Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[donquijote1954]

Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in
America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great
(and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that
uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes.
Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by
chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the
supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet
most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle
use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the
percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right?

Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And
that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking
distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of
fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out
there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food
chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic,
if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good
80MPG.

So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live
long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off
I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the
market for the hell of it)...

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

BIKE FOR PEACE
http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

[William]

I recently purchased a brand new Road Bike that is really nice. I
figured I didn't need anything more rugged since I do most of my
biking in the city. I can bike theoreticly anywhere in the city, but
there are a few neighborhoods I like to avoid, but not many and I have
experience biking through them anyways. In Minneapolis, there are a
lot of designated bike paths, such as the Greenway (
Loading Image... ) which makes it
much easier to get around.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by William
I recently purchased a brand new Road Bike that is really nice. I
figured I didn't need anything more rugged since I do most of my
biking in the city. I can bike theoreticly anywhere in the city, but
there are a few neighborhoods I like to avoid, but not many and I have
experience biking through them anyways. In Minneapolis, there are a
lot of designated bike paths, such as the Greenway (
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/images/greenway.jpg ) which makes it
much easier to get around.

Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant than
using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized vehicles.

I believe Minneapolis to have one of the finer bike path systems in the
country. Not to use them would mean that you are an idiot, yet there are
some who would advise that since they believe that a bike path will slow you
down. Hey, better to slow down and live than hurry to your death on those
mean streets.

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

[Jens Müller]

Post by Edward Dolan
Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant than
using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized vehicles.

Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer
that way.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan
Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant than
using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized vehicles.

Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer
that way.

Facing the mean streets is much safer. Just raise a white flag and
play dead!

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Edward Dolan
Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant
than using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized
vehicles.

Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer that
way.

Admittedly a bike path that gets too crowded can be somewhat dangerous, yet
you are not going to get killed on it unless you do something really stupid.
On the other hand, it is easy to get killed on the street when you mixing
with motor vehicles. They are all going fast and you are going slow, a
recipe for disaster.

Regards,

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

[Jens Müller]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan
Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant
than using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized
vehicles.

Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer that
way.

Admittedly a bike path that gets too crowded can be somewhat dangerous, yet
you are not going to get killed on it unless you do something really stupid.
On the other hand, it is easy to get killed on the street when you mixing
with motor vehicles. They are all going fast and you are going slow, a
recipe for disaster.

How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?

They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.

How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?

[Jack May]

Post by Jens Müller
How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

In the US bikes and pedestrians have the highest death rates of all forms of
transportation except motorcycles. I think the rate is two and times higher
than cars according to a recent news report. I have not tried to find the
statistics.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan
Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant
than using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized
vehicles.

Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer that
way.

Admittedly a bike path that gets too crowded can be somewhat dangerous, yet
you are not going to get killed on it unless you do something really stupid.
On the other hand, it is easy to get killed on the street when you mixing
with motor vehicles. They are all going fast and you are going slow, a
recipe for disaster.

How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?
They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.

Well, they can make a mistake when they are on the phone or something
and you get run over. And you'll be lucky if they stop. Hit-and-runs
are way too common.

Post by Jens Müller
How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

Not many people dare to face fast traffic. People here not just fail
to see bikers, they fail to see cars and other major obstacles when
they are distracted.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan
Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant
than using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized
vehicles.

Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer that
way.

Admittedly a bike path that gets too crowded can be somewhat dangerous, yet
you are not going to get killed on it unless you do something really stupid.
On the other hand, it is easy to get killed on the street when you mixing
with motor vehicles. They are all going fast and you are going slow, a
recipe for disaster.

How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?

They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If
you really piss them off, they will do it on purpose.

Post by Jens Müller
They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.

Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be
bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist.

Post by Jens Müller
How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up
to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.

By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them.

Post by Jens Müller
Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?

I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any!

Regards,

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

[Jens Müller]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?

They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If
you really piss them off, they will do it on purpose.

Data, please. How often does that happen?

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.

Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be
bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist.

You're driving too far on the right.

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up
to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.

No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.

Post by Edward Dolan
By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them.

Post by Jens Müller
Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?

I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any!

"Common sense" ...

Common sense might say cycle paths are safer.

Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway
Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12
times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the
exact situation.

Surveys from Sweden show similiar results.

These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part
of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly
because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical
information from it.

[Jens Müller]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up
to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.

No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.

That was a bit too short:

a) The cyclist has right of way ("Vorfahrt") with respect to vehicles on
the crossing street exactly when vehicles on the carriageway would have
- the cycle path is a part of the street, and Vorfahrt rules apply to
streets as a whole, not part of the street like carriageway or cycle path.

b) The cyclist driving straight ahead right of a turn-right lane (that's
where the bike path often is) has right of way (Vorrang) with respect to
any vehicle turning right. The same applies when the cyclist has to
drive on the left side on a cycle path wrt vehicles turning left.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?

They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If
you really piss them off, they will do it on purpose.

Data, please. How often does that happen?

This is ever the complaint of those who do not possess a lick of common
sense.

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.

Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be
bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist.

You're driving [riding] too far on the right.

???

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up
to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.

No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.

NEVER! Whenever a bike path crosses a road or street on which there are
motor vehicles, the cyclist must stop, look and listen. If you don't do
this, you will die like the dog that you are.

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan
By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them.

Post by Jens Müller
Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?

I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any!

"Common sense" ...
Common sense might say cycle paths are safer.
Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway
Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12
times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the
exact situation.

For Christ's sakes, when you are on a bike path crossing a road, you must
stop, look and listen. What is there about this that you do not understand?
Note well that I am talking about bike paths, not g.d. bike LANES on the
streets.

Post by Jens Müller
Surveys from Sweden show similiar results.
These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part
of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly
because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical
information from it.

You only need to die once in order to be quite dead.

Regards,

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

[Jens Müller]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?

They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If
you really piss them off, they will do it on purpose.

Data, please. How often does that happen?

This is ever the complaint of those who do not possess a lick of common
sense.

This is ever the complaint of those trying to defend a statement they
have no evidence for whatsoever.

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.

Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be
bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist.

You're driving [riding] too far on the right.

???

The more right you drive, the less the distance motor-vehicle drivers
will keep when overtaking.

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up
to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.

No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.

NEVER! Whenever a bike path crosses a road or street on which there are
motor vehicles, the cyclist must stop, look and listen. If you don't do
this, you will die like the dog that you are.

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan
By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them.

Post by Jens Müller
Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?

I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any!

"Common sense" ...
Common sense might say cycle paths are safer.
Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway
Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12
times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the
exact situation.

