Why do some forks and frames have brake rotor size limits?

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:29:41 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/30/2017 10:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:52:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/30/2017 10:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:25:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You rarely have to worry someone is actually going to run you over. After all if might get blood on their car that they'd have to wash off. But the continuous threats are tiring. When I get back from a long city ride - say my home down to Palo Alto along Hesperian then back again - some 50 miles - I will be threatened at least two dozen times with cars trying to nudge me off the road. Even with open lanes they could easily pass in. Another thing is that you will be riding along and a car will come up behind you fast, swerve around you and turn directly into a driveway that causes you to slam on the brakes. Usually a store or something.

I can only say that the U.S. must be different. I've ridden in Japan,
Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand and have never, repeat
NEVER, had anyone threaten me, either by word or action. I also rode
in New Hampshire and Southern California, but that was a long time ago
and I can't be sure but I certainly don't remember any acts that were
threatening.

I can only say that other parts of the U.S. must be different, because
what Tom describes almost never happens to me. Although my "other parts
of the U.S." statement needs some modification, since I've ridden all
the way across it, and ridden at least a little in 47 states so far.

The last irritating incident that happened to me was three weeks ago, on
a 50+ mile ride. Ohio has a new law requiring three feet passing
clearance. One car passed closer than that when there was plenty of room
to go around. But as someone said, I probably shouldn't attribute to
malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

If the police were to ticket these people the state would never again have to raise taxes. And it would have the side effect of increasing road safety. But the drivers would not stand for it.

Locally one of the people who was caught by a red light camera wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. He was outraged that they were using cameras to record miscreants. There were a dozen follow-ups by others agreeing with him and not ONE comment to the contrary.

In our area, the camera issue was speeding, not red lights. Yes, there
were online complaints about the fact that the cops were giving tickets
for being 13 mph over the 50 mph limit on the city-center freeway. But
here, to counter the over-privileged bitching, there were several
individuals posting "Don't be stupid, just drive slower." I was one of
those. I mentioned that the time saved by speeding had to be less than
three minutes.

In W. Australia, and probably the rest of the country, they had "speed
Cameras" which were mounted on portable tripods along roads ranging
from city streets to "way out in the country". I was told by my mate,
who's daughter was employed by the Perth Police in a clerical
position, that these cameras communicated with the police in some
manner and transmitted data on speeding cars which the police computer
turned into a speeding ticket which was mailed to your house.

The attitude seemed to be "stay under the speed limit" rather then
"I'm being persecuted".

But the U.S. attitude, which admittedly I only see posted in Internet
articles, about some sort of leeway on obeying laws seems odd. If it
is O.K. to drive 15 mph over the posted limit then why a lower posted
limit. Why not simply a posted 65 mph limit?

One wonders, is it O.K. to steal if it is only a little? Or even
commit murder... in a small way?



In the Land of the At One Time Free and the Now Not So
Brave, we select the best citizens for public office:

https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/m...eeding-ticket/

Exemplary.

It must wonderful to know that your elected representatives are calm,
controlled, logical, and rational, individuals :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/31/2017 8:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:24:04 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:52:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/30/2017 10:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:25:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You rarely have to worry someone is actually going to run you
over. After all if might get blood on their car that they'd have
to wash off. But the continuous threats are tiring. When I get
back from a long city ride - say my home down to Palo Alto along
Hesperian then back again - some 50 miles - I will be threatened
at least two dozen times with cars trying to nudge me off the
road. Even with open lanes they could easily pass in. Another
thing is that you will be riding along and a car will come up
behind you fast, swerve around you and turn directly into a
driveway that causes you to slam on the brakes. Usually a store or
something.

I can only say that the U.S. must be different. I've ridden in Japan,
Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand and have never, repeat
NEVER, had anyone threaten me, either by word or action. I also rode
in New Hampshire and Southern California, but that was a long time ago
and I can't be sure but I certainly don't remember any acts that were
threatening.

I can only say that other parts of the U.S. must be different, because
what Tom describes almost never happens to me. Although my "other parts
of the U.S." statement needs some modification, since I've ridden all
the way across it, and ridden at least a little in 47 states so far.

