Build it and they won't come

On 10/10/2017 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 5:25:31 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:

That's what I thought you meant. The world according to slow johnny.

What is that supposed to mean? Frank is showing nothing more than his fear of guns. He tells us that even though more people were killed with one single truck than in Las Vegas that ~"cars are useful and guns are not".

Now you appear to be saying that you could win the Tour de France or that someone that is 60 would at least have a chance.

To each his own and if you want to ride a super-light CF bike that's fine. And if you're crippled from it coming apart don't look for any sympathy here.

Is Tom showing nothing more than his fear of carbon fiber? ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:13:39 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/10/2017 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 5:25:31 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:

That's what I thought you meant. The world according to slow johnny.

What is that supposed to mean? Frank is showing nothing more than his fear of guns. He tells us that even though more people were killed with one single truck than in Las Vegas that ~"cars are useful and guns are not".

Now you appear to be saying that you could win the Tour de France or that someone that is 60 would at least have a chance.

To each his own and if you want to ride a super-light CF bike that's fine. And if you're crippled from it coming apart don't look for any sympathy here.

Is Tom showing nothing more than his fear of carbon fiber? ;-)

If I were Tom, I wouldn't buy CF either -- or at least not Colnagos. Crashing sucks more the older you get. Today is the one-year anniversary of getting a plate in my hand after cartwheeling over my son, who got scratches. I still have a numb spot on my quad from a blood clot in my back muscles (and nerve compression) following that incident. My CF bike, however, came out without significant injury -- until the roof-rack incident, and even then it didn't visibly break. I had it looked at by Ruckus who found internal problems and gave me a big repair quote -- so it went into the sh** heap. Actually it went to Western Bikeworks and back to Cannondale as part of its crash replacement program (20% off a new bike).

CF can be really tough, but purely from a PTSD standpoint, I'd switch materials if I were Tom.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/10/2017 3:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:13:39 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/10/2017 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 5:25:31 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:

That's what I thought you meant. The world according to slow johnny.

What is that supposed to mean? Frank is showing nothing more than his fear of guns. He tells us that even though more people were killed with one single truck than in Las Vegas that ~"cars are useful and guns are not".

Now you appear to be saying that you could win the Tour de France or that someone that is 60 would at least have a chance.

To each his own and if you want to ride a super-light CF bike that's fine. And if you're crippled from it coming apart don't look for any sympathy here.

Is Tom showing nothing more than his fear of carbon fiber? ;-)

If I were Tom, I wouldn't buy CF either -- or at least not Colnagos. Crashing sucks more the older you get. Today is the one-year anniversary of getting a plate in my hand after cartwheeling over my son, who got scratches. I still have a numb spot on my quad from a blood clot in my back muscles (and nerve compression) following that incident. My CF bike, however, came out without significant injury -- until the roof-rack incident, and even then it didn't visibly break. I had it looked at by Ruckus who found internal problems and gave me a big repair quote -- so it went into the sh** heap. Actually it went to Western Bikeworks and back to Cannondale as part of its crash replacement program (20% off a new bike).

CF can be really tough, but purely from a PTSD standpoint, I'd switch materials if I were Tom.


John's comment has nothing to do with the sturdiness of CF. He seems to
be calling people my age posers or something for riding racing bikes and
his justification is only that they can't win the ultimate bike race in
the world. I do performance cycling and I still race some though not a
lot anymore.

John's comment is both dumb and insulting.

Tom's comment is Tom's. I have no idea what his point is.

On 2017-10-07 07:37, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 7:53:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 15:08:00 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-05 20:22, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 07:34:14 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-04 19:03, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 07:41:03 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-03 17:53, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 16:33:40 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-03 12:34, jbeattie wrote:

[...]



There are other options. We could have invested
the SS trust in the market like Norway -- it now
has $1T in its sovereign wealth fund (from oil).
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01...n_4576887.html


But Norway is socialist and bad. Bad Norway, bad! You're too rich!


They are an oil-rich nation which makes it easy to
amass wealth. Just like Venezuela is except they
didn't squander it through wanton socialism.

