entry level lights to see by

On Jan 26, 12:48*am, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 26-1-2013 4:10, Frank Krygowski schreef:
e.



One other factor I don't like about following either GPS or Google
Maps directions is, I end up at a place sort of "out of context." *I
got there, but I have little idea what I passed, what else was in the
area, etc. *Following a complete map, I get the overview.

That don't have to be the case imho. Getting directions from the satnav
lady gives you time to look around and mark orientation points. The next
time you want to go to the same address you won't need the satvnav lady
anymore most of the times. That is my experience.
GPS on the bike is wonderful. If you want to look at a map on every
corner in a foreign country or a unkown area go ahead. I won't.

Lou

And let me say that I haven't tried all the fancy navigation stuff --
audible instructions from robo-lady telling me when to turn (or turn
back), but I do use the iPhone app with the moving dot on a map, and I
like that a lot. It is very map-like, and it's convenient on bike
rides -- and it comes free with my phone. Trifecta!

I always wonder about programs choosing my route. Mapquest/Google Maps
often make bad choices, IMO -- fatally bad for some people in Oregon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Camp_Road
http://davewagner.com/wordpress/?p=295

I suppose some of the more sophisticated programs with traffic-
watching function, etc. might be interesting -- who knows, I could
become a convert. But I will always want a map just to see what's out
there in a more comprehensive way. A lot of this electronic stuff is
like looking at a landscape vista through a key hole.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 01/24/2013 07:47 PM, James wrote:
On 25/01/13 11:19, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:31 PM, James wrote:
On 24/01/13 03:16, Dan O wrote:

Usually, around here, when anyone hears a car honking in anger and
looks to see what the deal is, then sees that the driver is honking at
a bicyclist, they *immediately* and automatically leap to "damned
bicyclist" mode - without ever analyzing what is actually going on.
Many of them give the situation their full sustained attention, in
anticipation of vicarious satisfaction seeing the bicyclist assaulted
in some fashion.

I read the result of a recent study in a rural area here, and 15% of
respondents did not believe bicyclists were legitimate road users.

Yesterday evening, we got a couple of motorists indicating we should be
riding single file on a 3 lane road well after the peak.

That's because you should. In fact, depending on where you live, you may
be legally required to do so.

Absolutely not. The road law where I live clearly states we may ride
two abreast on all but single lane roads, and may be 3 abreast when
overtaking.

Well, that's an odd law. You would have been required to ride single
file here. The law states that you may not ride more than two abreast
and must ride single file when motorists wish to pass.

Just because some motorists are rude doesn't mean that some cyclists are
also rude. Riding side-by-side when traffic is present is exceptionally
rude.

Bull****. There was plenty of opportunity for the motorist to use one
of the other two lanes, the traffic was light. Also the left lane can
not safely accommodate a single cyclist and a car, therefore there is no
difference having two riders two abreast - the motorist is obligation to
change lanes to safely overtake.

By your rationale then, it's not rude to drive slowly in the middle lane
when there are three lanes in your direction of travel.

That's also clearly false - it's not only rude but illegal in most
civilized locales.


But if you like being rude, then as you were.

The only rudeness was from the motorists displaying their impatience,
ignorance, aggressiveness and self righteousness.


Nope, you were rude, and apparently ignorant of your rudeness, even
after it was pointed out to you, and you chose to blame it on the
motorists instead of objectively evaluating your own actions.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 1/25/2013 11:08 PM, davethedave wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:04:51 -0800, Jay Beattie wrote:

snip

People are losing the ability to read maps -- to relate a two
dimensional map to three dimensional space. Before I go to a strange
city, I look at a paper map and get an idea of the grid lay-out and
directional landmarks (e.g. the mountains are east, the river north,
etc.) Then I'm set and rarely get lost. I hate driving directions from
Google. I want a map.

Google driving directions are ****. Plus there is a requirement for
google which can suck when you are lost with no data connection.

