Bicycles - what's the primary fuel to your fire?

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >>
> >> In article >,
> >> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >again'? Get in shape! Learn to ride properly. And lose those stupid
> >> >pedal cleats.
> >>
> >> Riding properly means using the pedal cleats.
> >
> >I just saw some clown with his feet stuck in cleats approaching an
> >intersection today. He had to run up onto the sidewalk and grab a
> >utility pole to keep from falling over.
>
> You've probably seen drivers with manual transmissions stall at
> traffic lights too. It's about the same level of skill required to
> avoid either.

I'd put this on a level of the geezer that can't find the brake pedal.
The consequences are not as great for the others involved.

But if this guy would have shot into the intersection and underneath a
dump truck, the local cycle activists would be writing editorials,
posting to blogs and crying to city officials to "do something" about
the hazardous traffic.

As the subject line asks, this is the primary fuel for my fire.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Real programmers don't draw flowcharts. Flowcharts are, after all, the
illiterate's form of documentation. Cavemen drew flowcharts; look how
much good it did them.

In article >,
Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>> >
>> >I just saw some clown with his feet stuck in cleats approaching an
>> >intersection today. He had to run up onto the sidewalk and grab a
>> >utility pole to keep from falling over.
>>
>> You've probably seen drivers with manual transmissions stall at
>> traffic lights too. It's about the same level of skill required to
>> avoid either.
>
>I'd put this on a level of the geezer that can't find the brake pedal.
>The consequences are not as great for the others involved.
>
>But if this guy would have shot into the intersection and underneath a
>dump truck

What, not unclipping somehow caused his brakes to fail?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >>
> >> In article >,
> >> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I just saw some clown with his feet stuck in cleats approaching an
> >> >intersection today. He had to run up onto the sidewalk and grab a
> >> >utility pole to keep from falling over.
> >>
> >> You've probably seen drivers with manual transmissions stall at
> >> traffic lights too. It's about the same level of skill required to
> >> avoid either.
> >
> >I'd put this on a level of the geezer that can't find the brake pedal.
> >The consequences are not as great for the others involved.
> >
> >But if this guy would have shot into the intersection and underneath a
> >dump truck
>
> What, not unclipping somehow caused his brakes to fail?

I guess 'shot' is a poor choice of words. What is more likely is that
the cyclist stuck to his pedals will fall under a vehicle. I've seen a
number of them fall sideways and my dad came a few inches from running
over a guy who did this once.

If we have to provide bicycle lanes wide enough so that vehicular
traffic doesn't threaten cyclists falling on their side, I'd rather see
cleats outlawed in traffic lanes. Even better, require the use of
training wheels until a cyclist passes a skills test and receives an
operators license.


--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

On 2008-08-19, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:

> If we have to provide bicycle lanes wide enough so that vehicular
> traffic doesn't threaten cyclists falling on their side,

Um, the mythical 'proper' bike lane you refered to is more than wide
enough for that. It's really seeming that your entire point is to making
bicycling as difficult and annoying as possible so there will be less of
it.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-08-19, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>
>
>>If we have to provide bicycle lanes wide enough so that vehicular
>>traffic doesn't threaten cyclists falling on their side,
>
>
> Um, the mythical 'proper' bike lane you refered to is more than wide
> enough for that. It's really seeming that your entire point is to making
> bicycling as difficult and annoying as possible so there will be less of
> it.
>
>

Seriously. The door of, say, a Monte Carlo (a real one, not one of
those Lumina-based abortions) is at least as long as the height of a
bike/rider combination.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >,
Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article >,
>> >> Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >I just saw some clown with his feet stuck in cleats approaching an
>> >> >intersection today. He had to run up onto the sidewalk and grab a
>> >> >utility pole to keep from falling over.
>> >>
>> >> You've probably seen drivers with manual transmissions stall at
>> >> traffic lights too. It's about the same level of skill required to
>> >> avoid either.
>> >
>> >I'd put this on a level of the geezer that can't find the brake pedal.
>> >The consequences are not as great for the others involved.
>> >
>> >But if this guy would have shot into the intersection and underneath a
>> >dump truck
>>
>> What, not unclipping somehow caused his brakes to fail?
>
>I guess 'shot' is a poor choice of words. What is more likely is that
>the cyclist stuck to his pedals will fall under a vehicle. I've seen a
>number of them fall sideways and my dad came a few inches from running
>over a guy who did this once.

