Re: bikes v. cars
On 13/10/2007, at 11:59 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: >> >> I was being ironic. > > > Me, too! Don't stop now! LOL Fair enough. Bit of a sense of humour failure last night - lost my pannier with wallet, housekeys, work pass, work blackberry, mobile phone... fortunately it was handed in to the cops and i got it back. Charlie. Vomiting Through Unpleasant Shocks Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
At 07:47 PM Friday 10/12/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: >On 13/10/2007, at 1:36 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > At 09:33 AM Friday 10/12/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: > >> On 12/10/2007, at 10:57 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> which could also stand for "High Profile > >>> Vehicle," i.e., the ones which are subject to > >>> being blown off the road or over on their sides when it gets > >>> windy . . . > >>> > >> > >> What's the difference? That's happened to me once this year (found > >> out when I got home that it had been gusting to 110kph. Got a nice > >> chainring/grease tattoo in the back of my leg now). > >> > >> Charlie > > > > > > What's the difference? Had there been someone in the lane next to > > you, you would not have crushed them like a big rig blowing over on > > top of them would . . . > >I was being ironic. Me, too! Don't stop now! -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 13/10/2007, at 1:36 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 09:33 AM Friday 10/12/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: > >> On 12/10/2007, at 10:57 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: >>> >>> >>> which could also stand for "High Profile >>> Vehicle," i.e., the ones which are subject to >>> being blown off the road or over on their sides when it gets >>> windy . . . >>> >> >> What's the difference? That's happened to me once this year (found >> out when I got home that it had been gusting to 110kph. Got a nice >> chainring/grease tattoo in the back of my leg now). >> >> Charlie > > > What's the difference? Had there been someone in the lane next to > you, you would not have crushed them like a big rig blowing over on > top of them would . . . I was being ironic. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
At 09:33 AM Friday 10/12/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: >On 12/10/2007, at 10:57 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > > > > which could also stand for "High Profile > > Vehicle," i.e., the ones which are subject to > > being blown off the road or over on their sides when it gets > > windy . . . > > > >What's the difference? That's happened to me once this year (found >out when I got home that it had been gusting to 110kph. Got a nice >chainring/grease tattoo in the back of my leg now). > >Charlie What's the difference? Had there been someone in the lane next to you, you would not have crushed them like a big rig blowing over on top of them would . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 12/10/2007, at 10:57 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > which could also stand for "High Profile > Vehicle," i.e., the ones which are subject to > being blown off the road or over on their sides when it gets > windy . . . > What's the difference? That's happened to me once this year (found out when I got home that it had been gusting to 110kph. Got a nice chainring/grease tattoo in the back of my leg now). Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
On 10/11/2007 9:11:18 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Ohm, I! > Isn't Williams motto: "Ohm My God"? xponent Resistance Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
At 09:49 AM Thursday 10/11/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: >On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Horn, John wrote: > > >> Charlie Bell wrote > >>> > >>> Oooo... There's that nerve again. At least it wasn't *me* > >> this time! > >> > >> It's going to get very tiresome if every time I disagree with > >> something strongly, you claim it's a "hit nerve"... > > > > Looks like I hit ano...<> > > > > Oh wait... > > > > Nevermind. > > > > ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist. > >Funny, you don't look like a conductor > > Julia Ohm, I! -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
