| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<sd1r7jddur68u9rgd4fn4auih5tv4ntulg@4ax.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 11:36:14 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 125 Message-ID: <sd1r7jddur68u9rgd4fn4auih5tv4ntulg@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> <v5jtva$2pgrs$1@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 17:36:19 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a04cb8bd26282b245f8b545444b44b8e"; logging-data="2951766"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198seES8WNOKJ2ekJdsREiMP8Xp4eoxBdM=" User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 Cancel-Lock: sha1:1wFXntBGm8QtNHidb2AxQcpq8V8= Bytes: 7485 On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:46:02 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote: >Am 27.06.2024 um 11:01 schrieb Catrike Ryder: >> 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. > >I know that people do not have a sense for "dangerous", they only have a >sense for "scary". Scary is "potentially dangerous and very visible". > >The main difference can be called "traps": dangerous but not scary >because they are almost invisible. > >Most scary situations in traffic pose little real danger: the truck as >opposed to the lion is not out to get you. It is out to avoid hitting >you. >Therefore, in traffic you should behave opposite to in nature. It might >be meaningful to hide from a lion but it is most counter-productive to >hide from a truck. > >So in traffic the dangerous situations are traps: the cyclist should >*learn* what is dangerous, like a trapper (because the drivers might not >see you in time) rather than feel intutively what is scary. > >Rolf Having been in automobile accidents (none of them my fault) I know what's dangerous. My experience says that drivers (and bicyclists) not paying attention is very dangerous. If we could clear that one problem, driving and bicycling would be far less dangerous.