quick everybody burn your helmets...

cline said:

Correction:

Not only have I made a practice of riding at about that distance
during years of commuting and other road cycling, I just passed three
bicyclists on the road and all of them were well outside of the line
painted on the road. That line was approximately 1/2 meter from the
edge of the pavement (i.e. they were about 1/3 meter from the edge).

Exactly - so your experiences are not rele#vant to teh research.
1/3 metre from teh kerb puts you pretty much exactly on the line in
the jurisdiction to which the research applies.

Riding along teh thermoplastic surface is dangerous.

With respect to your other point, no, hopping every grating and any
debris is not a safe way to ride in traffic. I doubt you can find any
official publication that recommends hopping obstacles as the
recommended technique when riding on the road.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

How do you know teh methodology was flawed? Have you read the paper?

Methodology? ONE RIDER

And no I have not read "the paper", I’ve read words on my monitor
regarding this research (sic), at least as much as you and I’m not
going on and on asking if people have read "the paper" if they happen
not to have your view on "the paper" you haven't read.

Ian Smith said:

Do tiny trivial things like accuracy and truth not matter to you?

So you consider accuracy and truth to be tiny and trivial? How
interesting.

Oh and your T's and H's are slipping

--
Irideononetoo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irideononetoo's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/13461
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/53205

You all realise that while you might all have valid opinions about this
research, and are all making good points, the bit that stands out is
the quite frequent bits where you're sounding like small children?*
Would some handbags help at this point?

*Or, even worse, politicians.

--
johnhimsworth

Never argue with an idiot; they drag you down to their level and then
beat you with experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnhimsworth's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1788
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/53205

If anyone has had a fall and bashed their skull into the road whilst
wearing a helmet, you will most likely continue to wear them no matter
what some research says.... Also, people who are anti-helmet will just
keep on doing whatever they want until they bash their skull into the
road and then don't ever move again. lol

--
fordfasterr

velocide.com🙂
Fav Quotes:
A. {Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small
minds discuss people.}
B. {The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.}
AIM SN: FordFasteR - 2005 Kawasaki Ninja 636R carfree.com whyquit.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fordfasterr's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/11890
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/53205

Irideononetoo said:

Ian Smith said:

Do tiny trivial things like accuracy and truth not matter to you?

So you consider accuracy and truth to be tiny and trivial? How
interesting.

Those were your words. You chose them.

Specifically, I was most recently debating application of infinite
distributions. My argument was mathematically accurate and true.
You chose to characterise that as a tiny trivial issue, not me.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

NO...

you sound like a small child, and you have big ears... and no!!
handbags would not help...

no no no no no no no no....

can i have some jelly please

(jello for our USA friends oh and GELLOHW for Gild or however he would
spell it)

johnhimsworth said:

You all realise that while you might all have valid opinions about this
research, and are all making good points, the bit that stands out is
the quite frequent bits where you're sounding like small children?*
Would some handbags help at this point?

*Or, even worse, politicians.

--
johnhimsworth

Never argue with an idiot; they drag you down to their level and then
beat you with experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnhimsworth's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1788
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/53205

cline said:

Still, I used to ride every day in all weather on narrow streets with
heavy traffic in a city that was decidedly not bicycle friendly. The
proper approach to road debris and gratings in those circumstances was
to hop over them, not veer into traffic or hog the lane.

I totally disagree. Bikes have the right to use the road, and *using*
(not "hogging"😉 the lane requires being far enough out that you don't
need to hop over obstacles. (What percentage of bicyclists could
reliably and safely hop over a sewer grate? For that matter, what
percentage of unicyclists? Even fewer.)

If the lane is too narrow for a cyclist and a car to proceed safely
side-by-side, the overtaking vehicle (whether it be cyclist or car)
simply needs to wait for an opportunity to pass. Again, that's not
hogging the road, it's using the road.

--
tholub
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tholub's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/804
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/53205

tholub said:

I totally disagree. Bikes have the right to use the road, and *using*
(not "hogging"😉 the lane requires being far enough out that you don't
need to hop over obstacles. (What percentage of bicyclists could
reliably and safely hop over a sewer grate? For that matter, what
percentage of unicyclists? Even fewer.)

That's a nice theory. But over the course of years of commuting in
Pittsburgh, I never saw a cyclist take up the lane on the roads I was
thinking of. At least not during rush hour. With only one lane in
each direction and no passing opportunities, doing so would have
seriously aggrevated the already choked rush-hour traffic flow.

Having witnessed unprovoked violence against cyclists in that city,
acting as a one-man Critical Mass event seems downright stupid.

Quoted message said:

If the lane is too narrow for a cyclist and a car to proceed safely
side-by-side, the overtaking vehicle (whether it be cyclist or car)
simply needs to wait for an opportunity to pass. Again, that's not
hogging the road, it's using the road.

There were no opportunities for cars to pass on the roads I am
thinking of. At least not during rush hour.

Even so, sharing lanes by riding close to the curb and hopping the
occasional grate was a very pleasant experience compared to being
caught in the stop and go traffic the drivers had to cope with.

cline said:

tholub said:

I totally disagree. Bikes have the right to use the road, and

*using*

Quoted message said:

(not "hogging"😉 the lane requires being far enough out that you

don't

Quoted message said:

need to hop over obstacles. (What percentage of bicyclists could
reliably and safely hop over a sewer grate? For that matter, what
percentage of unicyclists? Even fewer.)

That's a nice theory. But over the course of years of commuting in
Pittsburgh, I never saw a cyclist take up the lane on the roads I was
thinking of. At least not during rush hour. With only one lane in
each direction and no passing opportunities, doing so would have
seriously aggrevated the already choked rush-hour traffic flow.

