The idée fixe of the anti-helmet zealots, the vehicular cyclists, etc

James writes:

On 19/12/13 06:34, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a
"religion"
is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my
views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge
riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.

Elsewhere, Frank said:

"I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done cycling infrastructure."

But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
done"? ... Please?

That is difficult. There are only one or two short sections of well
done infrastructure that I know of, where there are no impediments or
added dangers. One section is about 150m long, and basically is a car
lane remarked for bicycles only, across a bridge. The drivers stay out
of it. The riders get full use of the lane, and are not hemmed in by
barriers and bollards. There is just a painted island to separate the
lanes. Prior to that the car traffic would bank up for several hundred
meters and the bike lane was a half meter wide strip next to a very hard
edged gutter (like about 6 inches straight up) - or the foot path,
though illegal.

At first I thought there was another example, but now I can't think what
it might be.

I have described one near me already: a single lane, not striped, that
was *just* wide enough to tempt masshole drivers into sharing it between
two cars. It was not wide enough to share between a truck and a car,
nor between two cars and a bicycle, and so was really ugly to ride.

A bike lane stripe was added, and now the cars fall into a single lane,
which is quite a significant improvment, despite not adding any asphalt.


All other infrastructure is either superfluous or makes riding more
hazardous in an attempt to make people either just feel safe, or in the
case of really segregated lanes, completely safe from being hit from
behind, though the risk of such a collision is not worthy of such
treatments.

Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.

Does one example count? Please?

And even though you are, Nothing Wrong With That (TM). Where something
wrong comes into it is your critical insistence that it's the one true
proper way for others.

In a democracy I have a right to fight for what I want and what works
for me. If other people want to have facilities that they think will
make their life better, they should fight for them.

What I really object to is the laws that make it illegal for me to *not*
use their facilities when I consider them more dangerous to use than the
road. Proving that a bike lane is impracticable to use has been shown
to be difficult. Does the fact that I like to ride much faster in
general than fat bottomed women on city bikes count?

Perhaps there should be a 20km/h speed limit on the segregated bike
lanes, such that if you expect to exceed that speed you may ride on the
road.

Do you see the religiousness?

Not really. More self preservation than anything.

Agreed.
--

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:01:24 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/19/2013 2:53 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 5:49:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/19/2013 11:11 AM, Andre Jute wrote:



On Thursday, December 19, 2013 4:31:54 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:



A person like Jute should not insult other members of the discussion group because they choose not to own a Rohloff.







I don't care what you choose to buy, or dumpster-dive for, Franki-boy; everyone knows you're a cheapskate. But once more you're lying about what happened. What I said was that Rohloff, among other technical advances, cannot be discussed on RBT because the resident scum, like you, will instantly divert the conversation into their own petty concerns (an example is how you diverted Lou's invitation to you into another sideswipe at me, above). I didn't insult anyone for not choosing, or having the money, to buy a Rohloff. I put down the usual trash for being hostile to any tech that costs more than $1.99 or that isn't branded Shimano, preferably both. That's not news, sonny; I put you down every time I see you, because you deserve it, and the rest of the scum when they misbehave. Nothing to do with Rohloff in particular, but with your wretched behavior and fascist attitudes to human life and other matters, of which your congenital lying is the least part.







Andre Jute



Relentles rigor -- Gaius Germanicus



wake me when it's time to sing kumbaya.



That used be sung by the pinko--commie-fellow travelers at my first college. Are you coming out of the closet, Andrew?





Not at all.

I just wouldn't want to miss the moment.

Invective I can read any time.

I quite agree. RBT offers an altogether better class of invective since I arrived. But that's hardly surprisingly, considering how many obstinately dull engineers post on RBT. Even a lesser polemicist than me would have enlivened the proceedings considerably.

Andre Jute
Connoisseur

On 12/19/2013 9:46 AM, SMS wrote:

should be:

Of course many people are willing to spend relatively large sums of
money on products with _NO_ clear disadvantage over the alternatives.
That's puzzling to some of us but it's their money and they can do what
they want with it.

