Can you make it to the market on a bike?

writes:

On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 wrote:


The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
safety is... the sidewalk.

That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that
conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous
than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the
opposite.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf shows that
sidewalk cycling *in the same direction as traffic* has nearly the
same risk as riding on the roadway. See Table 5. For all bicyclists
in the study, the risk riding with traffic on the sidewalk divided by
the risk of riding on the roadway is 0.9 When you break it up by age,
however, you find that both the 17 and under and the 18 and over
catagories have a slightly increased risk when using the sidewalk and
when riding in the same direction as vehicular traffic. The reason is
that the 17 and under group has a significantly lower risk of an
accident than the 18 and over group no matter where they rode, but the
17 and under group was more likely to use a sidwalk.

The reduced risk for the 17 and under group is a bit counterintuitive,
given that by appearances they would seem be less careful than the 18
and older group. In a discussion with one of the authors, I suggested
a hypothesis that would explain the difference of about a factor of 2
(but it would take quite a bit of work to test it): the under 17 group
consists of mostly children who ride back from school before the
evening commute, but are in the morning commute, whereas the 18 and
over group (with a large contingent of Stanford students) has to ride
in both the morning and evening commutes. It is during commute hours
that the risk of a collision with a motor vehicle is highest, primarly
due to the larger number of vehicles on the road at that time. We can
also add a tendency not to use lights at night. That accounts for the
factor of two difference (and the large number of college students in
the area biases the "18 and over" catagory towards people in the late
teens and early 20s).

Where the real risk of sidewalk cycling appears is when riding against
the flow of traffic, and riding against the flow of traffic is far
more prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent road. That's where
you get an enhanced risk several times the risk of riding in the
correct direction on the road.

The bottom line is that riding on a sidewalk is not particularly risky
if you go at a speed appropriate for the conditions and if you ride in
the same direction as traffic. Obviously you need to be especially
careful about entering intersections, but the data seems to suggest
that most people who use sidewalks are doing that (the increased risk
is nearly all due to going the wrong way).

"Donquijote," don't you think you should research some of these points
before you make more mistaken posts?

Well, obviously Krygowski doesn't read the literature either as
comprehensively as he'd like to pretend. :-)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:


What a liar you are, Pein. You are the person who is distorting
what you are replying to. If you have nice discussions with Krygowski,
it is only because you two agree with each other.

Moron,

I don't lie: ever. Conversing with you is the most painful experience
I've had in a long time.

Good bye.

Wayne

Wayne Pein writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
HOV lanes.

The whole concept of bike lanes is bad.

That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere
they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations.

Pein, cut your idiotic rhetoric and show what you think is wrong with
the Caltrans standards for bike lanes.



You keep bringing up a comparison between bike lanes and HOV
lanes. Apparently you have an inability to distinguish differences.

HOV lanes are 12' wide, are used on freeways, are typically (always?)
the left lane (US), are intended to allow their users to pass
congestion, are not mandatory, do not collect debris, and are
universally loved by their users.

Bike lanes are 4' wide, are used on normal streets which is an
inappropriate treatment, are typically the rightmost lane (US), are
intended to allow motorists to pass bicyclists easier while sometimes
stopped motorists block the bike lane, are typically mandatory (if not
mandatory, motorists enforce their use anyway), collect debris, and
are often despised by their intended users.

Bike lanes are usually wider than 4' around here, sometimes a lot wider,
are clear of debris, and are in most cases popular with "their intended
users." The use of the lane is not mandatory in general, but rather
simply reflects the normal "slower traffic keeps to the right" rule.
The people who get as emotional as you do are very much a minority,
albeit a vocal one on usenet.

Also, bike lanes allow bicyclists to pass congestion whenever the
congestion is so bad that a bicyclist can ride faster than normal
traffic, and when that is the case, the use of the bike lane is
completely optional. It is pointless to argue about it - the CVC
is available on line.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Wayne Pein writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Wayne Pein writes:

In a 16' lane, 14' from the lane stripe is 2' from the edge of pavement.
What you are is a liar.

Moron,

This is my last communication with you because trying to converse with
you is a constantly moving target.

Well, you just lied twice - your constantly moving target thing is a
lie, as is your "last communication". The post I'm replying to,
meesage ID , was sent at
Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:03:34 -0400, but you subsequently posted another
reply with message ID
at Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:06:16 -0400.

Care to explain how that post followed your "last communication"? :-)

Your problem otherwise is that I'm simply not letting you get away
with misrepresenting what I actually said, and you are finding that
very awkward.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Wayne Pein writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


What a liar you are, Pein. You are the person who is distorting
what you are replying to. If you have nice discussions with Krygowski,
it is only because you two agree with each other.

Moron,

I don't lie: ever. Conversing with you is the most painful experience
I've had in a long time.

