|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
On 6/27/2020 8:11 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2020 07:54:27 UTC-4, Duane wrote: wrote: On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 6:00:16 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those who use it as their only means of local transportation. John B. I'd agree with that statement. Recreational cyclists ride their bikes for fun and exercise. They do it because they want to. And most, almost all, wear bicycle specific clothing to do it and ride newer style bikes. So when I’m commuting to the office on my pretty new CF Tarmac with my backpack on top of my bicycle specific kit does that make me a recreational cyclist? If you insist on a binary condition: No, riding your Tarmac does not make you a recreational cyclist, at least at that moment. But Russell didn't say what your question implies. "Most recreational cyclists wear bike clothing" does not equate to "Anyone in bike clothing must be a recreational cyclist." It's an elementary logic problem that you seem to have missed - the logic of sets and sub-sets. Most riders I see on the road around here doing any more than a few kilometre commute wear cycling kits. Maybe it’s different where there are few cyclists. I'd be curious about a couple aspects of that claim. What number constitutes "more than a few kilomters"? And how do you know how far someone is riding? Do you do interview them, or do other detective work to get each data point? When I ride my bicycle and especially when I was using a bicycle* to commute to work I was both a utility (transportaional) bicyclist and a recreational/fitness bicyclist. My commute was used as a training ride and I did lots of interval training on those rides. Often on the way home I'd ride a longer route to enjoy scenery and to de-stress. That would be a recreational bicyclist. Horrors of horrors, sometimes I'd even pick up something at the store and that would make me a utility bicyclist. It's possible to be many types of bicyclist on the same ride. Cheers * this was a full on racing bicycle with no provision for the mounting of fenders or racks. It was a bicycle that would have been at home in any of the Grand Tours. I certainly agree with the possibility of being a recreational, utility and sport cyclist simultaneously. In my commuting days, I rode 7 miles to work, and sometimes rode back "the long way." About half the time I rode home as fast as I possibly could, stopwatch running. Other times I stopped at shops on the way home. If I weren't a recreational cyclist, I probably wouldn't have chosen to commute that distance. If I didn't want to increase speed and fitness, I wouldn't have done the climb out of the valley at a painful speed. That bike had and still has fenders, a rear rack that carried my briefcase, a big handlebar bag and dynamo lighting. And unless I was riding in at noon in summer, I rode in my normal business casual clothing. BTW, Bike Nashbar's outlet store was not far off my normal route home. It was often a fun place to stop. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 09:56:01 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: I don't make fun of people riding in normal clothing (whatever normal might mean). I make fun of the officious cycling busybodies. https://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/...k-1030x773.jpg Yikes. Instructors! Clear the way! https://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/...orange-ave.jpg Yesterday, I was climbing a small hill in my Subaru, when I came upon a cyclist wearing some kind of "instructor" t-shirt, climbing up the same hill. On the right was the usual too narrow bicycle lane. The cyclist was doing a rather poor job of staying in the narrow bike lane, while talking on his smartphone. Although I had plenty of room to pass on his left, I was worried that he would swing into my lane, force me to cross the center divider, and into possible oncoming traffic from over the top of the hill, which I couldn't see until I went over the top. I haven't received any bicycling instruction recently, but it makes me wonder if such instructors ride safely only when accompanied by students or photographers. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:56:44 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506 Compare the traffic (both cars and bicycles) from 2016, to todays traffic cameras showing empty streets in Portland: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/75624 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/75625 It's like a ghost town. Ok, it's a weekend, but I would have expected a few more riders than zero. Is there a ban on bicycle riding on weekends? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
On 6/27/2020 4:43 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:24:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/26/2020 1:44 PM, sms wrote: On 6/25/2020 6:58 PM, John B. wrote: snip Interesting. Over here there is no "helmet Law" for bicycles yet I can't remember when I've seen a recreational cyclist without a helmet. Note that IÂ* differentiate between, would one say "normal" cyclists, and recreational cyclists as we still do have a certain number of people that use a bicycle as their only means of local transportation. Frank is wrong of courseâ„¢. There has never been any evidence that helmet laws have led to a reduction in cycling. Bull****, as usual, which ignores available data. And repeating bull**** doesn't make it true. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...8/?tool=pubmed for just one example. Cycling levels go up and down for a plethora of reasons including economic cycles, changes in mass transit, changes in bicycle infrastructure, weather, and now apparently, pandemics (at least in the U.S.). Of course cycling levels rise and fall. That does not mean mandating helmets has zero effect. Again, there are certainly some people who will decide a MHL proves cycling is just too dangerous. There are certainly some people who decide they just don't want to wear a helmet for reasons of comfort or style. There are those who can't afford a helmet. (Our bike club has given bikes to people who can't afford a $20 used bike; they can't afford even a $10 helmet.) Those and other people will ride less, or give it up entirely. But nobody will say "Whoa! Now I have to wear a weird hat to legally ride a bike?? That does it! I'm taking up bicycling!" Do some reading. Get someone to help you think about the issues. https://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets https://www.outsideonline.com/237323...e-safety#close https://www.northcoastjournal.com/hu...nt?oid=2913125 And please don't pretend the skepticism is only mine. On the other hand, I understand that skiers now wear helmets, and of course horsemen wear helmets and, oh lets see, scooter riders, motorcyclists, most people in the building trades, those that climb mountains, and I could go on and on. I'd say that _some_ skiers wear helmets. We get horsemen and horsewomen riding through our local nature preserve, none with helmets. I almost never see a helmet on a scooter rider. I'd say only a microscopic fraction of the building trades wear helmets. Can't say about mountain climbers. Strange that it is only bicyclists that refuse to wear them. "No Siree Bob! I ain't gonna ride no stupid bicycle if I gotta rear a skid lid! Of course, it's not only bicyclists refuse to wear them. Besides what I listed above, one might look up the activities that actually cause the most brain injury deaths. One could learn what they are, and how many participating in those activities wear helmets. (I can help, if you need me to.) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
On 6/27/2020 11:07 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
[Frank] tries to pretend that he doesn't read me because he's so superior, but it's pretty obvious the reason he's hiding from me Bull****, Jute. I skim almost every post you make, just as I do with others. I don't bother to read yours in detail because you are an obnoxious ass, and I almost never respond because you are a troll. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...hs-and-sadists -- - Frank Krygowski |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
On 6/27/2020 5:02 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:27:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/26/2020 7:00 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:25:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/25/2020 9:58 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:47:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/25/2020 7:02 PM, sms wrote: Remember the AHZ argument that if helmets are required then health care costs will increase because, instead of buying a $20 helmet, former cyclists will stay home watching TV and eating fatty snacks causing nationalized health care costs to soar? Perhaps they'll make the same argument here, 'without government funded bicycle repair we're going to not ride and it'll cost the government even more money.' Mayor Scharf (AKA "sms") should stick to losing one argument at a time, instead of resurrecting past losses. Data clearly shows mandating helmets reduces cycling, typically by about 30%. A reasonable person might doubt the exact percentage, but only a fool would say there would be no effect. Interesting. Over here there is no "helmet Law" for bicycles yet I can't remember when I've seen a recreational cyclist without a helmet. Note that I differentiate between, would one say "normal" cyclists, and recreational cyclists as we still do have a certain number of people that use a bicycle as their only means of local transportation. If you define "recreational cyclist" as a person with a stylish bike as promoted in some bicycling magazine, with clipless pedals (um... that you clip into), wearing lycra shorts, riding gloves, a brightly colored cycling jersey (bonus points if it advertises the brand of bike) then yes, that person will almost certainly wear a helmet. Come on! Would you expect the Shriners to parade without their red hats? https://medinah.org/wp-content/uploa...rs-parades.jpg No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those who use it as their only means of local transportation. Amazingly we still have some people here that don't own an auto or motorcycle and use a bicycle as a transportation device. You can see them every morning going back and forth to either local shops or a large open market for the day's food. Usually with a basket on the front and often a large plastic crate strapped on the rear carrier. And never a helmet :-) But if you talk about other people riding bicycles, the majority in my area do not wear helmets. And if you told them they must wear a helmet or be subject to a penalty, ridership would certainly decrease by some amount. in Australia and New Zealand, where those laws are still being enforced, ridership is way, way down, especially if you index it to population growth. It must be something local as there is a helmet law here for motorcycles and it is rigidly enforced and strangely enough small ~100cc motorcycles are literally "all over the place". I've noticed that motorcycle helmet laws are also universally obeyed in the European countries I've visited. But I think there are significant differences between MHLs for bicycles and for motorcycles - even small motorcycles. I wouldn't say