For Christ's sakes, when you are on a bike path crossing a road, you must
stop, look and listen. What is there about this that you do not understand?
Note well that I am talking about bike paths, not g.d. bike LANES on the
streets.

Bike paths next to the carriageway, yes. They are part of the street and
thus subject to the same Vorfahrt rules.

Is your "must" a factual or a legal one?

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?

They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If
you really piss them off, they will do it on purpose.

Data, please. How often does that happen?

This is ever the complaint of those who do not possess a lick of common
sense.

This is ever the complaint of those trying to defend a statement they
have no evidence for whatsoever.

It is the difference between those who have very big brains like Ed Dolan
the Great and those who have very little brains like Jens Muller.

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.

Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be
bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist.

You're driving [riding] too far on the right.

???

The more right you drive [ride] , the less the distance motor-vehicle
drivers
will keep when overtaking.

No, they will go around you regardless with less chance of hitting you. This
business about keeping to your lane is for fools and idiots. They do not
live long as a result of that philosophy.

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up
to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.

No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.

NEVER! Whenever a bike path crosses a road or street on which there are
motor vehicles, the cyclist must stop, look and listen. If you don't do
this, you will die like the dog that you are.

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Edward Dolan
By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them.

Post by Jens Müller
Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?

I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any!

"Common sense" ...
Common sense might say cycle paths are safer.
Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway
Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12
times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the
exact situation.

For Christ's sakes, when you are on a bike path crossing a road, you must
stop, look and listen. What is there about this that you do not understand?
Note well that I am talking about bike paths, not g.d. bike LANES on the
streets.

Bike paths next to the carriageway, yes. They are part of the street and
thus subject to the same Vorfahrt rules.
Is your "must" a factual or a legal one?

It is a common sense one which will save your life.

Regards,

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

[donquijote1954]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Edward Dolan
Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of the
hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too much
democracy in action is a recipe for disaster.

Hey, all I'm saying is that don't think it's a lack of democracy that is the
reason there isn't bike lanes.

Oh yes. Democratic societies would build BIKE LANES and have HEALTH
INSURANCE, though I don't know how the last one applies here. ;)

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Joe the Aroma
I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot
cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is
the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish
the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic
greens spout off.

We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) and
we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need to
get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle.

Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of
transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles.

OK, and where are they coexisting? Perhaps in small places like Key
West? No wonder people feel so free down there.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part
of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly
because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical
information from it.

You only need to die once in order to be quite dead.

Unless you believe you can enjoy biking in Heaven. I don't. :(

[Edward Dolan]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Jens Müller
These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part
of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly
because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical
information from it.

You only need to die once in order to be quite dead.

Unless you believe you can enjoy biking in Heaven. I don't. :(

Don Quijote appears to be a kindred soul. I will have to pay more attention
to him in the future.

By the way, what is with the 1954? That is the year of my graduation from
high school.

Regards,

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

[donquijote1954]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by William
I recently purchased a brand new Road Bike that is really nice. I
figured I didn't need anything more rugged since I do most of my
biking in the city. I can bike theoreticly anywhere in the city, but
there are a few neighborhoods I like to avoid, but not many and I have
experience biking through them anyways. In Minneapolis, there are a
lot of designated bike paths, such as the Greenway (
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/images/greenway.jpg) which makes it
much easier to get around.

Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant than
using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized vehicles.
I believe Minneapolis to have one of the finer bike path systems in the
country. Not to use them would mean that you are an idiot, yet there are
some who would advise that since they believe that a bike path will slow you
down. Hey, better to slow down and live than hurry to your death on those
mean streets.

Nice advice. Regrettably, there are still too many idiots out there --
and they have a loud voice.

[donquijote1954]

Post by William
I recently purchased a brand new Road Bike that is really nice. I
figured I didn't need anything more rugged since I do most of my
biking in the city. I can bike theoreticly anywhere in the city, but
there are a few neighborhoods I like to avoid, but not many and I have
experience biking through them anyways. In Minneapolis, there are a
lot of designated bike paths, such as the Greenway (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/images/greenway.jpg) which makes it
much easier to get around.

Lovely. It's coming my way too. The question is WHEN. I hope to be
alive anyway.

[Brian Huntley]

Post by donquijote1954
Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in
America.

It can be pleasant, eh? I use a mix of bucket panniers, a backpack-on-
a-rack, or the backpack and a cardboard box from the store on the
rack. We live in one of those Toronto neighborhoods that's like a
village, so a lot is possible.

This weekend, I rode a couple kms to Kensington Market. One in the
market proper (Baldwin and Augusta), travel by anything but bike or
foot would have been impossible. I went to the butcher, the
greengrocer, the cheese shop, and the nuts and spice and tea store.
All shops were active, but I never had to stand in line long enough to
even *look* for an Enquirer. Zoom zoom.

[m***@drumbent.com]

Post by donquijote1954
Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in
America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great
(and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that
uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes.
Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by
chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the
supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet
most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle
use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the
percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right?
Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And
that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking
distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of
fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out
there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food
chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic,
if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good
80MPG.
So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live
long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off
I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the
market for the hell of it)...
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
BIKE FOR PEACEhttp://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

I'm car-free, and I can haul a LOT of groceries with my cargo trike:

http://drumbent.com/trike.html

Also, since it's big and takes up a whole lane I don't get hassled at
all in terms of asserting my right to be on the road (having lights
and turn signals helps). ;)

And not only can I get groceries with it, I just moved house with it
too:

http://drumbent.blogspot.com/2007/07/even-more-moving-photos.html

Mark

[donquijote1954]

Post by m***@drumbent.com
http://drumbent.com/trike.html
Also, since it's big and takes up a whole lane I don't get hassled at
all in terms of asserting my right to be on the road (having lights
and turn signals helps). ;)
And not only can I get groceries with it, I just moved house with it
http://drumbent.blogspot.com/2007/07/even-more-moving-photos.html

Congratulations, Mark. That's the way too go. Actually I think it
takes more courage to do what you do than to fight in Iraq. And at
least you do it for a good cause.

But around here I'd have to engage in many hand-to-hand combats with
enraged drivers.

[Jens Müller]

Post by donquijote1954
Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And
that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking
distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe.

Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why
do you think the carriageway isn't safe?

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by donquijote1954
Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And
that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking
distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe.

Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why
do you think the carriageway isn't safe?

Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great...

Why is speed differential important?
A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety
concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per
hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through
vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly. Rear-end
collisions are very common on roads and streets with large driveway
speed differentials and a high density of commercial driveways. When
the speed differential is high, it is also more likely that crashes
will be more severe, cause greater property damage, and result in more
injuries and fatalities.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:mTtgrijG9oAJ:www.ctre.iastate.edu/research/access/toolkit/7.pdf+SPEED+DIFFERENTIAL&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

[Jens Müller]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jens Müller
Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why
do you think the carriageway isn't safe?

Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great...
Why is speed differential important?
A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety
concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per
hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through
vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly.

At that speed, you don't have turning vehicles, only vehicles changing
lanes.

Post by donquijote1954
Rear-end
collisions are very common on roads

In the US? Don't know about that. Here in Germany they occur mostly at
the end of traffic jams.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jens Müller
Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why
do you think the carriageway isn't safe?

Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great...
Why is speed differential important?
A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety
concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per
hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through
vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly.

At that speed, you don't have turning vehicles, only vehicles changing
lanes.

You are going 12mph on the bike, and a car is coming behind you at
50mph. Would that be safe?

[Martin Dann]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jens Müller

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jens Müller
Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why
do you think the carriageway isn't safe?

Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great...
Why is speed differential important?
A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety
concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per
hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through
vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly.

At that speed, you don't have turning vehicles, only vehicles changing
lanes.

You are going 12mph on the bike, and a car is coming behind you at
50mph. Would that be safe?

It is as safe as the person driving the car, and the way
they overtake you. If the driver is unsafe overtaking a
12mph bike, then that driver will also be unsafe in a lot
of other places, and should not be driving.

Remember that car drivers should be able to stop in the
distance that they can see.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Martin Dann

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jens Müller

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jens Müller
Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why
do you think the carriageway isn't safe?

Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great...
Why is speed differential important?
A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety
concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per
hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through
vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly.

At that speed, you don't have turning vehicles, only vehicles changing
lanes.

You are going 12mph on the bike, and a car is coming behind you at
50mph. Would that be safe?

It is as safe as the person driving the car, and the way
they overtake you. If the driver is unsafe overtaking a
12mph bike, then that driver will also be unsafe in a lot
of other places, and should not be driving.
Remember that car drivers should be able to stop in the
distance that they can see.-

That's the problem here, many people shouldn't be driving.

It should be the opposite: EVERYBODY SHOULD RIDE A BIKE and not a car.

[george conklin]

Post by Martin Dann

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jens Müller

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jens Müller
Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why
do you think the carriageway isn't safe?

Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great...
Why is speed differential important?
A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety
concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per
hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through
vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly.

At that speed, you don't have turning vehicles, only vehicles changing
lanes.

You are going 12mph on the bike, and a car is coming behind you at
50mph. Would that be safe?

It is as safe as the person driving the car, and the way
they overtake you. If the driver is unsafe overtaking a
12mph bike, then that driver will also be unsafe in a lot
of other places, and should not be driving.
Remember that car drivers should be able to stop in the
distance that they can see.-

That's the problem here, many people shouldn't be driving.

It should be the opposite: EVERYBODY SHOULD RIDE A BIKE and not a car.

That is like saying everyone should take a steamship to Europe, and not fly
because you think they should.

[f***@gmail.com]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jens Müller

Post by donquijote1954
Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And
that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking
distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe.

Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why
do you think the carriageway isn't safe?

Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great...

Bike lanes don't change the speed differential!

Bike lanes also don't add any pavement width. The only thing they add
is a white stripe - and more trash at the right hand (in the US) side
of the roadway, because cars no longer sweep it clean. Oh, and they
add dangerous complication at intersections.

Generally, if there's enough width for a MV lane and a bike lane,
there's enough width to safely share without a white stripe.

As to the original post: IME, it's not uncommon for people to think
"I can't get there by bike," when they've simply not explored
alternative routes well enough.

When I've moved to a new area or spent extensive time visiting a new
area, I've always gotten a detailed street map. Often, I'll tape it
to the wall. That allows me to see alternative routes I might
otherwise miss.

If you're afraid of the busy arterials, you could mark them red. Then
look for alternative parallel routes on smaller streets. Mark those
green, if you like. Also, find out what the local 14-year-olds use
for shortcuts. Those kids explore everything, like ants. They know
about the secret little dirt path that connects the park to the
parking lot, etc.

Admittedly, the modern fashion of transforming corn fields into
isolated cul-de-sac developments makes this difficult in many areas.
But older areas of town can often be peacefully accessed, once you
stop thinking like a car driver.

- Frank Krygowski

[archierob]

Well done!

One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to
realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get
anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road
from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with
laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his
neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive,
turned left and then drove up his drive.

My weekly shop at Lidls is via my 'shopping bike' front rack, rear
rack, panniers, plastic box on rear rack, big solid mountain back
carrying all. Though I say it myself I have it down to a fine art
now - much to the amusement of my 4 x 4 'Chelsea tractor' owning
neighbours.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by archierob
Well done!
One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to
realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get
anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road
from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with
laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his
neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive,
turned left and then drove up his drive.

The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone
drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all
turning into fat slobs.

I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other
towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington,
Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell
would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And
yet, EVERYONE does!
[...]

Regards,

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

[donquijote1954]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by archierob
Well done!
One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to
realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get
anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road
from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with
laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his
neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive,
turned left and then drove up his drive.

The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone
drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all
turning into fat slobs.
I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other
towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington,
Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell
would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And
yet, EVERYONE does!
[...]

The word "idiots" explains everything. Thanks!

[Edward Dolan]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by archierob
Well done!
One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to
realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get
anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road
from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with
laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his
neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive,
turned left and then drove up his drive.

The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone
drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all
turning into fat slobs.
I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other
towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington,
Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell
would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And
yet, EVERYONE does!
[...]

The word "idiots" explains everything. Thanks!

One of my very favorite words that I use all the time in referring to my
contemporaries, but not necessarily to their faces. After all, a broken nose
is no fun.

By the way, I love your user name and I thought at one time of using it
myself as I am sort of a Don Quixote character who is always tilting at
windmills (to no avail).

Best Regards,

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

[donquijote1954]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by donquijote1954
The word "idiots" explains everything. Thanks!

One of my very favorite words that I use all the time in referring to my
contemporaries, but not necessarily to their faces. After all, a broken nose
is no fun.
By the way, I love your user name and I thought at one time of using it
myself as I am sort of a Don Quixote character who is always tilting at
windmills (to no avail).

Maybe we can attack the stupid windmills on two fronts and...

Speaking of stupid people out there. My girlfriend just reports to me
via telephone that a man who was cut off by a car threw the bike and
started pounding the hood of the car. Didn't see the end of it.
Probably the cyclist went to jail.

[Jeff Grippe]

Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small
distances?

Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I believe
that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an exceptionally low
number of people that are involved in bike/car accidents but trust me, You
don't want to be the person on the bike.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Jeff Grippe

Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small
distances?

Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I believe
that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an exceptionally low
number of people that are involved in bike/car accidents but trust me, You
don't want to be the person on the bike.

Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding
in cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by
trucks...).

While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big
impact on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to
play the odds for any subsequent events.

Pete.

[Jeff Grippe]

I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to
play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to the
rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably incorrect.

Jeff

Post by Jeff Grippe

Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small
distances?

Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I
believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an
exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car
accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike.

Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding in
cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by trucks...).
While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big impact
on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the
odds for any subsequent events.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel [phone] ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax [phone] Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK

[Dane Buson]

Post by Jeff Grippe

Post by Jeff Grippe
Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I
believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an
exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car
accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike.

Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding in
cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by trucks...).
While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big impact
on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the
odds for any subsequent events.

I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to
play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to the
rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably incorrect.

Thinking back on it, both of my most injurious bike accidents took place
on bike trails and involved no cars. Considering that bike trails are
widely acknowledged to be more dangerous than road cycling, I shouldn't
be really surprised by that I suppose.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Dane Buson

Post by Jeff Grippe

Post by Jeff Grippe
Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I
believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an
exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car
accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike.

Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding in
cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by trucks...).
While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big impact
on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the
odds for any subsequent events.

I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to
play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to the
rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably incorrect.

Thinking back on it, both of my most injurious bike accidents took place
on bike trails and involved no cars. Considering that bike trails are
widely acknowledged to be more dangerous than road cycling, I shouldn't
be really surprised by that I suppose.

Bike trails are only dangerous if you are an idiot. Congratulations!

Regards,

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

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <***@door7.com> wrote in message news:***@news.supernews.com...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Post by Jeff Grippe
I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to
play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to
the rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably
incorrect.
Jeff

Jeff is quite right to want to be cautious. I have been telling the members
of these freaking cycling newsgroups for year to be careful when mixing with
motor vehicles. When you are experiencing pain and misery every day of your
life as a result of an accident with a motor vehicle you will just naturally
want to avoid a repeat of that experience.

Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be
thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is that
none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the
lane with motor vehicles.

Regards,

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

Post by Jeff Grippe

Post by Jeff Grippe

Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very
small distances?

Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I
believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an
exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car
accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike.

Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding in
cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by trucks...).
While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big impact
on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the
odds for any subsequent events.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Jeff Grippe

Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small
distances?

Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I
believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an exceptionally
low number of people that are involved in bike/car accidents but trust me,
You don't want to be the person on the bike.

Jeff, you are living in a very intense motor vehicle environment. The entire
country is not like White Plains, New York.

Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken
driver. Small town streets can also be quite safe provided you stay out of
lanes which motor vehicles are using. I always ride pretty far to the right
near the curb so that motor vehicles can easily go around me. The main thing
is never to impede the flow of motor vehicle traffic. All that does is piss
off drivers and make them want to kill you.

But you are not far from wrong. Essentially, it is NEVER 100% safe to be on
the road with motor vehicles. That is why I am such a proponent of bike
paths. Why there are not more of them is one of the eternal mysteries of
life.

Regards,

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

[donquijote1954]

Post by Edward Dolan
But you are not far from wrong. Essentially, it is NEVER 100% safe to be on
the road with motor vehicles. That is why I am such a proponent of bike
paths. Why there are not more of them is one of the eternal mysteries of
life.

I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere
peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though...

RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS

OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word
of choice...

"The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom'
nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of
participation" -A. d. Benoist

Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young
who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a
waste of time --and money.

"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)

"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)

And this one...

"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
government listens" -Alastair Farrugia

Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by donquijote1954
I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere
peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though...
RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS
OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word
of choice...
"The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom'
nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of
participation" -A. d. Benoist
Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young
who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a
waste of time --and money.
"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)
And this one...
"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
government listens" -Alastair Farrugia
Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future.

Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot cheaper
than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is the perfect
antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish the naysays
would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic greens spout off.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Joe the Aroma
Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they
tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide
routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and
give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads.

The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure,
vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem,
and you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see
that it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than
being a pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging
on the suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need
bike paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't.

Pete.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Joe the Aroma
Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and
therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they
tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide
routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and
give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads.
The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure,
vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem, and
you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see that it
isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than being a
pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging on the
suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need bike paths.
The reality is that it isn't, and we don't.

What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth responding
to.

Regards,

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

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Joe the Aroma
Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and
therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they
tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide
routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and
give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads.
The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure,
vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem, and
you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see that
it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than being a
pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging on the
suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need bike
paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't.

What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth
responding to.

You know I'm right, little man.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Joe the Aroma
Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen
is because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and
therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they
tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide
routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and
give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads.
The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure,
vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem,
and you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see
that it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than
being a pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging
on the suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need
bike paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't.

What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth
responding to.

You know I'm right, little man.

Examine Peter Clinch's self-serving signature and then examine mine. Now you
know who is Great and who is a midget and a dwarf. Ah, for the good old days
of Victorian and Edwardian England!

Regards,

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

[Amy Blankenship]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@comcast.com...
...

Post by Joe the Aroma
Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

However, is the reason that the vast majority of people do not bike because
they have grown up in a situation where it is inconceivable to do so? In
other words, has the fact that our infrastructure is so car-centric become
self-perpetuating because people have on some level given up any expectation
that they could ever take any other form of transportation to their
destination?

[Bill Z.]

Post by Joe the Aroma
Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as
well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let
emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane
versus a striped shoulder is basically zero.

In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road
and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely
separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really
bicycle/pedestrian paths.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Joe the Aroma
Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as
well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let
emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane
versus a striped shoulder is basically zero.

Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic driver can
easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw you.

Post by Bill Z.
In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road
and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely
separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really
bicycle/pedestrian paths.

Bike paths are the only way to go. They are extremely safe as long as you
keep your speed down.

Regards,

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

[Bill Z.]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Joe the Aroma
Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as
well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let
emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane
versus a striped shoulder is basically zero.

Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic driver can
easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw you.

We weren't talking about how "safe" they were. The issue was whether
the government would install them given that most people don't ride
bicycles. I pointed out that most voters have children and those
children ride bicycles.

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Bill Z.
In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road
and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely
separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really
bicycle/pedestrian paths.

Bike paths are the only way to go. They are extremely safe as long as you
keep your speed down.

Not true, unless the paths don't cross streets very often. A
bi-directional path paralleling a street is dangerous at every
intersection. It's been shown that riding the wrong way on a
sidewalk is several times more dangerous than riding in the
same direction as traffic on a roadway (with the accidents
occuring at the intersections).

