|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. wrote: On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms wrote: On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking, he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical: https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/ Our street-sweeping is contracted out. If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of debris then that's a cost that has to be paid. The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches (someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist"). What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have problems with tree branches overhanging roads. Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a problem. -- cheers, John B. He’s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He’s talking about trees overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue. Ah, I see. But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here :-) -- cheers, John B. Of course. Though I don’t know what the highway system has to do with anything. |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote: John B. wrote: On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. wrote: On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms wrote: On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking, he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical: https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/ Our street-sweeping is contracted out. If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of debris then that's a cost that has to be paid. The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches (someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist"). What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have problems with tree branches overhanging roads. Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a problem. -- cheers, John B. He?s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He?s talking about trees overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue. Ah, I see. But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here :-) -- cheers, John B. Of course. Though I don’t know what the highway system has to do with anything. Well, I didn't know how else to describe the system of routes that one can use for vehicles transporting goods and people. Where one can, of course, ride a bicycle. -- cheers, John B. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. wrote: On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. wrote: On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms wrote: On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking, he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical: https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/ Our street-sweeping is contracted out. If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of debris then that's a cost that has to be paid. The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches (someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist"). What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have problems with tree branches overhanging roads. Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a problem. -- cheers, John B. He?s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He?s talking about trees overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue. Ah, I see. But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here :-) -- cheers, John B. Of course. Though I don’t know what the highway system has to do with anything. Well, I didn't know how else to describe the system of routes that one can use for vehicles transporting goods and people. Where one can, of course, ride a bicycle. -- cheers, John B. Let me rephrase. I don’t know what the highway system has to do with bike paths needing trees to be trimmed. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:39:46 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle wrote: On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere. Gee, I grew up in New England and I don't remember any secondary roads that were cow paths or even logging roads :-) Quite the apposite and some of the roads must have dated back to the late 1700's for sure (the town was chartered in 1761). In fact we lived on a dirt, secondary road, and there wasn't any low branches and overhanging vegetation. Big tall maple and elm trees, yes, but no bushes. http://www.happyvermont.com/2015/10/...ds-to-explore/ Although the road pictured is actually in the next state it is typical of the "secondary" roads I grew up on. Note the lack of overhanging branches. Note the orange traffic sign indicating that every morning, children who've missed the bus will knock branches out of the way with their racing helmets. And stuka^Wbazooka downhill goggles... https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/-w4AAOSwgWddeUJv/s-l1200.jpg |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:13:56 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:39:46 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle wrote: On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote: The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches (someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist"). On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere. Gee, I grew up in New England and I don't remember any secondary roads that were cow paths or even logging roads :-) I doubt that you would remember them as such, unless you have a memory that predates your existence. Quite the apposite and some of the roads must have dated back to the late 1700's for sure (the town was chartered in 1761). In fact we lived on a dirt, secondary road, and there wasn't any low branches and overhanging vegetation. Big tall maple and elm trees, yes, but no bushes. http://www.happyvermont.com/2015/10/...ds-to-explore/ Although the road pictured is actually in the next state it is typical of the "secondary" roads I grew up on. Note the lack of overhanging branches. All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience. -- cheers, John B. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/14/2019 6:04 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
snip All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience. How many times have you seen a post on Usenet, or other forum, where the poster proclaims that something couldn't possibly exist because they haven't personally experienced it and dismiss the possibility that others that have experienced it must be lying? It's one of the most common mistakes in the language of argument, it's the "Wishful thinking fallacy" a statement made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason. Frank took it a step further and offered an explanation as to why others could not possibly have experienced this situation--the "Tree Branch Knocker-Downer Trucks" that provide a free service to municipalities by eliminating the need to spend public funds on tree trimming. If only it were true. I managed to find two examples of these incredible trucks at work: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/photos+truck+hits+tree+vancouver+neighbourhood/11741170/story.html. Unfortunately it knocked down the whole tree, proving that judicious tree trimming is probably a better option that tall trucks. https://poststar.com/news/local/truck-hits-tree-tree-wins/article_6672c3bb-387a-5389-a4c7-1c214c105e97.html proves that sometimes the tree wins when a truck tries to remove low-hanging branches. But the reality is that trucks try to steer clear of low hanging branches, as do cyclists. That's why it's important to be able to see these branches. