Off yer bike - for the sake of all of us on the roads - Page 2

>>>>> "Parbs" == Parbs <anembo@NOexcite.com> writes:

Parbs> From today's Herald
Parbs> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/o...422105845.html

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

One bit that does strike a chord with me:

``They [Bike riders]relish telling stories of narrow escapes from death
at the hands of stupid car drivers.''

I find it unfortunate that many cyclists dwell on the narrow scrapes
they've had. It's been my experience that the ones who whine the
loudest are the ones who ride in the gutter, blow red lights and
generally behave like a **** head on the road.

Rule number one of bicycle advocacy, cycling is great. It's the best
fscking thing eva. Even when it's pissing down with rain I'd rather eat
tar than even hint to a non / anti cyclist that cycling in such
conditions is anything less than great.

We cyclists are strange, we're unusual. You don't get introduced to
other people in a social gathering as someone who drives to work, you do
get introduced as someone who rides to work. If you love cycling, if
you want to spread the joy of cycling, it's important to remember that
how you conduct yourself in the company of non-cyclists can have a
profound effect.

20 hours work yesterday, five hours kip followed by another 14 hours.
Hopefully that explains the slightly hectoring tone of this email :-)

Now I'm really going to catch it from the boss for not being in bed
already. More of the same tomorrow.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

>>>>> "Parbs" == Parbs <anembo@NOexcite.com> writes:

Parbs> From today's Herald
Parbs> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/o...422105845.html

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

One bit that does strike a chord with me:

``They [Bike riders]relish telling stories of narrow escapes from death
at the hands of stupid car drivers.''

I find it unfortunate that many cyclists dwell on the narrow scrapes
they've had. It's been my experience that the ones who whine the
loudest are the ones who ride in the gutter, blow red lights and
generally behave like a **** head on the road.

Rule number one of bicycle advocacy, cycling is great. It's the best
fscking thing eva. Even when it's pissing down with rain I'd rather eat
tar than even hint to a non / anti cyclist that cycling in such
conditions is anything less than great.

We cyclists are strange, we're unusual. You don't get introduced to
other people in a social gathering as someone who drives to work, you do
get introduced as someone who rides to work. If you love cycling, if
you want to spread the joy of cycling, it's important to remember that
how you conduct yourself in the company of non-cyclists can have a
profound effect.

20 hours work yesterday, five hours kip followed by another 14 hours.
Hopefully that explains the slightly hectoring tone of this email :-)

Now I'm really going to catch it from the boss for not being in bed
already. More of the same tomorrow.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

>>>>> "Parbs" == Parbs <anembo@NOexcite.com> writes:

Parbs> From today's Herald
Parbs> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/o...422105845.html

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

One bit that does strike a chord with me:

``They [Bike riders]relish telling stories of narrow escapes from death
at the hands of stupid car drivers.''

I find it unfortunate that many cyclists dwell on the narrow scrapes
they've had. It's been my experience that the ones who whine the
loudest are the ones who ride in the gutter, blow red lights and
generally behave like a **** head on the road.

Rule number one of bicycle advocacy, cycling is great. It's the best
fscking thing eva. Even when it's pissing down with rain I'd rather eat
tar than even hint to a non / anti cyclist that cycling in such
conditions is anything less than great.

We cyclists are strange, we're unusual. You don't get introduced to
other people in a social gathering as someone who drives to work, you do
get introduced as someone who rides to work. If you love cycling, if
you want to spread the joy of cycling, it's important to remember that
how you conduct yourself in the company of non-cyclists can have a
profound effect.

20 hours work yesterday, five hours kip followed by another 14 hours.
Hopefully that explains the slightly hectoring tone of this email :-)

Now I'm really going to catch it from the boss for not being in bed
already. More of the same tomorrow.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

>>>>> "Parbs" == Parbs <anembo@NOexcite.com> writes:

Parbs> From today's Herald
Parbs> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/o...422105845.html

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

One bit that does strike a chord with me:

``They [Bike riders]relish telling stories of narrow escapes from death
at the hands of stupid car drivers.''

I find it unfortunate that many cyclists dwell on the narrow scrapes
they've had. It's been my experience that the ones who whine the
loudest are the ones who ride in the gutter, blow red lights and
generally behave like a **** head on the road.

Rule number one of bicycle advocacy, cycling is great. It's the best
fscking thing eva. Even when it's pissing down with rain I'd rather eat
tar than even hint to a non / anti cyclist that cycling in such
conditions is anything less than great.

We cyclists are strange, we're unusual. You don't get introduced to
other people in a social gathering as someone who drives to work, you do
get introduced as someone who rides to work. If you love cycling, if
you want to spread the joy of cycling, it's important to remember that
how you conduct yourself in the company of non-cyclists can have a
profound effect.

20 hours work yesterday, five hours kip followed by another 14 hours.
Hopefully that explains the slightly hectoring tone of this email :-)

Now I'm really going to catch it from the boss for not being in bed
already. More of the same tomorrow.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

>>>>> "dewatf" == dewatf <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> writes:

dewatf> Duffy arguments are: 1) That cyclists slow down traffic on
dewatf> busy arterial roads annoying drivers

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

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

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

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

Can't comment, I'm in Melbourne. I don't want or need special
facilities to ride on the road, I'm quite happy as part of normal
traffic.

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

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

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

Rational perhaps, certainly not researched.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Point taken, but as several a.ber's before me have pointed out - when you have a bingle on the bike there's NO cushioning the impact. No crumple zones, no seat belts, no air bags etc etc etc. You, bike, tarmac/vehicle - crunch. So hence a possible reason for the whinging.

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:58:11 +1100, "Bob"
<bob.mccorkle@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Driving slowly does not produce more green house gas.

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

dewatf.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:40:32 +1100, Terry Collins
<newsonespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

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

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

dewatf.

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

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

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:30:59 GMT, Euan <euan_b_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Hardly an advantage from the drivers point of view.

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

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

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

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

dewatf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Dave Hughes | dave@hired-goons.net
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
-Steven Wright

"dewatf" wrote:

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

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

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

Cheers
Peter

"dewatf" wrote:

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

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

Ride a bike.

Cheers
Peter

ritcho wrote:
> Parbs Wrote:
>> From today's Herald
>> http://tinyurl.com/a5e2m
>>
>> Parbs - unhappy and resentful and probably should go for a ride down
>> Parramatta Road this morning ;-)
>
> Here is what I had to say to the smh letterbot.

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

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

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4392531f.6061890@news.syd.ihug.com.au...
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:58:11 +1100, "Bob"
> <bob.mccorkle@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Driving slowly does not produce more green house gas.
>
> Actually it does, due to the fact that cars are designed and tuned to
> run efficiently at higher speeds. When you are driving slowly the
> engine is producing more power than is needed which is wasted.
>
> dewatf.

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

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

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

Bobm
Sydnee

>>>>> "dewatf" == dewatf <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> writes:

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


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