Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Disc brake maintenance tips
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:53:21 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <ojrq7jl0mgjt4osuhr7u7m56r3it4274k9@4ax.com>
References: <v59bqc$cir2$3@dont-email.me> <4peh7jds7q52sbdfei4rile29egc94hgqk@4ax.com> <v5afah$j22n$1@dont-email.me> <v5ako2$nid4$5@dont-email.me> <v5bs67$um0n$2@dont-email.me> <v5c3mp$103ps$2@dont-email.me> <adkeO.59254$yMc7.22919@fx09.ams4> <v5d4p7$16kh5$3@dont-email.me> <8vveO.482643$ujOb.211902@fx16.ams4> <v5eo1q$1k3fd$1@dont-email.me> <i51fO.75891$yMc7.27756@fx09.ams4> <v5im63$2i8fp$1@dont-email.me> <vs9q7j9pb8d8iif8aon9945hcfv22ee0qa@4ax.com> <v5jn51$2o26a$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:53:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a04cb8bd26282b245f8b545444b44b8e";
	logging-data="2914804"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QCwnz3/Id+JC2XnBSn/pe2Mt8IuTslTU="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6xP19NVaWY0rmGGDlA+yH/yy2Ew=
Bytes: 8326

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:49:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 6/27/2024 4:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:26:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/26/2024 7:01 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure Youngstown's bike mode share is minuscule, just like almost all
>>>>>>> U.S. cities. Remember, the national average is far below one percent.
>>>>>>> And despite all the "innovative" segregated infrastructure, it's falling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again national mode share particularly the US with a significant rural
>>>>>> population is not a useful metric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cities are where it’s at, and probably 5 mile or less journeys.
>>>>>
>>>>> That may be true. But data for U.S. cities is not much better. I
>>>>> frequent four or five medium to large U.S. cities. Only one has a
>>>>> noticeable amount of bike use, and the great bulk of that is connected
>>>>> with several inner-city colleges. Two others have extensive bike lanes
>>>>> that are always empty of bikes.
>>>>>
>>>> That is one of the reasons london and other places have automatic counters
>>>> as they knew darn well that taxi etc would say “I never see a bike!” This
>>>> said clearly london is doing rather better and more than US cities let
>>>> alone number of European cities.
>>>>
>>>> Essentially bikes don’t clump up in the same way as cars etc do.
>>>
>>> This is not some visual deception. A couple years ago my wife and I did
>>> a multi-day vacation in a large Ohio city, visiting museums, shopping
>>> centers, bike shops, etc. We saw miles and miles of bike lanes, but
>>> almost zero bikes using them. Near the very center of the downtown we
>>> saw some electric scooters in bike lanes, but no bikes.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, very few Americans bike for utility.
>>>
>>>>>>> Why is it falling? I suspect one factor is the constant propaganda
>>>>>>> claiming everyone NEEDS a barrier-segregated facility to be safe on a
>>>>>>> bike. That tells almost everybody "You can't ride a bike until that
>>>>>>> stuff gets built." IOW, never.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That’s clutching at straws really is! don’t think the massive increase in
>>>>>> car sizes/volumes car centric infrastructure? To name but a few over the
>>>>>> last 70 so years?
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't deny that there have also been massive increases in
>>>>> "innovative" bike facilities! And car size is largely irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> Car size absolutely has its issues mainly width, and blocking views.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the cycle lanes have been some bike symbols or painted lanes or
>>>> possibly some disjointed shared paths. Only segregated stuff seems to have
>>>> been alongside major roads which only exist as they need to keep access see
>>>> my old 1959 cycleway as example.
>>>>
>>>> And very little if anything innovative, more box ticking.
>>>
>>> "Innovative" doesn't impress me. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's the
>>> "innovative" stuff that includes collision hazards or wheel deflection
>>> hazards for the cyclists. It's the "innovative" stuff that sends
>>> cyclists wrong-way into intersections.
>>>
>>> And as I've said before, the "Paint & Path" fans have been moving the
>>> goalposts for decades. "Bike lane stripes will get people out of their
>>> cars!" But when that didn't happen, "Buffered bike lanes will get people
>>> out of their cars!" When that didn't happen "Green paint will get people
>>> out of their cars!" When that didn't happen, "Flex post barriers will
>>> get people out of their cars!" When that didn't happen "Concrete
>>> barriers will get people out of their cars!"
>>>
>>> Innovation after innovation has been provided, as demanded. People are
>>> still massively preferring cars to bikes.
>>>
>>> And despite ever more lanes, paths, green paint, barriers, etc. bike
>>> mode share is falling. See
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us/67b4a9e2-5d32-11ee-b961-94e18b27be28_story.html
>>>
>>> Or see
>>> https://data.bikeleague.org/data/national-rates-of-biking-and-walking/
>>>
>>> Or see
>>> https://activetrans.org/busreports/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020regionalmodesharereport.pdf
>>>
>>>> It really isn’t because someone said it’s dangerous to ride a bike or they
>>>> should wear a helmet.
>>>
>>> So you say. But people regularly report that they think bicycling is too
>>> dangerous. And they are frequently told that without special facilities,
>>> bicycling is too dangerous. I'm surprised you don't admit the
>>> possibility of a causative link.
>> 
>> People believe riding in vehicle traffic is dangerous because they can
>> see for themselves that it is, not because of someone telling them
>> that it is. There are thousands of non-injury, vehicle fender bender
>> accidents every day that would result in serious injury if it involved
>> a bicyclist.
>> 
>>> What's your alternate explanation for decreasing mode share despite
>>> increasing miles of bike facilities?
>> 
>> Krygowski is stumbling over his "facts." If, as he says, people don't
>> commute unless they can use special facilities, then there would be
>> increased commuting with the ever increasing miles of bike facilities.
>> 
>> Clearly, people are not shunning bicycle commuting simply because they
>> believe it's dangerous.
>
>OK that's considered.  But recreational cyclists (you, for 
>example) can choose routes wherever they prefer and you 
>prefer cycle/pedestrian only. Which is fine.
>
>Commuter/utility cyclists don't have that luxury of choice 
>and either learn to ride in a real world of 3000lb hurtling 
>missiles piloted by distracted/high/homicidal killers or 
>suffer from 'frisson de voiture' events.

I understand and respect those who ride in those conditions. I also
understand why so many don't. 

But as I and others have said, building the bike lanes and MUPs don't
seem to be increasing the numbers of commuter/utility cyclists. There
are reasons other than the obvious dangers that people shun those
cycling activities.

>Whether you appreciate Mr Forester's work or not, that 
>behavior in traffic is eventually picked up to some greater 
>or lesser extent by cyclists amid auto traffic everywhere. 
>Reifying Mr Forester as an outlier is a weak argument IMHO.

Forester argued against bicycle infrastructure. Thank goodness his
agenda failed and thus recreational bicycling has grown as had the
manufacture and sales of bicycles.

Forester encouraged already known, common sense cyclist behavior for
people who choose to ride amongst vehicles. I don't understand why so
many people pay him homage.