Can you make it to the market on a bike?



Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
> > As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
> > design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
> > HOV lanes.

>
> The whole concept of bike lanes is bad.
>
> That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere
> they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations.


Pein, cut your idiotic rhetoric and show what you think is wrong with
the Caltrans standards for bike lanes.


>
> You keep bringing up a comparison between bike lanes and HOV
> lanes. Apparently you have an inability to distinguish differences.
>
> HOV lanes are 12' wide, are used on freeways, are typically (always?)
> the left lane (US), are intended to allow their users to pass
> congestion, are not mandatory, do not collect debris, and are
> universally loved by their users.
>
> Bike lanes are 4' wide, are used on normal streets which is an
> inappropriate treatment, are typically the rightmost lane (US), are
> intended to allow motorists to pass bicyclists easier while sometimes
> stopped motorists block the bike lane, are typically mandatory (if not
> mandatory, motorists enforce their use anyway), collect debris, and
> are often despised by their intended users.


Bike lanes are usually wider than 4' around here, sometimes a lot wider,
are clear of debris, and are in most cases popular with "their intended
users." The use of the lane is not mandatory in general, but rather
simply reflects the normal "slower traffic keeps to the right" rule.
The people who get as emotional as you do are very much a minority,
albeit a vocal one on usenet.

Also, bike lanes allow bicyclists to pass congestion whenever the
congestion is so bad that a bicyclist can ride faster than normal
traffic, and when that is the case, the use of the bike lane is
completely optional. It is pointless to argue about it - the CVC
is available on line.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

>
> >>In a 16' lane, 14' from the lane stripe is 2' from the edge of pavement.

> > What you are is a liar.

>
> Moron,
>
> This is my last communication with you because trying to converse with
> you is a constantly moving target.


Well, you just lied twice - your constantly moving target thing is a
lie, as is your "last communication". The post I'm replying to,
meesage ID <[email protected]>, was sent at
Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:03:34 -0400, but you subsequently posted another
reply with message ID <[email protected]>
at Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:06:16 -0400.

Care to explain how that post followed your "last communication"? :)

Your problem otherwise is that I'm simply not letting you get away
with misrepresenting what I actually said, and you are finding that
very awkward.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
> > What a liar you are, Pein. You are the person who is distorting
> > what you are replying to. If you have nice discussions with Krygowski,
> > it is only because you two agree with each other.

>
> Moron,
>
> I don't lie: ever. Conversing with you is the most painful experience
> I've had in a long time.
>
> Good bye.
> Wayne


ROTFLMAO. You claimed the post you made 3 minutes before this one was
your "last communication" and now you say you don't lie? :)

I really don't care whether you consider it lying, but you have been
going around repeatedly misrepresenting what I said, replying to
sensible comments with infantile name calling, and otherwise behaving
like a child.

If you find conversing with me to be a "painful experience", it is
simply because you can't handle any statement about some topics that
clashes with your preconceptions. You need some professional help.
Maybe you and your friend Krygowski can go in together for group
therapy.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:32:40 -0400, Wayne Pein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Bill Z. wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
>>>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
>>>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.

>>
>> Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
>> everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
>> any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
>> city he rode.

>
>Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
>about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for many
>writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.
>
>Wayne


Seconded. Frank's experiences closely parallel mine.

Pat

Email address works as is.
 
On Aug 3, 6:04 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
> > On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
> > > safety is... the sidewalk.

>
> > That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that
> > conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous
> > than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the
> > opposite.

>
> <http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf> shows that
> sidewalk cycling *in the same direction as traffic* has nearly the
> same risk as riding on the roadway. See Table 5. For all bicyclists
> in the study, the risk riding with traffic on the sidewalk divided by
> the risk of riding on the roadway is 0.9 When you break it up by age,
> however, you find that both the 17 and under and the 18 and over
> catagories have a slightly increased risk when using the sidewalk and
> when riding in the same direction as vehicular traffic. ...
>
> ...obviously Krygowski doesn't read the literature either as
> comprehensively as he'd like to pretend. :)


Bill, you're amazing.

Let's look at the conclusion of the paper:

"Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur
greater risk than those on the roadway (on average
1.8 times as great), most likely because of
blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way
sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and
sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence
of wrong-way travel."

What you've done is cherry pick the data in order to make a silly
argument. Even if sidewalk cycling is safe for, say, cyclists between
32 and 42 years of age, with red hair, riding slowly, in the direction
of traffic, and stopping at all driveways, that's not representative
of Donquijote's "street smart poor." Neither is your carefully chosen
sub-group.

