Off yer bike - for the sake of all of us on the roads - Page 3

--
Frank
pangloss@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
"Peter Signorini" <petesig@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:4392af52_4@news.chariot.net.au...
>
> "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

I don't think this has anything to do with the law. Nobody is arguing that
cyclists riding illegally or that cyclists do not have a legal right to use
the road. The claim is that cyclists slow the general traffic flow. The
implications are (1) That cyclists should be legislated off the road; (2)
That cyclists shouldn't be taken into consideration when managing traffic
(these appear to be the desired outcomes of the article); (3) That cyclists
should choose alternative routes or choose not to be part of the traffic
flow. (3) Makes some sense from a driver's perspective (not agreeing, just
putting myself in a rushed, stressed driver's place). I think (after cycling
a good deal of Europe over the years) that if drivers were more considerate
toward drivers, cyclists would be more considerate toward them, and vice
versa.

I do believe in social consideration. For example, there are a couple of
spots on my regular ride to work where I'm down to 10 or 15km/hr on steepish
hills. When I can, I'll divert from the road on to the footpath - it's not
legal, nor am I legally required to do get out of the way, but it's a bit of
consideration for motor vehicles (many heavy vehicles) that can, and do, get
stuck behind me with no opportunity to pass safely on a relatively narrow,
busy road. If it's not practical for me to move out of the way, I don't.
What's so hard about that?

Appealing to the law to protect me and help me get along with others smacks
of a lost argument, where I have to appeal to the umpire. I'd rather work on
a social level. When that fails, I have the law to back me up. The law is a
lot like any big stick - you hope you never have to use it, but you wouldn't
want to be without it.

Cheers,

Frank

Arrgggg - you're not going over to the funny pages, aka The Daily Terror? Surely not!

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:12:43 +1100, John Stevenson wrote:

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

For a single op-ed piece? The same paper that published this?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...775959923.html
( http://tinyurl.com/bkavp ) in case wrapping does ugly things.

Harsh. You sure you aren't just a tad tired and grumpy after your decimal
point shift to the left in Saturday's ride?

--
Dave Hughes | dave@hired-goons.net
Flagrant system error!
The system is down. I dunno what you did, moron,
but you sure screwed everything up - Strongbad

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:43:36 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:

> Arrgggg - you're not going over to the funny pages, aka The Daily Terror?
> Surely not!

Oooh, I think it'd be worth signing John up for a Tele subscription, so
long as I can be there when it lands on the doorstep.

--
Dave Hughes | dave@hired-goons.net
I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory

--
Frank
pangloss@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
"Fractal" <whatevs@screamingdammessofathing.com> wrote in message
news:ntAkf.10987$ea6.7374@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "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:
> >
<Snippage>

> 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.

Odd one, this. "most motorists" don't work in the CBD. Most people work in
factories, retail, etc, etc, outside of the city - in the suburbs, in the
industrial areas, and so-on. Only admin people work in the city, and the
general ratio of admin (and I include management, etc) to 'workers' (by
that, I mean the hands-on employees) is about 1 to 4 (lifted from my org
management studies).

Much of the argument about traffic, public transport, cycling, etc. centres
around the CBDs - it's not relevent to most people. Similarly, PT is geared
toward getting people to and around the CBD for 'normal working hours'.
Again, not relevent to most people. More people work 'non-standard' hours
than the (increasingly rare) 9-5 that so much planning revolves around.

It seems to me that mre focus on getting people to places they need to go at
times they need to be there is much more productive than focussing on the
CBD, which, coincidentally, is where the 'top end of town' people tend to
work.

How about spreading the alternative transport net to include the people who
start work at, say, 6am for a day shift, in the industrial (light and heavy)
suburbs, shopping centres (often 8am - 6pm 'real' working time) and so-on?
Bugger the CBD. It's much less likely to get someone in a suit and/or makeup
to get on a bike for a day's work in the CBD than it is to get the labourer,
factory worker, etc to ride at least part way to work - they have less to
worry about appearance.

How's this for a start: A series of Park and Ride stations where you can
park your car and take your bike the rest of the way to work. If the
stations were situated within, say, 10-15 km of major areas of employment
(industrial reas, shopping centres, etc) and the employers in these areas
were required to provide secure bike parking, shower and change facilities,
etc, along with, perhaps, a voucher system that can be used to claim tax
incentives at tax return time, would a proportion of people be likely to use
the facility? May be even make bike parking free and secure but car parking
expensive and 'at your own risk'.

I think that, given the distances people travel between work and home it's
pretty unlikely that many people will cycle the whole way. I think that if
people can be encouraged (OK - HEAVILYencouraged!) to cycle part way it's a
gain. I suggested 10-15km as a distance because (wild guess - nothing to
back me up!) it's about half what people typically travel. If half a trip is
made by bike, then that's half the driving done - a net gain.

Just a thought...

Frank


>
> 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 wrote:
everybody else does or should feel the same.

Umm,perhaps you should bicycle more, then you might be able to follow
the discussion. Mr Red Herring
>
> 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.

