AG: Aunt Granny's Advice, or How to become an elderly cyclist:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 12:22:31 -0700, NFN Smith
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

They are for pedestrians, but in many places it's legal for cyclists to
ride them. Local laws vary.

I agree that they're for pedestrians, specifically for foot traffic.

One significant problem is that people often assume "pedestrian", as
"not car", and not understanding the relative speed differential between
somebody on foot, and a wheeled object. For safety purposes, true foot
traffic does not mix well with anything on wheels. That's not just
bicycles, but things like roller skates and skateboards.


AFAIK, every study on the issue has found sidewalks to be more dangerous
than riding on the road. This doesn't mean that sidewalks are never
safer. I'm sure it depends on the traffic situation, the skill of the
cyclist, and the skill and good sense of the cyclist in recognizing and
mitigating sidewalk hazards.

I believe that I've heard of places that are trying to be "bike
friendly", and explicitly allow sidewalk riding, and I know of places
that explicitly prohibit bicycles on sidewalks.

It's actually the same issue as bicycles in traffic. It depends on the
traffic situation, the skill of the cyclist, and the skill and cyclist
in recognizing and mitigating road hazards.

I've found that in a lot of places, road support for bikes (especially
"bike lanes") tend to be clustered around schools, where the primary
traffic is expected to be school children, riding small bikes, and not a
lot of bike handling skills. As a fitness rider, I tend to avoid those
neighborhoods as much on my bike as I do, if I'm a motorist.

Sidewalk hazards? Running into pedestrians is one, although in much of
America, nobody walks. But crossing ANY intersection, even a driveway,
can be very dangerous because the motorist using that will never expect
any fast-moving sidewalk traffic (fast = "more than 3 mph"). Then
there's the hard drop-off edge of most sidewalks, meaning if your front
wheel drops off, you're likely to go down. There are sign poles,
telephone poles and other hard obstructions. There are often limited
sight lines. There are often big bumps from sections of concrete that
have risen or sunk, and/or from tree roots, etc.

Yes. There's a lot of hazards on a sidewalk that don't account for the
relative speed of a bicycle. And the issues are just as much for a
skateboard or roller skates, as well.

Having said that, there are two short sections of sidewalk I use at
least weekly. Each is less than 50 feet long, and I've never passed a
pedestrian on either one. Each saves me about 200 yards of heavy
traffic and a difficult left turn. But I ride them slowly, on high
alert, with my head on a swivel, jet fighter style.

There are specific situations where it's appropriate, especially if it's
a place where you go frequently, and know the situation. I have a friend
that commutes, and for the particular route that he rides, there's a
place where it's appropriate for him to briefly ride a sidewalk,
especially as a way of having to cross to the other side of a major
arterial boulevard, and then back again, to ride with traffic.

My beef is with people that ride against traffic, whether on the
sidewalk or on the street. I've had it happen a couple of times as a
motorist, where I'm pulling out of a driveway or making a right turn,
I'm looking to the left, to watch for oncoming traffic, and nearly run
into somebody riding the wrong side of the street, because they're
coming at vehicle speed, and a direction I'm not expecting. The other
problem with riding against traffic is that if the bike space is
blocked, there's no avenue for escape. If you're in a place where
there's a curb, there's often no way of getting over the curb quickly
(unless there's a driveway that happens to be handy), and the only other
place to dodge is to move out into traffic.

I'm not sure if the sidewalk is safer for somebody going against
traffic, or not (and assuming that there's no pedestrian).

But the underlying problem is the same, in that the speed of a bike
(even 10 mph) is more compatible with vehicular traffic on the road
(riding with the traffic) than it is with foot traffic on a sidewalk.

Smith

I would add "elbow room" to "speed". Two pedestrians can, if
necessary, sort of side step close to each other and get through a
space narrower than the usual bicycle handle bars :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
I would add "elbow room" to "speed". Two pedestrians can, if
necessary, sort of side step close to each other and get through a
space narrower than the usual bicycle handle bars :-)


Yep.

Although it's more common with keeping motorcycles off footpaths, I've
occasionally seen posts placed narrowly enough together to prevent a
bicycle from passing, without having to dismount, and lift over such a
barricade. Most common would be bridges, or gaps in fences.

Smith

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 09:13:43 -0700, NFN Smith
wrote:

John B. wrote:
I would add "elbow room" to "speed". Two pedestrians can, if
necessary, sort of side step close to each other and get through a
space narrower than the usual bicycle handle bars :-)


Yep.

