Can you make it to the market on a bike?

donquijote1954 who? wrote:
...
The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
safety is... the sidewalk. And that's what they do all the time. They
are not that stupid to ride with the fish out there.

Riding the sidewalk is NOT safe if one has to cross intersecting roads
and driveways. Then it is much more dangerous than vehicular cycling,
since the drivers are paying attention to traffic on the streets
(carriageway) and not the sidewalk (pavement).

--
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:
...I don't live in CA so I don't care about the CVC!

HOT DOG! WE HAVE A WEINER!

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

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

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

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

"Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are
the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous
for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are
"special" bicycle farcilities (sic).
Mindless Propaganda. Come back when you have something serious to
say.
Whoosh!

Zaumen does not seem to realize that the CVC is nothing more than
regulations developed by California bureaucrats, and does not
establish the fundamental principles of right-of-way or how "bicycle
lanes" affect the attitudes of motorists. His citing the CVC, the way
fundamentalists cite the religious tract of their preference, as being
some infallible word from on high that is universally applicable is
humorous, however.

You do't

Look here - a grammatical error by Zaumen!

seem to realize that the CVC is similar to the vehicle code
in most states, and that it contains the rules that all road users
(drivers and bicyclists) should follow.

I don't live in California, and I am unlikely to visit there in the near
future. Until I plan to travel to California, I don't give a rat's ass
about the CVC.

HINT: The world is not centered around California and Silly Cone Valley,
no matter what the residents think.

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


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

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" wrote in message
oups.com...
However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.

Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago
when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now,
I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.

My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market health
care in the U.S.

Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US. The
present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single payer system
(the government). Such a health care system will be like the public school
system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense. It ought to be
financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich and/or a value
added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A total no-brainer!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Patrick Lamb writes:

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.

Then you must be as much of a nut case as he is - the lanes, when
installed in accordance to the latest standards, are harmless.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

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."


Krygowski, you are an idiot - that factor of 1.8 includes cyclists
riding in both directions and the ones going in the opposite direction
as traffic have an elevated risk of significantly above 1.8. Furthermore,
the factor of 1.8 understates the risk - it is actually over a factor
of 2. The paper clearly states that wrong-way riding is far more
prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent roadway, and that is where
people are getting into trouble.

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.

Your "cherry picking" is another of your bald-faced lies - if I were
doing that, I wouldn't have spent the effort to point out that you get
an unrealistically low number when you combine the 17 and under with
the 18 and over populations - it is due to Simpson's Paradox (look it
up if you are not familiar with the term).

It is not a silly argument - the paper shows that riding in the same
direction as traffic on a sidewalk, as normally practiced, is not
inherently extremely danagerous, but riding in the opposing direction
is. For everyone going in the same direction as traffic, the risk is
increased by 1.2 to 1.3 (the total is 0.9, but that is due to the
statistical anomoly I mentioned). If you were familiar with the area,
you'd know that some sidewalk cyclists ride as fast as people riding
on the road, and then run red lights besides. If you eliminate that
obviously risky behavior, which is included in that ratio of 1.2 to 1.3,
you'll get an even lower number.

Also, your "carefully chosen sub-group" is another lie since I included
both age groups and simply pointed out the difference the direction of
travel makes.


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.

There was no "cherry picking" - that is simply one of your lies. If
they got a factor of 13, you'll find that wrong-way riding was a
significant contributing factor to it.

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

What a hypocrite. Krygowski is one of the most intellectually dishonest
scumbags on usenet. I've just about never seen a single post from him
where he didn't lie about something and this one is no exception. And
any rudeness directed towards him and his lying friends is more than
deserved, particularly since far more is directed at me than I've
been directing at them.

And of course, riding on a sidewalk at an appropriate speed is not a
"bad practice". What the in the paper I quoted clearly shows is that
people who ride on sidewalks in the same direction as traffic are not
taking particularly high risks (an increase of 1.2 to 1.3, which
includes the "crazies", but also people who ride fairly slowly, with
the "crazies" probably accounting for a significant share of the
accidents). Those going in the opposite direction as traffic are
taking a much more substantial risk, and the risk factor is probably
not obvious to them.

The conclusion should be obvious - if you want to ride on a sidewalk,
go in the same direction as traffic and, aside from the direction of
travel, people aren't making horrendously bad decisions.

As is typical of Krygowski, he doesn't want to admit to what the
data clearly shows.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

(Tom Keats) writes:

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?

Krygowski has been on my case for decades for not agreeing with
his idiotic position on bicycle helmets (he objects to my opinion
that wearing one is a reaonable choice one might make). He's been
on a vendetta ever since.

Keats, of course, is another one of these nuts: see
message ID where he says:

I'm more inclined to the opinion that the more vehement
proponents of MHLs are car drivers who feel uncomfortable
sharing the streets and roads with bicyclists, because they
simply don't understand cycling, and nothing will un-convince
them that riding bicycles in traffic is daredevilry. If they
see us 'daredevil cyclists' (I say that with tongue in cheek)
wearing helmets, those drivers' comfort levels are somewhat
increased. So they want /all/ cyclists to wear helmets.

In reality, if we use the California helmet law as an example, the
push for it resulted from an unfortunately accident in which a little
girl was riding against traffic at dusk without a light and wasn't
visible until it was too late for the driver to stop in time (he
wasn't speeding). The accident got a huge amount of publicity in the
press. The public consensus was that a helmet might have helped,
plus the traffic-law violations were not well publicized - it would
have sounded too much like blaming a 9 year old child for not
understanding things that 9 year olds aren't generally expected to
understand.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:

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.

Do you have any clue as to the capital investment needed to do this
stuff? That investment is needed no matter where you do the work and
pretty much puts the salary differences between here and India or
China in the noise.

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!

LOL. It took you several days to figure out that you should have posted a
corection.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

donquijote1954 who? wrote:
...
The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
safety is... the sidewalk. And that's what they do all the time. They
are not that stupid to ride with the fish out there.

Riding the sidewalk is NOT safe if one has to cross intersecting roads
and driveways. Then it is much more dangerous than vehicular cycling,
since the drivers are paying attention to traffic on the streets
(carriageway) and not the sidewalk (pavement).

As was pointed out, the risk of sidewalk cycling is predominantly due
to traveling in the opposite direction as traffic when you look at
accident statistics. In the paper I quoted showing this, the use of
the sidewalk was voluntary, and aside from the direction of travel,
people were not making really bad decisions about which facility to
use.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

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

Bill Zaumen wrote:

I don't live in California, and I am unlikely to visit there in the
near future. Until I plan to travel to California, I don't give a
rat's ass about the CVC.

HINT: The world is not centered around California and Silly Cone
Valley, no matter what the residents think.

If bike lanes work adequately in parts of California, the California
design standards and the California Vehicle Code are highly relevant
because they show what works. There is no requirement to use a bike
lane unless riding at less than the normal speed of traffic at that
time and place. Also there are a number of exceptions that allow one
to leave or not use a bike lane even when riding slower than the normal
speed of traffic:

1. Lanes not established in conformace to state standards.
2. When preparing for a left turn.
3. To pass a slower vehicle or bicycle
4. To avoid road hazards
5. When approaching a place where a right turn is permitted.

If your state doesn't do this, you should ask for some legislation
to fix the problem.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB