Vote for Peace: Ride a Bicycle!!!

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Arif Khokar wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> But even if this were a suburban area where such might be doable geography wise the merges are
>> needless pain for cyclists. Merges are not as easy on a bicycle as they are with a motor vehicle.

> Of course. Using the term "merge" was a poor word choice on my part. I was thinking more along the
> lines of taking the lane and queuing up with traffic as needed.

I have seen the vanishing bike lane system. Usually they vanish far to close to the intersection,
even if they didn't it takes a great deal of the control of when to move over from the cyclist. It
may not be possible to find a suitable gap to move over once the lane ends and the cyclist ends up
pinned or trapped.

> Another thing that I thought of was to paint the line defining the bike lane as dashed instead of
> solid so that motorists would get the message that "yes, the cyclist is allowed to take the
> traffic lane as needed." Probably not as good as having no bike lane at all, but better than the
> current implementation, IMO.

The best that it gets are the bus lanes that also allow bicycles, but not other vehicles. The only
problem is that buses get in the way and buses are horrible to follow behind.

 

[Arif Khokar]

Brent P wrote:

> I have seen the vanishing bike lane system. Usually they vanish far to close to the intersection,
> even if they didn't it takes a great deal of the control of when to move over from the cyclist. It
> may not be possible to find a suitable gap to move over once the lane ends and the cyclist ends up
> pinned or trapped.

That is the same case where I went to college (Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA). The bike lanes
there are about 10 feet wide, which is quite a bit better than what you're talking about. They are
only marked on roads that do not allow parallel parking, so no hazards of the "opening car door"
variety at least.

>>Another thing that I thought of was to paint the line defining the bike lane as dashed instead of
>>solid so that motorists would get the message that "yes, the cyclist is allowed to take the
>>traffic lane as needed." Probably not as good as having no bike lane at all, but better than the
>>current implementation, IMO.

> The best that it gets are the bus lanes that also allow bicycles, but not other vehicles. The only
> problem is that buses get in the way and buses are horrible to follow behind.

Back when I used to ride, I passed by a bus stop (with idling buses). I just held my breath
while I rode by (but of course, with exertion, I couldn't really hold my breath longer than 10
seconds tops :/).

I really should start riding again (I haven't ridden regularly since I broke my arm in a fall about
8 years ago).

 

[Bernie]

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, W K <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:q9ecndcbdawCX-
> >
> >
> >> >"Buzzing" a cyclist is assault. That's how I see it anyway. Bernie
> >>
> >> Too bad. What you call assault, I call overtaking and passing.
> >
> >Only if you do not know what a sensible passing distance is.
>
> Same as it is with other vehicles, right? If my mirror doesn't smack the other vehicle, I'm
> all right.
>
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto [email protected] "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and
> moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of a
> modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

So where do you guys ride your bikes?

 

[Don Quijote]

[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Don Quijote
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >(the emphasis in capital letters and quotes is mine)
> >
> >There are few mobility options more environmentally-friendly than bicycles.
>
> It's pouring outside right now. Sure am glad I have my car.

It's raining cats and dogs... I'm so glad I brought my poncho and hat!

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

 

[Matthew Russott]

In article <[email protected]>, Don Quijote
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Don Quijote
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >(the emphasis in capital letters and quotes is mine)
>> >
>> >There are few mobility options more environmentally-friendly than bicycles.
>>
>> It's pouring outside right now. Sure am glad I have my car.
>
>It's raining cats and dogs... I'm so glad I brought my poncho and hat!

Of course, that doesn't keep your legs from getting soaked from the spray. Nor your face, nor the
top of your shirt where the rain is driven onto your face and neck and then drips down. And of
course the poncho also makes you sweat more, getting you wet from within as well as without.

--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected] "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and
moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of a
modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

 

[Ricardo]

On 23 Mar 2003 11:27:24 -0800, [email protected] (Don Quijote) wrote:

>> The definition of 'free' becoming increasingly more narrow.
>
>I think it can be a long list:
>
>- free to go homeless
>
>- free to die from chaotic traffic
>
>- free to be unemployed
>
>- free not to go to the doctor (since you ain't got insurance)
>
>and many, many other types of 'freedoms'...

Free to go to jail for driving at even moderate speeds on Interstate highways...

America *is* a free country, one of the freest on earth, it just ain't *that* free.

--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply for liability
purposes: I *always* obey the law.