Although it's more common with keeping motorcycles off footpaths, I've
occasionally seen posts placed narrowly enough together to prevent a
bicycle from passing, without having to dismount, and lift over such a
barricade. Most common would be bridges, or gaps in fences.

Smith

Here (Bangkok) we have a large number of pedestrian bridges over 4 - 8
lane highways. In some cases they have ramps as opposed to steps to
reach the overpass portion and invariably they have posts set at the
entrances to prevent small motor cycles, of which we have multitudes,
from using them.
--
cheers,

John B.

(Reverse "right" and "left" as required.)


When you learn a rule, ask yourself why this rule is a rule. When you
learn to ride on the right, don't just say "The right is the right
place to ride. Riding on the right will keep me SAFE."

You ride on the right because two objects travelling along the same
line are much less likely to collide if they are moving in the same
direction. Indeed, if two objects have exactly the same velocity
(which is physics-speak for "speed and direction"), they will forever
remain the same distance apart and never meet.

If several objects are travelling along the same line in the same
direction, but with different speeds, the faster objects will catch up
with the slower ones, but the closing speed will usually be so slow
that it's easy to match the speed of the slower object until it's safe
to overtake. And if there are no safe places to pass, at least all of
you will keep moving toward your destinations. If two vehicles going
opposite ways meet, the only way to avoid a collision is for both to
come to a dead stop.

Alas, the human mind seems to require a separate rule for every
occasion; instead of a law saying "thou shalt pay attention to thy
driving", we want separate laws saying "thou shalt not drive while
/talking on the phone/texting/playing computer games/applying
makeup/watching television/typing a doctoral dissertation/typing a
master's dissertation/writing a theme for English class/browsing the
Web/ . . . the woman who murdered six cyclists went free because
there was no law against driving with your head under the dashboard.

I read in the paper that the town council is thinking of legalizing
golf carts. A part of the proposed law is that a golf cart with three
cars piled up behind it must pull over and let them pass. This is
just plain silly. First, because we already have a law against
blocking traffic. Second, because it implies that if you are impeding
only one car, you may force him to follow you all the way to your
destination.

If *anybody* is driving slowly because he can't get around me, I pull
over the very first time it's safe to pull over.

Note well: "safe" does NOT mean encouraging someone to overtake you
in a narrow lane when the oncoming lane is occupied and unavailable.

It also doesn't mean "pull off the road and stay in that parking space
indefinitely".

--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 23:47:50 -0300, Joy Beeson
wrote:

(Reverse "right" and "left" as required.)


When you learn a rule, ask yourself why this rule is a rule. When you
learn to ride on the right, don't just say "The right is the right
place to ride. Riding on the right will keep me SAFE."

You ride on the right because two objects travelling along the same
line are much less likely to collide if they are moving in the same
direction. Indeed, if two objects have exactly the same velocity
(which is physics-speak for "speed and direction"), they will forever
remain the same distance apart and never meet.

If several objects are travelling along the same line in the same
direction, but with different speeds, the faster objects will catch up
with the slower ones, but the closing speed will usually be so slow
that it's easy to match the speed of the slower object until it's safe
to overtake. And if there are no safe places to pass, at least all of
you will keep moving toward your destinations. If two vehicles going
opposite ways meet, the only way to avoid a collision is for both to
come to a dead stop.

Alas, the human mind seems to require a separate rule for every
occasion; instead of a law saying "thou shalt pay attention to thy
driving", we want separate laws saying "thou shalt not drive while
/talking on the phone/texting/playing computer games/applying
makeup/watching television/typing a doctoral dissertation/typing a
master's dissertation/writing a theme for English class/browsing the
Web/ . . . the woman who murdered six cyclists went free because
there was no law against driving with your head under the dashboard.

I read in the paper that the town council is thinking of legalizing
golf carts. A part of the proposed law is that a golf cart with three
cars piled up behind it must pull over and let them pass. This is
just plain silly. First, because we already have a law against
blocking traffic. Second, because it implies that if you are impeding
only one car, you may force him to follow you all the way to your
destination.

If *anybody* is driving slowly because he can't get around me, I pull
over the very first time it's safe to pull over.

I've been over "roads" up on the N. Branch of the Yuba River in
California that are one lane with, usually, a hundred foot drop on one
side. They have "turn outs" every once in a while where one can get
off the road to let someone by, coming in either direction.