So there was no "fall[ing] under a vehicle". Instead, your dad almost
ran over a guy who simply fell down in place.

If you don't unclip, there's no fall until you're stopped, or at least
moving at much less than 1 mile an hour. It's embarrassing, but not
dangerous (unless the idiot behind you runs you over)

>If we have to provide bicycle lanes wide enough so that vehicular
>traffic doesn't threaten cyclists falling on their side, I'd rather see
>cleats outlawed in traffic lanes.

I'd rather see blind people taken off the road, but neither of those
is going to happen.

>Even better, require the use of training wheels until a cyclist
>passes a skills test and receives an operators license.

Like that's not a transparent attempt to simply discourage cycling.
Training wheels aren't even safe to use in traffic (or almost
anywhere) and aren't at all safe for adults.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Brent P wrote:
>
> On 2008-08-19, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>
> > If we have to provide bicycle lanes wide enough so that vehicular
> > traffic doesn't threaten cyclists falling on their side,
>
> Um, the mythical 'proper' bike lane you refered to is more than wide
> enough for that. It's really seeming that your entire point is to making
> bicycling as difficult and annoying as possible so there will be less of
> it.

No. Its to keep them separated from vehicular traffic to the greatest
extent possible so that people like you don't soil their shorts when
they get passed. As a result, more people will be comfortable riding
them.

--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

On 2008-08-23, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> On 2008-08-19, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>>
>> > If we have to provide bicycle lanes wide enough so that vehicular
>> > traffic doesn't threaten cyclists falling on their side,
>>
>> Um, the mythical 'proper' bike lane you refered to is more than wide
>> enough for that. It's really seeming that your entire point is to making
>> bicycling as difficult and annoying as possible so there will be less of
>> it.
>
> No. Its to keep them separated from vehicular traffic to the greatest
> extent possible so that people like you don't soil their shorts when
> they get passed. As a result, more people will be comfortable riding
> them.

I'm not afraid of arsehole drivers like you who get their rocks off by
being bullies on the roads. Get too close to me and I'll give your body
panels or side mirrors a good thunk to wake you up. What you want to do
is not share the road at all but have bicyclists confined to unsafe and
slow ghettos off to the side where you, as a car driver can then use
that pavement too when ever you see fit.

Maybe you should just learn how to drive properly and leave behind your
bullying in the 3rd grade.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 2008-08-23, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2008-08-19, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
> >>
> >> > If we have to provide bicycle lanes wide enough so that vehicular
> >> > traffic doesn't threaten cyclists falling on their side,
> >>
> >> Um, the mythical 'proper' bike lane you refered to is more than wide
> >> enough for that. It's really seeming that your entire point is to
making
> >> bicycling as difficult and annoying as possible so there will be less
of
> >> it.
> >
> > No. Its to keep them separated from vehicular traffic to the greatest
> > extent possible so that people like you don't soil their shorts when
> > they get passed. As a result, more people will be comfortable riding
> > them.
>
> I'm not afraid of arsehole drivers like you who get their rocks off by
> being bullies on the roads. Get too close to me and I'll give your body
> panels or side mirrors a good thunk to wake you up. What you want to do
> is not share the road at all but have bicyclists confined to unsafe and
> slow ghettos off to the side where you, as a car driver can then use
> that pavement too when ever you see fit.
>
The moment you decide to thunk a part of a motor vehicle, that should be
treated as an at-fault collision, even if you are on a bike. If you fail to
stop after your at-fault collision, that should be considered hit-and-run or
at least leaving the scene of a collision, again, on your part.

As a bicyclist, on the same roads as motor vehicles, you have the clear
reponsibility to:

* Obey all vehicular traffic laws, including stop signs and traffic lights.

* Remain in the marked bike lane whenever it is safe to do so, and for that
matter, multiple bikes should be riding single file at all times. If no such
bike lane exists, then you should be riding as far to the right as
practical/practicable--in other words, as far to the right without you being
actually off the paved road, ideally so that vehicular traffic does not need
to cross a lane line or double-yellow line to pass you.

