Can you make it to the market on a bike?

William who? wrote:
...Just keep that bull **** out of the city.

These people would likely have some if you really need it:
http://www.absglobal.com/.

[indefinite pronouns intentional]

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

aka Joshua Putnam wrote:
...
Even the limited-access freeway near me has its shoulder open to
bicycles -- bikes are allowed on many miles of Interstates, boring and
noisy, but safe and direct....

Do the drivers look for cyclists crossing their path when merging and
exiting?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Aug 1, 1:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Aug 1, 12:39 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William wrote:
On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat wrote:

On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954
wrote:

On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch wrote:

Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at
you,
but
they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork.
If you
push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more
maligned
and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice
to
use
the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead.

They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not
helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?*

You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW
DO
WE
BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE
DUTCH
OR DANISH LEVELS?

You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong
direction.
You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else".
Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address
that.

Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to
bike
& no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get
sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might
partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really.

For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for
football
practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school
shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I
just
need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately,
there's
a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually
because
I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is
bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is
about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at
10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9
hour bike ride.

I don't blame you, biking works best
when everything is
more central and dense like a metro area.

So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The
community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way
issue.
But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to
people,
the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in
SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1
trip.

So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to
go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more
Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage
shopping
by bike.

Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your
from nowhere land.

I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of
nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the
background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a
nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle.
What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow
worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry
Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32
version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is
somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom
underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a
Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to
me, because I don't wear a watch.

You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by
virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me.
You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the
hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity.
I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But
that's what makes it nice.

On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the
Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's
excitement around here.

Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to
youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each
of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each)
any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys
stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle.

So what about this "quality" thing?

If you had a Wal-Mart right there they would immediately start
four-laning
the road in front of it and put in access roads. That would make it far
less bike friendly. Most ordinary sized grocery stores, however, do not
insist on four lane highways. Cluster a number of smaller shops around
it
and you have most of the selection of Wal-Mart, probably better quality,
and
a more bike-friendly environment.

-Amy

Man, I am dating myself, but remember the days when a few bigger
grocery stores out build next to a department store and share a common
entrance. It was like a Jamesway next to a Shop Rite. Jamesway,
Barkers and others all did that, here and there. You could go between
the stores, up at the front.

Now, all of those departments stores are closed. Must not have been
such a good idea.

The thing is, people LIKE Walmart. Maybe you don't and William
doesn't, but there are sure a whole lot of people out there who do.

We'd like one here. The sales tax revenue would help the city coffers
and people wouldn't have to drive so far to buy skivies.

About that sales tax revenue...

http://www.newrules.org/retail/polic...MARTREPORT.pdf

3 interesting -- and useless -- studies.

The first one suggests that somehow, the sales tax from Walmart will
be less than the sales taxes from stores that close because of WM.
Well, that would only be true if the total volume of taxable sales
fell because of WM. Granted, it will redistribute sales taxes because
they will spike in the area near WM as WM has it sales and the store
in that area see increased sales. Sales tax will fall 20 to 30 miles
away where WM has a negative impact on stores.

That study is also interesting in that it blames WM for increased
crime. I don't know about you, but I think the CRIMINAL is
responsible for the crime, not the victim. If a sexy woman wears a
tiny bit of clothing down the street and gets rapes, is SHE to blame
or is it the rapist?

The second study is typical government-trash. The government hires a
consultant who then interviews the government officials and develops a
study that legitimizes their views. That's what the methodology says
they did. The most interesting part of the study is that is discusses
assessment based on cost, not replacement value. That is easy data
collection but bad assessment practice. The other interesting thing
is that the study was significantly biases away from hotels.

There is another problem with this type of study, which I call "The
Salt Situation". It involves a great deal of research I did on the
cost of road salt. The conclusion can only be summarized as the cost/
benefit of de-icing salt is whatever you want it to be and it changes
depending on how you want to measure cost & benefit. This study uses
a snapshot approach, which is the most limited view but I will stay
with The Salt Situation to explain things. If you look at the cost of
buying salt v. the cost of sand, salt is more expensive. But, if you
you factor in the fact that you need fewer applications, it appears to
move into the lead. But if you then factor in the added storage costs
and trucking, it falls behind. But if you then factor in the fact
that you don't have to clean it up in the spring, if goes back to the
front. Then if you factor in environmental damage, it again is more
expensive. But if you figure in the societal savings due to fewer
accidents, rustouts, and paint chips, if is gains cheaper. Whether
salt is more expensive or cheaper is not really determinable because
the outcome came be made to be whatever you want it to be.

