwhile, one census point in Cambridge (and not in one of the busiest cycling areas - the site was chosen so that a linked display counter would be highly visible to a very congested road, so that motorists would be encouraged out of their cars, not because it carried the most cycle traffic) was passed by over a million cyclists this year, with only about 280,000 people living in what would conventionally be called cycle commuting range, and around 130,000 actually in the city and it's semi-attached necklace of former villages. Your sprawling cities will need to collapse in on themselves and become far more compact for anything like that level of popularity there though. Most American do not want that. They want space and breathing room. And to be enslaved to the car (which makes a bit of a mockery of the "breathing room" part). I've also found that city centre gentrification is happening just as much there as here, so clearly you aren't speaking for all Americans. There are clear downsides to living a long way from work (and all the other facilities) like wasting a lot of your life traveling to and from work, stores, and other necessary facilities, and poor internet speeds (which is a matter of physics). You should come visit. Then you'd know that this isn't true. One has to be smart and find the best way to handle any potential impact. For example, my work today happens right here in this office, at home. As it does every day. My commute is 10 seconds and it's a leisurely stroll instead of standing jam-packed in some subway. Fine to work from home if you can, but not all work can be done that way - in fact, only a tiny proportion can. A lot of it can but not everyone understands. Engineering like I do can almost always be done remotely to a large extent. People are leaving money on the table hand over fist. For example, I can't find any freelance tech who'd whip up prototypes at home. Many are unemployed yet they don't do it. The investment on their part would be less than $1k. Just one example of many. ... Increasingly, that is being taken into account in people's home purchase decisions. You want fast internet, you have to be close to a major exchange, because fast digital signals don't get far on existing telco cabling, and running fibre to your door is expensive, particularly if it's a long way from the nearest concentrator. It'll be a longer process in the US, as you have further to go, but it'll happen. Nope. We figured this out a long time ago. I have 6MB/sec and could have a lot more. But since it's used mainly for biz I don't need more. Unless you are using an unusual notation, you may mean 6Mbps - network speeds are measured in bits (lower case b), not bytes (capital B). Yes, sorry, 6Mbits/sec. I get 55 Mbps down, and 12.5Mbps up - but I have teenagers in the house! I can have that from a cable company but then only in conjunction with cable-TV. No way. ... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone. A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all. Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while simultaneously making them more cycle friendly. That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that it isn't done. You LIKE your cities choked with cars? No, I do not like cities at all. I have lived in them and cannot understand why anyone would lile to like like in a can of sardines. What I certainly do not want is some government entity telling me that I cannot drive to and from my house. Like today where I need to buy fuel pellets. It is a wee problem to haul half a ton on a bicycle in hilly terrain. Well, it might take a few trips, but it worked for the NVA better than the massive motorised effort put in by the US in that conflict. What is the NVA? I suppose you don't mean the former East-German army. ... There's little that encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers. I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?". Car use is not discouraged in the Netherlands? They TAUGHT the rest of the world how to do it! Nope. Unless it has changed. I lived there for many years in the 80's and car use was easy. We just _chose_ to take the bikes. I know it's subtle, but then there are none so blind as those who don't want to see. THey even have a minor industry selling their expertise around the world, with study tours showing how motor traffic is subtly discouraged in some areas and from some routes, and how it all joins up to create people friendly cities. I think you are seeing ghosts here :-) Sure, you can get most places by car if you really need to, although the entry cost is high compared to most places (both for the car and the driver testing and licensing) but with very low (i.e cycle friendly) speed limits in cities, and often very convoluted routes to get from one part of a city or town to another. And nowhere to leave your motor vehicle except briefly as you load or unload it. Not to mention the cost of running a car in the NL - how many times as much as in the US is it now? Slightly higher than in Germany. No big deal for regular people. In the US it is cheaper than probably most of Europe mainly because of lower gasoline taxes but that's got almost nothing to do with car use. If people want a car they have one. Plenty of people have cars, but they don't drive nearly as much, on average, than anywhere else. Partly because parking is difficult when you get there, partly because you have to use routes which are subtly diverted so as to be longer, in both time and distance, than those you could use on a bicycle. And of course, fuel is expensive. So it's made shorter by bike, quicker by bike, and less expensive by bike. Let's debunk that myth right he http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...ts ,_2013.png NL has more cars per capita than the UK. https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2012/1...lometres-a-day Average 13300km per car in NL. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-28546589 Average 12700km per car in UK. I trust you can do the math. [...] ... Keep an eye on rim wear though - hard blocks can rip through rims pretty fast. Of course, they may have improved since my encounters with them, and you may find they are fine. A brief spin hinted that the performance is not as good as KoolStop but I'll see on the next 45 miler into the valley. If the difference is manageable by pulling harder on the levers it's ok, considering the huge price difference. Well, they may improve a bit as they bed in, and the blocks conform better to the precise shape of the rim. I shall hope so. We've got a lot of hills here where letting loose is not an option because of intersections. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Age and Heart Rates
On 2016-12-28 07:47, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-27 13:05, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Tue, 27 Dec 2016 08:03:05 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2016-12-26 13:10, Phil Lee wrote: [Clarks brake pads] ... Keep an eye on rim wear though - hard blocks can rip through rims pretty fast. Of course, they may have improved since my encounters with them, and you may find they are fine. A brief spin hinted that the performance is not as good as KoolStop but I'll see on the next 45 miler into the valley. If the difference is manageable by pulling harder on the levers it's ok, considering the huge price difference. Well, they may improve a bit as they bed in, and the blocks conform better to the precise shape of the rim. I shall hope so. We've got a lot of hills here where letting loose is not an option because of intersections. 43 miles later I have to say the Clarks pads are almost on par with KoolStop. Can't try them in wet weather for a while because no rain but in wet weather rim brakes are the pits anyways. So now my fairly international road bike also has UK parts. "Elite" brake pads no less :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Max heart rates and age | Choppy Warburton | Racing | 30 | June 13th 11 09:12 PM |
Max heart rates and age | Fredmaster of Brainerd | Racing | 1 | June 10th 11 09:53 AM |
Tdf 'live' Heart rates | cupra | UK | 2 | July 18th 07 12:55 AM |
decrease of heart rates | le-sheq | Techniques | 4 | February 28th 06 11:33 PM |
Heart rates. | Simon Mason | UK | 0 | January 21st 06 07:45 PM |