Thinking Outside The Box

On 3/6/2012 5:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Or, what happens when some kid in a hotrod decides to blow a stop light
with you (or a child pedestrian) legally in the intersection on a green?

That can happen regardless of whether a cyclist is allowed to proceed
through a red light after yielding to any cross traffic.

The intersections where it's legal for cyclists to proceed through the
red light are clearly marked, and it's clear that the same privilege is
not accorded to motorists.

The same sorts of arguments were made against right turn on red for
vehicles. It's widely abused, with few motorists actually coming to a
complete stop before turning right, but it's worked out okay despite that.

Per Phil W Lee:
And those that time the lights to ensure that people who exceed the
speed limit will always have to stop.

Running route 30 through Paoli, it's the opposite.

Run at the 25 mph speed limit (or even 30/35) and you'll usually
hit 4 out of six lights even though you cleared the first one
green on-the-fly.

OTOH, kick it up to 45-60 depending... and you can make every
light.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 3/6/2012 5:46 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

The problems, as I see it, is that the bicycle advocates imply that
the choices are (1) bicycle, or (2) be unhealthy, when reality is
somewhat different.

Only "somewhat" different? The implication is completely bogus. Reality
bears no relation to that oft-stated implication.

You see the same garbage trotted out in the periodic helmet wars. First
you see the bogus claim that requiring helmets will result in massive
numbers of cyclists giving up riding (even though there has _never_ been
any evidence that shows this to be the case and in fact cycling rates
continue to go up even in places where helmets are mandated), then you
see the accompanying bogus conclusion that this non-existent drop in
cycling will cause a rise in obesity, heart disease, etc., as if those
non-existent people that gave up cycling would suddenly decide that the
only alternative to cycling was a life of television and junk food.

The key thing to realize is the people that make these statements (and
PLEASE don't call them bicycle advocates because they're not) don't
actually believe the stuff they write. If you went out drinking with
them, after a few beers they'd admit that they do what they do just to
annoy people. This is why trying to explain things to them using facts,
logic, and science is futile, they are so invested in junk science and
faulty logic that they have lost the ability to have an intelligent
debate. You can't have a debate with someone who is willing to make up
the "facts."

Can you actually imagine anyone _not_ understanding that making yourself
conspicuous while cycling is a good idea, especially considering all the
studies on the effects of conspicuity on reducing collisions? To adopt
that position requires ignoring a large body of scientific evidence.

Can you actually imagine anyone _not_ understanding that in the unlikely
event that someone deemed cycling to be too dangerous of an activity
that they would likely replace it with an activity that had similar
benefits but that they deemed to be safer?

There is some validity to the idea that some people will drive short
distances where bicycling would be a practical alternative. What are the
causes of this and what can be done to change this behavior? The issue
of perceived safety is one factor, but not the only one. The question to
ask is "what initiatives can the cyclist take to minimize the safety
risks of cycling?" It's not "well the legal responsibility to not hit a
cyclist is that of the vehicle driver."

On Mar 7, 9:25*am, "Bertrand"
wrote:
As running seems to use about 3 times more energy
(calories) per time then bicycling it appears that the
runners get the more strenuous workout.

That factor of three sounds way off, except for easy cycling. Where did
that number come from?
Three is about right.
Running is 110 calories per mile
Cycling:
10mph is 26 calories per mile
15mph is 31 calories per mile
20mph is 38 calories per mile
25mph is 47 calories per mile
30mph is 59 calories per mile
This is according to fitness expert Dr. Edward Coyle of The University of
Texas in Austin.

I agree with the rough factor of three per unit distance, but not per unit
time as in the original claim. *An hour of hard running and an hour of hard
cycling probably burn about the same.

Here are some more links where you can probably select figures to
support whatever "truth" you choose.
http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedrunning.htm
http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedcycling.htm

DR

On 3/6/2012 5:22 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:08 pm, Frank wrote:

To me, a bigger question is, how do people who claim to love cycling
justify mocking any claim that cycling is NOT dangerous?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Pretty easy. They value truth and accuracy over blind faith and
zealotry.

Maybe it's just the gardening comparison and nothing to do with cycling.