Navfree, an Android app, stores maps locally. As does CoPilot (not free,
but not expensive for the U.S. (Android or iOS or Windows Mobile), but
the European maps are not that cheap.

The problem with a GPS is that it tells you how to get someplace but you
don't really know where you are or how you got there. A paper map is
still useful. Or at least locally stored maps for a tablet. A phone's
screen is too small.

You can download Google Maps offline, but no navigation is available.

On Jan 26, 8:34 am, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/25/2013 9:53 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:34:12 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/k...ille%20fire%20...

The fire truck was being towed at the time of the accident:
http://www.maysville-online.com/news/maysville-fire-truck-damaged-in-...

I just searched for a 'fire truck wreck' image.


I have been on two fire trucks that had to be towed: The first was
relay pumping from an irrigation ditch up a "farm lane lay" to another
engine pumping water lines to a structure fire, when the engine itself
caught fire. The second was a brush truck (a big one - generally more
"unstoppable" than an engine). We were first in to a large brush
fire, and sank the wheels in soft ground. We were close enough to get
lines to the fire and start working anyway, when another truck (this
one a full engine) came charging in and got stuck right alongside us.
That was a long night.

On Jan 25, 7:27 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:10 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Jan 25, 9:04 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

We used to sit around the office and quiz each other on where streets
were located -- even arcane little alleys in our zone.

I've read that to qualify as a London cabbie, you have to pass a test
on those matters.

People are losing the ability to read maps -- to relate a two
dimensional map to three dimensional space. Before I go to a strange
city, I look at a paper map and get an idea of the grid lay-out and
directional landmarks (e.g. the mountains are east, the river north,
etc.) Then I'm set and rarely get lost. I hate driving directions from
Google. I want a map.

You'd enjoy the challenge of visiting Pittsburgh. That's a _real_ 3-
dimensional space. It adds greatly to the difficulty in interpreting
a two-dimensional map, because roads that look like intersections may
be separated by 100 vertical feet. And "grid layout"? Hah!

I figure the only reason Pittsburgh got populated was that people
couldn't find their way out of it.

But before someone takes offense at a joke (hi, Dan! ;-) )

No problem whatsoever, Frank - it gave me a really good smile, in
fact.

I'll say
that Pittsburgh really is a nice town. Super hilly, but nice.

Even though I am so happy living here in Eden:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...vatbethel1.jpg

.... and have little interest in "back east", I am intrigued by what
you describe. Recall my penchant for Suessville.

The other moment of connection with you yesterday was your rmention of
walking your bike through the brush to get around the flood or
whatever and proceed where cars could not. That's what I'm all about
- the cut-thoughs and connections and weird, non-prescribed little
ways of getting places that keep life interesting and illuminate the
tremendous advantage of bicycle over automobile.

On 1/25/2013 2:08 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 24, 11:59 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 24, 3:21 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jan 24, 4:08 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Jan 24, 12:07 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

OK. What's your opinion on speed humps delaying fire trucks? If
there were, say, two of them your truck had to traverse in the final
half mile to get to a burning house, how long would they delay you?
I'm talking about the smooth, ramp-style speed humps, not the sharp
parking lot speed bumps.

I have no problem with such things typically or unduly impeding fire
apparatus, though it is worthwhile to know the characteristics of
route alternatives in the response area. Even ambulances loaded with
fragile patients can handle whatever they might have to pretty well.
It's no fun getting bounced in that last half mile as you're making
final preparations, but I guess it may actually be a good test of calm
mental readiness to roll with things.

Personally, they don't seem to benefit my bike riding, but that's
beside the point.

My problem was with your definitive logic: "It's a fact, and you guys
better believe it, because one of my friends says so." :-)

sigh Dan, I suppose I could pretend to be a lot less certain about
what I write here, to make you happier. But I know and believe my
friend; I confirmed what he told me through other sources; and I saw
no reason to mince words. (And BTW, the conversation he and I had on
that point was fairly extensive. It had to do with issues being
raised in a public meeting.)

