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

[Resound]

"dewatf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

And you know how valuable quality sitting-at-the-red-light time is...

 

[dewatf]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:19:50 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Actually, it's difficult to merge because (1) drivers don't look far
>enough ahead to spot that there is a slower moving vehicle to overtake
>and therefore don't overtake until after they've had to slow down, and
>(2) drivers don't allow sufficient following distance making it
>difficult to find a "gap".

It is difficult to merge
1) Because if you are travelling slower you need more room and time to
do so
2) Peak-hour Sydney drivers don't leave adequate stopping distance
(and if you try to someone just cuts into it).
3) Peak-hour Sydney drivers speed up if you try to merge infront of
them.

You can look ahead all you want, doesn't help you if there is a car in
the right hand land.

When there is less traffic, it is much easier to merge and go around a
slow moving cylist.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:21:55 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Buses and trains are public transport. A bike is personal transport,
>like a car.

So what, we are talking about modes of travelling.

>So what was your point? Oh, one type of personal transport
>should be eradicated and those road users should be forced onto buses.
>Okay, I'll go with that, let's choose car users.

No that the amount of pollution save by a cyclist is dependant on what
alternative they would use.

The assumption by the cycling lobby is that they are always going to
use car, not always the case.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:31:50 +1100, "Bob"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"dewatf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Then it is an empirical question of what pollution is saved by them
>> cylcing (which is small if they were catching public transport) and
>> what is saved or increased by the effects on other traffic.
>>
>
>Whichever way you argue it, a cyclist could only ever make an incremental
>difference to the pollution of fellow road users. Therefore cyclists reduce
>total pollution against the other option: driving.

A cyclist yes.

Thousands of cylists are quite capable of causing large differences to
pollution of fellow road users, other wise what the is point of a
critical mass demo?

dewatf.

 

[Bob]

"dewatf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:21:55 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Buses and trains are public transport. A bike is personal transport,
>>like a car.
>
> So what, we are talking about modes of travelling.
>
>>So what was your point? Oh, one type of personal transport
>>should be eradicated and those road users should be forced onto buses.
>>Okay, I'll go with that, let's choose car users.
>
> No that the amount of pollution save by a cyclist is dependant on what
> alternative they would use.
>
> The assumption by the cycling lobby is that they are always going to
> use car, not always the case.
>
> dewatf.
>

but completely relevant for a comparison of car and bicycle transport

 

[Bob]

"dewatf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:21:55 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Buses and trains are public transport. A bike is personal transport,
>>like a car.
>
> So what, we are talking about modes of travelling.
>
>>So what was your point? Oh, one type of personal transport
>>should be eradicated and those road users should be forced onto buses.
>>Okay, I'll go with that, let's choose car users.
>
> No that the amount of pollution save by a cyclist is dependant on what
> alternative they would use.
>
> The assumption by the cycling lobby is that they are always going to
> use car, not always the case.
>
> dewatf.
>

but completely relevant for a comparison of car and bicycle transport

 

[Bob]

"dewatf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:21:55 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Buses and trains are public transport. A bike is personal transport,
>>like a car.
>
> So what, we are talking about modes of travelling.
>
>>So what was your point? Oh, one type of personal transport
>>should be eradicated and those road users should be forced onto buses.
>>Okay, I'll go with that, let's choose car users.
>
> No that the amount of pollution save by a cyclist is dependant on what
> alternative they would use.
>
> The assumption by the cycling lobby is that they are always going to
> use car, not always the case.
>
> dewatf.
>

but completely relevant for a comparison of car and bicycle transport

 

[Terry Collins]

dewatf wrote:

>
> A cyclist yes.
>
> Thousands of cylists are quite capable of causing large differences to
> pollution of fellow road users, other wise what the is point of a
> critical mass demo?

That is the whole point that Critical Mass is really making. Driving a
car in peak hour is so slow, that you might as well be riding a bicycle.

If you think it inconveniences you, you really are not looking at all
the other inconveniences that you are having on your journey home.

 

[dewatf]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:52:22 +1100, Terry Collins
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That is the whole point that Critical Mass is really making. Driving a
>car in peak hour is so slow, that you might as well be riding a bicycle.

Rubbish.

The point critical mass is actually making is that cyclists can make
driving even slower. It only serves to **** of motorists, fuels anger
against cyclists and undermines what bicycle user groups are acheiving
by working with government and the community.

>If you think it inconveniences you, you really are not looking at all
>the other inconveniences that you are having on your journey home.

Yes transport is pretty stuffed in Sydney. By having a few cyclists
obstruct you further isn't an improvement in them is it.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 20:36:54 +1100, "Bob"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>but completely relevant for a comparison of car and bicycle transport

The issue is traffic and commuting. Of which public transport is
involved too.

And the idea that cyclists should ride on busy arterial roads with
60-80km speed limits isn't going to change that.

dewatf.

 

[Tamyka Bell]

dewatf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:19:50 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually, it's difficult to merge because (1) drivers don't look far
> >enough ahead to spot that there is a slower moving vehicle to overtake
> >and therefore don't overtake until after they've had to slow down, and
> >(2) drivers don't allow sufficient following distance making it
> >difficult to find a "gap".
>
> It is difficult to merge
> 1) Because if you are travelling slower you need more room and time to
> do so
> 2) Peak-hour Sydney drivers don't leave adequate stopping distance
> (and if you try to someone just cuts into it).
> 3) Peak-hour Sydney drivers speed up if you try to merge infront of
> them.
>
> You can look ahead all you want, doesn't help you if there is a car in
> the right hand land.
>
> When there is less traffic, it is much easier to merge and go around a
> slow moving cylist.
>
> dewatf.

