The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone



M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>If you don't like the way I use the right lane, pass me in the left.

>>
>>
>> The left lane is for traffic coming the other way.

>
>Obviously there is a lot of motorist-motorist passing on 2 lane roads.


Not really. Most of them around here are no-passing for most areas,
and there's plenty of traffic coming the other way.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be
>>>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?
>>>>
>>>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be
>>>> it through private insurance or government are used to distribute
>>>> costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking
>>>> power.
>>>
>>> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing
>>> to let others pay for your care.

>>
>> I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both
>> insurance and taxes.

>
>But you won't refuse treatment if you can't afford it.


Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must
a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is it
refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special danger
which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all other
forms of risk?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:

>
>>> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) --
>>> numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES
>>> SUCK (cuz they don't).

>
>> But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't
>> pro taking the lane 100% of the time.

>
> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when there's a
> NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often dangerous to do
> so.


Nice beautiful bike lane? The best bike lanes anywhere I've ridden have
been about 3-4 feet wide where the right edge is under the tires of
parked cars. You know what that's called, correct? The door zone. What is
the place bicyclists are told time and time again _NOT_ to ride? The door
zone. Thanks for playing.

BTW, I don't take the lane in such conditions, I just ride exactly where
I used to ride those roads before king daley the second had the lines
painted. Of course I rode such roads like that for years without problems
before the lines got painted but now some motorists get their panties in
a bunch because I am not using the 'bike space' or I'm on the left line
of the bike lane. It was never a problem before the bike lane zealots got
king daley on their side and had the door zone made into a bicycling ghetto.

> Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a clue.


Guys like me? You mean someone who takes the lane less often than you do,
as you admitted just a post or so ago?

Actually it's your kind that will get bikes limited to roads with a
designated bicycle ghetto and not allowed to leave it.
 
On Aug 24, 1:28 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> >
> > Just delete the reasons why bicycle lanes suck

>
> Bzzt. ALL bike lanes? Most are perfectly fine and hugely beneficial; a
> very few are substandard and even rarely unsafe.


Would you please explain why you think bike lanes are "hugely
beneficial" compared to the same amount of pavement without the bike
lane stripe?

The stripe doesn't generate any extra room. The pavement is either
there or it's not. IME, if a lane is wide enough to consider
"partitioning" a few feet as a bike lane, it's already fine for
cycling. Cars pass easily with plenty of room, which is all the
cyclist and the motorist need.

All the stripe accomplishes is to give a place for broken glass,
gravel, and other trash to sit. It also fools some cyclists into
riding in the door zone, which is unsafe. And it fools some motorists
and cyclists into thinking cyclists must never leave that lane, even
for left turns, or to avoid right-turn-only lanes.

So, what is "hugely beneficial" about that stripe? It's never done me
any good that I could tell.

- Frank Krygowski
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:

>>
>>>> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more)
>>>> -- numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES
>>>> SUCK (cuz they don't).

>>
>>> But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't
>>> pro taking the lane 100% of the time.

>>
>> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when
>> there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often
>> dangerous to do so.

>
> Nice beautiful bike lane? The best bike lanes anywhere I've ridden
> have been about 3-4 feet wide where the right edge is under the tires
> of
> parked cars.


You really should move.

> You know what that's called, correct? The door zone.
> What is the place bicyclists are told time and time again _NOT_ to
> ride? The door zone. Thanks for playing.
>
> BTW, I don't take the lane in such conditions, I just ride exactly
> where
> I used to ride those roads before king daley the second had the lines
> painted. Of course I rode such roads like that for years without
> problems before the lines got painted but now some motorists get
> their panties in
> a bunch because I am not using the 'bike space' or I'm on the left
> line
> of the bike lane. It was never a problem before the bike lane zealots
> got king daley on their side and had the door zone made into a
> bicycling ghetto.
>
>> Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a
>> clue.

>
> Guys like me? You mean someone who takes the lane less often than you
> do, as you admitted just a post or so ago?


Allow me to quote you (it's still above, too): "But it does prove that
people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't pro taking the lane 100% of
the time."

