Age and Heart Rates

On 2016-12-23 11:07, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016
14:37:13 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-21 14:07, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016
13:39:12 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-19 18:35, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sat, 17 Dec 2016
14:22:20 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016
13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote:


[...]


When there are enough cyclists, there are also enough of them to be a
significant voting block, and cycling infrastructure gets funded,
particularly as it's seen as a way to speed the flow of motor traffic
by getting all those pesky cyclists (for whom the roads were
originally sealed and who use the roads by right) out of the way of
the motorists (who only use the roads by permit and under strict
conditions).


In this day and age it only works if the planning guys take a leap of
faith and build it. Like they did in Folsom, with resounding success.
Same in Manhattan, and Portland, and ...

Stevenage, and Milton Keynes, and Telford, and Basingstoke - none of
which had 1/10th the cycling levels of Oxford, never mind Cambridge,
neither of which had any dedicated cycling infrastructure at all.

Where on earth do you think that "leap of faith" came from, if it
wasn't demand?


From lots of examples where demand was not being voiced. One example of
many is the city of Folsom. They just built the bike infrastructure.
They were smart.

Despite your claims, they must have been able to show suppressed
demand to get the funding.


They didn't. There are very rare occurrences where politicians have true
vision and the ones in Folsom truly belong in that class. The ones in
our community here clearly do not.


Magical thinking is not rational, and city planners who attempt to
waste money by building facilities (never mind the constant
maintenance of such facilities while waiting for the users to actually
arrive and start reporting things like vegetation overgrowth, cracked
surfacing, etc.) where they can't show a demand find themselves
looking for other employment. The maintenance issue is a very real
one - if facilities aren't used, they DO disappear through things like
encroachment of vegetation, become crime ridden places where litter
and even large-scale duping takes place, drug users hang out to get
stoned/high and dealers congregate.


Example: The El Dorado Trail which I use a lot. Maintained completely by
volunteers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHU4zg_V3LY

Now that traffic picks up in some areas they are paving another long
section. I am not in favor of that because the money could be better
used to a commuter bike path in the busier western parts.

So you have some leisure trails - so do we, but they are not (as you
correctly point out), used much for commuting, and in most cases are
impassable on a normal road-going bike without advanced skills.


So how come that there are now lots of well-worn bicycles in the Intel
parking lots where they used to be almost non-existent? People do not go
there for leisure. Same with stores. People need to buy groceries.


You need an existing pent-up demand to make sure that facilities start
being used from day one, or they very quickly become places where even
those who might want to use them (at least for their intended purpose)
daren't!

As long as there are very few cyclists, you don't get any pressure
from either the motorists (who perceive, usually wrongly, delays from
having to wait to pass cyclists - it's only less time waiting in the
next queue of motor traffic, after all) or from the timid or less
capable road cyclists, who don't know how to ride in motor traffic
safely (or those who worry on their behalf, regardless of real danger,
just because of perceived danger based on their own competence level
instead of that of the rider or that of the overwhelming majority of
motorists).


Smart cyclists know of the real danger. They know how to ride correctly
and as the law demands. It does demand AFRAP here unless taking the lane
is allowed.

Which it is in every example that has been quoted in this group -
sometimes explicitly, sometimes just by use of the word "practicable".
What you need to learn is the difference between practicable and
possible.


The law says so.

That practicable is not the same as possible, yes - unless you can
cite a law which says otherwise.


California Vehicle Code.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ionNum= 21202.

Exceptions are clearly outlined. In practice only what an officer says
counts in court. Because he or she de facto is the law, regardless of
what we think about it.


It may be possible to share a 13' lane with an 11'6" semi, as long as
you are prepared to overhang the road edge and duck as the door mirror
skims your head, but it is certainly not practicable, which many
states seem to directly address in the legislation as an example case
of where it is not practicable.
Others seem to make the assumption (apparently wrongly) that people
are intelligent enough to figure that out for themselves.

Example: I was riding a road like the one you described above every
week, a "utility ride". There is one narrow bridge where I always took
the lane. Until one fine day when a guy gunned it, passed me, realized
opposing traffic and almost pushed me over the railing of that bridge.
Since that day I use the car unless a bush road is passable via MTB (it
floods a lot and I have to show up non-muddy). It's safer.

What action did you take against the dangerous driver?
Let me guess - none.


Has it ever occurred to you that someone struggling to avoid a crash
cannot at the same time keep a 2nd pair of eyes on a license plate
because humans only have one pair? Besides, as most of the people here
know the police will do ... nothing.

Then you take private action.


Like what exactly? Load the rifle and ride out there, like the Cochise
Cowboys?


... The right to bring prosecutions is not
reserved to the police and DA there, is it? US law is allegedly based
on UK law (even to the extent of being able to use UK court decisions
as precedent, unless they obviously conflict with US law). As
precedent is generally used for decisions which are "edge cases", and
the language is at least commonly based, the same decisions make the
same sense.
And if the problem is as bad as you claim, run a camera, which will
turn everyone who views the video into a witness.


Even if you did you will need to convince a lawyer to takes your case or
be independently wealthy so you can plop a (big) was of cash on his desk.

And then you have to fight people who lie the blue out of the sky. "Oh,
no, Joey did not drive that day, must he been someone else. We have 15
witnesses who'll declare under oath he was with them".

We just had a case in court where someone deliberately mowed down three
cyclists. One of them will likely never be normal again due to brain
injury. Was the perp convicted of attempted murder? Oh no. All he got
was a hit-and-run conviction (he had fled the scene).

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...118031133.html


Did you even make any obvious signal that it was unsafe for him to
pass you?


Like what? A fist in the air, with a loudly screamed expletive? Or throw
a ballpeen hammer?

Here the right (presumable there, the left) hand raised to shoulder
height with a flat vertical palm, although not an officially
recognised hand signal, seems to be well understood, even by our much
more aggressive motor traffic.
All you need to do is confuse them, so many things would probably be
equally effective - but adopting an unofficial standard does have
benefits, as it does stand a chance of becoming recognised in law.


You cannot confuse a guy like that with a dose of road rage in his belly.


... If so, could he even see it past your daytime driver
blinding lights?


If you had read carefully you'd know that he saw me full well. Then he
blew a mental gaskets because he was inconvenienced and floored it.

Well, unless you are posting from the grave, the situation clearly
wasn't all that bad - had you not been taking the lane, you'd have had
nowhere to swerve to avoid him.


The call was close enough that from then on I only traveled that road by
car and that's how it is going to be until they build a bike path or
lane. I am not stupidly waiting for next time when a guy kills me or
cripples me.


Countless other examples. Some ended fatally for the cyclists, hit from
behind at high speed. Sticking the head into the sand and hoping it's
not going to happen to you might work. Or it might not. For those of us
who have to provide for families it's not just about our lives.

Yeah - becoming a stroke victim or diabetic helps your family far more
than staying fit and healthy - NOT!
It's actually far more likely (between 12 and 30 times more, according
to which to studies you accept, although they all agree that it's
highly significant) that you will suffer that or a similar fate (one
causing death or permanent disability) through lack of exercise than
from a cycling injury. Cycling (even on roads!) is that many times
safer than not doing so.
Just check on life insurance rates - do you think that the companies
just make them up on a whim? There is a whole profession (actuaries)
that is dedicated to quantifying those risks, and insurance companies
depend on the accuracy of their data for their very survival. It's
far less expensive to insure your life if you are fit and exercising
regularly than if you are an obese and diabetic couch-potato, and
cycling related physical trauma is so far down their radar that they
don't generally even ask about utility cycling (although I'm sure
they'd be interested in your constant string of near-death
experiences).
If the danger was really as bad in your area as you suggest, it would
stand out in statistical studies and actuarial data as a glaring
anomaly, yet somehow it doesn't.
Except in your head, of course.


Read the Sacramento Bee, then you know.

I prefer to avoid sensational journalism,


That's why you are missing the real news. The last cyclists was killed
in Sacramento this week on Monday. What exactly is sensational about
this report?