It's interesting that now, after all your fuss, it turns out you agree
with him and with me.

I didn't say "nothing stops a fire truck".

... In fact, I can tell you with complete certainty that it doesn't
take much.

Tatra fire truck laughs at your speed humps.

http://www.hasiciturkovice.cz/img/picture/503/189115-original1-8mzr5%5B1%5D.jpg

--
Tom $herman

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:19:23 -0600, "Tom $herman"
wrote:

On 1/21/2013 10:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I have to look them up. The basic problem is energy density.
As the MegaJoules/Kg go up, the battery begins to approximate
a small bomb.

Cool!

You can almost get there with todays batteries:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Duracell/index.html
http://stevejanke.com/archives/232541.php

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jan 26, 10:04 am, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 01/24/2013 07:47 PM, James wrote:



On 25/01/13 11:19, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:31 PM, James wrote:
On 24/01/13 03:16, Dan O wrote:

Usually, around here, when anyone hears a car honking in anger and
looks to see what the deal is, then sees that the driver is honking at
a bicyclist, they *immediately* and automatically leap to "damned
bicyclist" mode - without ever analyzing what is actually going on.
Many of them give the situation their full sustained attention, in
anticipation of vicarious satisfaction seeing the bicyclist assaulted
in some fashion.

I read the result of a recent study in a rural area here, and 15% of
respondents did not believe bicyclists were legitimate road users.

Yesterday evening, we got a couple of motorists indicating we should be
riding single file on a 3 lane road well after the peak.

That's because you should. In fact, depending on where you live, you may
be legally required to do so.

Absolutely not. The road law where I live clearly states we may ride
two abreast on all but single lane roads, and may be 3 abreast when
overtaking.

Well, that's an odd law. You would have been required to ride single
file here. The law states that you may not ride more than two abreast
and must ride single file when motorists wish to pass.

Just because some motorists are rude doesn't mean that some cyclists are
also rude. Riding side-by-side when traffic is present is exceptionally
rude.

Bull****. There was plenty of opportunity for the motorist to use one
of the other two lanes, the traffic was light. Also the left lane can
not safely accommodate a single cyclist and a car, therefore there is no
difference having two riders two abreast - the motorist is obligation to
change lanes to safely overtake.

By your rationale then, it's not rude to drive slowly in the middle lane
when there are three lanes in your direction of travel.

That's also clearly false - it's not only rude but illegal in most
civilized locales.


Without examining the situation here, let me say that three lanes
usually provide for a passing lane on the left, a merging lane on the
right, and a straight through lane in the middle.



But if you like being rude, then as you were.


**** you! (Yeah, it does feel good :-)

The only rudeness was from the motorists displaying their impatience,
ignorance, aggressiveness and self righteousness.

Nope, you were rude, and apparently ignorant of your rudeness, even
after it was pointed out to you, and you chose to blame it on the
motorists instead of objectively evaluating your own actions.


Where do you think you are posting?

On 27/01/13 05:04, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 01/24/2013 07:47 PM, James wrote:
On 25/01/13 11:19, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:31 PM, James wrote:
On 24/01/13 03:16, Dan O wrote:

Usually, around here, when anyone hears a car honking in anger and
looks to see what the deal is, then sees that the driver is honking at
a bicyclist, they *immediately* and automatically leap to "damned
bicyclist" mode - without ever analyzing what is actually going on.
Many of them give the situation their full sustained attention, in
anticipation of vicarious satisfaction seeing the bicyclist assaulted
in some fashion.

I read the result of a recent study in a rural area here, and 15% of
respondents did not believe bicyclists were legitimate road users.

Yesterday evening, we got a couple of motorists indicating we should be
riding single file on a 3 lane road well after the peak.

That's because you should. In fact, depending on where you live, you may
be legally required to do so.

Absolutely not. The road law where I live clearly states we may ride
two abreast on all but single lane roads, and may be 3 abreast when
overtaking.