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by donquijote1954
I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere
peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though...
RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS
OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word
of choice...
"The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom'
nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of
participation" -A. d. Benoist
Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young
who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a
waste of time --and money.
"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)
And this one...
"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
government listens" -Alastair Farrugia
Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future.

Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

There are many sidewalks in the old part of my home town, in fact along
every street, whereas there are not so many sidewalks in the newer parts of
town. It is a measure of how far civilization has descended into the abbess
to note the absences of sidewalks.

Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of the
hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too much
democracy in action is a recipe for disaster.

Post by Joe the Aroma
I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot
cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is
the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish
the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic
greens spout off.

We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) and we
also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need to get
rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle.

Regards,

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

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Edward Dolan
Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of the
hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too much
democracy in action is a recipe for disaster.

Hey, all I'm saying is that don't think it's a lack of democracy that is the
reason there isn't bike lanes.

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Joe the Aroma
I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot
cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is
the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish
the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic
greens spout off.

We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) and
we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need to
get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle.

Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of
transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Edward Dolan
Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of
the hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too
much democracy in action is a recipe for disaster.

Hey, all I'm saying is that don't think it's a lack of democracy that is
the reason there isn't bike lanes.

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Joe the Aroma
I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot
cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is
the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I
wish the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what
idiotic greens spout off.

We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) and
we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need
to get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle.

Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of
transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles.

Joe, about once a year I visit a major metro and I am appalled by the
traffic congestion that I see everywhere in those metros. It is simply
insane how we keep piling up motor vehicles on top of motor vehicles.

I believe there is a 12 lane highway going into Washington DC from Maryland
and it is still not enough. God damn it - 12 lanes! Just how fucking stupid
can we get?

I would like to see all private motor vehicles banned forever from a
civilized nation. They reek of the 20th century and we no longer need that
kind of aggravation.

Mass transit is the only solution. Europe had this figured out many years
ago and now we will have to figure it out too. Personally, I have always
liked trolley cars. I remember that the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and
St.Paul) had a fairly good system back in the 40's and 50's.

Regards,

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

[donquijote1954]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by donquijote1954
I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere
peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though...
RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS
OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word
of choice...
"The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom'
nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of
participation" -A. d. Benoist
Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young
who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a
waste of time --and money.
"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)
And this one...
"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
government listens" -Alastair Farrugia
Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future.

Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

OK fine, we will have them with the revolution. The sheep in democracy
votes for the wolf in sheep's clothing. And the wolf couldn't care
less about bikes once in power. Take the lane and problem solved...

The Revolution Will Not be Motorized
by Robin Buckallew
So you say you want a revolution? Well, we all want to change the
world. So what? Quit bitching and moaning, quit bellyaching, and get
off your duff. There is no way to change the world by sitting on your
ass in an air conditioned room, even if you listen to nothing but
early Dylan and read nothing but Hunter Thompson. You can't change the
world unless you change yourself first. As Gandhi used to say, "Be the
change you want to see in the world".
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/GlobalWarning/1054.html

*WORLDWIDE CAMPAIGN TO TAKE THE LANE*
Yes, why not. If we are some more than a nuisance to drivers, then we
too belong in the lane, the middle of the lane that is, since we can't
be happy with the scraps of riding in the gutter, and then be
terrorized there too, like it happened to me the other day when a
black SUV blasted the horn in an act of intimidation. The Big Fish
eats the Little Fish, but the sardines had it. Well, the Jungle may
never be the same...

Please see 'RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS' at http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88

[Jeff Grippe]

Post by Edward Dolan
Jeff, you are living in a very intense motor vehicle environment. The
entire country is not like White Plains, New York.
Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken
driver.

Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite
country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver.

No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become
zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but
its not the only thing that I enjoy doing.

Jeff

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Edward Dolan
Jeff, you are living in a very intense motor vehicle environment. The
entire country is not like White Plains, New York.
Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken
driver.

Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quiet
country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver.
No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they
become zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to
cycle but its not the only thing that I enjoy doing.
Jeff

Good thinking Jeff. I am with you!

Regards,

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

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jeff Grippe

Post by Edward Dolan
Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken
driver.

Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite
country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver.
No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become
zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but
its not the only thing that I enjoy doing.

I would avoid both to ride bikes among cars and to swim among sharks.
Sometimes they are hungry, sometimes they are plain stupid.

[marc]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jeff Grippe

Post by Edward Dolan
Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken
driver.

Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite
country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver.
No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become
zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but
its not the only thing that I enjoy doing.

I would avoid both to ride bikes among cars and to swim among sharks.
Sometimes they are hungry, sometimes they are plain stupid.

Cars are always stupid.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by marc

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jeff Grippe

Post by Edward Dolan
Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken
driver.

Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite
country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver.
No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become
zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but
its not the only thing that I enjoy doing.

I would avoid both to ride bikes among cars and to swim among sharks.
Sometimes they are hungry, sometimes they are plain stupid.

Cars are always stupid.

Marc, the day of the car is numbered. There is just no way we can continue
to support this extravagance much longer. Yea, we will HAVE to get back to
mass transit, cycling and walking in order to maintain some sanity in the
universe.

Regards,

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

[Jack May]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by archierob
Well done!
One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to
realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get
anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road
from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with
laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his
neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive,
turned left and then drove up his drive.

The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone
drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all
turning into fat slobs.
I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other
towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington,
Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell
would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And
yet, EVERYONE does!

The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.

If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Jack May
The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.

Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my
freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of
groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it
is longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not
spending so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere.

Post by Jack May
If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if
that is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes
routinely work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that
weren't the case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist.

Pete.

[Jack May]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Jack May
The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.

Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my
freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of
groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it is
longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not spending
so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere.

Post by Jack May
If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that
is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely
work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the
case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist.

But very few of us live in a congested urban area.

If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up
making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.

[Dane Buson]

Post by Jack May

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Jack May
The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.

Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my
freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of
groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it is
longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not spending
so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere.

Post by Jack May
If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that
is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely
work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the
case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist.

But very few of us live in a congested urban area.

I don't know about that assertion. More people live in cities than in
rural areas, and the proportion is still shifting towards cities.

Surely someone must live in these huge bustling metropolises. Or are
they perhaps populated by ghosts?

Post by Jack May
If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up
making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.

I have trouble believing there are no sign posts, newspaper boxes, light
poles, telephone poles, pipes, or anything else you can lock to
everywhere you go. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm simply saying
that I've never been somewhere I couldn't lock up if I was willing to
walk one hundred foot.

