Someone from Australia has been lying to me

On 2/3/2012 7:43 PM, James wrote:
On Feb 4, 1:11 am, wrote:
On 02/03/2012 12:11 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:38:47 +1100,
wrote:

I deem it impractical to use a bike lane that puts me in reach of car
doors, so I don't have to use them when doors are a concern. I don't
know if the police or a judge would agree, but I haven't been challenged
by either - yet.

If I'm going to be taken for a ride, I greatly prefer police cars to
ambulances and hearses.

Good point. Also given the choice between possibly getting a ticket or
possibly getting buried, I'm likely going for the first one.

Generally though, if there are bike lanes that force you into a door
zone, you should complain about it.

I have, and will continue to do so.

Good. Same here. In Quebec we're lucky enough to have a group to
support cyclists in their complaints. Amazing what happens when you get
more people on bikes.

Per Dan O:
I like to check the plate, then tell them that that and five bucks
gets me their home address

I *like* that.... And whipping out a cell phone or iPod to take
a pic would put a nice little cap on it.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Feb 7, 6:08*am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Dan O:

I like to check the plate, then tell them that that and five bucks
gets me their home address

I *like* that.... *And whipping out a cell phone or iPod to take
a pic would put a nice little cap on it.

I'm so old fashioned. I just scream like a lunatic -- but then again,
it has been a long time since I've had a heated exchange with a
motorist, and I'm not up on all the modern technology. The worst I
get is usually a honk or a lecture from someone who feels compelled to
instruct me on the traffic law, usually incorrectly.

-- Jay Beattie.

Per Phil W Lee:
In some areas (London's Metropolitan Police, for example), the police
have email addresses or web fora set up to allow this evidence to be
sent directly to them, and I know of cases they have acted upon, with
the result of fines, licence points, and even vehicle confiscations.
Sadly, most jurisdictions are less well policed than that.
Rider-cams have become common enough in London that some drivers work
on the assumption that ANY rider is using one, and treat them
accordingly - carefully and legally. And the word is spreading that
you just can't get away with the things that you used to.

Sounds like my little fantasy of several years ago is coming
true. In that one, I thought that every citizen should be issued
a fixed number of complaints that they could lodge against any
driver at any time - either by password-containing email or some
sort of web site.

On the other end, any driver who received more than N complaints
in a certain time period would have to present themselves to some
authority somewhere and explain themselves.

No fines - just the inconvenience of having to explain themselves
and the reminder that people are watching and judging.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Feb 7, 1:09*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Mon, 6 Feb 2012
09:23:49 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

Europe's cycling levels are not due only to bike facilities. *First,
special bike facilities are far from everywhere, despite what you may
think. *Yet cycling is much more common even where there are no
facilities. *But more important, there are many other differences
between typical European and American cities and cultures.

Over there, getting a driver's license tends to be difficult and
expensive, with tons of training and expense required. *Here, Mom
teaches Johnnie to drive in two weeks.

Over there, public transportation is much more common and much higher
quality. *Partly because of that, I've known Europeans in their 20s
who never bothered to get a driver's license. *Here, a high school kid
usually can't get to his part-time McDonald's job without a license -
or at least, that's what he thinks.

Over there, gas costs about two to three times as much as here.
Insurance is more expensive too. *So are cars in general. *So is
parking. *They don't put down acres (or hectares) of asphalt just in
case a lot of shoppers show up once a year and want free parking.

Their cities are more compact, built for walking and perhaps horse-
drawn carriages. *If you're going only a mile, a bike makes much more
sense. *Ours are spread out into endless, car-dependent suburbs.

In Europe, far more people live in apartments that are close to
commerce, rather than in American-style suburbs that are miles out in
the cornfields.

They've had continuous cultures of cycling,

Not really - there was a huge drop in cycling even in the NL, then a
major campaign followed by a national policy change to encourage
people back onto bikes. *They just did it early enough that the
motoring culture was still developing, and wasn't strong enough to
bulldoze everything in it's path.