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:30:15 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
James writes:



On 19/12/13 06:34, Dan O wrote:

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:



snip





... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a

"religion"

is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my

views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge

riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong..



Elsewhere, Frank said:



"I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done cycling infrastructure."



But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly

done"? ... Please?



That is difficult. There are only one or two short sections of well

done infrastructure that I know of, where there are no impediments or

added dangers. One section is about 150m long, and basically is a car

lane remarked for bicycles only, across a bridge. The drivers stay out

of it. The riders get full use of the lane, and are not hemmed in by

barriers and bollards. There is just a painted island to separate the

lanes. Prior to that the car traffic would bank up for several hundred

meters and the bike lane was a half meter wide strip next to a very hard

edged gutter (like about 6 inches straight up) - or the foot path,

though illegal.



At first I thought there was another example, but now I can't think what

it might be.



I have described one near me already: a single lane, not striped, that

was *just* wide enough to tempt masshole drivers into sharing it between

two cars. It was not wide enough to share between a truck and a car,

nor between two cars and a bicycle, and so was really ugly to ride.



A bike lane stripe was added, and now the cars fall into a single lane,

which is quite a significant improvment, despite not adding any asphalt.

There are a lot of places where striping a bike lane has made my commute more enjoyable, particularly where there was pavement added to accommodate the bike lane. If I am travelling faster than other cyclists, I legally may enter the traffic lane to pass. There is some stupid and dangerous infrastructure, too. It's hit and miss but hardly all bad. There are even some dog and pedestrian laden multi-use paths that give me an alternate route home or even a short-cut out to the country, e.g. http://tinyurl.com/qesyomy

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:35:23 PM UTC, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Wed, 18 Dec 2013

20:11:30 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:



On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 8:53:53 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:





You dropped a decimal point there 7,000 divided by 140,000,000 is

0.000050 (or .0050 % ) The difference is about 10 years sales of the

Rohloff :-)



Oops, you're right. Next time I'll grab a calculator.



Of course, Mr. Jute has informed us that we're off by a factor of roughly two. So that makes it a full 0.01% of the market, not counting all the older bikes still in service.



I think I understand why I've never seen one in real life!



To be fair, they don't exactly target the mass market xmart BSOs,

which probably account for 99% of bicycles sold.

I doubt if their market penetration is much worse than Di2, for

example, and it is a comparison with that which would be more

meaningful.

I don't think there is any real doubt about the technical excellence

of what they produce, and scaling production up to supply a much

larger market can be very difficult.

It seems to me that Rohloff's penetration of the market they actually

target is remarkably good, given the price of the product.

It could probably be improved quite a bit by a greater range of

shifting options, as well. The fact that they don't yet offer much in

the way of shifting options seems to indicate to me that they are

happy with the market penetration that they have achieved, since that

would be a very cheap and easy way of expanding the target market.

Expanding too fast is a recipe for losing control of the business to

bean-counters, and losing the benefit the company currently has of

being controlled by the engineers.

I suspect they are expanding at the rate that can be funded by

profits, rather than looking for outside investment to do so (which

would risk losing control of the business to non technical investors

only interested in short-term profits).

You'd never get a product of that quality from a company that starts

with a desired bottom line, and works backwards to the product design.

One has to wonder whether and for how long under a regime of bean counters Bernd Rohloff would have been allowed to keep up one of the mainstays of Rohloff's enviable reputation for reliability: see, a Rohloff is guaranteed for a year or two by a piece of paper but I don't actually know how long, nor do I care, and most savvy owners take the same attitude, because we know that, if we play by the rules (only three: don't bodge, change the oil once a year, don't exceed the permitted torque), service including labour and parts and carriage to you anywhere in the world is free forever. Rohloff has never been known to charge anyone who didn't abuse the box. So, for any practical purposes, a Rohloff comes with a lifetime guarantee. (For practical purposes, its service life is indefinite: none have ever worn out.) That makes the thing a bargain at any price, because once you've taken the initial hit, there are no further expenses (less than twenty bucks a year for an oil change with the deluxe clean hands kit) until your grandchildren inherit it. I have two broken Shimano hub gearboxes that wore out in fewer miles between the pair of them than my Rohloff has traveled; just not having the nuisance of replacing a broken box, having to source a new wheel and fit it, is worth the whole price of a Rohloff installation to me. (Chalo used to say that a Rohloff starts being run-in about the time you retire a Shimano hub gearbox. I didn't grasp then that he wasn't being amusing: he meant it literally. I get it now.)