At 07:33 AM Thursday 10/11/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: >On 11/10/2007, at 2:28 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: > > > >> What you're saying is that the weak should give up their rights to > >> the strong. > > > > Actually, while "asking for trouble" is a poor choice of words, I > > don't > > think that he's advocating that the weak should give up rights to the > > strong. I don't consider riding on any particular road a > > fundamental right. > > I don't think the prohibition of bikes on freeways, for example, is > > a step > > on the way to a loss of liberty. > >You're right in that freeways are a class of road which are reserved >for fast traffic. You're wrong in that urban roads are for *all* >traffic, and on roads in which all traffic is entitled (including >horses...), then it *is* a fundamental right, and banning cycle >traffic from urban streets (which, as I said, has actually been >suggested recently). Incidentally, paved urban roads were mainly >introduced in towns as a result of the bicycle, not the car... > >I'm all for good urban planning I think the problem is that in the majority of cases that is an oxymoron not "good urban planning" but simply "urban planning. IOW, one of the biggest problems most urban road networks suffer from is that they "just growed" rather than being planned from the start and then having the plan stuck to from then on. Is there any way to create true "good urban planning" short of leveling the entire city and starting over from scratch with a plan that is somehow ironclad for all time? (Frex, look at Denver, where you find two rectangular grids of roads, one of them rotated by an acute angle wrt the other, superimposed on the downtown area. And that's probably simpler than some other cities. OTOH, Salt Lake City and other cities in Utah were originally laid out on a rectangular grid with wide streets, although over time other roads have added.) > to give cyclists genuine alternatives >to major roads, and if the proposed Bicycle Network in Melbourne is >ever completed, it'll separate much of the motorised from the HPV which could also stand for "High Profile Vehicle," i.e., the ones which are subject to being blown off the road or over on their sides when it gets windy . . . >traffic. That's a good thing. But in the meantime, people have the >right to use whatever form of transport they choose within the law, >and without fear of being targeted and muscled off the road. > >Charlie -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Horn, John wrote: >> Charlie Bell wrote >>> >>> Oooo... There's that nerve again. At least it wasn't *me* >> this time! >> >> It's going to get very tiresome if every time I disagree with >> something strongly, you claim it's a "hit nerve"... > > Looks like I hit ano...<> > > Oh wait... > > Nevermind. > > ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist. Funny, you don't look like a conductor Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 12/10/2007, at 12:40 AM, Horn, John wrote: >> >> >> It's going to get very tiresome if every time I disagree with >> something strongly, you claim it's a "hit nerve"... > > Looks like I hit ano...<> > > Oh wait... > > Nevermind. > > ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist. > Funny man... :-p Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
> Charlie Bell wrote > > > > Oooo... There's that nerve again. At least it wasn't *me* > this time! > > It's going to get very tiresome if every time I disagree with > something strongly, you claim it's a "hit nerve"... Looks like I hit ano...<> Oh wait... Nevermind. ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist. - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 11/10/2007, at 2:28 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: > >> What you're saying is that the weak should give up their rights to >> the strong. > > Actually, while "asking for trouble" is a poor choice of words, I > don't > think that he's advocating that the weak should give up rights to the > strong. I don't consider riding on any particular road a > fundamental right. > I don't think the prohibition of bikes on freeways, for example, is > a step > on the way to a loss of liberty. You're right in that freeways are a class of road which are reserved for fast traffic. You're wrong in that urban roads are for *all* traffic, and on roads in which all traffic is entitled (including horses...), then it *is* a fundamental right, and banning cycle traffic from urban streets (which, as I said, has actually been suggested recently). Incidentally, paved urban roads were mainly introduced in towns as a result of the bicycle, not the car... I'm all for good urban planning to give cyclists genuine alternatives to major roads, and if the proposed Bicycle Network in Melbourne is ever completed, it'll separate much of the motorised from the HPV traffic. That's a good thing. But in the meantime, people have the right to use whatever form of transport they choose within the law, and without fear of being targeted and muscled off the road. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 11/10/2007, at 1:45 AM, Horn, John wrote: >> Charlie Bell wrote >> >> "Sanctimonious"? How much of a "snarl-up" is "asking for trouble"? > > Oooo... There's that nerve again. At least it wasn't *me* this time! It's going to get very tiresome if every time I disagree with something strongly, you claim it's a "hit nerve"... As Dan pointed out, it was sloppy language from jon and deserved a response. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, jon louis mann wrote: > What is Woo Foo??? > jlm Very good question, and my brain hurts too much to verbalize the answer I have. :P (Really need to get to bed!) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