I'm familiar with that bit of history. But the point remains, their
cycling levels never dropped to those of the U.S., which was
essentially zero through the first half of the 20th century.

The longer you leave it, the worse it gets, because people start
expecting to travel greater distances between home, work, stores etc.
They accept jobs with no public transport and a husband and wife
working in opposite directions - that are an hours drive away - from
their home. *Then they are car dependant. *They have no time (because
of the commute) to do anything but get "convenience meals" or
takeaways at out-of-town retail parks that are on their commuting
route. *The in-town stores go bust, because all the business is out on
the commuter routes, and nobody wants the commute traffic through the
town centre, so it dies.
Then even the people who want to avoid car dependence get forced into
it, until it becomes a societal norm.
THAT is what we are struggling against, and it's going to take a long
time, and be very painful, to transition to a sustainable future.

I agree about the difficulty. And I'm afraid the U.S. has long ago
reached an extreme level of car dependence. I just don't think some
paint stripes and bike chutes are going to change it within, say, 30
years. It would require some earth-shattering outside influence.


But American bike advocates seem to think that all that matters is
some green (or maybe blue?) paint on the road. *"Why, if we just buy
100 gallons of green paint, we can make this place into Copenhagen!!!"

- Frank Krygowski

It's the attitude, not the paint.

I'd prefer getting people to work directly on the attitude. It won't
make the U.S. into a nation of utility cyclists, but it would make
life more pleasant for those who do cycle, and it would encourage
others to take it up.

- Frank Krygowski

On Feb 6, 6:49 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 6, 3:09 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 6, 5:04 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

But don't underestimate the attractiveness of facilities to some
riders, particularly in flat urban areas. I actually know people who
ride because of the facilities.

Oh, I'm sure they exist. But I suspect that those are people who
would have ridden without facilities, if for years they'd been taught
"Look, bicycling is actually quite safe" instead of being taught "You
NEED separate facilities to stay alive!!!"

I'll bet I could find countless examples of the former. Please cite
*any* example of the latter.

chirping of crickets...

On Feb 7, 2:46 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:09 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:



Frank Krygowski considered Mon, 6 Feb 2012
09:23:49 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

Europe's cycling levels are not due only to bike facilities. First,
special bike facilities are far from everywhere, despite what you may
think. Yet cycling is much more common even where there are no
facilities. But more important, there are many other differences
between typical European and American cities and cultures.

Over there, getting a driver's license tends to be difficult and
expensive, with tons of training and expense required. Here, Mom
teaches Johnnie to drive in two weeks.

Over there, public transportation is much more common and much higher
quality. Partly because of that, I've known Europeans in their 20s
who never bothered to get a driver's license. Here, a high school kid
usually can't get to his part-time McDonald's job without a license -
or at least, that's what he thinks.

Over there, gas costs about two to three times as much as here.
Insurance is more expensive too. So are cars in general. So is
parking. They don't put down acres (or hectares) of asphalt just in
case a lot of shoppers show up once a year and want free parking.

Their cities are more compact, built for walking and perhaps horse-
drawn carriages. If you're going only a mile, a bike makes much more
sense. Ours are spread out into endless, car-dependent suburbs.

In Europe, far more people live in apartments that are close to
commerce, rather than in American-style suburbs that are miles out in
the cornfields.

They've had continuous cultures of cycling,

Not really - there was a huge drop in cycling even in the NL, then a
major campaign followed by a national policy change to encourage
people back onto bikes. They just did it early enough that the
motoring culture was still developing, and wasn't strong enough to
bulldoze everything in it's path.

I'm familiar with that bit of history. But the point remains, their
cycling levels never dropped to those of the U.S., which was
essentially zero through the first half of the 20th century.

