Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: calenlass on 24 Jan 2011, 21:29

Title: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 24 Jan 2011, 21:29
Ok, Americans, lots of you drive cars, yes? What I would like to talk about is driving well. Do you really know what you are doing with that 3000lb killing machine? I would really like for you to stop and think about it for a minute. Are you afraid of the other drivers around you? Do you sort of zone out and let auto-pilot get you from point A to point B? Do you yell at everyone else on the road and try to get back at them when they do a maneuver that is offensive?

I think a lot of people have forgotten a lot of things since their assessments at 16, and that is pretty bad. I also think that a lot of people forget that there are other people rushing to work, just trying to drag themselves home, or whatever, just like them all around them on the road. There are a lot of other people you need to watch out for! Here are some of the things I think just about everyone I ever see around Atlanta doing that are wrong, bad, or even potentially dangerous. Do you remember all of these? Do you do them?

Roundabouts, Rotaries, Traffic Circles: These are pretty sparse on this side of the pond, so I think lack of exposure leads people to just bumble through them. Did you know that their entire purpose is to keep the traffic in the circle moving? This means that if traffic outside the exit you want to take is stopped and backing up into the circle, you should probably not enter the roundabout until the way is clear. Do not stop in the roundabout. Remember that there are other people trying to get through the rotary too! When you approach a roundabout, stop before entering and check to make sure you will not cut someone off. When exiting the roundabout, use your blinker to indicate your exit.

The Far Left Lane: You might be surprised to know that the leftmost lane on the interstate is not, in fact, the "fast lane". It is true that traffic speed is supposed to increase by increments with each lane you add on the left (although if you are surprised by that, we need to talk). However, moving into the leftmost lane and cruising there, especially so that you don't have to worry about all those other drivers passing you, will only lead to you getting passed on the right, which is actually more dangerous! The left lane is for passing. And for all you guys who decide that you are going 15 over the speed limit and that is damn well fast enough so that guy trying to pass you can just suck a dick? You are making the problem worse. I promise that no one will ever ever hold you responsible if that guy gets himself a speeding ticket. Stopping him is not your responsibility, so don't.

The Far Right Lane: Slow traffic goes in the right lane. People entering and merging, or exiting go in the right lane. If you are neither, move over. Your riding that guy's ass to let him know just how slow you think he is going is not going to make him go faster; in fact, it might make him nervous, and thus inclined to go slower!

Turning Left through an intersection: Use your blinker. Turn into the leftmost lane. I don't know about most states, but here, if the cops are itchin' for it, they can and will pull you over for turning into the wrong lane. Don't be a douchebag by blocking those guys turning right! You'll all get there, I promise.

Changing Lanes in Intersections: I am guessing most states have laws like this on the books somewhere, so this probably applies in some aspects to everyone. In the state of Georgia, it is illegal to change lanes within 100 ft of an intersection. It causes accidents. Don't do it.

Turn signals: No one uses these enough. Do people think they are just for fun? Do people just not want anyone else on the road to know what they are thinking? The average human brain reacts to events with a 1.5 second processing delay. Think about how much time that is when you are driving, and think about how much most people space out when they drive. Using your blinker/indicator/turn signal gives other drivers enough time to react and save yourself a fender-bender.


Driving is dangerous: my dad was killed in a car crash, and I was almost killed by a drunk driver once. But it can be fun too! I love driving, and it really upsets me when someone shits it all up for everyone else. It is really not that hard to be a good driver, guys! You just have to engage your brain.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Blue Kitty on 24 Jan 2011, 21:47
Nice little bit of advice


But man, fuck roundabouts.  They put in a few in north of my city and nobody gets how to use them. More often then not traffic is jammed an extra mile cause of those fuckers.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Dazed on 24 Jan 2011, 21:59
If I tried to drive in Boston the way they taught me in driver's ed at 16 I would die 28 times daily. I break several traffic laws on a daily basis, and have never been in an accident or been ticketed. In fact, being conditioned into a somewhat hilariously aggressive driver (at times) has helped me avoid several accidents.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 24 Jan 2011, 22:14
they are jamming a bunch unnecessary roundabouts into my tiny ass town and it's fucking stupid

they're awkwardly shaped (and small!) so you can't really smoothly drive through them. one of them also shares an entrance/exit with the fucking highschool, so good luck going through there at 2:30 on a weekday!


i hate them
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: squawk on 24 Jan 2011, 22:26
For being young, I am a pretty decent, rule-abiding yet defensive and anticipatory driver. And I just want to drive more to get better! And now I just miss my fucking car. Five more months I guess
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: imagist42 on 24 Jan 2011, 22:42
For being a little less young, I am a pretty decent, rule-abiding yet defensive and anticipatory driver. And I just want to drive more to get better! And now I just miss having access to any fucking car whatsoever, regardless of ownership. If I knew how to hot-wire one I would do so! Two more months I guess
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: McTaggart on 24 Jan 2011, 22:51
they're awkwardly shaped (and small!) so you can't really smoothly drive through them.

This is half the point!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: squawk on 24 Jan 2011, 23:26
uh yeah man i can't drive a car at all. i have to resort to public transit

let me tell you, though, these bus drivers got some MAD skillz. they have those dimensions memorized like their body is the bus, all snakin through the narrow streets and shit
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: KvP on 24 Jan 2011, 23:31
#1 thing, guys - Check your fucking blind spots (basically the spot in the middle of your car on either side that mirrors don't easily pick up). Make a habit of turning around and glancing into your blind spot immediately after activating your turn signal to change lanes. They absolutely positively beat this into you if you go to an actual driving class and a lot of people don't learn to do this otherwise (if they even learn to use turn signals). Cars enter your blind spots fairly often, especially when driving in the city, where lots of people drive at variable speeds.

Not doing this is a great way to get in a really bad accident you will be faulted for.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Johnny C on 24 Jan 2011, 23:46
the term is "shoulder check." do shoulder checks.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Barmymoo on 25 Jan 2011, 00:24
I am so much in agreement with the turn signals thing. Just crossing the road in Paris is life-threatening because no one indicates (and they have that stupid thing that you guys have too, where it's legal to turn a corner even if you are at a red light, even if there are pedestrians crossing the road you are turning into. And no one indicates! They just blithely turn without looking and almost mow down a one year old child in a pushchair.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Eris on 25 Jan 2011, 00:47
This is why I am generally terrified that I am going to get into a car accident and die whenever I get behind the wheel of a car. My big issues I have (maybe had? I haven't driven regularly since i moved to Sydney, thank god) were changing lanes and merging onto roads. I just have huge troubles with recognising gaps that are big enough to fit my car, and also seem to just not see cars when I am doing the checks as I come up to the merging spot. I have nearly merged into the middle of a car on more than one occasion.

 That being said, once I got used to the areas I drove around a lot I knew when I would need to double check my blind spots and worked out how the areas' roads worked and I would cruise around with the terror of dying just humming nicely at the back of my brain. The few times I had to drive in Sydney had me freaking out and making sure ben gave me plenty of warnings for when I would need to change lanes or turn at certain streets. I would also get him to double check that it was ok to change lanes. I never had an accident though, so I am keeping that good record!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Jan 2011, 00:55
Dear Americans, so you think roundabouts are a bit odd?

Try this little gem on for size:

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/content/images/2007/10/22/msn_magic_roundabout_470x350.jpg)

No photoshop was required to bring you this picture and, despite the seeming insanity of it's design, it kind of works. As least for the locals. A local driving instructor says he really likes it because it teaches new drivers to think in 360 degrees.

I still contend that cars are Faraday Cages for common sense and decency. Two people that I met last year have been killed this month due to basic motorised idiocy.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 25 Jan 2011, 01:00
that's not a roundabout it's a fucking celtic knot for cars

jesus
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Gemmwah on 25 Jan 2011, 01:06
There is one of those in Hemel Hempstead, which is quite near where I used to live, and every time I went on it I thought I was going to die. Nobody knows how to traverse the magic roundabout, once you enter you are lucky if you escape, never mind leaving via the exit you actually want.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: KharBevNor on 25 Jan 2011, 01:25
Looks easy enough to me!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Swindon_Magic_Roundabout_db.png)

See, no problem.

Bet lane discipline is a total bitch on this thing though. I don't drive, but I do know about lane discipline because one of the dudes I do re-enactment with is really bad at and terrified by driving and constantly has to narrate everything he's doing as a sort of mantra in order to help achieve maximum concentration whilst negotiating difficult bids of road.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Jan 2011, 01:32
This is the magic roundabout at Hemel. To me it's a bit easier to drive around than the Swindon one because there's typically a bit more of a gap between each mini roundabout making it easier to negotiate each one on it's own.

(http://stuffem.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/magicrb.jpg)
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Jan 2011, 01:35
one of the dudes I do re-enactment with is really bad at and terrified by driving

I have to ask the question. If he's terrified by driving, why was he given a license in the first place. It seems a bit negligent to issue one to someone who's approach to driving increases their risk to other road users.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: pwhodges on 25 Jan 2011, 01:48
There are magic roundabouts elsewhere, to.  High Wycombe, for example, though that's still more spread out than the Hemel Hemstead one. 

The scary thing about the Swindon one is having so few physical features to orientate oneself by - I seem to remember it used to have none.  There are a couple of videos of it on this site (http://www.armin-grewe.com/holiday/wiltshire/swindon-roundabout.htm) (though the YouTube one seems seriously broken at present).
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: SirJuggles on 25 Jan 2011, 02:27
See, I see the logic behind the magic roundabout, but to my young American mind it just looked like non-euclidean civil engineering at first.

I... have not done anything terribly stupid in a car in the 5 years I've had my license, but I do tend to zone out when I'm driving and just go on autopilot. I kinda think I make up for it by my compulsive over-use of turn signals and shoulder checks, because that's what my instructors drilled into me.

Also I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I cannot help but use a turn signal on any 90-degree turn. Even if it's not actually an intersection and the road just goes around a corner. Primary example, this little lovely:

(http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu230/SirJuggles/742e16c2.jpg)

I saw the guy ahead of me do it one time and rejoiced that I was not the only one.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Inlander on 25 Jan 2011, 02:35
Hey Katie I've got one to add to your list:

KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR BICYCLES.

Seriously. Okay so this really cuts both ways because cyclists, IF YOU'RE GOING TO RIDE ON THE ROAD THEN DAMN WELL OBEY THE RULES OF THE ROAD, but often (especially at night) drivers aren't even thinking that there might be anything smaller than a car using the same road as them. I've been doored twice and cut off abruptly more times than I care to remember, both during broad daylight and at night when I have flashing lights and reflective strips everywhere.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: nufan on 25 Jan 2011, 03:48
I am learning to drive and recently went round that magic roundabout at Hemel (I live pretty near there). Here is my transcript from inside the car as I was doing it:

SSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTT phew
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 25 Jan 2011, 04:06
I'm pretty good at driving which is handy because I find myself having to do it more and more. On the drive down to Melbourne though I did something silly and allowed my brain to be distracted and nearly drove off the road. We were travelling at about 90km/h (because that's as fast as I'm legally allowed to go) down a highway with the aircon off. I noticed that a light breeze was still coming out of the vents and my brain instantly went "fuck driving, let's puzzle this one out instead" and I stopped paying attention to anything but this weird ghost aircon.

Yay driving!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Jan 2011, 04:12
C'mon, the roundabout at Hemel isn't that bad (or the one at Swindon for that matter). Don't look on it as a whole, just take each short section as it comes. I used to live near Swindon and the magic roundabout was on my commute home every day. I'm a cyclist and not once did I have a problem in 18 months. If I can do that sort of thing on a bike, a huge all encompassing automotive vehicle with safety restraints, roll cages, air bags and many other safety features cannot be that bad.

And on the subject of cyclists; cycling is on the increase, for a variety of reasons and motivations and for both leisure and general transport. It's time to start driving like you expect there to be cyclists on the road.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: ummmkay on 25 Jan 2011, 04:14
roundabouts are weird and scary! i had never even seen one until i was like 20.

also one time i got in a fight with someone because they didn't believe me when i told them that changing lanes in an intersection was illegal. but I WAS RIGHT
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: BlahBlah on 25 Jan 2011, 04:21
roundabouts are weird and scary! i had never even seen one until i was like 20.

I just don't understand how this is possible. Are roundabouts only common in britain?
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: ummmkay on 25 Jan 2011, 04:23
there are a couple in the charleston area, which is where i first saw them. where i grew up, where i went to school, and where i live now, there are zero roundabouts. i think calenlass mentioned they are pretty sparse over here in the OP as well.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: pwhodges on 25 Jan 2011, 04:25
It's time to start driving like you expect there to be cyclists on the road.

In places like Oxford, it's always been that time!  Even so, I've known drivers lock eyes with me and then drive at me as if I wasn't there, which leads on to:

I cycle a lot, and while I prefer to abide by the letter of the law, I have no hesitation in abandoning that when behaving in a manner that is adapted to the view that every vehicle on the road is out to get me.  Ride by that rule, and you can be quite safe; I've even cycled round Hyde Park Corner, which admittedly was probably the scariest thing in my life.

Are roundabouts only common in britain?

They're very common in Britain, but not so uncommon in the parts of Europe that I've driven around.  The universal rule in Britain is that traffic already on the roundabout has priority; but in France, until recently, at least, the default rule (which could be over-ridden by a sign) was Priorité à Droite - which had the opposite effect, leading very easily to gridlock.  This difference in rules may be why they have been better accepted here than elsewhere.

In Britain, you also get roundabouts which have traffic lights at some of their junctions (not necessarily all!) to break up traffic flows which can lead to one stream of traffic blocking out all others - sometimes these lights are only active during rush hour.  There are also roundabouts with a road through the middle for some traffic - only possible with lights, of course - like this one in Oxford (which works very well indeed):

(http://wikimapia.org/p/00/00/83/04/62_big.jpg)
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Jan 2011, 04:29
roundabouts are weird and scary! i had never even seen one until i was like 20.

I just don't understand how this is possible. Are roundabouts only common in britain?

Outside of Europe I think they're very few and far between.

I hit one somewhere in the Maritimes when I was on a road trip and I think I freaked out a few people by driving it European style.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: ibrahimdelil on 25 Jan 2011, 04:40
i've been driving almost daily for about 8 years now. i have broken many rules and i drive very aggressively, yet i've never been in an accident or caused one. i think the key is not suprising anybody even when you're gonna do something stupid. just make it clear that you'll be cutting'em or whatever, and everything will be alright.

my biggest problem is speed, i just can't keep myself from speeding, and usually scare people that drive with me. thing is the line where it starts to be scary instead of mischievous is not clear to me so i just keep pushing on and on and on.

driving distance is the other thing i can't keep for the life of me, for that i find it so easy to synchronise my driving style to the driver i'm following. i can go for miles at any speed behind almost anybody, being just 2-3 meters apart - and that includes sudden-out-of-nowhere braking etc too.

i think i should get one track and one slow shitbox car before i grow old and my reflexes get slower, or i'll surely kill myself.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jhocking on 25 Jan 2011, 05:16
Ok, Americans, lots of you drive cars, yes? What I would like to talk about is driving well. Do you really know what you are doing with that 3000lb killing machine? I would really like for you to stop and think about it for a minute. Are you afraid of the other drivers around you? Do you sort of zone out and let auto-pilot get you from point A to point B? Do you yell at everyone else on the road and try to get back at them when they do a maneuver that is offensive?

There are a lot of people who think being a good driver means driving fast. Apparently these people have mistaken city streets for the Daytona Speedway. My attitude about good driving revolves around what I call "the short game." Precision stuff like being able to park and handle yourself in traffic and change lanes. And by that measure I am a very good driver, mostly because of being around my fiancee a lot while she drives. When people assume I'm a bad driver because I don't have a car, I like to bring up two anecdotes: the time I drove out of Boston immediately after the fireworks, and the time I drove a UHaul truck from NYC into Chicago during morning rush hour.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Papersatan on 25 Jan 2011, 05:20
"Don't judge me":
My tactic on driving is to assume all other drivers have a good reason for what they are doing, but to judge them and shake my fist anyways.  The theory is, if they have no reason of drive like an idiot, then maybe the social shame will encourage them to stop (I know it won't), but believing they might have a reason keeps me from being angry, so that I am not an angry driver.  For instance if I am doing 15 over and a guy behind me is riding my ass to get by, I think "maybe his wife is in labor in the back seat."  I don't know. And wouldn't I feel like a dick if I held them up because I think I control how much people are allowed to speed.   
Lane changes:
When you change lanes make sure you have enough room to do so.  I am forever cringing on the highway when I see someone get in front of an 18-wheeler with 4 feet of room to spare.  You know that truck will kill you right?  My brother was a trucker for a while and he complained about this a lot.  In the accident the truck will be at fault for not keeping adequate distance, but he said it is impossible to do.  As soon as you get enough distance a car changes lanes into that space and you are too close again.  This is also dangerous if the truck is in the center lane,  the one spot you cannot see while you pass it is the other side of it.  I have also seen a lot of near misses as a car from the right and a car from the left attempt to change into the spot in front of a truck because they couldn't see each other.   When you are riding my ass in the fast lane, and we are passing a row of traffic, give me time to get over when we reach a gap before flooring it around me on the right.  I will not cut off the car on the right so that you can get by faster, but frequently as I go to change lanes I find that you are already there, because you couldn't wait 10 more seconds for me to change lanes safely. 

Blind Spots:
I never look behind my shoulder, because it disorients me to whip my head around while I drive. I have only driven one car that had true blind spots.  Most people just don't know how to properly adjust and use their mirrors.   For one thing you should be looking before you start to change lanes,  When you see something is there you should be able to keep driving, not have to jerk back into your lane.  That said, if you have any doubt what is there, turn and look, I still do if it is very busy, or I am in an unfamiliar car.  Not looking is a great way to kill a biker. 
Also be aware of other's blind spots, particularly trucks.  If you are going to pass a truck hurry up and do it already, don't just sit there half way back, because after 3 miles he is likely to forget he saw you go in there, and should he have to swerve or change lanes you are crrrrushed.

Traffic Jams:
When driving in slowed traffic there is no need to speed up to the next car and then stop.  This makes the traffic jam worse.  You may have noticed that when the car in front of you hits it's breaks, you also hit yours.  This has a chain reaction. (http://www.maniacworld.com/shockwave-traffic-jam-test.html)  You know you are going slow, just slowly cruise forward, this helps the traffic behind you flow smoother, helping to clear up the traffic jam quicker. 

Boston Driving:
I drove in Boston when I had my licence for only a year.  It took the training wheels off.  It made me more confident and it re-assured me that I know how big my car is.  I think success driving there (or in Manhattan from my experience) is not to be a dick, and break the rules, but to assume that everyone else will, so when your time comes take it, just push on in, cause you have the right of way.  People breaking the rules of the right of way and say, forcing their way into an intersection, blocking it when the light changes, is the way city traffic jams are caused, and get worse. 
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Thomas Edison on 25 Jan 2011, 05:49
Roundabouts are the best, especially when there are three drunk people in the back of the car and the driver just keeps going around and around and around and around and around and around.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Papersatan on 25 Jan 2011, 06:02
My family went to England when I was in high school and my poor mother drove.  She couldn't get the hang of roundabouts.  Not the right of way or anything, but if we missed our exit she would panic and take the next one instead of just going around again. 
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Inlander on 25 Jan 2011, 06:04
Roundabouts are a standard road feature in Australia, though not anything like the crazy Super Mario platform gaming secret level ones depicted above. Canberra in particular is infamous for being infested with roundabouts.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jwhouk on 25 Jan 2011, 06:22
About left turns: can you please tell the local DOT's and such to actually MAKE IT POSSIBLE to turn into the correct lane? Sometimes the lane markings can be atrocious, especially at intersections at the end of on/off ramps from a freeway. You turn left to go under the freeway and realize that you're in the left-turn lane to go back ON the freeway, not on down the road!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Lines on 25 Jan 2011, 06:31
I like simple roundabouts. (Read: One circle on non-busy streets.) I do not like that picture of that gigantic clusterfuck that is posted above. It looks terrifying.

Re turning right on red: May, I ALWAYS look out for pedestrians. It pisses me off when people try to turn when I or others are crossing the street, especially if the people behind them also want to turn, because then they want to turn as well. But usually people around here at least are pretty ok about looking. But then you have those douchebags who think it's cool to turn right from the lefthand lane and cut off the person in the righthand lane.

My number one rule for driving is DON'T BE STUPID. Don't run red lights, don't cut people off, don't drive below the speed limit on a highway in normal traffic, don't speed 10+ miles over the speed limit, don't be intoxicated while driving, use your signals, look where you're going, etc. etc.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: schimmy on 25 Jan 2011, 06:36
if we missed our exit she would panic and take the next one instead of just going around again. 

That is exactly the correct thing to do if you do a roundabout wrong, otherwise you risk being in the wrong land, which is dangerous.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: tommydski on 25 Jan 2011, 06:53
Over the past couple of years I adopted the Let Them Win attitude to driving and I've definitely become a safer driver as a result. I only came to this conclusion when I got a SatNav some years ago. Regardless of where I was going, I'd punch in my destination (usually my office 50 minutes away) and it would tell me the time I would arrive. First of all I'd try to race against that time, trying to see if I could get it down. However, eventually traffic and traffic lights would unavoidably slow me down and the count would return to the original time of arrival. Sometimes I'd rush like an absolute asshat and arrive about two minutes earlier.

Two minutes. What's the point? Is it worth driving like an aggressive idiot for the sake of gaining one hundred and twenty seconds? Of course it isn't. Now I drive carefully and consistently instead. If some guy wants to race for the right to have those two minutes, let him have it. I don't care that much.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Jan 2011, 07:08
There have been a couple of studies that have shown that on non-motorway journeys that speeding and aggressive driving very rarely ever delivers the benefits that the driver imagines that they do for these reasons. In addition to that, you just waste a stack of fuel trying to do so.

Actually there was a study that I saw info on that modelled driving techniques on motorways. Although all theoretical, it demonstrated that if everyone abided by good lane discipline, everyone was able to travel faster, even if no other driving habits changed. Hard to guarantee it in practice, but the thinking behind it seemed pretty sound. Seems like being a lane hog offers no benefits at all.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: KharBevNor on 25 Jan 2011, 07:21
I have to ask the question. If he's terrified by driving, why was he given a license in the first place.

I suppose it's inaccurate to describe him as a bad driver, in the sense that he's dangerous to other road users. He's bad in the sense that he literally can't do anything except drive and mutter under his breath. He doesn't seem to be able to treat driving as in any way a natural action, in marked contrast to pretty much everyone else I've ever observed driving. Actually, the fact that his attention is constantly riveted on everything he's doing means he's probably actually a very safe driver.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: McTaggart on 25 Jan 2011, 07:25
i've been driving almost daily for about 8 years now. i have broken many rules and i drive very aggressively, yet i've never been in an accident or caused one. i think the key is not suprising anybody even when you're gonna do something stupid. just make it clear that you'll be cutting'em or whatever, and everything will be alright.

my biggest problem is speed, i just can't keep myself from speeding, and usually scare people that drive with me. thing is the line where it starts to be scary instead of mischievous is not clear to me so i just keep pushing on and on and on.

driving distance is the other thing i can't keep for the life of me, for that i find it so easy to synchronise my driving style to the driver i'm following. i can go for miles at any speed behind almost anybody, being just 2-3 meters apart - and that includes sudden-out-of-nowhere braking etc too.

i think i should get one track and one slow shitbox car before i grow old and my reflexes get slower, or i'll surely kill myself.

I am glad we're on different continents.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Jan 2011, 07:42
I suppose it's inaccurate to describe him as a bad driver, in the sense that he's dangerous to other road users. He's bad in the sense that he literally can't do anything except drive and mutter under his breath. He doesn't seem to be able to treat driving as in any way a natural action, in marked contrast to pretty much everyone else I've ever observed driving. Actually, the fact that his attention is constantly riveted on everything he's doing means he's probably actually a very safe driver.

As a cyclist, I find that I experience greater threat to my safety from people who lack confidence and comfort in driving than I do from aggressive drivers. Being constantly riveted on what you're doing suggests a narrow focus that means that some "out of the ordinary" things can be missed or ill prepared for. On some occaisions I am that "out of the ordinary" thing. Unlike Mr. Hodges, I don't cycle like every vehicle on the road is out to get me. However I do assume that every driver is too stupid to drive approriately around me until proven otherwise. It's a little less cynical but achieves much the same effect.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: valley_parade on 25 Jan 2011, 10:28
I'm that Masshole they always warn you about
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: redglasscurls on 25 Jan 2011, 10:34
I hate driving so much. I would never ever do it except I work 2 hours away from where I live.


I am that asshole who turns into lanes which are not the closest one, because I assure you it is much more dangerous to have me merging near you.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: calenlass on 25 Jan 2011, 10:51
Blind Spots:
I never look behind my shoulder, because it disorients me to whip my head around while I drive. I have only driven one car that had true blind spots.  Most people just don't know how to properly adjust and use their mirrors.   For one thing you should be looking before you start to change lanes,  When you see something is there you should be able to keep driving, not have to jerk back into your lane.

I have never been in a 2- or 4-door car that actually had a blind spot when the mirrors were set properly. There is a pretty simple way to do this! Get someone (friend, family member) to slowly walk all the way around your car, starting next to your driver's side-view mirror and ending at the passenger side mirror. You'll notice two things: 1) You can no longer see the back end of your car in your mirrors, but you generally shouldn't need to see that anyway since you should know how big your car is; 2) When the person moves beyond your peripheral vision, they should appear in your mirror! When they are no longer in your side mirror, they should appear in the rear-view mirror! Like magic!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: David_Dovey on 25 Jan 2011, 11:58
oh and assume every driver is an idiot and will kill you if no one said that yet

Yes yes definitely this. I get routinely chastised for waiting extra-long for other cars to stop at stop-signs or to walk at crosswalks because I have right-of-way or a "walk" signal or whatever, and so I should definitely just go. My opinion is that just because it is the rules that other cars have to let me go, or that cars have to stop to let me cross the street, doesn't mean I am ever going to take for granted that people are going to obey those rules. In the end, it's an extra few seconds to make sure it's all clear. No biggie.

Also it makes me laugh when American-types talk about how crazy and scary roundabouts are, considering I have experienced the hell of a four-way stop sign, and let me tell you brothers and sisters, roundabouts are far more sane. (Given that the people operating them know what to do)

Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Elysiana on 25 Jan 2011, 12:06
I love roundabouts, they seem so much easier and smoother. The problem is I'm one of only like 127 Americans who "gets" them, and when everyone else drives through one like they've never seen such a thing before, of course it doesn't go as smoothly so they assume that roundabouts suck.


Here's a (maybe?) strange thing I've been trying to get used to in Alabama - it's the first place I've lived where I've ever seen people do this: When someone is turning, EVERYONE behind them puts on their turn signal also. I'm not just talking about the person directly behind them, I'm talking about a line of ten people, only one of whom is turning, but they all have their signals on. I asked someone about it and they said, "Well, that way someone farther back knows that someone is turning up ahead."

This makes absolutely no sense to me. If I see a blinker on, I judge my actions on the idea that they are turning. To have a blinker on but not be turning isn't QUITE as dangerous as turning without a blinker, but it seems foolish to me. Is this a normal occurrence that I just have never encountered before? Thoughts?


Also, what is the generally accepted rule on how to inform someone their lights are off at night? In Illinois, you flash your lights at them. Here, you flash your lights and it's like they think you're coming to kill them or something. They'll swerve off into another lane and try to avoid you - and with no lights on, that means inevitably they almost cause a wreck because the people in that lane can't see them. Someone tried to tell me about the urban legend where it'll get you shot, but... come on.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: pwhodges on 25 Jan 2011, 12:21
Also, what is the generally accepted rule on how to inform someone their lights are off at night?

For lights, I tend to blink mine off  a couple of times - sometimes it works.  But I guess that as the commonest car in Britain (Ford Focus) has a lights setting that you can just leave it switched to and it turns the lights on and off when required (well, mine has this, anyhow), this may be less of an issue as time passes.

Of course flashing headlights can also mean: "Please come through, I'm holding back for you", and "Stay back, I'm coming through, damn you", and also "Where's the bloody wiper switch in this car?".
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: David_Dovey on 25 Jan 2011, 12:26
It can also mean "cops/speed trap ahead, slow down and watch out".

As a chronic lights-leaver-oner I'm pretty stoked with Canadian cars having constantly-on headlights that engage when you take the car out of park (and more importantly, disengage when you put it in park, making it impossible to leave them on). Even if it does look pretty goofy driving around in broad daylight and clear conditions in summer with yur lights on.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Elysiana on 25 Jan 2011, 12:34
I can understand if it's four in the afternoon, it might be confusing as to what I mean by flashing my lights (and I don't mean blinking my brights, I did mean flashing the actual headlights on and off a few times) but at night, if someone does that to me, the FIRST thing I do is see if my lights are on. Also... if their lights are off, how are they able to see the dashboard?

I love daytime running lights for the same reason - I know that even if I forget to turn on my lights, those will at least be on and it's better than nothing.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Barmymoo on 25 Jan 2011, 13:22
I was standing on the top of the Arc de Triomphe on Sunday evening looking down at the Champs Elysees junction and I was just terrified - there are thirteen different roads converging onto the roundabout on which the arch is built, and each road has between two and four lanes of traffic going each way. There are absolutely no road markings to indicate which way you are supposed to go and the cars just looked like they were moving around completely at random.