"wanton socialism"? Aren't you one of those that ague
that the "government" should spend millions of dollars
to build bicycle paths for a tiny percentage of the
population?


IMO the best would be if we could build our own, like in
Utah and other places. And yes, when roads for cars are
built one should rightfully expect that cyclists are also
served. If no road is built then no bike path needs to be
built. Everyone who rides MTB a lot knows this.

What "we"? The citizens of California? Or the bicycleing
community?


We the people. It doesn't matter which state or country. The
problem of a lack of cycling infractructure or bad "solution"
is almost universal, maybe with the exception of the
Netherlands and Denmark.


As for building roads to incorporate service for cyclists?
You mean because of the road tax that all the bicyclists
pay?


They also pay taxes, not just because most also own cars but
because they have income. However, that is not the point. If
a road or other infrastructure is built and prevents safe
cycling or walking the builder
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of such infrastructure has an obligation to make sure nobody
is being cut off by it.

Of course it is the point. California has a gas tax which pays
most of their road costs. In fact wasn't there a recent
increase, or plan to increase, the tax to pay for the crappy
roads in the state?

Do bicycles pay a gas tax?

Or to put it another way, if California levied a tax on
bicycles to pay their share of the public road uses would you
be the first to complain?


Read again what I wrote. I underlined the salient point. Do you
really not understand it or just pretend you don't?

Yes I understood it and wonder about your perception.

After all there are about 50,000 miles of interstate highways in
the U.S. which were apparently built with no thought to bicycles
and pedestrians.


That is fine. If it cuts off an existing bike or foot path that is not
fine and the builders should be obliged to provide an under- or
overpass. If it turns a formerly "all vehicles ok" road into a "motor
vehicles only" road they must build MUPs or similar. _Not_ on the
cyclist's dime.


The Germans, of course, were the first, I believe, with about
8,000 miles today. I've never been to Germany but from photos it
appears that bicyclists and pedestrians aren't welcome.
http://tinyurl.com/yaaype3g


Not very. It's not the Netherlands or Denmark.


Joerg has a valid complaint. There are long distances in this country
where the only practical route is along Interstates upon which
bicycles and pedestrians aren't allowed because there are no proper
facilities for them.


Or they do it on the cheap by simply plopping down a sign and it is a
white-knuckle ride:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/2...ream/lightbox/


I used to ride across the Golden Gate Bridge and along where the
freeway is now and turn off and ride down a rather steep hill into
Sausalito that bypassed several of the rather dangerous areas that
bicycles are forced to use presently.

As I explained - slightly more than half of the gas taxes are robbed
by the Legislature for their own ideas even though the highway
commission says that if they obtained 100% of the gas taxes it would
still be insufficient for proper road maintenance.


What is flat wrong is when they build car-only infrastructure and in the
wake of it cut off cyclists and pedestrians. Regardless of who pays, if
that's not in the budget the whole project should be canned until it is.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-10-08 08:17, wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 7:38:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-06 16:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/6/2017 6:11 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-05 19:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/5/2017 8:32 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 5:19:06 PM UTC-7, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 10/5/2017 7:46 PM, Joerg wrote:

CA Highway Patrol would also and give you a ticket,

I haven't ridden in California for a while. I don't
recall ever riding a road with a bike lane there, but I
rode narrow roads without bike lanes. And I rode where I
normally would - that is, if the lane was narrow, I was
close to the middle of it. No tickets. (I've never gotten
a ticket on a bike.)

Well since you haven't ridden in California "in awhile"
perhaps you shouldn't be so strident in your idiotic
claims. In California you are required to use a bike lane
unless for some reason it is impracticable.

Perhaps we'd better review, since you've already forgotten
important parts of the thread.

I avoided a bike lane yesterday because of debris. Joerg
claimed doing that would get me a ticket in California.

But California specifically lists avoiding debris as legal
justification for leaving a bike lane. I quoted the law.

Which part of that don't you understand?


