Looks like "bike boxes," intended to prevent right hook
crashes, may instead double them!
https://www.portlandmercury.com/Bikes/2012/10/16/7237854/ city-finds-bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes
As I recall, Portland violated NHTSA rules when it first
slapped down bike boxes without proper approval, since they
were not then approved by the MUTCD. They relied on heavy
lobbying by a local representative to get after-the-fact
approval for what they had already done. But from the4
start, data seemed to indicate the bike boxes made things
worse, not better.
Despite that, heavy politicking by the Paint n' Path lobby
has gotten bike boxes listed in the current MUTCD. (That's
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.) Some of my
correspondents on the relevant committees have lobbied hard
against them, but the Paint n' Path lobby has Fashion on its
side. And fashion is weird and powerful.
Gosh, maybe it's not true that "Any bike facility is a good
bike facility."
Looks like "bike boxes," intended to prevent right hook crashes, may
instead double them!
https://www.portlandmercury.com/Bikes/2012/10/16/7237854/city-finds-bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes
As I recall, Portland violated NHTSA rules when it first slapped down
bike boxes without proper approval, since they were not then approved by
the MUTCD. They relied on heavy lobbying by a local representative to
get after-the-fact approval for what they had already done. But from
the4 start, data seemed to indicate the bike boxes made things worse,
not better.
Despite that, heavy politicking by the Paint n' Path lobby has gotten
bike boxes listed in the current MUTCD. (That's Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.) Some of my correspondents on the relevant committees have lobbied hard against them, but the Paint n' Path lobby
has Fashion on its side. And fashion is weird and powerful.
Gosh, maybe it's not true that "Any bike facility is a good bike facility."
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
Looks like "bike boxes," intended to prevent right hook crashes, mayAren’t these just Advanced stop lines? Which again seems somewhat blast from the past, I was never particularly convinced by them, felt they encouraged folks into the gutter to reach the box.
instead double them!
https://www.portlandmercury.com/Bikes/2012/10/16/7237854/city-finds-bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes
As I recall, Portland violated NHTSA rules when it first slapped down
bike boxes without proper approval, since they were not then approved by
the MUTCD. They relied on heavy lobbying by a local representative to
get after-the-fact approval for what they had already done. But from
the4 start, data seemed to indicate the bike boxes made things worse,
not better.
Despite that, heavy politicking by the Paint n' Path lobby has gotten
bike boxes listed in the current MUTCD. (That's Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.) Some of my correspondents on the relevant
committees have lobbied hard against them, but the Paint n' Path lobby
has Fashion on its side. And fashion is weird and powerful.
Gosh, maybe it's not true that "Any bike facility is a good bike facility." >>
This said reading the article and the response as this is absolute numbers which apparently has gone up quite significantly so that cycling injuries
are up city wide in Portland.
Bit mystified that Portland which I thought was a bike city was on the
cycle box/advance stop lines still?
Roger Merriman
On 12/19/2024 4:37 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
Looks like "bike boxes," intended to prevent right hook crashes, mayArent these just Advanced stop lines? Which again seems somewhat blast
instead double them!
https://www.portlandmercury.com/Bikes/2012/10/16/7237854/city-finds-bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes
As I recall, Portland violated NHTSA rules when it first slapped down
bike boxes without proper approval, since they were not then approved by >>> the MUTCD. They relied on heavy lobbying by a local representative to
get after-the-fact approval for what they had already done. But from
the4 start, data seemed to indicate the bike boxes made things worse,
not better.
Despite that, heavy politicking by the Paint n' Path lobby has gotten
bike boxes listed in the current MUTCD. (That's Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.) Some of my correspondents on the relevant
committees have lobbied hard against them, but the Paint n' Path lobby
has Fashion on its side. And fashion is weird and powerful.
Gosh, maybe it's not true that "Any bike facility is a good bike facility." >>>
from the past, I was never particularly convinced by them, felt they
encouraged folks into the gutter to reach the box.
