Southern cross drive accident

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Was this where an alternative bicycle track exists ?

[Stuart Longland]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:29:02 +1100, F Murtz wrote:

> Was this where an alternative bicycle track exists ?

I'm not familiar with the area but some cyclists will still choose the
road when a track exists as the road is usually better maintained and
free from debris.

Particularly racing bikes, as they run high pressure tyres and are more
susceptible to punctures.

(I stick to the footpath unless circumstances require it though, as a
courtesy to drivers.)

[Trent W. Buck]

Stuart Longland > writes:

> On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:29:02 +1100, F Murtz wrote:
>
>> Was this where an alternative bicycle track exists ?
>
> I'm not familiar with the area but some cyclists will still choose the
> road when a track exists as the road is usually better maintained and
> free from debris.
>
> Particularly racing bikes, as they run high pressure tyres and are
> more susceptible to punctures.
>
> (I stick to the footpath unless circumstances require it though, as a
> courtesy to drivers.)

And because a bike/ped collision is safer for everyone than a bike/car
collision, and (situation dependent) less likely besides.

[news13]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:13:36 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:


> And because a bike/ped collision is safer for everyone than a bike/car
> collision, and (situation dependent) less likely besides.

How many shared bicycle/ped paths have you ridden.
Ring a bell or sound a horns or hout to advise you're passing and instant
bike stand as they jump in front of you.

Ride wide around them and they mouth off like the dumb gfskers they are.

And I'm only a gentle plodder. There are some really dumb peds around and
that is before you encounter the headphone brigade.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:25:01 +0000 (UTC)
news13 > wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:13:36 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:
>
>
>> And because a bike/ped collision is safer for everyone than a bike/car
>> collision, and (situation dependent) less likely besides.
>
> How many shared bicycle/ped paths have you ridden.

Most of the ones in Sydney.

> Ring a bell or sound a horns or hout to advise you're passing and instant
> bike stand as they jump in front of you.

Funny, I find they move over quite politely.

>
> Ride wide around them and they mouth off like the dumb gfskers they are.

Never happened.

>
> And I'm only a gentle plodder. There are some really dumb peds around and
> that is before you encounter the headphone brigade.

I have sometimes found someone who can't hear the bell, but it is very
seldom and there's usually a way around them.

Zebee

[Stuart Longland]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:25:01 +0000, news13 wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:13:36 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:
>
>
>> And because a bike/ped collision is safer for everyone than a bike/car
>> collision, and (situation dependent) less likely besides.
>
> How many shared bicycle/ped paths have you ridden.
> Ring a bell or sound a horns or hout to advise you're passing and
> instant bike stand as they jump in front of you.
>
> Ride wide around them and they mouth off like the dumb gfskers they are.

Yeah, I've had this too.

Yes pedestrians, I *will* give way to you, but a bit of due diligence on
*your* part would be *greatly* appreciated.

40kg of bicycle + 90kg of rider doesn't stop *that* quickly.

> And I'm only a gentle plodder. There are some really dumb peds around
> and that is before you encounter the headphone brigade.

I suspect the design rules for bicycles haven't changed much in 50
years. 50 years ago we did not have:

- portable music players (okay, there *were* transistor radios)
- mobile phones
- tablet computers

Bicycles 50 years ago did not have:

- gears (unless you were rich)
- hand brakes (many were backpedal brakes)

So ringing a bell was perfectly adequate. One only ever used the
handlebars for hanging on or steering -- to operate the brake you
backpedalled. That meant you had a hand free to muck around with a
woefully inadequate bell. The lack of distractions meant there was a
good chance the pedestrian concerned would hear you and react.

Fast forward all this time, and the pedestrian in front has the iPod
blaring out at top note, and is heavily engaged in some game on his/her
phone. Your bell is no match and in the meantime you're trying to ring
it and trying to simultaneously shift down in gears and brake at the same
time.

