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

[Marx SS]

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.

 

[Bleve]

Euan wrote:
> >>>>> "Parbs" == Parbs <[email protected]> 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!

 

[artemidorus]

I didn’t think there had been enough cyclists in Sydney at the moment to make that much of a difference.

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.

Don’t cyclists who commute mostly ride single file on the far left had side of the road?

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.

 

[artemidorus]

and to debunk yet another of his deluded misconceptions that cyclists are suckin more fumes than the him the motorist...

http://www.bv.com.au/inform.php?a=6&b=31&c=1015

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.

 

[Gemma_k]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> 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!

 

[dewatf]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:26:36 +1030, "Gemma_k"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Put a comma inbwteen the 'no' and the rest and you might be able to
>understand it.

Yep. I missed the comma, sorry.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:37:19 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

That depends on whether the traffic is travelling at 20km or not.

Most of the time when driving on arterial roads in Sydney in peak hour
I find that I may only average 20km/h but am not travelling at 20km/h.

Spend a lot of time doing less at bottle necks then driving at 70 or
80km in clear stretchs which averages out to 20kms. And a cyclist
slowing the traffic down to 20km (or less on hills) results in you
getting stuck behind them on the fast bits, and you can't merge out
because there is a stream of traffic on your right travelling at high
speed. The same things happens with buses and trucks, but cyclists
cause it too.

And just because the cylist can catch up at the next set of lights
doesn't mean they didn't slow cars down till they got round them,
ensuring that they did get stuck for 3 or more minutes at the lights.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:34:00 +0800, "Plodder"
<[email protected] (remove DAKS to reply)> wrote:

>
>
>--
>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.

Exactly. (If you know Duffy you know he is against over regulation).

His major point was that instead of advertising to encourage cycling
on arterial roads in peak hour, which is of questionable benefit, it
would be better for drivers if advertisments discouraged it.

The other point is NSW ALP government forcing toll companies to build
unneeded cycling infrastructure in the Westrern Suburbs and hiding the
costs in motorists tolls.

dewatf.

 

[PiledHigher]

Exactly. (If you know Duffy you know he is against over regulation).

His major point was that instead of advertising to encourage cycling
on arterial roads in peak hour, which is of questionable benefit, it
would be better for drivers if advertisments discouraged it.

The other point is NSW ALP government forcing toll companies to build
unneeded cycling infrastructure in the Westrern Suburbs and hiding the
costs in motorists tolls.

dewatf.

Don't forget that in most cases the companies taht are building toll roads are getting significant tax breaks and subsidies to build infrastructure (and they accept the requirements to build the mixed use path next to them as part of this deal). In effect the toll road is significantly subsidised before it is built by tax dollars.

Last I heard it was something like $3million a kilometre of tollway and 100k a kilometre of bike path. So the effect of the bike path on the motorist is in minimal compared with the massive subsidy of these projects by the government.

 

[ritcho]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:37:19 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

That depends on whether the traffic is travelling at 20km or not.

Most of the time when driving on arterial roads in Sydney in peak hour
I find that I may only average 20km/h but am not travelling at 20km/h.

Spend a lot of time doing less at bottle necks then driving at 70 or
80km in clear stretchs which averages out to 20kms. And a cyclist
slowing the traffic down to 20km (or less on hills) results in you
getting stuck behind them on the fast bits, and you can't merge out
because there is a stream of traffic on your right travelling at high
speed. The same things happens with buses and trucks, but cyclists
cause it too.

And just because the cylist can catch up at the next set of lights
doesn't mean they didn't slow cars down till they got round them,
ensuring that they did get stuck for 3 or more minutes at the lights.

dewatf.

I must confess that I have occassionally driven at peak hour in Sydney and could probably count on my hand the number of times I've been unreasonably delayed by a cyclist. Otoh, the enormous number of cars has delayed me many times...

I also agree that it is extremely frustrating to be overtaken and then blocked by a vehicle that can't go anywhere itself. This morning the smarty in the V8 roared past only to stop (almost) in the boot of the last car in the stationary line of traffic. Silly boy - this is peak hour - you know you won't be moving for a long time... filter through, take off down the shared path. He was going the same way as me, but we never saw each other again. He probably got into the CBD a good 15 minutes after me ha ha ha!

Ritch

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "dewatf" == dewatf <[email protected]> writes:

dewatf> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:37:19 GMT, Euan
dewatf> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

dewatf> That depends on whether the traffic is travelling at 20km or
dewatf> not.

dewatf> Most of the time when driving on arterial roads in Sydney in
dewatf> peak hour I find that I may only average 20km/h but am not
dewatf> travelling at 20km/h.

dewatf> Spend a lot of time doing less at bottle necks then driving
dewatf> at 70 or 80km in clear stretchs which averages out to
dewatf> 20kms. And a cyclist slowing the traffic down to 20km (or
dewatf> less on hills) results in you getting stuck behind them on
dewatf> the fast bits, and you can't merge out because there is a
dewatf> stream of traffic on your right travelling at high
dewatf> speed. The same things happens with buses and trucks, but
dewatf> cyclists cause it too.