JLM wrote: > What is Woo Foo??? Woo Foo, grasshopper, is the ancient sacred art of the Woo Foo Warriors on the Disney Jetix show "Yin Yang Yo! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin-Yang-Yo). It's actually a pretty annoying show but my kids love it. - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
"Sanctimonious"? How much of a "snarl-up" is "asking for trouble"? i agree that the phrase "asking for trouble", is a bad choice of words and can mean anything from provoking an attack to some aggressive, high dominant, alpha male or even bi-polar driver may run you over, or he/she is on the phone, changing the cd, and any number of possible scenarios, especially if traffic is snarled, whether or no you are the cause. there may be situations when cyclists were deliberately slowing traffic, and there are circumstances when a pack of cyclists are pumping along in high gear, passing each other, and generally having a great time. there are poor people whose only form of transportation are bikes and buses. there are many kinds of cyclists including lollygagging, idiots who may even be unaware they are slowing down traffic. i certainly don't consider them all to be idiots, anymore that all drivers are idiots. nor was i suggesting that they deserve to be hit. there are laws that penalize cyclists, but that doesn't stop them any more speeding tickets deter drivers. i have commuted by bicycle and motorcycle, and never had a serious accident. i spent several months peddling throughout new zealand in 1989. i have been able to avoid many potential accidents due to my lightening reflexes.~) once when a driver doored me, i was cushioned by his large bulk and the damage to my bike was minor. the porcine driver was angry at me for hitting him!~) jon Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:26 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: bikes v. cars > > > On 10/10/2007, at 7:23 AM, jon louis mann wrote: > > > > i think riders should do as least as much as drivers to accommodate > > each other, if for no other reason than they are more vulnerable. > > there is a too much hostility and frustration on the road to risk > > generating more. those sanctimonious riders who insist on their right > > of way, even if it means snarling up traffic, are asking for trouble. > > > "Sanctimonious"? How much of a "snarl-up" is "asking for trouble"? First, I have trouble with the phrase "asking for trouble", although I know what it means. It sounds too much like justifying violence for my tastes. Even so, I think I know what the phrase intends to convey. The clearest example of this would be a white person driving into Watts (a black LA ghetto), rolling down the window and shouting "Get a job you lazy N...s". I would prosecute blacks who beat that white person, but I would also consider the white stupid beyond belief. So, since I cannot think of a good substitute, let me use it with the caveat that "asking for trouble" never justifies the trouble that may come. I would guess that the example I gave of miles long backup would be "asking for trouble", although not nearly as badly as the previous example. I didn't actually see that long of a snarl, but I did see a half mile long backup while cyclists were deliberately slowing traffic on a freeway frontage road. That was on the borderline. I would guess you would consider these cyclists idiots for not letting traffic by, or riding in on a parallel paved path without the traffic. They don't deserve to be hit, but I think it would be reasonable to write laws that included fines for this type of action. As an aside, I have some knowledge of the difficulty for commuting cyclists. A long time ago, when I first started working in Houston, I commuted 3 miles each way by bike for a while. I took side roads, sidewalks, etc., because I wasn't going to ride in Westheimer commuter traffic (a very busy road in Houston). Even so, I was hit twice while riding. Neither time was it a serious at all, but I decided that, with two accidents in 6 months, accidents had to be considered a regular occurrence, and that there was a reasonable chance the next one would be worse. That was the end of my commuting by bike. > Is using the inside lane for 200ft before turning "asking for > trouble"? Is taking the lane at the traffic lights so that one can > overtake 4 or 5 slower riders when the lights change "being > sanctimonious"? (because that precise action got myselt and another > honked at on the red... "honk" *look round* *see bloke waving wildly > for us to move* um, no. None of those actions by you seem unreasonable. The bloke you referred to, on the other hand, does seem unreasonable. > What you're saying is that the weak should give up their rights to > the strong. Actually, while "asking for trouble" is a poor choice of words, I don't think that he's advocating that the weak should give up rights to the strong. I don't consider riding on any particular road a fundamental right. I don't think the prohibition of bikes on freeways, for example, is a step on the way to a loss of