I have a lighting system mounted to the bike which includes indicators.
There's a 12V battery on-board which powers the lights plus a radio
transceiver. When I initially set it up, I thought I'd notice the lights
flashing, but found I was sometimes forgetting to turn them off, so I
added one of these:

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?
ID=AB3466&form=CAT2&SUBCATID=984#1

Quite handy around errant pedestrians. However it's only useful when
you're about 5m away, and most don't twig that the beeping noise is a
cyclist hitting the anchors. It's useless with cars in traffic though.

Ode for a horn … I'm sorely tempted to go visit a car wreckers to see if
they've got an old one from a truck or some such that'll run off the 12V
supply, however haven't done so yet.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Stuart Longland wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:25:01 +0000, news13 wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:13:36 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And because a bike/ped collision is safer for everyone than a bike/car
>>> collision, and (situation dependent) less likely besides.
>>
>> How many shared bicycle/ped paths have you ridden.
>> Ring a bell or sound a horns or hout to advise you're passing and
>> instant bike stand as they jump in front of you.
>>
>> Ride wide around them and they mouth off like the dumb gfskers they are.
>
> Yeah, I've had this too.
>
> Yes pedestrians, I *will* give way to you, but a bit of due diligence on
> *your* part would be *greatly* appreciated.
>
> 40kg of bicycle + 90kg of rider doesn't stop *that* quickly.
>
>> And I'm only a gentle plodder. There are some really dumb peds around
>> and that is before you encounter the headphone brigade.
>
> I suspect the design rules for bicycles haven't changed much in 50
> years. 50 years ago we did not have:
>
> - portable music players (okay, there *were* transistor radios)
> - mobile phones
> - tablet computers
>
> Bicycles 50 years ago did not have:
>
> - gears (unless you were rich)
> - hand brakes (many were backpedal brakes)
>
> So ringing a bell was perfectly adequate. One only ever used the
> handlebars for hanging on or steering -- to operate the brake you
> backpedalled. That meant you had a hand free to muck around with a
> woefully inadequate bell. The lack of distractions meant there was a
> good chance the pedestrian concerned would hear you and react.
>
> Fast forward all this time, and the pedestrian in front has the iPod
> blaring out at top note, and is heavily engaged in some game on his/her
> phone. Your bell is no match and in the meantime you're trying to ring
> it and trying to simultaneously shift down in gears and brake at the same
> time.
>
> I have a lighting system mounted to the bike which includes indicators.
> There's a 12V battery on-board which powers the lights plus a radio
> transceiver. When I initially set it up, I thought I'd notice the lights
> flashing, but found I was sometimes forgetting to turn them off, so I
> added one of these:
>
> http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?
> ID=AB3466&form=CAT2&SUBCATID=984#1
>
> Quite handy around errant pedestrians. However it's only useful when
> you're about 5m away, and most don't twig that the beeping noise is a
> cyclist hitting the anchors. It's useless with cars in traffic though.
>
> Ode for a horn … I'm sorely tempted to go visit a car wreckers to see if
> they've got an old one from a truck or some such that'll run off the 12V
> supply, however haven't done so yet.
>
What is that link supposed to do?

[Stuart Longland]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:18:38 +1100, F Murtz wrote:

> Stuart Longland wrote:

>> http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?
>> ID=AB3466&form=CAT2&SUBCATID=984#1
>>
> What is that link supposed to do?

Seems pan fails at wrapping text. Okay, I'll edit the post in vi and post
that. The link was:

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=AB3466&form=CAT2&SUBCATID=984#1

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:08:03 +1000
Stuart Longland > wrote:
> So ringing a bell was perfectly adequate. One only ever used the
> handlebars for hanging on or steering -- to operate the brake you
> backpedalled. That meant you had a hand free to muck around with a
> woefully inadequate bell. The lack of distractions meant there was a
> good chance the pedestrian concerned would hear you and react.

If you can't manage to brake and bell at the same time, then you are
riding a bike you can't manage.

I have no issue on either of mine.

Seems to me you have two brakes, do you need two hands to use a bell?