What you don't understand is this: The debris is only as
inconveniencing as the cop says it is, _not_ as the cyclist
sees fit. Yeah, you can go to court and the judge will side
with the cop.

OK, how often has this happened to you? To anyone you know? To
anyone you've heard about?


Several times, In Germany and in the US. And no, Jay, I am not
moving goal posts here. Those riders had mentioned to the cop that
there was too much broken glass in the bike lane. No matter, they
got a ticket. Not a very expensive one but a ticket is a ticket.

It is no problem to go around an obstacle like a bush that
invades, caerfully. It is a problem to ride in the lane for miles
because the bike lane is perceived too dirty.


Yes, some cops are ignorant of bike law. I think I mentioned here
that a couple of years ago, a young engineer (who had taken
classes from me) riding to work was told by a city cop to ride
facing traffic. We took our complaints up the channels, and the
cop - a known jerk - was corrected (and retired soon after). The
rest of the city cops got an education just by hearing about
this. (He was not the kind of guy anyone would want to emulate.)


The problem is, the jerk typically wins in court and we all know
why. BT.


A few weeks ago, a couple of brothers who ride to work together
at 6 AM were told by a township cop that it was mandatory to ride
single file. I was contacted and asked to provide the section of
Ohio Revised Code that proved the cop was wrong. The brothers
were going to write a letter to the police chief. I expect that's
been done by now, and I doubt they'll have any more trouble.

Two friends riding their tandem about 10 years ago were told by
a passing cop "Ride on the sidewalk!" The tandem captain
immediately yelled "NO!" There were no repercussions.


That was obviously a stupid cop. Yes, there are some and one
always wonders how they ever passed academy.


I know these tactics don't work 100% of the time, but in my
experience, they usually do. Which brings us back to my
questions: how often have you been ticketed for leaving a
debris-filled bike lane? How often has anyone you know? Anyone
you've heard about?


About half a dozen for others, none for me. Because in contrast to
others I make su...

Joerg - No cop can go into a court and say that YOUR judgement of
whether it was safe or not to ride in a bike lane and be successful.
It is YOUR judgement and not his that counts.

So that means you would have to make the effort to take it to court.


I went to court a few times. The cop is always right there. If he says
you went 50mph in reverse gear then that's what you'll get convicted for.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:36:54 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 10/10/2017 3:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:13:39 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/10/2017 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 5:25:31 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:

That's what I thought you meant. The world according to slow johnny.

What is that supposed to mean? Frank is showing nothing more than his fear of guns. He tells us that even though more people were killed with one single truck than in Las Vegas that ~"cars are useful and guns are not".

Now you appear to be saying that you could win the Tour de France or that someone that is 60 would at least have a chance.

To each his own and if you want to ride a super-light CF bike that's fine. And if you're crippled from it coming apart don't look for any sympathy here.

Is Tom showing nothing more than his fear of carbon fiber? ;-)

If I were Tom, I wouldn't buy CF either -- or at least not Colnagos. Crashing sucks more the older you get. Today is the one-year anniversary of getting a plate in my hand after cartwheeling over my son, who got scratches. I still have a numb spot on my quad from a blood clot in my back muscles (and nerve compression) following that incident. My CF bike, however, came out without significant injury -- until the roof-rack incident, and even then it didn't visibly break. I had it looked at by Ruckus who found internal problems and gave me a big repair quote -- so it went into the sh** heap. Actually it went to Western Bikeworks and back to Cannondale as part of its crash replacement program (20% off a new bike).

CF can be really tough, but purely from a PTSD standpoint, I'd switch materials if I were Tom.


John's comment has nothing to do with the sturdiness of CF. He seems to
be calling people my age posers or something for riding racing bikes and
his justification is only that they can't win the ultimate bike race in
the world. I do performance cycling and I still race some though not a
lot anymore.

John's comment is both dumb and insulting.

Insulting? How so? Do you actually believe that you can win the TdeF?