This said reading the article and the response as this is absolute numbers >> which apparently has gone up quite significantly so that cycling injuries
are up city wide in Portland.
Bit mystified that Portland which I thought was a bike city was on the
cycle box/advance stop lines still?
Roger Merriman
You're thinking rationally, like a man who rides a bicycle
in traffic.
Try thinking like The Planners; Different is better,
usefulness be damned.
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/green-bike-lanes.jpg
https://www.ayresassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/E-North-Ave-Bike-Lane2-CROP-610x362.jpg
On 12/19/2024 4:37 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
Looks like "bike boxes," intended to prevent right hook crashes, mayAren’t these just Advanced stop lines? Which again seems somewhat blast
instead double them!
https://www.portlandmercury.com/Bikes/2012/10/16/7237854/city-finds-
bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes
As I recall, Portland violated NHTSA rules when it first slapped down
bike boxes without proper approval, since they were not then approved by >>> the MUTCD. They relied on heavy lobbying by a local representative to
get after-the-fact approval for what they had already done. But from
the4 start, data seemed to indicate the bike boxes made things worse,
not better.
Despite that, heavy politicking by the Paint n' Path lobby has gotten
bike boxes listed in the current MUTCD. (That's Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.) Some of my correspondents on the relevant
committees have lobbied hard against them, but the Paint n' Path lobby
has Fashion on its side. And fashion is weird and powerful.
Gosh, maybe it's not true that "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility."
from the past, I was never particularly convinced by them, felt they
encouraged folks into the gutter to reach the box.
This said reading the article and the response as this is absolute
numbers
which apparently has gone up quite significantly so that cycling injuries
are up city wide in Portland.
Bit mystified that Portland which I thought was a bike city was on the
cycle box/advance stop lines still?
Roger Merriman
You're thinking rationally, like a man who rides a bicycle in traffic.
Try thinking like The Planners; Different is better, usefulness be damned.
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/green-bike-lanes.jpg
https://www.ayresassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/E-North-Ave- Bike-Lane2-CROP-610x362.jpg
On 12/19/2024 5:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/19/2024 4:37 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
Looks like "bike boxes," intended to prevent right hook crashes, mayAren’t these just Advanced stop lines? Which again seems somewhat blast >>> from the past, I was never particularly convinced by them, felt they
instead double them!
https://www.portlandmercury.com/Bikes/2012/10/16/7237854/city-finds-
bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes
As I recall, Portland violated NHTSA rules when it first slapped down
bike boxes without proper approval, since they were not then approved by >>>> the MUTCD. They relied on heavy lobbying by a local representative to
get after-the-fact approval for what they had already done. But from
the4 start, data seemed to indicate the bike boxes made things worse,
not better.
Despite that, heavy politicking by the Paint n' Path lobby has gotten
bike boxes listed in the current MUTCD. (That's Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.) Some of my correspondents on the relevant
committees have lobbied hard against them, but the Paint n' Path lobby >>>> has Fashion on its side. And fashion is weird and powerful.
Gosh, maybe it's not true that "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility."
encouraged folks into the gutter to reach the box.
This said reading the article and the response as this is absolute
numbers
which apparently has gone up quite significantly so that cycling injuries >>> are up city wide in Portland.
Bit mystified that Portland which I thought was a bike city was on the
cycle box/advance stop lines still?
Roger Merriman
You're thinking rationally, like a man who rides a bicycle in traffic.
Try thinking like The Planners; Different is better, usefulness be damned. >>
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/green-bike-lanes.jpg
https://www.ayresassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/E-North-Ave-
Bike-Lane2-CROP-610x362.jpg
Some of my fellow skeptics on other forums have labeled that "Ye magicke greene paint." It makes _anything_ safe!
Bit mystified that Portland which I thought was a bike city was on the
cycle box/advance stop lines still?