Pedestrians are big enough to see, you can't manage to anticipate the
need to change down? You are going fast enough on shared paths you
aren't leaving enough room?

Lord what a bunch of hopeless bloody whingers. If your bike is head
down bum up (and 50 years ago no head down bum up bike had coaster
brakes) then get another one until your riding skills are enough that
you can manage brakes and bell on something less challenging.

And if it isn't then go find a car park and learn to ride the frigging
thing before coming on here and showing off your inability to handle
your bike.

If you still can't manage the horribly difficult and dangerous shared
paths[1] then get off them and onto the road. Easy.

But for God's sake, don't display your utter inadequacy as riders and
then blame pedestrians for it.

Zebee

[1] SARCASM ALERT! because that is obviously needed.

[news13]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:32:11 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> Lord what a bunch of hopeless bloody whingers.

No, just more widely experienced with Sydney's bike paths than you.
Certain areas seem to have different attitudes.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 22 Mar 2014 02:26:03 +0000 (UTC)
news13 > wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:32:11 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> Lord what a bunch of hopeless bloody whingers.
>
> No, just more widely experienced with Sydney's bike paths than you.
> Certain areas seem to have different attitudes.
>

IT doesn't matter what is on the paths.

Complaining that you can't manage your bike and it is someone else's
fault is ridiculous.

Zebee

[news13]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:53:02 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 22 Mar 2014 02:26:03 +0000 (UTC)
> news13 > wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:32:11 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>> Lord what a bunch of hopeless bloody whingers.
>>
>> No, just more widely experienced with Sydney's bike paths than you.
>> Certain areas seem to have different attitudes.
>>
>>
> IT doesn't matter what is on the paths.
>
> Complaining that you can't manage your bike and it is someone else's
> fault is ridiculous.

Sigh, I can manage my bike. What I was pointing out is certain behaviours
that make enjoying the path less so. Perhaps our fairy princess should
get into the real world instead of her lycra kingdom.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

news13 wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:53:02 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 22 Mar 2014 02:26:03 +0000 (UTC)
>> news13 > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:32:11 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lord what a bunch of hopeless bloody whingers.
>>>
>>> No, just more widely experienced with Sydney's bike paths than you.
>>> Certain areas seem to have different attitudes.
>>>
>>>
>> IT doesn't matter what is on the paths.
>>
>> Complaining that you can't manage your bike and it is someone else's
>> fault is ridiculous.
>
> Sigh, I can manage my bike. What I was pointing out is certain behaviours
> that make enjoying the path less so. Perhaps our fairy princess should
> get into the real world instead of her lycra kingdom.
>
Mr news13, it seems that you do not frequent aus.bicycles on
aus.motorcycles very often,otherwise you would not make such uninformed
statements.

[news13]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 20:26:58 +1100, F Murtz wrote:

> Mr news13, it seems that you do not frequent aus.bicycles on
> aus.motorcycles very often,
Oh no, do I have to be like Geoff?


> otherwise you would not make such uninformed
> statements.

Which statements are you talking about?

[F Murtz[_2_]]

news13 wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 20:26:58 +1100, F Murtz wrote:
>
>> Mr news13, it seems that you do not frequent aus.bicycles on
>> aus.motorcycles very often,
> Oh no, do I have to be like Geoff?
>
>
>> otherwise you would not make such uninformed
>> statements.
>
> Which statements are you talking about?
>
>
Statements made about people about which you know nothing.

[news13]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 03:33:49 +1100, F Murtz wrote:


> Statements made about people about which you know nothing.

are you talking about the people on the bike paths?
Or someone else?

Hint; The dropping of "Geoff" was a big hint, but I go way way back for
aus.bicycles.

[Trent W. Buck]

news13 > writes:

> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:13:36 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:
>
>
>> And because a bike/ped collision is safer for everyone than a bike/car
>> collision, and (situation dependent) less likely besides.
>
> How many shared bicycle/ped paths have you ridden.
> Ring a bell or sound a horns or hout to advise you're passing and
> instant bike stand as they jump in front of you.