It doesn't surprise me that I could see emergency vehicles stopped fairly close to the junction on two of the roads.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Jan 2011, 13:32
I'm planning on doing the Paris-Brest-Paris bike ride and want to end it by riding from the finish to L'arc up the Champs Elysees in tribute to the race that it spawned. I'm hoping that I can persuade a lot of other cyclists to join me otherwise I suspect that I'll end up stood on the edge of the roundabout but a few bitter meters from the ultimate ride of victory. It is perhaps the roundabout that I fear the most.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Barmymoo on 25 Jan 2011, 13:35
Sadly it is not possible to cycle to the Arc (or at least without dying it is not possible), and the only way to get to it in one piece is by the subway from the outside of the roundabout to the inside - that is how much traffic there is, guys! - but definitely cycle up the road, and what is more tell me when you are going to do it and I might be there to wave a little flag!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 25 Jan 2011, 13:35
Also... if their lights are off, how are they able to see the dashboard?

Doesn't your car have that "first click" on the headlights switch that turns on the running/parking/stupid amber lights and illuminates the dash, but doesn't really do much for visibility? If you're in a brightly lit parking lot it can be easy to stop there if you're in an unfamiliar car or out of your routine.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Lines on 25 Jan 2011, 13:45
I much prefer automatic lights to ones you have to turn on manually simply because I always forget to turn them on. Then it gets dark and I wonder why I can't see anything. (This only happens when I borrow my roommate's car.)
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Elysiana on 25 Jan 2011, 13:45
Yeah, but then they'd have their parking lights on. I usually see people with nothing on at all. I dunno? It's just that there are a LOT of people around here who forget to turn their lights on, and it's really unnerving!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: calenlass on 25 Jan 2011, 14:23
Dovey: In the US (and Canada, I think), a 4-way stop and an all-way stop function the same way, but the all-way signs are used when there are other than 4 approaches to an intersection. You have to stop at the line, and if you reach the line at the same time as someone else, yield to the traffic on your right. Most people tend to proceed at the same time as the oncoming traffic across the intersection, with left-turners yielding. I don't know if this is really acceptable, but cops don't stop us, so I guess it is.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: pwhodges on 25 Jan 2011, 15:08
if their lights are off, how are they able to see the dashboard?

Why would they want to do that?   Anyway, the light from the dashboard would spoil the purity of the darkness.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Inlander on 25 Jan 2011, 15:20
Some important road rules I've learned from observing Melbourne drivers:

1) The lane markings are suggestions only. Don't worry about them!

2) It's okay to go through a light that's just gone red, as long as you're tailgating someone who's also running the red light.

Oh, and:

3) HOOK TURNS!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: David_Dovey on 25 Jan 2011, 15:22
4) Pedestrians? FUCK PEDESTRIANS
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: pwhodges on 25 Jan 2011, 15:26
3) HOOK TURNS!

I take it that's what I call U-turns.  London taxis (the black cabs, that is) are made with specially designed steering to enable them to do U-turns in smaller London streets.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Inlander on 25 Jan 2011, 15:38
Ohhh no, something rarer and far more magical than U-turns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn)
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Eris on 25 Jan 2011, 15:39
I have learned since being a regular pedestrian in Sydney that if there is a green man, check to see if a bus is coming up to the lights, because most of the time they will run the red light and beep for you to get out of the way.

This is making me even more worried about traffic around here. I want to get a bike and start riding it around and all that, but I am already too scared to even consider riding down main roads. I don't want to run into someone's door because they didn't look out for me!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: calenlass on 25 Jan 2011, 15:48
Ohhh no, something rarer and far more magical than U-turns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn)

how does this

I don't even

what
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: David_Dovey on 25 Jan 2011, 15:55
Go left to turn right! It's simple!

(it is not)
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: pwhodges on 25 Jan 2011, 15:55
That's neat, thanks for the education! - I do it on my bike quite regularly.  The idea is that you stick yourself on the front of the traffic queued in the side street, and cross with them instead of trying to find a gap in the moving traffic.  

Of course, it requires an intersection wide enough, and with the lights far enough back for this to be done, so it couldn't possibly be adopted in Britain, where we don't have the space for such luxuries.!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Inlander on 25 Jan 2011, 15:57
Yeah I do the same thing on my bike, more or less. Of course bike lanes (of which there are plenty in inner-city Melbourne) are always on the left anyway, so turning on a busy road in any other way is pretty alarming.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: calenlass on 25 Jan 2011, 16:07
I cannot imagine anything like this happening here, although I guess some bike lanes would do it (they are all on the right side with the slow traffic, too).

buhhhhhh
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: SirJuggles on 25 Jan 2011, 16:45
Hook turn? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VC110TeusA)

I still cannot figure out what is going on here.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 25 Jan 2011, 16:48
i remember the first time I realized that u-turns are not illegal in every state. it kind of blew my mind

i was in arizona and people were flippin bitches left and right in the middle of these huge intersections, the likes of which i'd never seen in my podunk town, and I couldn't figure it out until someone reminded me that different states have different laws. duh.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jwhouk on 25 Jan 2011, 18:32
Someone actually wrote a book about all this:

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt (http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307264785)
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Blue Kitty on 25 Jan 2011, 18:56
If I tried to drive in Boston the way they taught me in driver's ed at 16 I would die 28 times daily. I break several traffic laws on a daily basis, and have never been in an accident or been ticketed. In fact, being conditioned into a somewhat hilariously aggressive driver (at times) has helped me avoid several accidents.

When I got rear ended the other day I guess I automatically turned away from the car in front of me to avoid hitting it. Didn't even realize I did it until my girlfriend was praising me for it in front of her parents.

Does anyone else have Michigan Lefts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Left)? They're so easy and I can't believe other places don't have them.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jhocking on 25 Jan 2011, 20:10
I still contend that cars are Faraday Cages for common sense and decency. Two people that I met last year have been killed this month due to basic motorised idiocy.

You assume there ever was any common sense and decency for the car to remove. you fool

it gets dark and I wonder why I can't see anything

 :roll:

Does anyone else have Michigan Lefts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Left)? They're so easy and I can't believe other places don't have them.

Before I clicked the link I assumed you were talking about something like the Pittsburgh Left. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Left)
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Lines on 25 Jan 2011, 21:06
I grew up with a car that had automatic lights that stayed on all the time. It's not something I think about when driving other people's cars until it gets dark.

But considering that now I take public transit, so whatevs.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Dazed on 25 Jan 2011, 21:17
I'm that Masshole they always warn you about

Nah dogg, I think my spotless traffic record speaks for itself, I'm goddamned amazing at my Massholery driving habits! That Masshole they always warn you about is the one with 8 billion dents in his car, all the tail lights cracked, and a back window covered in WAAF and Scott Brown stickers.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: calenlass on 25 Jan 2011, 22:14
Does anyone else have Michigan Lefts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Left)? They're so easy and I can't believe other places don't have them.

What is this? Why don't we do this?
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Lunchbox on 25 Jan 2011, 22:37
I'm a pretty good driver! Sydney traffic is absolute bullshit but I get through it okay. Before I got my licence, I did several years of off-road rallying and hillclimbing with my Dad's motor racing club. I think this prepared me well for how to handle my car in less than optimal situations, and I'm good at reacting quickly.
Unfortunately my quick reactions don't help so much when the people behind don't have quick reactions.

(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j125/allylester/accident.jpg)

I'm terrified to ride my bike though. Mainly because my bike is very very old and I am very very slow and the brakes are very very bad.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 25 Jan 2011, 23:24
I found the most basic roundabouts to be pretty intuitive, actually.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Elysiana on 26 Jan 2011, 06:58
Almost forgot one - do you drive an 18-wheeler? Does your vehicle require a CDL? No? Then you don't need to swing left to make a normal right turn, or vice-versa. Your turning radius will handle it, I promise - especially turning left (in the US). If you're still nervous about it, for goodness' sake, stay within the lines of your own lane.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jwhouk on 26 Jan 2011, 07:01
The problem with the ones we have here in Wisconsin is that some aren't built correctly. There is this pair of them along Interstate 43 outside of Muskego that, if you're driving into them from the highway crossing under the freeway, you can't see the cars IN the roundabout come THROUGH the roundabout.

I am resigned, though, that there will likely be more roundabouts in the area before too much longer.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jhocking on 26 Jan 2011, 07:11
That's neat, thanks for the education! - I do it on my bike quite regularly.  The idea is that you stick yourself on the front of the traffic queued in the side street, and cross with them instead of trying to find a gap in the moving traffic.  

I didn't understand the wikipedia page but your description makes a lot of sense.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: bicostp on 26 Jan 2011, 07:27
To: The people who insist on parallelling my car next to the rear quarterpanel in spite of the fact that I am attempting to merge into your lane and have my turn signal on
cc: Whoever the hell invented roundabouts/rotaries, obnoxiously slow drivers who don't keep uyp with the flow of traffic, people who don't accelerate off onramps until they're in the highway travel lane, people who don't know how to take ramps properly so they slow down to 20 MPH, obnoxious cyclists who think they have the same right-of-way as a pedestrian yet can ride down the middle of the travel lane, jaywalkers who flip me off while standing on the curb because I don't stop to let them cross, joggers who run the wrong way down the road three wide

#### you.

Sincerely,
me.

I'm that Masshole they always warn you about

Nah dogg, I think my spotless traffic record speaks for itself, I'm goddamned amazing at my Massholery driving habits! That Masshole they always warn you about is the one with 8 billion dents in his car, all the tail lights cracked, and a back window covered in WAAF and Scott Brown stickers.

Masshole represent. (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-gonk.gif)(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-respek.gif)(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-tizzy.gif)
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 26 Jan 2011, 07:33
What do you make of cyclists who have the gall to imagine that they have the same right of way as cars?
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Dazed on 26 Jan 2011, 07:46
I give them a wide berth because I have lots of cyclist friends whose main terror is being struck down by any of the thousands of morons behind the wheel they expose themselves to daily, and because I came within about 2 inches of being hit by a drunk driver whilst biking at eight and it was absurdly terrifying. If it's at all possible, I'm way more deferential to bikers than other drivers, and give them way more space than is actually necessary.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: bicostp on 26 Jan 2011, 07:54
What do you make of cyclists who have the gall to imagine that they have the same right of way as cars?

I have never had the pleasure of spotting one of those mythical creatures. :psyduck: Every cyclist I ever see appears to think they're allowed to ride down the middle of the travel lane at 20 MPH and ride on the sidewalks and ignore red lights if there's no traffic coming and use the crosswalk light (holding up traffic coming from all 4 directions for an hour even though it takes them 5 seconds to pedal across the intersection because they're too lazy to get off and walk it across like they're supposed to in those situations), and get all defensive and pretentious when confronted about their self-righteous and sometimes suicidal riding habits.

In an ideal world, cyclists would be upheld to the same standards as motorcyclists, except they would have to stay on the shoulder because they can't keep up with traffic anywhere but urban centers. When was the last time you saw a cyclist pulled over by a cruiser anywhere but in a large city?
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: SonofZ3 on 26 Jan 2011, 08:03
I'm sick of people not knowing how a 3 or 4 way stop works. Its not that hard. The person who was there first, OR the person on the right, if you get there at the same time, goes first. It is not "everyone creep out and then punch it because you have no idea who legally has the right of way".

Also, put your fucking cell phone down when you drive.

Also, quit playing with your fucking gps while you drive.

Also, get that fucking dog out of your lap, you're driving.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Elysiana on 26 Jan 2011, 08:13
I get equally annoyed when I come to a 4-way stop several seconds after the person to my right, and it's just the two of us, and they sit and expect me to go. It's not polite, it's screwing with how traffic is supposed to work. I could understand if they waved me on or looked like they were fixing their mirror, but they just sit, and as soon as I go they continue on.

Sometimes I worry that Alabama is Bizarro World.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 26 Jan 2011, 08:19
When was the last time you saw a cyclist pulled over by a cruiser anywhere but in a large city?

This morning on the A57 outside Todwick.

Although that is just unfortunate timing for you to ask that today.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jhocking on 26 Jan 2011, 09:08
people who don't accelerate off onramps until they're in the highway travel lane, people who don't know how to take ramps properly so they slow down to 20 MPH

Around Pittsburgh onramps have stop signs and offramps are right turns off the highway, I swear to god. I nearly ran off the road the first time I took an offramp there.

I get equally annoyed when I come to a 4-way stop several seconds after the person to my right, and it's just the two of us, and they sit and expect me to go. It's not polite, it's screwing with how traffic is supposed to work.

I don't remember the situation exactly, but one time I and a bunch of other people were stuck at an intersection because the person who's turn it was was too timid. Along comes a truck that didn't have to stop because he was turning,and as he went by he shouted "You can do it lady!" She got really embarrassed, hee hee.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Jace on 26 Jan 2011, 09:24
My favorite thing is the cyclist who thinks he can hang out in the left turn lane in front of other cars.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Allybee on 26 Jan 2011, 09:28
Over the past couple of years I adopted the Let Them Win attitude to driving and I've definitely become a safer driver as a result. I only came to this conclusion when I got a SatNav some years ago. Regardless of where I was going, I'd punch in my destination (usually my office 50 minutes away) and it would tell me the time I would arrive. First of all I'd try to race against that time, trying to see if I could get it down. However, eventually traffic and traffic lights would unavoidably slow me down and the count would return to the original time of arrival. Sometimes I'd rush like an absolute asshat and arrive about two minutes earlier.

Two minutes. What's the point? Is it worth driving like an aggressive idiot for the sake of gaining one hundred and twenty seconds? Of course it isn't. Now I drive carefully and consistently instead. If some guy wants to race for the right to have those two minutes, let him have it. I don't care that much.

ugh I obsessively do this with my GPS too. IT'S JUST SO HARD NOT TO
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 26 Jan 2011, 09:29
Our GPS even accounts for Robert's constant speeding now so I can NEVER WIN!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: McTaggart on 26 Jan 2011, 09:43
I will never understand why people need GPSes. And I say that as someone who wasn't sure how to find my way home tonight.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Elysiana on 26 Jan 2011, 09:50
Ryan and I refused to get one for years, but then since he needed one for his job we had to give in. We go to a lot of different campsites throughout the year and it's handy to be able to just plug in the address; and after getting lost in Arkansas coming back from my sister's in Missouri, we really wished we'd had one back then. I kept expecting to hear banjos in the distance. I mean, we had an atlas with us but it was one of those areas where to stay on the same road you have to make like five turns in rapid succession.

I just can't understand the people who use them for places they go to on a regular basis. We have a (admittedly older) friend who uses it even to go to work or the store.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Allybee on 26 Jan 2011, 10:01
I have a terrible sense of direction and frequently drive 100+ miles to places I haven't been before, unfortunately often alone. it's really hard to look at a map while you're driving! gps = technology enriching my life
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: tommydski on 26 Jan 2011, 10:01
There will be a point where they are suddenly in every single car and everyone will wonder how on earth we survived without them. It's almost here in the UK.

Every modern vehicle has some kind of navigational tool aside from the motor car. It's an inevitable development and makes life so much easier.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: pwhodges on 26 Jan 2011, 10:02
Wouldn't a sextant and chronometer do, though?
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Elysiana on 26 Jan 2011, 10:16
*sigh* You just can't buy good sextants nowadays.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 26 Jan 2011, 10:17
My favorite thing is the cyclist who thinks he can hang out in the left turn lane in front of other cars.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are we talking about some dude just chilling in the lane or are you one of those maniacs who thinks that cyclists should be making left hand turns all the way from the right for some reason?
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: bicostp on 26 Jan 2011, 10:28
If I were in charge of things I would mandate that every road car be equipped with a manual transmission and have no electronic driving assists (ABS, traction control, etc), and distracted driving would be a legitimate reason for the police to pull you over. (Or just run you off the road and shoot your tires out if you're caught text-messaging, reading, or doing other activities that require a lot of attention when you're "just driving". Of course such activities are much more difficult when you're changing gears all the time.)

Cars are too easy to drive now. Used to be you had to pay attention to the car itself and the world around you. Now you have all kinds of electronic features that practically drive the car for you: traction control so you don't have to worry about wheel slip, automatic transmissions so you don't have to shift or work a clutch and can stop 50 feet before the stop line at a light and creep the whole time, ABS so people stupidly assume they can follow too close, blind spot warning radar because people are too stupid/lazy to look and car manufacturers are designing massive C pillars exasperating the problem... People are just too complacent about controlling their 3,000 pound battering ram.

Oh and I'm adding "people who creep at stoplights" and "people who merge across multiple lanes of travel without signaling" to my #### you list.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: calenlass on 26 Jan 2011, 10:40
That book that Steve linked (it looks pretty good, actually!) mentions these things and the fact that they might contribute to driver complacency, actually.


*sigh* You just can't buy good sextants nowadays.

er (http://www.brassbinnacle.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=SX1&source=adwords&gclid=CJ3D8JfC2KYCFQrt7QodxHSS7w)
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Elysiana on 26 Jan 2011, 10:43
'Twas but a joke.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Dazed on 26 Jan 2011, 11:09
I hate GPS so much I'm contemplating making a Sean-esque whine thread about them. I think they're incredibly distracting, particularly to already bad drivers with no sense of where they're going or ability to follow signage. I have maps in my car, and I look up internet maps before I make a long drive, or a drive to anywhere I haven't been before. Maps are great! They are great tools for figuring out how to get places. As for not being able to read them while driving, uhhh pull over, look at it for 3 minutes, resume driving!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: calenlass on 26 Jan 2011, 11:21
Look at the map in the parking lot of the McDonald's while you are eating your McNuggets.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 26 Jan 2011, 11:31
I appreciate GPS for going places I don't know or only slightly know the area. I like to look at a map and think I know where I'm going, but the GPS helps me cut down on and deal with the "oh shit that was/wasn't actually my turn, now what?" moments. Especially after the day I drove into SW DC with only a Google directions printout, and turned this (http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/bainidhedub/navyyardmap.jpg) into this (http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/bainidhedub/navyyarddid.jpg).
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: pwhodges on 26 Jan 2011, 11:38
My favorite thing is the cyclist who thinks he can hang out in the left turn lane in front of other cars.

Actually, I do that deliberately - well, in the right-turn lane in my country, of course.  If I try to leave room for a car, some arsehole will crowd me out, or just not see me.  By asserting my right to a place on the road in such a way that the driver is forced to acknowledge it, I can actually be safer.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 26 Jan 2011, 11:55
Exactly!
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: calenlass on 26 Jan 2011, 11:57
SatNavs are great for when you are driving around in a giant-arse campervan in a flooded country you've never seen before in another hemisphere, yeah. I like them for that.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 26 Jan 2011, 11:59
i don't understand why cyclists can't just ride on the fucking sidewalk

it's like a self-preservation instinct never manifested in 99% of the bikers I see



if I was riding my bike somewhere I would ride as far away as fucking possible from the speeding automobiles because I'm sort of partial to living and/or full use of my limbs/brain
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 26 Jan 2011, 12:01
i don't understand why cyclists can't just ride on the fucking sidewalk

it's like a self-preservation instinct never manifested in 99% of the bikers I see



if I was riding my bike somewhere I would ride as far away as fucking possible from the speeding automobiles because I'm sort of partial to living and/or full use of my limbs/brain

Because it's dumb and illegal. You know when tons of cycling deaths occur? When people cross the street from the sidewalk on their bicycles. Quite simply, motorists don't watch what is happening on the sidewalks. When you cross from the sidewalk it's like you're materializing from the ether at 12 mph as far as they're concerned. Plus, wide swaths of the country don't even have sidewalks in the US.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Barmymoo on 26 Jan 2011, 12:05
Yeah I was about to say that but Alex got there first. The pavement is for pedestrians. It is for people who are walking. It is for walking on. There isn't really any way to say that more clearly. The only people who are allowed on it with wheels are people with mobility problems, and people under the age of 8 (or at least that is the legal age limit in the UK). Cycling on the pavement is a shitty thing to do. If you're scared of cycling on the roads, take a bus.

Bad cycling makes me furious because I live in Cambridge, land of the "I just bought this bike but it can't be that hard right" foreign students who don't know anything about the UK road laws, don't wear helmets and wobble all over the place.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 26 Jan 2011, 12:06
Motorists make me so mad. It really has nothing to do with safety with most people. It really is that most people behind the wheel of a car are thinking "Man, if I wanted to go below 30 mph I wouldn't be in a car, would I!?!" whenever they get stuck behind a bike for even laughably short periods of time.



Scenarios 3, 6 and 7 should explain better where I am coming from here when I say it's bad to be on the sidewalk or too far to the right in narrow lanes. (http://bicyclesafe.com/)
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 26 Jan 2011, 13:37
warning: there is alot of bullshit in this post and my browser is really hating the forum right now so I can't spell check the whole thing or even make sure my sentences make sense. Maybe it's finally time to stop using Internet Explorer  :roll:


yeah, sidewalks are for walking, fine. i think that's bullshit but if that's what the law says fine, it's still fuckin dumb.*

but roads are for cars. bikes are not even close to cars and should not be driving down the middle of the road.


my point is that most cyclists (at least around here) are idiots with an absurd sense of entitlement and a sort of "i deserve to be treated just like a car even though I am on a fragile little frame going 25 under the speedlimit on a narrow road with no passing!" attitude which I find really obnoxious and borderline offensive.

and before anyone says it as if it's some kind of counter-argument (it's not): most people in cars are just as big of idiots, if not bigger idiots, than cyclists. that's mostly irrelevent.


it's even worse for me because I live right off a pretty narrow highway that sees alot of semi-truck traffic as well as joggers/cyclists. joggers are legit, they stay as far to the right asthey possibly can and are very  careful and considerate. cyclists are neither of those things and they are usually really rude to boot. i regularly have cyclists make rude hand gestures at me for tailgating them briefly when unable to pass and then quickly moving left and passing by, with plenty of space between us. they're just dicks for no reason, straight up.


semi-related funny anecdote: one time, i was driving down my road out in the middle of nowhere at like 11:00 in the morning, noon maybe. Up ahead there was a motorcycle stopped in the road with his turn signal on. I pulled up behind him and stopped and waited. he pulled into the left lane (oncoming, empty) and stopped again and turned to look over at me (i had my window down), I assumed he was lost and was going to ask directions so I stopped next to him and he's like "ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL ME?!" so I say "um...what?" and this genius says "you're drunk" which was definitely false since it was the fucking morning. So i raised one eyebrow at him, said "thanks," and drove off. Fucking moron.



*it occurs to me that this probably sounds insane to anyone from even a reasonablely sized town/city where there are people everywhere but my town's sidewalks are literally empty 98% of the time. There is no reason not to drive your bike on the sidewalk. And that line about getting hit while crossing the street? idiotic strawman. how about taking a little responsiblility and just NOT dash out into the road without looking first? You think cars need to be more aware of whats going on around them? (for the record: i agree completely) but what about the bikes? the laws of phsyics are such that you can stop a bike if you need to, even if it is for, to borrow your phrase,  a "laughably short amount of time" to check for cars. it's really simple



fake edit: Alex, that website you linked has alot of good advice and I totally agree with the parts that I jut read, but the entire thing is superceded by this quote from the sidebar:

Quote
It's often helpful to ride in such a way that motorists won't hit you even if they don't see you. You're not trying to be invisible, you're trying to make it irrelevant whether cars see you or not. If you ride in such a way that a car has to see you to take action to avoid hitting you (e.g., by their slowing down or changing lanes), then that means they will definitely hit you if they don't see you. But if you stay out of their way, then you won't get hit even if they didn't notice you were there.

which is basically my entire point. cyclists are the ones who stand to die or be hurt so they should look the fuck out out of self-interest. But instead they'd much rather make a stink about motorists and other crap when they are the ones delibrately defying common sense to make some kind of point


againk, this is all from my limited, small-town experiences so for a city or something, I imagine that it would be very different. I  don't know anything about cities so just realize that I'm not specifically talking about them here
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 26 Jan 2011, 13:45
Dude, I was a paramedic until recently. I have seen the result of a type 6 accident. There were witnesses as to what happened. It's not a strawman in a world where people routinely break speed limits. I stepped on one of the guy's teeth. Staying completely out of the way isn't possible in all situations. Your dinky ass town doesn't change that.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: bicostp on 26 Jan 2011, 13:47
but roads are for cars. bikes are not even close to cars and should not be driving down the middle of the road.


my point is that most cyclists (at least around here) are idiots with an absurd sense of entitlement and a sort of "i deserve to be treated just like a car even though I am on a fragile little frame going 25 under the speedlimit on a narrow road with no passing!" attitude which I find really obnoxious and borderline offensive.

[words]

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-golfclap.gif) This is exactly my point. Cyclists around here think they deserve for motorists to treat them like they're driving a car and yield to them as though they were a pedestrian, so they take up a third of a travel lane (never mind the buffer you have to leave around them when passing) and dart around everywhere because they're king of the friggin world.

You're too slow to drive like a car. You're too fast to dart around like a pedestrian. You can stop a hell of a lot faster than a car. You are smaller than a car. Don't expect us to yield to you as you glide through the intersection where you do not have the right of way. Obey road signs, stay visible, and most of all stay the hell in the gutter or designated bicycle lane* where you belong.

* And not one of your "I'm making a statement" special snowflake DIY painted-with-exterior-latex-at-3-AM bike lanes, either. The ones the highway department put there.

That bicycle safety website is full of the smug attitude that fuels this little rage fire. Unless you can keep up with traffic you shouldn't use an entire travel lane.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 26 Jan 2011, 14:01
fake edit: Alex, that website you linked has alot of good advice and I totally agree with the parts that I jut read, but the entire thing is superceded by this quote from the sidebar:

Actually, that's the ideal and the crossing situations supercede it when it is no longer practical to stay out of the way. So, really, you have it precisely backwards. Likewise I stay to the right, but you shouldn't say "above all" because there are situations where roads are narrow and staying in the gutter conflicts with staying visible and the ability avoid getting doored. Motorists absolutely need to understand that or even responsible cyclists can be killed. Further, cyclists will continue to behave as if they are cars because legally we are required to act as if we are in many situations.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: scarred on 26 Jan 2011, 14:09
You're too slow to drive like a car. You're too fast to dart around like a pedestrian. You can stop a hell of a lot faster than a car. You are smaller than a car. Don't expect us to yield to you as you glide through the intersection where you do not have the right of way. Obey road signs, stay visible, and most of all stay the hell in the gutter or designated bicycle lane* where you belong.

while it's true that a lot of cyclists are real big dickholes, it's the exact same thing with drivers and the above post does everything to back me up. we're not going to be in the gutter and more often than not, there's no bike lane. the best of us do what we can to obey the rules of the road and stay alive, but a lot of the time, incredibly stupid and oblivious drivers force us to do dangerous maneuvers in order to draw attention to our mere existence. surprise, assholes, but we're legally vehicles, and therefore a part of traffic. best you get used to it.


there's usually fault on both sides of the line, but i'm pretty sure there's a greater ratio of driver error/stupidity than bike douchery.

Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 26 Jan 2011, 14:11
I dunno, I'd say it's about 50-50. People don't know jack shit about bike laws and do dumb shit like teach their kids to ride against traffic all the time. It just pisses me off when people use the dumb bike riders as an excuse to pull a SWM and say that it's the cyclists fault if someone cuts them off.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: scarred on 26 Jan 2011, 14:14
Maybe my perception is skewed because the last time I got hit by a car, the driver was brushing his teeth.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 26 Jan 2011, 14:22
That bicycle safety website is full of the smug attitude that fuels this little rage fire. Unless you can keep up with traffic you shouldn't use an entire travel lane.

Oh, I missed this!

I'll cede that point if you can find the place where it says that cyclists should have pedestrian right of way. The site is written from the point of view that we are to behave as vehicle operators, which is legally speaking what we are. I mean, you're calling people on bikes smug while at the same time implying that the laws are wrong and we are wrong for not just staying the hell out of your way. It reads as pretty hypocritical.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 26 Jan 2011, 14:33
Maybe my perception is skewed because the last time I got hit by a car, the driver was brushing his teeth.

this makes me think that maybe I have no place in this discussion.

I am a seriously good and careful driver. Like, to the max. I didn't get my license till about two weeks before I turned 19 because I was so scared of driving. my impeccable skills, coupled with my location, seems to tell me that my experiences with bikers are not really representative of most other peoples'.
Oh, and just for the record I know very little about bike law because it's not enforced here, like, at all. Everything I said was from a moral/common-courtesy type stance, which to me is the most important (obviously, what with the lax bike law enforcement around here)


...man, now i really miss my bike. can't believe i lost an entire bike, how does that even happen?  :|
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Verergoca on 26 Jan 2011, 14:38
Wait, how are cyclists a problem? They are just obiqutious in cities, so the whole concept is to get on highways asap, and then you have to just dodge cars and trucks.

[/dutch]
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: pwhodges on 26 Jan 2011, 14:51
It seems to me from some of the stuff said here as if driver training in the US doesn't include telling drivers that cycles on a road are vehicles and are required to behave as such and to be treated as such.  This was certainly part of the training in the UK when I last looked.

The idea that each vehicle has an inalienable right to travel without being inconvenienced by other vehicles in spite of sharing the same road with them  is the cause of a considerable proportion of bad driving, I think.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 26 Jan 2011, 15:09
why you gotta be so reasonable and wise, paul? how you gonna do a thing


i don't recall learning anything about bicycles in driver's ed. I'm sure they touched on it briefly but they obviously failed because until just now when I actually looked up my state's bike laws I was under the impression that bikes should not be treated like cars because they obviously aren't fucking cars. I approached the unknown with logic and came out looking like an idiot and being completely wrong. Way to go, america.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Elizzybeth on 26 Jan 2011, 15:12
I'm a couple of pages late to the roundabout discussion (i.e. ignore me, cyclists-on-the-sidewalk folks), but if y'all haven't seen this TED talk about roundabouts (http://www.ted.com/talks/gary_lauder_s_new_traffic_sign_take_turns.html), it's worth a look...