On 3/7/2012 9:06 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:25 am, m
wrote:
As running seems to use about 3 times more energy
(calories) per time then bicycling it appears that the
runners get the more strenuous workout.

That factor of three sounds way off, except for easy cycling. Where did
that number come from?
Three is about right.
Running is 110 calories per mile
Cycling:
10mph is 26 calories per mile
15mph is 31 calories per mile
20mph is 38 calories per mile
25mph is 47 calories per mile
30mph is 59 calories per mile
This is according to fitness expert Dr. Edward Coyle of The University of
Texas in Austin.

I agree with the rough factor of three per unit distance, but not per unit
time as in the original claim. An hour of hard running and an hour of hard
cycling probably burn about the same.

Here are some more links where you can probably select figures to
support whatever "truth" you choose.
http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedrunning.htm
http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedcycling.htm

What that shows is pretty close to what Coyle's study stated, the rate
of speed while running is immaterial to the number of calories burned.
An 130 pound person running for a mile burns about 94 calories
regardless of the speed. A 130 lb cyclist riding a mile at 10MPH burns
about 35 calories, and at 15MPH about 39 calories.

So the factor of three is still pretty close, 2.4-2.7 in this case,
depending on the speed.

On 3/7/2012 10:48 AM, sms88 wrote:
On 3/7/2012 4:07 AM, Bertrand wrote:
As running seems to use about 3 times more energy
(calories) per time then bicycling it appears that the
runners get the more strenuous workout.

That factor of three sounds way off, except for easy cycling. Where did
that number come from?

Three is about right.

Running is 110 calories per mile
Cycling:
10mph is 26 calories per mile
15mph is 31 calories per mile
20mph is 38 calories per mile
25mph is 47 calories per mile
30mph is 59 calories per mile

This is according to fitness expert Dr. Edward Coyle of The University
of Texas in Austin.


Sure but how much time can you spend running verses cycling? For me, my
time is about the same but I can ride a lot farther than I can run and a
lot faster.

I haven't done any serious survey but talking to my friends that cross
train, they seem to think it's about equivalent when taking time spent
into account instead of distance.

Cycling is much easier on the knees in my opinion.

On 3/7/2012 12:20 PM, SMS wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:06 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:25 am, m
wrote:
As running seems to use about 3 times more energy
(calories) per time then bicycling it appears that the
runners get the more strenuous workout.

That factor of three sounds way off, except for easy cycling. Where
did
that number come from?
Three is about right.
Running is 110 calories per mile
Cycling:
10mph is 26 calories per mile
15mph is 31 calories per mile
20mph is 38 calories per mile
25mph is 47 calories per mile
30mph is 59 calories per mile
This is according to fitness expert Dr. Edward Coyle of The
University of
Texas in Austin.

I agree with the rough factor of three per unit distance, but not per
unit
time as in the original claim. An hour of hard running and an hour of
hard
cycling probably burn about the same.

Here are some more links where you can probably select figures to
support whatever "truth" you choose.
http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedrunning.htm
http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedcycling.htm

What that shows is pretty close to what Coyle's study stated, the rate
of speed while running is immaterial to the number of calories burned.
An 130 pound person running for a mile burns about 94 calories
regardless of the speed. A 130 lb cyclist riding a mile at 10MPH burns
about 35 calories, and at 15MPH about 39 calories.

So the factor of three is still pretty close, 2.4-2.7 in this case,
depending on the speed.

There are two many conditions to take account of though. Hills, wind -
whatever. I think that you can get as much of a workout riding an hour
as running an hour, depending on where you go.

http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedcycling.htm

I like that anything over 16 mph is considered "very fast, racing".

On Mar 6, 7:11*pm, SMS wrote:

The key for riding in broad daylight and having motorists properly yield
is to employ the cyclist's version of DRLs (daytime running lights).
It's incredible how visible cyclists are in the daytime when they use a
front strobe.

It's incredible how frequently motorists slam into cop cars on
interstate shoulders with strobes and every other light flashing, day
or night, and collide with trains.

One of the first things they teach in advanced driving is that the
vast majority of motorists are distracted by their internal
monologues. Motoring seems insufficiently hazardous to command full
attention most of the time.

An estimated 220M licensed motorists have 6M police-reported crashes
per year.
-----

- gpsman