that the motorcycle helmet law is universally obeyed here but I would say that seeing a motorcyclist without a helmet on is rather unusual, primarily because the police enforce the law. As a sort of "test" of your theory I asked the Cleaning Lady my wife has in several days a week if she ever gave any thought to not riding her 100 cc motorcycle because the police made her wear a helmet... and she looked at me as thought I was some sort of idiot and replied, "how would I get to work?" So apparently, here at least, the terrifying helmet law doesn't seem to cause "transportation motorcyclists" to give up motorcycles because they have to wear a helmet. The first difference is the danger level. Many people seem to think that anything with two wheels has the same level of risk, but that's not even close to true. I've seen data rating motorcycling at over 30 times more dangerous than bicycling per hour exposure. There's also a difference in convenience. A bike is a lightweight, highly portable device with, typically, no locked storage capacity. Motorcycles are relatively large, heavy devices that usually have some relatively secure way of storing a helmet. And the helmet inconvenience anyone when carrying a motorcycle indoors, because nobody does that. There's the relative expense. The typical motorcycle helmet costs more than the typical bike helmet, but it's a negligible percentage of the machine's cost. A cheap bike helmet can cost as much as a garage sale bike. For many people, there's a comfort issue with bike helmets - they feel hotter when riding in one, or they have problems with sweat in the eyes. There's much less of that with a motorcycle. And most people are very familiar with bicycling - indeed, most people probably rode bikes as kids, and without helmets. The bike helmet is a new imposition. Very few ride motorcycles as kids, at least in the U.S., and IME, those that do are wannabe off-road racers. Their parents suit them up like the pros from an early age. Of course, that includes the helmet. Rationalize it any way that you want to but my guess is that if the state were to promulgate a helmet law, and enforce it, that the numbers of bicyclists would remain about the same. You're ignoring available data when you say that. Despite Scharf's denials, the drops in Australia were roughly 30%, which is far different from "about the same." What's your reasoning? Or are you telling us that if you were forced to wear a helmet you would give up bicycles? You're proposing a wildly hypothetical situation. Still, I would not give up bicycles, but I'm hardly a typical American in that regard - or many others. BTW, a few years ago, a vacation took us through New Brunswick, Canada. It has an all-ages MHL. We rode our bikes. We did not have helmets. We did get stopped and lectured. We got no ticket. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
On 6/27/2020 11:06 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 12:56:20 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote: Frank ever asked yourself why you provoke this kind of posts again and again? From another thread: 'I hadn't noticed that not far behind him was one of our village cops! I'm sure he saw the whole thing, and I'm sure it enhanced my reputation for competence.' Geezz.... What part do you object to? Like it or not, I have a reputation for competence. Village cops know me. Many village and city residents know of me. I've been the subject of several articles and interviews in local media. I've served on quite a few relevant committees, taught classes, written articles, etc. Does all that offend you? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
On 6/27/2020 5:11 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:31:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/26/2020 7:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/26/2020 7:00 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:25:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/25/2020 9:58 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:47:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/25/2020 7:02 PM, sms wrote: Remember the AHZ argument that if helmets are required then health care costs will increase because, instead of buying a $20 helmet, former cyclists will stay home watching TV and eating fatty snacks causing nationalized health care costs to soar? Perhaps they'll make the same argument here, 'without government funded bicycle repair we're going to not ride and it'll cost the government even more money.' Mayor Scharf (AKA "sms") should stick to losing one argument at a time, instead of resurrecting past losses. Data clearly shows mandating helmets reduces cycling, typically by about 30%. A reasonable person might doubt the exact percentage, but only a fool would say there would be no effect. Interesting. Over here there is no "helmet Law" for bicycles yet I can't remember when I've seen a recreational cyclist without a helmet. Note that IÂ* differentiate between, would one say "normal" cyclists, and recreational cyclists as we still do have a certain number of people that use a bicycle as their only means of local transportation. If you define "recreational cyclist" as a person with a stylish bike as promoted in some bicycling magazine, with clipless pedals (um... that you clip into), wearing lycra shorts, riding gloves, a brightly colored cycling jersey (bonus points if it advertises the brand of bike) then yes, that person will almost certainly wear a helmet. Come on! Would you expect the Shriners to parade without their red hats? https://medinah.org/wp-content/uploa...rs-parades.jpg No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those who use it as their only means of local