BTW, Rohloff has had a lighter, presumably roadie, version of their box ready to put into manufacturing for at least a couple of years. I suspect they haven't rolled it out not for lack of finance but because they fear the lighter box will interfere with their chief USP, which is their reputation for invincibility.

Trivia: The makers of my everyday bike, Utopia, were the first to see the benefit of this mud plugger's gearbox for touring plutocrats. Utopia bought the first 100 Rohloff gearboxes, and it is still the standard Utopia fitment on all their top bikes. One gets to rub shoulders with Herr Rohloff at the annual Utopia summer festival in the forest which holds the Utopia test track around the factory.

Andre Jute

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:30:15 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
James writes:



On 19/12/13 06:34, Dan O wrote:

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:



snip





... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a

"religion"

is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my

views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge

riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.



Elsewhere, Frank said:



"I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done
cycling infrastructure."



But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly

done"? ... Please?



That is difficult. There are only one or two short sections of well

done infrastructure that I know of, where there are no impediments or

added dangers. One section is about 150m long, and basically is a car

lane remarked for bicycles only, across a bridge. The drivers stay out

of it. The riders get full use of the lane, and are not hemmed in by

barriers and bollards. There is just a painted island to separate the

lanes. Prior to that the car traffic would bank up for several hundred

meters and the bike lane was a half meter wide strip next to a very hard

edged gutter (like about 6 inches straight up) - or the foot path,

though illegal.



At first I thought there was another example, but now I can't think what

it might be.



I have described one near me already: a single lane, not striped, that

was *just* wide enough to tempt masshole drivers into sharing it between

two cars. It was not wide enough to share between a truck and a car,

nor between two cars and a bicycle, and so was really ugly to ride.



A bike lane stripe was added, and now the cars fall into a single lane,

which is quite a significant improvment, despite not adding any asphalt.

There are a lot of places where striping a bike lane has made my commute
more enjoyable, particularly where there was pavement added to
accommodate the bike lane. If I am travelling faster than other cyclists,
I legally may enter the traffic lane to pass. There is some stupid and
dangerous infrastructure, too. It's hit and miss but hardly all bad.
There are even some dog and pedestrian laden multi-use paths that give me
an alternate route home or even a short-cut out to the country, e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/qesyomy



Yes some bike lanes work well. And yes, some of those paths are pretty
empty at the ungodly early hour I'm heading to work. Of course they
deprive me of the joys of sitting in traffic but I somehow survive anyway.


--
duane

Radey Shouman wrote:
James writes:

On 19/12/13 06:34, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a
"religion"
is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my
views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge
riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.

Elsewhere, Frank said:

"I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done
cycling infrastructure."

But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
done"? ... Please?

That is difficult. There are only one or two short sections of well
done infrastructure that I know of, where there are no impediments or
added dangers. One section is about 150m long, and basically is a car
lane remarked for bicycles only, across a bridge. The drivers stay out
of it. The riders get full use of the lane, and are not hemmed in by
barriers and bollards. There is just a painted island to separate the
lanes. Prior to that the car traffic would bank up for several hundred
meters and the bike lane was a half meter wide strip next to a very hard
edged gutter (like about 6 inches straight up) - or the foot path,
though illegal.

At first I thought there was another example, but now I can't think what
it might be.

I have described one near me already: a single lane, not striped, that
was *just* wide enough to tempt masshole drivers into sharing it between
two cars. It was not wide enough to share between a truck and a car,
nor between two cars and a bicycle, and so was really ugly to ride.

A bike lane stripe was added, and now the cars fall into a single lane,
which is quite a significant improvment, despite not adding any asphalt.