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:57:12 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/14/2019 6:04 AM, Zen Cycle wrote: snip All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience. How many times have you seen a post on Usenet, or other forum, where the poster proclaims that something couldn't possibly exist because they haven't personally experienced it and dismiss the possibility that others that have experienced it must be lying? It's one of the most common mistakes in the language of argument, it's the "Wishful thinking fallacy" a statement made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason. Frank took it a step further and offered an explanation as to why others could not possibly have experienced this situation--the "Tree Branch Knocker-Downer Trucks" that provide a free service to municipalities by eliminating the need to spend public funds on tree trimming. If only it were true. I managed to find two examples of these incredible trucks at work: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/photos+truck+hits+tree+vancouver+neighbourhood/11741170/story.html. Unfortunately it knocked down the whole tree, proving that judicious tree trimming is probably a better option that tall trucks. https://poststar.com/news/local/truck-hits-tree-tree-wins/article_6672c3bb-387a-5389-a4c7-1c214c105e97.html proves that sometimes the tree wins when a truck tries to remove low-hanging branches. But the reality is that trucks try to steer clear of low hanging branches, as do cyclists. That's why it's important to be able to see these branches. Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and certainly not a justification for retina burning mega lights on city streets and in bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings -- and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark sections where tree attacks might be expected. -- Jay Beattie. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:57:12 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 10/14/2019 6:04 AM, Zen Cycle wrote: snip All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience. How many times have you seen a post on Usenet, or other forum, where the poster proclaims that something couldn't possibly exist because they haven't personally experienced it and dismiss the possibility that others that have experienced it must be lying? +1 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 9:01:03 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:17:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote: On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote: The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches (someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist"). On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere. First, please understand: When I talk about the absence of low, head-hitting branches on roadways, I'm not talking about just my local area. To date, I've bicycled in 47 U.S. states and about a dozen foreign countries. I've done dozens of bike tours, here and abroad, from two or three day trips to a 2.5 month coast-to-coast. Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a road are more rare than hen's teeth. Tree branches thick enough to cause injury to a cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original claim, years ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while immediately after a storm or other unusual event. After all, how could a thick low tree branch be allowed to remain? A typical head height for a cyclist is about six feet. Most modern pickup trucks are taller than six feet. Standard U.S. Postal Service trucks are far taller. The now-ubiquitous Amazon Prime delivery trucks, UPS trucks, FedEx trucks etc. are even taller. Hell, even Amish buggies are taller than bicyclists. There may be a very few remote and rarely traveled back roads where leafy branches occasionally hang down, but those must be vanishingly rare. Even the Amish would trim them quite soon. Scharf's original claims were that cyclists must wear helmets and must use headlights that shine upwards (into the eyes of other road users) to prevent head injury from low hanging branches. He occasionally resurrects those claims by snarky allusions. The claims remain fundamentally stupid. Oddly, I encounter branches fairly frequently just commuting, and If I'm not paying attention in the dark, I can get whacked. This is the ride home: https://tinyurl.com/y3wdaxdu That crazy fir can get unruly, and one just up the street too, if I'm too far right. My commute also involves trails with branches, and for about two months last year after a storm, I had to ride through an alder to get home. Yes, that's unusual -- but it was helpful having a light with some spew to see where the branches were. Upward spew is also helpful in twisting climbs in the dark and for seeing pedestrians uphill in the dark. There are lots of times with my dyno/Luxos B when all I could see were the shoes of pedestrians -- including on that road in the link -- and the road next door that I take with equal frequency. https://tinyurl.com/yy5ornj2 If you're on flats under street lights, it's no big deal. Upward spew is nice in some places, but that doesn't mean I run a stadium light or need one for commuting -- certainly not on the MUPs and facilities downtown. -- Jay Beattie. I did a 75 mile ride yesterday with 3500 feet of climbing. While riding down a main street I was concentrating on missing potholes and was struck so hard by an overhanging branch that I was almost knocked off of my bike. Without that helmet on I would no doubt have been nearly knocked unconscious. And I was only riding about 14 mph. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/14/2019 7:23 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and certainly not a justification for retina burning mega lights on city streets and in bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings -- and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark sections where tree attacks might be expected. There have been such bicycle lights in the past. They didn't succeed. Either too complicated or too expensive. There are still dual beam lights available, but it's not for high and low beam. One model has optics on one beam for close up wide-angle and on one beam for longer distance but narrow angle, https://www.brightbikelights.com/product/starry-light-rx02-dual-angle/. Other lights use dual beams because of thermal management issues. The reality is that a single light mounted on your handlebar can properly illuminate the road, as well as having a beam that illuminates slightly up so you can see street signs and branches, without blinding other users. In the rare cases where there's a bicycle blinding you with their light it's because they haven't aimed their light properly and/or they're using off-road lights at maximum intensity while on the road. Even with a high/low beam they'd likely still not be aiming their light properly. There's a kick-starter for a new light that shines on both the road and the rider https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613046396/shineon-dual-beam-the-new-bike-light-standard. Personally, I don't see the need for the "mega-lumen" lights that some people advocate, at least for on-road use. Even a light with only 1200 lumens is sufficient for on-road use. Proper optics is the key to a good bicycle light, it makes no sense to just do mega-lumens without proper optics. I'm currently using a light with peak output of 1800 lumens but I only need the maximum when on trail sections or on unlit, unfamiliar roads. What I really like about this light is that the DRL has "breathe mode" rather than a strobe. I think that breathe mode is adequate as a DRL, and not annoying like a strobe. The fact that they sell extra mounting brackets an a non-extortionate price is also nice. It also serves as a battery pack to charge a phone. It's pricey at about $100, though it often is available for $85 or so https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32952179005.html. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Blackfriars cyclist safety debate 'evaded by Tories'" | Doug[_12_] | UK | 11 | September 27th 11 12:10 PM |
"Blackfriars cyclist safety debate 'evaded by Tories'" | Doug[_10_] | UK | 14 | June 11th 11 04:22 AM |
"Cycle safety mirrors to be mounted to London’s traffic lights" | Doug[_10_] | UK | 7 | June 28th 10 08:03 PM |
"Biking off-road leads to trail erosion and tree root damage" | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 2 | June 30th 07 02:21 AM |
"Biking off-road leads to trail erosion and tree root damage" | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 1 | June 29th 07 05:23 PM |