|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
On Nov 19, 3:42*am, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote: I may be excused from not interpreting your long answer but are not from not interpreting my short worded solutions... BIKE FACILITIES (bike lanes and bike facilities) AND/OR TRAFFIC TAMING. You can shout all you want, but that isn't the key to safety. *The key to safety is mutual respect between road users. Well, this based on subjective appreciation. I think good drivers begin with education but ultimately depend on enforcement. So going back to my favorite metaphor, WE NEED THE BANANA (the treat) AND THE WHIP TO TAME THE BEAST. This side of the Atlantic we are sort of in the Wild West when it comes to traffic safety: NO LANE DISCIPLINE, NO CONTROL OVER CELL PHONES, UNREGULATED VEHICLES (SUV'S with deadly bumpers)... and LOTS OF SPEEDING TICKETS. The bike facilities doesn't get you out of accidents happening at junctions because if you want your "facilities" to go anywhere useful they'll have to intersect with the roads, and so when the bikes are on the roads the lack of awareness drivers have of bikes will be exaggerated by their being fewer bikes /except/ at the junctions. SUVs with deadly bumpers... well, even with "safe" bumpers the real key is not colliding with vehicles at all. *The key to that is mutual respect, and you don't get that from bike lanes, and any "taming" of the traffic you otherwise do is coloured by bikes being out of the equation except at the most dangerous points (junctions). Only way to solve this conflict is put cameras on main intersections. Any sort of bullying would cost the predator dearly ($$$)... to fund more bike facilities. You think Obama will change that? No. I guess only Jesus can, huh? Too bad for those who don't believe there's a Jesus. Well luckily, there's a revolution around. I'm also pretty sure that ghettoising cyclists onto half-baked "facilities" (and experience suggests that outside of places with existing bicycle culture like NL, Denmark, Germany etc. they *will* be half baked) won't help either. No great shortage of "facilities" round here. *It's usually quicker and safer for me to take the roads. OK, HAVING OPTIONS sounds good to me, and whether there's bike facilities or not, you should be able to ride wherever you wish. |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
KingOfTheApes wrote:
Well, this based on subjective appreciation. I think good drivers begin with education but ultimately depend on enforcement. So going back to my favorite metaphor, WE NEED THE BANANA (the treat) AND THE WHIP TO TAME THE BEAST. So where does that need bike paths? I guess only Jesus can, huh? No. Too bad for those who don't believe there's a Jesus. Well luckily, there's a revolution around. a) there isn't, and b) even if there were it would be missing the point creating bike paths. OK, HAVING OPTIONS sounds good to me, and whether there's bike facilities or not, you should be able to ride wherever you wish. Absolutely, but if you insist on creating bike paths with your "revolution" you'll find yourself being pushed onto them whether you like it or not. Why do I think that? That's what experience shows me happens. It required extensive lobbying by the CTC (UK's biggest cyclists' organisation) to get rid of a word-change to the Highway Code that would say cyclists should use "facilities" wherever possible. That it succeeeded in quashing the revision shows that a bit of democracy in action can work, but that it was necessary to do it shows that creating bike paths tends to limit options rather than expand them. I'm afraid if you want real results you hhave to deal with relaity, rather than dreams. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
On Nov 19, 10:38*am, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote: Well, this based on subjective appreciation. I think good drivers begin with education but ultimately depend on enforcement. So going back to my favorite metaphor, WE NEED THE BANANA (the treat) AND THE WHIP TO TAME THE BEAST. So where does that need bike paths? I guess only Jesus can, huh? No. OK, let's say not everybody is "tough." Let's admit some people are "chicken" or that they are just bothered by traffic noise... so they need bike paths. Let's assume also that families with kids are not tough enough for the roads, so they can have an space along the ckicken. *Too bad for those who don't believe there's a Jesus. Well luckily, there's a revolution around. a) there isn't, and b) even if there were it would be missing the point creating bike paths. Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are unwilling or unable to drive SUVs. OK, HAVING OPTIONS sounds good to me, and whether there's bike facilities or not, you should be able to ride wherever you wish. Absolutely, but if you insist on creating bike paths with your "revolution" you'll find yourself being pushed onto them whether you like it or not. *Why do I think that? *That's what experience shows me happens. *It required extensive lobbying by the CTC (UK's biggest cyclists' organisation) to get rid of a word-change to the Highway Code that would say cyclists should use "facilities" wherever possible. *That it succeeeded in quashing the revision shows that a bit of democracy in action can work, but that it was necessary to do it shows that creating bike paths tends to limit options rather than expand them. I'm afraid if you want real results you hhave to deal with relaity, rather than dreams. Dreams sometimes become reality and sometimes become nightmares. Which is good always go back to good-ol'-fashinoned Orwell. Forgive me this revolutionary rhetoric... Originally Posted by Lamplight I was actually thinking more along the lines of executing the aristocrats and walking around calling each other "citizen". *** No, a bloody revolution would make as much sense as the war in Iraq, which is to say we don't need it. This is more along the lines of Gandhi and King, who were inspired by Jesus, whether he existed or not. So Christians are welcome, Muslims are welcome (because we don't agree with the West nor with the terrorists), and, of course, the proles are welcome since this a revolution largely inspired by Orwell's animalism, thus we will call each other, "Hey brother monkey!" WHY ANIMALS? Thank Orwell in large part... 'Orwell agreed with Marx's social arguments, but as we will later see, disagreed on many of his other beliefs. In Animal Farm, we can see his depictions as man as a social animal and his Socialist ideologies through old Major's very Marxist speech in the barn: "Why... do we continue in this miserable condition? Because nearly the whole of the produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There, comrades, is the answer to all our problems: It is summed up in a single word ‹ Man. "Man is the only creature that consumes without producing... He sets [the animals] to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself... "Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our labour would be our own... That is my message to you, comrades: Rebellion!' http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2074/orwell.htm |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
(No we don't need with Lenin and Mao)