Yes we have a few cases like that here. One particular road that I
mentioned before goes from Montreal's west island to the city following the
river. When it's congested it's really nice to blow by the traffic instead
of sitting there inhaling exhaust fumes.

All other infrastructure is either superfluous or makes riding more
hazardous in an attempt to make people either just feel safe, or in the
case of really segregated lanes, completely safe from being hit from
behind, though the risk of such a collision is not worthy of such
treatments.

Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.


James seems more concerned with cycling than zealotry. Of course maybe
he's a zealous cyclist...

Does one example count? Please?

And even though you are, Nothing Wrong With That (TM). Where something
wrong comes into it is your critical insistence that it's the one true
proper way for others.

In a democracy I have a right to fight for what I want and what works
for me. If other people want to have facilities that they think will
make their life better, they should fight for them.

What I really object to is the laws that make it illegal for me to *not*
use their facilities when I consider them more dangerous to use than the
road. Proving that a bike lane is impracticable to use has been shown
to be difficult. Does the fact that I like to ride much faster in
general than fat bottomed women on city bikes count?

Perhaps there should be a 20km/h speed limit on the segregated bike
lanes, such that if you expect to exceed that speed you may ride on the
road.


That's how it works here and why we have a clause in the vehicle code
guaranteeing us the right to not use them.


Do you see the religiousness?

Not really. More self preservation than anything.

Agreed.
--


--
duane

AMuzi wrote:
On 12/19/2013 2:53 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 5:49:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/19/2013 11:11 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 4:31:54 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:

A person like Jute should not insult other members of the discussion
group because they choose not to own a Rohloff.



I don't care what you choose to buy, or dumpster-dive for, Franki-boy;
everyone knows you're a cheapskate. But once more you're lying about
what happened. What I said was that Rohloff, among other technical
advances, cannot be discussed on RBT because the resident scum, like
you, will instantly divert the conversation into their own petty
concerns (an example is how you diverted Lou's invitation to you into
another sideswipe at me, above). I didn't insult anyone for not
choosing, or having the money, to buy a Rohloff. I put down the usual
trash for being hostile to any tech that costs more than $1.99 or that
isn't branded Shimano, preferably both. That's not news, sonny; I put
you down every time I see you, because you deserve it, and the rest of
the scum when they misbehave. Nothing to do with Rohloff in
particular, but with your wretched behavior and fascist attitudes to
human life and other matters, of which your congenital lying is the least part.



Andre Jute

Relentles rigor -- Gaius Germanicus

wake me when it's time to sing kumbaya.

That used be sung by the pinko--commie-fellow travelers at my first
college. Are you coming out of the closet, Andrew?


Not at all.
I just wouldn't want to miss the moment.
Invective I can read any time.

Andre certainly is overflowing with the Christmas spirit nowadays.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:09:48 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

FWIW, I'm happy with the mix of topics on this group, although I'm not happy with the rudeness.

Yeah, yeah - and you always carry a comb, and tissues
in your handlebar bag. We know. Nothing Wrong With
That (TM), but take the judgmental down a few notches.

:-) And of course, _you're_ not being judgmental at all, right?


I have my subjective impressions (Frank is prissy), but I
am only pointing that out because you have many, many, many
times judged me as "rude" - *your* subjective impression
(from a prissy perspective).

Your remark about carrying a comb and tissue remind me about an incident many, many years ago. One of my students also had aspirations as a singer/songwriter, and my wife and I went to a club to hear him perform. His cocky...


Judgmental. ("whom we barely knew"?)

... little...

"Little" as in small in size? Or as in unimportant.

Judgmental? Demeaning?

... girlfriend - whom we barely knew - was there as well.

At a certain point, she came up to us, sniffling, and asked my wife if she had a kleenex in her purse. My wife said "Sure" and gave her one.

Instead of thanks, she said "You looked like the type that would carry a kleenex," and walked away.

We looked at each other and my wife said (out of earshot) "And she looks like the type that would run around with a snotty nose."