From the video:
Quote
A study of 24 intersections converted to roundabouts found:
  • crashes dropped 40%
  • injury crashes dropped 76%
  • fatal crashes dropped 90%
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jwhouk on 26 Jan 2011, 15:17
Also, put your ####ing cell phone down when you drive.
Also, put your ####ing cell phone down when you drive.
Also, put your ####ing cell phone down when you drive.
Also, put your ####ing cell phone down when you drive.
Also, put your ####ing cell phone down when you drive.

x1,000,000
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jwhouk on 26 Jan 2011, 15:21
That book that Steve linked (it looks pretty good, actually!) mentions these things and the fact that they might contribute to driver complacency, actually.

....Uh, my name's not Steve?
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 26 Jan 2011, 15:25
nice try, steve!

no fooling us, no sir
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 26 Jan 2011, 15:25
It seems to me from some of the stuff said here as if driver training in the US doesn't include telling drivers that cycles on a road are vehicles and are required to behave as such and to be treated as such

Yeah, they really don't cover it at all. Years ago I had to ask the internets and the DMV sites just to find out if I was supposed to go with or against traffic on my bike. It's covered very, very poorly here and it makes it really frustrating to be a cyclist because people end up judging your actions based on what they themselves did as kids rather than by any sort of set standard.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Barmymoo on 26 Jan 2011, 15:31
I really, really hate the "now I'm a car, oh now I'm a pedestrian" thing too. I can kind of see why people might choose to cycle through a red light when there is no way there'll be any cross traffic (the junction I am thinking of is a four-way stop where the pedestrians all cross at the same time, and both the pedestrian and cycle traffic is always on the same road because the other road is the ring road) - I have been road-cycling since I was a child and I can start up very quickly and I don't think I have ever held up a car when we set off at a green light.

But if you are not cycling straight across but turning a corner and there are people crossing your path THEY HAVE PRIORITY. It is the pedestrian green light. You are breaking the law and if you hit them, it is your fault.

This is the same as the turning on red thing actually. I guess I just really hate people who turn corners.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Lines on 26 Jan 2011, 15:36
My city recently made a lot of designated cycling lanes on main roads and I think it's great because there are a lot of cyclists here, but it pisses me off when bikes don't follow traffic laws. I don't want to hit bikers! I am very careful about them in passing and whatnot, but I find it highly irritating that they will run red lights and cut across stopped traffic to use the left turn lane. (I'm pretty sure you're supposed to use a hook turn on 4+ lane streets. I don't really know.) Basically the bikers that go wherever the hell they feel like going are not safe and I feel the same way about unsafe drivers. Obey the freaking traffic laws. They are there for a reason - to keep you alive. You should do this even more so as a biker because it's easier for you to get killed.

Tangent: Is it bad though that sometimes I really wish I could drive a very large, fast tank and run down every bad driver ever? Like those people going 90 down a highway who cut across all lanes of traffic to get off at a stop they're almost going to miss? And the people who talk on cell phones and almost run others off of the road? Especially those text-drivers out there. You can't do both. Pick one. Specifically KEEPING YOUR EYES ON THE ROAD.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Alex C on 26 Jan 2011, 15:41
I want to run down everyone, no prejudice.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Joseph on 26 Jan 2011, 15:42
My favorite thing is the cyclist who thinks he can hang out in the left turn lane in front of other cars.

Actually, I do that deliberately - well, in the right-turn lane in my country, of course.  If I try to leave room for a car, some arsehole will crowd me out, or just not see me.  By asserting my right to a place on the road in such a way that the driver is forced to acknowledge it, I can actually be safer.

Agreed Paul. There is nothing which pisses me off like drivers who think they own the road. Fuck. That.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Lines on 26 Jan 2011, 16:07
I want to run down everyone, no prejudice.

That too. Then the road could be mine, all mine.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Ozymandias on 26 Jan 2011, 16:17
I hate it when people don't understand that turn signals are to remove ambiguity. Yes, turn it off when not turn. Yes, turn it on when turning.

But then you have shit like this:

(http://pretentiousgamer.com/etc/intersect1.PNG)

Intersection near my house

See how the road from the northeast shifts over to the left a bit at the intersection? I regularly see people turn on a left signal in order to indicate they are going straight. THIS IS NOT HELPFUL. I now no longer know if it is safe to cross at the same time as you in the opposite direction. I was never going to assume a lack of turn signal meant your intent was to crash into the house in front of you. Fuck you.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jhocking on 26 Jan 2011, 16:21
There will be a point where they are suddenly in every single car and everyone will wonder how on earth we survived without them. It's almost here in the UK.

Every modern vehicle has some kind of navigational tool aside from the motor car. It's an inevitable development and makes life so much easier.

Off-topic, but this is part of a really eloquent rebuttal to one of the main arguments people make against evolution. Basically, you can think of the gradual adoption of new car features as a kind of evolution. After enough time, it becomes difficult to conceive of a car without those features.

the laws of phsyics are such that you can stop a bike if you need to

um, have you ever ridden a bike? No, you can't stop suddenly. I mean, obviously you can stop eventually, but you are talking about stopping on a dime. Cars have things like power anti-lock brakes, bikes do not.

Here's the thing: I would agree that bicyclists shouldn't be in that situation of crossing between sidewalks, which is why they shouldn't be riding on the sidewalk. You're the one who suggested that they should be riding on the sidewalk, and then you go and argue that it's also their fault for getting hit when crossing the street.

For the record, I walk everywhere and very much hate it when cyclists are on the sidewalk. Also, I routinely have to stop suddenly because turning cars didn't notice me while I'm walking; it would be so much worse if I were on a bike and thus unable to stop suddenly.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Blue Kitty on 26 Jan 2011, 16:59
Also to pedestrians, mind the signs

There's a left turn first light at a major intersection in my town and some pedestrians think it is perfectly fine to start walking when a light turns green, despite the cross walk light telling them not to.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: calenlass on 26 Jan 2011, 17:33
That book that Steve linked (it looks pretty good, actually!) mentions these things and the fact that they might contribute to driver complacency, actually.

....Uh, my name's not Steve?


Sorry, Steve and I were talking about it a lot in Meebo. My brain substituted names.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 26 Jan 2011, 18:25
the laws of phsyics are such that you can stop a bike if you need to

um, have you ever ridden a bike? No, you can't stop suddenly. I mean, obviously you can stop eventually, but you are talking about stopping on a dime.

If you think a car can stop faster than a bike, you have bigger problems, my friend.


but that's absolutely besides the point since I was actually talking about stopping to look before the crossing the street. I thought it was obvious through context but obviously i shouldh ave clarified.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Kugai on 26 Jan 2011, 20:16
I hate it when people don't understand that turn signals are to remove ambiguity. Yes, turn it off when not turn. Yes, turn it on when turning.

But then you have shit like this:

(http://pretentiousgamer.com/etc/intersect1.PNG)

Intersection near my house

See how the road from the northeast shifts over to the left a bit at the intersection? I regularly see people turn on a left signal in order to indicate they are going straight. THIS IS NOT HELPFUL. I now no longer know if it is safe to cross at the same time as you in the opposite direction. I was never going to assume a lack of turn signal meant your intent was to crash into the house in front of you. Fuck you.

More to the point, who was the drunken dipshit who designed that intersection anyway??!!    :-o
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jwhouk on 26 Jan 2011, 21:31
I'm going to guess that the side of the road towards the top and right is from one town or municipality, while the one down and to the left is in a different one? That happens a lot in the US. In fact, it's the reason why the bridges over the Milwaukee River in downtown Milwaukee are all at an angle - two rival cities laid out their roads intentionally so they would not match up.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Ozymandias on 26 Jan 2011, 21:40
More to the point, who was the drunken dipshit who designed that intersection anyway??!!    :-o

The town I live in is 400 years old.

No "design" went into it. It is merely a mess of colonialism, mining boom, and modernity.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: maxusy3k on 26 Jan 2011, 23:14
I have the horrible misfortune of working with motor insurance claims, so I am now fairly confident I will never, ever attempt to learn to drive, because it's just way too dangerous out there.

I have a claim at the moment, for example, where a motorist was proceeding around a mini roundabout - so single lane traffic - and, though they weren't indicating, the driver behind them has assumed that the fact they have moved over to the left is an indication they are taking that exit. The driver behind has then proceed to try and pass the motorist, while the motorist has come back across to the right in order to proceed straight on and has hit the rear of the other driver's car.

The driver and insurers of the second vehicle are insisting it is the first motorists fault.

Plus there's all the Highway Code and civil liability stuff I've learned since starting work, all the stuff about not relying on signals and all that kind of thing, and it just seems to me that the only way to drive is to do so with an X-Files "TRUST NO ONE" poster slapped on your dashboard. I don't think I could handle that kind of pressure just to get from A to B. I'll use the bus / train / my feet.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Jan 2011, 01:30
i don't understand why cyclists can't just ride on the fucking sidewalk

it's like a self-preservation instinct never manifested in 99% of the bikers I see



if I was riding my bike somewhere I would ride as far away as fucking possible from the speeding automobiles because I'm sort of partial to living and/or full use of my limbs/brain

Because it's dumb and illegal. You know when tons of cycling deaths occur? When people cross the street from the sidewalk on their bicycles. Quite simply, motorists don't watch what is happening on the sidewalks. When you cross from the sidewalk it's like you're materializing from the ether at 12 mph as far as they're concerned. Plus, wide swaths of the country don't even have sidewalks in the US.

Absolutely

I like to refer to the Toronto coroner's study that determined that riding on the sidewalk was a contributary factor in over 60% of all bicycle accidents, injuries and fatalities. Self-preservation fail.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Jan 2011, 03:17
but roads are for cars.

Like fuck they are. Roads are for vehicles, which is a wholly different definition from a car. I'm even willing to take a reasonable punt that in local law a bicycle is defined in some form as a vehicle. Ownership of a car doen't entitle the driver to more than anyone who doesn't/

and most of all stay the hell in the gutter or designated bicycle lane* where you belong.

I'm not sure what the laws require where you are, but here in the UK there was a recent test case where the police tried to prosecute a cyclist for not using a cycle lane. The court found for the cyclist on the grounds that there is no point in law that requires a cyclist to use a cycle lane and it is included in Highway Code that cycle lanes are advisory only.

Aside from that there are a couple of very good reasons for not staying in the gutter or on the sidewalk. The first being that the majority of road surface degredation happens within the first meter and a half from the edge of the road. On top of that you have drains and the general accumulation of debris. This basically means that the gutter and roadside bike lanes are often unrideable and that's even before some muppet has parked illegally meaning once again we have to swerve out to get past.

And so moving on to swerving, if cyclists were to ride in the gutter, we'd constantly be weaving out to get past pothole, drains, bits of smashed headlight and so on. From a cyclists perspective, not only is this really annoying, but I get far less grief from car drivers if I get out in the lane and hold a steady line than if I'm all over the place erratically or unpredictably (which has been complained about upthread).

The other main point is visibiilty. Out in the lane a cyclists visibility is massively improved, and therefore safety. And that's not just visibility from behind, but also to traffic emerging from junctions or turning onto junctions. Street furniture, parked cars, obscured corners and that plain old gem of not expecting a cyclist to be there so not expecting one means that riding at the edge of the road is simply a lot less safe. No surprise then that in the UK government approved cycle training teaches riders to ride out in the lane (although not to hold up traffic) and this is backed by the Department for Transport, the combined police services and several motoring advocacy groups.

I find it quite that even in this thread there isn't a consensus view from drivers on what they expect from cyclists. It certainly reflects the motoring world in general. That makes it very difficult to cycle in a way that is acceptable to one driver without pissing off another. I see it as far more preferable to cycle in a legal manner that is actually safe rather than what some drivers perceive as safe.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: snalin on 27 Jan 2011, 04:44
I had a vacation in Yorkshire a couple of years ago, and one of the things we did was to go for a biking trip through the countryside. It was quite brilliant, but we also learned that laws and customs about where and how to ride a bike are so completely different that it's pretty much impossible for me to ride one "correct" outside of Norway. The first thing we were met with after taking our bikes out of the bike rental was "There's a fucking road out there!". Rude fuckers, but we got the point quite quickly.

See, here we regard cyclists as, well, cyclists, not cars or pedestrians. I think that makes more sense. The idea is that they can choose between the sidewalk or the road, but if they are using the road they should behave like vehicles and if they use the sidewalk, they should behave like pedestrians. One of the main things here is that if you ever cross the road from sidewalk to sidewalk on a bike, you have to walk it across. Other than that, bikers can get speeding tickets (usually going downhill in populated areas), and apply to all the same rules as any other vehicles if they choose to go into traffic, so (I think) they're not allowed to go onto highways because they're not able to go fast enough to be able to not obstruct traffic.

I can see why people don't want cyclists on the sidewalk, and I can very well see why some cyclists wants to stay the hell out of traffic.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: ibrahimdelil on 27 Jan 2011, 05:43
uhh pardon my interruption on cycles but;

I am glad we're on different continents.

why? i mean, i don't text or talk on the phone while driving, i never dui, i drive like a granny when it's raining/snowing/foggy, i don't do stuff if i'm not 99% sure i can pull it off, and put all that aside, i have never put anybody's life in the slightest danger. i have only two problems which i stated before and i'm aware of them.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: pwhodges on 27 Jan 2011, 05:51
These two statements are simply not compatible:

i can go for miles at any speed behind almost anybody, being just 2-3 meters apart

i have never put anybody's life in the slightest danger.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Jan 2011, 06:00
Not to mention:

-i have broken many rules
-i drive very aggressively,
-i just can't keep myself from speeding
-the line where it starts to be scary instead of mischievous is not clear to me so i just keep pushing on and on and on.
-i think i should get one track and one slow shitbox car before i grow old and my reflexes get slower, or i'll surely kill myself.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: SonofZ3 on 27 Jan 2011, 06:28
Tailgating is way bad. I don't know of a better way to put someone from happily listening to the radio to full blown road rage than tailgating.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Cernunnos on 27 Jan 2011, 07:11
fuck tailgaters

That's a sure way to make sure I drive exactly the speed limit in front of you.
I know spiteful driving is a bad idea but man I just really hate when people follow too close.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: jhocking on 27 Jan 2011, 07:11
i don't do stuff if i'm not 99% sure i can pull it off

famous last words

It's always a red flag when someone doesn't think anything can go wrong. Not just in driving, in anything (hell, look at the financial crash.) Most of the bad things in life are caused by people who were sure nothing could go wrong.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: ibrahimdelil on 27 Jan 2011, 07:33
These two statements are simply not compatible:

i especially said "and that includes sudden-out-of-nowhere braking etc too" to make that clear but i guess it was not enough. what i meant was more like this: i can go for miles at any speed behind almost anybody, being just 2-3 meters apart while not putting anybody's life in danger unless the car in front of me just f*cking explodes or something. i had my fair share of almost-accidents including stuff like trucks moving in lanes before checking, inexperienced drivers slamming on the brakes because of god-knows-what-they-thought-was-wrong, wind lifting the car's nose and pushing it into the other lane, losing grip because of some puddles in heavy rain etc. and i have never had any problem stopping my car in time or making it do what i want it to do. thing is i do stuff because i know i can do them, through the fact that i know a lot about cars and i know a lot about their reactions in certain conditions. i don't just go "wooooo i can touch his bumper lol".

and another auto-assumption that's been made mistakenly is i do it to make people move out of my way or anything. i don't get up to people and honk or blink or anything, i just drive closer to them.

famous last words

how do my words mean "i don't think anything can go wrong"? because i think they mean quite the opposite, as in "i'm aware that a lot of things can go wrong so i don't do things before evaluating the situation".

how do i get this much misunderstood  :psyduck:
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Jan 2011, 07:51
i can go for miles at any speed behind almost anybody, being just 2-3 meters apart while not putting anybody's life in danger

A suspect that a some people here think that there is a difference between "being that good" and "being lucky". Maybe you really do have those excellent, way above average reactions, but what if you don't? And why would you keep them at the limit so much? At 60kph 2-3 meters is covered in less than a fifth of a second. Is that really enough. Sometimes a little self doubt is a good thing. Besides, 2-3 meters is tailgating and, regardless of whether you are that good a driver, that's a dick move.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: pwhodges on 27 Jan 2011, 08:03
i can go for miles at any speed behind almost anybody, being just 2-3 meters apart while not putting anybody's life in danger unless the car in front of me just f*cking explodes or something.

Simple physics and a basic knowledge of biological reaction times says that you are either dreaming or so misjudging the actual distance apart as to be laughable.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: tommydski on 27 Jan 2011, 08:13
No way is 2-3m enough. Depending on your speed, the conditions of the road and your vehicle it could be ten times that and you'd still not stop in time.

I had a fun lesson in stopping distances a couple of years back (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,22300.msg862187.html#msg862187). Five car pile up, nobody was hurt but could easily have been several dead.

Now I leave enough room for several buses given the choice.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: SonofZ3 on 27 Jan 2011, 08:16
Tailgating is EXTREMELY rude, especially at night when the tailgating vehicle's lights make it miserable to drive. Also, in most states it is illegal as well.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: McTaggart on 27 Jan 2011, 08:27
By tailgating, driving aggressively and cutting people off (even if you "make it clear" that you're going to) you're intimidating other drivers and putting them in situations where they have to react to you and make decisions based on guesses at to what you're going to do. You're greatly lowering the margin for error, not just for yourself but for everyone else on the road. It's not at all just about whether you can handle the way you drive but it's about whether everyone else you are sharing the road with can, and you can't expect racing driver level reactions, awareness and decision making from everyone.

You might not have caused an accident but you've definitely scared the crap out of people and put people on edge and that makes accidents far more likely.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: ibrahimdelil on 27 Jan 2011, 09:35
uhh, i think i understand what is wrong. it is that because of my capability to write in english being very low, i keep making you people think i drive like a maniac or something. again, excuse me for interrupting the cycling theme, i'll be taking my leave.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2011, 10:05
With winters around here being what they are I don't really like making optimistic assumptions about traction. Even after the spring thaws are largely over it's kinda dicey for a while because the melt leaves li'l dunes of grit on the edges of the road. Not necessarily a huge deal if you're in a car but you'll notice if you've hit one on a motorcycle. Same thing with those delightful webs of road sealant. I don't know if they use different materials in that stuff now or what, but some of the sealant they've used in recent years here has all of the virtues of snot when it comes to providing good traction.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 27 Jan 2011, 10:14
fuck tailgaters

That's a sure way to make sure I drive exactly the speed limit in front of you.
I know spiteful driving is a bad idea but man I just really hate when people follow too close.

I'm usually a pretty big ass when it comes to dealing with tailgaters. I think I get it from my dad who generally just freaks out at that them and flicks them off.  Once this guy was tailgating me in the far left lane, the one closest to the barrier on the highway, so I speed up so that we had a semi truck on our right. I then slowed down, trapping him from going any where unless he would slow down enough to get behind the semi truck on our right. I got a few honks and finger gestures, and a few times it seemed like he was going to tap me, but semi truck pulled away to get off and he zoomed on by me.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Joseph on 27 Jan 2011, 11:00
but roads are for cars. bikes are not even close to cars and should not be driving down the middle of the road.


my point is that most cyclists (at least around here) are idiots with an absurd sense of entitlement and a sort of "i deserve to be treated just like a car even though I am on a fragile little frame going 25 under the speedlimit on a narrow road with no passing!" attitude which I find really obnoxious and borderline offensive.

[words]

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-golfclap.gif) This is exactly my point. Cyclists around here think they deserve for motorists to treat them like they're driving a car and yield to them as though they were a pedestrian, so they take up a third of a travel lane (never mind the buffer you have to leave around them when passing) and dart around everywhere because they're king of the friggin world.

You're too slow to drive like a car. You're too fast to dart around like a pedestrian. You can stop a hell of a lot faster than a car. You are smaller than a car. Don't expect us to yield to you as you glide through the intersection where you do not have the right of way. Obey road signs, stay visible, and most of all stay the hell in the gutter or designated bicycle lane* where you belong.

* And not one of your "I'm making a statement" special snowflake DIY painted-with-exterior-latex-at-3-AM bike lanes, either. The ones the highway department put there.

That bicycle safety website is full of the smug attitude that fuels this little rage fire. Unless you can keep up with traffic you shouldn't use an entire travel lane.

Oh hey, I missed this earlier. I think what you've said is ludicrous enough not to warrant replies to individual things, but I just want to say that you have the goddamn smuggest attitude right here, likely as a result of the general entitlement afforded to automobiles over bicycles. Fuck this attitude.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Jan 2011, 12:32
So you reckon people should just submit to bullying?
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2011, 12:38
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any dumber, the above happens.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2011, 12:41
Okay, here's the thing: the average car in the US weighs 2 fuckin' tons. It's simply not the time or place to get in a pissing match with some fuckin' asshole stranger just so your self-esteem doesn't take a hit. Get a self-help book instead or something. Good lord.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Cernunnos on 27 Jan 2011, 12:42
clownshoe is right. There is no good excuse for spiteful reactionary driving. At all. Even if it gives you some (false) sense of control over the situation. Soooo I'm going to stop "punishing" tailgaters. It was a dumb idea. When you and your bully are both in 3000+ pound boxes of metal going 60+mph you're damn right you submit. Doing otherwise puts you and everyone around you at a huge risk of horrible injuries or death.




(still fucking hate tailgaters)
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2011, 12:43
this thread is going to give me an aneurysm guys
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Cernunnos on 27 Jan 2011, 12:43
Also bicycle haters suck stop being such entitled goobers
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Cernunnos on 27 Jan 2011, 12:44
dammit you ruined my first double post

(HA I GOT ONE ANYWAYS)
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2011, 12:45
I can't help it! It's this thread. My keyboard wants a restraining order!
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Jan 2011, 12:58
Okay, here's the thing: the average car in the US weighs 2 fuckin' tons. It's simply not the time or place to get in a pissing match with some fuckin' asshole stranger just so your self-esteem doesn't take a hit. Get a self-help book instead or something. Good lord.

You might have a point. I tend to forget that when I drive it's a large white van with a massive tow hook on the back and not everyone's like that.

Although with unemployment looming, the temptation to invest in a neckbrace and hit up assholes in crash for cash is pretty strong.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Elysiana on 27 Jan 2011, 13:01
I won't purposely slow down or trap someone, but if I'm already doing 80 in the passing lane and I am actually in the process of passing someone (i.e. I can't get over, there's someone there) I refuse to speed up to 90 just because some asshole thinks 10 over isn't enough. I'll get over when I finish passing, calm the hell down.

I will, however, tap my brakes if I can't see your headlights.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: SirJuggles on 27 Jan 2011, 13:17
I know it is a terrible idea, but I want so badly to invest in a whiteboard and marker and keep it in my car, then I can have my passengers write messages to show to the people around me. Not even jerky stuff, since I tend to be pretty easy-going on the road. But stuff like "Hey your taillight is out!" or "Nice job avoiding that dick back there!"
I know it would be bad and distracting but I just want to make the road a friendlier place.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: tommydski on 27 Jan 2011, 13:21
We're actually getting some road rage on an internet forum, that's fairly impressive.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2011, 13:38
I know tommy, it's like we're doing everything in our power to prove that post you made on electrical audio right.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2011, 13:45
I don't really feel bad about it though. On the road, I'm pretty calm about this stuff. I can just concentrate on what I'm doing and don't think much about why other drivers do what they do. On the road, motivations are a mystery! Maybe they're tailgating me because they're being attacked by an Allosaurus and are distracted, for example. But on the internet I'm exposed to the thought process behind this stuff and so it bypasses my defenses.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Gemmwah on 27 Jan 2011, 15:01
Guys I cycle with my DM boots on so that I can kick any cars that pass too close. Cycling even in a relatively small city is terrifying because people just don't look. It's appalling the amount of times I've almost been clean knocked off my bike, never mind the amount of times I have actually been clipped or almost forced into cycling straight into a parked car. Fuckers.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: calenlass on 27 Jan 2011, 15:33
fuck tailgaters

That's a sure way to make sure I drive exactly the speed limit in front of you.
I know spiteful driving is a bad idea but man I just really hate when people follow too close.

I'm usually a pretty big ass when it comes to dealing with tailgaters. I think I get it from my dad who generally just freaks out at that them and flicks them off.  Once this guy was tailgating me in the far left lane, the one closest to the barrier on the highway, so I speed up so that we had a semi truck on our right. I then slowed down, trapping him from going any where unless he would slow down enough to get behind the semi truck on our right. I got a few honks and finger gestures, and a few times it seemed like he was going to tap me, but semi truck pulled away to get off and he zoomed on by me.


...You did this in the far left lane?
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Akima on 27 Jan 2011, 16:51
I commute to work each day on a bicycle in Sydney. I'm a big fan of legal "vehicular" cycling, and I'd make a few points (from the perspective of New South Wales law):


Training for cyclists, even on basic stuff like how to adjust the saddle or how to start and stop safely, is very poor. Most parents are not regular vehicular cyclists, and pass on bad habits to their kids. Schools pretty much discourage kids from riding to and from school, and provide no training. A lot of cycling safety information pretty much begins and ends with "wear a helmet". I was once essentially thrown out of a training course for cycling trainers for objecting to the instructor's recommendation that it was OK to teach people to ride through Stop signs/lines, or ignore other road rules, "when it was safe". With the very rare exception of intentional vehicular homicide, every road-accident occurs between vehicles piloted by people doing what they thought was safe.

The cycle-trade is pretty bad with regard to legal road cycling. The average bike-shop is quite happy to sell someone a bike that it is not legal to ride on the road, without warning the purchaser of that fact.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Inlander on 27 Jan 2011, 17:10
I don't have a driver's licence, much less a car, and I get everywhere I need to get in the city by cycling or using public transport. In Melbourne the conflict between cyclists and motorists has been simmering for a long time, even as the inner-city councils have gone out of their way to become more bike-friendly (the growth of cycling infrastructure in the inner city even since I moved here in 2004 has been astounding). I don't have much experience with riding on the road in other cities (I grew up in Canberra which has an excellent and extensive network of bike paths almost all of which are at some remove from the road), but I can report that the problem of cyclists ignoring road rules in Melbourne is near-epidemic. It makes me so angry, because on the one hand the cycling community is demanding to be treated with more respect by motorists - and fair enough - but on the other hand there's absolutely no pressure within the cycling community to ensure that cyclists actually behave like law-abiding road users.

This is one of the reasons why I really, really dislike Critical Mass, which seems to go out of its way to make bike-riding as obstructive and as disruptive to motorists as possible. This is not the way to ensure that the single cyclist riding down a busy road is going to be treated with respect and concern by motorists.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Akima on 27 Jan 2011, 17:37
This is one of the reasons why I really, really dislike Critical Mass, which seems to go out of its way to make bike-riding as obstructive and as disruptive to motorists as possible. This is not the way to ensure that the single cyclist riding down a busy road is going to be treated with respect and concern by motorists.
Oh yes. So very much.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: jhocking on 27 Jan 2011, 17:56
how do i get this much misunderstood  :psyduck:

y'know I just thought of something. I've never been to Turkey but I hear the roads there are a lot like Egypt was, and in Egypt dangerous driving was the norm. Which doesn't make it any less dangerous, but people just don't think it is. The government (and thus the people living there) just doesn't give a shit about traffic safety. The driving test was laughable and there literally weren't any signs or lane markings on the roads; sometimes there wasn't even really a division separating the two sides of the road.

I wasn't quite old enough to drive back then but I'm sure that experience is why to this day I don't take road amenities for granted. A lot of people don't really grasp what driving is like without road crews maintaining the roads. And this isn't just foreign countries that don't think things through traffic-wise; I already mentioned how onramps around Pittsburgh have stop signs.

Or come to think of it how a lot of people think it is normal to drive like assholes around cyclists. Nobody ever told them otherwise.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: calenlass on 27 Jan 2011, 18:05
When you are turning (American) right onto another 2-lane road and you want to be in that road's left lane, but the rightmost lane is designated just for you, and there is a sign that says "keep moving", DO. NOT. STOP. Just because you want to change lanes and there is cross traffic in your way does not mean you can block all the people behind you, especially when you have your own fucking lane.

If I hit you because you stopped, it actually might be your fault. Suck on that, KSU students.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Joseph on 27 Jan 2011, 19:20
This is one of the reasons why I really, really dislike Critical Mass, which seems to go out of its way to make bike-riding as obstructive and as disruptive to motorists as possible. This is not the way to ensure that the single cyclist riding down a busy road is going to be treated with respect and concern by motorists.

Critical Mass also becomes one of the only occasions where cyclists end up being privileged on the roads, and even then it's only due to the strength of their numbers, not due to general societal perceptions, the typical designs of modern cities, and road laws in many areas, all of which highly favour those who drive over those who cycle. Critical Mass serves as a communicating point and organizing event for cycling activists, alerts those distanced from any cycling community to such a community's existence in a very high profile way, and serves, all things considered, as a very pacifistic but effective means of social protest for some activists. It gives cyclists in many cities a rare opportunity to actually feel safe and in charge on the road, and in some places, such as Vancouver, it has become a giant event, accepted by wider communities. The inconvenience to drivers is, all things considered, quite minimal; they are looking, at most, to lose ten or fifteen minutes in their trip.

I agree that it is perhaps not the most tactful way to approach people about cycling issues, but I think the problems of the mass are often overstated, and that going through other channels beyond such events is not necessarily going to effectively enact any change. I don't participate often, but the Masses I have been to have been really awesome and inspiring things.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: StaedlerMars on 27 Jan 2011, 19:22
Is this the right time to say I plan to be critical massing tomorrow?

