A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Age and Heart Rates



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old January 5th 17, 02:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Phil Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default Age and Heart Rates

The author has marked this message not to be archived. This post will be deleted on January 19, 2017.

Frank Krygowski considered Wed, 4 Jan 2017
14:26:14 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 1/3/2017 9:52 PM, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 03 Jan 2017
11:57:40 -0800 the perfect time to write:
There is no safe way to get to Placerville by bicycle
other than singletrack. Placerville is a city. Riding on Highway 50 is
prohibited.

Yes, we know you don't live in a civilised country (where bicycles
have the right to use public highways) but in a barbarian backwater
where any cyclist on a road is considered fair game and potential
roadkill. What is so special about Highway 50, and how was the
right-of-way for non-motorised traffic lost?


The situation Joerg describes can be a problem. I heard about a similar
thing occurring in southern Ohio, where what had been a two lane highway
was converted to a freeway, and bicyclists were prohibited. The state
bike advocacy organization tried to get the prohibition overturned, but
the state department of transportation (which is frequently not
cooperative) said that too few cyclists used that road and that parallel
routes were available. They were probably right on the low bike usage,
but the parallel routes are so hilly that they're prohibitive.


That sucks.

I've biked many, many miles on limited access roads, and except in
cities, I don't think bikes should be generally prohibited. Data I've
seen indicates no real safety problem; and most cyclists willing to put
up with the bad aesthetics of those roads are probably dedicated enough
to be reasonably competent.

But I do think that when such a road is built, highway departments
should build (and later maintain) a separate bike path within that right
of way, and afterward maintain it properly. In rural areas, the
crossing conflicts are few, and those tend to be the big problem with
most bike lanes, even "protected" ones. And providing some extra
separation from parallel traffic would at least slightly reduce the
noise level. The percentage increase of the road construction project's
costs would be small.

All of which I entirely agree with.

The parts of the UK with cycling infrastructure have almost no
cycling, whereas Cambridge, with almost no dedicated infrastructure,
leads the country in cycle use. Because it's the only place that
discourages car use.
Basingstoke, Stevenage, Milton Keynes, Harlow, and others were new
towns built with excellent cycling infrastructure, but almost no
cycling at all. Build it and they will drive instead, as long as you
don't discourage them!
Mass use of cycles in The Netherlands preceded the dedicated
infrastructure by decades!
Discouragement is pretty subtle in The Netherlands, mostly consisting
of NOT providing huge multi-lane highways into town and city centres
or allowing motor vehicles to dominate the urban environment.


I agree that discouragement of motor vehicles is necessary to achieve
high bike mode share. Unfortunately, I don't see that discouragement
happening to any notable degree in the U.S. That's why I think our bike
mode share will never exceed a percent or two, despite the daydreamer's
fantasies.


Maybe not intentionally, but it's difficult to argue that motoring is
not discouraged by heavy traffic, or that commuters into somewhere
like New York will not use almost any other mode in preference if it
is available.
Ads
  #82  
Old January 6th 17, 05:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,488
Default Age and Heart Rates

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 12:40:54 PM UTC-8, Stephen Harding wrote:
On 01/04/2017 02:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've biked many, many miles on limited access roads, and except in cities, I don't
think bikes should be generally prohibited. Data I've seen indicates no real safety
problem; and most cyclists willing to put up with the bad aesthetics of those roads
are probably dedicated enough to be reasonably competent.

But I do think that when such a road is built, highway departments should build (and
later maintain) a separate bike path within that right of way, and afterward maintain
it properly. In rural areas, the crossing conflicts are few, and those tend to be
the big problem with most bike lanes, even "protected" ones. And providing some
extra separation from parallel traffic would at least slightly reduce the noise
level. The percentage increase of the road construction project's costs would be small.


I've biked divided highways during some of my bike touring and while I always felt
safe on the roads, the noise was really annoying over a period of hours.

The breakdown lanes kept 70+ mph cars at a safe distance, but that constant noise
from tires especially really degraded any enjoyment of generally easy riding.

