Habanero shows up curved stays

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
Currently about 4000mi/year, much less than I did in the Netherlands. I
don't have much fear but I will select routes with segregated bike paths
whenever possible. Even if that means five additional miles or an extra
hill. Really nasty roads I usually go by car.

BTW yesterday I had two events that drove the salient points home. On
the roads, traffic light turned green, I wanted to accelerate on my road
bike, big SUV blew a light that had been red for more than a second. At
full speed. No danger because I saw it coming. Luckily I wasn't
approaching this green light at high speed because it rained and the rim
brakes wouldn't have saved the day. Now imagine little Joey coming home
from school on his bike and not looking if someone was about to run a
red light, then getting T-boned by a Chevy Tahoe.

The other was regarding the rim brake discussion. It rained yesterday.
So I was in the drops a lot to "prime the rim brakes" where I thought
they might be needed. Came around a bend, all clear, not in the drops,
then it happened. A young and pretty long-beeked bird hopped out of the
bush. Luckily the wet brakes only had a 1sec delay but it was close. I
would have been ok but hitting that bird would have been very sad. This
is why my next road bike will have disc brakes.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

If bicycling is so bloody dangerous where you live then why in blazes are you riding there? Get off that dangerous bicycle and buy yourself a surplus military armoured car so you'll not have to worry about anyone else on the rioads anymore.

Cheers

On 2017-04-12 10:30, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 13:07, wrote:

[...]

Going on centuries around California shows you that most of the roads
aren't that badly designed. It's only in highly urban areas that they
are screwed up.

As I recall, there are a lot of cars in Holland now and the
intertwining of cars and bicycles is completely hap-hazard with no
rules. They seem surprised that they don't have more accidents than
they do.


It usually isn't haphazard. I have lived and cycled there for 6 years
and sorely miss that bike path system.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

This would be great Jeorg but can you see this ever happening in the USA?


No, never. Only on a local level. There is no willingness among most
politicians. Some are smart like in the city of Folsom and great bike
path systems get built. Others like in our village aren't.

This is one of many reasons why I bought an MTB. There are numerous nice
trails where one can reach destinations and not just ride in a circle.
For example, the singletrack to Placerville is just about the only way
to get there. Using the narrow two-lane country road would be a suicide
mission which is why you almost never see any cyclists on it.

If I had my druthers I'd move to Utah. No bike infrastructure to write
home about either but a MTB can get you almost anywhere. As long as you
don't crash hard. Then they'd find your skeleton some day.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-04-11 12:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2017 12:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If you were really interested in an honest "per mile" comparison, you
would find data that excludes the huge amount of super-safe driving done
as long miles on freeways. Freeways are far safer than country roads or
local streets, and freeways trips cover much higher than average miles.
They distort the comparison data.


So build bike freeways. Simple. The Dutch are doing that. They are
much smarter when it comes to cycling.

:-) Run for election on that platform, Joerg. See how you do!


Others have done that already, like in Davis and Folsom. Now those
cities have very nice bike path systems. Out where I live, no chance.
There is almost zero willingness and me being the lone pro-cycling voice
would mean nothing because the others would vote against. A friend of
ours tried and eventually had to throw in the towel.


But to remind you: There is, not far from me, a bike trail running for
about 85 miles. It's on an abandoned railroad right-of-way. It links
maybe 8 different cities or towns. My wife and I did the entire thing
last year as part of a bike tour. The most obvious feature was its
emptiness. We typically rode miles between seeing other users.

This thing has taken decades to build and its still not quite complete,
because of problems obtaining right-of-way, etc. With the low number of
users as compared with any street, there's not much motivation for any
government to spend significant money on acquisition, let alone
construction. This should let you understand that these things will
never be able to give trail access to any large portion of the population.

And if by some miracle they did pop up everywhere, they would still not
be used for much long mileage. Many people are regularly willing to
drive 50 miles on a freeway. Very few are regularly willing to ride 50
miles on any facility. That will never change.


Probably they were not very smart about implementation. You have to have
connectors to industrial parks, residential areas and so on. This is
what they did on the American River Bike Trail, the one you brushed of
as just a "linear park" (it is not). There are now connectors to my old
work place and lots of others. I ride it weekly and it is heavily used.
Many riders are cleary not on fun rides. Sports riders would not tool
around with a Targus laptop pack on their back.