The last irritating incident that happened to me was three weeks ago, on
a 50+ mile ride. Ohio has a new law requiring three feet passing
clearance. One car passed closer than that when there was plenty of room
to go around. But as someone said, I probably shouldn't attribute to
malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

If the police were to ticket these people the state would never
again have to raise taxes. And it would have the side effect of
increasing road safety. But the drivers would not stand for it.

Locally one of the people who was caught by a red light camera
wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. He was outraged
that they were using cameras to record miscreants. There were a
dozen follow-ups by others agreeing with him and not ONE comment
to the contrary.

In our area, the camera issue was speeding, not red lights. Yes, there
were online complaints about the fact that the cops were giving tickets
for being 13 mph over the 50 mph limit on the city-center freeway. But
here, to counter the over-privileged bitching, there were several
individuals posting "Don't be stupid, just drive slower." I was one of
those. I mentioned that the time saved by speeding had to be less than
three minutes.

In W. Australia, and probably the rest of the country, they had "speed
Cameras" which were mounted on portable tripods along roads ranging
from city streets to "way out in the country". I was told by my mate,
who's daughter was employed by the Perth Police in a clerical
position, that these cameras communicated with the police in some
manner and transmitted data on speeding cars which the police computer
turned into a speeding ticket which was mailed to your house.

The attitude seemed to be "stay under the speed limit" rather then
"I'm being persecuted".

But the U.S. attitude, which admittedly I only see posted in Internet
articles, about some sort of leeway on obeying laws seems odd. If it
is O.K. to drive 15 mph over the posted limit then why a lower posted
limit. Why not simply a posted 65 mph limit?

The federalization of speed limits had something to do with this
attitude. Back in the 70s the federal government mandated a nationwide
55 mph speed limit that had little support from state or local
governments. I recall an "unofficial" speed limit where I lived of
about 70 mph -- if you didn't drive faster than that on the highway you
hardly ever got a ticket, even if the state police were right behind
you.

If I remember correctly the 55 mph limit was an effort to counteract
the 1973 oil crises and was initially hoped to decrease gasoline use
by as much as 2.2% while it actually had a far lesser effect. Between
1/2 and 1%.

The Federal 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which was
signed into law on 2 Jan 1974, was repealed in 1995 and speed control
has been a state responsibility since then.

It might also be noted that a survey by the Associated Press found
that, as of Wednesday, January 2, 1974, only 12, of the 50 states had
State speed limits as high as 55 mph. 9 states had 50 mph speed limits
and 29 states had a limit of less then 50 mph.

In fact as the legislation required 55 mph speed limits on all
four-lane divided highways. In some cases, like the New York Thruway,
the 50 mph speed limit had to be raised to comply with the law.
--
Cheers,

John B.


In the 1970s, Montana and Nevada charged a $5 'energy
violation' for travel over 55 mph and even those were rarely
imposed.

One nice thing about 55mph was that the greater bulk of the
nation simply ignored it. Once repealed, and with slightly
higher limits, infractions are charged and convictions
routinely ruled to a greater extent, at greater cost, to
more people.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:23:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/31/2017 6:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/31/2017 4:36 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 8:27:04 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/31/2017 10:29 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/30/2017 10:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:52:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/30/2017 10:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:25:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You rarely have to worry someone is actually going to run you over.
After all if might get blood on their car that they'd have to wash
off. But the continuous threats are tiring. When I get back from a
long city ride - say my home down to Palo Alto along Hesperian then
back again - some 50 miles - I will be threatened at least two
dozen times with cars trying to nudge me off the road. Even with
open lanes they could easily pass in. Another thing is that you
will be riding along and a car will come up behind you fast, swerve
around you and turn directly into a driveway that causes you to
slam on the brakes. Usually a store or something.

I can only say that the U.S. must be different. I've ridden in
Japan,
Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand and have never, repeat
NEVER, had anyone threaten me, either by word or action. I also rode
in New Hampshire and Southern California, but that was a long
time ago
and I can't be sure but I certainly don't remember any acts that
were
threatening.