It gives a whole new meaning to the term "right of way" :-)

Note well: "safe" does NOT mean encouraging someone to overtake you
in a narrow lane when the oncoming lane is occupied and unavailable.

It also doesn't mean "pull off the road and stay in that parking space
indefinitely".
--
cheers,

John B.

The buffer is bare. Talk among yourselves.

--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

Whenever anyone says "It's not a good idea to move as far right as you
physically can, then close your eyes and hold fast to that position
with both hands and your teeth.", the person addressed hears "You
should move to the center of the lane, close your eyes, and hold fast
to that position with both hands and your teeth."

I don't know of any way to communicate the idea that one should look
around, be alert, and do what the situation calls for -- short of
taking all twelve-year-olds out on their bikes and teaching them the
rules of the road and how to tell what situations a twelve-year-old
can handle and when he should get off and walk and when he should whip
out his cell phone and yell for his mommy.

And then doing it again when the child is thirteen, and again when he
is fourteen, and again when he is fifteen.

Unfortunately, this would have the side effect of making the children
capable of learning how to be competent drivers when they are sixteen.
Individually, Americans think this would be a good thing, but as a
culture, we are keenly aware that if our streets and roads aren't
regularly anointed with human blood, the sun god will stop rising and
we will all freeze to death in the dark. Therefore any plan that
would actually increase traffic safety will never be widely accepted.

Not to mention that a population that understands the rules of the
road would make it harder to change traffic laws into fund raisers.

"What do you mean by pretending that a photograph of a car passing
through an intersection proves that it ran a red light? What matters
is what color the light was when the driver decided to enter the
intersection!"

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

Last summer I filled a bunch of four-ounce containers with honey,
ginger water, and lemon juice and froze them, and took one on each
long ride to flavor water I picked up along the way.

Yesterday I attempted my first quarter century since the Mentone trip,
and took the last container of switchel concentrate as a matter of
principle. While having lunch at Tippy Park, I broke it up and added
it to half a bottle of tea, which had warmed to ambient while I was
drinking the first half.

This improved the tea considerably, so this morning I shaved a little
ginger root into a two-ounce disposable container, covered it with
honey, and poured a quarter inch of bottled lemon juice on top. I
figure that freezing and thawing will cook the flavor out of the
ginger without destroying the bite.

Switchel rides are over for the year, but with luck there will be
several more rides that require me to stay awake through nap time.

If this works, I'll make the next one with sherry vinegar instead of
lemon juice.

--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
http://wlweather.net/N3F/ -- Writers' Exchange

On Monday morning I washed my do-rag, then hung it to dry on a lamp
instead of on my brake cable, because I meant to put it away for the
winter.

On Monday afternoon, when I needed to pick up my pills at the
supermarket, I started to tie on my sheer linen scarf -- then threw it
onto the shelf and went back into the house to take the do-rag off the
lamp.

After Thursday's quarter century, I hung it to dry on the brake cable.
Weather Underground says I'll need it for at least another week.

Today's ride was almost too cool for a sheer linen jersey. Didn't
want the scarf, and I did sweat some.

================================================== ==================

There are four half-baked or embryonic posts in the buffer. Perhaps
I'll finish one by next week.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

Joy Beeson wrote in
:


On Monday morning I washed my do-rag, then hung it to dry on a lamp
instead of on my brake cable, because I meant to put it away for the
winter.

On Monday afternoon, when I needed to pick up my pills at the
supermarket, I started to tie on my sheer linen scarf -- then threw it
onto the shelf and went back into the house to take the do-rag off the
lamp.

After Thursday's quarter century, I hung it to dry on the brake cable.
Weather Underground says I'll need it for at least another week.

Today's ride was almost too cool for a sheer linen jersey. Didn't
want the scarf, and I did sweat some.

================================================== ==================

There are four half-baked or embryonic posts in the buffer. Perhaps
I'll finish one by next week.

Around here it's two-season cycling: 5 Celsius on the way to work, 28 on
the way home. I wear long sleeves and full but light-weight gloves in the
morning, and short sleeves and fingerless gloves in the afternoon. As
autumn degenerates into early winter, I will have to wear trousers in the
morning, shorts in the afternoon. I don't do "do-rags."

They calls 'em tights, but they ain't:
https://www.mec.ca/en/product/5033-250/Adanac-Tights.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)