WTF have you been drinking or are you smoking it.
Widely discussed in this group a number of time. google it.
"studies have shown that concentrations of volitile pollutants are
higher in cars,"

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:45:57 +1100, Terry Collins wrote:

> WTF have you been drinking or are you smoking it. Widely discussed in this
> group a number of time. google it. "studies have shown that concentrations
> of volitile pollutants are higher in cars,"

He said that. He also said that concentration of diesel particles is
higher outside, where we are. That's true, as anyone ever drafting a truck
can attest. There's also a recent study saying that breathing deeply (ie,
exercising) on or near a road isn't a great idea because crap gets further
into your lungs. Weird, since my lungs seem to work better after riding to
work.

--
Dave Hughes | dave@hired-goons.net
I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory

Random Data wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:45:57 +1100, Terry Collins wrote:
>
>
>>WTF have you been drinking or are you smoking it. Widely discussed in this
>>group a number of time. google it. "studies have shown that concentrations
>>of volitile pollutants are higher in cars,"
>
>
> He said that.

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

One sentence that starts
"No studies have shown that concentrations of volitile pollutants are
higher in cars...."
which readers of this group will know is wrong.

then that is joined with

" but that cyclists are more exposed to diesel particulants."

I love it that cagers are being killed by their own self-imposed cage,
but then I guess that is a side effect of captivity {:-). [1]


> He also said that concentration of diesel particles is higher outside,

Actually he didn't.
And taking a lead from the least popular cover of Freewheeling[2], does
anyone know if those double canister "dust" face masks are any good for
diesel particulates? and which canister do we need?

Anyway, we are now arguing over thwe words of a troll and one that can
not even do basic punctutation at that.

Being kind, I am thinking that he must be blind because he didn't see
all those police on the last sydney CM. OTOH, shows how big the sydney
CM is.


> where we are. That's true, as anyone ever drafting a truck
> can attest. There's also a recent study saying that breathing deeply (ie,
> exercising) on or near a road isn't a great idea because crap gets further
> into your lungs. Weird, since my lungs seem to work better after riding to
> work.

Mine work better after riding anywhere {:-).
And it is a loverly day for riding here.


[1] when I found that VOCs were causing trouble with computers are
work, my fellow nerds thought it was all black magic.
[2] as judged ny newsagent sales.

But the discussion is about driving in traffic, not at high speeds. Passing a cyclist and then passed at the next set of lights. Accelerating and then braking. Scientific studies show it is more fuel efficient to drive at a steady speed than to accelerate and then cruise or brake - I saw it on Brainiac ;-)

The debate rages on in today's SMH - http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index.html

I didn’t think there had been enough cyclists in Sydney at the moment to make that much of a difference. Isn’t it stated somewhere 1% of trips?
Don’t cyclists who commute mostly ride single file on the far left had side of the road? With the facilities currently provided, what more can the commuting cyclist do?

Sure I ride a bit & so am partical to the plight of the average cyclist, but all these bikes-are-bad-on-roads people banging on about having to drive around a cyclists because they’re not travelling at the max posted speed limit is like trying to have disabled people & the elderly banished from the footpaths & public transport because they’re slow moving & may take up more room than the average.

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

> 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.

My experience matches yours.

> 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.

heh

> 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.

You bet. In the last 6 months I have 3 more people I've been directly
involved with now considering riding to work, and are now riding
recreationally instead of going for drives in cars.


>
> 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.

You'll catch more if you don't RIDE YOUR BIKE!

True. The whole article, as it pertains to Sydney, is a beat-up. Duffy has shown himself to be a passionate defender of the quarter-acre suburban sprawl (vs medium-density housing) in the past, so he is just scraping about trying to find another regressive cause to champion.

This would be very dangerous in Sydney with our narrow roads and psycho drivers. Single file, but in the middle of the lane, is the rule for survival here.

The research summarised by this article relies on a couple of questionable assumptions. Firstly, that you are cycling on quiet back roads! (Not me, for one). Secondly, that the volume of air being breathed increases only two to three fold. Moderate exertion, in fact, increases inspired volumes much more than that. So don't conclude that the "cagers" are worse off than you.
The general "dodginess" of the BV article is increased by the implication that CM's sarcoidosis is related to pollution exposure through cycling. No such causative link has been identified, and it has been looked for.
But relax, no-one has ever proven that air pollution exposure on the roads is bad for non-asthmatics with no coronary disease.

"Terry Collins" <newsonespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:43936bbd$0$13314$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
> One sentence that starts
> "No studies have shown that concentrations of volitile pollutants are
> higher in cars...."
> which readers of this group will know is wrong.
>
> then that is joined with
>
> " but that cyclists are more exposed to diesel particulants."
>
Put a comma inbwteen the 'no' and the rest and you might be able to
understand it.
There are plently of studies that do show the volitiles/gas pollutants are
higher inside cars, due to them travelling along behind the exhaust pipe of
the car in front in their little smog platoons, with their air intakes
conveniently located close to the ground.

But there are also studies that show that cyclists are exposed to more
particulates (black **** from diesel) - can fix that with bio diesel!

I wouldn't want to hazard a guess which is worse for you, out of my field of
expertise I'm afraid!