Absent evidence of special characteristics, the best advice on riding
should be based on the average data, not your sub-group.

And you probably know about the Canadian study that found sidewalk
cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't
think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away.

Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.

- Frank Krygowski
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:

> Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
> constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.


So why do you encourage him?

Frank, you 'n Wayne are swinging punches at the Tar Baby,
to show the rest of the world what a Tar Baby it is.
But we already know it's a Tar Baby. You don't need to
prove anything. Unless you're obsessed like Captain Ahab
in Moby ****, and need to prove some irrational idea to
yourself by besting your chosen opponent.

Captain Ahab could've won (or at least broke even) by just
leaving the freaky whale alone to die a natural death.

The whale got Ahab's leg in the beginning of the story,
and got his life at the end of the story. But in between,
the whale slowly nibbled & nibbled & nibbled him to death.
And Ahab kept coming back for more nibbling. Just like
you guys are doing.

So, we all know Bill Zaumen is a Great White Tar Baby with
a wrinkled brow & crooked jaw, and much stickiness.

I am not only alone left to tell thee.

And you can't effectively harpoon a Tar Baby.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in
>>>>> the area to know why.
>>>> But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to
>>>> know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities.
>>>>
>>> Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China.

>> Do you deny that many of the "high-tech" jobs that were supposed to
>> replace the outsourced manufacturing jobs are also being outsourced to
>> China, India and other low wage countries?

>
> Read what I said. Some things can't be outsourced to third-world
> countries, for the reasons I gave you. Those countries could, of
> course, catch up to us. I'll give you a hint - you won't find the 10
> gigabit/second NIC cards coming out of China until they become a
> commodity, nor the device drivers for them (the chips typically have
> problems that require software 'work arounds', and you need a close
> collaboration between hardware and software engineers to get
> everything working).
>
> Various new CPUs are designed in the Bay Area and the software groups
> that provide OS support. You can look at SUN's recent CPUs with
> multiple cores and multiple threads per core as an example. In this
> sort of work, you have to develop the hardware and software at the
> same time as you need both for a finished product, so heavy use is
> made of simulators that allow the software to be tested before the
> hardware is ready, and these require an enormous amount of
> computation.


Nothing that appears to be a insurmountable obstacle. ;)

>>> But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda.
>>> As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
>>> design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
>>> HOV lanes.
>>>
>>>> Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus?
>>> Maybe you can try to improve your grammar?

>> That is an editing error, not a fundamental mistake in grammar.

>
> It's a grammar error (whether due to bad editing or not) that made the
> sentence completely incomprehensible.


Intended sentence: Maybe Zaumen doesn't [like] being asked to sit at the
back of the bus?

The omission of the word "like" was a case of the brain working faster
than the fingers, and not a grammar error. Duh!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>> As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
>> design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
>> HOV lanes.

>
> The whole concept of bike lanes is bad.
>
> That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere
> they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations....


Agreed. I used to live in a river divided metropolitan area, and three
of the five bridges were inaccessible to cyclists since they were
Interstate Highways. All such bridges should provide a physically
separated path for cyclists and pedestrians, unless there is another
bridge close by.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> ...
> The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
> safety is... the sidewalk. And that's what they do all the time. They
> are not that stupid to ride with the fish out there.


Riding the sidewalk is NOT safe if one has to cross intersecting roads
and driveways. Then it is much more dangerous than vehicular cycling,
since the drivers are paying attention to traffic on the streets
(carriageway) and not the sidewalk (pavement).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
> ...I don't live in CA so I don't care about the CVC!


HOT DOG! WE HAVE A WEINER!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are
>>>> the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous
>>>> for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are
>>>> "special" bicycle farcilities (sic).
>>> Mindless Propaganda. Come back when you have something serious to
>>> say.

>> Whoosh!
>>
>> Zaumen does not seem to realize that the CVC is nothing more than
>> regulations developed by California bureaucrats, and does not
>> establish the fundamental principles of right-of-way or how "bicycle
>> lanes" affect the attitudes of motorists. His citing the CVC, the way
>> fundamentalists cite the religious tract of their preference, as being
>> some infallible word from on high that is universally applicable is
>> humorous, however.

>
> You do't


Look here - a grammatical error by Zaumen! ;)

> seem to realize that the CVC is similar to the vehicle code
> in most states, and that it contains the rules that all road users
> (drivers and bicyclists) should follow.