Wow, your wife was offended (of what?) enough to feel the
need for a vindictive (snotty?) behind-the-back remark.

Personally, I prefer back-of-the-shop banter to hoity-
toity analytic engineering pretense. Doesn't mean I
don't appreciate facts and science...

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

Read what I said. The thing that is not preferred is
"pretense".

You're once again blathering idiocy while you stand in total ignorance.

Would you please point out the idiocy?

(And while you're at it, *please* point out some examples
of infrastructure that is not "badly done". How about those
ones that you are at least somewhat responsible for.)

You have no concept of what engineering entails,

Dude!

... and how far it is beyond you.

I really push your buttons, don't I.

You'd have had zero chance of making it through an engineering curriculum or doing any practical engineering,


Have had zero chance if what? If I'd enrolled? And the
fact is I have *done* lots of practical engineering.

... yet you demean the profession that's enabled your bike to even exist - not to mention your roads, your computer, your electrical supply, your heating and cooling, your water supply, and even your sewage system.

Of course, maybe your sewage system isn't working. That would explain what you spew here.


I once lived out in the country in a house that had "a
couple 55-gallon drums" as septic tank, and I don't know
what for the rest of the system. Eventually it failed.
I went into town to the library, and read a book about septic
systems from the ancient greeks to modern times. went to
the building supply store, had 5 yards of rock delivered,
and built a new septic system (of my own design) that works
great thank you very much.

I totally appreciate reading and learning; I even love
academia and going to school. I love NPR and PBS and man,
oh man - the internet... !

But I also observe that *all* the things I know best were
learned experientially - some with essentially zero "book
learning" at all. These things (and I'm sure we can all
relate) - when we read about them - we may say either,
"Duh", or instead, "BS".

Bike riding - including traffic - is one of those things.

Oh, and my understanding of psychology offers potential
explanations, which I've made allusions to, for your spew.

Duane writes:

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:30:15 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:

snip


I have described one near me already: a single lane, not striped, that
was *just* wide enough to tempt masshole drivers into sharing it between
two cars. It was not wide enough to share between a truck and a car,
nor between two cars and a bicycle, and so was really ugly to ride.

A bike lane stripe was added, and now the cars fall into a single lane,
which is quite a significant improvment, despite not adding any asphalt.

There are a lot of places where striping a bike lane has made my commute
more enjoyable, particularly where there was pavement added to
accommodate the bike lane. If I am travelling faster than other cyclists,
I legally may enter the traffic lane to pass. There is some stupid and
dangerous infrastructure, too. It's hit and miss but hardly all bad.
There are even some dog and pedestrian laden multi-use paths that give me
an alternate route home or even a short-cut out to the country, e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/qesyomy



Yes some bike lanes work well. And yes, some of those paths are pretty
empty at the ungodly early hour I'm heading to work. Of course they
deprive me of the joys of sitting in traffic but I somehow survive anyway.


One thing that is often overlooked (or not mentioned) is
the benefit for motorists. The bike lane makes it much
easier to predict where to *expect* the bicyclist to be.
This relieves them of a lot of tense anxiety that otherwise
often leads to a contentious attitude and bad interaction.

Understand I am not saying the bicyclist should never be
expected out of the bike lane - just that the predictive
aspect of situational awareness involves probabilities,
and the bike lane really helps the motorist in that. The
motorist should still consider the possibility (and
probability given circumstances) that the bicyclist might
(have to) leave the bike lane.

As we know, motorists are (too) often clueless of circumstances
that may be cause for the biclist to (have to) leave the bike
lane. But the astute bicyclist (i.e. one astute enough to
be competent on the road) realizes this.

They're just as clueless in the absence of the bike lane,
but absent the bike lane (lane sharing scenario), I guess
it could be argued that the reduced predictability (motorists
regarding us as kids playing in the street) would make them
more carefully accommodating; but experience does not bear
this out, and their increased anxiety, resulting contentious
attitude, and resulting bad interactions seem much worse, in
my experience, than my inability to avoid unexpectedly swerving
out of the bike lane into the imminent path of car.