I commute on one (& clearly signed for that purpose).
The pedestrians on it invariably respond by instantly hugging the wall;
I suppose they've all had near misses in the past.

Footpaths along the shopping strips of main roads are another matter.

[Trent W. Buck]

Stuart Longland > writes:

> 40kg of bicycle + 90kg of rider doesn't stop *that* quickly.

Wow, and I thought my steel bike was heavy at 22kg.

> So ringing a bell was perfectly adequate. One only ever used the
> handlebars for hanging on or steering -- to operate the brake you
> backpedalled. That meant you had a hand free to muck around with a

Which is why I have backpedal brakes.

It also helps for signalling -- something I used to be ****ed off at the
lycra brigade for never doing, until I realized that if they tried to
signal their turns, they'd probably fall off.

Also makes it much easier to get pizzas back home,
since they don't like going sideways into the panniers.

[James[_8_]]

On 20/03/14 20:18, Stuart Longland wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:29:02 +1100, F Murtz wrote:
>
>> Was this where an alternative bicycle track exists ?
>
> I'm not familiar with the area but some cyclists will still choose the
> road when a track exists as the road is usually better maintained and
> free from debris.
>
> Particularly racing bikes, as they run high pressure tyres and are more
> susceptible to punctures.
>
> (I stick to the footpath unless circumstances require it though, as a
> courtesy to drivers.)

You are correct. There are also often pedestrian obstacles on shared
paths, and those pedestrians often come with unrestrained and
unpredictable pets and children, making it hazardous for all 2 wheeled
vehicle operators and pedestrians alike.

Most often I ride at least 5-6 times walking speed.

Cars are only about 2-3 times faster than me.

As my riding speed is more comparable to motor vehicle speed, I feel it
is sensible and practicable to ride on the road with other road vehicles.

BTW, as many of us commute relatively long distances on roads, we ride
"racing" bikes as commuter bikes because they offer the best solution.

Riding on the road in Melbourne on my "racing" bike, I get maybe one
puncture per year, but I avoid wet weather riding when possible, as this
is the most dangerous condition and leads to most punctures.

--
JS

[James[_8_]]

On 21/03/14 10:13, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> Stuart Longland > writes:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:29:02 +1100, F Murtz wrote:
>>
>>> Was this where an alternative bicycle track exists ?
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the area but some cyclists will still choose the
>> road when a track exists as the road is usually better maintained and
>> free from debris.
>>
>> Particularly racing bikes, as they run high pressure tyres and are
>> more susceptible to punctures.
>>
>> (I stick to the footpath unless circumstances require it though, as a
>> courtesy to drivers.)
>
> And because a bike/ped collision is safer for everyone than a bike/car
> collision, and (situation dependent) less likely besides.

Though I've bounced off a few cars over the last 25+years of riding,
I've only ever damaged myself landing on the road.

I know of several folks who have been seriously injured while riding on
bicycle tracks, including a fatality.

I don't think bike paths are as safe as you believe.

--
JS

[James[_8_]]

On 22/03/14 06:32, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:08:03 +1000
> Stuart Longland > wrote:
>> So ringing a bell was perfectly adequate. One only ever used the
>> handlebars for hanging on or steering -- to operate the brake you
>> backpedalled. That meant you had a hand free to muck around with a
>> woefully inadequate bell. The lack of distractions meant there was a
>> good chance the pedestrian concerned would hear you and react.
>
> If you can't manage to brake and bell at the same time, then you are
> riding a bike you can't manage.

I dare you to panic brake at the limit of traction and operate the bell
while the back wheel is hovering in the air.

My "or similar warning device" is hands free, volume and intent self
modifying dependent on the circumstance, and has been used to stop
motorists on numerous occasions. It's called "voice".