Now this happened plus two more rock slides but there is another bike
trail that parallels it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-5h5drx_9A

You do not have to use the whole 50mi. Just like you do not have to use
an Interstate all the way until it ends at the other coast.

Because the leaders in our community are not smart enough to build bike
paths some folks have become split-mode commuters. The hang the bike
onto the car rack, drive down into the valley to where there is bike
path access and parking, unload the bike and commute the remaining
10-20mi by bike. Reverse in the evening. If I wasn't self-employed I'd
probably do that as well.


Freeway trips should be omitted from the "cars vs. bikes" competitions,
simply because bikes are impractical for freeway trip distances. And
when fatalities per mile are computed for non-freeway car travel, the
result is much closer to that for bike travel. Furthermore, if you were
to compute fatalities per mile for non-drunk law abiding bicyclists, I'd
bet it would beat the car rate for non-freeway travel.


No. We are talking about using the _existing_ infrastructure. For cars
it exists and for bikes it largely doesn't in the US.

Almost every street is a bicycle facility. It's unfortunate that people
like you pretend that isn't true.


Many streets are not safe for cycling. It is also not exactly fun to
ride on the side of a county road while noisy vehicles zoom by at 60mph
and some spew a copious amount of Diesel soot into your face. Why would
anyone deliberately want to do that if they have a car?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 4/12/2017 2:13 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-12 10:30, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 13:07, wrote:

[...]

Going on centuries around California shows you that most of the roads
aren't that badly designed. It's only in highly urban areas that they
are screwed up.

As I recall, there are a lot of cars in Holland now and the
intertwining of cars and bicycles is completely hap-hazard with no
rules. They seem surprised that they don't have more accidents than
they do.


It usually isn't haphazard. I have lived and cycled there for 6 years
and sorely miss that bike path system.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

This would be great Jeorg but can you see this ever happening in the USA?


No, never. Only on a local level. There is no willingness among most
politicians. Some are smart like in the city of Folsom and great bike
path systems get built. Others like in our village aren't.

This is one of many reasons why I bought an MTB. There are numerous nice
trails where one can reach destinations and not just ride in a circle.
For example, the singletrack to Placerville is just about the only way
to get there. Using the narrow two-lane country road would be a suicide
mission which is why you almost never see any cyclists on it.

If I had my druthers I'd move to Utah. No bike infrastructure to write
home about either but a MTB can get you almost anywhere. As long as you
don't crash hard. Then they'd find your skeleton some day.

You do live in a terrible world!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/12/2017 2:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 12:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2017 12:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If you were really interested in an honest "per mile" comparison, you
would find data that excludes the huge amount of super-safe driving
done
as long miles on freeways. Freeways are far safer than country
roads or
local streets, and freeways trips cover much higher than average miles.
They distort the comparison data.


So build bike freeways. Simple. The Dutch are doing that. They are
much smarter when it comes to cycling.

:-) Run for election on that platform, Joerg. See how you do!


Others have done that already, like in Davis and Folsom. Now those
cities have very nice bike path systems. Out where I live, no chance.
There is almost zero willingness and me being the lone pro-cycling voice
would mean nothing because the others would vote against. A friend of
ours tried and eventually had to throw in the towel.

So why are you constantly whining, trying to get something you admit
you'll never have? Man up, Joerg.



But to remind you: There is, not far from me, a bike trail running for
about 85 miles. It's on an abandoned railroad right-of-way. It links
maybe 8 different cities or towns. My wife and I did the entire thing
last year as part of a bike tour. The most obvious feature was its
emptiness. We typically rode miles between seeing other users.

This thing has taken decades to build and its still not quite complete,
because of problems obtaining right-of-way, etc. With the low number of
users as compared with any street, there's not much motivation for any
government to spend significant money on acquisition, let alone
construction. This should let you understand that these things will
never be able to give trail access to any large portion of the
population.