TAKING THE LANE 100% OF THE TIME. Brilliant!

> Actually it's your kind that will get bikes limited to roads with a
> designated bicycle ghetto and not allowed to leave it.


LOL Good one.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> Have you priced the cost of health care lately?

>
> Have you priced the cost of health care insurance lately?
>
>>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily
>>> life.

>
>> Which you can do on a stationary bike.

>
> No that's not. The stationary bike doesn't take me anywhere.


Are you always going somewhere?

>
>> And the stationary bike will give
>> you a much better cardio-vascular workout.

>
> Doubtful.


Not. It will.

>
>> If you're afraid of falling
>> off, you can spread some foam around it on the floor. Even couch
>> cushions or pillows.

>
> You're the one that is affraid of falling and wants to make everyone
> else share his fear by wearing a foam hat.


I've been cycling for 55+ years and never wore one.

>
>> Aren't you lucky.

>
> Rather typical to unlucky actually. The scrapes I've gotten, all but
> one were because of the willful actions of a motorist.
>
>
>
 
A

Arif Khokar

Guest
Bill Sornson wrote:

> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when there's a
> NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often dangerous to do
> so.


Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike
like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>?
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Marz wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 11:46 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane.

>>
>>
>> Do they exist? I've never seen one around here (Texas), where folks
>> consider everywhere to the right of that white line the appropiate
>> place to dump beer bottles, stolen cars and bbqs (ok only ever one
>> bbq). Bike lanes, segmented sections of the highways as opposed to
>> bike paths (which are of some use), do NOTHING for cyclist's safety.
>> In fast moving traffic (>30mph) how do handle a left hand turn from a
>> righthand side cycle lane?

>
> In San Diego County, our bike lanes are wonderful (with rare
> exceptions, of course). Others have said similar things about their
> locales (Arizona comes to mind).


Many places in Oregon.

>
> Must suck to live where they're lousy. (Sounds more like a shoulder
> line than a true bike lane, btw.)
>
>
>
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more)
>>>>> -- numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES
>>>>> SUCK (cuz they don't).
>>>
>>>> But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't
>>>> pro taking the lane 100% of the time.
>>>
>>> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when
>>> there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often
>>> dangerous to do so.

>>
>> Nice beautiful bike lane? The best bike lanes anywhere I've ridden
>> have been about 3-4 feet wide where the right edge is under the tires
>> of
>> parked cars.


> You really should move.


You should get out and about more and increase your experiences before
spouting off.

>> You know what that's called, correct? The door zone.
>> What is the place bicyclists are told time and time again _NOT_ to
>> ride? The door zone. Thanks for playing.


>> BTW, I don't take the lane in such conditions, I just ride exactly
>> where
>> I used to ride those roads before king daley the second had the lines
>> painted. Of course I rode such roads like that for years without
>> problems before the lines got painted but now some motorists get
>> their panties in
>> a bunch because I am not using the 'bike space' or I'm on the left
>> line
>> of the bike lane. It was never a problem before the bike lane zealots
>> got king daley on their side and had the door zone made into a
>> bicycling ghetto.
>>
>>> Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a
>>> clue.

>>
>> Guys like me? You mean someone who takes the lane less often than you
>> do, as you admitted just a post or so ago?


> Allow me to quote you (it's still above, too): "But it does prove that
> people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't pro taking the lane 100% of
> the time."


> TAKING THE LANE 100% OF THE TIME. Brilliant!


That's what you were apparently claiming of those who don't like bike
lanes.

>> Actually it's your kind that will get bikes limited to roads with a
>> designated bicycle ghetto and not allowed to leave it.


> LOL Good one.


I've already run into close to handful of motorists bikelane propaganda
has had excatly that effect on. I am sure most just don't bother yelling
it at me. (hint: all were where there aren't any bike lanes at all) Now
if I include all of those who think bicyclists are limited to bike paths,
well I lost count of those *YEARS* ago.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> Have you priced the cost of health care lately?

>>
>> Have you priced the cost of health care insurance lately?
>>
>>>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily
>>>> life.