--
JS

[James[_8_]]

On 24/03/14 11:43, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> Stuart Longland > writes:
>
>> 40kg of bicycle + 90kg of rider doesn't stop *that* quickly.
>
> Wow, and I thought my steel bike was heavy at 22kg.
>
>> So ringing a bell was perfectly adequate. One only ever used the
>> handlebars for hanging on or steering -- to operate the brake you
>> backpedalled. That meant you had a hand free to muck around with a
>
> Which is why I have backpedal brakes.
>
> It also helps for signalling -- something I used to be ****ed off at the
> lycra brigade for never doing, until I realized that if they tried to
> signal their turns, they'd probably fall off.
>
> Also makes it much easier to get pizzas back home,
> since they don't like going sideways into the panniers.

I rode up the Warburton Hwy for a few km the other weekend, and I am
sure if I stuck my right arm out to indicate I wanted to turn right,
there was a good chance I'd lose it.

Yeah, I signal to move right whenever there's someone who needs to see
it, and my lycra fits well, thanks.

--
JS

[Trent W. Buck]

James > writes:

> Riding on the road in Melbourne on my "racing" bike, I get maybe one
> puncture per year, but I avoid wet weather riding when possible, as this
> is the most dangerous condition and leads to most punctures.

OOC, how does wet weather make punctures more likely?

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:48:42 +1100
James > wrote:
> On 22/03/14 06:32, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:08:03 +1000
>> Stuart Longland > wrote:
>>> So ringing a bell was perfectly adequate. One only ever used the
>>> handlebars for hanging on or steering -- to operate the brake you
>>> backpedalled. That meant you had a hand free to muck around with a
>>> woefully inadequate bell. The lack of distractions meant there was a
>>> good chance the pedestrian concerned would hear you and react.
>>
>> If you can't manage to brake and bell at the same time, then you are
>> riding a bike you can't manage.
>
> I dare you to panic brake at the limit of traction and operate the bell
> while the back wheel is hovering in the air.

I have absolutely no idea why you wouldbe doing that on a shared path.

Because any sensible person rides to conditions and if you can't see a
ped in time to slow and ride properly on a shared path you shouldn't
be on the path.

If you want to ride at a speed where a panic brake of that level is
something you need to do, then a shared path isn't the place for it.

I do about 25km/h on clear shared paths, but if I can't see what's
coming I slow, if there's a possible hazard I slow and if I want to go
much faster than that then a shared path is not the place.

Zebee

[news13]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:25:13 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:

> James > writes:
>
>> Riding on the road in Melbourne on my "racing" bike, I get maybe one
>> puncture per year, but I avoid wet weather riding when possible, as
>> this is the most dangerous condition and leads to most punctures.
>
> OOC, how does wet weather make punctures more likely?

It might be explainable by water+foreign object means it is more mobile
and gets flunk onto roadside by traffic, or every time it rains the gunk
in the lanes gets washed to the side where bicyclist ride, or puncture
repair in the wet is so miserable that you remember it longer than a
repair in the dry and thus seems to happen more often.

[news13]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:44:19 +1100, James wrote:


>> And because a bike/ped collision is safer for everyone than a bike/car
>> collision, and (situation dependent) less likely besides.
>
> Though I've bounced off a few cars over the last 25+years of riding,
> I've only ever damaged myself landing on the road.
>
> I know of several folks who have been seriously injured while riding on
> bicycle tracks, including a fatality.
>
> I don't think bike paths are as safe as you believe.

Especially if they are not maintained. Neighbour came a cropper on a sand
patch on the M7 bikepath. It wasn't the sand that was the problem, but
the steel motor vehicle strength guard rails that were the problem. Years
convelessing and he'll never get back to "normal".

Caveat his regular pack training ride.

[James[_8_]]

On 02/04/14 11:25, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> James > writes:
>
>> Riding on the road in Melbourne on my "racing" bike, I get maybe one
>> puncture per year, but I avoid wet weather riding when possible, as this
>> is the most dangerous condition and leads to most punctures.
>
> OOC, how does wet weather make punctures more likely?