Tom's comment is Tom's. I have no idea what his point is.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:53:11 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-07 07:37, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 7:53:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 15:08:00 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-05 20:22, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 07:34:14 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-04 19:03, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 07:41:03 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-03 17:53, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 16:33:40 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-03 12:34, jbeattie wrote:

[...]



There are other options. We could have invested
the SS trust in the market like Norway -- it now
has $1T in its sovereign wealth fund (from oil).
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01...n_4576887.html


But Norway is socialist and bad. Bad Norway, bad! You're too rich!


They are an oil-rich nation which makes it easy to
amass wealth. Just like Venezuela is except they
didn't squander it through wanton socialism.

"wanton socialism"? Aren't you one of those that ague
that the "government" should spend millions of dollars
to build bicycle paths for a tiny percentage of the
population?


IMO the best would be if we could build our own, like in
Utah and other places. And yes, when roads for cars are
built one should rightfully expect that cyclists are also
served. If no road is built then no bike path needs to be
built. Everyone who rides MTB a lot knows this.

What "we"? The citizens of California? Or the bicycleing
community?


We the people. It doesn't matter which state or country. The
problem of a lack of cycling infractructure or bad "solution"
is almost universal, maybe with the exception of the
Netherlands and Denmark.


As for building roads to incorporate service for cyclists?
You mean because of the road tax that all the bicyclists
pay?


They also pay taxes, not just because most also own cars but
because they have income. However, that is not the point. If
a road or other infrastructure is built and prevents safe
cycling or walking the builder
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of such infrastructure has an obligation to make sure nobody
is being cut off by it.

Of course it is the point. California has a gas tax which pays
most of their road costs. In fact wasn't there a recent
increase, or plan to increase, the tax to pay for the crappy
roads in the state?

Do bicycles pay a gas tax?

Or to put it another way, if California levied a tax on
bicycles to pay their share of the public road uses would you
be the first to complain?


Read again what I wrote. I underlined the salient point. Do you
really not understand it or just pretend you don't?

Yes I understood it and wonder about your perception.

After all there are about 50,000 miles of interstate highways in
the U.S. which were apparently built with no thought to bicycles
and pedestrians.


That is fine. If it cuts off an existing bike or foot path that is not
fine and the builders should be obliged to provide an under- or
overpass. If it turns a formerly "all vehicles ok" road into a "motor
vehicles only" road they must build MUPs or similar. _Not_ on the
cyclist's dime.

I can't say for the Autobahn but certainly I have been on a large
number of limited access or toll roads that had ignored completely any
MUP or other bicycle oriented access.

But you use the word "be obliged". Be obligated by who?

And yes, there is a rule called "eminent domain":
"The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so
that the state or those who act for it may use and even alienate and
destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in
which even private persons have a right over the property of others,
but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil
society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should
give way. But, when this is done, the state is bound to make good the
loss to those who lose their property."

But that appears to concern property that merits " extreme necessity"
label but given that you own two cars which you are free to use I
can't see how a bicycle path can meet that criteria.
After all, from own posts it is obvious that your use of a bicycle
isn't necessary.

--
Cheers,

John B.

John's comment is both dumb and insulting.

Insulting? How so? Do you actually believe that you can win the TdeF?


Tom's comment is Tom's. I have no idea what his point is.

Howard Johnson is RIGHT about Samuel Johnson being right about Gabby Johnson being right!

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 4:12:59 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:36:54 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 10/10/2017 3:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:13:39 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/10/2017 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 5:25:31 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:

That's what I thought you meant. The world according to slow johnny.

What is that supposed to mean? Frank is showing nothing more than his fear of guns. He tells us that even though more people were killed with one single truck than in Las Vegas that ~"cars are useful and guns are not".

Now you appear to be saying that you could win the Tour de France or that someone that is 60 would at least have a chance.

To each his own and if you want to ride a super-light CF bike that's fine. And if you're crippled from it coming apart don't look for any sympathy here.