I don't live in California, and I am unlikely to visit there in the near
future. Until I plan to travel to California, I don't give a rat's ass
about the CVC.

HINT: The world is not centered around California and Silly Cone Valley,
no matter what the residents think.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Patrick Lamb <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:32:40 -0400, Wayne Pein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >Bill Z. wrote:
> >> [email protected] writes:
> >>>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
> >>>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
> >>>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.
> >>
> >> Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
> >> everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
> >> any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
> >> city he rode.

> >
> >Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
> >about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for many
> >writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.
> >
> >Wayne

>
> Seconded. Frank's experiences closely parallel mine.


Then you must be as much of a nut case as he is - the lanes, when
installed in accordance to the latest standards, are harmless.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
[email protected] writes:

> On Aug 3, 6:04 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > [email protected] writes:
> > > On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > > > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
> > > > safety is... the sidewalk.

> >
> > > That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that
> > > conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous
> > > than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the
> > > opposite.

> >
> > <http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf> shows that
> > sidewalk cycling *in the same direction as traffic* has nearly the
> > same risk as riding on the roadway. See Table 5. For all bicyclists
> > in the study, the risk riding with traffic on the sidewalk divided by
> > the risk of riding on the roadway is 0.9 When you break it up by age,
> > however, you find that both the 17 and under and the 18 and over
> > catagories have a slightly increased risk when using the sidewalk and
> > when riding in the same direction as vehicular traffic. ...
> >
> > ...obviously Krygowski doesn't read the literature either as
> > comprehensively as he'd like to pretend. :)

>
> Bill, you're amazing.
>
> Let's look at the conclusion of the paper:
>
> "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur
> greater risk than those on the roadway (on average
> 1.8 times as great), most likely because of
> blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way
> sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and
> sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence
> of wrong-way travel."
>


Krygowski, you are an idiot - that factor of 1.8 includes cyclists
riding in both directions and the ones going in the opposite direction
as traffic have an elevated risk of significantly above 1.8. Furthermore,
the factor of 1.8 understates the risk - it is actually over a factor
of 2. The paper clearly states that wrong-way riding is far more
prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent roadway, and that is where
people are getting into trouble.

> What you've done is cherry pick the data in order to make a silly
> argument. Even if sidewalk cycling is safe for, say, cyclists between
> 32 and 42 years of age, with red hair, riding slowly, in the direction
> of traffic, and stopping at all driveways, that's not representative
> of Donquijote's "street smart poor." Neither is your carefully chosen
> sub-group.


Your "cherry picking" is another of your bald-faced lies - if I were
doing that, I wouldn't have spent the effort to point out that you get
an unrealistically low number when you combine the 17 and under with
the 18 and over populations - it is due to Simpson's Paradox (look it
up if you are not familiar with the term).

It is not a silly argument - the paper shows that riding in the same
direction as traffic on a sidewalk, as normally practiced, is not
inherently extremely danagerous, but riding in the opposing direction
is. For everyone going in the same direction as traffic, the risk is
increased by 1.2 to 1.3 (the total is 0.9, but that is due to the
statistical anomoly I mentioned). If you were familiar with the area,
you'd know that some sidewalk cyclists ride as fast as people riding
on the road, and then run red lights besides. If you eliminate that
obviously risky behavior, which is included in that ratio of 1.2 to 1.3,
you'll get an even lower number.

Also, your "carefully chosen sub-group" is another lie since I included
both age groups and simply pointed out the difference the direction of
travel makes.

>
> Absent evidence of special characteristics, the best advice on riding
> should be based on the average data, not your sub-group.
>
> And you probably know about the Canadian study that found sidewalk
> cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't
> think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away.


There was no "cherry picking" - that is simply one of your lies. If
they got a factor of 13, you'll find that wrong-way riding was a
significant contributing factor to it.

> Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
> constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.


What a hypocrite. Krygowski is one of the most intellectually dishonest
scumbags on usenet. I've just about never seen a single post from him
where he didn't lie about something and this one is no exception. And
any rudeness directed towards him and his lying friends is more than
deserved, particularly since far more is directed at me than I've
been directing at them.

And of course, riding on a sidewalk at an appropriate speed is not a
"bad practice". What the in the paper I quoted clearly shows is that
people who ride on sidewalks in the same direction as traffic are not
taking particularly high risks (an increase of 1.2 to 1.3, which
includes the "crazies", but also people who ride fairly slowly, with
the "crazies" probably accounting for a significant share of the
accidents). Those going in the opposite direction as traffic are
taking a much more substantial risk, and the risk factor is probably
not obvious to them.