Water makes glass and stone flints stick to the tyre, and lubricates the
cutting action.

--
JS

[James[_8_]]

On 02/04/14 11:50, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:48:42 +1100
> James > wrote:
>> On 22/03/14 06:32, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:08:03 +1000
>>> Stuart Longland > wrote:
>>>> So ringing a bell was perfectly adequate. One only ever used the
>>>> handlebars for hanging on or steering -- to operate the brake you
>>>> backpedalled. That meant you had a hand free to muck around with a
>>>> woefully inadequate bell. The lack of distractions meant there was a
>>>> good chance the pedestrian concerned would hear you and react.
>>>
>>> If you can't manage to brake and bell at the same time, then you are
>>> riding a bike you can't manage.
>>
>> I dare you to panic brake at the limit of traction and operate the bell
>> while the back wheel is hovering in the air.
>
> I have absolutely no idea why you wouldbe doing that on a shared path.

You absolutely made no mention of a condition of a bells usefulness only
being on a shared path.

--
JS

[Tomasso[_8_]]

"Trent W. Buck" > wrote in message ...
> James > writes:
>
>> Riding on the road in Melbourne on my "racing" bike, I get maybe one
>> puncture per year, but I avoid wet weather riding when possible, as this
>> is the most dangerous condition and leads to most punctures.
>
> OOC, how does wet weather make punctures more likely?

1. Road gunk includes some slivers of glass. Wet tyres keep this stuff on the wheels longer than dry.

2. Wetness lubricates the rubber. Easier for glass slivers to cut through.

Tom.

[John Henderson[_3_]]

Trent W. Buck wrote:

> OOC, how does wet weather make punctures more likely?

As Jobst Brandt once wrote: Try cutting dry rubber with a sharp blade.
Compare that with cutting wet rubber.

John

[TimC[_2_]]

On 2014-04-01, James (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On 21/03/14 10:13, Trent W. Buck wrote:
>> And because a bike/ped collision is safer for everyone than a bike/car
>> collision, and (situation dependent) less likely besides.
>
> Though I've bounced off a few cars over the last 25+years of riding,
> I've only ever damaged myself landing on the road.
>
> I know of several folks who have been seriously injured while riding on
> bicycle tracks, including a fatality.
>
> I don't think bike paths are as safe as you believe.

They don't put unpainted bollards in the middle of roads, thank ****.

--
Thus sprach TimC
"If geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick."
-- Pitr Dubovich, User Friendly

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 Apr 2014 15:57:47 +1100
TimC > wrote:
> On 2014-04-01, James (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> On 21/03/14 10:13, Trent W. Buck wrote:
>>> And because a bike/ped collision is safer for everyone than a bike/car
>>> collision, and (situation dependent) less likely besides.
>>
>> Though I've bounced off a few cars over the last 25+years of riding,
>> I've only ever damaged myself landing on the road.
>>
>> I know of several folks who have been seriously injured while riding on
>> bicycle tracks, including a fatality.
>>
>> I don't think bike paths are as safe as you believe.
>
> They don't put unpainted bollards in the middle of roads, thank ****.

Just mucking great potholes.

And concrete slabs sticking up a couple of inches.

And sunken pipe trenches on roundabouts so as to concentrate
signalling,braking (with one hand because signalling),one or more
pinch flats and dented rims, and damn near being run over because it
is night and the entire area is unlit so said signals are hard for
drivers entering roundabout to see.


Yes Burwood Council I am very definitely looking at you.

Zebee

[Trent W. Buck]

TimC > writes:

> On 2014-04-01, James (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> I don't think bike paths are as safe as you believe.
>
> They don't put unpainted bollards in the middle of roads, thank ****.

You know those D-ring bars they put on the track to make you slow down
& maybe even dismount? Back when I was on an inline skateboard, I used
to duck under them. At well above sprinting speeds. >:-)

Thinking back, though I had clear lines of sight, it's still amazing I
never hit anything or anyone...