|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 6:32 PM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote: I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride... I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles, it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of examples. I own books on related topics. But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself. I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you. A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call 'em what you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't it proof that the public highways are dangerious for cyclists? That's what a certain cohort would have you believe. And it's generally false. Yes, there are dangerous roads; but most roads are quite safe for cycling. The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths necessary?" Most such facilities are not necessary. Many are worse than normal roads. While not strictly “necessary”, car free facilities can certainly be more enjoyable to ride, in much the same way that active logging roads aren’t always the most enjoyable automobile experience. This “linear park” is near my house and I ride it often. Many other people also enjoy riding it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall...Regional_Trail |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 19:42:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/4/2021 6:32 PM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote: I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride... I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles, it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of examples. I own books on related topics. But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself. I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you. A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call 'em what you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't it proof that the public highways are dangerious for cyclists? That's what a certain cohort would have you believe. And it's generally false. Yes, there are dangerous roads; but most roads are quite safe for cycling. The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths necessary?" Most such facilities are not necessary. Many are worse than normal roads. To further the subject, if bike paths are necessary for the safety of the cyclist because roads are too dangerious then isn't it logical to disallow bicycling riding on roads and highways to protect the poor cyclist from such a dangerious pastime? More bike safety. I just came across https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and...icycle-deaths/ which says, in part, that 33% of bicycle deaths in 2018 were NOT the result of a motor vehicle crash. If 1/3rd of the bicycle deaths are NOT the result of a motor vehicle crash then logically they must be largely the fault of the cyclist. Perhaps mandatory education and licensing of cyclists is the answer to making the sport safer. -- Cheers, John B. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 2:00 PM, Lou Holtman wrote: Op zondag 4 april 2021 om 18:16:52 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski: On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote: I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride... I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles, it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of examples. I own books on related topics. But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself. I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you. -- - Frank Krygowski As someone who is perfectly OK with my dynohub light system I can understand that people have different needs. Bad night vision, climbs, down hills, lot of light distraction. As long as they don't blind other road users I don't mind other people use different and/or mor powerfull light systems. Maybe you should do the same. Lou, I have never said I mind anybody using systems other than mine, IF they don't dazzle other road users. What I mind is people saying my system or similar systems can't be any good. Jay mocks them as "mood lights" good only for slow level riding. Scharf claims road cyclists get injured by tree branches due to StVZO standards, or claims that he can't see when riding at low speed. Those claims are false, and that's what I'm saying. If you're complaining about intolerance, you're complaining about the wrong people. How do you mock a light? "Hah, you weak and inadequate light . . . I mock you!" [light weeps, spirits crushed]. I call my LUXOS a mood light for the additional reason that it has an art deco beam pattern, like the Chrysler building, except more angular. What is intolerant about that? I'm not prescribing a light for anyone. People can buy whatever light they want, so long as they don't shine it in my eyes. Just don't tell me that my dyno is all I need. How would you even know what I need? -- Jay Beattie. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On 4/4/2021 9:21 PM, jbeattie wrote:
snip How do you mock a light? "Hah, you weak and inadequate light . . . I mock you!" [light weeps, spirits crushed]. The way I do it is when I see someone with a weak and inadequate light I scream "I SPIT on your light." It seems to have the proper effect. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On 4/4/2021 6:07 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