And if by some miracle they did pop up everywhere, they would still not
be used for much long mileage. Many people are regularly willing to
drive 50 miles on a freeway. Very few are regularly willing to ride 50
miles on any facility. That will never change.


Probably they were not very smart about implementation. You have to have
connectors to industrial parks, residential areas and so on.

The trail I described does have such connectors. But it should be
obvious that the odds are extremely slim that the bike trail will
connect any given resident with his place of work.

Like most such American trails, its on an abandoned railroad right of
way. It was abandoned because there wasn't much profit in serving the
businesses it reaches. It's foolishly idealistic to pretend that many
other businesses are going to locate along it, instead of places with
good motor vehicle access.

And it's even more foolishly idealistic to think that the government can
afford to buy the much more expensive right of way where commercial
activity abounds. As I've mentioned, I was once on a committee that was
searching for possible routes for useful bike facilities, as opposed to
linear parks to which people would drive while hauling bikes. Our
committee gave up. There were simply no way to fit such trails into the
existing properties.

I know of precisely one potentially useful trail route nearby. It would
not serve my community, but would serve one not far away. Trouble is,
the route is a rail line that's still in use. The company doesn't want
to abandon it precisely because it's profitable.

Almost every street is a bicycle facility. It's unfortunate that people
like you pretend that isn't true.


Many streets are not safe for cycling.

For some value of "many," as they say. In my experience, some streets
are much less pleasant, but one can almost always find a pleasant
on-street route.

It is also not exactly fun to
ride on the side of a county road while noisy vehicles zoom by at 60mph
and some spew a copious amount of Diesel soot into your face. Why would
anyone deliberately want to do that if they have a car?

Wow. My friends and I do most of our recreational rides on county
roads. We enjoy those tremendously.

It's so sad that you live in such a terrible world. Mine is much nicer!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2017-04-12 13:02, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2017 2:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 12:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2017 12:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If you were really interested in an honest "per mile" comparison, you
would find data that excludes the huge amount of super-safe driving
done
as long miles on freeways. Freeways are far safer than country
roads or
local streets, and freeways trips cover much higher than average
miles.
They distort the comparison data.


So build bike freeways. Simple. The Dutch are doing that. They are
much smarter when it comes to cycling.

:-) Run for election on that platform, Joerg. See how you do!


Others have done that already, like in Davis and Folsom. Now those
cities have very nice bike path systems. Out where I live, no chance.
There is almost zero willingness and me being the lone pro-cycling
voice would mean nothing because the others would vote against. A
friend of ours tried and eventually had to throw in the towel.

So why are you constantly whining, trying to get something you admit
you'll never have? Man up, Joerg.


Complaining does help. BTDT. You have to show up at the important
meetings though plus be willing to spend some time doing write-ups and
filings.

Sometimes they go overboard afterwards. Like Placerville which has
signed off on plans to build a paved bike trail from there to Diamond
Springs. There is already a MTB trail that I find perfectly adequate.

In our little village it is hopeless and everyone knows that. Except
when they build new roads or developments where they must now provide
bike lanes. This is a good thing and it would not have happened if there
weren't enough people such as myself loudly advocating bike
infrastructure. So we will keep doing that.


But to remind you: There is, not far from me, a bike trail running for
about 85 miles. It's on an abandoned railroad right-of-way. It links
maybe 8 different cities or towns. My wife and I did the entire thing
last year as part of a bike tour. The most obvious feature was its
emptiness. We typically rode miles between seeing other users.

This thing has taken decades to build and its still not quite complete,
because of problems obtaining right-of-way, etc. With the low number of
users as compared with any street, there's not much motivation for any
government to spend significant money on acquisition, let alone
construction. This should let you understand that these things will
never be able to give trail access to any large portion of the
population.

And if by some miracle they did pop up everywhere, they would still not
be used for much long mileage. Many people are regularly willing to
drive 50 miles on a freeway. Very few are regularly willing to ride 50
miles on any facility. That will never change.


Probably they were not very smart about implementation. You have to
have connectors to industrial parks, residential areas and so on.

The trail I described does have such connectors. But it should be
obvious that the odds are extremely slim that the bike trail will
connect any given resident with his place of work.