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...121964764.html

It's cold, hard, sad fact.


... in favour of scientific
studies, modified to a certain extent by trying to find out the
circumstances of as many incidents as I can.
Incidents which happen in circumstances which don't apply to me,
(idiots riding after dark with not lights, for example) clearly don't
affect my risk level - but very few journalistic accounts include such
details. You have to go through police and coroners reports to find
that out.

It's exactly the same way as pilots are expected to stay current, and
despite no longer being able to obtain a medical certificate to fly, I
still keep up to date on that out of habit (although detailed reports
are easier to come by, being actually sent to every licenced pilot).
Sometimes such reports are things you can learn by, more often they
don't - but why risk missing something significant?
I'd like there to be similar arrangements for other forms of
transport, for which the data does exist, but is more difficult to
find.


You don't get that for cyclists that are hit. Because they aren't an
aircraft that crashed. Still, they get hit and I prefer to stay abreast
of where the danger spots are. It allows me to avoid those.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 12/23/2016 4:26 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-23 11:07, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016
14:37:13 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-21 14:07, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016
13:39:12 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-19 18:35, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sat, 17 Dec 2016
14:22:20 -0800 the perfect time to write:


Smart cyclists know of the real danger. They know how to ride
correctly
and as the law demands. It does demand AFRAP here unless taking the
lane
is allowed.

Which it is in every example that has been quoted in this group -
sometimes explicitly, sometimes just by use of the word "practicable".
What you need to learn is the difference between practicable and
possible.


The law says so.

That practicable is not the same as possible, yes - unless you can
cite a law which says otherwise.


California Vehicle Code.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ionNum= 21202.


Exceptions are clearly outlined.

We've been through this before, but: The law says a cyclist "shall ride
as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway
except under any of the following situations...

"(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not
limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it
unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the
provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a
“substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and
a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

And California has a law requiring a motorist passing a cyclist to give
a minimum of three feet clearance. If he can't do that within the lane,
the lane is substandard. The cyclist is then NOT required to be "as
close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge," and it's better if
he moves further left to dissuade motorists from violating that three
feet minimum.

Which is what all cycling education programs teach. You should take a
class.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:19:25 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

In this NG there will hardly be any lazy people since nearly all are
already experienced cyclists.

I'm an experienced cyclist. I'm also very lazy.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On 2016-12-23 17:43, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:19:25 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

In this NG there will hardly be any lazy people since nearly all are
already experienced cyclists.

I'm an experienced cyclist. I'm also very lazy.


We all are to some extent. Ask my wife and she can rattle off half a
dozen issues about me when it comes to laziness.

However, nearly all of us regularly get off our keisters, hop on the
saddle and ride. The majority of people in industrialized countries does
not because it's ... work.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016
14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016
13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016
13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016
13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote:

[...]

... They have the luxury of getting to work
rapidly and then sitting at a desk for the rest of the day. And if
you eat some protein you can limit the muscle damage.

Where I live is different. If I get a job in the area I want I could
be commuting 50 km each way. And because of the traffic I could even
be faster counting both the stop and go traffic and the more direct
path I could take as a bicyclist.


That's over 30mi each way. A lot. Not sure if I'd do that but if not
many hills probably yes.

The furthest I've commuted was a daily trip of 21 miles each way, but
I know of one cyclist who commuted about double that for several
years, from Dunstable to central London.


We hired away a UK engineer, a very skinny guy. He had a commute
somewhere north of 30mi, also near London. This guy rode a bike every
day even in the driving rain. When he and his family arrived here in the
US he no longer rode. Considering the absence of bike facilities this
was fully understandable back then since that also caused me to stop
riding.

When did you hire this guy? Where, exactly, did he ride in Britain?


In 1998. I forgot the exact route.

There weren't ANY in the UK that long in 1998.
Zero, none, zilch, that were even half that long!


As I have said before side roads, residential roads and agricultural
roads with little vehicle traffic are quite acceptable in lieu of bike
paths. Smart cyclists tend to find those.

Anywhere which would be regarded in the UK as "near London" would
include negotiating barriers like major trunk roads and motorways,
which only provide crossings for other major roads, forcing you to use
them.
The same is true for natural barriers like rivers, of course.


Same here. Crossing them is not a problem. Riding on them for more than
a few miles is a problem for most people. Or at least so uncomfortable
that they won't do it.

I think you missed the point - crossing them is only possible on other
major roads - side roads, agricultural roads and residential roads,
even if they existed before the barrier was created, are almost always
severed by it, so you have to move onto the network of major roads
just to be able to cross, and once on that network, it's very
difficult to move back onto minor roads, because the major roads have
limited junctions.


We have a nice tool for that in the old colony: The traffic light :-)

Which aren't used at all on motorways (our version of your interstate
highways) which not only surround London, but radiate outwards from
it.


Those have bridges or tunnels around here. Some for cyclists look
spooky, like this one to the Folsom South Canal bike path:

http://city4.учпроект.рф/i...som-usa-10.jpg

However, on the other side you have unfettered racing opportunities. No
speed limit, no traffic, straight line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3gnLIUum0


When going into the valley there is one major traffic artery where the
bike path doesn't have the usual grade separation. I stopp, press a
little button, 10 seconds later all traffic is stopped and I step on the
pedals again.

On the other roads in Folsom I can just barrel through regardless of
traffic. Either under the road or on a cycle path bridge above. One even
has both to pick from, beats me why. This one tops them all:

http://www.traillink.com/trail-photo...rail.aspx#leaf

Bridges and subways are an example of useful facilities, and we do
have a few of them.


See?

[...]


Again, I _never_ use that in front of people I want to convince to
cycle. Sometimes laziness comes up but it's them bringing it up. It is
good to be on their minds so they get off the couch because they don't
want to be "those people".


In this NG there will hardly be any lazy people since nearly all are
already experienced cyclists. Doctors discuss a dire prognosis very
openly among colleagues but, of course, not necessarily in front of a
sensitive patient.


The company I used to work for with an office in Tulsa used to send me
out a few times a year, and people in the building where the office
was located were alarmed at my walking to work - from the hotel NEXT
DOOR! Utterly ridiculous, as I actually traveled further vertically
after entering the building than I did horizontally to reach it - so
much so, that I used the stairs some of the time, just for the
exercise. If I'd had a bicycle out there, I'd have used it for going
out in the evenings, but it was easier to get hold of a car (the
office manager out there used to lend me her son's z28 Camaro, in
return for service advice (the suspension was best described as a
project!), which got less necessary as things got fixed and he learned
how to look after it.


A Z28 is real fun to drive.

It is when it's properly maintained.
Initially, it was almost unbeatable in a straight line and undrivable
anywhere else! And even maintaining that straight line was
challenging, with poor tracking and all the suspension joints loose
giving bump-steering, torque steering, and all the other ills that
afflict vehicles on which maintenance has been neglected over a long
period - particularly powerful high performance ones.
By my last visit, it was a pleasure to drive.
By then, almost every joint and pivot in the suspension and steering
had been replaced and fully re-aligned.


That is a problem with many American passenger cars. Stuff does not
last. Very different with many pickup trucks which seem to last forever.

Bicycles have similar problems :-)

But are much cheaper and easier to work on.


Not at all. The only thing I ever did to my SUV was changing the oil,
battery and (once) the tires. The timing belts were also changed once
but only because the car is now 20 years old and I got concerned. They
were still fine.

But you just said that it is a problem with many American passenger
cars. It's hard to keep up with the speed at which you move the
goalposts.


Think a bit farther: Both of our cars are Japanese, and there are
reasons for that.


The bicycles, however, need weekly maintenance or stuff will quickly go
south. The difference in maintenance effort per mile between car and
bicycles vastly exceeds 1:10.