Well, that's an odd law. You would have been required to ride single
file here. The law states that you may not ride more than two abreast
and must ride single file when motorists wish to pass.

Just because some motorists are rude doesn't mean that some cyclists are
also rude. Riding side-by-side when traffic is present is exceptionally
rude.

Bull****. There was plenty of opportunity for the motorist to use one
of the other two lanes, the traffic was light. Also the left lane can
not safely accommodate a single cyclist and a car, therefore there is no
difference having two riders two abreast - the motorist is obligation to
change lanes to safely overtake.

By your rationale then, it's not rude to drive slowly in the middle lane
when there are three lanes in your direction of travel.

The law here is to stay left unless overtaking. Slow moving vehicles
occupy the left most lanes, leaving any other lanes available for faster
traffic. Mostly that happens. And if while I'm driving I find someone
is travelling slowly in the middle or right lane, I have no hesitation
moving around them, and I do not honk my horn, shake my fist or make
rude signs.


But if you like being rude, then as you were.

The only rudeness was from the motorists displaying their impatience,
ignorance, aggressiveness and self righteousness.


Nope, you were rude, and apparently ignorant of your rudeness, even
after it was pointed out to you, and you chose to blame it on the
motorists instead of objectively evaluating your own actions.

Nope, we rode lawfully and sensibly, just like the group I rode with
when I visited the UK.

What do you do when you come upon a tractor in the left lane, that can't
do more than 30 - 40 km/h? I expect you honk your horn at the driver
because you think they're rude to drive so slowly. How strange.

--
JS

On 27/01/13 07:16, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:04 am, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 01/24/2013 07:47 PM, James wrote:



On 25/01/13 11:19, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:31 PM, James wrote:
On 24/01/13 03:16, Dan O wrote:

Usually, around here, when anyone hears a car honking in anger and
looks to see what the deal is, then sees that the driver is honking at
a bicyclist, they *immediately* and automatically leap to "damned
bicyclist" mode - without ever analyzing what is actually going on.
Many of them give the situation their full sustained attention, in
anticipation of vicarious satisfaction seeing the bicyclist assaulted
in some fashion.

I read the result of a recent study in a rural area here, and 15% of
respondents did not believe bicyclists were legitimate road users.

Yesterday evening, we got a couple of motorists indicating we should be
riding single file on a 3 lane road well after the peak.

That's because you should. In fact, depending on where you live, you may
be legally required to do so.

Absolutely not. The road law where I live clearly states we may ride
two abreast on all but single lane roads, and may be 3 abreast when
overtaking.

Well, that's an odd law. You would have been required to ride single
file here. The law states that you may not ride more than two abreast
and must ride single file when motorists wish to pass.

Just because some motorists are rude doesn't mean that some cyclists are
also rude. Riding side-by-side when traffic is present is exceptionally
rude.

Bull****. There was plenty of opportunity for the motorist to use one
of the other two lanes, the traffic was light. Also the left lane can
not safely accommodate a single cyclist and a car, therefore there is no
difference having two riders two abreast - the motorist is obligation to
change lanes to safely overtake.

By your rationale then, it's not rude to drive slowly in the middle lane
when there are three lanes in your direction of travel.

That's also clearly false - it's not only rude but illegal in most
civilized locales.


Without examining the situation here, let me say that three lanes
usually provide for a passing lane on the left, a merging lane on the
right, and a straight through lane in the middle.

Here's the situation I was talking about. http://goo.gl/maps/va7Ld

Traffic was light. The driver that honked turned left at the lights
bottom of the hill. We were riding down the (gentle) hill at about 50 km/h.


The only rudeness was from the motorists displaying their impatience,
ignorance, aggressiveness and self righteousness.

Nope, you were rude, and apparently ignorant of your rudeness, even
after it was pointed out to you, and you chose to blame it on the
motorists instead of objectively evaluating your own actions.


Where do you think you are posting?


roads.for.cars possibly ;-)

--
JS