Edit: to contribute to the discussion, there's a trend amongst cyclists that I first noticed in NY and am starting to notice here as well. People have started wearing protection (helmets, flourescent jackets, etc) consistently while biking, and as a result I've definitely noticed an increase in biking - whether this is due to increased visibility of bikers or an actual increase in numbers I don't know. I think the dedicated bikers have become very aware of their environment and how dangerous biking can be, taking the road very seriously. Here bikers will deride other bikers for not being very safety conscious.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 27 Jan 2011, 19:29
You could have just gotten out of the way. From the way you described it, you were in the passing lane and were able to change speed and get next to a semi (a dangerous and stupid thing to do), so it seems as though you could have easily slowed down and move aside to let the car pass. By blocking the car behind you, you were obstructing the flow of traffic.

I really don't get this self-righteous stance that people take against people who tailgate, in that you must obstruct them and slow them down, just to stick it to them. Yes, what they are doing is wrong, but what you're doing is no better and just increases the chance that an accident can happen.

Eh, didn't say I was proud of it.

I'm pretty good about getting out of the way when I can to let people pass.

I know it is a terrible idea, but I want so badly to invest in a whiteboard and marker and keep it in my car, then I can have my passengers write messages to show to the people around me. Not even jerky stuff, since I tend to be pretty easy-going on the road. But stuff like "Hey your taillight is out!" or "Nice job avoiding that dick back there!"
I know it would be bad and distracting but I just want to make the road a friendlier place.

Thinkgeek makes an LED thing for something like that
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: SonofZ3 on 27 Jan 2011, 19:41
I live in Pittsburgh, well, about 3 miles away from downtown actually, and none of the onramps I can think of have stop signs. Except when the onramp is on a stretch of roadway that is under "road work", then there is a stop sign.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Jan 2011, 22:51

Cyclists who illegally block intersections so other cyclists can run through red lights are assholes.

Either get a permit for your cycling parade, or obey the rules of the road.


Firstly it's not a parade. If any formal label should be applied it's a demonstration that seeks to highlight the massive inequity in provision of facilities for cyclists and reclaim the road for the most vulnerable. It should come as no surprise to you that it is happening as it's been happening on the last friday of every month for several years.

Secondly many critical mass rides do have a permit of sorts. In London the police endeavoured to stop Critical Mass but failed when the courts were unable to determine an organiser and considered the event's history to constitute "common and customary" which means that it has a standing permit to happen on the last Friday of every month. I understand this legal position to be the same in other cities and some councils have designated it as an official event (apparently the recognise the benefit to the city).

Come to think of it, in London the police officers are often prepeared to get involved in the road blocking to allow cyclists to disbey red lights. I suppose you could call them assholes but in my experience every officer on a bike at Critical Mass is a lovely, lovely person and an absolute credit to the uniform and society.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: est on 28 Jan 2011, 02:32
Sometimes at critical mass things here you'll get dickwads who threaten people in cars with bike locks and shit like that.  Generally I don't understand how it's supposed to raise people's opinion of bicyclists when it's a massive pain in the ass and some of the cyclists behave like jerks.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 28 Jan 2011, 03:36
I don't attend CM any more on the grounds that est mentioned. The active antagonism is an unsettling aspect of it, rather than the passive antagonism of simply being there. I prefer the approach of direct engagement campaigning and necessarily distance myself from a group that contains people who feel a need to indiscriminately get their own back.

However, with respect to CM obeying the rules of the road, one of the key issues that I think is important is that it highlights that road design, road traffic rules and traffic flow management and policing very rarely consider cyclists, their vulnerabilities and their needs. Whilst I normally operate on a philosophy that if you don't like rules you should change them not break them, a nodal demonstration that you aren't always going to simply lie down and take it. For this reason I value the existence of CM, even if I'm not going to participate.

And moving on with the subject of road design etc, the business of road traffic planning and management is immense, even in these austere times. Huge resources are constantly expended on pursuing some unobtainable nirvana of free flowing traffic for all at all times, yet since we started building bypasses, expanded roads and other congestion relief measures in the 1930's we have experienced little to no success at all. But parallel to those 80 years of failure, efforts to expand cycle networks and improve other forms of sustainable transport have shown some success. I'm of the opinion that it is perhaps time to stop pandering to the desires of motorists and try something different. In the words of the former Mayor of Bogata - Eric Penalosa Traffic jams are not always bad. The priority is not always to relieve them.They will force people to use public transportation.”
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Inlander on 28 Jan 2011, 07:19
Roads in the UK are absolutely horrendous for cyclists. When I lived there in 2003 I almost always rode on the footpath (very slowly and carefully and always making way for pedestrians) and I copped a lot of abuse from pedestrians for it, but at the end of the day I'd rather be abused by a pedestrian than almost killed by a bus. It's not just the attitude of the drivers in the UK - though that's appalling, the way people drive around twisty narrow roads like absolute maniacs never ceases to terrify me - but the design of the roads, as mentioned in the previous post: there's basically no shoulder in which a cyclist can ride and put him or herself at a safe distance from drivers.

Roads in Australia, on the other hand, are broader and generally have a wide shoulder and basically I don't think there's any excuse at all for cyclists in Australia not to obey every road rule if they choose to ride on the road.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 28 Jan 2011, 07:48
Oddly, I prefer UK roads. I find them more intimate and, in as much as is possible, sympathetic to the countryside. I guess it's a function of having been developed over centuries. I do a lot of long distance cycling, regularly covering over a hundred miles and really love the back roads and the views and feel that they have.

When cycled across Canada I did find that the roads were often quite hostile, functional environments, devoid of any character or care for the surroundings. Shoulders were certainly a mixed blessing. Sometimes very good, other times completely unridable, despite the opinion of other road users.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: KharBevNor on 28 Jan 2011, 08:47
Man I haven't been cycling for ages. I just use the bus.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 28 Jan 2011, 10:17
this has nothing to do with what's been discussed here recently but on my way into work just now I passed a car going down the highway at about a 25 degree angle. I thought it was an illusion at first then, when I realized it wasn't, I thought they were drifting or out of control or something.

nope! just got some fucked up axels or alignment or something. I've never seen anything like it, it was practically driving sideways.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: redglasscurls on 28 Jan 2011, 10:35
The whole bikecapades seems to be winding down now, but can we all agree that there is a difference between these two types of cyclists?
One is riding to get somewhere useful, is aware of his/her surroundings, and chooses routes which are specifically best suited to both their travel path AND safety of everyone else on the road.
The other is riding for health or recreation, usually travels in a large spandex-clad pack, and chooses routes which are "scenic" (aka winding and rural, rendering them invisible until the last minute) or "challenging" (aka very hilly, also rendering them invisible and making sudden downhill braking a dangerous necessity).

Cyclist:                                                                                                                      ASSHOLE:
(http://www.notoiletpaper.com/content_images/1/cyclist_amsterdam.jpg)  (http://gmcbike.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rinding-road-bike.jpg)
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: ackblom12 on 28 Jan 2011, 10:38
Nah, there is a healthy amount of asshole for both types of cyclist.

This whole argument basically boils down to everyone being an asshole.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 28 Jan 2011, 10:43
exactly.

we are all gigantic assholes, it's just a matter of perspective and style
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 28 Jan 2011, 11:14

The other is riding for health or recreation, usually travels in a large spandex-clad pack, and chooses routes which are "scenic" (aka winding and rural, rendering them invisible until the last minute) or "challenging" (aka very hilly, also rendering them invisible and making sudden downhill braking a dangerous necessity).


Except what you have posted a picture of there is the tour de france, which is a race held on closed roads so not really any upset to motorists and has spawned this:

(http://www.besportier.com/archives/world’s-largest-bike-didi-senft.jpg)

Which is a delight to all. The Tour de France is the demonstration of a legitimate professional sport at it's pinnacle and is still regarded as the toughest single discipline event in the world and doesn't warrant criticism.

What you really want is to post a picture of an audax rider, who will go out of their way to ride incredibly long distances such as the 600km ride that I will be doing back and forth across Wales, which is both "scenic" and "challenging". Not only that, I will also be doing toe ride effectively non-stop so will be sleep deprived for much of it as well. We tend to look a lot like this:

(http://cheltenhamctc.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/rob.jpg)

Note the heavier than necessary bike along with a stupidly oversized saddlebag that is hand stiched in the Lake District out of some wierdo fabric called cotton duck. Also pay attention to the maptrap, of which we will extol the virtues, at length accompanied by an obscure cycling jersey, silly hat and look of self-satisfied smugness at having cycled across the Barmouth rail bridge in daylight. Audax riding spawns the utter assholery of the highest order.

BTW, this isn't me, this is Rob. I have no idea who he is, but it doesn't take much to tell he's probably an absolute motherfucker.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Cernunnos on 28 Jan 2011, 11:15


Cyclist/ASSHOLE



Yeah I would like to add that this is utter nonsense. What kind of fascist doesn't think bikes are suited for recreation? Have you never ridden a bike before? Riding bikes around the countryside is healthy, rewarding, enjoyable recreation in the same way hiking, skiing, kayaking, canoeing etc. are. It's also really good exercise. not being able to handle seeing spandex shorts every once in a while is your problem, not theirs. Long distance exercise cyclists are the least of anybody's worries. Just wait for an opening and go around them. It's not hard.

I say this as a dude who drives.

Some people drive like idiots. Some people bike like idiots. Wearing spandex and taking the scenic route is not idiotic no matter how much it might not be to your taste. Get over it.

 
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 28 Jan 2011, 11:22
As always, being a douche bag tends to come down to one trait more often than not: a misplaced sense of entitlement. This is applicable to many things! For example, are you interested in sexy times with someone? That's okay and normal! Do you think that person pretty much owes it to you? Now you're thinking like a sex offender!
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: sean on 28 Jan 2011, 11:27
i cant wait for spring to come cause im gonna be the biggest douche on that fixie i found.

(oh yeah btw i did what you all said i should do, i had like 5 or so people contact me, and none of them were the owner of that bike. womp i kinda feel bad for the dude who lost it but eh. plus if i didnt scoop it ive had like 5 people tell me they wanted to scoop it so super womp i am a dick and a bad adult.)
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: tommydski on 28 Jan 2011, 11:28
I am pleased the way we have managed to introduce comparisons which involve Fascism and sex offenders now.

This thread is going in the right direction.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: SonofZ3 on 28 Jan 2011, 11:46
Please tell me all you QC cyclists wear at least 1 of those blinking lights that atrap to your arm, or have one on your bike. When it gets to be dusk, people on bikes without lights are ridiculously hard to fucking see from a vehicle. I'm not sure why, but its the truth.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: redglasscurls on 28 Jan 2011, 11:47
I'm kind of amused that you've taken from my example that I don't think bikes should be used for fun. Because you are completely wrong! You're taking my saying pretty much exactly what you are (some people on bikes ride like dickheads! other people don't!) and spinning it around for absolutely no valid reason that I can fathom except that everyone is already in an argumentative mood about this.

Wear all the spandex you like and get nice and healthy on your bike. Just don't you dare look at me like I'M the giant douche when I am pinned between your glacial uphill progress and a gigantic SUV roaring up behind me flashing its lights.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Joseph on 28 Jan 2011, 11:52
No offense Amanda but if in that situation you honk at the cyclist or act like he has no right to be on the road then I think you're dead wrong.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Cernunnos on 28 Jan 2011, 12:46
and spinning it around
ASSHOLE
I'm not spinning anything. How is calling people assholes for riding bikes up hills not argumentative?

And if you'll notice I'm not making bikers look bad by being argumentative, because I'm not a biker. I'm just a courteous driver. C'ept to tailgaters apparently but I'm not gonna do that anymore.

To Jens's comment, Bikers do belong on the roads. It's even in the law. The question of the infrastructure not being designed for them specifically is a flaw in said infrastructure. You are right to say it is to be expected for drivers to feel a sense of entitlement, but it is not reasonable of them to do so.

Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: calenlass on 28 Jan 2011, 12:52
I accidentally tapped a guy a few months ago at the intersection I have in mind because he stopped, accelerated forward, and then stopped again. I guess he was checking the cross traffic again, but I was seriously not expecting that.



some wierdo fabric called cotton duck

Cotton duckcloth is basically just a heavy-duty canvas that has been weather treated to make it good for outdoor purposes. It is basically like a hardcore denim that you would never want to wear because shit is really not comfortable.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: redglasscurls on 28 Jan 2011, 13:01
People who make roads dangerous by their activities are assholes. Whether they are a speeder careering around a hilly curve in a 2-ton vehicle or a cyclist panting around that hilly curve on a road bike, they are both endangering other people with equal rights to drive/ride on that road by their actions, and in either case I think it is reprehensible.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: redglasscurls on 28 Jan 2011, 13:06
No offense Amanda but if in that situation you honk at the cyclist or act like he has no right to be on the road then I think you're dead wrong.

Double posting to say that I have never once done this. I HAVE however, been cursed at by cyclists AND tiny women in giant cars for not putting myself in danger and looping around bikes over a double yellow.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Cernunnos on 28 Jan 2011, 13:17
That might be because passing bikes over a double yellow line is legal in a few but not most states, mine being one of them. Admittedly i don't know about yours. I'd never have given a second thought if there was no oncoming traffic, especially since even in states where it is against the law, it's not exactly a heavily enforced offense.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Slick on 28 Jan 2011, 13:40
You know five hours ago I had a post typed up because I am a guy all about bikes but then I decided to wait until I got back from school again and had more time to write a better post.
Somehow no longer feel like doing so!
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: redglasscurls on 28 Jan 2011, 13:54
From cursory research, that seems to apply only in Pennsylvania and Vermont. I have never lived in either of these states- in both Maryland and Virginia it is only legal to pass at dashed lines, usually with the very good reason that double yellows are used where you cannot see far enough ahead (due to the hills and curves I seem to keep harping on about) to safely pass.

I'm not worried about being pulled over for going around a bike, I'm worried about getting hit head-on by a car I couldn't see because someone chose to ride their bike in an area where they were fully aware they would not be able to keep up with the flow of traffic and their fellow vehicles would not have safe options while trying to avoid endangering them.

I despise driving and 100% support biking, and changes in roads to make them friendly to both types of vehicles. I would love to see more people choose cycling wherever possible. I do not support people putting me in danger during the time I begrudgingly spend on the road by riding in places which are just not yet safe for either the rider or the driver to be in such close proximity.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Lines on 28 Jan 2011, 13:55
Re tailgating: If someone rushes up behind me nearly giving me a heartattack on the highway, I'm going to get out of the way if it's possible. Because I don't want to die because someone is stupid. If I have nowhere else to go, then they can go fuck themselves and slow their stupid ass down. I will not speed up, however, unless it is to pass another car to get out of the way or I honestly think you are going to plow into me if I don't. (There was only one instance where I really felt I was going to die because of some stupid, huge SUV and it scared the shit out of me.) Don't tailgate. It scares people. I don't care how nice you are in person, if you tailgate on highways, you are a dick.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Jan 2011, 15:17
People who make roads dangerous by their activities are assholes. Whether they are a speeder careering around a hilly curve in a 2-ton vehicle or a cyclist panting around that hilly curve on a road bike, they are both endangering other people with equal rights to drive/ride on that road by their actions, and in either case I think it is reprehensible.

Going faster than is safe is always reprehensible.  But there is no absolute right to travel even at the fastest "safe" speed, either, so I suggest that if you think a slow cyclist (riding properly, none-the-less) is causing danger, the danger is coming from you going too fast to accommodate their "equal rights" in the conditions on that road.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Inlander on 28 Jan 2011, 16:55
Please tell me all you QC cyclists wear at least 1 of those blinking lights that atrap to your arm, or have one on your bike.

Flashing red light on the back of the bike, bright rechargeable light on the front, emergency back-up flashing LED light on the front as well for when the main light's battery dies in the middle of a ride or when I have to ride on a footpath briefly and I don't want to dazzle pedestrians, reflective bandolier style vest which I put on over my bag so that it's visible from both front and back, and reflective ankle straps which provide the dual purpose of keeping my trouser legs out of the chain and providing a highly visible moving object to (hopefully) catch the eye of any motorist.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving
Post by: jhocking on 28 Jan 2011, 18:26
I live in Pittsburgh, well, about 3 miles away from downtown actually, and none of the onramps I can think of have stop signs. Except when the onramp is on a stretch of roadway that is under "road work", then there is a stop sign.

I guess I should have specified this was back in college, so they may have wised up by now. I remember the stop signs especially because I had to explain to my roommate why they were a bad idea. I can't imagine the right turns off the highway are gone though; do you encounter those? You had to slow down while still on the highway.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: KharBevNor on 28 Jan 2011, 21:35
Lights are fine but I don't understand reflective straps. I'm not convinced they serve any purpose but being expensive and making you look like a fuckwit. My bike has lights, as it is required to have by law. If people are going to ignore those lights, I don't think draping myself in extra-lights and high-vis is particularly going to help.

It's the same with all this spandex tosh. I can't help but think it's just companies that make cycling accessories desperately trying to come up with new ways of making you part with cash. For me, the beauty of cycling (when I do it, as I said I'm mostly on a bus and walking jag at the moment for various reasons) is its utter simplicity. You get on the bike and go; you don't need special clothes or gear or shoes, just a bike. I have a folding bike, which is quite nice although honestly a bit much and rather impractical. The small wheel size makes doing everything doubly difficult (I originally got it so I could keep it in my bedroom in a shared house).

What's peoples position on helmets? I don't wear one. No point.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 28 Jan 2011, 21:40
If you're going to ride a bike you should wear a helmet. It's the difference between brain damage and less or possibly no brain damage for the cost of a little bit of money. Entirely worth it, in my opinion but then I'm big on not injuring myself so whatever.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: KharBevNor on 28 Jan 2011, 21:51
If you get hit by a car having thirty quids worth of cheap plastic and styrofoam strapped to your head is not going to make any difference to your wellbeing whatsoever.

I have been in two cycling accidents over the past five years, in neither of which would wearing a helmet have remotely saved me from injury (either injuries that occured or could have potentially occured). The one time I hit my head it was chin first. My father was wearing a helmet when he had a fairly bad cycling accident in the early 90's and his face still got ripped to shreds; like me, he landed on the front of his face, which makes sense if you think about how you're likely to come off a bike. Unlike me, he was wearing old fashioned glass spectacles. If I was truly concerned about the dangers, I'd wear a full-face helmet. But really, statistically, cycling is about as dangerous as being a pedestrian, and I don't wear a helmet to cross the street.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Elizzybeth on 28 Jan 2011, 22:06
As a driver, I can confirm that reflective straps on the ankles, reflectors on pedals, and reflectors on the back of helmets go a long way toward making a bicyclist look visible at night.  A number of times, I have seen a night bicyclist only because of the reflection of my headlights off of one or more of these things.  Lights are great and all but reflectors are really effective (and many times brighter than the little red lights, which sometimes get accidentally covered by coats, etc.), and I don't see why you'd ever argue against being more visible...

Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Inlander on 28 Jan 2011, 22:11
We have reflective straps for the same reason we have cat's eyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_eye_%28road%29) on roads in addition to street lights: the sudden flare up of light from a reflective surface is much more eye-catching than an ordinary light is. Flourescent reflective straps for bicycles are particularly useful at dusk: normal lights can be easy to miss in such conditions, but the reflective straps are extraordinarily vivid.

Also because when you're a cyclist there's no such thing as "too visible" and if you're worried that dressing up in spangly safety wear (as opposed to stupid lycra jerseys) makes you look uncool then maybe you're too drunk or too high to be riding a bicycle in the first place?

As for helmets, when you come off your bike, if you have time to react, you're instinctively going to tuck your head to protect your face. Just about every time I've hit the ground I've banged the side of my head and I'd much rather have gravel rash on my helmet than on my scalp, thankyou very much. Plus in Australia in spring you're liable to get swooped by magpies and you're really going to want a helmet then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usFuPKyR2A0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usFuPKyR2A0).
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 28 Jan 2011, 22:17
I wear a helmet, but that's because I worry as much about minimizing the damage from a hard spill as much as I worry about getting hit by a car-- I'm just kind of a clumsy dude and cautious by nature, really. I don't want to be that guy in the paper who died 'cuz he hit his head on a parking meter or some other silly shit. The limbs and face do tend to take the brunt of most spills, but then, there's still cases where people smack their head on a curb, parked car or a guard rail, and I gave myself a good knock to the head as a child when I didn't brake correctly descending a hill. Anyway though, the mandatory helmet issue is small potatoes to me, well-meaning though it may be. It's their skull, not mine, and as we've touched on I think the US needs to work more on making sure kids actually know what they should be doing out there in the first place than anything else.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 28 Jan 2011, 22:18
I really have got to second Amanda's bit about the windy hilly roads. Cyclists around here routinely ride on the narrow, twisting, heavily wooded back roads with 35mph speed limits (which god knows aren't followed since out of town kids keep killing themselves going off turns). The people talking about city riding (both here and in the links) have said that when biking you should reconsider the route you would drive so you don't unnecessarily place yourself in danger; I strongly believe the same consideration should be made when planning a cycling route in the "country". And while the C&O Canal Towpath is a good place to ride, it is a simple fact that many of the roads that access it are terrible places to ride, but then I guess we've come back around to a lack of bike-friendly infrastructure. I hope I'm not coming off as "it's fine just not in my back yard" but these roads are just not safe or well-maintained, hell if I'm putting my unprotected self on the side of them, with or without some metal and rubber to sit on, and I cannot fathom why others would choose to do so in those particular areas.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: pwhodges on 29 Jan 2011, 00:59
In 60 years of on-road cyclling, including years of commuting in backstreets, in London, and through country, I have had just one full-on collision, which was with another bike which turned in front of me when I was going fast.  I've had maybe two or three serious tumbles on my own (I'm not including trivial slithers and falls in snow or mud when they are expected as part of the deal).  In none of these has my head touched the ground.

I choose not to wear a helmet, mainly because I feel the proportion of likely injuries it would mitigate is really quite small.

Should pedestrians wear helmets in case they are knocked over by a car?  I heard last night that NYC (I think) is (?considering) making walking while using a mobile phone an offense.  What next, walking while talking?  Though I believe that Alex Issigonis (the designer of the original Morris Mini-minor) forbad any talking in the car when he was driving...
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: KharBevNor on 29 Jan 2011, 04:48
My bike has pedal reflectors and other reflectors on it (these are standard bike gear, right?) As I said, to me it seems like the chief best reason for cycling is the ease of it. If I have to carry round bags and pockets full of special shiny gear which I have to carry with me or store when I reach my destination then suddenly cycling starts become a lot more ridiculous. I have a friend who cycles everywhere on his fuck-off sports bike, and he takes about half an hour to spread on or peel off his suggestively armoured spandex before and after each cycle ride. He lives on the Isle of Wight. Despite the fact that he's a wicked-fast cyclist, the time he spends changing into and out of his special cycling clothes often makes his journey longer than it would if he simply walked.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 29 Jan 2011, 05:30
People who make roads dangerous by their activities are assholes.... a cyclist panting around that hilly curve on a road bike, ... in either case I think it is reprehensible.

I really have got to second Amanda's bit about the windy hilly roads.

Sorry but this is absolute nonsense.

Firstly the incredibly high majority of cyclists riding on these winding hilly roads will hear you way before you're aware of them and will take necessary action to a) make themselves visible to you and b) ensure that you can overtake them safely and reasonably.

Secondly, if you are driving in such a manner that you could crash into a slow moving cyclist on a hill then you're already putting yourself at risk of far greater hazards. Any decent driver should always be able to stop in the distance that they can see. If you can't do that then you're basically driving too fast and too recklessly. It's not the cyclists that you need to worry about, it's the broken down car, the fallen tree, the wild animal that has run out into the road (for many years the greatest cause of death on roads in Newfoundland were moose), a shed load from a logging truck and so on. Driving like that might kill a cyclist, it will almost definitely kill you, at that speed it's just a numbers game. Maybe you'll be lucky all your life, but I don't recall anything in the driving test about trying to be lucky.

As for that SUV that is driving right behind you flashing their lights and so on, it's important to remember that they already haven't crashed into you and haven't demonstrated any intention to do so. Sometimes you can't avoid confrontation and that's life, don't hang it on the cyclist because the person behind you is an incompetent driver.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 29 Jan 2011, 05:53
You get on the bike and go; you don't need special clothes or gear or shoes, just a bike.

What's peoples position on helmets? I don't wear one. No point.


Wearing lycra et al really depends on what kind of cycling you do.

Over twenty miles or so jeans and a cotton T will suffice and I quite often roll out in civvies when I'm not going far. On the other hand, when I'm doing long distance riding there's a number of reasons I wear lycra and other techncal fabrics. Firstly is power conservation, after all I like riding all day (and sometimes all night and all of the next day as well)  not running myself into the ground. Lycra is lighter, cooler and breathes better than just about any other fabric available on the market. On top of that, I ride with a hard saddle and eight panel padding in my shorts. This means the padding works sympathetically to my movements rather than absorbing all of my energy. Cycling shoes with cleats mean more of my energy is transfered through the pedals etc. It also means that I don't suffer from chaffing and heat rash nearly as much. Just common sense really.

As for lights and a helmet? yes to both.

Lights are pretty obvious really. I don't bother with lots of shiny reflective stuff though. Visibility is more than just about how much light you can reflect and positioning can achieve a lot more (based on scientific studies, not just anecdotal evidence). I certainly don't feel like people haven't seen me when the come to pass me and on one occasion when I was riding in the iddle of the lane at night with my massive flashing light on the front in a well lit area and wearing a reflective tabard (for an event I was marshalling) someone still pulled out of a T junction in front of me for which I had to slam on the brakes to stop. He then wound down the window and, with his hand in front of his eyes to shield himself from my light and said "Sorry mate, I didn't see you".

I wear a helmet, I guess, because I own one. I had to get one to cycle across Canada (they're the law in British Columbia and New Brunswick) I've never had to "use it" and don't expect it to offer me complete protection in the event of any accident, certainly less so from being hit by a car. However, like wearing glasses, I now end up feeling naked without one. I've read a lot of the studies and arguments around wearing helmet and the best I can come up with is it's 50/50. So now that I own one I guess I'm on that side of the argument. However, I'll never berate or preach to someone who chooses not to.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: redglasscurls on 29 Jan 2011, 05:59
We're going to just continue butting heads on this, because that is just such utter bullshit. Save your lecture on stopping distances for when you teach a driver's ed class because you have absolutely no idea how I drive and I find it incredibly insulting.

If I knew that my car was able to reach average speeds of about 15mph and had all but one of it's lights burnt out there is NO WAY I would put that thing on a road with limited visibility because that is insanely dangerous both to myself and those around me. Fuck that. Even if there are thousands of drivers (like me!) who have attended The Seldom Killer's School of Driving, there is no need to risk coming into contact with some assholes racing each other, a high school kid who panics and hits the gas instead of the brake, or an old car whose brakes lock up and send it sliding, in a spot where there was no chance to see me until the last minute.
I'm not going to come back to this thread because it's going to keep going round and round and I think you are all being totally ridiculous if you don't see any shred of responsibility for creating danger for other people by riding in unsafe areas.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: KharBevNor on 29 Jan 2011, 07:10
That stuffs all fine if you're actually cycling all day and all night, but as I said, dude lives on the Isle of Wight. He puts on this stuff to cycle three miles to work. You can cycle the entire perimeter of the island comfortably within the daylight of a summers day if you are fit enough.

The other advantage of living on the Isle of Wight is the traffic is much more sedate and there's a hugely developed network of cycle paths and bridleways. Particularly, there is a fantastic network of cycle paths running along the old railway lines that provide excellent, fairly flat, entirely off-road, generally metalled routes (including bridges and tunnels) between a lot of the major towns. This is one reason I haven't taken my bike up to Bournemouth again this academic year. I find driving in the town to be existentially terrifying and I'm not sure I'm really up to it.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: David_Dovey on 29 Jan 2011, 08:55
On top of that, I ride with a hard saddle and eight panel padding in my shorts.

This is important. When I was riding my bike daily for exercise I got dressed up in all the lycra stuff because being on a bike for any extended amount of time is going to cause not insignificant pain to yr asshole, and having cycling shorts with padding in the butt area are going to go a long way to alleviating that.

Cycling shirts are good too because they -being designed for cycling, and all- have several features which make extended rides easier, like a long pocket in the back of the shirt so you don't have to keep things in yr pants (which would be annoying and pokey when pedalling for extended periods) and zips down the front to let the cool air in.

Also it is the law to wear  helmet in West Australia but I think I would wear one anyway no matter where I am because even though it doesn't make a shitdang difference if you get hit by a car (what would, really?), that's not the only way to come off of a bike and there are plenty of opportunities to come off sideways or in such a way that having something between the ground and yr eggshell of a skull would definitely be handy.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: imagist42 on 29 Jan 2011, 09:21
People who make roads dangerous by their activities are assholes.... a cyclist panting around that hilly curve on a road bike, ... in either case I think it is reprehensible.

I really have got to second Amanda's bit about the windy hilly roads.

Sorry but this is absolute nonsense.

Firstly the incredibly high majority of cyclists riding on these winding hilly roads will hear you way before you're aware of them and will take necessary action to a) make themselves visible to you and b) ensure that you can overtake them safely and reasonably.

Secondly, if you are driving in such a manner that you could crash into a slow moving cyclist on a hill then you're already putting yourself at risk of far greater hazards. Any decent driver should always be able to stop in the distance that they can see. If you can't do that then you're basically driving too fast and too recklessly. It's not the cyclists that you need to worry about, it's the broken down car, the fallen tree, the wild animal that has run out into the road (for many years the greatest cause of death on roads in Newfoundland were moose), a shed load from a logging truck and so on. Driving like that might kill a cyclist, it will almost definitely kill you, at that speed it's just a numbers game. Maybe you'll be lucky all your life, but I don't recall anything in the driving test about trying to be lucky.