The same would be true of any vehicle used at or very close to it's
limits.
Remember that most mountain bikes above a fairly low price point are
designed with sports use in mind, where a rebuild between each meeting
is regarded as an acceptable price to pay for the capability to win
races. I've worked on motorcycles built the same way - heck, we used
to change the piston rings for each day's use, and pistons for each
weekend meeting.
Colin Chapman famously said that the perfect racing car was one that
disintegrated completely as soon as it completed the race. If parts
lasted longer, he reduced weight.
That is exactly the approach taken by the makers of sporting bicycles.


I bought strictly a trail bike or XC bike. It has a very stout frame
which is the main reason for picking this model. It is not used in race
conditions and I do not have anything close to the power my bike dealer
has (competition mountain biker). Yet repairs are needed all the time
and the same goes for all of my riding buddies. Much of this can be
avoided by smarter engineering.

Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying
of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack
that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to
bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes,
and tools, and food, and ...


When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so easily as
in all the states I know about, ....


It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of
interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their little
virtual cyber world. Sad.

Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of them
gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do
need to travel, particularly for local trips.


Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want one.
They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they can't get
a job.

Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20.

That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help.
Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as
there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long
as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you
will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are
unfit.


Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high
school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow
2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly.

So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling
in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more
twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit!


People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there
are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends
will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there.


Meanwhile, one census point in Cambridge (and not in one of the
busiest cycling areas - the site was chosen so that a linked display
counter would be highly visible to a very congested road, so that
motorists would be encouraged out of their cars, not because it
carried the most cycle traffic) was passed by over a million cyclists
this year, with only about 280,000 people living in what would
conventionally be called cycle commuting range, and around 130,000
actually in the city and it's semi-attached necklace of former
villages.
Your sprawling cities will need to collapse in on themselves and
become far more compact for anything like that level of popularity
there though.


Most American do not want that. They want space and breathing room.


... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the
old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone.
A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at
about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's
crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university
departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on
cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be
allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of
Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for
Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special
dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local
residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any
case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all.
Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles
goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while
simultaneously making them more cycle friendly.


That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that
it isn't done.


... There's little that
encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in
stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes
them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated
facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers.


I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people
experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at
least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a
near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is
such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car
people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?".




... nearly all types of business have
drive through facilities, and they even build big parking lots at
schools, driving to school becomes a status thing (and the first
personal and private space that most teenagers enjoy!), people stop
using anything else, and it's hard to get them back into the habit.


The topper and this was in the early 80's: We returned a long term
rental car. The rental place's owner was completely stunned when we
presented the invoice for changing oil and air filter. We obviously were
the first to think of such stuff and he profoundly thanked us, then
handed us a check. The place had no cash but he sad the bank is right
across the street. However, drive-through only. We came back "Hey, can
we have that car for another couple hundred yards and five minutes to
cash the check?" ... of course we could. It was weird.

LMAO - that's a classic example of how non-motorists are marginalised
when "everyone drives".


Yup :-(

And it's something we have far less of in the UK - drive through
facilities are almost entirely at fast-food outlets.


That's bad enough. Last time I frequented a fast food place was some
time in the previous century and only because I got badgered into it by
youngsters.

Which does at least show that it's a class of use you can choose to
ignore if you want to.
And even with those, it relatively unusual for them to be ONLY drive
through. If you can stand the food, noisy atmosphere, and horrible
decor, you can park up and sit down inside, and sometimes outside as
well.


It's the same here with fast food places. You can go in there. The
atmosphere is usually that of a large tiled waiting room in an ancient
railroad station.

While I have your attention and you are from the UK, a question if I
may: Among some parts for my MTB repair I just received some Clarks
brake pads for Shimano caliper brakes on the road bike. No instructions,
of course. I assume the rubber flags must be pointing down, correct?

Since you said they are significantly lower performing than KoolStop
I'll mount then on the back for now. $3/pair certainly is better than
$20/pair.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-12-25 02:00, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
13:26:17 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-23 11:07, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016
14:37:13 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-21 14:07, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016
13:39:12 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-19 18:35, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sat, 17 Dec 2016
14:22:20 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016
13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote:


[...]


When there are enough cyclists, there are also enough of them to be a
significant voting block, and cycling infrastructure gets funded,
particularly as it's seen as a way to speed the flow of motor traffic
by getting all those pesky cyclists (for whom the roads were
originally sealed and who use the roads by right) out of the way of
the motorists (who only use the roads by permit and under strict
conditions).


In this day and age it only works if the planning guys take a leap of
faith and build it. Like they did in Folsom, with resounding success.
Same in Manhattan, and Portland, and ...

Stevenage, and Milton Keynes, and Telford, and Basingstoke - none of
which had 1/10th the cycling levels of Oxford, never mind Cambridge,
neither of which had any dedicated cycling infrastructure at all.

Where on earth do you think that "leap of faith" came from, if it
wasn't demand?


From lots of examples where demand was not being voiced. One example of
many is the city of Folsom. They just built the bike infrastructure.
They were smart.

Despite your claims, they must have been able to show suppressed
demand to get the funding.


They didn't. There are very rare occurrences where politicians have true
vision and the ones in Folsom truly belong in that class. The ones in
our community here clearly do not.


Magical thinking is not rational, and city planners who attempt to
waste money by building facilities (never mind the constant
maintenance of such facilities while waiting for the users to actually
arrive and start reporting things like vegetation overgrowth, cracked
surfacing, etc.) where they can't show a demand find themselves
looking for other employment. The maintenance issue is a very real
one - if facilities aren't used, they DO disappear through things like
encroachment of vegetation, become crime ridden places where litter
and even large-scale duping takes place, drug users hang out to get
stoned/high and dealers congregate.


Example: The El Dorado Trail which I use a lot. Maintained completely by
volunteers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHU4zg_V3LY

Now that traffic picks up in some areas they are paving another long
section. I am not in favor of that because the money could be better
used to a commuter bike path in the busier western parts.

So you have some leisure trails - so do we, but they are not (as you
correctly point out), used much for commuting, and in most cases are
impassable on a normal road-going bike without advanced skills.


So how come that there are now lots of well-worn bicycles in the Intel
parking lots where they used to be almost non-existent? People do not go
there for leisure. Same with stores. People need to buy groceries.


You need an existing pent-up demand to make sure that facilities start
being used from day one, or they very quickly become places where even
those who might want to use them (at least for their intended purpose)
daren't!

As long as there are very few cyclists, you don't get any pressure
from either the motorists (who perceive, usually wrongly, delays from
having to wait to pass cyclists - it's only less time waiting in the
next queue of motor traffic, after all) or from the timid or less
capable road cyclists, who don't know how to ride in motor traffic
safely (or those who worry on their behalf, regardless of real danger,
just because of perceived danger based on their own competence level
instead of that of the rider or that of the overwhelming majority of
motorists).


Smart cyclists know of the real danger. They know how to ride correctly
and as the law demands. It does demand AFRAP here unless taking the lane
is allowed.

Which it is in every example that has been quoted in this group -
sometimes explicitly, sometimes just by use of the word "practicable".
What you need to learn is the difference between practicable and
possible.


The law says so.

That practicable is not the same as possible, yes - unless you can
cite a law which says otherwise.


California Vehicle Code.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ionNum= 21202.

Exceptions are clearly outlined. In practice only what an officer says
counts in court. Because he or she de facto is the law, regardless of
what we think about it.

Did you miss this?
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not
limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it
unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the
provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a
“substandard width lane� is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle
and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Note that it is "including but not limited to" so just a few examples,
not a list of clearly outlined conditions, as you seem to
misunderstand..



It does not matter what you or I think. It only matters what the police
and then the judge think. BTDT.


And if, as you say, the law is whatever the local cop says,
prosecutions would never, ever, fail. Congratualtions on your police
state, but most USians would disagree with your assertion.


It's the same in Europe. BTDT.


... Remember
that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty, and proof requires more
than the word of one cop who doesn't know the law.


No, it does not.


If it comes down to a disagreement of what is "reasonably necessary",
proving that it wasn't is going to be a tough job, and the odds are
weighted in your favour, unless you have a "judge" who merely
rubber-stamps police complaints, but that is what appeals courts are
for. The onus of proof is on the cop, and you only need reasonable
doubt. So in a one to one disagreement, the cop doesn't stand a
chance.