snip While not strictly “necessary”, car free facilities can certainly be more enjoyable to ride, in much the same way that active logging roads aren’t always the most enjoyable automobile experience. This “linear park” is near my house and I ride it often. Many other people also enjoy riding it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall...Regional_Trail Exactly. If the goal is to make riding more enjoyable, and to get more people out riding, both for transportation or for pleasure, it's necessary to understand what is preventing people from riding and address those concerns. Proclaiming "well I have no problem riding in traffic and therefore no one else should either" is exceptionally selfish and foolish. In my area, the county water district encourages the development of multi-use paths along waterways (creeks and rivers). Since roads usually already have bridges over these waterways it's pretty easy to construct a path that has very few, if any, surface road crossings. The waterways also happen to often run from housing-rich areas to jobs-rich areas. While you can't reach the same peak speeds riding on these paths that you can on roads, the dearth of traffic lights and stop signs generally makes your average speed higher, and it's a lot more pleasant to be able to ride 10-15 miles without constantly stopping and starting. These multi-use paths are extremely popular. Cities and counties in my area have also constructed a lot of bicycle/pedestrian crossings of freeways and railroad tracks that allow cyclists to avoid dangerous intersections which are an impediment to getting people on bicycles. Sometimes there are already arterial roads that cross freeways but don't have freeway entrances and exits, but not always. Here's an example of a jobs-rich area where my wife's office is now, and where my company used to be located, and right next to Intel's corporate headquarters https://goo.gl/maps/HyTtkhAw7xjAbkLZ9. It was miserable commuting across US 101 on a bicycle with those high-speed cloverleaf freeway interchanges (freeway entrances/exits with traffic lights on all the entrance and exit ramps are not so bad). The San Tomas Aquino Creek trail goes under 101 about halfway between the two freeway interchanges. The trail continues past Levi's stadium all the way to other trails that connect up to jobs rich areas and you can go all the way up to Mountain View by Google, and on to Palo Alto and Menlo Park (Facebook), or turn east to go by Cisco. Even before it was an official trail, and wasn't paved, you could use it if you were on a bicycle with proper tires. Another once-miserable ride was to get to companies east of 101 in Mountain View (Google, Microsoft, NASA, and in the past Silicon Graphics, Alza, etc.). I once worked in that area as well, see https://goo.gl/maps/94LuFXmmqdCEwMTg8. The Stevens Creek Trail is very heavily used as a commuter route and has many intersecting shorter trails. With the advent of electric bicycles it's become even busier. Bicycle lanes on the shoulder of roads are even less costly, but the reality is that painted lines have been ineffective at getting vehicles to share the road. So a city could either hire a lot more police officers to drive around constantly citing errant drivers or they can put in inexpensive infrastructure that prevents errant behavior. That errant behavior includes: a) using the bicycle lane as a motor vehicle lane, especially as a very long right-turn lane, b) using the bicycle lane as a parking area, c) using the bicycle lane as a lane to wait to turn into a crowded parking lot, d) using the bicycle lane as place to park construction or service vehicles working on a house or business, e) using the bicycle lane as a loading and unloading zone, f) police using the bicycle lane as a convenient place to pull motor vehicles over to write tickets, g) motorists pulling off into the bicycle lane to take a phone call or to enter an address into their navigation app or GPS, the list goes on and on. These protected bike lanes don't have "walls" as one clueless poster here likes to claim, unless a curb is really just a very low wall, see https://goo.gl/maps/h3XUU5KCvk2PmBZx5. A separated bike lane is not costly and solves most of the problems listed above. The question to ask is whether public roads should be designed for road users of all kinds, or should they be designed solely for the convenience of motor vehicle owners. Most of the complaints about the installation of protected bicycle lanes were along the lines of "where am I going to park?" or "where will my gardener park his truck?" Another issue to get people out of their cars is to address security when parked. Installing lockers and/or secure parking devices helps with this. In areas with parking shortages, the cost of these facilities is lost in the noise compared to the cost of adding vehicle parking spaces (there are often minimum parking requirements for office, retail, and commercial space based on the type of business, and the number of expected employees and customers). A parking garage costs between $40,000 and $80,000 per space to construct, or you can pave over green space for about $5000 per space, but few people think that converting parks and playing fields into parking lots is a good idea). |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Eyc headlight problem
jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 4:32:13 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/3/2021 12:57 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: I think it was Jay Beattie who suggested the 800 lumen number. I merely stole it from him. I agree that 800 lumens probably too much. However, if such a high power dynamo product ever arrives on the market, there will surely be a lumens war among vendors to see who can advertise the largest number. At that time, 800 lumens will be reserved for purists and regulatory agencies. This is how a low and high beams, 400 dynamo, optional 400 extra battery lumens, conversion looks like: https://www.velomobilforum.de/forum/index.php?attachments/pxl_20210121_153046943-jpg.231317/ The beams look better in reality than they appear on youtube, but I cannot recommend the upgrade to Jay because he seems mortally afraid of further increasing his dynamo system's sunk cost (and because a Luxos not considered watertight). Yep, safety inflation is real. Since when is being able to see "safety inflation"? Let's go for a night ride sometime, you and your bottle dyno and light, and me and my whatever light I chose. I'll wait for you at the bottom. On flat roads and the bike path through South Waterfront I can get by with a little flea-watt flasher or a clip on flashlight from 1968 -- or my old Wonder Light. But that is not where I do (or did pre DST) most of my riding. Frank is not acquainted with Portland's exotic rain-forest, mountain-bunny routes. If you are interested in a regular contest, ask a local, like your son, to take the dyno lamp. Make sure you use Specialized's prototype Zn-C matrix battery fork for extra power! Everything involves a descent, often on old broken concrete roads. I've done those on dyno only, and its inadequate except at a creeping pace. When will you finally invite a few fixie-riding antifa for a blissful summer of subbotnik road repairs?! Oh, wait, repairing and recreating historic concrete plates is horrendously "CO2 emissions intensive." If you aren't Al Gore, you simply won't get a permit. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Eyc headlight problem
On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 1:53:37 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 4:32:13 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/3/2021 12:57 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: I think it was Jay Beattie who suggested the 800 lumen number. I merely stole it from him. I agree that 800 lumens probably too much. However, if such a high power dynamo product ever arrives on the market, there will surely be a lumens war among vendors to see who can advertise the largest number. At that time, 800 lumens will be reserved for purists and regulatory agencies. This is how a low and high beams, 400 dynamo, optional 400 extra battery lumens, conversion looks like: https://www.velomobilforum.de/forum/index.php?attachments/pxl_20210121_153046943-jpg.231317/ The beams look better in reality than they appear on youtube, but I cannot recommend the upgrade to Jay because he seems mortally afraid of further increasing his dynamo system's sunk cost (and because a Luxos not considered watertight). Mortally afraid is more like "it would be stupid." I have enough lights. Yep, safety inflation is real. Since when is being able to see "safety inflation"? Let's go for a night ride sometime, you and your bottle dyno and light, and me and my whatever light I chose. I'll wait for you at the bottom. On flat roads and the bike path through South Waterfront I can get by with a little flea-watt flasher or a clip on flashlight from 1968 -- or my old Wonder Light. But that is not where I do (or did pre DST) most of my riding. Frank is not acquainted with Portland's exotic rain-forest, mountain-bunny routes. If you are interested in a regular contest, ask a local, like your son, to take the dyno lamp. Make sure you use Specialized's prototype Zn-C matrix battery fork for extra power! Everything involves a descent, often on old broken concrete roads. I've done those on dyno only, and its inadequate except at a creeping pace. When will you finally invite a few fixie-riding antifa for a blissful summer of subbotnik road repairs?! Oh, wait, repairing and recreating historic concrete plates is horrendously "CO2 emissions intensive." If you aren't Al Gore, you simply won't get a permit. They don't re-do concrete, at least not often in town -- it gets asphalt. One of my routes was repaved in the last year or so, but I think some of neighborhoods don't want repaving because the broken concrete roads act as natural speed bumps. Two, essentially parallel streets: https://tinyurl.com/4n2dfzp8 and next door: https://tinyurl.com/kdrfm2t8 Look out for the manhole down the street: https://tinyurl.com/8a8w383f I have no idea why they paved one and not the other. I rarely go down those roads -- they're part of the return route from anywhere east, and my pre-plague commute home. I creep up them, LUXOS B blazing the way. This is where I see people's feet before the people -- or their dogs with lighted dog vests. -- Jay Beattie. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On 4/4/2021 9:07 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/4/2021 6:32 PM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote: I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride... I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles, it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of examples. I own books on related topics. But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself. I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you. A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call 'em what you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't it proof that the public highways are dangerious for cyclists? That's what a certain cohort would have you believe. And it's generally false. Yes, there are dangerous roads; but most roads are quite safe for cycling. The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths necessary?" Most such facilities are not necessary. Many are worse than normal roads. While not strictly “necessary”, car free facilities can certainly be more enjoyable to ride, in much the same way that active logging roads aren’t always the most enjoyable automobile experience. This “linear park” is near my house and I ride it often. Many other people also enjoy riding it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall...Regional_Trail Linear parks (AKA MUPs) can be very pleasant. One of my favorite 40 mile rides makes use of a seven mile trail along a river. That trail is especially nice