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



Euan said:
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.


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"
<[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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.


********. 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 | [email protected]
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:58:11 +1100, "Bob"
> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 | ~ (*)/ (*)
 
--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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
 
John Stevenson said:
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.


Arrgggg - you're not going over to the funny pages, aka The Daily Terror? Surely not! :D
 
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...ont-give-a-hoot/2005/10/21/1129775959923.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 | [email protected]
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! :D


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 | [email protected]
I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory
 
--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Fractal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "dewatf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:58:11 +1100, "Bob"
> > <[email protected]> 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 **** gets further
into your lungs. Weird, since my lungs seem to work better after riding to
work.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
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 **** 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.
 
dewatf said:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:58:11 +1100, "Bob"
<[email protected]> 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.
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 ;-)