Having witnessed unprovoked violence against cyclists in that city,
acting as a one-man Critical Mass event seems downright stupid.

Quoted message said:

If the lane is too narrow for a cyclist and a car to proceed safely
side-by-side, the overtaking vehicle (whether it be cyclist or car)
simply needs to wait for an opportunity to pass. Again, that's not
hogging the road, it's using the road.

There were no opportunities for cars to pass on the roads I am
thinking of. At least not during rush hour.

Even so, sharing lanes by riding close to the curb and hopping the
occasional grate was a very pleasant experience compared to being
caught in the stop and go traffic the drivers had to cope with.

Bikes don't aggravate traffic-flow problems. Every person who bikes
(or unicycles) instead of driving takes up less space and causes less
delay for others on the road. Any momentary delay required to get
around a bike will be more than repaid at the next stop light, when the
driver would otherwise *still* be behind the other person, if the other
person had taken a car.

--
tholub
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tholub's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/804
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/53205

tholub said:

Bikes don't aggravate traffic-flow problems. Every person who bikes
(or unicycles) instead of driving takes up less space and causes less
delay for others on the road. Any momentary delay required to get
around a bike will be more than repaid at the next stop light, when the
driver would otherwise *still* be behind the other person, if the other
person had taken a car.

Sorry, I must not have made the conditions of my commute clear.

Passing was simply not feasible if the cyclist rode in the center of
the lane. Heavy traffic and only one lane in each direction all but
absolutely prevented that possibility.

Taking up the lan as a cyclist would have had a significant effect on
traffic flow since I could not ride as fast as the cars could go
during the rush to make it through each green light. I would have
held up a long line of cars wishing to make it through the light, then
sit in front of them as they watch the positions they would have
otherwise been driving fill up with cars turning from the crossing
street. Although I value cycling and believe, strongly, that bikes
have a right to use the roads, I think it is wrong to aggevate drivers
when there are alternatives.

Actually, taking up the whole the lane would have been slower for the
bicyclist as well. As the cars slowed to stop at traffic lights, I
would pass them riding on the edge of the road, so that my commute
took only slightly longer than driving (less if you count parking).

Honestly, in this circumstance it would have been better to ride on
the sidewalk, stopping at each intersection to walk through the
crosswalk. There really is a reason I never saw a cyclist following
the advice you are offering. Certainly, we did take up lanes in other
conditions.

Ken

cline said:

tholub said:

Bikes don't aggravate traffic-flow problems. Every person who bikes
(or unicycles) instead of driving takes up less space and causes

less

Quoted message said:

delay for others on the road. Any momentary delay required to get
around a bike will be more than repaid at the next stop light, when

the

Quoted message said:

driver would otherwise *still* be behind the other person, if the

other

Quoted message said:

person had taken a car.

Sorry, I must not have made the conditions of my commute clear.

Passing was simply not feasible if the cyclist rode in the center of
the lane. Heavy traffic and only one lane in each direction all but
absolutely prevented that possibility.

Taking up the lan as a cyclist would have had a significant effect on
traffic flow since I could not ride as fast as the cars could go
during the rush to make it through each green light. I would have
held up a long line of cars wishing to make it through the light, then
sit in front of them as they watch the positions they would have
otherwise been driving fill up with cars turning from the crossing
street. Although I value cycling and believe, strongly, that bikes
have a right to use the roads, I think it is wrong to aggevate drivers
when there are alternatives.

Actually, taking up the whole the lane would have been slower for the
bicyclist as well. As the cars slowed to stop at traffic lights, I
would pass them riding on the edge of the road, so that my commute
took only slightly longer than driving (less if you count parking).

Honestly, in this circumstance it would have been better to ride on
the sidewalk, stopping at each intersection to walk through the
crosswalk. There really is a reason I never saw a cyclist following
the advice you are offering. Certainly, we did take up lanes in other
conditions.

Ken

You note above that you really aren't delaying drivers; they're still
delaying each other, just in a different order.

I still think it is foolish in the extreme to recommend riding in the
gutter and hopping sewer grates as a regular commute option. Who here
can reliably rolling hop a two foot wide sewer grate, at speed on a
commuter unicycle (29er or Coker), when riding .25 meters from the
curb, with heavy traffic passing within a meter on your left? The
suggestion is beyond foolish, it's insane.

--
tholub
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tholub's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/804
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/53205

tholub said:

cline wrote:

I still think it is foolish in the extreme to recommend riding in the
gutter and hopping sewer grates as a regular commute option. Who here
can reliably rolling hop a two foot wide sewer grate, at speed on a
commuter unicycle (29er or Coker), when riding .25 meters from the
curb, with heavy traffic passing within a meter on your left? The
suggestion is beyond foolish, it's insane.

We agree. Unicycles don't belong on that road. At least not during
rush-hour. They should ride on the sidewalk and be VERY CAREFUL,
acting like pedestrians, when crossing streets.

Danny Colyer said:

It was suggested on uk.rec.cycling that he may have been taking care not
to deviate from his course when cars passed too close, as to do so would
affect his measurements.

There's an interesting interview with Dr Ian Walker at
http://www.crankk.com/blog/archives/61 . The above suggestion was
correct.

--
Danny Colyer

http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/
Subscribe to PlusNet http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Colyer's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/11637
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/53205

No, I will NOT burn my helmet.
It saved me from a concusion after a fall from 10 pallets onto an
upside down pallet.I got a cool tatoe on my ribs for a week but my head
was ok, eventhought I hit it on that pallet.

PM

--
Probailer2

john_childs said:

Mmmmm... Sexy welds.

musketman said:

Kris Holm owns death

abbabibble said:

cody bent his koxx.

he was working it pretty hard.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probailer2's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/11034
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/53205