So what you are saying, effectively, is that Sydney drivers need
re-education?

Interesting.

Tamyka

 

[Tamyka Bell]

dewatf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:21:55 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Buses and trains are public transport. A bike is personal transport,
> >like a car.
>
> So what, we are talking about modes of travelling.
>
> >So what was your point? Oh, one type of personal transport
> >should be eradicated and those road users should be forced onto buses.
> >Okay, I'll go with that, let's choose car users.
>
> No that the amount of pollution save by a cyclist is dependant on what
> alternative they would use.
>
> The assumption by the cycling lobby is that they are always going to
> use car, not always the case.
>
> dewatf.

The assumption by the car lobby is that they are otherwise going to use
public transport. Not always the case.

Maybe we should all get fixies, as we seem to be very good at moving
backwards in circles.

Tam

 

[Terry Collins]

dewatf wrote:

> Rubbish.

Oh look, the blind troll is back.

 

[Terry Collins]

dewatf wrote:

> And the idea that cyclists should ride on busy arterial roads with
> 60-80km speed limits isn't going to change that.

hahahaha you took that bait sucker.
NRMA says average speed is 30kmph anyway.

 

[dewatf]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:06:29 +1100, Random Data
<[email protected]> wrote:

>********. 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.

The Pacific Highway around Turrumurra was 3 lanes of traffic flowing
at 60+km/h this morning between 8 and 9am this morning when I was up
there. A cyclist in the left had land would have slowed up the traffic
and cause the traffic in the left lane to merge into the right lanes
slowing down all the traffic.

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

>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.

Yes, but that's because you have to drive around the Upper Lane Cove
valley where as you can cycle straight across the valley on the
cycleway (which was a loverly ride this morning. North Epping to South
Turrumurra is 20 minutes at midnight even speeding a bit where I can
walk it in that time)

>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.

No it's not. There is bottle neck at Epping but once you get through
that the traffic flows pretty fast till Ryde Rd, then flows again till
you stop as you approach Lane Cove. Heading West it is a bit better.

You are perfectly entitled to ride on the roads, following the roads
laws. Again who has said otherwise?

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:21:49 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

But slow vechiles don't have a right to obstruct other vehicles
either. Vehicles travelling slower than the speed limit are expected
to show consideration for faster traffic. Nor are slower vechile
permitted to merge forcing faster traffic to brake or take evasive
action.

If you are driving at 30km/h along a 60km/h road in good conditions
without good reason the police can fine you or even charge you if they
consider it dangerous.

Cyclists are also required by law to use cycle lanes when they are
provided, to use cycle paths when directed by All Cycles signs, and to
obey no bicycle signs.

These are just the road rules.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:26:54 +1100, Terry Collins
<[email protected]> wrote:

>dewatf wrote:
>
>> And the idea that cyclists should ride on busy arterial roads with
>> 60-80km speed limits isn't going to change that.
>
>hahahaha you took that bait sucker.
>NRMA says average speed is 30kmph anyway.

Yep. But as I stated in many cases that average speed is produced from
average periods of 70km/h with periods of 0km/h. A slow cylist
reducing the 70km/h to 10km/h would thus could still
have significant effect slowing down traffic.

dewatf.

 

[TimC]

On 2005-12-09, dewatf (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Nor are slower vechile
> permitted to merge forcing faster traffic to brake or take evasive
> action.

What do the unified Australian road rules say about zipper merging
again? I thought cars were legally required to let traffic waiting to
merge, to merge, even if that means slowing down.

> If you are driving at 30km/h along a 60km/h road in good conditions
> without good reason the police can fine you or even charge you if they
> consider it dangerous.

If you have no reason. Riding a bike as fast as you can is sufficient
reason for going slow.

> Cyclists are also required by law to use cycle lanes when they are
> provided, to use cycle paths when directed by All Cycles signs, and to
^^^^^^^^^^^

cite?

> obey no bicycle signs.


--
TimC
E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (dewatf) wrote:

> But slow vechiles don't have a right to obstruct other vehicles
> either. Vehicles travelling slower than the speed limit are expected
> to show consideration for faster traffic. Nor are slower vechile
> permitted to merge forcing faster traffic to brake or take evasive
> action.
>
> If you are driving at 30km/h along a 60km/h road in good conditions
> without good reason the police can fine you or even charge you if they
> consider it dangerous.

I assume the law is similar in NSW to that in Victoria:

125. Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver
or a pedestrian.
[...]
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of
another driver or a pedestrian only because‹
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles (unless the
driver is driving abnormally slowly in the circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of
road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there
is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Tamyka Bell]

dewatf wrote:
>
> Yep. But as I stated in many cases that average speed is produced from
> average periods of 70km/h with periods of 0km/h. A slow cylist
> reducing the 70km/h to 10km/h would thus could still
> have significant effect slowing down traffic.
>
> dewatf.

Periods of 70km/h, and periods of 0km/h... in order for this to average
out to 30km/h, that 70km/h period would have to be less than 26 min in
every hour.

That just goes to show that the "stop-start" problem, which was previous
blamed (no names here...) for car inefficiency, is pretty huge without
even factoring in the evil, delaying cyclists.

Tam