So ban busses and trucks from the road? What's good for the goose is
good for the gander.

You seem rather fixated on how motorists are `inconvenienced' by
bicycles. Newsflash: roads aren't built for cars, they're built for
road going vehicles. Busses are road going vehicles, cars are road
going vehicles, trucks are road going vehicles and funnily enough so are
bikes. It's a speed LIMIT, not a speed maximum. No one vehicle has a
right to get past the vehicle in front of him, although I've yet to come
across a car, truck or bus that can't get past me in less than 60
seconds.

All this talk about cyclists causing more pollution is codswollop. It's
the cars that are producing the pollution, if Mr I'm Too Important To
Ride rode a bike for the 10kms then there's a truck load of pollution
saved right there.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Terry Collins]

sinus wrote:

> 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 ;-)

And in factors that cause this fuel inefficency, bicycle must rank
almost down with ducks crossing the road.

Now, if peeps really wanted to drive fuel efficent cars, then their
internal combustion engine would run at constant revs driving a
generator into a battery pack that was used to drive electric drive motors.

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2005-12-05, Terry Collins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now, if peeps really wanted to drive fuel efficent cars, then their
> internal combustion engine would run at constant revs driving a
> generator into a battery pack that was used to drive electric drive motors.

Or they'd be running a fuel cell to generate the electricity -- more
efficient than an infernal combustion engine. Mind you, most fuel cell
work has been focused mainly on high hydrogen fuels; I don't know how
well they'd cope with longer carbon chains.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[sinus]

I must confess that I have occassionally driven at peak hour in Sydney and could probably count on my hand the number of times I've been unreasonably delayed by a cyclist. Otoh, the enormous number of cars has delayed me many times...

I do the same in Melbourne. The general pattern is that any cyclists I pass before I reach Camberwell junction may pass me a few times but invariably end up ahead of me, and never to be seen again, through Richmond. The net impact on my trip is nothing, even though I may have to slow down or change lanes. I still end up behind the same cars.

As the bikes shoot past I feel envy and wish I were riding. I guess other motorists who don't cycle also feel envy, but don't see any positives so they complain. What a sad little world they live in.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Terry Collins wrote:

> Now, if peeps really wanted to drive fuel efficent cars, then their
> internal combustion engine would run at constant revs driving a
> generator into a battery pack that was used to drive electric drive
> motors.

Most of the alleged efficiency gained is lost in the transition of power
from one kind to the other and in lugging around the extra weight of the
batteries.
eg, a Toyota Prius is only 15% more fuel efficient than a Camry saving
around 200 litres or $250 per year, for an additional outlay of an extra
$20,000. Obviously only purchased by mathematically challenged people.
OTOH, a VW Golf diesel will save you $350 per year, using only 60% of the
fuel the Prius uses for a comparable outlay to the Camry.

Theo

 

[Resound]

"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Terry Collins wrote:
>
>> Now, if peeps really wanted to drive fuel efficent cars, then their
>> internal combustion engine would run at constant revs driving a
>> generator into a battery pack that was used to drive electric drive
>> motors.
>
> Most of the alleged efficiency gained is lost in the transition of power
> from one kind to the other and in lugging around the extra weight of the
> batteries.
> eg, a Toyota Prius is only 15% more fuel efficient than a Camry saving
> around 200 litres or $250 per year, for an additional outlay of an extra
> $20,000. Obviously only purchased by mathematically challenged people.
> OTOH, a VW Golf diesel will save you $350 per year, using only 60% of the
> fuel the Prius uses for a comparable outlay to the Camry.
>
> Theo
>

I've been waiting some time to see if someone puts it all together and
produces a diesel/electric hybrid. I'm guessing that the degree to which the
Prius is more or less efficient than a comparable conventional car is going
to be greatly influenced by the type of driving you do. Odds on it kills the
Camry for fuel usage in stop/start traffic.

 

[Resound]

"Gemma_k" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Terry Collins" <[email protected]> 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!
>
>

I seem to recall reading somewhere that while diesels produce more visible
particulates, they actually produce fewer sub-micron sized particulates
which are not visible but which are far better at embedding themselves into
lung tissue and causing problems. This could be utter bollocks and I can't
remember where I saw it but it's an interesting thought.

 

[artemidorus]

Odds on it kills the
Camry for fuel usage in stop/start traffic.

But that is the condition under which the heavy battery would be most disadvantageous. Isn't the problem the lack of a low-mass means of storing electrical energy?

 

[artemidorus]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that while diesels produce more visible
particulates, they actually produce fewer sub-micron sized particulates
which are not visible but which are far better at embedding themselves into
lung tissue and causing problems. This could be utter bollocks and I can't
remember where I saw it but it's an interesting thought.

I've heard and read the same thing many times. Probably true .

 

[Bleve]

Resound wrote:

> I've been waiting some time to see if someone puts it all together and
> produces a diesel/electric hybrid.


It's called a train