A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A March on Washington... on Bicycle?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old November 19th 08, 03:10 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
KingOfTheApes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,468
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

On Nov 19, 3:42*am, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:
I may be excused from not interpreting your long answer but are not
from not interpreting my short worded solutions...


BIKE FACILITIES (bike lanes and bike facilities) AND/OR TRAFFIC
TAMING.


You can shout all you want, but that isn't the key to safety. *The key
to safety is mutual respect between road users.


Well, this based on subjective appreciation. I think good drivers
begin with education but ultimately depend on enforcement. So going
back to my favorite metaphor, WE NEED THE BANANA (the treat) AND THE
WHIP TO TAME THE BEAST.


This side of the Atlantic we are sort of in the Wild West when it
comes to traffic safety: NO LANE DISCIPLINE, NO CONTROL OVER CELL
PHONES, UNREGULATED VEHICLES (SUV'S with deadly bumpers)... and LOTS
OF SPEEDING TICKETS.


The bike facilities doesn't get you out of accidents happening at
junctions because if you want your "facilities" to go anywhere useful
they'll have to intersect with the roads, and so when the bikes are on
the roads the lack of awareness drivers have of bikes will be
exaggerated by their being fewer bikes /except/ at the junctions.

SUVs with deadly bumpers... well, even with "safe" bumpers the real key
is not colliding with vehicles at all. *The key to that is mutual
respect, and you don't get that from bike lanes, and any "taming" of the
traffic you otherwise do is coloured by bikes being out of the equation
except at the most dangerous points (junctions).


Only way to solve this conflict is put cameras on main intersections.
Any sort of bullying would cost the predator dearly ($$$)... to fund
more bike facilities.


You think Obama will change that?


No.


I guess only Jesus can, huh? Too bad for those who don't believe
there's a Jesus. Well luckily, there's a revolution around.


I'm also pretty sure that ghettoising cyclists onto half-baked
"facilities" (and experience suggests that outside of places with
existing bicycle culture like NL, Denmark, Germany etc. they *will* be
half baked) won't help either.

No great shortage of "facilities" round here. *It's usually quicker and
safer for me to take the roads.


OK, HAVING OPTIONS sounds good to me, and whether there's bike
facilities or not, you should be able to ride wherever you wish.
Ads
  #112  
Old November 19th 08, 03:38 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,852
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

KingOfTheApes wrote:

Well, this based on subjective appreciation. I think good drivers
begin with education but ultimately depend on enforcement. So going
back to my favorite metaphor, WE NEED THE BANANA (the treat) AND THE
WHIP TO TAME THE BEAST.


So where does that need bike paths?

I guess only Jesus can, huh?


No.

Too bad for those who don't believe
there's a Jesus. Well luckily, there's a revolution around.


a) there isn't, and b) even if there were it would be missing the point
creating bike paths.

OK, HAVING OPTIONS sounds good to me, and whether there's bike
facilities or not, you should be able to ride wherever you wish.


Absolutely, but if you insist on creating bike paths with your
"revolution" you'll find yourself being pushed onto them whether you
like it or not. Why do I think that? That's what experience shows me
happens. It required extensive lobbying by the CTC (UK's biggest
cyclists' organisation) to get rid of a word-change to the Highway Code
that would say cyclists should use "facilities" wherever possible. That
it succeeeded in quashing the revision shows that a bit of democracy in
action can work, but that it was necessary to do it shows that creating
bike paths tends to limit options rather than expand them.

I'm afraid if you want real results you hhave to deal with relaity,
rather than dreams.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
  #113  
Old November 19th 08, 05:15 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
KingOfTheApes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,468
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

On Nov 19, 10:38*am, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:
Well, this based on subjective appreciation. I think good drivers
begin with education but ultimately depend on enforcement. So going
back to my favorite metaphor, WE NEED THE BANANA (the treat) AND THE
WHIP TO TAME THE BEAST.


So where does that need bike paths?

I guess only Jesus can, huh?


No.


OK, let's say not everybody is "tough." Let's admit some people are
"chicken" or that they are just bothered by traffic noise... so they
need bike paths. Let's assume also that families with kids are not
tough enough for the roads, so they can have an space along the
ckicken.


*Too bad for those who don't believe
there's a Jesus. Well luckily, there's a revolution around.


a) there isn't, and b) even if there were it would be missing the point
creating bike paths.


Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to
protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are
unwilling or unable to drive SUVs.


OK, HAVING OPTIONS sounds good to me, and whether there's bike
facilities or not, you should be able to ride wherever you wish.


Absolutely, but if you insist on creating bike paths with your
"revolution" you'll find yourself being pushed onto them whether you
like it or not. *Why do I think that? *That's what experience shows me
happens. *It required extensive lobbying by the CTC (UK's biggest
cyclists' organisation) to get rid of a word-change to the Highway Code
that would say cyclists should use "facilities" wherever possible. *That
it succeeeded in quashing the revision shows that a bit of democracy in
action can work, but that it was necessary to do it shows that creating
bike paths tends to limit options rather than expand them.

I'm afraid if you want real results you hhave to deal with relaity,
rather than dreams.


Dreams sometimes become reality and sometimes become nightmares. Which
is good always go back to good-ol'-fashinoned Orwell.

Forgive me this revolutionary rhetoric...

Originally Posted by Lamplight

I was actually thinking more along the lines of executing the
aristocrats and walking around calling each other "citizen".

***

No, a bloody revolution would make as much sense as the war in Iraq,
which is to say we don't need it.

This is more along the lines of Gandhi and King, who were inspired by
Jesus, whether he existed or not.

So Christians are welcome, Muslims are welcome (because we don't agree
with the West nor with the terrorists), and, of course, the proles are
welcome since this a revolution largely inspired by Orwell's
animalism, thus we will call each other, "Hey brother monkey!"

WHY ANIMALS? Thank Orwell in large part...

'Orwell agreed with Marx's social arguments, but as we will later see,
disagreed on many of his other beliefs. In Animal Farm, we can see his
depictions as man as a social animal and his Socialist ideologies
through old Major's very Marxist speech in the barn: "Why... do we
continue in this miserable condition? Because nearly the whole of the
produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There,
comrades, is the answer to all our problems: It is summed up in a
single word Man. "Man is the only creature that consumes without
producing... He sets [the animals] to work, he gives back to them the
bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he
keeps for himself... "Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our
labour would be our own... That is my message to you, comrades:
Rebellion!'

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2074/orwell.htm


  #114  
Old November 19th 08, 05:28 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
KingOfTheApes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,468
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

(No we don't need with Lenin and Mao)

Originally Posted by cyclezealot
"We are not into violence.. Let's have no Soviet/French style
revolution with blood in the streets. Can we turn Bush's scores of
jails set up about the country under his War Commissions Act into 're-
education centers, ' for the non-believers..."


I think what we can learn from Russia is a bloodless Perestroika! From
the French we can learn their passion for "the simple pleasures of
life," free time (35 hour workweek) and good food, which are all in
line with our Epicurean revolution (thus the names of food for it).

The nonbelievers though should be re-educated on SAVING ENERGY, and
made to commute by bike at least 1 day a week.
  #115  
Old November 19th 08, 05:37 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,852
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

KingOfTheApes wrote:

OK, let's say not everybody is "tough." Let's admit some people are
"chicken" or that they are just bothered by traffic noise... so they
need bike paths. Let's assume also that families with kids are not
tough enough for the roads, so they can have an space along the
ckicken.


Look at the NL, again. Plenty of places with no fietspads, yet
still families and kids out on bikes. Which takes you back to
respect being more important than bike paths.

Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to
protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are
unwilling or unable to drive SUVs.


How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that unless
you can get rid of junctions between roads and bike paths, and you
can't, bike paths don't protect you from SUVs, or indeed any other
traffic passing through junctions. And the more bikes aren't part
of their more general road experience the more dangerous those
junctions will be.

Bike paths have their place, can be useful and can certainly be
pleasurable, but they're not much of an answer to cycling safety.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
  #116  
Old November 19th 08, 06:46 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
KingOfTheApes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,468
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

On Nov 19, 12:37*pm, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:
OK, let's say not everybody is "tough." Let's admit some people are
"chicken" or that they are just bothered by traffic noise... so they
need bike paths. Let's assume also that families with kids are not
tough enough for the roads, so they can have an space along the
ckicken.


Look at the NL, again. *Plenty of places with no fietspads, yet
still families and kids out on bikes. *Which takes you back to
respect being more important than bike paths.


Not on major streets. It depends whether you are talking about a
bikeable place or just a "hole"...