I can only say that other parts of the U.S. must be different,
because
what Tom describes almost never happens to me. Although my "other
parts
of the U.S." statement needs some modification, since I've ridden all
the way across it, and ridden at least a little in 47 states so far.

The last irritating incident that happened to me was three weeks
ago, on
a 50+ mile ride. Ohio has a new law requiring three feet passing
clearance. One car passed closer than that when there was plenty
of room
to go around. But as someone said, I probably shouldn't attribute to
malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

If the police were to ticket these people the state would never
again have to raise taxes. And it would have the side effect of
increasing road safety. But the drivers would not stand for it.

Locally one of the people who was caught by a red light camera
wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. He was outraged
that they were using cameras to record miscreants. There were a
dozen follow-ups by others agreeing with him and not ONE comment to
the contrary.

In our area, the camera issue was speeding, not red lights. Yes,
there
were online complaints about the fact that the cops were giving
tickets
for being 13 mph over the 50 mph limit on the city-center freeway.
But
here, to counter the over-privileged bitching, there were several
individuals posting "Don't be stupid, just drive slower." I was
one of
those. I mentioned that the time saved by speeding had to be less
than
three minutes.

In W. Australia, and probably the rest of the country, they had "speed
Cameras" which were mounted on portable tripods along roads ranging
from city streets to "way out in the country". I was told by my mate,
who's daughter was employed by the Perth Police in a clerical
position, that these cameras communicated with the police in some
manner and transmitted data on speeding cars which the police computer
turned into a speeding ticket which was mailed to your house.

The attitude seemed to be "stay under the speed limit" rather then
"I'm being persecuted".

But the U.S. attitude, which admittedly I only see posted in Internet
articles, about some sort of leeway on obeying laws seems odd. If it
is O.K. to drive 15 mph over the posted limit then why a lower posted
limit. Why not simply a posted 65 mph limit?

One wonders, is it O.K. to steal if it is only a little?Â* Or even
commit murder... in a small way?



In the Land of the At One Time Free and the Now Not So Brave, we select
the best citizens for public office:

https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/m...eeding-ticket/



Exemplary.

Funny thing - around here, it was a Republican rather than a Democrat,
and it was for drunk driving instead of speeding. No video, though,
AFAIK.


--
- Frank Krygowski

We now have had two club members struck by cars and had video
recorders on and turned this over to the police who say they can do
nothing. That's liberal California for you. But Frank tells us that 20
year olds speeding around are Republicans.


Speaking as a generally hard-boiled and cynical cyclist, I am absolutely
amazed at the vicious comments people post to local news sites after a
cyclist crash or death. Hating cyclists, texting whilst driving (drunk
or doped up notwithstanding) and generally flaunting bad behavior seems
to cut across party lines.

I'm sure there are differences, and some demographer could coax them
out, but overall as a nation we just suck at being human.

You could argue it's worse, much worse, elsewhere (or better. whatever),
but we are not who we were either.

I recently read up on "rolling coal" - that is, using modifications of a
pickup truck's diesel engine to purposely shoot dense black clouds of
unburned diesel fuel out the exhaust. I'd seen it done many times, but
had it done to me (and the folks I was riding with) only once.

The comments in the articles were disheartening. I didn't realize that
most of the people "rolling coal" are intent specifically on abusing
people who choose not to pollute. The comments bragged about taunting
Prius drivers, economy car drivers and bicyclists.

One source said there are no laws against this practice in other
countries, since they're not needed. Nobody else does it; it's just
American jerks.

Yes, we are not who we were.

Generally any diesel will smoke, to some extent, under some operating
conditions so I'd guess that no engine modifications would be
necessary.

But more to the point, why in the world would anyone be worried about
whether someone else was emitting more or less contaminates?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:18:04 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On the other hand is the alternate is a 1,000 ft drop off the side of
the mountain it has a sort of comforting sound :-)

Not to worry. NASA is working on a solution:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/ed15-0373-32.jpg

"Jake brake contest 2014 (Full)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHTrEwRk0MU

The winner delivered about 130dB SPL which is what a jet taking off
produces at 100 meters:
http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~bsapplec/Fire/SPL01.jpg
http://elephanttech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/decibel-levels-erar-plugs.jpg

Don't get too carried away with those decibel charts. The sound of a
jet engine at full throttle is very noticeably different depending on
where you are standing. In an engine test cell where you can walk
around the running engine standing a distance in front of the engine
results in very much lower sound levels then standing the same
distance behind the engine.

