| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5jsh6$2p6ko$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Disc brake maintenance tips Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:21:25 -0500 Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd. Lines: 157 Message-ID: <v5jsh6$2p6ko$1@dont-email.me> References: <v59bqc$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> <ojrq7jl0mgjt4osuhr7u7m56r3it4274k9@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:21:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e2b091fa070c26a15b4caf94c57c781d"; logging-data="2923160"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4h4KGPfSt3Sejgh0QR9aF" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ai3/4NEscLz6MxZqQuWBJVLh5W0= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <ojrq7jl0mgjt4osuhr7u7m56r3it4274k9@4ax.com> Bytes: 9081 On 6/27/2024 8:53 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote: > 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. OK, I agree, reification from both extremes. And your cycling is a good example of infrastructure which is useful to you. Magnitude, extent and cost are legitimate public policy discussions ( or conflicts, if you will). Antipersonnel devices in traffic lanes, wrong-way green paint lanes and so on are much less defensible. -- Andrew Muzi am@yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971