Print out that law and carry it with you, so that you can deal with
any police officers who obstruct your legal use of the roads. Note
also that you can take the lane to avoid right hooks (section 4). It
seems to me that the exceptions are all that any cyclist would want,
and certainly all that is needed.


If you hold up traffic and the cop thinks this wasn't warranted you get
to pay. Big time.



It may be possible to share a 13' lane with an 11'6" semi, as long as
you are prepared to overhang the road edge and duck as the door mirror
skims your head, but it is certainly not practicable, which many
states seem to directly address in the legislation as an example case
of where it is not practicable.
Others seem to make the assumption (apparently wrongly) that people
are intelligent enough to figure that out for themselves.

Example: I was riding a road like the one you described above every
week, a "utility ride". There is one narrow bridge where I always took
the lane. Until one fine day when a guy gunned it, passed me, realized
opposing traffic and almost pushed me over the railing of that bridge.
Since that day I use the car unless a bush road is passable via MTB (it
floods a lot and I have to show up non-muddy). It's safer.

What action did you take against the dangerous driver?
Let me guess - none.


Has it ever occurred to you that someone struggling to avoid a crash
cannot at the same time keep a 2nd pair of eyes on a license plate
because humans only have one pair? Besides, as most of the people here
know the police will do ... nothing.

Then you take private action.


Like what exactly? Load the rifle and ride out there, like the Cochise
Cowboys?

No, prosecute privately.



Yeah, right. Prosecute every driver of every silver-colored lower Honday
Civic.


Here, that merely means "laying informations" with the local
magistrates court, who have a staff to help with filling in all the
right forms so that it is filed correctly. Then you just wait until
the case comes up and appear as the complainant.
I'm sure there must be a functionally equivalent process there.


If you have deep pockets because the attorney is going to want upfront
payment for their efforts. Lots of money. Hundreds of Dollars per hour
and the hours are going to tick away.


... The right to bring prosecutions is not
reserved to the police and DA there, is it? US law is allegedly based
on UK law (even to the extent of being able to use UK court decisions
as precedent, unless they obviously conflict with US law). As
precedent is generally used for decisions which are "edge cases", and
the language is at least commonly based, the same decisions make the
same sense.
And if the problem is as bad as you claim, run a camera, which will
turn everyone who views the video into a witness.


Even if you did you will need to convince a lawyer to takes your case or
be independently wealthy so you can plop a (big) was of cash on his desk.

I rather doubt it.


You've obviously never tried.


And then you have to fight people who lie the blue out of the sky. "Oh,
no, Joey did not drive that day, must he been someone else. We have 15
witnesses who'll declare under oath he was with them".

And you show the video, and let the court decide.


The camera can see through a tinted window and then further through a
baseball cap and a skull?



We just had a case in court where someone deliberately mowed down three
cyclists. One of them will likely never be normal again due to brain
injury. Was the perp convicted of attempted murder? Oh no. All he got
was a hit-and-run conviction (he had fled the scene).

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...118031133.html

Under charging is rife here too, but that isn't a reason not to do
anything about it.


Mostly nothing at all will be done if nobody died. I have been on the
witness stand in Germany and actually encouraged the cyclist that was
brutally pushed into a ditch to press charges. Result: The trucker lied
and went free. The case was iron-clad. Didn't matter.



Did you even make any obvious signal that it was unsafe for him to
pass you?


Like what? A fist in the air, with a loudly screamed expletive? Or throw
a ballpeen hammer?

Here the right (presumable there, the left) hand raised to shoulder
height with a flat vertical palm, although not an officially
recognised hand signal, seems to be well understood, even by our much
more aggressive motor traffic.
All you need to do is confuse them, so many things would probably be
equally effective - but adopting an unofficial standard does have
benefits, as it does stand a chance of becoming recognised in law.


You cannot confuse a guy like that with a dose of road rage in his belly.

********.
The overwhelming majority of cases like that are just mistakes -
people not looking past the vehicle they are catching up with to see
the other traffic coming towards them. If it had been road rage, you
wouldn't be posting here - he'd have got you no matter what you'd have
done, as you had (by your own account) no way off that bridge to avoid
him.
Or are the goalposts going to suddenly jump sideways again?


You seem not to really comprehend such situations. It clearly was a case
of starting road rage. The guy became p....d. Not all guys guys with
road intend to kill.



... If so, could he even see it past your daytime driver
blinding lights?


If you had read carefully you'd know that he saw me full well. Then he
blew a mental gaskets because he was inconvenienced and floored it.

Well, unless you are posting from the grave, the situation clearly
wasn't all that bad - had you not been taking the lane, you'd have had
nowhere to swerve to avoid him.


The call was close enough that from then on I only traveled that road by
car and that's how it is going to be until they build a bike path or
lane. I am not stupidly waiting for next time when a guy kills me or
cripples me.

Chicken. All because you won't just learn to ride properly in
traffic.


You have no clue, were not there yet profess to know it all better.
Makes no sense to continue the discussion.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-12-25 09:01, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016
14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016
13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016
13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016
13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote:

[...]

... They have the luxury of
getting to work
rapidly and then sitting at a desk for the rest of the
day. And if
you eat some protein you can limit the muscle damage.

Where I live is different. If I get a job in the area I
want I could
be commuting 50 km each way. And because of the traffic I
could even
be faster counting both the stop and go traffic and the
more direct
path I could take as a bicyclist.


That's over 30mi each way. A lot. Not sure if I'd do that
but if not
many hills probably yes.

The furthest I've commuted was a daily trip of 21 miles each
way, but
I know of one cyclist who commuted about double that for
several
years, from Dunstable to central London.


We hired away a UK engineer, a very skinny guy. He had a commute
somewhere north of 30mi, also near London. This guy rode a
bike every
day even in the driving rain. When he and his family arrived
here in the
US he no longer rode. Considering the absence of bike
facilities this
was fully understandable back then since that also caused me
to stop
riding.

When did you hire this guy? Where, exactly, did he ride in
Britain?


In 1998. I forgot the exact route.

There weren't ANY in the UK that long in 1998.
Zero, none, zilch, that were even half that long!


As I have said before side roads, residential roads and agricultural
roads with little vehicle traffic are quite acceptable in lieu of
bike
paths. Smart cyclists tend to find those.

Anywhere which would be regarded in the UK as "near London" would
include negotiating barriers like major trunk roads and motorways,
which only provide crossings for other major roads, forcing you to
use
them.
The same is true for natural barriers like rivers, of course.


Same here. Crossing them is not a problem. Riding on them for more
than
a few miles is a problem for most people. Or at least so uncomfortable
that they won't do it.

I think you missed the point - crossing them is only possible on other
major roads - side roads, agricultural roads and residential roads,
even if they existed before the barrier was created, are almost always
severed by it, so you have to move onto the network of major roads
just to be able to cross, and once on that network, it's very
difficult to move back onto minor roads, because the major roads have
limited junctions.


We have a nice tool for that in the old colony: The traffic light :-)

Which aren't used at all on motorways (our version of your interstate
highways) which not only surround London, but radiate outwards from
it.


Those have bridges or tunnels around here. Some for cyclists look
spooky, like this one to the Folsom South Canal bike path:

http://city4.учпроект.рф/i...som-usa-10.jpg

However, on the other side you have unfettered racing opportunities. No
speed limit, no traffic, straight line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3gnLIUum0


When going into the valley there is one major traffic artery where the
bike path doesn't have the usual grade separation. I stopp, press a
little button, 10 seconds later all traffic is stopped and I step on the
pedals again.

On the other roads in Folsom I can just barrel through regardless of
traffic. Either under the road or on a cycle path bridge above. One even
has both to pick from, beats me why. This one tops them all:

http://www.traillink.com/trail-photo...rail.aspx#leaf


Bridges and subways are an example of useful facilities, and we do
have a few of them.