Yep. The noise is somewhat proportional to the change in air
velocity. The exhaust velocity is much higher than the intake.
I have no idea which end of the engine the 133 dB SPL refers to.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 10:17:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:23:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I recently read up on "rolling coal" - that is, using modifications of a
pickup truck's diesel engine to purposely shoot dense black clouds of
unburned diesel fuel out the exhaust. I'd seen it done many times, but
had it done to me (and the folks I was riding with) only once.

The comments in the articles were disheartening. I didn't realize that
most of the people "rolling coal" are intent specifically on abusing
people who choose not to pollute. The comments bragged about taunting
Prius drivers, economy car drivers and bicyclists.

One source said there are no laws against this practice in other
countries, since they're not needed. Nobody else does it; it's just
American jerks.

Yes, we are not who we were.

Generally any diesel will smoke, to some extent, under some operating
conditions so I'd guess that no engine modifications would be
necessary.

This is an order of magnitude worse than "to some extent." For example, see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYPMbLO4pAY

But more to the point, why in the world would anyone be worried about
whether someone else was emitting more or less contaminates?

You'd worry about the "more contaminants" if you were being forced to breathe
it.

Why would these jerks care if someone emits less? I think they think that
pollution is patriotic. If you can call that thinking.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 10:17:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:23:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I recently read up on "rolling coal" - that is, using modifications of a
pickup truck's diesel engine to purposely shoot dense black clouds of
unburned diesel fuel out the exhaust. I'd seen it done many times, but
had it done to me (and the folks I was riding with) only once.

The comments in the articles were disheartening. I didn't realize that
most of the people "rolling coal" are intent specifically on abusing
people who choose not to pollute. The comments bragged about taunting
Prius drivers, economy car drivers and bicyclists.

One source said there are no laws against this practice in other
countries, since they're not needed. Nobody else does it; it's just
American jerks.

Yes, we are not who we were.

Generally any diesel will smoke, to some extent, under some operating
conditions so I'd guess that no engine modifications would be
necessary.

This is an order of magnitude worse than "to some extent." For example, see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYPMbLO4pAY

It appears to be the usual diesel smoking on acceleration that all
diesel engines do to some extent. It does seem excessive as it is
right in your face but we have basically the same thing on some of our
older buses.


But more to the point, why in the world would anyone be worried about
whether someone else was emitting more or less contaminates?

You'd worry about the "more contaminants" if you were being forced to breathe
it.

Gee here is was trying to be politically correct and cover all options
and you complain.

Why would these jerks care if someone emits less? I think they think that
pollution is patriotic. If you can call that thinking.

- Frank Krygowski

Yes they are "jerks" but I suggest that if there is any thought taking
place it is probably "Hey! Look! Look! Everyone! Look at ME!"

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 21:11:18 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/31/2017 8:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:24:04 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:52:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/30/2017 10:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:25:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You rarely have to worry someone is actually going to run you
over. After all if might get blood on their car that they'd have
to wash off. But the continuous threats are tiring. When I get
back from a long city ride - say my home down to Palo Alto along
Hesperian then back again - some 50 miles - I will be threatened
at least two dozen times with cars trying to nudge me off the
road. Even with open lanes they could easily pass in. Another
thing is that you will be riding along and a car will come up
behind you fast, swerve around you and turn directly into a
driveway that causes you to slam on the brakes. Usually a store or
something.

I can only say that the U.S. must be different. I've ridden in Japan,
Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand and have never, repeat
NEVER, had anyone threaten me, either by word or action. I also rode
in New Hampshire and Southern California, but that was a long time ago
and I can't be sure but I certainly don't remember any acts that were
threatening.

I can only say that other parts of the U.S. must be different, because
what Tom describes almost never happens to me. Although my "other parts
of the U.S." statement needs some modification, since I've ridden all
the way across it, and ridden at least a little in 47 states so far.