As for that SUV that is driving right behind you flashing their lights and so on, it's important to remember that they already haven't crashed into you and haven't demonstrated any intention to do so. Sometimes you can't avoid confrontation and that's life, don't hang it on the cyclist because the person behind you is an incompetent driver.

Sorry but this is absolute nonsense. The hill country around the places I have lived is kind of ridiculous at times. Hills are so steep you literally cannot see what's on top of them until you're, well, on top of them. If you are suggesting every single person driving a vehicle up such hills should make sure they could stop within the distance they can see, no traffic would ever pass through them. You would get this kind of infinite progression toward 0 mph because the distance you can see keeps shrinking until you breach the top. Now I'm not saying it's reasonable to be going at such incredible speed up those hills that you couldn't execute an evasive maneuver within reason when you crest them and suddenly there's an obstacle in your path, but to suggest that it's entirely the driver's fault if there's some dude kind of chilling exactly over the top of the hill and some kind of accident ensues is pretty dang silly.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: KharBevNor on 29 Jan 2011, 09:58
Aren't blind hills and corners what horns and bells and such were invented for?
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: ackblom12 on 29 Jan 2011, 10:03
If you get hit by a car having thirty quids worth of cheap plastic and styrofoam strapped to your head is not going to make any difference to your wellbeing whatsoever.

I have been in two cycling accidents over the past five years, in neither of which would wearing a helmet have remotely saved me from injury (either injuries that occured or could have potentially occured). The one time I hit my head it was chin first. My father was wearing a helmet when he had a fairly bad cycling accident in the early 90's and his face still got ripped to shreds; like me, he landed on the front of his face, which makes sense if you think about how you're likely to come off a bike. Unlike me, he was wearing old fashioned glass spectacles. If I was truly concerned about the dangers, I'd wear a full-face helmet. But really, statistically, cycling is about as dangerous as being a pedestrian, and I don't wear a helmet to cross the street.

This reminds me a lot of people who refuse to wear seatbelts because on occasion not wearing seat belts doesn't have a negative effect on a person in an accident. It's kind of a dumb reason to not wear a helmet.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Papersatan on 29 Jan 2011, 10:16
When I was small my brother fell of his bike and hit the edge of a curb.  He had a huge bump on his head, but was otherwise ok. His helmet cracked in half.  I'd say in that case the helmet saved him from more serious injury. 
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 29 Jan 2011, 10:22
This reminds me a lot of people who refuse to wear seatbelts because on occasion not wearing seat belts doesn't have a negative effect on a person in an accident. It's kind of a dumb reason to not wear a helmet.

It's not really the crux of the argument though. Really it comes down to a matter of degrees. Responsible cycling is pretty safe in general-- you're still pretty damn safe even without a helmet provided you pay attention. Further, whether wearing a helmet or not really helps very much is one of those things that seems obvious on the face of things but is surprisingly hard to prove in practice. We simply haven't been able to make a correlation between injuries and helmet wearing that cannot be quickly and easily explained away by the simple fact that requiring helmets cuts down on the number of cyclists that are on the road to begin with. There's situations where bicycle helmets can help, yes, but the early reports indicate that such incidents make up a vanishingly small portion of bike accidents.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: scarred on 29 Jan 2011, 10:47
I actually find myself riding a lot more recklessly when I am wearing a helmet, whereas when I'm sporting my fashionable cyclist-douche cap, I tend err on the side of caution. The only catastrophic accident I've ever been in, I was wearing my helmet, but like Khar, I went down chin first.

I wish there was a "meh, *shrug*" emoticon.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: KharBevNor on 29 Jan 2011, 11:49
This reminds me a lot of people who refuse to wear seatbelts because on occasion not wearing seat belts doesn't have a negative effect on a person in an accident. It's kind of a dumb reason to not wear a helmet.

Except how seatbelts make a significant, demonstrable difference to the safety of drivers and passengers in car crashes with a rigorously demonstrated history in scientific literature and bicycle helmets have been shown in some studies to paradoxically increase the proportion of cycling related injuries (http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html) and even to cause motorists to act less safely around cyclists (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-helmets-attract-cars-to-cyclists), and have never, ever been shown to actually decrease any of the risks associated with cycling.

Plus there's what scarred said, which I believe is called the Peltzman effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect), i.e., the safer you feel the more risks you take.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 29 Jan 2011, 12:20
It hasn't been proven, but the Peltzman effect is suspected to have a rather insidious effect on pro sports as well. Contrast rugby with grid iron football. Rugby has far more "minor" injuries due to the relative lack of safety equipment, no contest. Deep muscle bruises, knocked out teeth, ridiculous scrapes and rashes, poked out eyeballs-- you name it, rugby has it. But in spite of wearing helmets grid iron football isn't as far ahead on the concussion prevention issue as people might otherwise suspect. That's likely because all that gear makes guys feel invincible yet such equipment can only do so much to prevent whiplash and neck injuries. No helmet is going to prevent your neck from collapsing on itself like an accordion if you lead with your noggin on a tackle, but that kind of thing isn't likely to cross the mind of a psyched up 19 year old college student when he goes in for a tackle.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: ackblom12 on 29 Jan 2011, 12:27
I'm not likely to be a good source on this, but American Football also has a nasty culture of Dirty and Rough playing doesn't it?

Also that whole idea that despite possibly turning temp injuries into permanent injuries you should be playing the season? Admittedly they also get ridiculous money to do this so hey.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Alex C on 29 Jan 2011, 12:44
There's some serious, heavy duty hypocrisy and misplaced priorities going on with American football, yeah. The ESPN message boards and youtube comments on what and what doesn't constitute dirty play is a cesspool.


There are people who whine about how the game is no longer played like it was back in the '70s. You know, back when totally irresponsible and unacceptable roughing plays like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_BuDursFIg) only warranted a 15 yard penalty.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: David_Dovey on 29 Jan 2011, 13:32
Quote from: youtube comments
#

@rocketboy2233 Thanks ass wipe. Now go fuck your sister, you useless piece of Cleveland trash! LMFAO!
MrThunderbeast 3 weeks ago
MrThunderbeast 3 weeks ago
#

@MrThunderbeast oh let me guess!! ur prlly not even from pittsburgh n love em!! and atleast we got a hall of fame if your from pitt! you guys have one of the largest gay housing communities in the U.S hahahaha! thats a fact! enjoy ur day fck hole! go blow ben u dumb ass
rocketboy2233 3 weeks ago
rocketboy2233 3 weeks ago
#

@MrThunderbeast ... go blow ben u homo.
rocketboy2233 3 weeks ago
rocketboy2233 3 weeks ago
#

@nbest18 .... your gay

 :psyduck:
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: tania on 29 Jan 2011, 14:25
your gay what?
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: Barmymoo on 29 Jan 2011, 14:40
No, just his gay, everyone has one.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: pwhodges on 29 Jan 2011, 16:04
I think you are all being totally ridiculous if you don't see any shred of responsibility for creating danger for other people by riding in unsafe areas.

No one is suggesting that any road user should not be responsible.  But any  vehicle on a road has the potential to cause danger to any other  vehicle, regardless of type, and seeing this as a one-way transfer just isn't helpful.

Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: SonofZ3 on 29 Jan 2011, 20:08
I think you are all being totally ridiculous if you don't see any shred of responsibility for creating danger for other people by riding in unsafe areas.

No one is suggesting that any road user should not be responsible.  But any  vehicle on a road has the potential to cause danger to any other  vehicle, regardless of type, and seeing this as a one-way transfer just isn't helpful.



Not really. On certain roads, limited access highways (4 lanes), there is an expectation of a rate of speed that certain vehicles cannot maintain. Here in PA, it is illegal to have bicycles, motor scooters, etc. on a limited access highway because the limitations of those vehicles make them incompatible for use on that roadway. While it is certainly legal to have bicycles in lanes of traffic on roads that have speed limit of 55mph, Bicyclists should realize that the average rate of travel on a road like that will be MUCH faster than what they can maintain, and that can cause dangerous situations. There are laws about obstructing the flow of traffic (by driving too slow) and while I've never heard of a bicyclist receiving a citation for that, I know of motor vehicle drivers that have been pulled over for driving a car at the speed a bicycle will go. If its bad for a car to go that slow on a road, why is it any different for a bike?
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: jhocking on 30 Jan 2011, 08:54
Save your lecture on stopping distances for when you teach a driver's ed class because you have absolutely no idea how I drive and I find it incredibly insulting.

Ultimately I have no strong feelings about this argument because I neither drive nor cycle regularly, and as you note I have no idea how you drive, but I will say that I tend to fall on the side of cyclists here just because I grew up in areas of Connecticut with lots of rural roads going through hilly forests and I knew lots of people who drove incredibly recklessly and thought nothing of it. Their logic boiled down to "barely anyone else is on this road so stop worrying about other drivers." Sure you can't see what's on the other side of the hill, but that's precisely why you should slow down. And for god's sake stay in your lane; narrow roads are a reason to worry how much space you're giving other drivers, not a reason to move away from the edge of the road.

I recall once reading about how one of these roads had literally the highest fatality rate in the country (note: fatality rate, not absolute number of fatalities, because obviously some rural road doesn't have as much traffic as the turnpike.)

In fact most of those people would get outright angry at me if I was in the passenger seat and suggested that they should slow down. I myself scared my driving instructor when going through one section near my house by driving through it exactly the way my mom did, which is to say weaving over both lanes in order to maintain speed through the tight S. I never bothered to explain things to my mom after that (if my peers don't want to listen to my explanations, my mom sure as hell wouldn't) but I was always more careful after that.

On certain roads, limited access highways (4 lanes), there is an expectation of a rate of speed that certain vehicles cannot maintain. Here in PA, it is illegal to have bicycles, motor scooters, etc. on a limited access highway because the limitations of those vehicles make them incompatible for use on that roadway.

I've seen plenty of roads with minimum speeds, but these were all highways. The discussion here is about small mountain roads, and I've never seen a minimum speed on a road like that for the simple reason that you should be going slow on a road like that. I once heard of a driver who got a speeding ticket from an officer who looked at their speedometer while jogging past; most people telling/hearing that story seem to think the officer was the asshole in that situation, but if the speed limit on a road is that low then it means that road is REALLY dangerous.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Tyler on 30 Jan 2011, 09:38
Having been a bicyclist in a hilly section of CT, a driver in the same area, and now a resident of NYC, I have been on both sides of the argument. From my bicycling experience, 99 times out of 100, a driver who would be angry at me for slowly making my way up a hill was angry because I was an inconvenience to their expected rate of travel. It was a response akin to having to stay behind farm equipment moving down the road.

Therein lies where I think the largest issue is. Amanda is totally right in seeing added issues with bikers on inclines and winding roads, but incorrectly demonizes the biker for this. A car driving down that same road also creates a risk and inconvenience. As would a pedestrian, animal, tractor, bad weather, and any number of other factors. At least in the states I lived in, the driver is always the one legally responsible to adjust driving habits to fit the conditions of the road.  If that means coming around a blind turn, slowing down should absolutely happen, even if it means dropping well below speed limit. Sure, you will occasionally deal with a cyclist that has no sense in exercising extra caution in areas of lower visibility, but that is the exception.

The bicyclist represents a deviation from the norm and the comfortable for a driver, but that in no way lessens their rights.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 30 Jan 2011, 09:48
the norm and the comfortable

This seems to be a huge factor in this thread's discussions. As with so many things in life, norms are very different in different areas, and people generally have a hard time conceiving of their norms not necessarily being the optimal way of doing things.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: David_Dovey on 30 Jan 2011, 16:04
I think you are all being totally ridiculous if you don't see any shred of responsibility for creating danger for other people by riding in unsafe areas.

No one is suggesting that any road user should not be responsible.  But any  vehicle on a road has the potential to cause danger to any other  vehicle, regardless of type, and seeing this as a one-way transfer just isn't helpful.



Not really. On certain roads, limited access highways (4 lanes), there is an expectation of a rate of speed that certain vehicles cannot maintain. Here in PA, it is illegal to have bicycles, motor scooters, etc. on a limited access highway because the limitations of those vehicles make them incompatible for use on that roadway. While it is certainly legal to have bicycles in lanes of traffic on roads that have speed limit of 55mph, Bicyclists should realize that the average rate of travel on a road like that will be MUCH faster than what they can maintain, and that can cause dangerous situations. There are laws about obstructing the flow of traffic (by driving too slow) and while I've never heard of a bicyclist receiving a citation for that, I know of motor vehicle drivers that have been pulled over for driving a car at the speed a bicycle will go. If its bad for a car to go that slow on a road, why is it any different for a bike?

What does this have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SonofZ3 on 30 Jan 2011, 19:42
because the argument seemed to be- "Bicycles are not fitted to traffic on roads designed for use by motor vehicles, their low speed makes them dangerous" "NO, Bicycles are vehicles like any other and blaming them for being slower than motor vehicles is bullshit."

My point is that there are laws places specifically designed to stop slow moving vehicles from entering certain roads, and that driving at significantly less than the speed limit is, in fact, a recognized hazard. Its not so much just random opinion that slow moving vehicles, be it bicycle or car, are dangerous and a pain in the ass, its a law, which is at least a slightly more creditable opinion.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Cernunnos on 30 Jan 2011, 20:09
It's a law that is irrelevant unless you are on a highway, and for good reason. Bicycles under normal conditions, including even backcountry roads, are not a significant danger to good, careful, patient drivers. They are an inconvenience, which is the real source of most disapproval of two wheeled self-propelled transportation, even that under the self-serving guise of "safety". 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 30 Jan 2011, 21:49
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/ackblom12/kermit-goatse.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 30 Jan 2011, 21:50
(http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/evil_sesame_street.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 30 Jan 2011, 21:51
(http://www.stonerforums.com/lounge/attachments/humor-comedy/5340d1219363578-match-pic-member-muppet-pic-bigbird.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 30 Jan 2011, 21:52
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdPVM6yx7M1ScVa9tyLkkoux7bk_TyaJm1QwWSVVcqL2tV-wLj&t=1)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 30 Jan 2011, 21:53
(http://images.quizilla.com/A/atotalblamblam/1038623802_whore_elmo.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 30 Jan 2011, 21:53
(http://www.stonerforums.com/lounge/attachments/humor-comedy/5329d1219356342-match-pic-member-muppet-pic-muppet-20pimps.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 30 Jan 2011, 21:57
(http://snigs1spot.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/kermit_5.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 30 Jan 2011, 21:59
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VvWQp_OOM8s/TMZ5Rhq4uxI/AAAAAAAAAqQ/FwL7HmfINxk/s1600/MissPiggyIYN.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 30 Jan 2011, 22:01
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMJvD7RvEt9A0cCGi6oxEQDBEGTWvtCWCW_Csw2RRlDYP7hnaHvw&t=1)


WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lunchbox on 30 Jan 2011, 22:09
Stop it.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Johnny C on 30 Jan 2011, 22:17
glad to see a thread about road courtesy has managed to keep its discourse civil
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 30 Jan 2011, 22:20
yeah it is nice to see everyone getting along
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: scarred on 30 Jan 2011, 23:15
i opened this and thought i clicked on the pointless thread by accident
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: scarred on 30 Jan 2011, 23:15
<joke about how there's no difference>
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 31 Jan 2011, 01:24
So my mother does this thing when she is in a car and not the driver that is just awful: any time something happens that she perceives as dangerous, such as stopping a little too quickly, or pulling too close to another car while parking, as well as any number of things whilst driving around, she grabs for something to hold on to and gasps like she's just been hit in the stomach, which is sometimes exchanged for a little scream or a shout of "watch out". I have to say, I find it rather more startling and upsetting than any of the situations themselves. Beyond saying "Mom, calm down please", I have no idea what else to do about it.

Guys, please do not do this.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: KharBevNor on 31 Jan 2011, 04:50
My mum hyperventilates and does pretty much that flinching back thing when a car is moving 'too fast' (faster than approx. 45-50 MPH, slightly more on a motorway). I still have bad memories of when she and my dad would argue on long car journeys when I was a kid, normally about the issue of speed, and my dad would deliberately speed up to the maximum allowed by the local limit and my mum would go mental. Ah, childhood.

I am not sure how good a driver my father is. He does dangerous, stunty things sometimes (when my mother isn't in the car). He took our old volvo (with me in it) to about 145 MPH (It was off the speedo) down a long straight road on the Isle of Wight in order to see how fast it would go. He also once showed off to me and my sister by driving ten miles back home from a restaurant without ever using the foot brake. I know for a fact he has driven drunk in the past and speeds. On the other hand, he seems to be pretty good at driving and he is never in the least aggressive to other road users.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving
Post by: jhocking on 31 Jan 2011, 05:12
I live in Pittsburgh, well, about 3 miles away from downtown actually, and none of the onramps I can think of have stop signs. Except when the onramp is on a stretch of roadway that is under "road work", then there is a stop sign.

I guess I should have specified this was back in college, so they may have wised up by now. I remember the stop signs especially because I had to explain to my roommate why they were a bad idea. I can't imagine the right turns off the highway are gone though; do you encounter those? You had to slow down while still on the highway.

sonofz, any chance you could confirm or refute about the need to slow down on the highway? I'm curious if my memory about that is incorrect.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lines on 31 Jan 2011, 05:13
Ugh, the gasping thing is the worst. My mom used to do that if I was driving and it would scare the shit out of me. Now we just have this unspoken rule that if we're in the car, she's the one driving. Even if I pick her up, I let her drive.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: öde on 31 Jan 2011, 05:27
I tend to tense up a bit, or point things out, but I'm usually in a car with a shit driver.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lines on 31 Jan 2011, 06:20
The only things I'll gasp about are unnecessary, excessive speeding and if the driver is actually about to hit someone or do something illegal. Meaning fast, shitty drivers terrify me. But me not slowing down "early enough" at a red light does not warrant a gasp.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: KharBevNor on 31 Jan 2011, 06:27
It totally does!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: KharBevNor on 31 Jan 2011, 06:28
 :-o
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: allison on 31 Jan 2011, 06:38
My ex-boyfriend crashed his car when I was in it, because of reckless driving. I am now a jumpy passenger, and I hate it. I really wish I wasn't, and I don't do it on purpose. Some people who shall remain nameless and know that I am jumpy like to fuck with me and speed while looking at me instead of the road, which is mean!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Blue Kitty on 31 Jan 2011, 07:55
I tend to tense up a bit, or point things out, but I'm usually in a car with a shit driver.

My uncle likes to speed up to fill the space when he is behind people, which freaks me the fuck out. Good thing I was in the back and the seat had some sides to hang on to. Digging my feet into the floor mat just doesn't seem enough.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Papersatan on 31 Jan 2011, 08:01
Allison, do you hang out with Edward the vampire? I hear he drives like that. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 31 Jan 2011, 11:26
You flinchy passengers can all go to hell. I've been pulled over one time in like the last five years(and been in one accident which ilvolved a pedestrian running in front of my motorcycle, of all things), but my mom still flinches and gasps at the way I drive my miata.

Yes, I wind the engine up to ~5000 before I shift gears and yes I speed but I never speed in traffic and I always leave at least one car length between people I'm merging in front of, more if they aren't a super tool and speeding up so I can't get in front of them(everyone in oklahoma does this. If you're ever driving here, let your signal blink one time before starting your merge or they will move up to block you because they are all cocks).

On the topic of cycling(I don't pedal, but I do ride motorcycles) the biggest problem I have with cycling on the road is that people are generally too stupid to pay attention to the cyclists around them and also aren't looking for them ever because there are so few of them around here. Plus specifically in Oklahoma City we have a pretty cool series of cycling trails that do in fact give cyclists their own little lane of pavement that literally runs through the heart of one of the more busy hubs of the city as far as shopping and restaurants go.

So there's basically no excuse to slow down traffic on the main roads when you can take the bike path and cross the main street and take the neighborhood through to the residential streets(which have less, slower moving traffic and are probably safer anyway, I have no idea), and come out behind the building instead of riding two miles on main roads to get there.

I'm aware that my solution doesn't work downtown but downtown can pretty much fuck off.

edit: as a motorcyclist I have, three times, kicked the driver's door of other vehicles. Twice due to them not seeing me and forcing me off of pavement(which is pants-shittingly horrifying. No I didn't.) and once forcing me across the line into oncoming traffic(which there was fortunately none of). It's a pretty big part of why I don't ride as much anymore, that plus seeing the pavement rush toward my face at ~40mph just once is nightmare fuel enough. These three events happened over the course of nearly six years, just for clarification, only two of them happened in the 1.5 year span while I was riding every day.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Cernunnos on 31 Jan 2011, 11:32
Some people who shall remain nameless


This ain't me for the record
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 31 Jan 2011, 11:41
(It's totally you)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 31 Jan 2011, 11:43

Yes, I wind the engine up to ~5000 before I shift gears

Can I ask why?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 31 Jan 2011, 12:02
My goodness I am tediously utilitarian about my driving. That never occured to me, although I am old an have a different definition of what sounds good.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: David_Dovey on 31 Jan 2011, 12:17
I naturally assumed it was illegal to ride a bike on highways/freeways/motorways everywhere. Is it not?

Either way, illegal or no, it's certainly suicidal. It's not really a useful part of the conversation as far as I'm concerned because anybody who does that is just clownshoes bonkers crazy.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 31 Jan 2011, 12:19
My car's powerband is around 4000-5000rpm. I'd rather get to 70 quickly rather than conserve gas, so I usually run it up to ~4500 before shifting, more if I'm racing.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 31 Jan 2011, 12:42
It is, Dovey. In America, at least, there is no foot- or foot powered-traffic allowed, and I know that in a few places in New England they also specify horse traffic as well. Vehicles that go that slow are just too dangerous when the average speed is 70 mph/120 kph.

You also cannot take "dune buggies" or four-wheelers or other things that are not road-safe on the freeway.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 31 Jan 2011, 12:47
I naturally assumed it was illegal to ride a bike on highways/freeways/motorways everywhere. Is it not?

Either way, illegal or no, it's certainly suicidal. It's not really a useful part of the conversation as far as I'm concerned because anybody who does that is just clownshoes bonkers crazy.

I know that there are provincial variations in Canada and I think that there are state variations in the US as to which class of roads you are allowed to ride on. In the UK motoways are prohibited, however most, but not all, dual carraigeways and major roads permit cycling. The speed limits on dual carriageways for cars and motorcycles is 70 if no restrictions are in place, the same as it is for motorways.

I ride down a 70 dul carriageway everyday to get to work but in relative terms the danger level is pretty low compared to things like complex junctions.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 31 Jan 2011, 12:49
Of course  the cyclists among us are not trying to claim rights on roads which are forbidden us by law - we're not that crazy.

Also, a considerable number (though far from all) of the dual-carriageway roads in the UK in and around urban areas have purpose-built cycle lanes separate from the main carriageway.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 31 Jan 2011, 12:51
My car's powerband is around 4000-5000rpm. I'd rather get to 70 quickly rather than conserve gas, so I usually run it up to ~4500 before shifting, more if I'm racing.

Getting up to speed quickly does save gas though. Given the scope of modern automotive technology the rate of acceleration by overrunning is likely to offer only a marginal advantage. On balance the excess wear and tear on the engine doesn't seem worth it to me.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 31 Jan 2011, 12:57
I'm sorry to take this thread away from bikes but I am interested to know if any of you have returned to driving after a long break and how it went. I haven't driven since 2008 and it's quite possible I won't be doing so again until at least 2013, so that'll be a heck of a gap. Is it something you don't forget or something you have to start again?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pen on 31 Jan 2011, 13:00
I had a 5 year gap before, and the first time I got back into the driver's seat, I was pretty terrified.  It took a little while to get used to the handling of the specific car, but overall, it was pretty easy to get back into the swing of things.  You'll be fine. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 31 Jan 2011, 13:06
I learnt to drive and then promptly didn't drive after my test for about three years when it was in America in an automatic on the other side of the road. It was an awkward experience but I had my dad with me who had helped teach me to drive so that was good to have his presence in the car with me. After those couple of weeks it was again a couple of years before I drove again. I'm fortunate to have a good memory, particularly behavioural so these things come back to me well. The main obstacle is not skill but driving confidence. I would suggest that you are unlikely to have to start again, but some refresher sessions with at least an experienced and calm driver would be worthwhile.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 31 Jan 2011, 13:10

Yes, I wind the engine up to ~5000 before I shift gears

Can I ask why?

For most of the same reasons previously posted. For starters, the powerband in my car runs somewhere between 3-4k and 5-6.5k rpm. It's also much more fun to drive a slow car(a miata is not exactly fast, though it is way fun to drive) fast than to frive a fast car(my old camaro. I kinda miss it even though it wouldn't fit in my current garage) slow.

Plus the engine in my car absolutely screams when you wind it high. I'll see if I can get an audio clip tonight on my way home from work.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 31 Jan 2011, 13:10
Just realized Iw on't be getting any high-winding audio tonight: http://www.weather.com/outlook/driving/interstate/hourbyhour/graph/73120

I work until midnight.

I wish this had come up saturday, I was riding around with the top down all day.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Gemmwah on 31 Jan 2011, 13:32
I had a guy overtake me on the right on a roundabout today.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 31 Jan 2011, 13:33
Isn't that the side you're supposed to overtake on?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 31 Jan 2011, 13:37
No, that's called cutting you off (Gemm is British).

SWitty, you are the person I hated for the 11 years I lived facing onto a main road. Screaming car engines make me want to stab people, particularly if it's after 10pm. No offence but ARGH.

Thanks Pen and TSK, that's helpful. There's a possibility I might end up driving a little while I'm in France, which will also be on the "wrong" side of the road, so it'll be similar to one or other of your experiences.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 31 Jan 2011, 13:44
And here I thought British driving was the reverse of American/continental. I thought your slow traffic was supposed to keep left, which would mean that you are supposed to pass on the right. Here, you overtake on the left, which is why the far left lane is reserved for passing. Passing or overtaking on the right is the worst thing. I am not 100% sure on why that is, exactly, but I know that in most states it is illegal and in all of them it is rude and can get you pulled over for "reckless driving" if it isn't illegal outright.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Gemmwah on 31 Jan 2011, 13:44
It wasn't a very big roundabout and apparently I am invisible to Saloons.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 31 Jan 2011, 13:45
So you are supposed to pass on the left in the UK? That is crazy.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Gemmwah on 31 Jan 2011, 13:46
No you are supposed to pass on the right, but on a roundabout?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 31 Jan 2011, 13:50
Yeah, me to, took me a while to work it out because she said overtake. I presumed a multi lane with a dual lane exit (which is what is closest to where I live).

And returning to roundabout talk and considering upthread. If you encounter a cyclist on a motorway roundabout, don't box them onto the slip ramp. We aren't supposed to be there, we don't want to go there and pushing us there is a spectacularly dick move. Lane discipline is difficult on these roundabouts and a fraction of a second of patience is much appreciated.

Also, if you're wondering why a bunch of weathered and worn cyclists are busy chugging coffee at some motorway services at 2 am, don't kick off how we've broken the law and risked everyone's lives by riding down the motorway, we snuck in the back and will be out that way again shortly. (All motorway services in the UK can be accessed from back roads bar one, bonus points if you know which one it is).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Gemmwah on 31 Jan 2011, 14:21
My bet is on South Mimms.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 31 Jan 2011, 14:22
Yeah on roundabouts you are meant to be in the right-hand lane unless you are coming off at the next or second-next junction, and you are supposed to move over when it is clear to your left, well before your exit. What it sounds like Gemm is talking about is where someone goes into the right hand lane after she has gone into the left, and then pulls across her path to take the same exit off. Causes crashes.
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving
Post by: SonofZ3 on 31 Jan 2011, 18:34
I live in Pittsburgh, well, about 3 miles away from downtown actually, and none of the onramps I can think of have stop signs. Except when the onramp is on a stretch of roadway that is under "road work", then there is a stop sign.

I guess I should have specified this was back in college, so they may have wised up by now. I remember the stop signs especially because I had to explain to my roommate why they were a bad idea. I can't imagine the right turns off the highway are gone though; do you encounter those? You had to slow down while still on the highway.

sonofz, any chance you could confirm or refute about the need to slow down on the highway? I'm curious if my memory about that is incorrect.

None that I can think of. There is one that has wierd left turn and u-turn lanes built through the jersey barriers every mile or so. When you pull into one you end up sitting just on the other side of the line from 2 lanes of traffic ripping by you at 70mph. The only right turns off the highways I'm aware of are the offramps.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 31 Jan 2011, 20:42
I'm sorry to take this thread away from bikes but I am interested to know if any of you have returned to driving after a long break and how it went. I haven't driven since 2008 and it's quite possible I won't be doing so again until at least 2013, so that'll be a heck of a gap. Is it something you don't forget or something you have to start again?

I am abnormal in a good way, because I barely ever drive (haven't had a car in about 8 years) but I am still a pretty good driver. Like, I'm perfectly fine parallel parking cars for other people (ie. they asked me to go out and move their car because of street cleaning.)

The only right turns off the highways I'm aware of are the offramps.

That's what I meant, sorry if I wasn't being clear. Are the offramps hard right turns or do you gradually peel away?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 31 Jan 2011, 22:21
SWitty, you are the person I hated for the 11 years I lived facing onto a main road. Screaming car engines make me want to stab people, particularly if it's after 10pm. No offence but ARGH.