The longer you leave it, the worse it gets, because people start
expecting to travel greater distances between home, work, stores etc.
They accept jobs with no public transport and a husband and wife
working in opposite directions - that are an hours drive away - from
their home. Then they are car dependant. They have no time (because
of the commute) to do anything but get "convenience meals" or
takeaways at out-of-town retail parks that are on their commuting
route. The in-town stores go bust, because all the business is out on
the commuter routes, and nobody wants the commute traffic through the
town centre, so it dies.
Then even the people who want to avoid car dependence get forced into
it, until it becomes a societal norm.
THAT is what we are struggling against, and it's going to take a long
time, and be very painful, to transition to a sustainable future.

I agree about the difficulty. And I'm afraid the U.S. has long ago
reached an extreme level of car dependence.

Insane car culture.

I just don't think some
paint stripes and bike chutes are going to change it...

Infrastructure played a humongous role getting us into this mess.

... within, say, 30
years. It would require some earth-shattering outside influence.


(You're not wringing your hands now, are you?)

There are some strong, potentially earth-shattering possibilities for
the next 30 years, but don't hold your breath for Jesus comin' back to
see us or space aliens to assume control.

Meanwhile, changing infrastructure priorities *now* to emphasize
bicycling may not be earth-shattering in itself, but it's at least
earth-crumbling to the car culture, and looks like a sensible way to
*head off* earth-shattering *inside* influence.

As our buddy Earl said, "Now's the time to put the hammer down."

http://bikeportland.org/2012/02/03/b...653#more-66653

But American bike advocates seem to think that all that matters is
some green (or maybe blue?) paint on the road. "Why, if we just buy
100 gallons of green paint, we can make this place into Copenhagen!!!"


It's the attitude, not the paint.

I'd prefer getting people to work directly on the attitude. It won't
make the U.S. into a nation of utility cyclists, but it would make
life more pleasant for those who do cycle, and it would encourage
others to take it up.


Good luck with that (seriously!)

On Feb 7, 9:31*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:49 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:09 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 6, 5:04 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

But don't underestimate the attractiveness of facilities to some
riders, particularly in flat urban areas. *I actually know people who
ride because of the facilities.

Oh, I'm sure they exist. *But I suspect that those are people who
would have ridden without facilities, if for years they'd been taught
"Look, bicycling is actually quite safe" instead of being taught "You
NEED separate facilities to stay alive!!!"

I'll bet I could find countless examples of the former. *Please cite
*any* example of the latter.

chirping of crickets...

Would it help if I posted some special code to let you know when I
think your posts aren't worth response?

- Frank Krygowski

On Feb 7, 9:57 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 7, 9:31 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Feb 6, 6:49 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:09 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 6, 5:04 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

But don't underestimate the attractiveness of facilities to some
riders, particularly in flat urban areas. I actually know people who
ride because of the facilities.

Oh, I'm sure they exist. But I suspect that those are people who
would have ridden without facilities, if for years they'd been taught
"Look, bicycling is actually quite safe" instead of being taught "You
NEED separate facilities to stay alive!!!"

I'll bet I could find countless examples of the former. Please cite
*any* example of the latter.

chirping of crickets...

Would it help if I posted some special code to let you know when I
think your posts aren't worth response?


Not a bit. (I already have a pretty good idea what you think of
me ;-)

On Feb 7, 6:31 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:49 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:09 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 6, 5:04 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

But don't underestimate the attractiveness of facilities to some
riders, particularly in flat urban areas. I actually know people who
ride because of the facilities.

Oh, I'm sure they exist. But I suspect that those are people who
would have ridden without facilities, if for years they'd been taught
"Look, bicycling is actually quite safe" instead of being taught "You
NEED separate facilities to stay alive!!!"

I'll bet I could find countless examples of the former. Please cite
*any* example of the latter.

chirping of crickets...

It doesn't help your credibility any when you complain so vociferously
about what you *say* is exaggeration, then engage in crazy all-caps-
triple-exclamation-mark hyperbole that is obviously false anyway.