The last irritating incident that happened to me was three weeks ago, on
a 50+ mile ride. Ohio has a new law requiring three feet passing
clearance. One car passed closer than that when there was plenty of room
to go around. But as someone said, I probably shouldn't attribute to
malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

If the police were to ticket these people the state would never
again have to raise taxes. And it would have the side effect of
increasing road safety. But the drivers would not stand for it.

Locally one of the people who was caught by a red light camera
wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. He was outraged
that they were using cameras to record miscreants. There were a
dozen follow-ups by others agreeing with him and not ONE comment
to the contrary.

In our area, the camera issue was speeding, not red lights. Yes, there
were online complaints about the fact that the cops were giving tickets
for being 13 mph over the 50 mph limit on the city-center freeway. But
here, to counter the over-privileged bitching, there were several
individuals posting "Don't be stupid, just drive slower." I was one of
those. I mentioned that the time saved by speeding had to be less than
three minutes.

In W. Australia, and probably the rest of the country, they had "speed
Cameras" which were mounted on portable tripods along roads ranging
from city streets to "way out in the country". I was told by my mate,
who's daughter was employed by the Perth Police in a clerical
position, that these cameras communicated with the police in some
manner and transmitted data on speeding cars which the police computer
turned into a speeding ticket which was mailed to your house.

The attitude seemed to be "stay under the speed limit" rather then
"I'm being persecuted".

But the U.S. attitude, which admittedly I only see posted in Internet
articles, about some sort of leeway on obeying laws seems odd. If it
is O.K. to drive 15 mph over the posted limit then why a lower posted
limit. Why not simply a posted 65 mph limit?

The federalization of speed limits had something to do with this
attitude. Back in the 70s the federal government mandated a nationwide
55 mph speed limit that had little support from state or local
governments. I recall an "unofficial" speed limit where I lived of
about 70 mph -- if you didn't drive faster than that on the highway you
hardly ever got a ticket, even if the state police were right behind
you.

If I remember correctly the 55 mph limit was an effort to counteract
the 1973 oil crises and was initially hoped to decrease gasoline use
by as much as 2.2% while it actually had a far lesser effect. Between
1/2 and 1%.

The Federal 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which was
signed into law on 2 Jan 1974, was repealed in 1995 and speed control
has been a state responsibility since then.

It might also be noted that a survey by the Associated Press found
that, as of Wednesday, January 2, 1974, only 12, of the 50 states had
State speed limits as high as 55 mph. 9 states had 50 mph speed limits
and 29 states had a limit of less then 50 mph.

In fact as the legislation required 55 mph speed limits on all
four-lane divided highways. In some cases, like the New York Thruway,
the 50 mph speed limit had to be raised to comply with the law.
--
Cheers,

John B.


In the 1970s, Montana and Nevada charged a $5 'energy
violation' for travel over 55 mph and even those were rarely
imposed.

One nice thing about 55mph was that the greater bulk of the
nation simply ignored it. Once repealed, and with slightly
higher limits, infractions are charged and convictions
routinely ruled to a greater extent, at greater cost, to
more people.

Before the 1970's I remember being stopped on the New York Thruway,
with the base pistol team, on the way to the National pistol matches.
We were stopped for going 5 mph over the 50 mph limit but when the cop
saw the uniforms hanging in the window he let us go... with a warning.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 11/1/2017 1:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 10:17:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:23:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I recently read up on "rolling coal" - that is, using modifications of a
pickup truck's diesel engine to purposely shoot dense black clouds of
unburned diesel fuel out the exhaust. I'd seen it done many times, but
had it done to me (and the folks I was riding with) only once.

The comments in the articles were disheartening. I didn't realize that
most of the people "rolling coal" are intent specifically on abusing
people who choose not to pollute. The comments bragged about taunting
Prius drivers, economy car drivers and bicyclists.

One source said there are no laws against this practice in other
countries, since they're not needed. Nobody else does it; it's just
American jerks.

Yes, we are not who we were.

Generally any diesel will smoke, to some extent, under some operating
conditions so I'd guess that no engine modifications would be
necessary.

