Off yer bike - for the sake of all of us on the roads

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:58:11 +1100, "Bob"
wrote:

Driving slowly does not produce more green house gas.

Actually it does, due to the fact that cars are designed and tuned to
run efficiently at higher speeds. When you are driving slowly the
engine is producing more power than is needed which is wasted.

dewatf.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:40:32 +1100, Terry Collins
wrote:

The only view that would ageee with duffy are brain dead cagers. I see
them every day, sleep deprived, fighting to stay away from the toxic
fumes their airconditioning collects and pumps into their vehicvle as
they creep nose to arse behind car after car after car after car, with
not a bicycle insite.

By which you mean you like cycling rather than driving. So do I, I
however am not deluded in the face of the evidence into believing that
everybody else does or should feel the same.

dewatf.

P.S. studies have shown that bicycle riders are the least exposed to
pollutants on the road. hahahahahahaha

No studies have shown that concentrations of volitile pollutants are
higher in cars, but that cyclists are more exposed to diesel
particulants.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:30:59 GMT, Euan wrote:

Cyclists do no such thing. How else do you explain cars not able to
leave the lights on green because there's no room for them on the other
side of the junction? There is a perception that cyclists slow traffic,
in peak hour replacing a bike with a car would increase congestion and
slow traffic down even more.

That depends on the traffic. In the CBD where the traffic is slow and
stop starting with all the lights then cyclists don't slow traffic.

However on arterial roads they do, and that is what is being talked
about here. The cyclist doesn't take up much less road than a car,
they may not add another car (e.g. use PT) and whats more there are so
few of them in Sydney that that effect is irrelevant.

And a cylist riding along at 15-20km on an arterial road with a speed
between 60-80km does slow up traffic. And cars have trouble merging in
the right lane to go round them, and that merging also has massive
disruptive effects on traffic.

For example there a several hundred metre uphill section on Blaxland
Rd. It is a two lane road and there are several right turn streets so
the right hand lane is not drivable. So a cyclist riding up the hill
at 10km reduces the maximum speed through that area from 60km to 10km.

Hardly an advantage from the drivers point of view.

See response to one. It's congestion that causes start stop traffic,
not cyclists.

If someone is riding along at 10km on the 80km of Epping rd then the
traffic slows dramatically behind them and as everybody backs up
behind them everybody brakes they have to stop, that wave of stopping
then flows backwards up the roads. On a road full to capacity that
disruption is significant. And yes lights, buses and other car
stoppages cause that too, doesn't mean that cyclists don't make it
worse.

As cyclists don't inconvenience everybody as demonstrated in response to
first point, this is nonsense.

They do. Traffic works much better and travellign is much safer when
vehicles are all travelling at similar speeds.

dewatf.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:41:44 +0000, dewatf wrote:

However on arterial roads they do, and that is what is being talked about
here.

Bull****. I ride the Pacific Highway, which is about as arterial as they
get. I'm *faster* than traffic. Sure, I'll see one car 2 or 4 times if he
gets past between lights, but then we'll hit one of the car parks where I
can filter through. Sometimes I'm holding up a lane of traffic for up to a
minute. But then, I'm regularly being held up when there are a couple of
trucks making it impossible to squeeze through at the lights.

And my behaviour is all quite legal according to the road rules.

And a cylist riding along at 15-20km on an arterial road with a speed
between 60-80km does slow up traffic.

I know Pennant Hills Rd, Epping Rd, Ryde Rd and the Highway you can never
do 60 for more than about 30 seconds between 7 and 9 am, having driven all
of them. How's this for a statistic - from Turramurra to Microsoft at
North Ryde [1] took me 55 minutes by car on a normal morning, and about
the same on the way home.

The next day I was annoyed because I didn't quite break the 30km/h average
for a 15 km ride. The 3rd day I was there I did.

If someone is riding along at 10km on the 80km of Epping rd then the
traffic slows dramatically behind them and as everybody backs up behind

We're talking peak hour aren't we? That section is stop-start anyway.

They do. Traffic works much better and travellign is much safer when
vehicles are all travelling at similar speeds.

That's true enough. But it doesn't apply on heavily congested roads,
because there are too many people entering and leaving. If I really did
hold up other traffic, I'd probably try to alleviate that. As I'm faster
than cars, I'll keep doing what I'm doing.

[1] Forgive me for I have sinned, but at least work was paying for it.

--
Dave Hughes |
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
-Steven Wright

"dewatf" wrote:

And a cylist riding along at 15-20km on an arterial road with a speed
between 60-80km does slow up traffic. And cars have trouble merging in
the right lane to go round them, and that merging also has massive
disruptive effects on traffic.

And this means what exactly? Cyclists should be banned from peak-hour
arterial roads? Why don't you go have a look at what counts as a legal
vehicle on the road - bicycles, along with trucks, buses, tractors, semis,
and cars whether travelling slow or fast (but below the speed limit).