Technically, on many of these Interstates and other divided highways that allow
bicycles (mostly in western states), riders are supposed to exit each off-ramp, then
return on the corresponding on-ramp.

While I understand the safety reasons for requiring that, I never actually did that.
But if I were on a heavily trafficked highway like I-95, etc., I think I'd use the ramps.

I was always quite happy to return to regular roads after riding a divided highway
for a few hours or day!


On an overnighter we had to ride on a section of highway. The shoulder was very wide but the majority of traffic was heavy trucks and after turning off of it after 10 miles I was certainly happy to get onto farm roads despite their meanderings. The next day we had rides the other way and then a left turn onto another equal highway. So after 22 miles it felt like heaven to turn onto a road where the only traffic was farm trucks.

This eventually led onto a mountain road where we did 30 miles and were passed by ONE farm pickup truck. We got to the top of this long hill with a 10% grade for the last quarter of a mile and at the top was this guy on a bike wearing a complete Spiderman costume with the hood. Apparently you can see through the thin material but it was hot enough that day to make you sweat in a bathing suit. I assumed it was one of the local criminals hiding his identity.
  #83  
Old January 6th 17, 07:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Stephen Harding[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Age and Heart Rates

On 01/06/2017 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 12:40:54 PM UTC-8, Stephen Harding wrote:
On 01/04/2017 02:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've biked many, many miles on limited access roads, and except in cities, I
don't think bikes should be generally prohibited. Data I've seen indicates no
real safety problem; and most cyclists willing to put up with the bad
aesthetics of those roads are probably dedicated enough to be reasonably
competent.

But I do think that when such a road is built, highway departments should
build (and later maintain) a separate bike path within that right of way, and
afterward maintain it properly. In rural areas, the crossing conflicts are
few, and those tend to be the big problem with most bike lanes, even
"protected" ones. And providing some extra separation from parallel traffic
would at least slightly reduce the noise level. The percentage increase of the
road construction project's costs would be small.


I've biked divided highways during some of my bike touring and while I always
felt safe on the roads, the noise was really annoying over a period of hours.

The breakdown lanes kept 70+ mph cars at a safe distance, but that constant
noise from tires especially really degraded any enjoyment of generally easy
riding.

Technically, on many of these Interstates and other divided highways that allow
bicycles (mostly in western states), riders are supposed to exit each off-ramp,
then return on the corresponding on-ramp.

While I understand the safety reasons for requiring that, I never actually did
that. But if I were on a heavily trafficked highway like I-95, etc., I think I'd
use the ramps.

I was always quite happy to return to regular roads after riding a divided
highway for a few hours or day!


On an overnighter we had to ride on a section of highway. The shoulder was very
wide but the majority of traffic was heavy trucks and after turning off of it
after 10 miles I was certainly happy to get onto farm roads despite their
meanderings. The next day we had rides the other way and then a left turn onto
another equal highway. So after 22 miles it felt like heaven to turn onto a road
where the only traffic was farm trucks.

This eventually led onto a mountain road where we did 30 miles and were passed by
ONE farm pickup truck. We got to the top of this long hill with a 10% grade for
the last quarter of a mile and at the top was this guy on a bike wearing a
complete Spiderman costume with the hood. Apparently you can see through the thin
material but it was hot enough that day to make you sweat in a bathing suit. I
assumed it was one of the local criminals hiding his identity.


Another problem with divided highways is summer heat. You're completely out in the
open with only overpasses providing shade for a good part of any day (unless of
course you're out on the prairie where there wouldn't be shade off the highway
either). The heat really builds up as the day progresses.

They also seem to have stronger winds, being more open.

I'll use the highways if I have to, but even meandering, quiet, shady roads represent
a real route upgrade to me!


SMH
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Max heart rates and age Choppy Warburton Racing 30 June 13th 11 09:12 PM
Max heart rates and age Fredmaster of Brainerd Racing 1 June 10th 11 09:53 AM
Tdf 'live' Heart rates cupra UK 2 July 18th 07 12:55 AM
decrease of heart rates le-sheq Techniques 4 February 28th 06 11:33 PM
Heart rates. Simon Mason UK 0 January 21st 06 07:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.