On 12/19/2024 5:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/19/2024 4:37 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
Looks like "bike boxes," intended to prevent right hook crashes, mayAren’t these just Advanced stop lines? Which again seems somewhat blast >>> from the past, I was never particularly convinced by them, felt they
instead double them!
https://www.portlandmercury.com/Bikes/2012/10/16/7237854/city-finds-
bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes
As I recall, Portland violated NHTSA rules when it first slapped down
bike boxes without proper approval, since they were not then
approved by
the MUTCD. They relied on heavy lobbying by a local representative to
get after-the-fact approval for what they had already done. But from
the4 start, data seemed to indicate the bike boxes made things worse,
not better.
Despite that, heavy politicking by the Paint n' Path lobby has gotten
bike boxes listed in the current MUTCD. (That's Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.) Some of my correspondents on the relevant
committees have lobbied hard against them, but the Paint n' Path lobby >>>> has Fashion on its side. And fashion is weird and powerful.
Gosh, maybe it's not true that "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility."
encouraged folks into the gutter to reach the box.
This said reading the article and the response as this is absolute
numbers
which apparently has gone up quite significantly so that cycling
injuries
are up city wide in Portland.
Bit mystified that Portland which I thought was a bike city was on the
cycle box/advance stop lines still?
Roger Merriman
You're thinking rationally, like a man who rides a bicycle in traffic.
Try thinking like The Planners; Different is better, usefulness be
damned.
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/green-bike-lanes.jpg
https://www.ayresassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/E-North-
Ave- Bike-Lane2-CROP-610x362.jpg
Some of my fellow skeptics on other forums have labeled that "Ye magicke greene paint." It makes _anything_ safe!
On 12/19/2024 2:37 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Bit mystified that Portland which I thought was a bike city was on the
cycle box/advance stop lines still?
That's an article from twelve years ago. And of course "he who must not
be named" took it completely out of context.
After the data was analyzed, several facts were pointed out:
1. The cycling population had grown significantly from 2008 to 2012
2. The increase in crashes were at a small subset of the bike box >intersections.
"This would seem to imply that the problem is not the boxes, or the
bikers, but rather overall traffic movement in these particular places."
Those who hate bike facilities have no problem in playing fast and loose
with statistics!
On 12/19/2024 2:37 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Bit mystified that Portland which I thought was a bike city was on the
cycle box/advance stop lines still?
That's an article from twelve years ago. And of course "he who must not
be named" took it completely out of context.
After the data was analyzed, several facts were pointed out:
1. The cycling population had grown significantly from 2008 to 2012
2. The increase in crashes were at a small subset of the bike box intersections.
"This would seem to imply that the problem is not the boxes, or the
bikers, but rather overall traffic movement in these particular places."
Those who hate bike facilities have no problem in playing fast and loose
with statistics!
On 12/19/2024 2:37 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Bit mystified that Portland which I thought was a bike city was on the
cycle box/advance stop lines still?
That's an article from twelve years ago. And of course "he who must not
be named" took it completely out of context.
After the data was analyzed, several facts were pointed out:
1. The cycling population had grown significantly from 2008 to 2012
2. The increase in crashes were at a small subset of the bike box intersections.
"This would seem to imply that the problem is not the boxes, or theSo how would you evaluate a particular place, to see whether a bike box
bikers, but rather overall traffic movement in these particular places."
On 12/20/2024 1:24 AM, sms wrote:
On 12/19/2024 2:37 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Bit mystified that Portland which I thought was a bike city was on the
cycle box/advance stop lines still?
That's an article from twelve years ago. And of course "he who must not
be named" took it completely out of context.
The link was posted by another person in a different online forum. I
didn't notice the date, sorry; but she serves on the National Committee
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (I think that's the name) and was
asking for any other relevant data. So far she's gotten no data to
justify the existence of bike boxes.
After the data was analyzed, several facts were pointed out:
1. The cycling population had grown significantly from 2008 to 2012
Bicycling did _not_ double, but the number of right hook crashed did
double. Right hooks per cyclist certainly did increase.
2. The increase in crashes were at a small subset of the bike box
intersections.