liberty. > > That's how America started, right? No... wait... the weak *took back > their rights*. Remember? Cyclists with bikes that cost more than $500 are usually more likely to be among those in the upper half of income in the US. The truly powerless rarely have nice bikes. The folks I've seen who ride on/near high traffic high speed roads usually look as though they have a good deal of disposable income. The designer riding outfits, along with the very nice bikes, are my clues. Also, I don't see operating a given means of transportation on a given road a fundamental right like "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Prohibiting bikes from high traffic high speed roads does not strike me as an essential affront to liberty like "taxation without representation" or the forced quartering of soldiers. And, I know/knew cyclists who are sanctimonious, like the ones who told me that massive backups "should be a signal that cars are wrong." Finally, you may not appreciate the background against which this argument takes place in the US. In particular, I'm thinking of the lawsuits. I'll give an example. An emotionally disabled youth, after stealing something from a store, ran out of the store, and into a car driving by in
RE: bikes v. cars
> Charlie Bell wrote > > "Sanctimonious"? How much of a "snarl-up" is "asking for trouble"? Oooo... There's that nerve again. At least it wasn't *me* this time! - jmh Woo Foo Maru CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 10/10/2007, at 7:23 AM, jon louis mann wrote: > > i think riders should do as least as much as drivers to accommodate > each other, if for no other reason than they are more vulnerable. > there is a too much hostility and frustration on the road to risk > generating more. those sanctimonious riders who insist on their right > of way, even if it means snarling up traffic, are asking for trouble. "Sanctimonious"? How much of a "snarl-up" is "asking for trouble"? Is using the inside lane for 200ft before turning "asking for trouble"? Is taking the lane at the traffic lights so that one can overtake 4 or 5 slower riders when the lights change "being sanctimonious"? (because that precise action got myselt and another honked at on the red... "honk" *look round* *see bloke waving wildly for us to move* um, no. What you're saying is that the weak should give up their rights to the strong. Uh-huh. That's how America started, right? No... wait... the weak *took back their rights*. Remember? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 09/10/2007, at 11:52 PM, Dan Minettte wrote: >> > > I agree with that statement, I've just been irritated by the > exception who > insist that, since bikes were better for the environment, rude > actions like > snarling traffic are justified. One of the reasons I asked is that > I wanted > to see the limits on how far folks here think cars drivers should > go to > accommodate cyclists. As far as I can tell, we seem to be in > agreement on > that (to within a quibble or two). > Car drivers should do a hell of a lot more than a lot of them do - a little patience goes a long way when you're controlling a tonne or two of metal and the other guy has 10kgs of metal and a backpack... as I've indicated in other posts, I've had a fair bit of abuse, simply for being on a bike. Commuting is a different story to touring, however, and frustrations boil over. Even more reason to take care. Charile ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:01 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: bikes v. cars > > > Most roads in Australia are what you'd call "low traffic", and > anyway, there's absolutely no choice about which way you go for much > of it. But when I had a choice, I'd take the route that trucks were > less likely to take. I thought that might be the case. > > them. > > If they were to intentionally make it impossible to pass, but really > it wouldn't, because like every other slow vehicle, cyclists will > pull over and let a line of traffic through when it's safe to do so. Well, in the cases I'm thinking of, traffic is so heavy they would end up going 1-5 mph if they pulled over every time 20 cars got stuck behind them, and then only got back on the road when it was clear behind them. Plus, it would be dangerous to pull into traffic going 60 mph, even if there is an opening long enough to ride for 30 seconds before the next car has to slow behind you. Most cyclists simply avoid roads like that. I see occasional exceptions, as when a few cyclists went on a freeway frontage road, causing the traffic to snarl. IIRC, there was some politics behind it, because they believed everyone should use bikes. I remember one cyclist at work who strongly supported the action. The way I think this should be handled is to make this type of action (refusing to pull over when one is causing a massive backup by going slow) a ticketable offense. I think we agree that any group of people have a certain percentage of offensive idiots among themand laws like this should have no effect on the average, reasonable cyclist. > > Sure. But cyclists tend to not want to cause undue irritation to > motorists, and with the exception of one couple I met as a result of > touring who seemed to rub everyone they meet the wrong way, all the > cyclists I've met out on the open road have been well aware of how to > ride sensibly. I agree with that statement, I've just been irritated by the exception who insist that, since bikes were better for the environment, rude actions like snarling traffic are justified. One of the reasons I asked is that I wanted to see the limits on how far folks here think cars drivers should go to accommodate cyclists. As far as I can tell, we seem to be in agreement on that (to within a quibble or two). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 09/10/2007, at 3:52 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: > > I have a question about your trip around Australia. Did you only > travel on > low traffic roads, or multi-lane roads, or roads with wide > shoulders that > can easily accommodate a bike? Most roads in Australia are what you'd call "low traffic", and anyway, there's absolutely no choice about which way you go for much of it. But when I had a choice, I'd take the route that trucks were less likely to take. > > The reason I ask is that I was thinking about bikes and traffic as > I drove > to up to Austin for a funeral. There were a number of bikes on a > two lane > road that was on the first part of my trip and they coexisted well > with > traffic, driving on a paved shoulder that was, for all practical > purposes, a > bike lane. Yes. If there's a shoulder, cyclists will take it as long as it's in good condition. Even a foot of good shoulder can be enough for a bicycle to get far enough to the left (or right in weird wrong countries) so that cars and small trucks can safely pass on an open road. > > However, if they road in the main lane, they would not have > coexisted well. > Instead, there would be very long lines forming behind themat > least > scores of cars long, if not hundreds. On the road I was thinking > of (FM > 1488 from I 45 to US 290 for you Texans), if a cyclist were to ride > the > entire way at, say 20 MPH, the line would stretch for miles behind > them. If they were to intentionally make it impossible to pass, but really it wouldn't, because like every other slow vehicle, cyclists will pull over and let a line of traffic through when it's safe to do so. > > Virtually every cyclist I've seen picked routes in which they > wouldn't cause > massive problems, so I've not seen this as a problem. But, if they > did ride > in the main lane of a number of roads, traffic on those roads would > be a > nightmare. Sure. But cyclists tend to not want to cause undue irritation to motorists, and with the exception of one couple I met as a result of touring who seemed to rub everyone they meet the wrong way, all the cyclists I've met out on the open road have been well aware of how to ride sensibly. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Dan Minettte wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Julia Thompson >> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 1:08 PM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: RE: bikes v. cars >> >> >> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Dan Minettte wrote: >> >>> However, if they road in the main lane, they would not have coexisted >> well. >>> Instead, there would be very long lines forming behind themat least >>> scores of cars long, if not hundreds. On the road I was thinking of (FM >>> 1488 from I 45 to US 290 for you Texans), >> >> Never been on FM 1488. Never even been on I-45. Guess I never needed to >> get where you are. :) I'll have to look at a map, but the good printed >> maps are in my car. > > If you have been to Houston, you should have gone on 290. The exit for 1488 > is about a mile south of the split between highway 6, going from Houston to > Aggieland, and 290 going to Austin. It's at Hempstead, just north of > Prairie View. It goes, more or less, straight east from there. I bet you > haven't been to the Houston area RenFair, which is about 6 miles N of > Magnolia. I've been to the RenFair, but not lately. When I've gone, I've taken 105 to Plantersville and then south on 1774. And most of the times I've been to Houston, it's been to somewhere a lot closer to I-10 than US 290, so I've taken the SH-71/I-10 route a lot more times than the US 290 route. (And if I'm going to College Station, I take US-79 to Highway 6 and go south. That might be a better route from north of Austin to get to the RenFair, take 6 to 105 in Navasota. I'd have to drive it both ways to be sure, though, or at least take it both ways to Navasota.