transportation. Amazingly we still have some people here that don't own an auto or motorcycle and use a bicycle as a transportation device. You can see them every morning going back and forth to either local shops or a large open market for the day's food. Usually with a basket on the front and often a large plastic crate strapped on the rear carrier. And never a helmet :-) But if you talk about other people riding bicycles, the majority in my area do not wear helmets. And if you told them they must wear a helmet or be subject to a penalty, ridership would certainly decrease by some amount. in Australia and New Zealand, where those laws are still being enforced, ridership is way, way down, especially if you index it to population growth. It must be something local as there is a helmet law here for motorcycles and it is rigidly enforced and strangely enough small ~100cc motorcycles are literally "all over the place". I've noticed that motorcycle helmet laws are also universally obeyed in the European countries I've visited. But I think there are significant differences between MHLs for bicycles and for motorcycles - even small motorcycles. The first difference is the danger level. Many people seem to think that anything with two wheels has the same level of risk, but that's not even close to true. I've seen data rating motorcycling at over 30 times more dangerous than bicycling per hour exposure. There's also a difference in convenience. A bike is a lightweight, highly portable device with, typically, no locked storage capacity. Motorcycles are relatively large, heavy devices that usually have some relatively secure way of storing a helmet. And the helmet inconvenience anyone when carrying a motorcycle indoors, because nobody does that. There's the relative expense. The typical motorcycle helmet costs more than the typical bike helmet, but it's a negligible percentage of the machine's cost. A cheap bike helmet can cost as much as a garage sale bike. For many people, there's a comfort issue with bike helmets - they feel hotter when riding in one, or they have problems with sweat in the eyes. There's much less of that with a motorcycle. And most people are very familiar with bicycling - indeed, most people probably rode bikes as kids, and without helmets. The bike helmet is a new imposition. Very few ride motorcycles as kids, at least in the U.S., and IME, those that do are wannabe off-road racers. Their parents suit them up like the pros from an early age. Of course, that includes the helmet. Typing mistake. "And the helmet _doesn't_ inconvenience anyone when carrying a motorcycle indoors..." Well, if a bicycle helmet inconveniences you when carrying a bicycle indoors then I would have to say that you must be so uncoordinated that it is a miracle that they can even ride a bicycle. And yes, I have a helmet hanging on the handle bars of whatever bike I plan to ride that day and I take my bikes "indoor" when I'm not riding them. Again, out of curiosity, I asked my wife to move my "Sunday" Bike inside and lo and behold! She went ahead and wheeled it right inside. Hot Damn! And she is 75 years old. Dealing with carrying, storing, safeguarding a helmet isn't a major thing for a lot of people, but it is a thing. It's one of the many small reasons and annoyances that cause the vast majority of the world's bicyclists to not wear helmets. Give them that choice, please. And don't try to scare them into another choice. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
On 6/27/2020 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 09:56:01 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: I don't make fun of people riding in normal clothing (whatever normal might mean). I make fun of the officious cycling busybodies. https://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/...k-1030x773.jpg Yikes. Instructors! Clear the way! https://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/...orange-ave.jpg Yesterday, I was climbing a small hill in my Subaru, when I came upon a cyclist wearing some kind of "instructor" t-shirt, climbing up the same hill. On the right was the usual too narrow bicycle lane. The cyclist was doing a rather poor job of staying in the narrow bike lane, while talking on his smartphone. Although I had plenty of room to pass on his left, I was worried that he would swing into my lane, force me to cross the center divider, and into possible oncoming traffic from over the top of the hill, which I couldn't see until I went over the top. I haven't received any bicycling instruction recently, but it makes me wonder if such instructors ride safely only when accompanied by students or photographers. First: Are you sure the "instructor" designation had anything to do with bicycles? Second: I'm sure there are incompetent bicycling instructors, especially since LAB grossly lowered its instructor qualifications. Last I checked, a person could pass the beginners' course one day and become an instructor in another day or two. And I've come across LAB instructors lobbying in favor of really foolish stuff, like bike lanes in door zones. Cycling Savvy is a much better program. And a significant amount of its content is available online. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Bicycle News | jbeattie | Techniques | 2 | February 23rd 20 09:33 PM |
Bicycle News | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | November 10th 14 03:17 AM |
Chinese bicycle news | AMuzi | Techniques | 5 | March 1st 13 01:48 PM |
Bikeability Toolkit: free seminars for Bicycle User Groups & local government | cfsmtb | Australia | 0 | October 5th 06 08:30 AM |
California: Bicycle Recycling Program proposed by assemblywoman | Ken Marcet | General | 17 | March 22nd 05 09:28 PM |