Good bye.
Wayne

ROTFLMAO. You claimed the post you made 3 minutes before this one was
your "last communication" and now you say you don't lie? :-)

I really don't care whether you consider it lying, but you have been
going around repeatedly misrepresenting what I said, replying to
sensible comments with infantile name calling, and otherwise behaving
like a child.

If you find conversing with me to be a "painful experience", it is
simply because you can't handle any statement about some topics that
clashes with your preconceptions. You need some professional help.
Maybe you and your friend Krygowski can go in together for group
therapy.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:32:40 -0400, Wayne Pein
wrote:
Bill Z. wrote:
writes:
Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.

Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
city he rode.

Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for many
writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.

Wayne

Seconded. Frank's experiences closely parallel mine.

Pat

Email address works as is.

On Aug 3, 6:04 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
writes:
On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 wrote:

The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
safety is... the sidewalk.

That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that
conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous
than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the
opposite.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf shows that
sidewalk cycling *in the same direction as traffic* has nearly the
same risk as riding on the roadway. See Table 5. For all bicyclists
in the study, the risk riding with traffic on the sidewalk divided by
the risk of riding on the roadway is 0.9 When you break it up by age,
however, you find that both the 17 and under and the 18 and over
catagories have a slightly increased risk when using the sidewalk and
when riding in the same direction as vehicular traffic. ...

...obviously Krygowski doesn't read the literature either as
comprehensively as he'd like to pretend. :-)

Bill, you're amazing.

Let's look at the conclusion of the paper:

"Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur
greater risk than those on the roadway (on average
1.8 times as great), most likely because of
blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way
sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and
sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence
of wrong-way travel."

What you've done is cherry pick the data in order to make a silly
argument. Even if sidewalk cycling is safe for, say, cyclists between
32 and 42 years of age, with red hair, riding slowly, in the direction
of traffic, and stopping at all driveways, that's not representative
of Donquijote's "street smart poor." Neither is your carefully chosen
sub-group.

Absent evidence of special characteristics, the best advice on riding
should be based on the average data, not your sub-group.

And you probably know about the Canadian study that found sidewalk
cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't
think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away.

Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.

- Frank Krygowski

In article . com,
writes:

Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.

So why do you encourage him?

Frank, you 'n Wayne are swinging punches at the Tar Baby,
to show the rest of the world what a Tar Baby it is.
But we already know it's a Tar Baby. You don't need to
prove anything. Unless you're obsessed like Captain Ahab
in Moby Dick, and need to prove some irrational idea to
yourself by besting your chosen opponent.

Captain Ahab could've won (or at least broke even) by just
leaving the freaky whale alone to die a natural death.

The whale got Ahab's leg in the beginning of the story,
and got his life at the end of the story. But in between,
the whale slowly nibbled & nibbled & nibbled him to death.
And Ahab kept coming back for more nibbling. Just like
you guys are doing.

So, we all know Bill Zaumen is a Great White Tar Baby with
a wrinkled brow & crooked jaw, and much stickiness.

I am not only alone left to tell thee.

And you can't effectively harpoon a Tar Baby.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Bill Zaumen wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in
the area to know why.
But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to
know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities.

Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China.
Do you deny that many of the "high-tech" jobs that were supposed to
replace the outsourced manufacturing jobs are also being outsourced to
China, India and other low wage countries?

Read what I said. Some things can't be outsourced to third-world
countries, for the reasons I gave you. Those countries could, of
course, catch up to us. I'll give you a hint - you won't find the 10
gigabit/second NIC cards coming out of China until they become a
commodity, nor the device drivers for them (the chips typically have
problems that require software 'work arounds', and you need a close
collaboration between hardware and software engineers to get
everything working).

Various new CPUs are designed in the Bay Area and the software groups
that provide OS support. You can look at SUN's recent CPUs with
multiple cores and multiple threads per core as an example. In this
sort of work, you have to develop the hardware and software at the
same time as you need both for a finished product, so heavy use is
made of simulators that allow the software to be tested before the
hardware is ready, and these require an enormous amount of
computation.

Nothing that appears to be a insurmountable obstacle.

But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda.
As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
HOV lanes.

Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus?
Maybe you can try to improve your grammar?
That is an editing error, not a fundamental mistake in grammar.

It's a grammar error (whether due to bad editing or not) that made the
sentence completely incomprehensible.

Intended sentence: Maybe Zaumen doesn't [like] being asked to sit at the
back of the bus?

The omission of the word "like" was a case of the brain working faster
than the fingers, and not a grammar error. Duh!

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


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

Wayne Pein wrote:
Bill Z. wrote:

As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
HOV lanes.

The whole concept of bike lanes is bad.

That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere
they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations....

Agreed. I used to live in a river divided metropolitan area, and three
of the five bridges were inaccessible to cyclists since they were
Interstate Highways. All such bridges should provide a physically
separated path for cyclists and pedestrians, unless there is another
bridge close by.

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

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