[Clive George]

Post by Jack May

Post by Peter Clinch
There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if
that is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes
routinely work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that
weren't the case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist.

But very few of us live in a congested urban area.
If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up
making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.

Having no place to lock it up is normally merely a failure to apply
imagination. I can nearly always find such a place.

FWIW we don't live in a congested urban area, yet we use bikes for most
shopping. Things like being able to bring the shopping into the house
without having the tedium of car-unloading trips make the bike more
convenient, any time benefit the car may have for the journey is miniscule
(of the order of 5 minutes), and avoiding the use of the car for trips that
short means it actually lasts rather than wearing out.

cheers,
clive

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jack May

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Jack May
The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.

Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my
freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of
groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it is
longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not spending
so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere.

Post by Jack May
If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that
is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely
work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the
case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist.

But very few of us live in a congested urban area.
If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up
making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.-

Simply try not to shop there --and let them know.

[f***@gmail.com]

Post by Jack May

Post by Peter Clinch
There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that
is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely
work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the
case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist.

But very few of us live in a congested urban area.

True, perhaps. But for short enough trips, the other benefits of
cycling are worth the slight extra time, in my view. Certainly, up to
about two miles - if level terrain - the increased time is negligible.

Post by Jack May
If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up
making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.

There may be no _official_ place to lock it up, but IME there's always
_some_ place I can lock it. You just have to be a little creative.

- Frank Krygowski

[Cathy Kearns]

Post by Jack May
If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up
making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.

That would be terrible. I ride my bike on errands, to sporting events, to
the market, and to lunch or dinner in our local entertainment districts. In
every area I've found places to park my bike. And in all those areas it is
closer than where I would have parked my car. You should complain to your
city transportation committee.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Jack May
But very few of us live in a congested urban area.

For some values of "us". Actually, millions live in such areas, it's
entirely normal for a large slice of the population.

Post by Jack May
If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up
making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.

For some values of "usually". I can't think of any stores round here
where I can't lock my bike. Do the stores round your way have no
signposts, lampposts, fenceposts? At the main grocery store I can lock
my bike right by the door: can't park anywhere near that close unless
you're disabled, so I'll be on my way while most people are wheeling
their trolleys over the parking lot.

Pete.

[D***@ndersnat.ch]

Post by Jack May

Post by Edward Dolan
I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other
towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington,
Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell
would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And
yet, EVERYONE does!

The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.
If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

There's a cycling web page out there (someone here will have heard of
it, or you could Google it) that recounts the experience of a guy who put
a Hobbes meter in his car. A Hobbes meter looks like an odometer, but
measures time. After about four years owning the car he read the two
meters, did the math, and discovered that he and his car had been
averaging 17 mph. People think of their cars move them along at 40 mph or
whatever because that's what the speed limits signs say, but they forget
that they spend a lot of time at red lights, stuck in traffic jams, etc.
My 6 mile commute to work only takes me five or ten minutes longer than
driving does.
And this person's calculations didn't take into account the fact that
he was also spending part of every work day earning the money to pay for
his car. Figure that in and that average mph number might easily go below
10 mph, slower than a lot of bikes.
I got thinking of all this last Saturday, when I spent $500 on car
repairs and then tried to get to a wedding and got stuck for 45 minutes on
I-15 because of a horrible accident that brought no less than four ground
ambulances and a helicopter to the scene where the SUV had crashed and
burned.

Bill


__o | I used to think that I was cool, running around on fossil fuel
_`\(,_ | Until I saw what I was doing was driving down the road to ruin.
(_)/ (_) | - James Taylor

[SlowRider]

On my old commute, ~4 miles each way, my commute time by car was
anywhere from 12 minutes to 25 minutes, depending on traffic, lights,
etc. If I really lucked out (hit green for all 7 lights) I could
drive it in 10. In rush hour, I'd have to sit through 2-3 cycles at
some lights. 20 minutes was the norm.

By bike, I'd do the same distance in ~15 minutes. During the rush-
hour peak I was almost guaranteed to make better time by bike since I
never had to sit at a light for more than one cycle.

Another time-saving benefit to using a bike is no parking hassles.
Most stores in our area now have bike racks. Most of those are right
near the front door: easy-peasy. I really appreciate this during the
holiday shopping season(!)


- JR

[Zoot Katz]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC), ***@ndersnat.ch
wrote, in part::
\

Post by D***@ndersnat.ch
People think of their cars move them along at 40 mph or
whatever because that's what the speed limits signs say, but they forget
that they spend a lot of time at red lights, stuck in traffic jams, etc.
My 6 mile commute to work only takes me five or ten minutes longer than
driving does.
And this person's calculations didn't take into account the fact that
he was also spending part of every work day earning the money to pay for
his car. Figure that in and that average mph number might easily go below
10 mph, slower than a lot of bikes.

"The typical American male devotes more than 1,600 hours a year to
his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He
parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it
and to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for petrol,
tolls, insurance, taxes and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen
waking hours on the road or gathering resources for it. And this
figure does not take account of the time consumed by other activities
dictated by transport: time spent in hospitals, traffic courts and
garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending
consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy.

The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles:
less than five miles an hour."

- Ivan Illich

[Jack May]

Post by Zoot Katz
less than five miles an hour."

The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
occasionally to tell truth?

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/commuting.pdf
(page 4)

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Jack May

Post by Zoot Katz
less than five miles an hour."

The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
occasionally to tell truth?

Anyone who can't do a 12 mile commute on a bicycle should get himself to the
undertaker and arrange with the monument works for a headstone. Of course, I
am assuming bikeable streets and roads. The fact is that 12 miles is
nothing! Even a wimp like me could do it (except in the winter).

Regards,

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

[D***@ndersnat.ch]

Post by Jack May
The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
occasionally to tell truth?

This is an average figure, which means there are longer and shorter
commutes. I know a man, for instance, who used to drive 80 miles each way
to and from work, 800 miles per week, +/- 40,000 miles per year. For such
people bicycling does not make sense. Moving closer to the office (as he
eventually did) does.
Shorter commutes, particularly those made in urban areas and at rush
hours, are on the other side of the curve. A couple of months back I was
in a hurry to get to another wedding and took what I thought would be a
shorter, quicker route. I ended up taking thirty minutes to cover the
last mile of the trip. I literally could have gotten to my destination
faster by walking, and I found myself wishing with all my heart for my
bike, even though I don't like to show up at weddings bathed in sweat.
Here's another car-related figure. The American Automobile Association
(they of the famous AAA bumper stickers) says that the average car costs
its owner $650 per month by the time all costs are factored in. The
Census figure takes only driving time into account. This one counts
money, from which we can draw conclusions about the time spent earning
that money. Add that into the commuter's road time and then figure out
his average MPH, and you're down there where a bike becomes a smart
alternative.