The conclusion should be obvious - if you want to ride on a sidewalk,
go in the same direction as traffic and, aside from the direction of
travel, people aren't making horrendously bad decisions.

As is typical of Krygowski, he doesn't want to admit to what the
data clearly shows.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
[email protected] (Tom Keats) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
> > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.

>
> So why do you encourage him?


Krygowski has been on my case for decades for not agreeing with
his idiotic position on bicycle helmets (he objects to my opinion
that wearing one is a reaonable choice one might make). He's been
on a vendetta ever since.

Keats, of course, is another one of these nuts: see
message ID <[email protected]> where he says:

I'm more inclined to the opinion that the more vehement
proponents of MHLs are car drivers who feel uncomfortable
sharing the streets and roads with bicyclists, because they
simply don't understand cycling, and nothing will un-convince
them that riding bicycles in traffic is daredevilry. If they
see us 'daredevil cyclists' (I say that with tongue in cheek)
wearing helmets, those drivers' comfort levels are somewhat
increased. So they want /all/ cyclists to wear helmets.

In reality, if we use the California helmet law as an example, the
push for it resulted from an unfortunately accident in which a little
girl was riding against traffic at dusk without a light and wasn't
visible until it was too late for the driver to stop in time (he
wasn't speeding). The accident got a huge amount of publicity in the
press. The public consensus was that a helmet might have helped,
plus the traffic-law violations were not well publicized - it would
have sounded too much like blaming a 9 year old child for not
understanding things that 9 year olds aren't generally expected to
understand.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:


> > Various new CPUs are designed in the Bay Area and the software groups
> > that provide OS support. You can look at SUN's recent CPUs with
> > multiple cores and multiple threads per core as an example. In this
> > sort of work, you have to develop the hardware and software at the
> > same time as you need both for a finished product, so heavy use is
> > made of simulators that allow the software to be tested before the
> > hardware is ready, and these require an enormous amount of
> > computation.

>
> Nothing that appears to be a insurmountable obstacle. ;)


Do you have any clue as to the capital investment needed to do this
stuff? That investment is needed no matter where you do the work and
pretty much puts the salary differences between here and India or
China in the noise.

> >>> But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda.
> >>> As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
> >>> design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
> >>> HOV lanes.
> >>>
> >>>> Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus?
> >>> Maybe you can try to improve your grammar?
> >> That is an editing error, not a fundamental mistake in grammar.

> > It's a grammar error (whether due to bad editing or not) that made
> > the
> > sentence completely incomprehensible.

>
> Intended sentence: Maybe Zaumen doesn't [like] being asked to sit at
> the back of the bus?
>
> The omission of the word "like" was a case of the brain working faster
> than the fingers, and not a grammar error. Duh!


LOL. It took you several days to figure out that you should have posted a
corection.
>


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> > ...
> > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
> > safety is... the sidewalk. And that's what they do all the time. They
> > are not that stupid to ride with the fish out there.

>
> Riding the sidewalk is NOT safe if one has to cross intersecting roads
> and driveways. Then it is much more dangerous than vehicular cycling,
> since the drivers are paying attention to traffic on the streets
> (carriageway) and not the sidewalk (pavement).


As was pointed out, the risk of sidewalk cycling is predominantly due
to traveling in the opposite direction as traffic when you look at
accident statistics. In the paper I quoted showing this, the use of
the sidewalk was voluntary, and aside from the direction of travel,
people were not making really bad decisions about which facility to
use.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:


> I don't live in California, and I am unlikely to visit there in the
> near future. Until I plan to travel to California, I don't give a
> rat's ass about the CVC.
>
> HINT: The world is not centered around California and Silly Cone
> Valley, no matter what the residents think.


If bike lanes work adequately in parts of California, the California
design standards and the California Vehicle Code are highly relevant
because they show what works. There is no requirement to use a bike
lane unless riding at less than the normal speed of traffic at that
time and place. Also there are a number of exceptions that allow one
to leave or not use a bike lane even when riding slower than the normal
speed of traffic:

1. Lanes not established in conformace to state standards.
2. When preparing for a left turn.
3. To pass a slower vehicle or bicycle
4. To avoid road hazards
5. When approaching a place where a right turn is permitted.