Oh no, mine isn't super loud or anything, It's only a loud enough so you hear it inside the car. It just makes the best sound ever when you wind it up to a million.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ibrahimdelil on 04 Feb 2011, 03:59
Screaming car engines make me want to stab people, particularly if it's after 10pm

i live pretty close to a highway and i totally love those f**kers. especially late at night, when i'm lying in the bed half awake and some bikers are racing or a ferrari/lambo is passing by.

y'know I just thought of something. I've never been to Turkey but I hear the roads there are a lot like Egypt was,

actually, it's nothing like egypt. also i found this,

Quote
Country - Year - Population - Fatalities
UK - 2009 - 62,348,447 - 2,222 - 0,00356%
TR - 2010 - 77,804,122 - 4,041 - 0,00519%
CA - 2005 - 33,759,742 - 2,767 - 0,00819%
US - 2009 - 310,232,863 - 33,808 - 0,01089% (lowest in 50 years!)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 07 Feb 2011, 02:42
So with what are largely considered larger, safer, easier to drive vehicles on wider, less complicated roads with more instructional signage and consistently lower speed limits, the US has achieved a road vehicle death rate three times that of the UK.

I can't think of a perspective from which that isn't fucked up.

And now a brief word on shouting at cyclists from a moving vehicle. I presume it's abuse but it's a little difficult to tell, for all I know it's a recipie for chocolate brownies. This is because the combination of wind, engine noise, other background noise, only opening the window an inch or so and a roughly 2:1 speed ratio, we haven't got a clue what you're shouting. It's not that I'm particularly bothered, I support your right to freedom of expression and strongly encourage you to exercise that right when you feel compelled to do so. However, if you feel that it is important that the cyclist appreciate the fullness of your brief oral missive, I suggest the following remedial actions:
1) Wind your window down all the way.
2) Slow down and match the cyclist at an equal and level pace.
3) Enunciate.
If it helps at all, many cyclists I know are equally keen to know what it is that motorists have been shouting all these years.

In wholly unrelated news, I'm pondering the purchase of a belt mounted D-lock holster.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Patrick on 07 Feb 2011, 04:09
Changing Lanes in Intersections: I am guessing most states have laws like this on the books somewhere, so this probably applies in some aspects to everyone. In the state of Georgia, it is illegal to change lanes within 100 ft of an intersection. It causes accidents. Don't do it.

This is my single biggest pet peeve when driving. I have actually yelled at a friend of mine for doing this once. He got pissy and defensive, and did it again shortly after. And nearly fucking hit somebody who was trying to turn right at a red light. And he hasn't forgotten it, and hasn't done it since.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 07 Feb 2011, 11:57
So with what are largely considered larger, safer, easier to drive vehicles on wider, less complicated roads with more instructional signage and consistently lower speed limits, the US has achieved a road vehicle death rate three times that of the UK.

I can't think of a perspective from which that isn't fucked up.


here's one:

the entire uk has the population of, like, texas or something



so...you know....numbers  :-P
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Feb 2011, 12:03
And...  percentages!  Look again.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 07 Feb 2011, 12:10
This is my single biggest pet peeve when driving. I have actually yelled at a friend of mine for doing this once. He got pissy and defensive, and did it again shortly after. And nearly fucking hit somebody who was trying to turn right at a red light. And he hasn't forgotten it, and hasn't done it since.

This is the best possible outcome. Ha!


Ok, a thing I remember not knowing when I learned how to drive was that turn signals are technically required for merging and changing lanes! Most people don't do this, so I guess I will assume that they also do not know it. Use indicators, guys! Driver communication is important!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 07 Feb 2011, 12:36
so...you know....numbers  :-P

Did you really think that 33808 was three times 2222?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 07 Feb 2011, 13:08
it's common knowledge that i don't know what i'm talking about. also i didn't see the percentages


just offering possible explanations. uk people often don't realize how fucking huge america is.

go ahead and ignore me, i be the dumbz
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 07 Feb 2011, 13:12
I'm from Canada, it's bigger.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 07 Feb 2011, 13:45
Good for you.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 07 Feb 2011, 13:47
It usually is.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 07 Feb 2011, 20:39
Ok, a thing I remember not knowing when I learned how to drive was that turn signals are technically required for merging and changing lanes! Most people don't do this, so I guess I will assume that they also do not know it. Use indicators, guys! Driver communication is important!

As extra motivation if being safer isn't enough, when you signal you want to change lanes people usually let you. So not only will you be safer, traffic will actually become more convenient too. Bonus!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 07 Feb 2011, 23:12
Yeah I have noticed that people trying to change lanes with no signal often seem to almost hit someone, or at least cut it really close, whereas people who change with a blinker seem to get what they wanted more often? It is a good point.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 08 Feb 2011, 06:03
So with what are largely considered larger, safer, easier to drive vehicles on wider, less complicated roads with more instructional signage and consistently lower speed limits, the US has achieved a road vehicle death rate three times that of the UK.

I can't think of a perspective from which that isn't fucked up.

A note on that: It seems a lot of American drivers are complete fucking morons. For a little background here, I don't even drive. I don't have a license or a car. I've been behind the wheel twice ever. And yet, drivers here annoy me.

For example, when turning right at an intersection, people stop and wait, even if there is a lane dedicated to the people turning right. I get that you need to see who is coming from the left, that's great, but when there's a whole lane just for you, fucking go already. The fact that they don't see that lane means that they aren't even looking. Which means that they're morons.

Also I'm very careful with crossing streets and such, because I've been hit by a car before and boy is that terrifying. And yet, I've almost been hit at least 20 times since working at my current office. And this is just trying to walk through the parking lot. It's because no one is looking where they're going and no one seems to give a shit.

There are stupid drivers everywhere but we seem to have a larger number of them.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 08 Feb 2011, 06:57
Yeah I have noticed that people trying to change lanes with no signal often seem to almost hit someone, or at least cut it really close, whereas people who change with a blinker seem to get what they wanted more often? It is a good point.
You're lucky then. Most places I've lived, if you put a blinker on people will speed up to make sure you CAN'T get in. This of course leads to less people using blinkers.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SonofZ3 on 08 Feb 2011, 08:51
The ammount of time that American drivers spend doing anything BUT driving absolutely amazes me. I've seen, within the last week, lines of traffic 8 or 9 vehicles in length on a 65mph highway where each of those 9 consecutive cars had someone with a cell phone glued to his/her head. I often see people talking on the phone AND engaged in some other distractive activity, be it dealing with children, dogs, GPS displays, or doing their makeup (yes, you see plenty of women doing their makeup during their morning commute to work, and men shaving with electric razors). When these people finally hang up their phones, they start TEXTING. I trust my driving, but I'm scared as fuck half the time I'm on the road anymore because of these asshats who start their car and then do anything BUT drive.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 08 Feb 2011, 11:08
Also I'm very careful with crossing streets and such, because I've been hit by a car before and boy is that terrifying. And yet, I've almost been hit at least 20 times since working at my current office. And this is just trying to walk through the parking lot. It's because no one is looking where they're going and no one seems to give a shit.

Where I have the most trouble is crossing alleys and driveways, not entire streets. I'll be walking on the sidewalk and whoosh someone comes out of nowhere and almost hits me.

You're lucky then. Most places I've lived, if you put a blinker on people will speed up to make sure you CAN'T get in. This of course leads to less people using blinkers.
This is definitely true. I also dislike when people turn on their turn signal and assume that automatically means they have the right to merge right away. Oh, and when people turn on their turn signals right as they begin to turn makes me go all murderface.

hey at least they signaled before assuming they can just barge over.

Also, I've done things like drive out of Boston after the fireworks with no difficulties, so I tend to assume if people aren't letting you over then you are doing something else that makes you an asshole.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: öde on 08 Feb 2011, 12:43
It's illegal in the UK to use a mobile phone when driving (unless it's handsfree), which makes a lot of sense. I'll never forget the time I was cycling home from college and saw someone looking in the rear-view mirror to brush their hair while driving.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 08 Feb 2011, 13:00
It's illegal here in Maryland as well - but plenty of people still do it. It's a secondary offense so I guess they figure they're okay.

It's great that these people aren't scared of driving but some common sense concerning paying attention to the roads would be awesome.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 08 Feb 2011, 13:32
I'll admit, I talk on the phone while driving. Especially when my commute was an hour and fifteen minutes on mostly freeway - it was a good chance to talk to my mom without having to set aside time that I needed to clean house or have dinner. I don't talk on the phone when other people are in the car, and I've never even gotten close to having an accident. I think that's maybe because I pay more attention to my driving than the phone though - I've been in the car with people who seem like they have no idea they're even driving when they're talking on the phone.

Also, if I'm in town or there's traffic, I don't use my phone at all - only when I'm on long stretches of roads with very few cars. If I'm in town and desperately need directions or something like that, I use speakerphone.

I know I'm bad for doing it, but oh well. I'm sure someday I'll have some near-death experience and that'll learn me.

*puts on flame-retardant suit*
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: David_Dovey on 08 Feb 2011, 14:28
For example, when turning right at an intersection, people stop and wait, even if there is a lane dedicated to the people turning right. I get that you need to see who is coming from the left, that's great, but when there's a whole lane just for you, fucking go already. The fact that they don't see that lane means that they aren't even looking. Which means that they're morons.

Drivers are constantly retarded all over the world for a whole range of reasons and yet you choose to call out as retarded an instance in which people are actually being more cautious than the situation requires?

Choose yr battles
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 08 Feb 2011, 14:38
But that's not just being too cautious, it's upsetting the flow of traffic. If I'm turning right and see that there is an entire lane and a yield sign, I expect that the person in front of me also sees this and will not just out-and-out STOP. It's like not signaling and then slowing down suddenly to turn - if nobody else has any idea what you're going to do, you're just making everyone else slam on their brakes, putting everyone in danger.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 09 Feb 2011, 01:05
... *puts on flame-retardant suit*

Several studies under simulated conditions have shown that even when people try to pay more attention to the road than the phone, using a phone whilst driving will make a driver's reactions as bad, if not worse, than if they were over the legal limit for alcohol consumption. Not only that but also that responses made whilst holding a phone tend to be less appropriate and with less control than when not on the phone.

You say that you use speakerphone when driving in traffic which seems to show some recognition of the impact of phone use on your driving skills, if you feel the need to use the phone regularly while driving would it not be worth getting a headset to at least reduce the risk of an accident?

And I suppose my other question would be that if you think a near-death experience woudl be enough to stop you, why would you wait. After all it's a pretty fine line between a near-death experience and an actual-death experience, one that you might be the one that you have to live with.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 09 Feb 2011, 08:26
Yeah, I have heard somewhere (though now I'm thinking it may have been Mythbusters, but also somewhere else more scientific) that just the fact that you are engaged in conversation, whether or not your hands are still on the wheel, makes you less able to fully concentrate on driving.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SonofZ3 on 09 Feb 2011, 08:44
I just have a hard time buying the "I'm so busy the only time I have to talk when I drive" argument that I tend to hear. I was never too busy in college, between course work and a night job, to take 15 or 20 minutes to make a phonecall in the evening. Even at the busiest time of the year, between work and things that need done around the farm I still have a couple hours leisure time I could use to call people.

My fiance's sister is fucking terrible with her phone in the car. She'll call her husband as soon as she gets in her vehicle. I was riding with her about a week ago, around 5pm and she said "I need to call Dan" I said "Oh? Whats up?" to which she replied "I haven't talked to him since like 9 this morning", because being out of contact with someone for a whopping 8 hours WHILE THEY'RE AT WORK is some kind of emergency?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 09 Feb 2011, 11:35
My fiance's sister is fucking terrible with her phone in the car. She'll call her husband as soon as she gets in her vehicle. I was riding with her about a week ago, around 5pm and she said "I need to call Dan" I said "Oh? Whats up?" to which she replied "I haven't talked to him since like 9 this morning", because being out of contact with someone for a whopping 8 hours WHILE THEY'RE AT WORK is some kind of emergency?

I guess people don't really remember anymore what it was like before instant communication. It is actually kind of nice to be away from someone for awhile, because then when you see them again you actually have some stuff to talk about! Seriously, only seeing my boyfriend 2 or 3 days a week makes it so much better. I know things are different when you are married and cohabitating and all, but like, surely a work day is not that long. I think I wasted about 6 hours on the internet last night, and I was perfectly fine not talking to people for the WHOLE duration of that time.

What do she and her husband talk about when she calls him every couple hours, anyway?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 09 Feb 2011, 12:04
I am almost never on the phone at all. I checked my cell's timers the other day, just out of curiosity. I've had it for just over a year and I've spent a total of 24 hours in calls. Much of that time was probably spent listening to voicemail. I find it ridiculous that anyone would really need to be on the phone, in the car, unless it's an emergency. And texting is never an emergency - so that's even more ridiculous.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ackblom12 on 09 Feb 2011, 12:18
Man, we have a friend on a shared cell phone plan that spends about 60 hours a month on the phone along with 2000 - 3000 text messages a month. It is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 09 Feb 2011, 12:25
My daily schedule used to be:
Wake up at 6:15
On the road by 6:45
Get to work at 8:00
Work til 5:30
Get home at 6:45
Eat, clean up, work on client's websites etc. til 9:00
Maybe read a bit, asleep by 9:30

It sucked! Luckily I've only got about a half hour drive to work now, which means I don't have to get up so early and can stay up a little later, so I can make almost all my calls from home anymore.

If we're gonna ban cell phones while driving, ban passengers from talking haha. I have more trouble when there's someone else in the car because they're usually waving their hands about and being expressive which means I've got one more visual distraction on top of the aural one.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 09 Feb 2011, 12:31
What do she and her husband talk about when she calls him every couple hours, anyway?

They argue about how annoying it is that she keeps calling.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ibrahimdelil on 09 Feb 2011, 13:46
Luckily I've only got about a half hour drive to work now,

i've noticed that you guys are living so far away from your workplaces. i mean, the distance from my house to the office is only 7.5km - it takes about 15 minutes to get there and even that makes me want to stab myself. how do you guys stay sane on hour-long commutes baffles me.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 09 Feb 2011, 14:09
I wasn't staying sane, that was part of why I quit my last job. I used to live about 50 miles away from work, and then we moved into a house that was 85 miles away. There was just nothing in town for my line of work at the time. Now I'm about 18 miles away. Saves on gas, keeps me sane!

The funny thing is, I realize that it sounds ridiculous that I'm like "Yay, only half an hour!" but I don't think I've ever had a job that was less than 15 minutes from home, and that was just one job.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lunchbox on 09 Feb 2011, 14:33
Living in a small town and working in a big one meant I sometimes took an hour or more to get to work... at places like Subway and a beachside fish and chip kiosk.
Now I work in a big big city and live just outside it and it takes half an hour to get to work. I used to live much closer but that was too expensive. I miss my seven minute commutes, though.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 09 Feb 2011, 14:49
Until now, every job I have had has taken me at least half an hour to get to, and sometimes two hours (when I had to walk there). Now, of course, I am living in my workplace so it takes a matter of seconds, but I think that is quite rare.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 09 Feb 2011, 14:50
ban passengers from talking haha.

Alec Issigonis, the designer of the original Mini, did exactly that when driving.  He also designed the seats to be uncomfortable to help keep the driver alert.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SonofZ3 on 09 Feb 2011, 14:58
They're both the type that bitch and complain a lot, so they bitch and complain to each other about people they work with. I've had to ask my fiance not to text me while I'm at work, just for a break.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ummmkay on 09 Feb 2011, 18:22
the job i had during college, i had to drive from the office to the campus every day to drop off deposit bags at the bursar's office and generally run errands. i used to always call my mom then because i liked the consistency, and she liked knowing my schedule and when i would call. i guess i get what people are saying about talking on phones while driving, but i will probably continue to talk on the phone while driving. it's never been a big deal to me! although i will say that texting while driving is basically the worst thing you can do ever.

i think that the area you live in contributes to this a lot too. i live near a city, but it's not a CITY city. we have traffic of course, but it's very much a different driving atmosphere than someplace like, i don't know, atlanta. or chicago. or something.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 09 Feb 2011, 23:55
I ride about an hour each way every day to work which is a route of about 12 miles. It's a little longer than I'd prefer but we're house sitting rent free at the moment.

On the subject of being on the phone while driving, this is what happened to Bruce Bursford (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/may/05/keithperry). Bruce being a cyclist is irrelevant to my point which is to illustrate that on a clear day, on a dry, straight, flat road, using a moblie phone can distract you enough to miss something pretty obvious.

That wouldn't happen to you though, right?

That's a non-specific "you".
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 10 Feb 2011, 03:09
That's a horrible thing to have happened, but I do notice it was because he was looking for his phone, not on it. That seems a decent distinction to make.

I have gotten closer to an accident by looking over my shoulder to merge a split second too long or "hey look at that weird thing over there" than I ever have while on the phone. Ryan was telling me last night about a friend of his who a few years back lost an arm and the use of his legs because he tried to reach a cd that fell on the floor. Some lady rear-ended my mom because she JUST DIDN'T REALIZE Mom's brake lights were lit up and the light was red.

I'm not claiming that I'm immune to distraction when I'm on the phone, but there are all kinds of distractions, and driving is ALREADY a matter of being able to multi-task.

I've had/seen this convo a million times, everyone's going to have their opinions on it and I've never really seen either side change their mind heh. So, *shrug* I dunno.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 10 Feb 2011, 04:18
I don't doubt that this will have zero effect. The sad reality is that in any area, habituated human behaviour is rarely changed by reasoned argument. However, I cannot accept that as justification that those arguments should not be made.

I could have posted worse than the crash that killed Bruce Bursford, but that was a clear illustrative case. Besides, there's no benefit to being ghoulish about such things. You're right on the distinction on distraction, but it's not that surprising how often that level of distraction can be replicated. To me it doesn't seem to bear invitation but my caution on such things might be more understandable in context; I've already had that near-death experience. Alas, as I wasn't the person driving while on the phone, modifying my behaviour won't change anything. C'est le vie.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 10 Feb 2011, 04:58
Does it affect anyone's opinion if driving whilst on the phone is illegal? I don't know if that is the case in every country now, but certainly it's getting increasingly common. I would never have used my phone whilst driving anyway - I'm terrified of taking my hands of the wheel for any reason, including changing gears - but the fact that I can also get points on my licence, be fined and potentially acquire a criminal record just means I'm not even going to risk it.

There was a woman in the UK a few years ago who was arrested for eating an apple whilst driving. That seems a bit draconian to me.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ummmkay on 10 Feb 2011, 05:43
if talking on the phone was illegal and i could get pulled over/fined/ticketed/whatever for it, then i wouldn't do it. although... honestly i guess it would depend on how strictly enforced it was. depending on the situation i might put my phone on speaker and put it in my lap or something.

there are signs up all over my old college town that prohibit texting while driving, i think it's like a $200 fine.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: öde on 10 Feb 2011, 05:57
Eating while driving is fairly distracting too.

Yo dawg, we put a steering wheel and some pedals in your car so you can drive while you're driving.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 10 Feb 2011, 05:58
I don't answer the phone if I'm driving. If I need to call someone I'll pull over. I'll check a text message if I'm stopped at a set of lights but I won't reply until I've pulled over or finished my trip. It's annoying but I don't want to crash or get pulled over or run over a child or animal. I have voicemail and I'm really good about calling people back so it ain't no thang.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SonofZ3 on 10 Feb 2011, 06:48
Exactly. I had a 4 hour drive across the state the other day to attend training. Told my fiance I'd text her when I get there, tossed my phone on the passenger seat and didn't worry about it for the next 4 hours.

different municipalities are passing ordinances against talking on phones while driving, but the state hasn't done anything to make it illegal yet. They should make it a primary offense (you can be pulled over for it), with no points and a 5 or 10 dollar fine. A five dollar fine ends up costing about a hundred bucks after all the costs and fees.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 10 Feb 2011, 07:06
Penalties like that seem only to serve as a deterent after they've happened, if at all. Basically that just amounts to revenue collection which is pointless if it doesn't reduce the actual risks.

Given the effect of driving while on the phone is comparable to driving drunk, I reckon the penalty should be comparable. Alternatively, if that is considered a bit harsh, I like the Finnish approach of issuing fines based on a proportion of income which means that everyone faces an equal deterrent.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 10 Feb 2011, 08:32
I'm not claiming that I'm immune to distraction when I'm on the phone, but there are all kinds of distractions, and driving is ALREADY a matter of being able to multi-task.

Then why add more to the list of tasks by talking on the phone, eating, or whatever? Not trying to change anyone's mind - just making a point.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ibrahimdelil on 10 Feb 2011, 11:29
how strictly enforced it was

here in turkey they take it pretty seriously. there's no way you're getting away without a ticket if an officer sees you talking on the phone, and the traffic police camps up just for that on different spots of the city everyday. i think it's a 50-60$ fine.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Verergoca on 10 Feb 2011, 14:22
Eh, there is only one reason for me to make a call when driving, and that is to report dangerous situations to my work. (I work at Rijkswaterstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rijkswaterstaat)). So far, im down to 2 accidents which happened before my eyes, 2 trucks, and one lost cargo of garbage. (If id call the generic emergency services, it would take longer to inform the traffic management centre which can close lanes if need be, also, there are loads of camera's all over the place).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 11 Feb 2011, 00:14
driving is ALREADY a matter of being able to multi-task

The biggest problem is how often people do not realise that they are, in fact, already multitasking. Especially when you have been driving for 20 years or what have you, a lot of the process becomes ingrained and automatic, and even though it is being processed through a slightly different part of your brain, it is still the same amount of brain power required to perform. When people think it is the same amount of activity as, say, walking the dog, in which case it is perfectly acceptable to simultaneously chat on the phone, text, eat a sandwich, or whatever, is when they are way more likely to cause a problem.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 11 Feb 2011, 06:58
Man, I'm not coordinated enough to walk a dog and talk on the phone at the same time.

It's a joke I am only kidding.


Okay, more to add to the driving thing - if you have two lanes of traffic and one of them has slowed down and backed up considerably, I get it that it is safe for you to slow down a little bit in the clear lane to make sure nobody does anything stupid, but you don't have to match their speed! Holy crap people! You can go past!

And if you see a cop watching for speeders, you don't have to suddenly slam on your brakes and go 15 under! Snerrrgh!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: the_pied_piper on 11 Feb 2011, 08:07
And if you see a cop watching for speeders, you don't have to suddenly slam on your brakes and go 15 under! Snerrrgh!

This is one of the main reasons why standard speed cameras are sometimes considered fairly dangerous. It should be thought about beforehand that this is what people are going to do because really there are a fair amount of people who have complete disregard for speed limits at any time. The most efficient solution that I have seen used for this is an average speed camera setup whereby there are 2 sets of cameras around a mile or so apart and they record your entry/exit speeds and how long it took you to get from one end to the other to tell if you are consistently speeding.

As a side note, one of the worst problems I see on the roads are people just doing whatever the hell they feel like, i.e. switching lanes several times within a few hundred yards, undertaking and today as I was picking my dad up from the hospital somebody drove down a works lane over the speed limit and then didn't even bother to brake for a roundabout entry. That is the sort of driving that needs to be punished most, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 11 Feb 2011, 08:17
Yes, unfortunately the law seems to have forgotten that driving is a priviledge, not a right. Coupled with a lot of drivers forgetting that a car is a mode of transport, not a ball pit does lead to a lot of cockwomblery.

I'm all in favour of some draconian law enforcement but people just whinge about how they might lose their licences. Mind you, at least you know who to keep an eye out for.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: the_pied_piper on 11 Feb 2011, 08:25
A flurry of people losing their licenses might actually be what is needed to scare people into driving more carefully but it would likely have too many knock on effects for businesses and the like. Especially seeing as most of those who lose their licenses would probably be van and taxi drivers.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 11 Feb 2011, 08:28
A suspension period could be helpful, though. Like, you do something stupid, you get your license taken away for a month. Or something. No long-term effects but the person might think more about what they did to get them in that situation.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: David_Dovey on 11 Feb 2011, 08:33
Losing yr license is pretty much a rite of passage among young Australian males, so I know a lot of people who have had suspensions and very, very few of them learned a single fucking thing from it.

I'm not trying to make any points or prove anything with that by the way, I'm jus' sayin'
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 11 Feb 2011, 08:39
Especially seeing as most of those who lose their licenses would probably be van and taxi drivers.

I suspect not.

From the observant position of the saddle the reputation of van and taxi drivers far exceeds the reality. Not only that but most commercial vehicle asshattery seems to be precipitated by private vehicle asshattery.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 11 Feb 2011, 08:44
Well yeah, there will always be those that just don't learn. And they should have their licenses revoked completely.

On that note, I think after having your license for a certain number of years, like 30 or so, you should be made to re-take the test. A lot can change in that time and it would be awesome to get the super-scary, very old people that can barely see or drive off the road. And remind those that can still drive of the rules.

My grandmother was driving me home one night and needed a tissue to wipe the condensation off the windshield. Instead of asking me to get it, or pulling over or something, she just leaned down and looked on the floor for one. Took her eyes off the road for a good 3 minutes and hit a curb. Thankfully that was the worst of it, but holy crap that was scary. I freaked out and she thought I was being ridiculous. Pssshhhh.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 11 Feb 2011, 09:04
Yes, yes, yes!

Ryan's grandma (80 years old) had to give up her license this year because she's legally blind and her driving was even scaring herself. For Christmas this year her kids bought her a really pretty outfit, and they had to describe it to her while holding it three feet from her face. I was shocked because this was maybe two months after she gave up her license. Ryan later told me that her eyesight has been that bad for years. He had some really fun horror stories about riding with her.

I realize it's hard for folks to find someone to drive them around, but it would be nice if the government would make it a requirement that you be retested every 5 years after you hit, say, 65 years old, and if you can't pass then they would provide transportation. I know it's kind of a pipe dream, but still...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 11 Feb 2011, 09:06
Yeah, most people that vote on such things are older, so it's pretty much never going to happen. But man that would be nice.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elizzybeth on 11 Feb 2011, 12:54
Driving thread, I got pulled over for the first time ever last weekend.

I was in the last half hour of a four-hour drive at about midnight, and I guess I was weaving a little.  The cop asked for my license, asked where I was going, said it was "perfectly understandable" that I might be a little tired, then told me he just wanted to make sure I hadn't been drinking and sent me on my way.

Adrenaline is much more effective than a cup of coffee!  I had no trouble staying alert for the rest of the drive.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 11 Feb 2011, 13:39
That's good that he understood. Usually if you're not an ass to them, they listen to reason.

The first time I ever got pulled over, the person in front of me had slammed on their brakes and I didn't realize they were actually stopped until I was too close. There was (I thought) a turn lane opening up right next to them and I had to turn anyway, so I moved over onto it, but then realized that it didn't actually open up until about 50 feet ahead of that. A cop pulled out of traffic behind where I'd been and followed me til we were out of traffic and onto the highway, then pulled me over. I sheepishly explained what had happened, he said "I kind of figured it was something like that, you be careful now" and sent me along.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 11 Feb 2011, 15:55
I realize it's hard for folks to find someone to drive them around, but it would be nice if the government would make it a requirement that you be retested every 5 years after you hit, say, 65 years old, and if you can't pass then they would provide transportation. I know it's kind of a pipe dream, but still...
Maybe not entirely a pipe-dream. In New South Wales, drivers aged 75 or over must pass an annual medical check including an eyesight test (though its rigour is arguable). Drivers aged 85 or over must either pass the annual medical and a biannual practical driving test, or (under new rules) switch to a restricted license which still requires the annual medical, but not the driving tests.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SonofZ3 on 11 Feb 2011, 17:50
My fiance got her first ticket the other day. Her inspection was expired for 6 months. It is illegal to drive in Pennsylvania with an expired inspection sticker. Her friends/family all said she should fight it and started on the whole "That cops a prick, theres no need for him to have cited you blah blah blah." She decided just to pay it, and we split the cost. It amazed me how all these third parties thought that she actually had a chance to win in court. 2 elements to her crime, operating on a roadway, and having an expired inspection. Both of those are undeniable, sooooooo guilty.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: benji on 11 Feb 2011, 18:37
Except that often if you put up a fight the cop is too busy to show up in court.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 11 Feb 2011, 18:49
I don't know how it is with that violation, but for most tickets the cop doesn't need to be in court. It would be pretty ridiculous if that was required since they're out, y'know, policing. The court assumes everything in his report is true unless you produce compelling evidence. Thing is, whether or not you are guilty many traffic courts knock of like half the penalty just because you went to the bother of going to court.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bicostp on 11 Feb 2011, 20:49
I can understand fighting it because you got pulled over on your way to the garage on the first business day after the inspection expired, but how do you not notice that for six months? And how could anyone expect that ticket to be thrown out? :psyduck:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 11 Feb 2011, 23:28
It's odd really, in just about no other area of life can you be caught very clearly contravening a law and it be so socially acceptable to try to avoid any penalty for what is basically a crime. In a broad survey (by the AA I think) over 80% of drivers admitted to intentionally speeding and about 60% admitted to intentionally running a red light. A similar pattern applies to certain other laws as well.

Given this, it does rather gall me that the first line of objection drivers express about cyclists is that they don't abide by the rules of the road.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 12 Feb 2011, 01:30
unfortunately the law seems to have forgotten that driving is a priviledge, not a right

Actually, the law remembers this just fine. Sometimes it is inconsistently enforced, but it is drivers that forget that, in the US, while they have a right to own a car and drive it, that right to drive it is only effective on private roads. Public roads? Whole other animal.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 12 Feb 2011, 07:28
unfortunately the law seems to have forgotten that driving is a priviledge, not a right

Actually, the law remembers this just fine. Sometimes it is inconsistently enforced,

In my experience, limited as it may be, that sometimes is very frequent. Quite often the penalties applied by the policing and justice systems seem quite eager to ensure that the driver remains on the road. I can remember reading about on instance in Texas where a driver had racked up seven DUI's before loosing his license and was able to get it back on appeal. The driver who killed Eilidh Cairns was found to have vision too poor to be driving without correction (which he did not have at the time) and was fined £400 including costs with no points. The driver who killed Maurive Broadbent, Dave Horrocks, Wayne Wilkes and Thomas Harland was found to be driving a vehicle that was unroadworthy at speeds inappropriate for the road considitions, £180 and had six points put on his license. The driver who killed Jason MacIntyre....