Bill

__o | Harry: How could a troll get in?
_`\(,_ | Ron: Not on its own. Trolls are really stupid.
(_)/ (_) |

[Zoot Katz]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May"

Post by Jack May

Post by Zoot Katz
less than five miles an hour."

The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
occasionally to tell truth?

Car addicts never do the full accounting. 1600 hours includes time
spent to earn the money to pay for your driving habit. It didn't
include the time you spend in hospitals, courts and garages.

Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with
their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing
non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car.

Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's
destination is well within bicycling range.

Consider too that there are fewer variables to delay a bicycle so
that commuters can be pretty sure that they're going to arrive on
time regardless of traffic situations.

[Jack May]

Post by Zoot Katz
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May"
Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with
their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing
non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car.

Oh here we go again with somebody throwing everything they can think of into
a cost number to pump it up as high as possible. Useless approach.

Post by Zoot Katz
Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's
destination is well within bicycling range.

So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all
your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an
evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game.

[Tony Raven]

Post by Jack May
So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all
your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an
evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game.

Not lost. The environment is changing back towards conditions that
favour the bike. The dominance of cars may well prove to be a short
lived interlude.

Tony

[John Kane]

Post by Jack May

Post by Zoot Katz
less than five miles an hour."

The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
occasionally to tell truth?
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/commuting.pdf
(page 4)

Jack
The problem here is that the authors apparently are using the
arethmetic mean. Unless the distribution is normal the mean is almost
certainly inflated by outliers. Do you know if anyone has done this
type of study using median commuting distance rather than mean ?

in Canada the median commute is about 7.5 km . The Canadian
situtation would seem quite different if you took the mean. If you
look at the actual distribution in Canada the majority of commuters
travel less than 10 km (6.2 miles). See Loading Image....
I would not be terribly surprised to find a similar distribution,
althougth, perhaps with a slightly larger median value for US
commutes.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

[Jack May]

Post by John Kane

Post by Jack May

Post by Zoot Katz
less than five miles an hour."

The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
occasionally to tell truth?
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/commuting.pdf
(page 4)

Jack
The problem here is that the authors apparently are using the
arethmetic mean. Unless the distribution is normal the mean is almost
certainly inflated by outliers. Do you know if anyone has done this
type of study using median commuting distance rather than mean ?

Almost all real world statistics are non-Gaussian and the average is a poor
indicator. The table says the data uses averages

Post by John Kane
in Canada the median commute is about 7.5 km . The Canadian
situtation would seem quite different if you took the mean. If you
look at the actual distribution in Canada the majority of commuters
travel less than 10 km (6.2 miles). See
http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png.
I would not be terribly surprised to find a similar distribution,
althougth, perhaps with a slightly larger median value for US
commutes.

Most real world statistics are power law which means the statistics for
different countries will be similar.

[Jens Müller]

Post by D***@ndersnat.ch

Post by Jack May
If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

There's a cycling web page out there (someone here will have heard of
it, or you could Google it) that recounts the experience of a guy who put
a Hobbes meter in his car. A Hobbes meter looks like an odometer, but
measures time. After about four years owning the car he read the two
meters, did the math, and discovered that he and his car had been
averaging 17 mph. People think of their cars move them along at 40 mph or
whatever because that's what the speed limits signs say,

Hah, speed limits! Doesn't your highway require the driver (in addition
to obeying speed limits) to adjust his speed to the road, traffic,
weather, sight and other conditions, the properties of his vehicle and
the cargo and his personal abilities? That's the important speed limit.

[Jens Müller]

Post by Jens Müller
Hah, speed limits! Doesn't your highway require the driver (in addition

^
Should have been "highway code" ...

Post by Jens Müller
to obeying speed limits) to adjust his speed to the road, traffic,
weather, sight and other conditions, the properties of his vehicle and
the cargo and his personal abilities? That's the important speed limit.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Jack May

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by archierob
Well done!
One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to
realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get
anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road
from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with
laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his
neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive,
turned left and then drove up his drive.

The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone
drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all
turning into fat slobs.
I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other
towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington,
Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the
hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small
distances. And yet, EVERYONE does!

The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.

I use an upright trike with a big basket in the rear to carry things,
including as many groceries as I want.

Post by Jack May
If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

I am not into rushing about like a mad fool like most Americans. However, I
still consider my time valuable, even if I am only using it to contemplate
my navel.

Regards,

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

[Brian Huntley]

Post by Jack May
The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.
If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

I live downtown, and can't realistically drive to work - it would cost
me about $150 a week to park at my office. So if I take transit, I'd
have to come home, get a vehicle, hen go shopping.

With the bike, I shop on my way home. No extra trips required, really.
I usually avoid the mega stores, as you waste too much time standing
in line. When I do use the supermarket, I either bring my bike buckets
or take a free cardboard box (which I recycle later.) With the buckets
and the top of the rack, my bike has about the same grocery capacity
as a Suzuki Swift (my last car.)

It just takes some thought.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Jack May
The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.

Multiple trips (e.g., on separate days) to "bring back a small amount of
food" means the food you eat is fresher. It's a "quality of life" thing.
Plus, you get some exercise, and most people don't get enough.

You don't really "minimize time" by increasing your chance of spending
weeks in intensive care recovering from a heart attack caused by a poor
diet and lack of exercise.

Post by Jack May
If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

"One size fits all" thinking. :-) A bike makes perfect sense if
you end up taking the time you "save" by using a car and spending
that time on an exercise bike in your garage or basement. And for
some (e.g., in very congested areas) a bicycle is faster than a
car because on a bicyle, you only wait at a light for one cycle
of it at most.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jack May
The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.

Multiple trips (e.g., on separate days) to "bring back a small amount of
food" means the food you eat is fresher. It's a "quality of life" thing.
Plus, you get some exercise, and most people don't get enough.

Not to mention, if you buy a week's worth of groceries or more at a time,
the chances go up that something will happen that you didn't plan on that
will mean that you don't use one or more days' allocation of groceries. If
you count the money wasted and the environmental cost of buying food you are
not going to eat, buying 1-2 days' perishables makes sense. If you have to
work an extra hour a week due to buying food you're not eating, then you
could have spent the time shopping and have fresher food to boot.

[Brian Huntley]

On Jul 24, 8:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jack May
The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.

Multiple trips (e.g., on separate days) to "bring back a small amount of
food" means the food you eat is fresher. It's a "quality of life" thing.
Plus, you get some exercise, and most people don't get enough.