You, and everyone else, as a driver need to grow up, develop some traffic
skills and obey the f#&%ing law, instead of monstering cyclists for just
being on the road.

Cheers
Peter

"dewatf" wrote:

And a cylist riding along at 15-20km on an arterial road with a speed
between 60-80km does slow up traffic. And cars have trouble merging in
the right lane to go round them, and that merging also has massive
disruptive effects on traffic.

Oh yeah. If more of those car drivers got out and rode a bike, then the
manouvres of those who really need to drive would be far less disruptive to
the traffic that remains.

Ride a bike.

Cheers
Peter

ritcho wrote:
Parbs Wrote:
From today's Herald
http://tinyurl.com/a5e2m

Parbs - unhappy and resentful and probably should go for a ride down
Parramatta Road this morning ;-)

Here is what I had to say to the smh letterbot.

******** to that. Here's what I will be saying to someone at the SMH
tomorrow morning:

Cancel my subscription. You are getting no more of my money.

"dewatf" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:58:11 +1100, "Bob"
wrote:

Driving slowly does not produce more green house gas.

Actually it does, due to the fact that cars are designed and tuned to
run efficiently at higher speeds. When you are driving slowly the
engine is producing more power than is needed which is wasted.

dewatf.

Some smart arse pulled me up on that one when I wrote a letter to the Herald
complaining about motorists exceeding the 60 km/h speed limit on the Anzac
Bridge. He reckoned they were ok to do that because at 80 Ks they were
saving petrol (never mind the safety aspects). So if 80 is the optimum speed
for cars ( some cars, it depends on engine size etc, also on terrain), and
most arterials are 60 or 70Ks in Sydney, and if most peak hour trafic is
stop start and unlikely to cruise at a speed much over 50 for more than a
few seconds, everyone is running inefficiently, even if most cars were
maintained properly, and a few cyclists arent going to make any difference.
One set of lights with a typical heavy acceleration on green would ruin any
optimum speed argument.

Besides, any motorist who cares about pollution would leave the car at home
and take a train or ride during peak hour. Most motorists dont give a toss
about pollution, particularly if it means they might get to work a bit late.

One other fact I read somewhere, capacity on a road (vehicles per hour) is
pretty independent of speed and is actually best at slower speeds of about
30 or 40, because you can have a smaller gap between vehicles. Work it out,
leaving 2 secs gap between vehicles. So there is little point in trying to
do 80 or even 60, you might as well slow down and the traffic will flow
better.

Bobm
Sydnee

"dewatf" == dewatf writes:

dewatf And a cylist riding along at 15-20km on an arterial road
dewatf with a speed between 60-80km does slow up traffic. And cars
dewatf have trouble merging in the right lane to go round them, and
dewatf that merging also has massive disruptive effects on traffic.


Then how come I keep coming across the same cars who've overtaken me on
arterial roads at stop lights? This is coming up behind them mind you
as I don't filter in roads so narrow that motorists have to merge right
to get past me. Obviously I'm not the limiting factor.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

--
Frank

Drop DACKS to reply
"dewatf" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 08:52:48 +1100, cfsmtb
wrote:


Does Michael Duffy have any links with the auto industry?

The whole article is a easily debunked crock o' **** from beginning
paragraph to end. For starters under AusRoads Dec 1, 1999 all cyclists
over the age of twelve are legally entitled to ride on the road.
Cyclists under twelve can ride on footpath, accompanied by an adult.
Did Michael Duffy bother to research that salient FACT plus several
others he conveniently missed when writing this dire P.O.S?

So what the **** does that have to do with this article?

You didn't even read the article, did you troll?

Duffy specifically states that "many cyclists hog the centre of their
lane legally and perhaps wisely, ...".

Duffy arguments a
1) That cyclists slow down traffic on busy arterial roads annoying
drivers

2) That the purported fuel savings from cycling do not count on the
increased fuel consumption of slowed down and stop-starting vehicles
caused by cyclists. It is true that slowed down and stop-starting
vehicles do burn more fuel, whether the fuel consumption is actually
increased is a question for empirical experimentation (and would
depend on whether the cyclists would otherwise drive, use PT or walk).


3) That the fully lit cycle way on the M7 is likely to be underused
and not an efficent use of money.

4) That cyclists are 1% of the traffic on Sydney's road, (less on
arterial roads) and inconviencing everybody for them is not a good
idea.

All perfectly rational and researched arguments from a noncyclist's
point of view.

dewatf.

I don't think it's all that rational to claim that cyclists slow traffic and
thus contribute to vehicles burning more fuel while simultaneously being
jacked off that he passes the same cyclist several times - who's slowing
whom?

Cheers,

Frank