See?

[...]


Again, I _never_ use that in front of people I want to convince to
cycle. Sometimes laziness comes up but it's them bringing it up. It is
good to be on their minds so they get off the couch because they don't
want to be "those people".


In this NG there will hardly be any lazy people since nearly all are
already experienced cyclists. Doctors discuss a dire prognosis very
openly among colleagues but, of course, not necessarily in front of a
sensitive patient.


The company I used to work for with an office in Tulsa used to
send me
out a few times a year, and people in the building where the office
was located were alarmed at my walking to work - from the hotel
NEXT
DOOR! Utterly ridiculous, as I actually traveled further
vertically
after entering the building than I did horizontally to reach it
- so
much so, that I used the stairs some of the time, just for the
exercise. If I'd had a bicycle out there, I'd have used it for
going
out in the evenings, but it was easier to get hold of a car (the
office manager out there used to lend me her son's z28 Camaro, in
return for service advice (the suspension was best described as a
project!), which got less necessary as things got fixed and he
learned
how to look after it.


A Z28 is real fun to drive.

It is when it's properly maintained.
Initially, it was almost unbeatable in a straight line and undrivable
anywhere else! And even maintaining that straight line was
challenging, with poor tracking and all the suspension joints loose
giving bump-steering, torque steering, and all the other ills that
afflict vehicles on which maintenance has been neglected over a long
period - particularly powerful high performance ones.
By my last visit, it was a pleasure to drive.
By then, almost every joint and pivot in the suspension and steering
had been replaced and fully re-aligned.


That is a problem with many American passenger cars. Stuff does not
last. Very different with many pickup trucks which seem to last
forever.

Bicycles have similar problems :-)

But are much cheaper and easier to work on.


Not at all. The only thing I ever did to my SUV was changing the oil,
battery and (once) the tires. The timing belts were also changed once
but only because the car is now 20 years old and I got concerned. They
were still fine.

But you just said that it is a problem with many American passenger
cars. It's hard to keep up with the speed at which you move the
goalposts.


Think a bit farther: Both of our cars are Japanese, and there are
reasons for that.


The bicycles, however, need weekly maintenance or stuff will quickly go
south. The difference in maintenance effort per mile between car and
bicycles vastly exceeds 1:10.

The same would be true of any vehicle used at or very close to it's
limits.
Remember that most mountain bikes above a fairly low price point are
designed with sports use in mind, where a rebuild between each meeting
is regarded as an acceptable price to pay for the capability to win
races. I've worked on motorcycles built the same way - heck, we used
to change the piston rings for each day's use, and pistons for each
weekend meeting.
Colin Chapman famously said that the perfect racing car was one that
disintegrated completely as soon as it completed the race. If parts
lasted longer, he reduced weight.
That is exactly the approach taken by the makers of sporting bicycles.


I bought strictly a trail bike or XC bike. It has a very stout frame
which is the main reason for picking this model. It is not used in race
conditions and I do not have anything close to the power my bike dealer
has (competition mountain biker). Yet repairs are needed all the time
and the same goes for all of my riding buddies. Much of this can be
avoided by smarter engineering.

Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying
of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack
that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to
bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes,
and tools, and food, and ...


When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so
easily as
in all the states I know about, ....


It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of
interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their
little
virtual cyber world. Sad.

Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of
them
gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do
need to travel, particularly for local trips.


Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want
one.
They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they
can't get
a job.

Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20.

That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help.
Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as
there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long
as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you
will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are
unfit.


Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high
school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow
2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly.

So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling
in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more
twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit!


People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there
are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends
will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there.


Meanwhile, one census point in Cambridge (and not in one of the
busiest cycling areas - the site was chosen so that a linked display
counter would be highly visible to a very congested road, so that
motorists would be encouraged out of their cars, not because it
carried the most cycle traffic) was passed by over a million cyclists
this year, with only about 280,000 people living in what would
conventionally be called cycle commuting range, and around 130,000
actually in the city and it's semi-attached necklace of former
villages.
Your sprawling cities will need to collapse in on themselves and
become far more compact for anything like that level of popularity
there though.


Most American do not want that. They want space and breathing room.


... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the
old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone.
A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at
about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's
crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university
departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on
cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be
allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of
Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for
Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special
dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local
residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any
case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all.
Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles
goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while
simultaneously making them more cycle friendly.


That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that
it isn't done.


... There's little that
encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in
stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes
them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated
facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers.


I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people
experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at
least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a
near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is
such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car
people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?".




... nearly all types of business have
drive through facilities, and they even build big parking lots at
schools, driving to school becomes a status thing (and the first
personal and private space that most teenagers enjoy!), people stop
using anything else, and it's hard to get them back into the habit.


The topper and this was in the early 80's: We returned a long term
rental car. The rental place's owner was completely stunned when we
presented the invoice for changing oil and air filter. We
obviously were
the first to think of such stuff and he profoundly thanked us, then
handed us a check. The place had no cash but he sad the bank is
right
across the street. However, drive-through only. We came back
"Hey, can
we have that car for another couple hundred yards and five
minutes to
cash the check?" ... of course we could. It was weird.

LMAO - that's a classic example of how non-motorists are marginalised
when "everyone drives".


Yup :-(

And it's something we have far less of in the UK - drive through
facilities are almost entirely at fast-food outlets.


That's bad enough. Last time I frequented a fast food place was some
time in the previous century and only because I got badgered into it by
youngsters.

Which does at least show that it's a class of use you can choose to
ignore if you want to.
And even with those, it relatively unusual for them to be ONLY drive
through. If you can stand the food, noisy atmosphere, and horrible
decor, you can park up and sit down inside, and sometimes outside as
well.


It's the same here with fast food places. You can go in there. The
atmosphere is usually that of a large tiled waiting room in an ancient
railroad station.

While I have your attention and you are from the UK, a question if I
may: Among some parts for my MTB repair I just received some Clarks
brake pads for Shimano caliper brakes on the road bike. No instructions,
of course. I assume the rubber flags must be pointing down, correct?

Since you said they are significantly lower performing than KoolStop
I'll mount then on the back for now. $3/pair certainly is better than
$20/pair.


Figured it out. There was a faint L and R stamped on top. I need better
light in the garage. Those fluorescents are a bit dim when it's cold.

Let's see how they fare. They sure don't let you use up as much rubber
as in the good old days until metal shows up.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-12-26 13:10, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sun, 25 Dec 2016
09:01:18 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016
14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016
13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016
13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016
13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote:

[...]

... They have the luxury of getting to work
rapidly and then sitting at a desk for the rest of the day. And if
you eat some protein you can limit the muscle damage.

Where I live is different. If I get a job in the area I want I could
be commuting 50 km each way. And because of the traffic I could even
be faster counting both the stop and go traffic and the more direct
path I could take as a bicyclist.


That's over 30mi each way. A lot. Not sure if I'd do that but if not
many hills probably yes.

The furthest I've commuted was a daily trip of 21 miles each way, but
I know of one cyclist who commuted about double that for several
years, from Dunstable to central London.


We hired away a UK engineer, a very skinny guy. He had a commute
somewhere north of 30mi, also near London. This guy rode a bike every
day even in the driving rain. When he and his family arrived here in the
US he no longer rode. Considering the absence of bike facilities this
was fully understandable back then since that also caused me to stop
riding.

When did you hire this guy? Where, exactly, did he ride in Britain?


In 1998. I forgot the exact route.

There weren't ANY in the UK that long in 1998.
Zero, none, zilch, that were even half that long!


As I have said before side roads, residential roads and agricultural
roads with little vehicle traffic are quite acceptable in lieu of bike
paths. Smart cyclists tend to find those.

Anywhere which would be regarded in the UK as "near London" would
include negotiating barriers like major trunk roads and motorways,
which only provide crossings for other major roads, forcing you to use
them.
The same is true for natural barriers like rivers, of course.


Same here. Crossing them is not a problem. Riding on them for more than
a few miles is a problem for most people. Or at least so uncomfortable
that they won't do it.

I think you missed the point - crossing them is only possible on other
major roads - side roads, agricultural roads and residential roads,
even if they existed before the barrier was created, are almost always
severed by it, so you have to move onto the network of major roads
just to be able to cross, and once on that network, it's very
difficult to move back onto minor roads, because the major roads have
limited junctions.


We have a nice tool for that in the old colony: The traffic light :-)

Which aren't used at all on motorways (our version of your interstate
highways) which not only surround London, but radiate outwards from
it.


Those have bridges or tunnels around here. Some for cyclists look
spooky, like this one to the Folsom South Canal bike path:

http://city4.????????.??/images1/folsom-usa-10.jpg

404 error.


Maybe this works:

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_pi...026ed2d5844401

It's the tunnel underneath Highway 50. Quite spooky because in summer
there can be rattlesnakes in there that want to cool off. Or some
muggers with knives jump into the path when you emerge.


However, on the other side you have unfettered racing opportunities. No
speed limit, no traffic, straight line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3gnLIUum0

That looks moderately similar to our route to St Ives, except that
ours has significant cycle traffic.

When going into the valley there is one major traffic artery where the
bike path doesn't have the usual grade separation. I stopp, press a
little button, 10 seconds later all traffic is stopped and I step on the
pedals again.

On the other roads in Folsom I can just barrel through regardless of
traffic. Either under the road or on a cycle path bridge above. One even
has both to pick from, beats me why. This one tops them all:

http://www.traillink.com/trail-photo...rail.aspx#leaf

Bridges and subways are an example of useful facilities, and we do
have a few of them.


See?

[...]

But the big problem is that they put them where it is convenient to
build them, not where they are much use - you can go many miles out of
your way to find a crossing, so people use the roads instead most of
the time.


In Folsom, Davis and some areas around there the traffic planners are
smarter. They put them where they are really needed.

http://www.villagelife.com/news/ride...il-new-bridge/

https://jennyimaine.files.wordpress....som-bridge.jpg

However, some communities like ours do ... nothing :-(


Again, I _never_ use that in front of people I want to convince to
cycle. Sometimes laziness comes up but it's them bringing it up. It is
good to be on their minds so they get off the couch because they don't
want to be "those people".


In this NG there will hardly be any lazy people since nearly all are
already experienced cyclists. Doctors discuss a dire prognosis very
openly among colleagues but, of course, not necessarily in front of a
sensitive patient.


The company I used to work for with an office in Tulsa used to send me
out a few times a year, and people in the building where the office
was located were alarmed at my walking to work - from the hotel NEXT
DOOR! Utterly ridiculous, as I actually traveled further vertically
after entering the building than I did horizontally to reach it - so
much so, that I used the stairs some of the time, just for the
exercise. If I'd had a bicycle out there, I'd have used it for going
out in the evenings, but it was easier to get hold of a car (the
office manager out there used to lend me her son's z28 Camaro, in
return for service advice (the suspension was best described as a
project!), which got less necessary as things got fixed and he learned
how to look after it.


A Z28 is real fun to drive.

It is when it's properly maintained.
Initially, it was almost unbeatable in a straight line and undrivable
anywhere else! And even maintaining that straight line was
challenging, with poor tracking and all the suspension joints loose
giving bump-steering, torque steering, and all the other ills that
afflict vehicles on which maintenance has been neglected over a long
period - particularly powerful high performance ones.
By my last visit, it was a pleasure to drive.
By then, almost every joint and pivot in the suspension and steering
had been replaced and fully re-aligned.


That is a problem with many American passenger cars. Stuff does not
last. Very different with many pickup trucks which seem to last forever.

Bicycles have similar problems :-)

But are much cheaper and easier to work on.


Not at all. The only thing I ever did to my SUV was changing the oil,
battery and (once) the tires. The timing belts were also changed once
but only because the car is now 20 years old and I got concerned. They
were still fine.

But you just said that it is a problem with many American passenger
cars. It's hard to keep up with the speed at which you move the
goalposts.


Think a bit farther: Both of our cars are Japanese, and there are
reasons for that.

I've had reliability problems with Japanese vehicles as well - they
aren't immune.


Before I bought my car I went on Edmund's and researched that out. There
are scores of failure and repair statistics, also by auto clubs. Not
necessary for my wifes car because I had lots of rental experience with
that model. So far not even the dome light bulb has dared to burn out
and it's been two decades.


The bicycles, however, need weekly maintenance or stuff will quickly go
south. The difference in maintenance effort per mile between car and
bicycles vastly exceeds 1:10.

The same would be true of any vehicle used at or very close to it's
limits.
Remember that most mountain bikes above a fairly low price point are
designed with sports use in mind, where a rebuild between each meeting
is regarded as an acceptable price to pay for the capability to win
races. I've worked on motorcycles built the same way - heck, we used
to change the piston rings for each day's use, and pistons for each
weekend meeting.
Colin Chapman famously said that the perfect racing car was one that
disintegrated completely as soon as it completed the race. If parts
lasted longer, he reduced weight.
That is exactly the approach taken by the makers of sporting bicycles.


I bought strictly a trail bike or XC bike. It has a very stout frame
which is the main reason for picking this model. It is not used in race
conditions and I do not have anything close to the power my bike dealer
has (competition mountain biker). Yet repairs are needed all the time
and the same goes for all of my riding buddies. Much of this can be
avoided by smarter engineering.

You mean adding weight, which most riders don't want.


That is where the industry is wrong. There is a small market for such
bikes but the potential profit margins are high because those people are
willing to pay for a nice ride. They don't even shy away from custom
stuff. I am having a piece made in a machine shop right now from
aircraft aluminum. Can't buy it.


There are a few fully suspended touring bikes, which would seem to fit
your needs better than an MTB.


They'd break on the trails. Trail riding is a necessity out here.


They aren't cheap mind you, but that is as much because of the tiny
market for them as the actual building cost.


I have not seen anything with the robust trail performance of a Fuji
Outland or similar.


Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying
of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack
that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to
bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes,
and tools, and food, and ...


When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so easily as
in all the states I know about, ....


It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of
interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their little
virtual cyber world. Sad.

Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of them
gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do
need to travel, particularly for local trips.


Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want one.
They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they can't get
a job.

Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20.

That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help.
Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as
there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long
as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you
will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are
unfit.


Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high
school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow
2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly.

So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling
in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more
twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit!


People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there
are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends
will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there.

Yeah, we know.
Danger, Danger!
As long as you and your friends keep telling people it's dangerous,
they'll use it as a reason not to ride.


We know better. The last rider here died a week ago.


With the right training, they are as safe or safer than the routes you
prefer (I noticed the very solid bollards hidden nicely in the shade
of the bridge over that route you posted the link to - how long before
you were even found after hitting one of them, never mind how long for
an ambulance to get there?


It's about car drivers, not cyclist. Hence no training effect. I know
perfectly well not to careen into a bollard and this is fully under my
control. However, I cannot control the driver coming from behind, slowly
drifting because he is looking at who may have just text-messaged him.


Meanwhile, one census point in Cambridge (and not in one of the
busiest cycling areas - the site was chosen so that a linked display
counter would be highly visible to a very congested road, so that
motorists would be encouraged out of their cars, not because it
carried the most cycle traffic) was passed by over a million cyclists
this year, with only about 280,000 people living in what would
conventionally be called cycle commuting range, and around 130,000
actually in the city and it's semi-attached necklace of former
villages.
Your sprawling cities will need to collapse in on themselves and
become far more compact for anything like that level of popularity
there though.


Most American do not want that. They want space and breathing room.

And to be enslaved to the car (which makes a bit of a mockery of the
"breathing room" part).
I've also found that city centre gentrification is happening just as
much there as here, so clearly you aren't speaking for all Americans.
There are clear downsides to living a long way from work (and all the
other facilities) like wasting a lot of your life traveling to and
from work, stores, and other necessary facilities, and poor internet
speeds (which is a matter of physics).