>>
>>> Which you can do on a stationary bike.

>>
>> No that's not. The stationary bike doesn't take me anywhere.

>
> Are you always going somewhere?


If I am using a bicycle I am. Even if the destination is simply
recreational.

>>> And the stationary bike will give
>>> you a much better cardio-vascular workout.


>> Doubtful.


> Not. It will.


No it won't. simply because it's boring constant speed gerbil wheel. They
try to make stationary bikes better with various ways to simulate real
riding. Simulations however fall short.

>>> If you're afraid of falling
>>> off, you can spread some foam around it on the floor. Even couch
>>> cushions or pillows.


>> You're the one that is affraid of falling and wants to make everyone
>> else share his fear by wearing a foam hat.


> I've been cycling for 55+ years and never wore one.


Then why are you apprently offended by my dislike of foam hats and
manditory foam hat laws? The most probable answer is that you're just
another shithead troll.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>> A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any
>>> stationary bike.

>
>> Not if you have the proper stionary bike.

>
> It's a Schwinn Airdyne. I used to ride around 55 to 60 rpm to keep my
> heart rate in the target range. The last time I tried, I had to ride
> it around 67 rpm for the same effect.


You can't adjust the resistance?

>
>> You can't ride up reasonably steep hill if you do your real biking
>> in Northern Ohio.

>
> I've never ridden in Northern Ohio.


FLAT. Scraped that way by the continental ice sheet. Highest spot around
Toledo was a railroad overpass and the Irish Hills in Michigan.

> I maintain around 8 to 10 mph up
> steep hills here.


What's steep?

> If I'm tired, my speed drops down to 6 mph.
>
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be
>>>>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses'
>>>>> be it through private insurance or government are used to
>>>>> distribute costs that the self appointed control freaks use to
>>>>> justify taking power.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE
>>>> willing to let others pay for your care.
>>>
>>> I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both
>>> insurance and taxes.

>>
>>But you won't refuse treatment if you can't afford it.

>
> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must
> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is it
> refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special danger
> which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all other
> forms of risk?


It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted.
 
A

Arif Khokar

Guest
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:


>>>> A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any
>>>> stationary bike.


>>> Not if you have the proper stionary bike.


>> It's a Schwinn Airdyne. I used to ride around 55 to 60 rpm to keep my
>> heart rate in the target range. The last time I tried, I had to ride
>> it around 67 rpm for the same effect.


> You can't adjust the resistance?


It's one of those stationary bikes that uses the resistance of "fan"
blades that turn as you pedal. The faster one pedals, the greater the
resistance
<http://www.amazon.com/Schwinn-Airdyne-Upright-Exercise-Bike/dp/B000E158CK>.

>> I maintain around 8 to 10 mph up steep hills here.


> What's steep?


I'm not sure of the percent grade. I get up to around 27 to 30 mph when
coasting down the same hill. Besides, I'm not riding a light bike and
I'm a bit overweight myself.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more)
>>>>>> -- numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE
>>>>>> LANES SUCK (cuz they don't).
>>>>
>>>>> But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos
>>>>> aren't pro taking the lane 100% of the time.
>>>>
>>>> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when
>>>> there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often
>>>> dangerous to do so.
>>>
>>> Nice beautiful bike lane? The best bike lanes anywhere I've ridden
>>> have been about 3-4 feet wide where the right edge is under the
>>> tires of
>>> parked cars.

>
>> You really should move.

>
> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences before
> spouting off.


Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to somewhere
where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me that ALL bike lanes
are bad (previous claim IIRC).

>>> You know what that's called, correct? The door zone.
>>> What is the place bicyclists are told time and time again _NOT_ to
>>> ride? The door zone. Thanks for playing.