Not to mention, if you buy a week's worth of groceries or more at a time,
the chances go up that something will happen that you didn't plan on that
will mean that you don't use one or more days' allocation of groceries. If
you count the money wasted and the environmental cost of buying food you are
not going to eat, buying 1-2 days' perishables makes sense. If you have to
work an extra hour a week due to buying food you're not eating, then you
could have spent the time shopping and have fresher food to boot.

Excellent points, Bill and Amy. I've become so accustomed to shopping
this way I didn't even list those benefits. Another bonus for meat
eaters is if you're in your local butcher shop every couple of days,
they remember you and will do extra cuts for you without a hassle.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jack May

Post by Edward Dolan
I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other
towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington,
Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell
would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And
yet, EVERYONE does!

The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.
If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense

What you do with your time is a matter of preference. Some join the
rat race, and some simply refuse. For the latter a bike makes sense.

[Michael Plog]

I also bought a scooter (moped) as a toy, but I take it for errands as often
as possible. I do ride it to work, and do not end up sweaty. My wife and I
still ride our recumbents for entertainment and exercise (especially
cardiac), but the moped is good for other things. I get close to 150mpg, so
I feel pretty good buying one gallon of gas at a time.

A word about traffic. I take side streets on both the bicycle and moped.
Sometimes that is impossible, but generally there will be streets with very
little traffic yet getting where you need to be.

Happy trails!

Post by donquijote1954
Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in
America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great
(and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that
uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes.
Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by
chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the
supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet
most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle
use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the
percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right?
Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And
that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking
distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of
fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out
there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food
chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic,
if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good
80MPG.
So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live
long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off
I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the
market for the hell of it)...
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
BIKE FOR PEACE
http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

[donquijote1954]

Post by Michael Plog
I also bought a scooter (moped) as a toy, but I take it for errands as often
as possible. I do ride it to work, and do not end up sweaty. My wife and I
still ride our recumbents for entertainment and exercise (especially
cardiac), but the moped is good for other things. I get close to 150mpg, so
I feel pretty good buying one gallon of gas at a time.

Wow, that mileage sure sounds high. Are you sure?

Post by Michael Plog
A word about traffic. I take side streets on both the bicycle and moped.
Sometimes that is impossible, but generally there will be streets with very
little traffic yet getting where you need to be.

You are being smart. The big predators are out there...

SUV vs. Scooter

"Dedicated to all those injured, mutilated or killed by the Hen and
her SUV."


I've always wondered what would happen in an accident between SUV an
Scooter. It's not so simple. The SUV being so high could totally miss
the scooter.

Well, I guess this SUV wasn't high enough...


Preventing Motorcycle, Scooter Accidents a Matter of Awareness
By Ryan Taylor - 17 Jul 2007

In March a BYU student, driving a scooter died of injuries suffered in
an accident with an SUV.

Adam Cox was riding in the outside lane of University Parkway just
behind a car that was driving in the inside lane when an SUV going the
opposite direction, turned left and hit Cox, said Capt. Michael
Harroun, of the BYU Police Department.

Just like Cox's case, most motorcyclists are not at fault when
accidents happened, Harroun said.

"But they will get the worst of it," he said.

Even though Cox was wearing a helmet, he suffered severe head trauma
and died after being taken to Utah Valley Regional Medical Center.

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/64865


And remember, you SUV drivers, your distraction can spoil someone's
life. Well, I don't mean to offend you, just try not to talk so much
on the phone, and if you do, do like the Hen...

http://www.thehenshouse.com/index.html

DON QUIXOTES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote6

[Geoff Pearson]

Post by donquijote1954
Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in
America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great
(and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that
uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes.
Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by
chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the
supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet
most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle
use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the
percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right?
Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And
that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking
distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of
fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out
there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food
chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic,
if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good
80MPG.
So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live
long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off
I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the
market for the hell of it)...
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
BIKE FOR PEACE
http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than
cycling?

[donquijote1954]

Post by Geoff Pearson
what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than
cycling?-

A gallon of milk is better than a gallon of gas. Hopefully the milk is
still "Made in USA"...

Gas guzzlers are feeding injustice and terrorism.

[Tony Raven]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Geoff Pearson
what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than
cycling?-

A gallon of milk is better than a gallon of gas. Hopefully the milk is
still "Made in USA"...
Gas guzzlers are feeding injustice and terrorism.

Do you know how much gas is consumed and methane produced in the
production and delivery of a gallon of milk?

Tony

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Tony Raven

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Geoff Pearson
what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than
cycling?-

A gallon of milk is better than a gallon of gas. Hopefully the milk is
still "Made in USA"...
Gas guzzlers are feeding injustice and terrorism.

Do you know how much gas is consumed and methane produced in the
production and delivery of a gallon of milk?

Hm, not sure how much gas goes into the production of a 50 lb bag of feed,
but a good dairy goat will eat approximately 1-2 lb of feed a day. My
friend buys hers 400 lb at a time, because that will fit in her storage bin.
2 miles to the feed store, so 4 miles round trip. At 20 mpg, that is .2
gallons of gas per 400 lb of feed, or roughly .001 gal gas/day. Most goats
will produce between .75-1.5 gal milk per day, depending on how recently
they've given birth and when they are scheduled to be bred again.
Non-milking goats need to be fed almost nothing most of the year, except
kids. So if you factor in energy cost of production of the feed + feeding
studs and goats to breeding age, probably a good guess would be .01-.03 gal
gas/gal milk. I drive about 1 mile to get milk.

Goats usually don't fart unless they're sick, but they belch fairly
regularly.

I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar.

HTH;

Amy

[Tony Raven]

Post by Amy Blankenship
I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar.

If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with
their annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact
that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end up
with about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is about 17
miles of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car like the Prius.
And that allows nothing for the fossil fuel consumption of agriculture
in farm vehicles, fertiliser, transport and distribution.

Surprised?

Tony

[Bill Sornson]

Post by Tony Raven

Post by Amy Blankenship
I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar.

If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with
their annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact
that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end
up with about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is
about 17 miles of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car
like the Prius. And that allows nothing for the fossil fuel
consumption of agriculture in farm vehicles, fertiliser, transport
and distribution.
Surprised?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. "They" don't want to hear this.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Edward Dolan
Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be
thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is that
none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the
lane with motor vehicles.

They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads
will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we
insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing
from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though...

http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4=

THE BANANA REVOLUTION
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40

[Edward Dolan]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Edward Dolan
Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be
thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is that
none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the
lane with motor vehicles.

They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads
will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we
insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing
from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though...

Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what it
will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the better!

Regards,

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