Hmm. Interesting defense: "Well, they didn't make it worse
_everywhere_." But if there were new bike box intersections that did not
see an increase in right hooks, that would mean the ones generating
these crashes had much _more_ than twice as many right hooks!
"This would seem to imply that the problem is not the boxes, or theSo how would you evaluate a particular place, to see whether a bike box
bikers, but rather overall traffic movement in these particular places."
would be a safety disaster? You give no clue.
Honestly, you're grasping at straws to discount data indicating clear failure. The bike boxes were installed (actually, rammed through,
according to detailed history) in order to reduce right hook crashes.
They did the opposite. Your blathering doesn't change that.
And since we're discussing it, I've never understood how a bike box is supposed to be any significant benefit. The detriment frequently cited
is Ye Magicke Greeene Paint tempts cyclists who buy the "This makes you safe!" propaganda to ride up fast and pass on the blind side of
motorists waiting at a light; then move over in front of the motorists
at the traffic light. But if a motorist makes a right on red as the
cyclist is at his blind side, the cyclist gets hit. If the light turns
green just as the cyclist is ready to swerve in front of the lead
motorist, the cyclist gets hit.
The alternative is to just take one's place in the line of traffic.
Unless the queue is so long it won't clear during the green light phase, that's no less convenient and it's safer. It's legal, and it shouldn't
be scary.
It's scary only to those cyclists who fear riding on pavement that's
ever been touched by a motor vehicle's tires.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 12/20/2024 1:24 AM, sms wrote:That is a ridiculous argument as ever.
The alternative is to just take one's place in the line of traffic.
Unless the queue is so long it won't clear during the green light phase,
that's no less convenient and it's safer. It's legal, and it shouldn't
be scary....
It's scary only to those cyclists who fear riding on pavement that's
ever been touched by a motor vehicle's tires.
On 12/21/2024 7:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 12/20/2024 1:24 AM, sms wrote:That is a ridiculous argument as ever.
The alternative is to just take one's place in the line of traffic.
Unless the queue is so long it won't clear during the green light phase, >>> that's no less convenient and it's safer. It's legal, and it shouldn't
be scary....
It's scary only to those cyclists who fear riding on pavement that's
ever been touched by a motor vehicle's tires.
It's an observation. Many people are afraid to ride on normal streets.
They believe or pretend there's no way to be safe if motor vehicles
share their pavement.
On 12/21/2024 7:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 12/20/2024 1:24 AM, sms wrote:That is a ridiculous argument as ever.
The alternative is to just take one's place in the line of traffic.
Unless the queue is so long it won't clear during the green light phase, >>> that's no less convenient and it's safer. It's legal, and it shouldn't
be scary....
It's scary only to those cyclists who fear riding on pavement that's
ever been touched by a motor vehicle's tires.
It's an observation. Many people are afraid to ride on normal streets.
They believe or pretend there's no way to be safe if motor vehicles
share their pavement.
On 12/21/2024 8:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 13:55:44 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 13:29:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 12/21/2024 7:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 12/20/2024 1:24 AM, sms wrote:That is a ridiculous argument as ever.
The alternative is to just take one's place in the line of traffic. >>>>>> Unless the queue is so long it won't clear during the green light phase, >>>>>> that's no less convenient and it's safer. It's legal, and it shouldn't >>>>>> be scary....
It's scary only to those cyclists who fear riding on pavement that's >>>>>> ever been touched by a motor vehicle's tires.
It's an observation. Many people are afraid to ride on normal streets. >>>> They believe or pretend there's no way to be safe if motor vehicles
share their pavement.
Thousands of bicycle vs motor vehicle accidents every year seem to
verify those beliefs.
"Nearly 1,000 bicyclists die and over 130,000 are injured in crashes
that occur on roads in the United States every year."
https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/bicycle-safety.html
So, a logical solution is simple... ban bicycles from using public
streets and highways.
But bicycling risk is lower than walking risk, either in total or per
mile traveled. I've cited data many times.
many separate studies are that the health and longevity benefits of
bicycling tremendously outweigh its tiny risks. So bicycling's
advantages greatly outweigh its disadvantages.