Most people are perfectly willing to ride their bikes on residential
streets in order to get to the nearest bike connector. They are just not
willing to ride in the lane on a major thoroughfare. That will never change.


Like most such American trails, its on an abandoned railroad right of
way. It was abandoned because there wasn't much profit in serving the
businesses it reaches. It's foolishly idealistic to pretend that many
other businesses are going to locate along it, instead of places with
good motor vehicle access.


Provide a link to that bike path, please. Then we can all check that out.


And it's even more foolishly idealistic to think that the government can
afford to buy the much more expensive right of way where commercial
activity abounds. As I've mentioned, I was once on a committee that was
searching for possible routes for useful bike facilities, as opposed to
linear parks to which people would drive while hauling bikes. Our
committee gave up. There were simply no way to fit such trails into the
existing properties.

I know of precisely one potentially useful trail route nearby. It would
not serve my community, but would serve one not far away. Trouble is,
the route is a rail line that's still in use. The company doesn't want
to abandon it precisely because it's profitable.


So why is it that the paved section of the El Dorado Trail in Northern
California which was built on an old rail line does connect to main
business areas, residential areas and even the County Government Center?

Trains used to go smack dab through the center of towns, something that
makes that right-of-way almost ideal for a MUP. In Europe they have
finally also figured it out:

http://www.rs1.ruhr/


Almost every street is a bicycle facility. It's unfortunate that people
like you pretend that isn't true.


Many streets are not safe for cycling.

For some value of "many," as they say. In my experience, some streets
are much less pleasant, but one can almost always find a pleasant
on-street route.


Less so here.


It is also not exactly fun to ride on the side of a county road while
noisy vehicles zoom by at 60mph and some spew a copious amount of
Diesel soot into your face. Why would anyone deliberately want to do
that if they have a car?

Wow. My friends and I do most of our recreational rides on county
roads. We enjoy those tremendously.

It's so sad that you live in such a terrible world. Mine is much nicer!


I doubt it. I will never understand the pleasure of riding next to loud
and partially bad-smelling motor vehicle traffic. While I do enjoy the
occasional roar of a Harley-Davidson or a Cobra blowing by I prefer
nature, chirping birds, wildlife, and the occasional mountain lion. Or
one of these yesterday, except it had orange strips, very pretty (but
mighty ****ed to be disturbed):

http://www.californiaherps.com/snake...ateralismo.jpg

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:26:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-12 13:02, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2017 2:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 12:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2017 12:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If you were really interested in an honest "per mile" comparison, you
would find data that excludes the huge amount of super-safe driving
done
as long miles on freeways. Freeways are far safer than country
roads or
local streets, and freeways trips cover much higher than average
miles.
They distort the comparison data.


So build bike freeways. Simple. The Dutch are doing that. They are
much smarter when it comes to cycling.

:-) Run for election on that platform, Joerg. See how you do!


Others have done that already, like in Davis and Folsom. Now those
cities have very nice bike path systems. Out where I live, no chance.
There is almost zero willingness and me being the lone pro-cycling
voice would mean nothing because the others would vote against. A
friend of ours tried and eventually had to throw in the towel.

So why are you constantly whining, trying to get something you admit
you'll never have? Man up, Joerg.


Complaining does help. BTDT. You have to show up at the important
meetings though plus be willing to spend some time doing write-ups and
filings.

Sometimes they go overboard afterwards. Like Placerville which has
signed off on plans to build a paved bike trail from there to Diamond
Springs. There is already a MTB trail that I find perfectly adequate.

In our little village it is hopeless and everyone knows that. Except
when they build new roads or developments where they must now provide
bike lanes. This is a good thing and it would not have happened if there
weren't enough people such as myself loudly advocating bike
infrastructure. So we will keep doing that.

Or move. You do know you live in a giant HOA, don't you? It's not even a real town. Folsom is calling. Can you hear it? Jooooerg . . . Joeeeeerg . . . come to Folsom.

Next time, don't move to a town designed and built by an auto dealer that has an airport down the middle. I bet golf carts get more infrastructure than the bicycles.

-- Jay Beattie.

Others have done that already, like in Davis and Folsom. Now those
cities have very nice bike path systems.