because it's little known, goes from pretty much nowhere to nowhere, is usually very empty, and is scenic. It was built by a very charitable local family. There are a few others in our area. But regarding "safety inflation": I'm sure many of the people who haul their bikes on their cars to ride the MUPs back and forth do so because of "safety." However, our bike club members have FAR more crashes per mile traveled on those MUPs than on roads. I wish I'd kept formal notes over the years, but I remember hearing about concussion with unconsciousness (yes, despite helmet), dislocated shoulder, broken collar bone, broken shoulder, broken rib and many abrasions, bruises etc. all happening to competent road riders. Those were due to bollards, bad edges (i.e. riding off the pavement and being unable to steer back on), a slippery wood bridge, slippery mud across the pavement, pedestrians' random motion, a kid on a bike failing to stop, and so on. But the biggest underlying cause may be total relaxation - as in "I'm on a nice safe path, so I don't have to take care." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On 4/5/2021 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/4/2021 2:00 PM, Lou Holtman wrote: Op zondag 4 april 2021 om 18:16:52 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski: On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote: I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride... I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles, it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of examples. I own books on related topics. But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself. I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you. -- - Frank Krygowski As someone who is perfectly OK with my dynohub light system I can understand that people have different needs. Bad night vision, climbs, down hills, lot of light distraction. As long as they don't blind other road users I don't mind other people use different and/or mor powerfull light systems. Maybe you should do the same. Lou, I have never said I mind anybody using systems other than mine, IF they don't dazzle other road users. What I mind is people saying my system or similar systems can't be any good. Jay mocks them as "mood lights" good only for slow level riding. Scharf claims road cyclists get injured by tree branches due to StVZO standards, or claims that he can't see when riding at low speed. Those claims are false, and that's what I'm saying. If you're complaining about intolerance, you're complaining about the wrong people. How do you mock a light? ... I call my LUXOS a mood light... That's one way. I'm not prescribing a light for anyone. People can buy whatever light they want, so long as they don't shine it in my eyes. Just don't tell me that my dyno is all I need. How would you even know what I need? I'm saying the same things, but from the opposite side of the fence. Don't me people need 800 lumens, or dyno systems are good only for slow speed flatlanders or for riding under streetlights, don't tell me road riders will get concussions from tree branches if they have beams with proper cut-offs, or that it's foolish to ride without a blinking headlight. (Yes, I know some of those statements came from SMS or Tom instead of you.) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Eyc headlight problem
On 4/5/2021 1:53 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
snip When will you finally invite a few fixie-riding antifa for a blissful summer of subbotnik road repairs?! Oh, wait, repairing and recreating historic concrete plates is horrendously "CO2 emissions intensive." If you aren't Al Gore, you simply won't get a permit. hmm, San Jose could use subbotnik road repairs. Some buckets of hot tar deployed surreptitiously on a Sunday morning could do wonders. When out riding (or driving) the condition of pavement changes (Pavement Condition Index (PCI)) significantly from city to city depending on how much money they're willing to spend on paving. When I cross over the border from my city (84/100) to San Jose (66/100) the difference in ride quality, especially on a bicycle is dramatic https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/PCI_table_2019_data.pdf. If you fall below 80 the cost of getting back above 80 increases exponentially. Many cities, including mine, cut back on paving during Covid because of loss of tax revenue, but not to the extreme where the roads would deteriorate below an 80 PCI. I stopped taking my Brompton on the train to San Francisco because the roads around the train station are so bad a 16" wheeled bicycle just doesn't cut it, though a longer way around, using the multi-use path along the bay, is fine, and much more scenic (there is actually both green unprotected bike lane AND a multi-use path) https://goo.gl/maps/RpZ6K42PKdWyFm4e8. Now I see that they've installed (gasp) protected bicycle lanes going from the train station to the jobs-rich areas and have repaved the road https://goo.gl/maps/iwqPp4NF7QHsjmcT6. Don't look Frank! Hopefully this will stop the biggest scourge of vehicles using the bike lanes for their own purpose, Uber & Lyft drivers. By the way, when concrete roads are resurfaced out here, they are resurfaced with asphalt. Concrete plates are great when new, and they last a long time, but they are horrendously expensive to repave with new concrete. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The last headlight you will ever need | somebody[_2_] | Techniques | 115 | April 28th 14 02:12 AM |
Headlight | Tom $herman (-_-) | Techniques | 16 | August 17th 12 03:43 AM |
LED Headlight | HughMann | Australia | 12 | August 30th 06 11:51 AM |
LED headlight problem solved | Ron Hardin | General | 8 | April 3rd 06 10:42 AM |
Headlight | Bruni | Techniques | 8 | August 31st 03 06:27 PM |