This is an order of magnitude worse than "to some extent." For example, see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYPMbLO4pAY

It appears to be the usual diesel smoking on acceleration that all
diesel engines do to some extent. It does seem excessive as it is
right in your face but we have basically the same thing on some of our
older buses.


But more to the point, why in the world would anyone be worried about
whether someone else was emitting more or less contaminates?

You'd worry about the "more contaminants" if you were being forced to breathe
it.

Gee here is was trying to be politically correct and cover all options
and you complain.

Why would these jerks care if someone emits less? I think they think that
pollution is patriotic. If you can call that thinking.

- Frank Krygowski

Yes they are "jerks" but I suggest that if there is any thought taking
place it is probably "Hey! Look! Look! Everyone! Look at ME!"

--
Cheers,

John B.


Uh, it's an intentional modification:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF2zCXAQ3u0

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2017-10-31 07:43, wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 8:14:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/30/2017 6:53 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-29 17:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:


... let me repeat: I've had some motorists act displeased when
I've ridden at lane center. I've never had one run me over.
I've never known another cyclist who had that happen.

I knew two personally who have been hit from behind. They
survived but one lost a kidney and the other had a ruptured
spleen. Then there was the woman here who got rear-ended in the
right lane at high speed. Died. Numerous others down in the
valley, including an off-duty police officer who was catapulted
off his road bike and died.

And I can double check my list, but I think it's now up to nine
friends who were killed in motor vehicle accidents. Zero on
bicycles. We can trade anecdotes (and you frequently do) but I give
more credence to unbiased data.

It doesn't pay to be timid. Man up.


Why take the risk when there are alternatives such as this?

https://goo.gl/maps/XJk1gMRC2eA2

Here's why I "take the risk," Joerg. First, the risk of being hit
while riding lane center is extremely low. Most of those hit that
way seem to be unlit cyclists riding at night, probably drunk or
nearly so. Data's a bit soft, but that does seem to be what it
shows.

But more important: If I waited for "alternatives" such as the one
you show to be built, I would have missed about 45 years of
enthusiastic adult riding. I'd have missed riding in about a dozen
different countries, 47 states and hundreds of different towns and
cities. I wouldn't have been able to ride my bike to work at four
different jobs. I'd have missed wonderful vacations with my family,
and I'd have missed making at least a hundred good cycling
friends.

I know many people have bought the "Danger! Danger!" mantra and
never leave the nice, safe (and horridly boring) bike path. I chose
instead to learn to be competent on ordinary roads. And I'm damned
glad I did.

We pretty much agree with this. I don't have to worry any more about
riding a bike around dangerous drivers than I would driving a car.
But that is a clear and present danger because the police no longer
enforce driving laws. Yesterday I was driving up the street and some
woman pulls a large SUV out of her driveway directly in front of me
forcing me to slam the brakes on. It is common for women especially
to pull out of parking lots or other driveways looking to the right
when traffic comes from the left.


With me that happened yesterday. School bus from the other side, driver
backed out of driveway with gusto into the school bus' path, the bus
driver swerved around and into my lane. If I had been lane center I'd be
in the hospital or morgue today. Luckily I rode AFRAP, the hydraulic
brakes of my MTB came on prontissimo and I was able to leave the road
without crashing because, well, it was an MTB.

Yes, the offending driver was a woman but I've seen guys do that as
well. She was visibly shaken by all that.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-10-31 07:27, wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 3:53:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-29 17:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

It doesn't pay to be timid. Man up.


Why take the risk when there are alternatives such as this?

https://goo.gl/maps/XJk1gMRC2eA2

A bike lane plus segregated bike path plus bicycle bridge, all
seamlessly connecting to the Folsom bike path system and the
American River bike trail. Plus a lot of parks. That area is a
cyclists paradise. During rush hour it gets quite busy.

So what you're saying is that the percentage of bicyclists deaths can
be changed from nearly nothing to nothing?


It isn't nothing. About one a month in our local paper. However, again,
this is not only about deaths but also serious injury. I personally knew
people who have had that happen, usually by being hit from behind. One
woman wasn't able to ride for years because she ended up underneath a
Ford F-150. Later she never regained her old performance level because
some stuff didn't heal.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/