So John's "simple" [minded] solution makes no more sense than to ban
walking.
In my younger days I used to run for exercise and I can assure you
(and Frankie if he cares to hear the truth) that bicycleing requires
many more hours to achieve the same amount of "exercise" that running
does in a much shorter time. And, it might be added, with far less
spent on equipment :-)
Rather then causing a "straw man" to leap into the fray I'm sure thatWell "he who must not be named" has been taking data out of context and fabricating these bizarre scenarios for decades!
there is someone here that runs/ran that will verified whether I'm
right or wrong :-)
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:11:48 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 12/22/2024 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
In my younger days I used to run for exercise and I can assure you
(and Frankie if he cares to hear the truth) that bicycleing requires
many more hours to achieve the same amount of "exercise" that running
does in a much shorter time. And, it might be added, with far less
spent on equipment :-)
Running is less costly for equipment, to be sure. But factor in the
medical costs of running and bicycling is almost certainly less. A
single knee replacement surgery can cost $35,000.
But running or walking doesn't necessarily result in bad knees, at
least in people of a normal weight, and in other (perhaps more
rational) countries it is much cheaper. Single knee replacement here, Bangkok, will be about 10,000 U.S. for a non citizen. For a Thai
National it is free.
On 12/22/2024 3:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:11:48 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 12/22/2024 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
In my younger days I used to run for exercise and I can assure you
(and Frankie if he cares to hear the truth) that bicycleing requires
many more hours to achieve the same amount of "exercise" that running
does in a much shorter time. And, it might be added, with far less
spent on equipment :-)
Running is less costly for equipment, to be sure. But factor in the
medical costs of running and bicycling is almost certainly less. A
single knee replacement surgery can cost $35,000.
But running or walking doesn't necessarily result in bad knees, at
least in people of a normal weight, and in other (perhaps more
rational) countries it is much cheaper. Single knee replacement here,
Bangkok, will be about 10,000 U.S. for a non citizen. For a Thai
National it is free.
Medical tourism has become big business.
But even runners not overweight typically end up needing knee surgery by >their early to late 60's.
In any case, if "he who must not be named" was trying to claim that bike >facilities somehow make biking more dangerous, he did not succeed!
Now it is true that when biking facilities are developed that cycling
rates increase, often by significant amounts, so if you look just at
absolute numbers it's certainly possible that incidents increase. But if
you look at percentages, they decrease.
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:11:48 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 12/22/2024 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
In my younger days I used to run for exercise and I can assure you
(and Frankie if he cares to hear the truth) that bicycleing requires
many more hours to achieve the same amount of "exercise" that running
does in a much shorter time. And, it might be added, with far less
spent on equipment :-)
Running is less costly for equipment, to be sure. But factor in the
medical costs of running and bicycling is almost certainly less. A
single knee replacement surgery can cost $35,000.
But running or walking doesn't necessarily result in bad knees, at
least in people of a normal weight, and in other (perhaps more
rational) countries it is much cheaper. Single knee replacement here, Bangkok, will be about 10,000 U.S. for a non citizen. For a Thai
National it is free.
On 12/22/2024 3:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:11:48 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 12/22/2024 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
In my younger days I used to run for exercise and I can assure you >>>> (and Frankie if he cares to hear the truth) that bicycleing requires
many more hours to achieve the same amount of "exercise" that running
does in a much shorter time. And, it might be added, with far less
spent on equipment :-)
Running is less costly for equipment, to be sure. But factor in the
medical costs of running and bicycling is almost certainly less. A
single knee replacement surgery can cost $35,000.
But running or walking doesn't necessarily result in bad knees, at
least in people of a normal weight, and in other (perhaps more
rational) countries it is much cheaper. Single knee replacement here,
Bangkok, will be about 10,000 U.S. for a non citizen. For a Thai
National it is free.
Medical tourism has become big business.
But even runners not overweight typically end up needing knee surgery by their early to late 60's.