Originally Posted by cyclezealot "We are not into violence.. Let's have no Soviet/French style revolution with blood in the streets. Can we turn Bush's scores of jails set up about the country under his War Commissions Act into 're- education centers, ' for the non-believers..." I think what we can learn from Russia is a bloodless Perestroika! From the French we can learn their passion for "the simple pleasures of life," free time (35 hour workweek) and good food, which are all in line with our Epicurean revolution (thus the names of food for it). The nonbelievers though should be re-educated on SAVING ENERGY, and made to commute by bike at least 1 day a week. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
KingOfTheApes wrote:
OK, let's say not everybody is "tough." Let's admit some people are "chicken" or that they are just bothered by traffic noise... so they need bike paths. Let's assume also that families with kids are not tough enough for the roads, so they can have an space along the ckicken. Look at the NL, again. Plenty of places with no fietspads, yet still families and kids out on bikes. Which takes you back to respect being more important than bike paths. Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are unwilling or unable to drive SUVs. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that unless you can get rid of junctions between roads and bike paths, and you can't, bike paths don't protect you from SUVs, or indeed any other traffic passing through junctions. And the more bikes aren't part of their more general road experience the more dangerous those junctions will be. Bike paths have their place, can be useful and can certainly be pleasurable, but they're not much of an answer to cycling safety. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
On Nov 19, 12:37*pm, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote: OK, let's say not everybody is "tough." Let's admit some people are "chicken" or that they are just bothered by traffic noise... so they need bike paths. Let's assume also that families with kids are not tough enough for the roads, so they can have an space along the ckicken. Look at the NL, again. *Plenty of places with no fietspads, yet still families and kids out on bikes. *Which takes you back to respect being more important than bike paths. Not on major streets. It depends whether you are talking about a bikeable place or just a "hole"... (and there's a lot of people living in it, see poll) http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=487455 Now the question is how many decades we will take to make drivers, who are used to the law of the jungle, more civilized? Perhaps never, unless we use the whip (cameras and other traffic calming measures). Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are unwilling or unable to drive SUVs. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that unless you can get rid of junctions between roads and bike paths, and you can't, bike paths don't protect you from SUVs, or indeed any other traffic passing through junctions. *And the more bikes aren't part of their more general road experience the more dangerous those junctions will be. Bike paths have their place, can be useful and can certainly be pleasurable, but they're not much of an answer to cycling safety. OK, we don't seem to disagree, perhaps just a matter of degree. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
I hope I don't sound too nationalistic...
After the Big Three crash, what's next? You know, after Detroit goes under, what do we do with Japanese and European competition. I'd tax both Japanese and European imports because they are not going to cash in into American weaknesses. Then I'd make Detroit build fast trains, EVs, and bikes and let the foreign invaders eat American pie. Well, let Minis and Smarts in, and let them eat the rest. Am I sounding too nationalistic? |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote: Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are unwilling or unable to drive SUVs. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that unless you can get rid of junctions between roads and bike paths, and you can't, bike paths don't protect you from SUVs, or indeed any other traffic passing through junctions. And the more bikes aren't part of their more general road experience the more dangerous those junctions will be. Bike paths have their place, can be useful and can certainly be pleasurable, but they're not much of an answer to cycling safety. I'd have to agree, and I'll trot out my personal bete noire. I think one of the best ways to improve safety (in the U.S.) is to make getting and keeping a license a *little* harder and a *little* more expensive. As it is with $25 and a pulse, you can pretty much get a license. That and retesting *everyone* every five years. If you can't be bothered to pay $50 instead of $25 (for example) and be tested on your ability to pilot a two ton piece of machinery at high velocity, you shouldn't be driving. That might drop the bottom 5% and improve bike *and* pedestrian safety. -- Dane Buson - "I brought the atom bomb. I think it's a good time to use it." -MST3K |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
Tom Sherman wrote:
Dane Buson wrote: Unforunately neither my boss nor bill collectors would be much inclined to agree I'm thinking. And I'm not quite as fond of pig-wrestling as you are.[...] Who me? Mmmmm hmmmm. -- Dane Buson - Yesterday upon the stair I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today -- I think he's from the CIA. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
On Nov 19, 3:22*pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Clinch wrote: KingOfTheApes wrote: Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are unwilling or unable to drive SUVs. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that unless you can get rid of junctions between roads and bike paths, and you can't, bike paths don't protect you from SUVs, or indeed any other traffic passing through junctions. *And the more bikes aren't part of their more general road experience the more dangerous those junctions will be. Bike paths have their place, can be useful and can certainly be pleasurable, but they're not much of an answer to cycling safety. I'd have to agree, and I'll trot out my personal bete noire. *I think one of the best ways to improve safety (in the U.S.) is to make getting and keeping a license a *little* harder and a *little* more expensive. As it is with $25 and a pulse, you can pretty much get a license. That and retesting *everyone* every five years. *If you can't be bothered to pay $50 instead of $25 (for example) and be tested on your ability to pilot a two ton piece of machinery at high velocity, you shouldn't be driving. That might drop the bottom 5% and improve bike *and* pedestrian safety. The same effect may be achievable by requiring a special license for SUVs, which after all are "trucks." Funny, they are trucks to go through the safety loopholes, but not to require a license. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tom Danielson March 13 1978 - March 13 2008 | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | March 13th 08 09:31 AM |
Mt. Washington BC | nrkist | Unicycling | 4 | August 28th 05 11:21 PM |
Washington Post: A Rough Ride for Schwinn Bicycle | Ed | General | 12 | December 12th 04 04:24 AM |