>
>>> BTW, I don't take the lane in such conditions, I just ride exactly
>>> where
>>> I used to ride those roads before king daley the second had the
>>> lines painted. Of course I rode such roads like that for years
>>> without problems before the lines got painted but now some
>>> motorists get their panties in
>>> a bunch because I am not using the 'bike space' or I'm on the left
>>> line
>>> of the bike lane. It was never a problem before the bike lane
>>> zealots got king daley on their side and had the door zone made
>>> into a bicycling ghetto.
>>>
>>>> Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a
>>>> clue.
>>>
>>> Guys like me? You mean someone who takes the lane less often than
>>> you do, as you admitted just a post or so ago?

>
>> Allow me to quote you (it's still above, too): "But it does prove
>> that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't pro taking the
>> lane 100% of the time."

>
>> TAKING THE LANE 100% OF THE TIME. Brilliant!

>
> That's what you were apparently claiming of those who don't like bike
> lanes.


Absurd...although Wayne Pein said something to that exact effect, IIRC.
>
>>> Actually it's your kind that will get bikes limited to roads with a
>>> designated bicycle ghetto and not allowed to leave it.

>
>> LOL Good one.

>
> I've already run into close to handful of motorists bikelane
> propaganda has had excatly that effect on. I am sure most just don't
> bother yelling it at me. (hint: all were where there aren't any bike
> lanes at all) Now if I include all of those who think bicyclists are
> limited to bike paths, well I lost count of those *YEARS* ago.


My 45-mile ride today was lovely. I'd say roughly 60% or so was bike-laned;
much of the rest good road, too. (There are a few trouble spots on this
route, but nothing an experienced, confident rider can't handle.) I
probably saw 50 other cyclists (all helmeted, by the way -- usually see at
least a few unlidded) all using the wonderful bike lanes these roads
provide.

But we're all nuts and you and Pein are right. Whatever.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you priced the cost of health care lately?
>>>
>>> Have you priced the cost of health care insurance lately?
>>>
>>>>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily
>>>>> life.
>>>
>>>> Which you can do on a stationary bike.
>>>
>>> No that's not. The stationary bike doesn't take me anywhere.

>>
>> Are you always going somewhere?

>
> If I am using a bicycle I am. Even if the destination is simply
> recreational.


Not using a stationary.

>
>>>> And the stationary bike will give
>>>> you a much better cardio-vascular workout.

>
>>> Doubtful.

>
>> Not. It will.

>
> No it won't. simply because it's boring constant speed gerbil wheel.
> They try to make stationary bikes better with various ways to simulate
> real riding. Simulations however fall short.


CARDIO-VASCULAR WORKOUT

>
>>>> If you're afraid of falling
>>>> off, you can spread some foam around it on the floor. Even couch
>>>> cushions or pillows.

>
>>> You're the one that is affraid of falling and wants to make everyone
>>> else share his fear by wearing a foam hat.

>
>> I've been cycling for 55+ years and never wore one.

>
> Then why are you apprently offended by my dislike of foam hats and
> manditory foam hat laws? The most probable answer is that you're just
> another shithead troll.


I'm not offended at all. I think mandatory helmets for kids is a good
idea. For adults, I say let natural selection do its work.

>
>
>
>
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Arif Khokar wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when
>> there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often
>> dangerous to do so.

>
> Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike
> like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>?


I've spotted your problem! Your bike is upside down AND facing the wrong
way. HTH
 
A

Arif Khokar

Guest
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:


>> Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike
>> like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>?


> I've spotted your problem! Your bike is upside down AND facing the wrong
> way. HTH


And I meant to type "... bike *lane* like ..." In any case, it's too
narrow to ride in safely. I usually ride just to the right of the black
line in that picture.
 
A

Arif Khokar

Guest
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:


>> "Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane.


> Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike
> lane.


Happens to me when I ride in the bike lane (that's why I don't ride in
that "lane" anymore).

I'm almost positive that you don't even ride a bike in traffic.
 
T

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> ...
> But we're all nuts and you and Pein are right....
>

Sorni gets it right!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
T

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote:
> The kindly Rev. overheard "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <[email protected]> saying on Wed 22 Aug 2007 08:02:13p:
>
>> Bah! I want to poke people with soft cushions, with all the
>> stuffing up one end.

>
> You want to stuff what up your end?


Now. You will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup
of coffee at eleven.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com