In any case, if "he who must not be named" was trying to claim that bike facilities somehow make biking more dangerous, he did not succeed!
Krygowski cited data that says that there are more accidents whenI've cited data on fatalities _per mile traveled_, which obviously
walking than when bicycling, disregarding the fact that there are many
more people walking than bicycling.
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:31:16 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 12/22/2024 3:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:11:48 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 12/22/2024 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
In my younger days I used to run for exercise and I can assure you >>>>> (and Frankie if he cares to hear the truth) that bicycleing requires >>>>> many more hours to achieve the same amount of "exercise" that running >>>>> does in a much shorter time. And, it might be added, with far less
spent on equipment :-)
Running is less costly for equipment, to be sure. But factor in the
medical costs of running and bicycling is almost certainly less. A
single knee replacement surgery can cost $35,000.
But running or walking doesn't necessarily result in bad knees, at
least in people of a normal weight, and in other (perhaps more
rational) countries it is much cheaper. Single knee replacement here,
Bangkok, will be about 10,000 U.S. for a non citizen. For a Thai
National it is free.
Medical tourism has become big business.
But even runners not overweight typically end up needing knee surgery by
their early to late 60's.
In any case, if "he who must not be named" was trying to claim that bike
facilities somehow make biking more dangerous, he did not succeed!
Now it is true that when biking facilities are developed that cycling
rates increase, often by significant amounts, so if you look just at
absolute numbers it's certainly possible that incidents increase. But if
you look at percentages, they decrease.
Do you mean that perhaps bicycle facilities increase bicycling?
But why must Krygowski not be named? Obviously, I missed that ruling.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 12/22/2024 3:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I've cited data on fatalities _per mile traveled_, which obviously
Krygowski cited data that says that there are more accidents when
walking than when bicycling, disregarding the fact that there are many
more people walking than bicycling.
accounts for the different number of people bicycling and walking.
the years, I've repeatedly posted links to data by John Pucher, who >inadvertently showed bicycling to be safer than walking. (He is a
"Danger! Danger!" guy regarding bicycling. I've also occasionally linked
data from other countries like Britain, Australia, etc. which
consistently show lower fatalities per mile for cycling than for walking.
But there must be people here for whom "per mile" is just too much >mathematics to comprehend!
On 12/22/2024 11:17 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:31:16 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 12/22/2024 3:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:11:48 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 12/22/2024 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
In my younger days I used to run for exercise and I can assure you >>>>>> (and Frankie if he cares to hear the truth) that bicycleing requires >>>>>> many more hours to achieve the same amount of "exercise" that running >>>>>> does in a much shorter time. And, it might be added, with far less >>>>>> spent on equipment :-)
Running is less costly for equipment, to be sure. But factor in the
medical costs of running and bicycling is almost certainly less. A
single knee replacement surgery can cost $35,000.
But running or walking doesn't necessarily result in bad knees, at
least in people of a normal weight, and in other (perhaps more
rational) countries it is much cheaper. Single knee replacement here,
Bangkok, will be about 10,000 U.S. for a non citizen. For a Thai
National it is free.
Medical tourism has become big business.
But even runners not overweight typically end up needing knee surgery by >>> their early to late 60's.
In any case, if "he who must not be named" was trying to claim that bike >>> facilities somehow make biking more dangerous, he did not succeed!
Now it is true that when biking facilities are developed that cycling
rates increase, often by significant amounts, so if you look just at
absolute numbers it's certainly possible that incidents increase. But if >>> you look at percentages, they decrease.
Do you mean that perhaps bicycle facilities increase bicycling?
But why must Krygowski not be named? Obviously, I missed that ruling.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Well, all of it is relative. Both cycling and running may
well be safer than the subway. Today for example:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/22/us-news/woman-dead-after-being-found-on-fire-on-subway-train-in-coney-island/
On 22 Dec 2024 17:54:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously USians must not be runners as the overwhelming
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:11:48 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>Running is absolutely hard on joints knees in particular, if folks run
wrote:
On 12/22/2024 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
In my younger days I used to run for exercise and I can assure you
(and Frankie if he cares to hear the truth) that bicycleing requires >>>>> many more hours to achieve the same amount of "exercise" that running >>>>> does in a much shorter time. And, it might be added, with far less
spent on equipment :-)
Running is less costly for equipment, to be sure. But factor in the
medical costs of running and bicycling is almost certainly less. A
single knee replacement surgery can cost $35,000.
