How to suck all the joy from cycling

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 4:51:49 PM UTC, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:46:14 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 09:04:13 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/governm...ld-in-england/

My own experience isn't dissimilar- I started racing because I lived
riding so much and training was an excuse to ride bike every day but to
not be some kind of slacker ("I'm training for a race" rather than "I'm
going for a bike ride"). Over the next nine years it brought me to
despise riding a bike. I was so relieved when I stopped racing.

I was going to go for a 30 mile ride this morning but I managed to get 3/4ths of a mile before the wind blew me into the middle of the street twice and was clocking around 360 degrees at 50 mph. They were reporting 40 mph on the peaks but from racing sailboats I have a pretty good grasp of wind speeds. When I turned around and got back I opened the side door of the garage and the gusts were flexing the insulated garage door as long as the side door was open. So much for my Sunday ride.

You shouldn't be riding on a Sunday anyway. You should be in church, confessing to your sins, of which Slow Johnny and Rideablot and Franki-boy will give you an exhausting* list.

Andre Jute
* No, I don't mean "exhaustive", I mean exhausting

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 5:52:32 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 7:29:32 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:11:27 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 3:04:32 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/governm...ycle-training-
for-every-child-in-england/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

We have a cycle training ground for kids -- and for adults who haven't
grown up -- in the town park. It consists of a series of concrete ramps
you can ride up and jump down from. Kids are trained but the pain of
their falls. Much more effective.

Over here we call that a skate park.

We have multiple kiddie bicycle entertainment venues. https://www.youtube..com/watch?v=e_qMfS_Io08 (used to be a bowling alley). Look at all those rug rats! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcqNvotLPrQ They also run them around on the track. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmCe099jt5g&t=26s (I like the guy climbing up the bank at 1:35).

I don't know if it gets kids on the streets, but at least it is some sort of outlet and teaches physical skills. I don't know if it sucks the fun out of riding -- it might if daddy or mommy is some sort of little league parent.

-- Jay Beattie.

I rode up on a sort of curling-over wave ramp and frightened myself ****less on the way down, which fortunately was only a few feet. A soccer-mom sitting on a bench supervising her littlies applauded and said, "You need a smaller bike. Your bike is too long to get up enough speed in the space." I thanked her politely and rode off to to beat up on something nearer my size, like a Range Rover.

Andre Jute
Oh my, how the mighty are fallen

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 4:51:49 PM UTC, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:46:14 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 09:04:13 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/governm...ld-in-england/

My own experience isn't dissimilar- I started racing because I lived
riding so much and training was an excuse to ride bike every day but to
not be some kind of slacker ("I'm training for a race" rather than "I'm
going for a bike ride"). Over the next nine years it brought me to
despise riding a bike. I was so relieved when I stopped racing.

I was going to go for a 30 mile ride this morning but I managed to get 3/4ths of a mile before the wind blew me into the middle of the street twice and was clocking around 360 degrees at 50 mph. They were reporting 40 mph on the peaks but from racing sailboats I have a pretty good grasp of wind speeds. When I turned around and got back I opened the side door of the garage and the gusts were flexing the insulated garage door as long as the side door was open. So much for my Sunday ride.

You shouldn't be riding on a Sunday anyway. You should be in church, confessing to your sins, of which Slow Johnny and Rideablot and Franki-boy will give you an exhausting* list.

Andre Jute
* No, I don't mean "exhaustive", I mean exhausting

Can you imagine John telling us how dangerous the US is just before 21 people are murdered and another 42 injured in a mass murder mall shooting over there. Jay has his faults and loves to blame them on Trump. Frank is a basket case who believes he is still a teacher.

Today I was supposed to break 400 miles for a butt freezing year while NASA is telling us this is the hottest winter on record. We'll have to ask the polar bears if they agree with that. The northern Ice pack is the second largest on record and in 1955 when the USS nuclear submarine Skate was at the North Pole it was free of ice. So too it was the following year when the USS Nautilus surfaced at the North Pole. The next year when the Skate returned there was only a thin ice sheet so they surfaced right through it.

On the TV they are predicting temperatures "above normal". You sure as hell can't convince me of that. The Japanese Maple in front of my house has lost all of its leaves. I can't remember it ever doing that before. The Jasmine has stopped growing which is also novel. Normally at this time of year I have to cut it back every three weeks. That must be because NASA sees this as the "hottest winter on record".

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 11:46:57 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 4:51:49 PM UTC, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:46:14 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 09:04:13 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/governm...ld-in-england/

My own experience isn't dissimilar- I started racing because I lived
riding so much and training was an excuse to ride bike every day but to
not be some kind of slacker ("I'm training for a race" rather than "I'm
going for a bike ride"). Over the next nine years it brought me to
despise riding a bike. I was so relieved when I stopped racing.

I was going to go for a 30 mile ride this morning but I managed to get 3/4ths of a mile before the wind blew me into the middle of the street twice and was clocking around 360 degrees at 50 mph. They were reporting 40 mph on the peaks but from racing sailboats I have a pretty good grasp of wind speeds. When I turned around and got back I opened the side door of the garage and the gusts were flexing the insulated garage door as long as the side door was open. So much for my Sunday ride.

You shouldn't be riding on a Sunday anyway. You should be in church, confessing to your sins, of which Slow Johnny and Rideablot and Franki-boy will give you an exhausting* list.

Andre Jute
* No, I don't mean "exhaustive", I mean exhausting

Can you imagine John telling us how dangerous the US is just before 21 people are murdered and another 42 injured in a mass murder mall shooting over there. Jay has his faults and loves to blame them on Trump. Frank is a basket case who believes he is still a teacher.

Goodness, Gracious, Sakes alive, you got it wrong again. I just keep
telling you that it is far, far, better to keep your mouth closed and
perhaps be thought a fool than to open it and prove to the world just
how foolish you really are. But you never listen.

You see, it wasn't 21 and 42. The actual numbers are 26 (27 counting
the perpetrator himself) and 57 injured.

And yes, I know, it seems like a minor mistake.... unless you are one
of the 6 or 15 laying there bleeding on the floor.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're designed by Wiley Coyote?

Cheers

On 2/9/2020 6:24 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're designed by Wiley Coyote?

Elsewhere today, I posted this comment about Door Zone Bike Lanes (DZBLs):

Years ago, I was a League Certified Instructor (LCI). I earned their
certification and taught their courses. And I proposed that there should
be a private email list for LCIs, to discuss course content, teaching
techniques, etc. without the "students" listening in.

LAB started such a list; perhaps it's still running.

One day a few years ago, an unsigned essay was sent to the list from
somebody at LAB. (Some of us suspected it was Andy Clarke, a very
pro-segregation guy who was then Director.) The paper was a long and
adamant defense of DZBLs. It said things like "Many bicyclists ride in
DZBLs every day without getting injured."

To me, it explained how cities I'd visited with DZBLs were given awards
as "Silver Level Bike Friendly Communities." (Personally, I'd say a DZBL
should blackball a city.)

I never found out who wrote that paper. But shortly after it appeared, I
was one of the many instructors who dropped out of LAB. That paper was
far from the only reason, but it contributed to my decision.

A much better alternative is Street Smarts. One thing they'll tell you
is "Don't let the paint think for you."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 05:51:40 +0700, John B. wrote:


In a slightly humorous effort

Not humourous and typical "blame the victim" mentality.

to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be placed
in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will be built
on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax made on
each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

No, the demand is from car owners who want to take the roadway for
themselves.


I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Especially if the real benefactorsa, the car owners are the ones who pay.
That mob are worse than any drug addict.