I could go on at length. I could post tale after tale where the police have refused to turn up to an accident. I could post more where they've turned up and decided that it's not worth bothering with. Can't be bothered with the paperwork, don't want to even issue an incident report number so an insurance claim can take place. Even those that do make it to court subject the victim to some arcane notion of what cyclists are expected to do on the roads. All the while a lot of sympathy and bias is afforded to the driver. Because of the social circles and communities that I'm a part of I really only keep up with the cycling aspect of things. A friend of mine in the Ramblers/Living Streets assures me that pedestrians often get and equally rough deal.

When I say that the law has forgotten, I'm not referring to the actual statues written down but those people who are employed, paid and entrusted with it's fair and equitable application are all too frequently letting down the most vulnerable to favour those that have demonstrated a lack of any reasonable regard for the rules they should abide by and the safety of those that they interact with. When it comes to the roads, those that embody and represent the law are collectively acting like a bunch of asshats. The shining examples of good practice are too few and far between.

Jeez I fucking harp on don't I. I should just sell all my bikes and buy a car.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 12 Feb 2011, 16:53
I was not actually referring to cyclists at all. I meant in general, because you never specified and I thought you did, too.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 13 Feb 2011, 00:33
I wasn't originally, my harping on was using material that I'm familiar with to highlight how I see the issue manifest. But it extends beyond the inequity of treatment of cyclists, or even pedestrians. As I mentioned before, there's a driver who racked up seven counts of DUI before having their licence revoked and then able to appeal to get it back. Here is someone demonstrating a complete disregard for the law and yet the application of the law favours this one person's desire to continue driving over a clearly identifiable public interest that he be stopped. Were this a single loophole incident then I could begin to understand, but that's not the way I see it at all and I don't have to look far to back up my opinion.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SonofZ3 on 13 Feb 2011, 07:45
That person should be in jail. I know of two cases where jail time for DUI was avoided because the driver was a single mother, and claimed no one could take care of the kids if they went to jail. One of them, that I hear about fairly often, continued drinking and driving on her probation without a license.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 13 Feb 2011, 11:25
So yeah I am selling my car and I wan't to buy this bike.

(http://img.wendmag.com/uploads/2008/11/ruben_oilspill2_1.jpg)

My 47 pound freeride hardtail just isn't a fun commuter anymore.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 13 Feb 2011, 13:14
Ooh, that is a tasty ride. Looks like a cyclocross frame which usually makes for a pretty good commuting. Is it lugged for panniers?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: David_Dovey on 13 Feb 2011, 14:08
Don't buy that bike it's a total rip-off, it doesn't even come with pedals
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 13 Feb 2011, 16:18
So yeah I am selling my car and I wan't to buy this bike.
Drool... That's a nice bike with extra cool-points for the bar-end shifter. It looks like it has traditional headset bearings too; none of that integrated headset bullshit. It looks like there's plenty of room for mudguards (fenders), and eyelets front and rear to mount them, for those inevitable rainy commutes. The rims and tyres look a bit narrow for a commuter though, unless your neighbourhood has really well-maintained roads. I like kevlar-reinforced tyres myself (I run Schwalbe Marathon); the puncture-resistance is well worth the slight weight penalty IMHO. Oh, and if you're going to commute on a pretty bike like that, buy a good lock!  :wink:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Ozymandias on 13 Feb 2011, 16:32
Quote
Country - Year - Population - Fatalities
UK - 2009 - 62,348,447 - 2,222 - 0,00356%
TR - 2010 - 77,804,122 - 4,041 - 0,00519%
CA - 2005 - 33,759,742 - 2,767 - 0,00819%
US - 2009 - 310,232,863 - 33,808 - 0,01089% (lowest in 50 years!)

To draw a conclusion based solely on this data assumes:

A linear correlation between traffic density and population
No correlation between travel distance and fatality rates
An identical ratio of cars to people in cited nations
An identical ratio of time spent driving per capita in cited nations

It would also be useful to know a breakdown in causes:

Impaired driver
Unsafe vehicles
Weather conditions
Unsafe driving (but driver otherwise unimpaired)

The strongest conclusion you can make based on this data is that a person is more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident in America than in Turkey. That's not meaningless, but it only makes a statement on the victims, not the drivers.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 13 Feb 2011, 20:58
The strongest conclusion you can make based on this data is that a person is more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident in America than in Turkey. That's not meaningless, but it only makes a statement on the victims, not the drivers.

I don't agree.  Except in the case of purely external accidents that can be described as "act of God" (bridge collapse due to building fault, tree branch falling on vehicle, etc), each driver is required to be responsible for the safety of their car, and to drive in a safe manner appropriate to both external and personal conditions (weather, length of journey, state of health, etc).  My belief is that acts of God are a rather small cause of road deaths, so the figures for victims per year are close to those for drivers causing a death per year.  

It would be interesting to compare figures for deaths per mile driven and deaths per hour of journey, however (I thought of including deaths per journey, but decided that the difficulty of defining a single journey made that pointless).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2011, 23:22
(bridge collapse due to building fault, tree branch falling on vehicle, etc),

I know this is nitpicky and doesn't really affect your argument, but a bridge collapsing wouldn't generally be considered an act of god. Act of god is a legal term which means basically that no human agency can be held responsible or have any degree of culpability for whatever it is that has occured. If a bridge collapses then someone, either the people who designed it, the people who built it or the people responsible for mainting it and certifying it have screwed up. Even the second thing might not be an act of God if, for example, it was caused by some dodgy tree surgery, or even if the tree was obviously diseased and should have been removed by its owner. Acts of God would really only refer to things like cars getting hit by lightning or tornadoes or flash floods or landslides (though even the last two might not be acts of God). A more accurate legal term might be force majeure or vis major. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer.

Anyway, carry on.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 14 Feb 2011, 00:10
Ooh, that is a tasty ride. Looks like a cyclocross frame which usually makes for a pretty good commuting. Is it lugged for panniers?

I dunno, I know it has fender mounts. Traitor basically markets this bike as halfway between cyclocross and Touring. kinda like the Salsa vaya but less tour more Cross.

Drool... That's a nice bike with extra cool-points for the bar-end shifter. It looks like it has traditional headset bearings too; none of that integrated headset bullshit. It looks like there's plenty of room for mudguards (fenders), and eyelets front and rear to mount them, for those inevitable rainy commutes. The rims and tyres look a bit narrow for a commuter though, unless your neighbourhood has really well-maintained roads. I like kevlar-reinforced tyres myself (I run Schwalbe Marathon); the puncture-resistance is well worth the slight weight penalty IMHO. Oh, and if you're going to commute on a pretty bike like that, buy a good lock!  :wink:

My Scott had about 7,000 miles on it before I stopped commuting on it (and gained 40 pounds) I am actually thinking about building it new, From the frame up.

My plan is for a slightly heavy build, Avid BB5 mech disc brakes on Deore Hubs laced to Velocity Deep V rims. with a 1x10 drivetrain. and a flat bar, messenger style cockpit (though probably not that narrow)

and when all is said and done, it gets brightly colored BMX pedals and a well padded seat. xD
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 14 Feb 2011, 00:54
If you've specced it up that far, you should go for SPDs or feetbelts.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 14 Feb 2011, 01:10
If you've specced it up that far, you should go for SPDs or feetbelts.

I like to wear real (cheap) shoes. so SPD's are out of the question. but these Feetbelts intrigue me...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 14 Feb 2011, 05:52
Another name for toestraps.

How cheap is cheap for shoes? You can get some cycling shoes for fairly low prices.

Also aren't Avid BB5 brakes are only cable pull rather than hydraulic? If so you'd probably get better performance out of a decent set of canti's.

Akima - I run 700x23 in Sheffield, the self proclaimed pothole capital of England and they do fine.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 14 Feb 2011, 06:58
The strongest conclusion you can make based on this data is that a person is more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident in America than in Turkey. That's not meaningless, but it only makes a statement on the victims, not the drivers.

I don't agree.

He wasn't saying that that drivers aren't at fault in most accidents (at least, I assume he wasn't saying that, because that's a pretty ridiculous position,) His point was that those figures tell you how likely you are to be the victim of a car accident but those figures don't tell you how good/bad the drivers are.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 14 Feb 2011, 08:19
Given that as a first approximation each accident has one driver who is at fault, they still tell you that the likelihood of being the driver in a fatal accident in any given period is three times greater in the US than in the UK. 

If drivers travel on average three times further each year in the US than in the UK (do they? I really have no idea), then that makes their record per mile  the same; but note that long-distance roads (motorways in the UK) are generally much safer per mile travelled than others, so it's still a matter of interpretation.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Ozymandias on 14 Feb 2011, 08:32
No, see, there's zero information about drivers at all there. Only citizens of the respective nations. One does not have to be a citizen to be a driver, nor does one have to be a driver to be a citizen.

If America has 100m drivers and Turkey has 10m, then a driver in Turkey is more likely to kill someone than an American. Obviously, the reverse can just as easily be true. We simply have no data in this regard from that.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 14 Feb 2011, 10:08
How cheap is cheap for shoes? You can get some cycling shoes for fairly low prices.

Is "fairly low prices" anywhere less than $30?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 14 Feb 2011, 11:30
Another name for toestraps.

How cheap is cheap for shoes? You can get some cycling shoes for fairly low prices.

Also aren't Avid BB5 brakes are only cable pull rather than hydraulic? If so you'd probably get better performance out of a decent set of canti's.

Akima - I run 700x23 in Sheffield, the self proclaimed pothole capital of England and they do fine.

Yeah, 30 bucks or less. flat footed cheapo's.

I don't like the weakness of cantilever brakes. the amount of Modulation is great. but I always take Linear Pull V-brakes or disc.

And discs stop a whole lot better in the rain and snow than any rim brake does. the pads also last longer.

I'm personally really pleased with Mechanical discs in Urban applications. Up on the mountain its hydraulic or nothing. but even in the hilliest cities I've ridden, Mech discs do fine.

regardless I don't think that frame has V-brake bosses. and if the Avids don't work out. I can always slap hydraulics on at a later date!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 14 Feb 2011, 11:32
OH MY GODDDDDDD YOU DICKS THE PARKING DECK COUNTS FOR DRIVING LAWS TOO
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 14 Feb 2011, 11:36
Whats a Parking Deck?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 14 Feb 2011, 11:39
(http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/703D5EB6-CA45-4F47-AA3E-01D0F73A02F7/0/Daviest.jpg)

Parking Garage. Parkhaus. Graduated Parking Lot. Whatever.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 14 Feb 2011, 11:50
Oh okay, We don't have a lot of those around here. I had never heard them called that.

Now I'mma use that phrase all the time. oh yeah.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 14 Feb 2011, 11:51
What did you call them?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 14 Feb 2011, 11:58
They're parking garages here. Or "those things I still can't figure out how to navigate" but that's kind of too long to say every time.

Seriously, all the going around in circles just confuses my already awful sense of direction.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 14 Feb 2011, 12:00
Yeah, I'd never heard them called anything other than parking Garages.

I also agree with them sucking.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 14 Feb 2011, 12:00
Well, it all works out if you just follow the signs, generally. They do that for me too, but THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE YOUR POOR DRIVING BEHAVIOUR YOU FUCKERS

YIELD STILL MEANS YIELD

YOU STILL HAVE TO USE YOUR TURN SIGNAL

LBAUGHLBAUGHLBAUGHLBAUGH
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 14 Feb 2011, 12:17
I guess you guys are talking about multi-storey car parks, or just multi-storeys for short.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: McTaggart on 14 Feb 2011, 12:25
'Car parks', or just 'parking'. No real need to differentiate between the single and multi-layered ones.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 14 Feb 2011, 12:30
Whenever you Australians and British talk about "car parks", I always think of parks for cars. You know, green spaces for them to frolic and play.

I always imagine them something like this.

(http://nk.oulu.fi/enorssi/gallery/albumit/album80/autorata.sized.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 14 Feb 2011, 13:10
Maybe cars would be less likely to run themselves off the road in agony if they had more places to play.

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CARS.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 14 Feb 2011, 13:11
Take the dog to the dog park and the car to the car park. They need to be let off the leash once in a while.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 14 Feb 2011, 13:18
Is the dog park the hook outside the shop where I tie the dog up when shopping?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 14 Feb 2011, 13:24
Actually, I can completely understand the absence of dog parks in the UK, considering how seldom I have ever seen anyone need their dog on a leash at all. Something about people and their dogs in the US just doesn't work, so we are not allowed to have them off-leash in cities pretty much ever. To compensate, we have dog parks in urban areas for the city-dwellers who own dogs.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 14 Feb 2011, 13:38
Ah yeild signs in multi-storeys, that reminds me of Canada. In the UK you're lucky if they bother painting some directional signs on the ground.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SirJuggles on 14 Feb 2011, 14:39
Ugh I work for the Parking Services department at my University, and our two mandatory days are dorm move-in at the beginning of the year and graduation/commencement at the end. Getting put on Parking Garage duty for commencement is a sure sign that the managers HATE YOU.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 14 Feb 2011, 15:11
To compensate, we have dog parks in urban areas for the city-dwellers who own dogs.

They're not unknown in the UK; when I lived in Hackney, there was a small grassed area provided specifically for dogs at the end of our road, even though it was less than 100 yards to one of the biggest parks in London.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 15 Feb 2011, 00:53
"YEILD" always sounds to me like something a mediaeval knight was supposed to shout at his fallen foe. It's the same thing as a "GIVE WAY" sign here, isn't it?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 15 Feb 2011, 01:11
Right now I'm thinking a British EXIT sign just says "Pip-Pip, Cherrio!"  :psyduck:

he is TOO totally appropriate there.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 15 Feb 2011, 01:14
Frankly I'm surprised that the American YIELD signs haven't been replaced with BACK OFF MOTHERFUCKER.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 15 Feb 2011, 02:29
Frankly I'm surprised that the American YIELD signs haven't been replaced with BACK OFF MOTHERFUCKER.

Why do that when we already have stickers adorning the rear of the car that carry the same message?

they're right between the Juggalo sticker and the sticker of Calvin Pissing on... who the hell knows anymore.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 15 Feb 2011, 02:37
In my part of England there seems to be a proclivity for the rather fatalistic bumper sticker that proclaims "Wednesday til' I die". Although the midweek massive loss of life has yet to occur, it really doen't instill me with any faith about the driver's commitment to road safety.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SonofZ3 on 15 Feb 2011, 07:38
Actually, I can completely understand the absence of dog parks in the UK, considering how seldom I have ever seen anyone need their dog on a leash at all. Something about people and their dogs in the US just doesn't work, so we are not allowed to have them off-leash in cities pretty much ever. To compensate, we have dog parks in urban areas for the city-dwellers who own dogs.

This is so true. Maybe its the water here in the US, but dogs are fucking mean. I've been bitten by unleashed dogs while walking down the sidewalk a couple times in my life, and once you get out of the cities, people shoot dogs, and cats, that show up on their property. It sucks.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: McTaggart on 15 Feb 2011, 07:59
It's probably just that no-one bothers training them.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 15 Feb 2011, 08:52
That's what I think. My mom's dogs are all awful creatures because she doesn't care to put any effort into training them at all. When she tells one to sit, and he doesn't, she seems to think that they know what it means but have decided not to listen to her. So either they don't respect her, which is a lack of (good) training, or they don't know what it means, which is also a lack of (good) training. And a lot of people have this mentality.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 15 Feb 2011, 09:13
here in the US, but dogs are fucking mean. I've been bitten by unleashed dogs while walking down the sidewalk

I've been bitten, badly enough to go to hospital, by a dog in an English village (opposite my home at the time, in fact); I was preventing it attacking a young girl (she was unharmed though badly frightened) and it attacked from behind when I turned to check the girl.  The dog was later destroyed by the police.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Caleb on 15 Feb 2011, 09:53
I had a giant German Shepard run me down when I was riding my bike on a public dirt road near camp as a kid.  I was probably like 10-11?  He bit my thigh but couldn't get a good enough grip to break the skin though.  It tore my shorts up.

I didn't stop riding my bike and managed to get away from it.

Thinking back, the fucker was probably going for my groin.

My father complained to the owner and said that he would shoot that dog but I don't think he called the cops or anything.

Honestly, if I had a kid who was attacked by a dog like that I would honestly consider walking up to the road in front of that house and shooting the thing dead.  At the very least I would get the cops to kill it.

See this is why I can't have children ever.  I just got angry thinking about a pretend dog attacking my pretend kid.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 15 Feb 2011, 09:58
My stance is that many dogs like that can be reformed. But then, in the US we have over-population, so unless the owner is truly willing to work on it, no one has the money for it. And so they're put down. A bad dog is rarely an inherently bad dog. Someone taught them to be that way, whether directly or indirectly.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SonofZ3 on 15 Feb 2011, 13:30
My fiance's mother has a dog that gets treated like a human being. It bites, and never gets punished. It bit completely through my fiance's thumbnail, like right in the middle of the nail, the one time she was petting it and its punishment was being made to get down off the couch. Thats what happens when people teach dogs they're more important than humans. My fiance thinks this is the right way to treat a dog, as a result, we do not own a dog.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 15 Feb 2011, 13:52
See, I meant less in the sense of "our dogs versus yours" being more dangerous and more in the sense of unruliness and discipline. There will be poorly handled dogs the world over, but there seems to be a difference in holding the owners accountable. In the UK, I get the impression that a disobedient dog is your fault. In the US, people often throw up their hands because "some dogs are just like that" and "lots of people have trouble with obedience training".

I saw someone hit a bird this weekend and they didn't even notice because they were texting, guys. It made me really sad. :(
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 16 Feb 2011, 06:51
I kinda think American attitudes towards pets is spillover from American attitudes toward child-rearing. Not to get too deep into it, but we don't discipline anybody.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 16 Feb 2011, 06:56
I'm fairly sure there's a word for that.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 16 Feb 2011, 08:09
Democracy
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 16 Feb 2011, 08:10
Could be.

I was thinking of racist though.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ackblom12 on 16 Feb 2011, 08:15
What?!?!?! No, No no no. you were thinking of rainbows and puppies and unicorn foals.

I would never have thought racism.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 16 Feb 2011, 08:42
Obtuse?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 16 Feb 2011, 08:56
Just checking. Opaque would, to me, suggest a fairly obvious reference which I was worried about missing.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 16 Feb 2011, 09:29
I've always thought that obtuse, in a situation like this, meant someone that was intentionally being somewhat difficult to understand. But that apparently just shows that I never looked it up.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 16 Feb 2011, 10:52
Its like English isn't your first language or something. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: valley_parade on 16 Feb 2011, 10:55
See below sig quote.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 16 Feb 2011, 10:58
I don't think being Obtuse means you're intentionally being hard to understand. It is often very hard to get both the base message and emotional intent of what I say. Despite my best Effort, many here surely find me Obtuse.

But I'm not TRYING.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 16 Feb 2011, 11:16
Quote from: Oxford Dictionary of English
Obtuse, adj (1) annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand; difficult to understand, especially deliberately so.

Quote from: New Oxford American Dictionary
Obtuse, adj (1) annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand; difficult to understand.

This suggests that they perceive a slight difference in usage on the two sides of the pond.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 16 Feb 2011, 11:20
yeah, i never thought of obtuseness as being deliberate necessarily, and I'm american, so that sort of makes sense, I guess.

language is funny
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Elysiana on 16 Feb 2011, 11:23
I always thought it was a deliberate attempt, and I'm American. I have no idea why I thought that, and I don't think I've ever looked it up - maybe it was just the context I've always heard it in. I always think of The Shawshank Redemption when I hear it.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 16 Feb 2011, 16:01
Just checking. Opaque would, to me, suggest a fairly obvious reference which I was worried about missing.

Opaque means "hard to see through". Mostly, anyway.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lines on 16 Feb 2011, 16:43
Yeah, but that could be mistaken for being fairly obvious. Who knows. Yay semantics!

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: David_Dovey on 16 Feb 2011, 18:37
I always think of The Shawshank Redemption when I hear it.

Thank you for pre-emptively answering the question I was gonna shit up the thread with by asking.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 16 Feb 2011, 18:52
So today I watched some asshole student as he went the wrong way in a one-way parking lot to steal a spot out from under the nose of someone else who went the proper way around and had been waiting on it. He smiled at me and said "hey, there" as I walked by. I kind of smiled back, but if he had only known it was my contemptuous smile. In my head I was all "bitch I would not be friends with you, you are a scumbag". Fucker.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 16 Feb 2011, 20:23
Ooh that is how I look at the entitled jackass who parks in the fire/loading lane at the grocery store and leaves his blinkers on and takes just as long to get just as many things as me who parked properly in a parking space and will not at all be overburdened with my two bags and a gallon of milk. Not even handicapped people get to park there, you fuck, that is the ROAD.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: McTaggart on 16 Feb 2011, 20:30
I guess I'm kinda blessed because at my uni people mostly follow the unwritten rules of the parking lot. At least in the one car park that I frequently use. It's oriented north-south and at the north end, the end closest to the buildings, there is an island in the middle. Once the car park is full the way things are done is that you go to the top of the car park, go around the island and wait for someone to walk to their car. This usually less than 10 minutes. If there is already someone waiting then politely queue behind them until another bay becomes free. I really like this system.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 16 Feb 2011, 20:42
That is how it is supposed to work, but I would guess this only happens about 50% of the time on my campus.

Things can get pretty stupid around here. For example, on the first day of classes this semester,

I was walking to my car to exchange my dance bag for my trumpet when an SUV (jeep or something similar) stopped halfway up the ramp and a blonde girl got out of the passenger side. There were a lot of cars behind them and I felt compelled to say something to the driver (another blonde girl), so I said something about it being a really bad idea to stop here and that maybe they shouldn't. The first blonde proceeded to tell me, in an unmistakable "fuck off" tone, that she was just going to her car so that her friend could have her parking space, if that was alright with me. I put up my hands and raised my eyebrows and just walked away, but as I was closing my trunk after retrieving my trumpet, I suddenly heard tires screeching. I looked up to see that she had pulled out of her parking space and backed incredibly close to the oncoming car behind her, that some other jerk had gotten impatient and decided to pass her friend, and that she was now pinned between them. As I watched, she got out of her car and started shouting at the jerk to "back UP! No, YOU back up!" over and over. It may have been a mean thing for me to do, but I started laughing and couldn't really stop myself before I walked away.

I know she heard me, and I felt a teensy bit bad, but really not all that much.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 17 Feb 2011, 00:12
So today I watched some asshole student as he went the wrong way in a one-way parking lot to steal a spot out from under the nose of someone else who went the proper way around and had been waiting on it.
That is just asking to get keyed or bottle-capped or your tyres slashed.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 17 Feb 2011, 00:20
Not  in a university  carpark, surely?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 17 Feb 2011, 08:48
Don't cross the fucking street when there is a green arrow for left turns you ignorant fucks. I AM going to cut you off, and I will not care.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 17 Feb 2011, 08:52
Check your local state and municipal ordinance, pedestrians may still retain right of way under those conditions.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 17 Feb 2011, 09:13
Well the crossing signal says do not walk, So I imagine they're just dumb 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Zingoleb on 17 Feb 2011, 09:24
man fuck the cross/do not cross signs

they are never accurate, they always tell me not to walk when there's no one around and then lead me right into oncoming traffic
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 17 Feb 2011, 09:37
Yeah I've had that issue so many times. I just pay attention to the cars. But then I'm usually jaywalking so yeah.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 17 Feb 2011, 10:18
All this talk about driving habits on universities is reminding me of some observations from back in college. You see, I used to work in the Orientation program to greet new students, and parents driving in were often assholes. Like, they would routinely yell at volunteers telling them the parking lot was full and directing them elsewhere, and one girl actually broke down in tears from the extensive screaming. That was pretty awful (way to set an example for your kids) but the interesting thing was that nobody ever got mad at me while we carried their stuff up to the dorm. In fact I was frequently thanked and turned down several tips.

It seemed like the actual act of driving was turning people into assholes, because in other contexts they were perfectly normal and decent. Now I’m curious if this anecdotal observation is true, and if so why (if I had to guess, it’s because people drive so often that they end up with no tolerance for the inconveniences that come up.)

I’m not sure what to do with this information.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 17 Feb 2011, 11:13
It seems possible to me that some of these assholes were once good drivers. Patient, polite, but firm. And then other drivers ruined it for them over time. My boyfriend is generally a very good driver, but the people in this area are slowly wearing him down. I don't think he'll ever give up and be an ass about it but I can see how it could happen.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lines on 17 Feb 2011, 11:44
Opposing Jace's crosswalk comment, do not turn when the DO CROSS light is lit and people are crossing the road. I'm crossing. I have the legal right of way, that sign says so. Do not run me over with your car, please, it will make me very unhappy.

But those people like Jace are describing are just asking to be hit. It's telling you not to cross for a reason. That reason is you are going to be hit by a car if you do.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 17 Feb 2011, 15:50
Even when I rode a bike I would wait for the light to tell me to cross as I usually would ride on the sidewalk (no one on sidewalks around here) or near the gutter just to be extra safe. Of course, then you end up with assholes who want to make right hand turns and don't think you have any right to get in their way at all.

Also, I consistently remind my girlfriend not to drive with her tires inside the bike lane and that "well there's not a biker" is not a good excuse.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SirJuggles on 17 Feb 2011, 20:22
It seemed like the actual act of driving was turning people into assholes, because in other contexts they were perfectly normal and decent. Now I’m curious if this anecdotal observation is true, and if so why (if I had to guess, it’s because people drive so often that they end up with no tolerance for the inconveniences that come up.)

As I mentioned earlier, I actually currently work for Parking Services at my Uni, and most of my job revolves around directing people to where they need to go/explaining to them why they cannot go where they want to go. A lot of people do not like being told these things.

From what I can tell the general idea seems to be that driving is a right, or at least something they take for granted. Since we have to regulate things in order to try to make it smoother for everyone, in many cases people feel personally inconvenienced and see it as us making their lives more difficult. Also, a lot of people don't really see any good reason to have a Parking authority at all, and are under the impression that we are simply a revenue-generating agency that makes money for the University through tickets. While in some cases that is truer than it should be, the fact is without regulation and direction big events tend to turn into a clusterfuck of cars, and even on a day-to-day basis things go badly because reserved lots are generally reserved for a reason.

Also the very first rule anyone learns upon coming to work here: No one ever reads signs.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 17 Feb 2011, 21:54
How many times have I been hit while riding my bike?

7.

3 of them were Tow Mirrors on Pick Up trucks. (great big bruises on my back and some minor road rashes)

twice while in a crosswalk (one bent a rim, the other just layed me out.)

Once I got clipped by a coworker... on purpose. (no damage to me or my bike. but it did scrape the hell out of the side of his car.)

and the last one was someone backing out of a parking space, I actually hit them. flew over the roof.

how the heck did I get through mostly undamaged that may times? the Mirrors hurt the worst.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SirJuggles on 17 Feb 2011, 21:57
I imagine by about the 4th one you'd be in mid-air going "Sonofabitch not again".
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 17 Feb 2011, 22:24
I actually found one of the Rednecks with the tow Mirrors purely by chance.

I was 17 and immature, so...

his truck lost the ability to be road legal.

but yeah. when you ride everyday, and in 3 years you're hit that often.

you get a "Here we go again" attitude to it.

you also become a VERY Bike aware driver.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 18 Feb 2011, 05:34
I'd imagine it's much like the bowl of petunias in Hitchhiker's Guide. And for imagining that, I am a giant dork.

I own a bike. It's a pretty awesome old.. uh, blue womens bike, with big shiny fenders which I love. I don't ride it much because I'm out of shape and have crazy long legs so I end up sitting super high which honestly sort of scares me. I just need to practice more.

The one time I got in an accident while riding a bike was when I was younger. I tried to ride over a speed bump with only one hand on the handlebars and fell and cracked my head open. And then a car ran over my bike!

But since then I've fallen several times because I have no balance. And one guy screamed at me that I was "bringing sexy back" as we rode past each other.

What kind of seat would a woman usually use for a bike? The seat that's on mine now is horribly painful to my lady parts, and that seems not-normal to me.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 18 Feb 2011, 05:55
I refer you to the LFGSS, Women: What's your favourite saddle? (http://www.lfgss.com/thread19250.html) thread on another forum that I occasionally frequent.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SirJuggles on 18 Feb 2011, 07:44
The only major bike crash I've ever been in was when I was like 10 and I thought it would be cool to see if I could ride down the big hill up the street from my house without brakes. The going-super-fast part was fun, but at the bottom I started wobbling, clipped a mailbox with my handlebar, and literally slid to a stop underneath a car parked in my neighbor's driveway. It was a little bit funny when I tried to get up and my helmet bumped on the underside of the car.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 18 Feb 2011, 10:31
@The Seldom Killer: Fixies,  OWOWOWOWOW. Much respect to anyone who puts miles on a fixie bike... Okay riding it 2 blocks 2 days a week to a coffee shop doesn't count for Props. but everywhere else it is ridden... MAD PROPS.

@Sir Juggles: I did that! but hit the mailbox square against my chest, cracking my sternum. to this day if I move wrong my sternum clicks and I'm in a great deal of pain.

but yeah, I even slid under my neigbors car!

Flipping Coaster brakes... I wonder if this is when my love for Disc brakes was born...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: IronOxide on 18 Feb 2011, 11:49
I refer you to the LFGSS, Women: What's your favourite saddle? (http://www.lfgss.com/thread19250.html) thread on another forum that I occasionally frequent.