But running or walking doesn't necessarily result in bad knees, at
least in people of a normal weight, and in other (perhaps more
rational) countries it is much cheaper. Single knee replacement here,
Bangkok, will be about 10,000 U.S. for a non citizen. For a Thai
National it is free.
enough to harm the knees they will probably not be fat as well running
burns off cake very quickly!
Certainly in Europe knees would be some degree of free.
Roger Merriman
characteristic that I see in U.S. tourists if that they are FAT!
So, a logical solution is simple... ban bicycles from using public
streets and highways.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 22:14:26 -0500, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:32:48 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
So, a logical solution is simple... ban bicycles from using publicFolklore has it that exactly that was seriously proposed in New York
streets and highways.
State.
Been nearly half a century since I heard the story. It went on to say
that that was when the Mohawk-Hudson Wheelmen acquired a
government-relations committee.
the New York State Legislature was the first legislative body to
resolve the conflict with the passage in 1887 of An Act in Relation to
the Use of Bicycles and Tricycles. This statute established for the
first time that bicycles are "carriages," and that cyclists are
"entitled to the same rights and subject to the same restrictions" as
drivers of carriages.
On 12/21/2024 4:05 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
... Many people are afraid to ride on normal streets.You get what you design for, build wide road with slip roads or bell
They believe or pretend there's no way to be safe if motor vehicles
share their pavement.
junctions so motorists don’t need to slow then unsurprisingly that’s what
you get, ie motor traffic.
I agree, that is a problem; and from what I've seen, it's much more a
problem in the U.S. than east of the Atlantic - as usual, I think the
root cause is our tendency toward sprawl and the greater average travel distances that result.
Narrow roads aka road diets which seems to be an America thing the phrase
that is, make junctions so motor traffic has to slow and the distance to
cross is less, add in filters etc to prevent though traffic etc aka rat
runs and places become more walkable and attractive to cyclists.
And I agree with that as well. But convincing the voters is a formidable problem. Officials that slow traffic won't last long in office.
Part of the problem is psychological. For some reason, for most people a
30 second delay while driving feels like roughly a two minute delay; and
an actual two minute delay feels like forever.
True story: A particular street that I have to drive every day got a
"road diet" maybe a year to 18 months ago. Four lanes were reduced to
two, one in each direction (plus bike lanes, almost totally unused).
Anyway, at a couple intersections with larger roads, there have been
times the queue waiting for a green light has been so long that I've
missed the green and had to sit through another cycle of the lights.
Was it critical? No, and I realize that extra minute or two makes no practical difference. But despite my "It doesn't matter; it doesn't
matter" mantra, it felt very irritating.
I think very few motorists use that mantra.
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:32:48 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
So, a logical solution is simple... ban bicycles from using publicFolklore has it that exactly that was seriously proposed in New York
streets and highways.
State.
Been nearly half a century since I heard the story. It went on to say
that that was when the Mohawk-Hudson Wheelmen acquired a
government-relations committee.
On 12/23/2024 10:14 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:32:48 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>Bedford UK https://road.cc/content/news/bike-ban-council-says-it-wants-safe-place-310571
wrote:
So, a logical solution is simple... ban bicycles from using publicFolklore has it that exactly that was seriously proposed in New York
streets and highways.
State.
Been nearly half a century since I heard the story. It went on to say
that that was when the Mohawk-Hudson Wheelmen acquired a
government-relations committee.
Birmingham UK
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7v3n5nr32jo
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 496 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:44:08 |
| Calls: | 9,762 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,744 |
| Messages: | 6,185,683 |