This study is the same way. Okay, some town hires an additional cop
at the cost of $75,000 per year. So WM costs the town money, right.
Well, maybe or maybe not. What about the savings that the town
residents get on their shopping. If that totals over $75,000 per
year, then the residents are still better off. Then answer is
determined by how you ask the question and what you choose to include
in a your cost/benefit analysis.

The third study was just plain ridicules. The government cannot fault
someone for following the law. If the government, esp. Congress,
doesn't like the current minimum wage or labor laws, they should
change them -- not fault someone else for following them. Are their
lapses, sure. But their always are in any organization of that size,
just as their are lapse in the government following the law. As long
as they comply with the law, they are okay. If you don't like it, go
talk to the lawmakers.

Pat who? wrote:
...If you don't like it, go talk to the lawmakers.

That is not a practical suggestion for those of us who can not afford to
attend $1000/plate fund-raising dinners.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

donquijote1954 wrote:

WHATEVER GETS PEOPLE OUT IS GOOD, then we polish it up along the way.

But it doesn't actually do that much in getting people out. Milton
Keyenes and Stevenage were designed from the ground up with segregated
cycle lanes. Are they a cycling Mecca compared to other towns in that
part of England? Doesn't appear to be the case, and those cyclists who
do use them aren't any better off than those on the roads in terms of
safety, but they do take longer to get where they're going.

And even if they do go out, and find it's not all magic like they
thought it would be, they'll go back in again.

So, you may well find that, like NL and Germany, you've spent one hell
of a lot of money on new infrastructure but not actually generated much
(if any) extra cycling. Real life lessons that run counter to your pet
theories hurt, I know (been there myself often enough), but ultimately
it's better if you actually learn from them rather than assume your pet
theory will magically become right if you just repeat it often/loud enough.

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/

donquijote1954 wrote:

Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
them through bike lanes.

Bike lanes don't have a better safety track record than the roads.

Go to http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html and actually do
some reading around the subject.

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/

donquijote1954 wrote:

OK, your strategy doesn't motivate anyone because people are no
fools. They know cars fly by too close for comfort.

Not if you're properly positioned, as per the advice in UK National
Standard Training or the "Cyclecraft" manual. How do I know? Because
I'm out there on busy thoroughfares and they don't fly by me too close
for comfort.
Which I can (and do) point out to people who say I'm a marvel because
"it's so dangerous out there!". I also point out it's not nearly as
dangerous as they think. In fact, compared to pedestrians on their
"safe" segregated sidewalks, cyclists get slightly fewer serious
injuries per unit distance. Counter intuitive, but true.

That's why there's
no significant number of people riding bikes on busy thoroughfares. It
just doesn't make sense to push people onto roads and then having to
say, "Sorry, **** happens."

Though it's perfectly all right to shove them onto a lane or track which
doesn't have any better safety record, and if they get mown down at a
junction (which is where most accidents happen, not getting hit from
behind on normal road) saying "Sorry, **** happens"?

When are you going to account for reality being the bottom line and not
your personal hopes for what it /should/ be?

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/

Ace wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:14:13 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

donquijote1954 wrote:

Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
them through bike lanes.
Bike lanes don't have a better safety track record than the roads.

Go to http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html and actually do
some reading around the subject.

Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.

Fair point...

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/

Ace wrote:

Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.


Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets
killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his
neighbourhood ;-)

Tony

In message .com
donquijote1954 wrote:

On Aug 1, 1:13 pm, Mike Clark wrote:
[snip]
In contrast to the 'idea' of ever more separate lanes being good for
improved safety there is the contradictory data that shows that in
places where you remove all the lane markings, signs and junction
priorities you often get a measurable increase in safety.

Should we erase the car lanes too? I think we could have bike lanes
and still enforce those breaking the law, so they can pay for more
bike lanes. Are you parked in the bike lane? You got a fine for 100
bucks...


Yes the data is based on situations where all the lane markings and
junction priorities, traffic lights etc are removed. Basically people
stop driving as if they have a known priority and instead start looking
out for and avoiding other road users.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"