You should come visit. Then you'd know that this isn't true. One has to
be smart and find the best way to handle any potential impact. For
example, my work today happens right here in this office, at home. As it
does every day. My commute is 10 seconds and it's a leisurely stroll
instead of standing jam-packed in some subway.


... Increasingly, that is being
taken into account in people's home purchase decisions. You want fast
internet, you have to be close to a major exchange, because fast
digital signals don't get far on existing telco cabling, and running
fibre to your door is expensive, particularly if it's a long way from
the nearest concentrator.
It'll be a longer process in the US, as you have further to go, but
it'll happen.


Nope. We figured this out a long time ago. I have 6MB/sec and could have
a lot more. But since it's used mainly for biz I don't need more.


... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the
old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone.
A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at
about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's
crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university
departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on
cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be
allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of
Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for
Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special
dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local
residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any
case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all.
Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles
goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while
simultaneously making them more cycle friendly.


That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that
it isn't done.

You LIKE your cities choked with cars?


No, I do not like cities at all. I have lived in them and cannot
understand why anyone would lile to like like in a can of sardines.

What I certainly do not want is some government entity telling me that I
cannot drive to and from my house. Like today where I need to buy fuel
pellets. It is a wee problem to haul half a ton on a bicycle in hilly
terrain.


... There's little that
encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in
stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes
them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated
facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers.


I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people
experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at
least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a
near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is
such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car
people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?".

Car use is not discouraged in the Netherlands?
They TAUGHT the rest of the world how to do it!


Nope. Unless it has changed. I lived there for many years in the 80's
and car use was easy. We just _chose_ to take the bikes.


Sure, you can get most places by car if you really need to, although
the entry cost is high compared to most places (both for the car and
the driver testing and licensing) but with very low (i.e cycle
friendly) speed limits in cities, and often very convoluted routes to
get from one part of a city or town to another. And nowhere to leave
your motor vehicle except briefly as you load or unload it.
Not to mention the cost of running a car in the NL - how many times as
much as in the US is it now?


Slightly higher than in Germany. No big deal for regular people. In the
US it is cheaper than probably most of Europe mainly because of lower
gasoline taxes but that's got almost nothing to do with car use. If
people want a car they have one.


... nearly all types of business have
drive through facilities, and they even build big parking lots at
schools, driving to school becomes a status thing (and the first
personal and private space that most teenagers enjoy!), people stop
using anything else, and it's hard to get them back into the habit.


The topper and this was in the early 80's: We returned a long term
rental car. The rental place's owner was completely stunned when we
presented the invoice for changing oil and air filter. We obviously were
the first to think of such stuff and he profoundly thanked us, then
handed us a check. The place had no cash but he sad the bank is right
across the street. However, drive-through only. We came back "Hey, can
we have that car for another couple hundred yards and five minutes to
cash the check?" ... of course we could. It was weird.

LMAO - that's a classic example of how non-motorists are marginalised
when "everyone drives".


Yup :-(

And it's something we have far less of in the UK - drive through
facilities are almost entirely at fast-food outlets.


That's bad enough. Last time I frequented a fast food place was some
time in the previous century and only because I got badgered into it by
youngsters.

Which does at least show that it's a class of use you can choose to
ignore if you want to.
And even with those, it relatively unusual for them to be ONLY drive
through. If you can stand the food, noisy atmosphere, and horrible
decor, you can park up and sit down inside, and sometimes outside as
well.


It's the same here with fast food places. You can go in there. The
atmosphere is usually that of a large tiled waiting room in an ancient
railroad station.

While I have your attention and you are from the UK, a question if I
may: Among some parts for my MTB repair I just received some Clarks
brake pads for Shimano caliper brakes on the road bike. No instructions,
of course. I assume the rubber flags must be pointing down, correct?

I'm not familiar with the rubber flags you describe - the ones I've
seen have all been fairly standard block shapes, with nothing I could
imagine being described as a flag on them anywhere.
But I wouldn't recommend having anything which sticks out towards the
tyre, as it'll make a right mess of the sidewall, and anything with an
open ended holder must be aligned so that it is forced INTO the holder
by normal braking, not out of it. All I can recommend is starting
from those basic principles and working it out from there.


I've figure it out. A faint L and R was on there.


Since you said they are significantly lower performing than KoolStop
I'll mount then on the back for now. $3/pair certainly is better than
$20/pair.

That is a pretty extreme difference.


When I bought them $20 bought two pairs. Now only one.


... Keep an eye on rim wear though -
hard blocks can rip through rims pretty fast.
Of course, they may have improved since my encounters with them, and
you may find they are fine.


A brief spin hinted that the performance is not as good as KoolStop but
I'll see on the next 45 miler into the valley. If the difference is
manageable by pulling harder on the levers it's ok, considering the huge
price difference.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-12-27 13:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 27 Dec 2016
08:03:05 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-26 13:10, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sun, 25 Dec 2016
09:01:18 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016
14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016
13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016
13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016
13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:



[...]


Maybe this works:

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_pi...026ed2d5844401

It's the tunnel underneath Highway 50. Quite spooky because in summer
there can be rattlesnakes in there that want to cool off. Or some
muggers with knives jump into the path when you emerge.

Similar to the one under the A14 near Stow-cum-Quy, but ours doesn't
have lights - I can't remember if they are fitted but broken or simply
not there. You'd have to stand in there for a few minutes for your
eyes to adjust enough to be able to see broken light fittings, which
would be foolish at best, given the high level of cycle use and the
fact that most are riding blindly towards the light at the other end.


I never rely on road lighting, my bikes both have powerful headlights.
In our tunnel that can really save the day because rattlesnakes in
"cooling off mode" are often coiled up and they blend into the pavement
color. Coild up snakes can strike if you see them too late. So far I
only ran over one on a trail and it was stretched out where they'd have
a hard time striking.

[...]


There are a few fully suspended touring bikes, which would seem to fit
your needs better than an MTB.


They'd break on the trails. Trail riding is a necessity out here.

They're designed for unsupported expedition touring around the world,
mostly on tracks and unsealed roads. They would survive even your
abuse, unless you set out to deliberately destroy them to prove a
point.


I never saw anything like that here. Or in Europe for that matter.

A good trail bike must survive undamaged when the whole enchilada
becomes airborne and lands hard. I never do that on purpose (except with
the front wheel, of course) but it happens.


They aren't cheap mind you, but that is as much because of the tiny
market for them as the actual building cost.


I have not seen anything with the robust trail performance of a Fuji
Outland or similar.

Try looking at something like the ToutTerrain PanAmericana - you can
even have it with a generator and full wiring harness, with a power
take off for satnav or whatever.


http://www.en.tout-terrain.de/bicycl...ricana-xplore/

Probably very expensive.

I have seen this kind of classic construction, it was popular in the
90's even for forks. The suspension linkage at the axle is too weak.
Could be beefed up by a custom made part though. However, where it would
most likely fail first is where the upper welds to the seat tube are and
then the frame is toast.

The gearbox is cool though. Their are a bit skimpy on specs but it looks
like the front axle is the standard QR deal. Like on my bike. In
conjunction with a large diameter disc brake up front and lots of load
on the bike that would be a big design mistake. Well, maybe not, hard to
see. They should learn more about web site design.

The bike is ok for rough forest roads, gravel roads and such but not for
real singletrack like we have. The best would be to mimic offroad
motorcycles. Those manufacturers understand how it's done right. Simple
pivot and shock in back, triangular structure jutting out back for gear
or in a pinch another rider. Ok, my bike has a Horst link which is
unnecessarily compicated but that (so far) only had two urgent
maintenance events. The triangular structure is what I am building up
myself.

When I am done with the mods to my bike I'll post pictures.


Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying
of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack
that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to
bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes,
and tools, and food, and ...


When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so easily as
in all the states I know about, ....


It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of
interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their little
virtual cyber world. Sad.

Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of them
gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do
need to travel, particularly for local trips.


Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want one.
They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they can't get
a job.

Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20.

That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help.
Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as
there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long
as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you
will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are
unfit.


Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high
school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow
2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly.

So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling
in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more
twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit!


People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there
are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends
will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there.

Yeah, we know.
Danger, Danger!
As long as you and your friends keep telling people it's dangerous,
they'll use it as a reason not to ride.


We know better. The last rider here died a week ago.

We don't, because we don't know why.
If he was riding along at night without lights or even reflectors, you
can't claim it's any indication of a general level of danger - 9pm
wasn't it?


They get hit during day and during night. Typically a high speed impact
from behind.


With the right training, they are as safe or safer than the routes you
prefer (I noticed the very solid bollards hidden nicely in the shade
of the bridge over that route you posted the link to - how long before
you were even found after hitting one of them, never mind how long for
an ambulance to get there?


It's about car drivers, not cyclist. Hence no training effect. I know
perfectly well not to careen into a bollard and this is fully under my
control. However, I cannot control the driver coming from behind, slowly
drifting because he is looking at who may have just text-messaged him.

Those bollards are a hazard, and if you are following another rider (I
know that's very unlikely as long as you keep scaring them off, but
still, it is a slight possibility) who swerves at the last moment to
avoid it, your first sight will be too late to avoid it.


Seriously? You swerve Kamikaze-style where you can't see? Yikes!


A cyclist coming the other way might swerve into the lane you've just
committed to, in order to pass a slower one or avoid a hazard (like
broken glass) that you can't see (if there were any other cyclists, of
course). That would put you straight into the bollard - you only need
to clip the thing for it to bring you down.


If a cyclist swerves into my lane and there is no escape for me I stand
my ground. Have to.



Meanwhile, one census point in Cambridge (and not in one of the
busiest cycling areas - the site was chosen so that a linked display
counter would be highly visible to a very congested road, so that
motorists would be encouraged out of their cars, not because it
carried the most cycle traffic) was passed by over a million cyclists
this year, with only about 280,000 people living in what would
conventionally be called cycle commuting range, and around 130,000
actually in the city and it's semi-attached necklace of former
villages.
Your sprawling cities will need to collapse in on themselves and
become far more compact for anything like that level of popularity
there though.


Most American do not want that. They want space and breathing room.

And to be enslaved to the car (which makes a bit of a mockery of the
"breathing room" part).
I've also found that city centre gentrification is happening just as
much there as here, so clearly you aren't speaking for all Americans.
There are clear downsides to living a long way from work (and all the
other facilities) like wasting a lot of your life traveling to and
from work, stores, and other necessary facilities, and poor internet
speeds (which is a matter of physics).


You should come visit. Then you'd know that this isn't true. One has to
be smart and find the best way to handle any potential impact. For
example, my work today happens right here in this office, at home. As it
does every day. My commute is 10 seconds and it's a leisurely stroll
instead of standing jam-packed in some subway.

Fine to work from home if you can, but not all work can be done that
way - in fact, only a tiny proportion can.


A lot of it can but not everyone understands. Engineering like I do can
almost always be done remotely to a large extent. People are leaving
money on the table hand over fist. For example, I can't find any
freelance tech who'd whip up prototypes at home. Many are unemployed yet
they don't do it. The investment on their part would be less than $1k.
Just one example of many.


... Increasingly, that is being
taken into account in people's home purchase decisions. You want fast
internet, you have to be close to a major exchange, because fast
digital signals don't get far on existing telco cabling, and running
fibre to your door is expensive, particularly if it's a long way from
the nearest concentrator.
It'll be a longer process in the US, as you have further to go, but
it'll happen.


Nope. We figured this out a long time ago. I have 6MB/sec and could have
a lot more. But since it's used mainly for biz I don't need more.

Unless you are using an unusual notation, you may mean 6Mbps - network
speeds are measured in bits (lower case b), not bytes (capital B).


Yes, sorry, 6Mbits/sec.


I get 55 Mbps down, and 12.5Mbps up - but I have teenagers in the
house!


I can have that from a cable company but then only in conjunction with
cable-TV. No way.


... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the
old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone.
A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at
about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's
crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university
departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on
cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be
allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of
Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for
Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special
dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local
residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any
case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all.
Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles
goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while
simultaneously making them more cycle friendly.


That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that
it isn't done.

You LIKE your cities choked with cars?


No, I do not like cities at all. I have lived in them and cannot
understand why anyone would lile to like like in a can of sardines.

What I certainly do not want is some government entity telling me that I
cannot drive to and from my house. Like today where I need to buy fuel
pellets. It is a wee problem to haul half a ton on a bicycle in hilly
terrain.

Well, it might take a few trips, but it worked for the NVA better than
the massive motorised effort put in by the US in that conflict.


What is the NVA? I suppose you don't mean the former East-German army.


... There's little that
encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in
stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes
them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated
facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers.


I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people
experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at
least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a
near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is
such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car
people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?".

Car use is not discouraged in the Netherlands?
They TAUGHT the rest of the world how to do it!


Nope. Unless it has changed. I lived there for many years in the 80's
and car use was easy. We just _chose_ to take the bikes.

I know it's subtle, but then there are none so blind as those who
don't want to see. THey even have a minor industry selling their
expertise around the world, with study tours showing how motor traffic
is subtly discouraged in some areas and from some routes, and how it
all joins up to create people friendly cities.


I think you are seeing ghosts here :-)



Sure, you can get most places by car if you really need to, although
the entry cost is high compared to most places (both for the car and
the driver testing and licensing) but with very low (i.e cycle
friendly) speed limits in cities, and often very convoluted routes to
get from one part of a city or town to another. And nowhere to leave
your motor vehicle except briefly as you load or unload it.
Not to mention the cost of running a car in the NL - how many times as
much as in the US is it now?


Slightly higher than in Germany. No big deal for regular people. In the
US it is cheaper than probably most of Europe mainly because of lower
gasoline taxes but that's got almost nothing to do with car use. If
people want a car they have one.

Plenty of people have cars, but they don't drive nearly as much, on
average, than anywhere else. Partly because parking is difficult when
you get there, partly because you have to use routes which are subtly
diverted so as to be longer, in both time and distance, than those you
could use on a bicycle. And of course, fuel is expensive. So it's
made shorter by bike, quicker by bike, and less expensive by bike.


Let's debunk that myth right he

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...ts ,_2013.png

NL has more cars per capita than the UK.

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2012/1...lometres-a-day

Average 13300km per car in NL.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-28546589

Average 12700km per car in UK.

I trust you can do the math.

[...]



... Keep an eye on rim wear though -
hard blocks can rip through rims pretty fast.
Of course, they may have improved since my encounters with them, and
you may find they are fine.


A brief spin hinted that the performance is not as good as KoolStop but
I'll see on the next 45 miler into the valley. If the difference is
manageable by pulling harder on the levers it's ok, considering the huge
price difference.

Well, they may improve a bit as they bed in, and the blocks conform
better to the precise shape of the rim.


I shall hope so. We've got a lot of hills here where letting loose is
not an option because of intersections.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-12-28 07:47, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-27 13:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 27 Dec 2016
08:03:05 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-26 13:10, Phil Lee wrote:

[Clarks brake pads]


... Keep an eye on rim wear though -
hard blocks can rip through rims pretty fast.
Of course, they may have improved since my encounters with them, and
you may find they are fine.


A brief spin hinted that the performance is not as good as KoolStop but
I'll see on the next 45 miler into the valley. If the difference is
manageable by pulling harder on the levers it's ok, considering the huge
price difference.

Well, they may improve a bit as they bed in, and the blocks conform
better to the precise shape of the rim.


I shall hope so. We've got a lot of hills here where letting loose is
not an option because of intersections.


43 miles later I have to say the Clarks pads are almost on par with
KoolStop. Can't try them in wet weather for a while because no rain but
in wet weather rim brakes are the pits anyways.

So now my fairly international road bike also has UK parts. "Elite"
brake pads no less :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/