If your state doesn't do this, you should ask for some legislation
to fix the problem.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Aug 4, 2:40 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> [email protected] (Tom Keats) writes:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] writes:

>
> > > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
> > > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.

>
> > So why do you encourage him?

>
> Krygowski has been on my case for decades for not agreeing with
> his idiotic position on bicycle helmets (he objects to my opinion
> that wearing one is a reaonable choice one might make). He's been
> on a vendetta ever since.


Hmm. Another case of dredging up a past argument, stating the
opponent's viewpoint in a biased manner, and using that as a supposed
"proof."

That tactic is so common with Bill Zaumen, I propose we label it a
"Zaumenism."

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] writes:

> On Aug 4, 2:40 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > [email protected] (Tom Keats) writes:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] writes:

> >
> > > > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
> > > > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.

> >
> > > So why do you encourage him?

> >
> > Krygowski has been on my case for decades for not agreeing with
> > his idiotic position on bicycle helmets (he objects to my opinion
> > that wearing one is a reaonable choice one might make). He's been
> > on a vendetta ever since.

>
> Hmm. Another case of dredging up a past argument, stating the
> opponent's viewpoint in a biased manner, and using that as a supposed
> "proof."


No, simply that your history of a decades long grudge is highly
relevant in evaluating what you posts, particularly given your
Karl Rove wannabe behavior. Face is Krygowski, you are one of
the most dishonest posters on this newsgroup. You have in fact
had a decades long grudge and that is highly relevant to what
you are posting now.

Even in the current thread, what you had was a heap of abusive
posts from Wayne Pein, with lots of name calling, and then
Krygowski blames me when I called him on it. It's the same
pattern as on other discussions - it is OK for Krygowski's
"friends" to heap abuse on others, but not OK for the targets
of their abuse to even peep in response.

> That tactic is so common with Bill Zaumen, I propose we label it a

<SNIP>

the big lie technique - mindless repetition as an attempt at
character assassination - is Krygwoski's normal modus operandi.
As I recall, others have pointed that out as well.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Aug 4, 2:26 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
> >

>
> > Let's look at the conclusion of the paper:

>
> > "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur
> > greater risk than those on the roadway (on average
> > 1.8 times as great), most likely because of
> > blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way
> > sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and
> > sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence
> > of wrong-way travel."

>
> Krygowski, you are an idiot - that factor of 1.8 includes cyclists
> riding in both directions and the ones going in the opposite direction
> as traffic have an elevated risk of significantly above 1.8. Furthermore,
> the factor of 1.8 understates the risk - it is actually over a factor
> of 2. The paper clearly states that wrong-way riding is far more
> prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent roadway, and that is where
> people are getting into trouble.


As the paper says, "Table 5 demonstrates that sidewalks or paths
adjacent to a roadway are ... much less safe." Yes, wrong-way riding
is more likely on sidewalks. But that's not the only hazard. You
seem to be pretending that other sidewalk-cycling hazards are
negligible. They are not, and your misinformation endangers people
who don't know better - people like "Donquijote," for example.

>
> > And you probably know about the Canadian study that found sidewalk
> > cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't
> > think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away.

>
> There was no "cherry picking" - that is simply one of your lies. If
> they got a factor of 13, you'll find that wrong-way riding was a
> significant contributing factor to it.


But NOT the only contributing factor!

Sidewalk cycling IS more dangerous than roadway cycling. Pretending
that people will do it only in one direction is specious, and
pretending they won't be at risk if they do is worse.

Note, I'm not saying that nobody should ever ride on a sidewalk.
There are times and places where it may make sense, and there are
times and places where it can be done safely. But whitewashing the
situation, pretending all the risk comes from riding the wrong-way,
ignores the real dangers: cars cutting across sidewalks at driveways
and parking lots, numerous blind spots, sidewalk edges that trap
wheels, pedestrians & joggers & dogs with their random movements, sub-
standard or dangerous pavement, interactions with surprised motorists
when the cyclist crosses a road, etc.

If a cyclist plans to use a sidewalk, even for fifty feet, they need
to be aware of all of those things, and be on high alert. But the
common thinking is "I'm just on the sidewalk; I'm safe." That's a
delusion, and your posts purposely contribute toward that delusion.

Fact is, you're so intent on gaining imaginary "arguing" points that
you're willing to distort facts, spread misinformation, and endanger
novices who read your posts. Those novices need to be warned against
you.

- Frank Krygowski
 

Similar threads

T
Replies
66
Views
2K
D
T
Replies
67
Views
1K
D