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Julia Thompson > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 1:08 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: bikes v. cars > > > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Dan Minettte wrote: > > > However, if they road in the main lane, they would not have coexisted > well. > > Instead, there would be very long lines forming behind themat least > > scores of cars long, if not hundreds. On the road I was thinking of (FM > > 1488 from I 45 to US 290 for you Texans), > > Never been on FM 1488. Never even been on I-45. Guess I never needed to > get where you are. :) I'll have to look at a map, but the good printed > maps are in my car. If you have been to Houston, you should have gone on 290. The exit for 1488 is about a mile south of the split between highway 6, going from Houston to Aggieland, and 290 going to Austin. It's at Hempstead, just north of Prairie View. It goes, more or less, straight east from there. I bet you haven't been to the Houston area RenFair, which is about 6 miles N of Magnolia. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Dan Minettte wrote: > However, if they road in the main lane, they would not have coexisted well. > Instead, there would be very long lines forming behind themat least > scores of cars long, if not hundreds. On the road I was thinking of (FM > 1488 from I 45 to US 290 for you Texans), Never been on FM 1488. Never even been on I-45. Guess I never needed to get where you are. :) I'll have to look at a map, but the good printed maps are in my car. But yeah, FM anything is going to be a good enough road that the accustomed speed of traffic will be reasonably high. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: bikes v. cars
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:12 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: bikes v. cars > > I've noticed that despite the fact that the trike is only 30cm wider > than my bike, cars give way way more room (like correctly passing in > the adjacent lane.) I have a question about your trip around Australia. Did you only travel on low traffic roads, or multi-lane roads, or roads with wide shoulders that can easily accommodate a bike? The reason I ask is that I was thinking about bikes and traffic as I drove to up to Austin for a funeral. There were a number of bikes on a two lane road that was on the first part of my trip and they coexisted well with traffic, driving on a paved shoulder that was, for all practical purposes, a bike lane. However, if they road in the main lane, they would not have coexisted well. Instead, there would be very long lines forming behind themat least scores of cars long, if not hundreds. On the road I was thinking of (FM 1488 from I 45 to US 290 for you Texans), if a cyclist were to ride the entire way at, say 20 MPH, the line would stretch for miles behind them. Virtually every cyclist I've seen picked routes in which they wouldn't cause massive problems, so I've not seen this as a problem. But, if they did ride in the main lane of a number of roads, traffic on those roads would be a nightmare. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 06/10/2007, at 5:11 AM, Dave Land wrote: > On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:40 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: > >> On 04/10/2007, at 11:13 AM, jon louis mann wrote: >> >>> pedestrians are not much better. i would think anyone ambulating >>> by feet or bike would take more care because they are far more >>> vulnerable. i notice a lot of bicyclists exhibit their share the >>> road attitude by riding double and forcing cars to match their >>> speed if they can not pass. >> >> Two abreast is legal just about everywhere, and a bicycle is >> *entitled* to the *whole lane*. Even in LA. Most cyclists stay >> towards the gutter out of courtesy, not because they have to. > > I would bet that no bike -- or a motorcycle or a car -- is > "entitled" to > a lane. I would bet that it is rather like a "yield" situation, in > which > nobody _has_ the right-of-way, but others are required to yield it. If you must yield right-of-way to another vehicle, that vehicle has right-of-way. (Of course, they may have to yield right-of-way to another vehicle... this is why roundabouts can be fun...). From the California Driver Handbook: "When you want to pass a vehicle or bicycle going in your direction, pass on the left. In a narrow traffic lane, wait until the traffic is clear in the opposite lane before passing a bicyclist. Then change lanes. Do not squeeze past the bicyclist." So you must yield the entire lane to a bicycle if there is not adequate room to pass safely in the same lane. A bicycle is as entitled to the lane in order to progress safely as a car is. I've noticed that despite the fact that the trike is only 30cm wider than my bike, cars give way way more room (like correctly passing in the adjacent lane.) > > If I recall correctly from taking the CA driver's license test, there > is nothing that legally prevents two _cars_ from occupying the same > lane. The creators of certain narrow-body electric cars tout this as > another reason to purchase their vehicles. Maybe you have very wide lanes in CA... :-) > > That said, here in California, riding two-abreast appears to be legal, > but after a fatal accident in So Cal, the sheriffs who patrol the > Pacific Coast Highway asserted that they would start ticketing > cyclists > who enjoy their legal privilege. Typical. I got