Haha try getting to class at davis as a pedestrian tho. The 10-minute river of a$$hole cyclists won't let you cross.

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 9:43:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2017 10:17 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 03:53, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:46:33 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-04-09 04:17, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 08:38:17 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-04-07 17:42, John B. wrote:

[...]


According your comment above one of your friends had a cracked frame
and I find three, two of which likely [pre-dated your friend's, that
weren't cracked....


"But ma, Joey jumped off that cliff too an didn't brake his arm!"

You don't get it do you. 14 million cheerful bicyclests in the U.S.
1,000 of them die, and you shout Danger! Danger! That is about 1 out
of 14,000.

Or perhaps more in context. A whole mob of kids, maybe 50 or 60,
playing in a school yard and one kid falls off the swing and breaks
his arm. Danger!, Danger!


Like many on this NG you obvisouly do not understand ratios. Per mile
bicycling is more dangerous. This is fact. Also, it is not just about
those who died. Despite the rather low number of cyclist on our main
artery into the valley I have by now heard about about a dozen cases
just in our small village section where cyclists got hit there and
seriously hurt. In the case I learned about last week the cyclist had
his legs mangled badly and it took a whole year for him to be able to
get back into the saddle. He will likely never reach his usual
performance level again.



Quite the contrary. I do understand ratios and I do understand how one
can "slant the figures" by selecting various criteria.

Ah, you say, but on a per mile basis bicycling is so much more
dangerous than those big bad autos. But on an hourly basis it is so
much safer.

As someone once said, "Figures don't lie but liars figure"


When cycling is done for actual transportation only the miles count.

If you were really interested in an honest "per mile" comparison, you
would find data that excludes the huge amount of super-safe driving done
as long miles on freeways. Freeways are far safer than country roads or
local streets, and freeways trips cover much higher than average miles.
They distort the comparison data.


So build bike freeways. Simple. The Dutch are doing that. They are much
smarter when it comes to cycling.

I googled them
https://www.google.com/search?q=dutc...3XvwvgBOhhDrM:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:22:01 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-04-11 11:34, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 9:52:24 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 09:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]


You use your "Danger! Danger!" per-mile analysis only to
denounce bicycling. That's just weird.


More nonsense. You don't understand because you do not read
carefully. I always promote cycling and because of that I am pro
bike paths. Always will be. There is nothing you or anyone else can
do to change that.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg, you have to admit that you're complaining about the dangers of
riding a bike when the overwhelming majority of us see no more or
perhaps even less danger than when driving a car.


Statistics prove otherwise. Seeing - reality ... two different things :-)


... Except when I was
concussed and having seizures I had ONE car wreck in over 50 years of
driving. And it was a fender bender.

So you appear to have more fear of riding than necessary and you are
one of us that probably rides the most.


Currently about 4000mi/year, much less than I did in the Netherlands. I
don't have much fear but I will select routes with segregated bike paths
whenever possible. Even if that means five additional miles or an extra
hill. Really nasty roads I usually go by car.

BTW yesterday I had two events that drove the salient points home. On
the roads, traffic light turned green, I wanted to accelerate on my road
bike, big SUV blew a light that had been red for more than a second. At
full speed. No danger because I saw it coming. Luckily I wasn't
approaching this green light at high speed because it rained and the rim
brakes wouldn't have saved the day. Now imagine little Joey coming home
from school on his bike and not looking if someone was about to run a
red light, then getting T-boned by a Chevy Tahoe.


So someone ran a red light? And it might have caused an accident? And
this makes bicycles dangerous?

Your logic is faulty.

The other was regarding the rim brake discussion. It rained yesterday.
So I was in the drops a lot to "prime the rim brakes" where I thought
they might be needed. Came around a bend, all clear, not in the drops,
then it happened. A young and pretty long-beeked bird hopped out of the
bush. Luckily the wet brakes only had a 1sec delay but it was close. I
would have been ok but hitting that bird would have been very sad. This
is why my next road bike will have disc brakes.

Again, your logic is faulty. You select, install and adjust your rim
brakes. I select, install and adjust my rim brakes. My rim brakes seem
to work whether wet or dry and your's do not.

This means that rim brakes are no good?