(and there's a lot of people living in it, see poll)

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=487455

Now the question is how many decades we will take to make drivers, who
are used to the law of the jungle, more civilized? Perhaps never,
unless we use the whip (cameras and other traffic calming measures).


Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to
protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are
unwilling or unable to drive SUVs.


How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that unless
you can get rid of junctions between roads and bike paths, and you
can't, bike paths don't protect you from SUVs, or indeed any other
traffic passing through junctions. *And the more bikes aren't part
of their more general road experience the more dangerous those
junctions will be.

Bike paths have their place, can be useful and can certainly be
pleasurable, but they're not much of an answer to cycling safety.


OK, we don't seem to disagree, perhaps just a matter of degree.
  #117  
Old November 19th 08, 07:04 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
KingOfTheApes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,468
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

I hope I don't sound too nationalistic...

After the Big Three crash, what's next?

You know, after Detroit goes under, what do we do with Japanese and
European competition. I'd tax both Japanese and European imports
because they are not going to cash in into American weaknesses.

Then I'd make Detroit build fast trains, EVs, and bikes and let the
foreign invaders eat American pie. Well, let Minis and Smarts in, and
let them eat the rest.

Am I sounding too nationalistic?


  #118  
Old November 19th 08, 08:22 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
Dane Buson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,340
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:

Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to
protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are
unwilling or unable to drive SUVs.


How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that unless
you can get rid of junctions between roads and bike paths, and you
can't, bike paths don't protect you from SUVs, or indeed any other
traffic passing through junctions. And the more bikes aren't part
of their more general road experience the more dangerous those
junctions will be.

Bike paths have their place, can be useful and can certainly be
pleasurable, but they're not much of an answer to cycling safety.


I'd have to agree, and I'll trot out my personal bete noire. I think
one of the best ways to improve safety (in the U.S.) is to make getting
and keeping a license a *little* harder and a *little* more expensive.
As it is with $25 and a pulse, you can pretty much get a license.

That and retesting *everyone* every five years. If you can't be
bothered to pay $50 instead of $25 (for example) and be tested on your
ability to pilot a two ton piece of machinery at high velocity, you
shouldn't be driving.

That might drop the bottom 5% and improve bike *and* pedestrian safety.

--
Dane Buson -
"I brought the atom bomb. I think it's a good time to use it."
-MST3K
  #119  
Old November 19th 08, 08:22 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
Dane Buson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,340
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

Tom Sherman wrote:
Dane Buson wrote:

Unforunately neither my boss nor bill collectors would be much inclined
to agree I'm thinking. And I'm not quite as fond of pig-wrestling as
you are.[...]


Who me?


Mmmmm hmmmm.

--
Dane Buson -
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today --
I think he's from the CIA.
  #120  
Old November 19th 08, 09:29 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
KingOfTheApes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,468
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

On Nov 19, 3:22*pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Clinch wrote:

KingOfTheApes wrote:


Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to
protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are
unwilling or unable to drive SUVs.


How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that unless
you can get rid of junctions between roads and bike paths, and you
can't, bike paths don't protect you from SUVs, or indeed any other
traffic passing through junctions. *And the more bikes aren't part
of their more general road experience the more dangerous those
junctions will be.


Bike paths have their place, can be useful and can certainly be
pleasurable, but they're not much of an answer to cycling safety.


I'd have to agree, and I'll trot out my personal bete noire. *I think
one of the best ways to improve safety (in the U.S.) is to make getting
and keeping a license a *little* harder and a *little* more expensive.
As it is with $25 and a pulse, you can pretty much get a license.

That and retesting *everyone* every five years. *If you can't be
bothered to pay $50 instead of $25 (for example) and be tested on your
ability to pilot a two ton piece of machinery at high velocity, you
shouldn't be driving.

That might drop the bottom 5% and improve bike *and* pedestrian safety.


The same effect may be achievable by requiring a special license for
SUVs, which after all are "trucks."

Funny, they are trucks to go through the safety loopholes, but not to
require a license.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tom Danielson March 13 1978 - March 13 2008 [email protected] Racing 0 March 13th 08 09:31 AM
Mt. Washington BC nrkist Unicycling 4 August 28th 05 11:21 PM
Washington Post: A Rough Ride for Schwinn Bicycle Ed General 12 December 12th 04 04:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.