told it was my fault when a car reversed into me... There was a huge uproar earlier this year when a pedestrian was killed by a collision with a bicycle riding in a bunch which was crossing a pedestrian crossing as the lights changed red - the pedestrian apparently crossed as soon as the green man appeared (about a second after the traffic light turns red on Melbourne crossings). This led to huge media publicity, and calls for bicycles to be registered or even banned, and further furore when the cyclist concerned escaped with a fine. At that point in the year, 3 cyclists had been killed, at least one by a truck running a red light, and another by being rear-ended when in the bike lane (on my old route home from work...). No media uproar, and no more than fines for the drivers responsible. We're living in an increasingly blame-oriented culture, and it peeves me. It's too easy to blame entire groups, instead of simply punishing individuals who do wrong. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:40 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: > On 04/10/2007, at 11:13 AM, jon louis mann wrote: > >> pedestrians are not much better. i would think anyone ambulating >> by feet or bike would take more care because they are far more >> vulnerable. i notice a lot of bicyclists exhibit their share the >> road attitude by riding double and forcing cars to match their >> speed if they can not pass. > > Two abreast is legal just about everywhere, and a bicycle is > *entitled* to the *whole lane*. Even in LA. Most cyclists stay > towards the gutter out of courtesy, not because they have to. I would bet that no bike -- or a motorcycle or a car -- is "entitled" to a lane. I would bet that it is rather like a "yield" situation, in which nobody _has_ the right-of-way, but others are required to yield it. If I recall correctly from taking the CA driver's license test, there is nothing that legally prevents two _cars_ from occupying the same lane. The creators of certain narrow-body electric cars tout this as another reason to purchase their vehicles. That said, here in California, riding two-abreast appears to be legal, but after a fatal accident in So Cal, the sheriffs who patrol the Pacific Coast Highway asserted that they would start ticketing cyclists who enjoy their legal privilege. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 05/10/2007, at 8:17 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 03:55 PM Thursday 10/4/2007, jon louis mann wrote: >> The biggest problem with car driver in car-based cities is >> the general ignorance of rules applying to bicycles. >> >> Two abreast is legal just about everywhere, and a bicycle is >> *entitled* to the *whole lane*. Even in LA. Most cyclists stay >> towards the gutter out of courtesy, not because they have to. > > > Does L.A. have any gutters with those metal gratings with slots that > are just the perfect size to trap a bicycle tire? Dunno. On my route into Melbourne in the morning, there are frequently (most Tuesdays) rubbish bins lying in the street. I'll stop and put them back on the pavement if they're totally on the road. Those are fun. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
At 03:55 PM Thursday 10/4/2007, jon louis mann wrote: >The biggest problem with car driver in car-based cities is >the general ignorance of rules applying to bicycles. > >Two abreast is legal just about everywhere, and a bicycle is >*entitled* to the *whole lane*. Even in LA. Most cyclists stay >towards the gutter out of courtesy, not because they have to. Does L.A. have any gutters with those metal gratings with slots that are just the perfect size to trap a bicycle tire? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: bikes v. cars
On 04/10/2007, at 11:13 AM, jon louis mann wrote: > > i ride a bike and drive so i can see both sides. i am of the > opinion that both groups exhibit extremely hostile and discourteous > behavior, at least in los angeles. Some do. The biggest problem with car driver in car-based cities is the general ignorance of rules applying to bicycles. > pedestrians are not much better. i would think anyone ambulating > by feet or bike would take more care because they are far more > vulnerable. i notice a lot of bicyclists exhibit their share the > road attitude by riding double and forcing cars to match their > speed if they can not pass. Two abreast is legal just about everywhere, and a bicycle is *entitled* to the *whole lane*. Even in LA. Most cyclists stay towards the gutter out of courtesy, not because they have to. > i notice a lot of drivers open their doors without checking to see > if a bicylist is approaching. Also illegal. I've been "doored". It's not nice. Since then, I will not ride closer than 3 feet from parked cars. Even if that puts me outside a marked bicycle lane if they're narrower than 4 feet (and I'm still within the law - bicycles must stay within the bicycle lane "as far as is practicable, but may leave the lane to avoid hazards or obstructions", and a parked car is a hazard). Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