* Hand signal well in advance each and every time you will take the
lane--and just like with a motor vehicle you should not assume someone will
let you in the moment you signal. (That wiggle of the bike that many like to
do does *not* qualify as a valid hand signal.) Furthermore, riding in the
door zone does not remove the responsibility of signalling each time the you
want to veer left into the thru traffic lane.

* If you take the lane, you obviously should also be within the speed of
traffic flow. All of the discussions regarding sloth drivers are equally
valid for sloth bicyclsts.

* If you cannot ride in the bike lane, and you cannot be within the speed of
traffic flow when taking the lane, then although the law has not yet caught
up to common sense, common sense dictates to pull off the road, dismount,
and walk the bike if you wish to continue as faster vehicular traffic is
allowed to continue. It's fundamentally no different than a slow-moving
vehicle pulling to the side to let faster vehicular traffic through, but the
bicyclist can continue by walking the bike while there is no practical way
to walk a motor vehicle.

[snip...]

On Aug 24, 2:31 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> > On 2008-08-23, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
> > > Brent P wrote:
>
> > >> On 2008-08-19, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>
> > >> > If we have to provide bicycle lanes wide enough so that vehicular
> > >> > traffic doesn't threaten cyclists falling on their side,
>
> > >> Um, the mythical 'proper' bike lane you refered to is more than wide
> > >> enough for that. It's really seeming that your entire point is to
> making
> > >> bicycling as difficult and annoying as possible so there will be less
> of
> > >> it.
>
> > > No. Its to keep them separated from vehicular traffic to the greatest
> > > extent possible so that people like you don't soil their shorts when
> > > they get passed. As a result, more people will be comfortable riding
> > > them.
>
> > I'm not afraid of arsehole drivers like you who get their rocks off by
> > being bullies on the roads. Get too close to me and I'll give your body
> > panels or side mirrors a good thunk to wake you up. What you want to do
> > is not share the road at all but have bicyclists confined to unsafe and
> > slow ghettos off to the side where you, as a car driver can then use
> > that pavement too when ever you see fit.
>
> The moment you decide to thunk a part of a motor vehicle, that should be
> treated as an at-fault collision, even if you are on a bike. If you fail to
> stop after your at-fault collision, that should be considered hit-and-run or
> at least leaving the scene of a collision, again, on your part.

As if the motorist will stop. If one ever did, though, I would too.

>
> As a bicyclist, on the same roads as motor vehicles, you have the clear
> reponsibility to:
>
> * Obey all vehicular traffic laws, including stop signs and traffic lights.
>
> * Remain in the marked bike lane whenever it is safe to do so, and for that
> matter, multiple bikes should be riding single file at all times. If no such
> bike lane exists, then you should be riding as far to the right as
> practical/practicable--in other words, as far to the right without you being
> actually off the paved road, ideally so that vehicular traffic does not need
> to cross a lane line or double-yellow line to pass you.
>
> * Hand signal well in advance each and every time you will take the
> lane--and just like with a motor vehicle you should not assume someone will
> let you in the moment you signal. (That wiggle of the bike that many like to
> do does *not* qualify as a valid hand signal.) Furthermore, riding in the
> door zone does not remove the responsibility of signalling each time the you
> want to veer left into the thru traffic lane.
>
> * If you take the lane, you obviously should also be within the speed of
> traffic flow. All of the discussions regarding sloth drivers are equally
> valid for sloth bicyclsts.
>
> * If you cannot ride in the bike lane, and you cannot be within the speed of
> traffic flow when taking the lane, then although the law has not yet caught
> up to common sense, common sense dictates to pull off the road, dismount,
> and walk the bike if you wish to continue as faster vehicular traffic is
> allowed to continue. It's fundamentally no different than a slow-moving
> vehicle pulling to the side to let faster vehicular traffic through, but the
> bicyclist can continue by walking the bike while there is no practical way
> to walk a motor vehicle.
>
> [snip...]

I was going to say hell yeah until you got to the last part. It would
be impossible to turn left if everyone rode as you proscribe. There's
no harm in taking a lane briefly to get over to the left hand side of
the through lane to make your turn. There's also BENEFIT in taking
the lane on a narrow road when you can see oncoming traffic that would
make passing dangerous for a following motorist - not doing so is
asking to be sideswiped.

nate