Is Tom showing nothing more than his fear of carbon fiber? ;-)

If I were Tom, I wouldn't buy CF either -- or at least not Colnagos. Crashing sucks more the older you get. Today is the one-year anniversary of getting a plate in my hand after cartwheeling over my son, who got scratches. I still have a numb spot on my quad from a blood clot in my back muscles (and nerve compression) following that incident. My CF bike, however, came out without significant injury -- until the roof-rack incident, and even then it didn't visibly break. I had it looked at by Ruckus who found internal problems and gave me a big repair quote -- so it went into the sh** heap. Actually it went to Western Bikeworks and back to Cannondale as part of its crash replacement program (20% off a new bike).

CF can be really tough, but purely from a PTSD standpoint, I'd switch materials if I were Tom.


John's comment has nothing to do with the sturdiness of CF. He seems to
be calling people my age posers or something for riding racing bikes and
his justification is only that they can't win the ultimate bike race in
the world. I do performance cycling and I still race some though not a
lot anymore.

John's comment is both dumb and insulting.

Insulting? How so? Do you actually believe that you can win the TdeF?

No, but I may go back to racing, apart from the ad hoc racing that occurs every weekend -- and on some work days. Being capable of winning the TdF has never been a requirement for owning a racing bike. If it were, Cat 5 races would be run on three-speed, balloon tire bikes.

You should go see what amateurs are riding, including old men who are still competing. In fact, masters racers are some of the most competitive packs. The masters are so competitive that doping has become a problem in some cities -- in Salt Lake, believe it or not. Those old guys are animals with speeds up the canyons that would blow your socks off, probably drug assisted. I need to get some drugs!

I was at one of my son's races in Salt Lake and was staggered by the bikes the old guys were riding. Cost is no object, which is good -- it keeps the shops in business. Do you think the broke Bohemians are buying S-Work Tarmacs?

I was also amazed that even the gooniors and Cat 1/2/3s were riding bikes with 28t cassettes. Spin is in. Most everyone was on CF, although there were a few Ti frames. All of the bikes were Tour worthy. None of the riders were Tour worthy, except Francisco Mancebo -- the man with the backward resume who is now riding for a pro-am team in Salt Lake. It's so sad.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/2/2017 4:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 3:40:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:32:24 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-01 08:19, jbeattie wrote:

Hardly gradual -- it's all 6-20%. Quick way up has a maximum grade of
31%. The near or in-town climbs are all short, though -- less than
3-4 miles. I personally don't like the long open ascending rollers in
your part of the world. There is something soul-sucking about looking
at a long, open pitch. I feel the same way on Mt. Bachelor.
http://cdn.velonews.com/wp-content/u...e3_714-089.jpg
I prefer further up the road on the Sierra passes where you have
shorter sight-lines and more of an alpine feel.


31% is steep. I have no way of telling the grade here because Internet
maps don't have that information. Yesterday I rode along here, doesn't
looks steep but it is and on longer stretched I was hoping the brakes
won't fail:

There is no one riding up 31% grades. 26% is the limit for most people but the very strongest of mountain goats. 31% is steeper than most staircases.

http://www.7x7.com/the-real-top-10-l...786501295.html In your hood. Jobst did those in a 49/21 or something ridiculous like that. He used to post about it.

The hill I'm talking about has a 31% grade for a split second and then it goes back to the 20%s. http://wikimapia.org/5939629/The-Ste...et-In-Portland This video says Brynwood is the steepest in PDX, but it's not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9yNFGK_gGU&t=10s They're all short in the West Hills. The world is filled with novelty climbs, except for Florida. Portland (Oregon City) has the steepest platted road in the world! 90%! http://offbeatoregon.com/H1010b_oreg...st-street.html I just take the elevator.http://assets.atlasobscura.com/artic...9845/image.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.


Fargo Street in Los Angeles (across from Dodger Stadium). The Los
Angeles Wheelmen have an annual "contest" consisting mostly of "can you
do it." Advertised as 30%, and lots of people ride up it.

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargo-street-2017/

The wife and I got the tandem up it in the 80s (through the agressive
use of paperboy-ing technique and near track stands to rest). They have
volunteer spotters to make sure people don't fall sideways/downslope
while paperboying.

Mark J.