(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a46/ironoxide887/scanners.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 18 Feb 2011, 13:20
Not sure why the Scanners reference is about there.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 18 Feb 2011, 13:35
I wish this thread had more bike porn to go with the amusing convo's/venting. I'd post mine... but my bike ain't that hot.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 18 Feb 2011, 16:19
3 of them were Tow Mirrors on Pick Up trucks.
Yes, those things are a menace. Not so much here on pick-ups as on Luton vans (box truck in the USA?). I've been clipped a few times on my right shoulder (we drive on the left in Australia). Never badly enough actually to crash, but certainly to rip my clothes and cut my shoulder. Quite why cars have to have smooth folding mirrors, while trucks are allowed to have sharp metal brackets sticking out at cyclist-shoulder (and pedestrian-head), level, I do not understand.

Coaster brakes are awful. Not least because they condition little kids to the wholly false and dangerous idea that the primary braking force on a bicycle should be the rear brake/wheel (http://sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html). Then some of those kids grow up to ride brakeless fixies (http://sheldonbrown.com/fixed.html#braking), and skid/wobble/weave/crash/slide through red lights, because they can't stop properly...

I don't ride it much because I'm out of shape and have crazy long legs so I end up sitting super high which honestly sort of scares me.
I wish I had crazy long legs... :-(  If there is a bike-shop in your area that can do a proper bike-fitting, you might want to have one done, and get your bike adjusted. I did that a few years ago, and a small adjustment (replacing the handlebars and stem) made a huge difference to my comfort and my ability to ride up hills. If you are comfortable on your bike you will feel (and actually be) much safer.

The conventional wisdom is that a woman needs a wider saddle with a shorter "nose". The "shorter nose" tradition arose from the theory that ladies would ride in skirts, so it is possibly less relevant today, and in general a longer nose gives better control to the rider. The "wider" thing is aimed at women's pelvic bones, and so depends a lot on your build. There are lots of "ladies" saddles out there (though some are just pink instead of black) and there is not much alternative to trying them out. Check out your vendor's returns policy. Research on cycling web-sites (http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/buyers-guide-to-womens-saddles--189) and forums is OK, but saddles are like shoes; they have to fit you. Some female riders swear by saddles with a cut-out in the middle, while others find the edges of the cut-out irritating. Personally, I ride a Brooks Flyer (http://www.brooksengland.com/en/Shop_ProductPage.aspx?cat=saddles+-+touring+%26+trekking&prod=Flyer) which is nominally a man's saddle. The ladies' version, the Flyer S, is 30-odd millimetres shorter, fractionally lighter, and a whole one millimetre wider (like that's going to make a difference).

Edit: Removed unwarranted slur on hipsters. You don't have to be a hipster to be an idiot on a fixie. :-D
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 18 Feb 2011, 23:45
Most of my major bike crashes in my youth were my foot sliding too far forward and down and catching on the ground causing me to pull myself down. One time my pedal came off right as I was putting pressure on it so I placed my foot firmly on the ground while going moderately fast.

The latest crash was into another cyclist. We were both crossing the street, she had just come around the corner and was on the inside of the intersection, so was I, we both swerved to avoid, went the same direction, swerved to avoid again, same direction again, and then it was too late. I took the brunt of it, landing on the bottom. She just got up and asked if I was okay, I said yes, then she rode off.
Turns out I was pretty deeply cut on my left elbow (nothing a bandage couldn't fix) and had managed to scrape both my palms, my left wrist, cut into both shins with the pedals, and a slight road rash on my ankle. Then a nice guy at the corner asked where I was headed and threw my bike in the back of his pickup and drove me to work (where I was headed). I proceeded to unload fairly heavy boxes for about 2 hours, then I was sent home because I "didn't look so well." Overall a fairly funny story, and I got to have a big ol bandage on my arm for like a week. I mean it was like, sterile pad, and then wrapped and taped. Almost passed out from my girlfriend and her mom (a nurse) talking about how deep it looked and if they could see the tendon.
Did not hit my head at all in that crash. Don't wear a helmet. Alpha as fuck
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: KharBevNor on 19 Feb 2011, 04:14
I have never met anyone who rides a fixed-gear bike I wouldn't happily shoot in the face. Real talk. What the fuck, get some fucking gears you pricks. Get some fucking brakes. What are you even doing.

Also, whilst I was on the bus the other day, I noticed a dude riding along next to me on a bike wearing huuuuuge headphones. Practically cans. Who the hell listens to music whilst riding a bike on a road? I almost have to respect his balls/lack of concern for this sham we call life but seriously.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bicostp on 19 Feb 2011, 09:31
Apparently my car is invisible. There's a section of I-95 just south of Boston that splits into two, then merges into one lane (where it splits into 93 and 128). Idiots on their cell phones love to merge into the space I currently occupy. One time some idiot in a red minivan got close enough for me to knock on their passenger side window. (That was the only way to get their attention; apparently I'm the only one who can hear my horn.) Stopping to let them by usually isn't an option, because most of the time there's a pickup truck or a BMW Bro tailgating me. Either I need to start driving a fluorescent green Econoline or I need to install a set of these (http://www.hornblasters.com/). :|
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 19 Feb 2011, 10:36
Apparently my car is invisible. There's a section of I-95 just south of Boston that splits into two, then merges into one lane (where it splits into 93 and 128). Idiots on their cell phones love to merge into the space I currently occupy. One time some idiot in a red minivan got close enough for me to knock on their passenger side window. (That was the only way to get their attention; apparently I'm the only one who can hear my horn.) Stopping to let them by usually isn't an option, because most of the time there's a pickup truck or a BMW Bro tailgating me. Either I need to start driving a fluorescent green Econoline or I need to install a set of these (http://www.hornblasters.com/). :|

(http://s.hornblasters.com/images/gbb-sales.png)

TRUTH
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 20 Feb 2011, 00:19
(edwinalink: Since no one else has mentioned it yet, I will. There is no need to quote the post immediately above yours. This forum does not move fast enough to merit that practice. Thanks for trying to be considerate, though.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 20 Feb 2011, 01:49
I generally don't. but seeing as it is not immediately evident that that image is Hotlinked in the above post. I found it may be wise to quote it for the sake of clarifying that it was in fact related.

CUDDLES. :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 20 Feb 2011, 11:35
I have never met anyone who rides a fixed-gear bike I wouldn't happily shoot in the face. Real talk. What the fuck, get some fucking gears you pricks. Get some fucking brakes. What are you even doing.

Why would you expect someone to have gears if they don't want to. What is it about running on a single gear that makes someone a prick? Would it make a difference if someone where running a single-speed bike? (single gear but with a freewheel). As for brakes. I run a front brake on my fixed wheel and this is very common practice. On top of that the rear wheel is a brake. Just because it doesn't involve rubbing pieces of rubber against the rim of a wheel, doesn't make it any less of a brake. It's still a force multiplier controlled by human muscles and, depending the gearing that the bike is set up with, can be a lot more effective than hand controlled brakes.

As a quasi-aside. On time-trials I regularly ride a lot faster on my fixed gear bike than I do on my geared bike. I'm not alone and time-trial riders often favour a fixed gear bike. Until recently, fixed gear bikes held the records in 10, 25 and 50 mile distances and still beat the majority of geared riders. Gears aren't always an advantage.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 20 Feb 2011, 11:48
^I guess several older members on this site seem to speak in a way that is clearly meant to be offensive, but when you're another older member I guess you can tell its ironic?

because they know each other IRL?

this forum is like a high school, with an elite inner circle that thinks you want in. that won't let you make the same types of jokes they make.

I learned to just assume everyone is always being facetious.  and that its just the internet, Not a great idea to get emotionally involved.

As for fixies I both hate riding them and fear the things. but I can respect anyone who ACTUALLY puts miles on one. I could not.

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Alex C on 20 Feb 2011, 11:58
Nah. That's just Kharbevnor. He's comfortable with hating some of the people he's met, that's all. There's this gaggle of old ladies who jump the queue at Dunkin' Donuts who I feel the same way about. It's not really morally justifiable or anything, but still, fuck them.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 20 Feb 2011, 12:03
pwd removed

Having just trawled up the M1 can I kindly suggest that people pay a bit more attention. Outright asshattery was at a minimum but there was a common policy of rolling right up behind a truck and then deciding to overtake and getting twitchy that a queue of cars weren't letting them into space that wasn't there. If you keep an eye on what's going on around you then you can usually move out much sooner and not be a dick to everyone else on the motorway.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ackblom12 on 20 Feb 2011, 12:03
FASCIST
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 20 Feb 2011, 12:13
Now everybody put on some spandex shorts and hug!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 20 Feb 2011, 12:17
thats actually pretty close to what i do.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: KharBevNor on 20 Feb 2011, 12:30
What is it about running on a single gear that makes someone a prick?

For a start, they tend to be the kind of people who have no sense of humour.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 20 Feb 2011, 12:32
ill-thought drunk posting removed.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: KharBevNor on 20 Feb 2011, 12:39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0XsulDXtk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0XsulDXtk)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Alex C on 20 Feb 2011, 12:58
At least I wasn't wrong about you being a cockwomble.

You might want to go back a page and figure out who started insulting who before we start parsing out who's being a cock or not.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 20 Feb 2011, 13:54
Um, can I bitch for a second about somebody who is not a member of this forum? Is that ok?

So in my area there are a lot of people who simply do not use the crosswalk, and I am not sure why. A habit developed from taking the bus and then being too lazy to walk 100 feet back to the intersection? Some kind of Central American cultural baggage that I am totally unaware of? A belief that they are just too special to follow the rules? I do not know, but it happens a lot. And that is one thing.

But when people do use the crosswalk, they usually do it properly. Except this douchebag we saw today. There is a road near my house that goes next to a big shopping center, and at the intersection in question there is a total of 9 lanes, 5 one way and 4 the other. The light was solidly green, right in the middle of the cycle, and this jogger standing on the median decided to cross the street anyway. With his dog. With 4 cars coming at him. WHO DOES THAT???

I swear, if you run your stupid ass out in the middle of the street when you do not have the right of way in any sense of the law, and I hit you, I will not feel bad, and I will not feel bad about not feeling bad. Get your ass back on the sidewalk, go to the corner, and wait for the light.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lunchbox on 20 Feb 2011, 14:16
(http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/6267/oregontrail.jpg) (http://img576.imageshack.us/i/oregontrail.jpg/)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: David_Dovey on 20 Feb 2011, 14:30
I still want to know if any of the tabs say anything except "You have died of dysentery"
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 20 Feb 2011, 22:32
I have never met anyone who rides a fixed-gear bike I wouldn't happily shoot in the face.
I suspect Khar is irritated by the sort of fixie-fashion-victims who provide BikeSnobNYC (http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/) with most of his material. I sympathise, though I would never favour violence, but I have a lot of respect for traditional fixed-gear enthusiasts like the late Sheldon Brown (and possibly The Seldom Killer). Cycling is as bad as music for cliquey snobbery, and I'm about to engage in some. I do not ride a fixed-gear myself, by the way.

Traditional fixed-gear riders are pretty hard-core, often with a background in competitive cycling, typically time-trialling or velodrome racing. Usually they know what they're doing, are fit and strong, and have good technique. They climb strongly, and descend quickly with a smooth, fast pedal-stroke. Being focussed on function rather than fashion, their bikes generally do not display the exaggerated features people tend to associate with "fixies", and may pass unnoticed by comparison. They understand that a frame intended for track racing is not always the best choice for riding on the road. If they do ride a track-bike, their good technique, and sensible choice of handlebars, allows them to corner smoothly rather than wobbling round like a hippo in high heels. They usually fit a front brake for road riding because they know that the front wheel does most of the work when braking hard. Generally speaking, none of these things is true of your fixie-fashion-victim.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 21 Feb 2011, 12:06
The light was solidly green, right in the middle of the cycle, and this jogger standing on the median decided to cross the street anyway. With his dog. With 4 cars coming at him. WHO DOES THAT???

I work on a sort of busy street corner. There is Main street which is 4 lanes and a fairly consistent amount of traffic. The light doesn't take too long to change so you can cross the street, but I have seen people run across instead of waiting. Not too bad when its just one person, or a couple adults, but I saw a lady making 4 of her kids run across the street while she herself ran across with a baby in a stroller.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Van donk III on 22 Feb 2011, 05:57
Fixies are the new hipster vehicle of choice, granted. They are fairly hardcore, yes; but as with most of you guys i too have witnessed victims of fashion  become victims of road rash. I was a bike messenger for a while and toyed with the idea of a fixie. In the end I realised that a free wheeling hub is far more practical and far safer than having your shins crushed under your own weight as your new terror pin flat pedals gouge yet more of your skin from your leg.

Also you can't really go into 'attack mode' with a fixed gear. having the pedals set level when zipping through traffic is far safer than not.

Brakeless? feckless more like.

I've had many a run in with cars and busses knocking me  off because i was in the way. They deserve punishment. Sticking to the law only seems to matter when everyone is behind you. If that's not the case fight back I say!  Some ignorant drivers need a lesson in control, If that lesson involves them learning to keep their distance in case a bearded hippy type  ruins the paint job on their shiny BMW, so be it.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 22 Feb 2011, 06:13
Also you can't really go into 'attack mode' with a fixed gear. having the pedals set level when zipping through traffic is far safer than not.

What's this "attack mode" of which you speak?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Van donk III on 22 Feb 2011, 07:16
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r309/van_donk_III/1742052-1.jpg)

Kind of like this, only on a road bike. Pedals at 3 & 9 o'clock, knees and elbows bent, head down, back up.

When you've got a lot of speed up and dont want to lose it, this kind of racing position means that you're ready to swerve quickly when you need to  and will absorb for any bump in the road  you're flying down.
Cant really do this for any length of time on a fixie, as the constant movement of the chainring/pedals will eventually send you off balance. Not good when you've got cars/busses etc on both sides.

I suppose It's an aggressive style of cycling in a city, but it's usually the only way I manage to keep up with/ahead of traffic
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 22 Feb 2011, 07:30
Oh yeah, I used to do that but found it quicker to just tuck down on the drops and keep the spin up. Smoothes out the bumps, on the road without losing as much momentum and a lot more control when you're weaving and switching lines. Works well on both fixed and gears and allows you to keep narrower, which is handy when you're rolling through traffic.

I found the above position didn't offer the tight control over the front end that I prefer.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Van donk III on 22 Feb 2011, 07:40
Never was a fan of drop bars, still use an easton MTB bar with a 2 inch rise. I guess froom racing I've always had an 'elbows out' kind of stance. Only ever tuck in when I absolutely have to.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 22 Feb 2011, 07:52
Also from going off road on an MTB I seem to remember that position not being good for long periods on cleats. Sure as hell not going to be guilty of riding fixed without some kind of foot retention. That is proper retarded fail. Might explain why my last stack on fixed didn't result in any shin/pedal related damage, my foot was still attached at the sole.

I also find drops put less strain on the wrists, useful when I'm doing long distance. Also better for descending, unless you're Sean Yates.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Van donk III on 22 Feb 2011, 08:53
Might explain why my last stack on fixed didn't result in any shin/pedal related damage, my foot was still attached at the sole.

lol, how was your knee?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 22 Feb 2011, 09:00
Absolutely fine. Hip and shoulder hurt a bit but that was it really.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 22 Feb 2011, 11:12
Yeah... every bike I have ever owned, and ever will own... gets a pair of BMX platform pedals.

they don't stand out too much on a mountain bike... I wonder If I will get comments when they're on my Cyclocross bike.

I tried Clipless for about 3 months. they don't make it worth carrying extra shoes at all times.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Van donk III on 22 Feb 2011, 11:33
agreed. Also you cant escape onwanted drifts slides when you're clipped in. Also foot out shit spitting lairiness is good fun too. Flatties rule.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 22 Feb 2011, 11:43
I just have a pair of MTB/touring shoes with SPD cleats in them and walk around in those when I'm not on the bike. I'll occaisionally take a pair of extra shoes with me, but it's a rarity, most of the time I can't be bothered. Occaisionally they're a bit awkward, such as on cobbles, but the payoff when riding is well worth it to me. I did try carrying extra shoes at the start but in the end I couldn't be bothered.

I couldn't recommend cyclocross on flats, you'll suffer for it.

VDIII - That's a myth, you can very easily escape unwanted drifts clipped in. Just set your pedals nice and loose and oiled. You'll hold in when climbing but as soon as you go to step off it'll pop out. I did this when I was riding in the snow and didn't suffer any stack's because of it, even on the fixed.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: öde on 22 Feb 2011, 12:42
I've never gone onto the drop bars in traffic, it seems terrifying!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 22 Feb 2011, 12:57
You could always do it Sean Yates style?

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4069/4346286491_49499dc0c3.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 22 Feb 2011, 13:23
Its a Cyclocross bike. Doesn't mean I have any intention of racing cyclocross. I just want a bulletproof bike to use as a car for 3 years. and my Dirt Jump Bike is too dang heavy.

its getting a flat bar to!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 22 Feb 2011, 13:29
Stick with the drops for a bit. Cyclocross bikes generally have wider bars and you may well find them more versatile than flat bars.  It's not like you'll lose out.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 22 Feb 2011, 15:49
I ride clipless, though I normally use pedals that allow me to ride comfortably in uncleated shoes if I want to (http://www.shimano.com.au/publish/content/global_cycle/en/au/index/products/pedals/mountain/product.image.+media+images+cycling+products+bikecomponents+PD+PD-M324_600x450_v1_m56577569830637302_dot_jpg.bm.512.384.gif). Shoes with recessed cleats (usually sold as "mountain" something) are pretty OK to walk in anyway; just watch out for slipping on cobbles, and don't walk on polished wooden floors in them. Although all clipless systems take a little getting used to, the modern SPD-style (if properly adjusted, kept clean, and lubed) make it pretty easy to release a foot in an emergency.

Stick with the drops for a bit. Cyclocross bikes generally have wider bars and you may well find them more versatile than flat bars.  It's not like you'll lose out.
Or consider touring or "randonneur" style drops (less drop), or "moustache" bars (much less drop). Flat handlebars can be good, but it depends what you mean by "flat". The typical straight "mountain bike" style bar that bike-shops tend to fit is not a good idea for road riding IMHO. They force your arms into a rather unnatural "elbows out" position that can become seriously uncomfortable after a few hours of riding. People fit bar-ends and other extras to alleviate the problem, but I don't think they're a good idea for riding in urban traffic, because you can't cover the brakes from a bar-end riding position. A better option is one of the M-shaped handlebars that used to be typical of traditional utility bicycles. These are sold under various names, including "North Road", "Town", and "Sweep". They're the same tube diameter as standard straight bars, so fully compatible with brakes, shifters etc.

Which brings me to a final point. Bicycle parts are subject to many annoying historical standards and incompatibilities, and handlebars are no exception. Drop handlebars are typically made of different diameter tubing from flat bars, and swapping from one to the other can mean that your stem, brake-levers, and gear-shifters will not fit, so you can indeed "lose out". Some types of brake-lever are incompatible with some types of brake mechanism. Some gear systems come with shifters that will only fit one diameter of bar, or will only fit on straight sections of tubing, and this can constrain your other choices. Going from drop bars to straight is usually easier than the other way round, but fiddling around with handlebars can become a frustrating pass-time. Do not ask how I know this...

There's a good article on handlebar choices here (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/deakins/handlebars.html).

Edit: Rereading the above, I realise that I am a huge bicycle nerd.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 22 Feb 2011, 16:52
Walking to the train this morning, at two intersections a car turned in front of me while I was crossing the street. And as if that isn't annoying enough, I live near a school so there were crossing guards holding Stop signs yelling at them.

I swear, if you run your stupid ass out in the middle of the street when you do not have the right of way in any sense of the law, and I hit you, I will not feel bad, and I will not feel bad about not feeling bad. Get your ass back on the sidewalk, go to the corner, and wait for the light.

I would feel bad for the dog.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 22 Feb 2011, 23:48
I don't need to stick with Drop bars for a bit. I've experienced them plenty of times for a long enough amount of time to know that

(http://www.nexternal.com/icycles/images/33635.jpg)

with a little trim off each side is gonna keep me happy in the long run.

same for pedals. I came to that choice through experiencing many and settling on that.

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: David_Dovey on 23 Feb 2011, 06:35
How novel!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 23 Feb 2011, 11:36
My bike has pedals too! Also some handlebars. It has a seat, but the seat is old and uncomfortable, so I think I will get a new one. I will probably go to a bike shop somewhere and sit on them to test them out!

BIKES
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lunchbox on 23 Feb 2011, 14:25
Can we post pictures of our own bikes yet


(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5210701181_668d4b7cff_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slackadaisy/5210701181/)

This is my bike
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 23 Feb 2011, 15:29
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Something_Witty/photo-1.jpg)?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lunchbox on 23 Feb 2011, 15:44
Mine's prettier
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Gemmwah on 23 Feb 2011, 16:58
(http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/_beatingheartsbaby/Beautiful_Raleig_4c9a645942a99.jpg)

Although she got stolen, so

(http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/_beatingheartsbaby/emmelle-shuttle-folding-bike-14194333.jpg)

But then someone stole his seat while I was at the gym so now he looks like

(http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/_beatingheartsbaby/elvis.png)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: scarred on 23 Feb 2011, 17:09
my babby

(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/8719_1119564361079_1586130718_30687885_7050497_n.jpg)

she has a flat tire right now though, is very sad.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bicostp on 23 Feb 2011, 18:59
I just have a mountain bike from Target. It's probably a Schwinn or something.

Awesomeness (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Something_Witty/photo-1.jpg)

 8-) Nice Vulcan. 800-ish?

I wanted to buy a CB360 last fall but unemployment meant no disposable income. :( Now that I have a job my attention has turned to four-wheeled clapped-out deathtraps. (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-metal.gif)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: öde on 23 Feb 2011, 21:01
(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/6827_127900769787_575839787_2278528_8119676_n.jpg)

My bike has 8 cars and a house in Ireland.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Inlander on 23 Feb 2011, 21:28
my bike has pedals. I put my feet on them

Also because you're in northern Europe I'm going to assume you brake by cranking them backwards.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: redglasscurls on 24 Feb 2011, 07:14
For some reason the only pictures I have of my bike are in my parents' basement.
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v253/77/17/5739266/n5739266_38819999_6938.jpg)

It barely ever gets ridden now, because I live on gravelly rural roads and fuck those handlebars.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 24 Feb 2011, 07:34
Is that a Peugeot?

If so it looks in farly good nick and probably worth flogging to a hipster and putting the proceeds towards a mountain bike with big comfy grips.

Also unused bicycles make little kittens sad.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: greenMonkey on 24 Feb 2011, 07:38
I have this thing:

(http://www.jensonusa.com/product/bi/BI309C29.jpg)

Collegiate road season starts in a week.  I'm super pumped.  First race is going to suck though, it's at Rutgers University in New Jersey, I bet it will be super cold.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 24 Feb 2011, 07:40
Nice, what sort of distance will it be?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: redglasscurls on 24 Feb 2011, 07:43
@SK I mostly just hate trying to shift gears on it. They're at the center post bit, so if I'm down on the handlebars I can't shift without lurching left/right as I take one hand off to reach. I keep meaning to just rip out the stupid stem mounted shifters and replacing them with something a bit more klutz-friendly but I don't want to break things. So it sits for now!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: greenMonkey on 24 Feb 2011, 07:46
@The Seldom Killer

Collegiate races tend to be pretty short, because they have a lot of categories and a limited amount of time.  There's an ITT and a crit, the ITT is only 2.5 miles and apparently it's flat as a pancake.  The crit for my category is 25 minutes long, I can't seem to find a map of it though.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 24 Feb 2011, 07:55
@rgc - Shimano STI shifters are klutz-friendly (I've been doing a running test for six years).

@gM - That's a tiny TT. I'm guessing that the crit will be ten laps of the same course. Sounds pretty easy in terms of effort, what's the field size like?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: greenMonkey on 24 Feb 2011, 09:02
Hard to say, depends on how many people are brave/crazy enough to show up.  I race in Men's D, the second lowest category, and there are usually around 100 riders in my category.  For the crit, the field will be split in half based on school/team size, so it'll probably be a little less than 50.

Just figured out the crit is a different course than the TT, an 0.6 mile loop with 4 turns.  I don't think either the TT or crit will be too difficult, although the crit might get hairy because even though Men's D is a step up from the intros, a lot of guys just simply don't have the bike handling or group riding skills yet.  But they still want to go as fast as they can.  Which doesn't always end well.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: valley_parade on 24 Feb 2011, 11:16
Collegiate road season starts in a week.  I'm super pumped.  First race is going to suck though, it's at Rutgers University in New Jersey, I bet it will be super cold.

Hey, does Williams have any "home" races? Wouldn't mind going to see one.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 24 Feb 2011, 12:03
an 0.6 mile loop with 4 turns. ... the crit might get hairy ....

Yeah, crits have a deservedly rough reputation. I guess you have to get in the front until it's settled down and hope for the best. 100 riders on such a short course is going to be messy though.

Hope you can get up to the C cat soon.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: greenMonkey on 24 Feb 2011, 12:30
Collegiate road season starts in a week.  I'm super pumped.  First race is going to suck though, it's at Rutgers University in New Jersey, I bet it will be super cold.

Hey, does Williams have any "home" races? Wouldn't mind going to see one.

Unfortunately, no.  The closest we get is a race at RPI in Troy the weekend of March 26-27, but that's over our spring break so I'm not sure if I'll make it or if anyone else on our team will.  Would be fun if it worked out though, I'm sure there will be some fun hills in that course.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 24 Feb 2011, 16:23
This is my bike
Nice Peugeot mixte. Those frames make a lot of sense, especially for shorter riders like me, but they're hard to find down here. Don't let it go!

<Sadly stolen classic Raleigh Shopper>
I used to own a folding Raleigh Twenty. I sold it very reluctantly when I got my present bike because I just don't have the storage space, but it went to a good home and is still ridden regularly.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lunchbox on 24 Feb 2011, 17:05
Unfortunately it's from the 1970's and has never been restored so it's an absolute bitch to ride. One day when I get some spare money I want to send her off to be refurbed. For now, I complain every time I have to ride her, and get cuts and bashes all over my legs. And the gears are impossible for me to change whilst riding. And the saddle is awfully painful. I need to buy a new one.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Metope on 24 Feb 2011, 19:54
my bike has pedals. I put my feet on them

Also because you're in northern Europe I'm going to assume you brake by cranking them backwards.

I refuse to ride a bike that doesn't do this. Unfortunate they're rare in the UK these days, so I'm walking everywhere instead.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Feb 2011, 02:53
Any reason you don't like hand brakes? I've been on bikes with them a couple of times and found them a bit jumpy and unreliable. Mind you, that's probable more from lack of familiarity.

I've got a 200k bike ride tomorrow which is my first qualifier for Paris-Brest-Paris. Oddly nervous about it because although I know I can do the distance, I'm concerned about getting the qualification series out of the way.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 25 Feb 2011, 03:05
I do love how clean a Coaster brake-ed Bicycle looks. But for the speeds and terrains I enjoy... they'd just be ludicrously unsafe.

but if a person has a mild commute. I say why not?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: KharBevNor on 25 Feb 2011, 03:16
I refuse to ride a bike that doesn't do this. Unfortunate they're rare in the UK these days, so I'm walking everywhere instead.

I am sorry my country has largely abandoned the outpaced technology of a century ago Kris. I am truly penitent!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Metope on 25 Feb 2011, 03:20
Thing is, I'm so used to pedaling backwards to brake, so if I'm on a bike and have to stop urgently I do this as a reflex, if the bike I'm on has hand brakes then whoops! I've had quite a few almost-accidents because of that, so I'm not going to risk it.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Feb 2011, 03:42
Best thing is to get out and ride lots and hand braking will soon cease to be counter-intuitive. Get out somewhere traffic free and go at it for a bit and it'll soon come together. I've found that visualisation works pretty well for me in changing instinctive behaviour.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Inlander on 25 Feb 2011, 04:26
My main problem with pedal-brakes is that if I'm riding on the road and I'm stopped at a red light I'll usually pedal backwards half a rotation or so to get my right foot (because I'm right handed and so tend to favour my right side for all things) into the optimum position to push hard on the pedal for maximum acceleration when the light goes green. Also, and a little more oddly, if I'm on a long ride and I'm, say, going down a gentle slope where gravity is providing all the necessary forward momentum, I often find it good to pedal backwards a little bit, just to keep my muscles moving and keep everything circulating without having to expend energy on pushing against the resistance I'd encounter if pedalling forwards.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 25 Feb 2011, 07:51
My bike in winter:
(http://cassland.org/images/Bike-Winter.JPG)

My bike in summer:
(http://cassland.org/images/Bike-Summer.JPG)
Yay! for floods...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 25 Feb 2011, 22:57
Awesomeness (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Something_Witty/photo-1.jpg)

 8-) Nice Vulcan. 800-ish?

I wanted to buy a CB360 last fall but unemployment meant no disposable income.

The Vulcan is a 750. You can see where I put it down a couple of years ago on the exhaust, still. I have the disposable income to fix it, and even have the new exhaust to put on, but due to the job that gives me the income I don't have time to a: ride and 2: fix the exhaust. It's a horrible curse, I say. Having toys but no time to play, I mean.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 26 Feb 2011, 09:06
I somewhat randomly just came across two articles that are about traffic problems. One is a blog on nytimes that puts forward the question I asked earlier: do people act differently (specifically, like assholes) when driving than they do other times?

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/why-does-driving-bring-out-the-worst-in-people/

The comments on this post mention a book called "Traffic" that I am very curious about now.



The other article I just read talks about rear-end collisions caused by red light cameras:
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/bedard-crashes

This is one example of the general principle that you should usually be leery of reported statistics because the numbers are almost always massaged according to the bias of whoever is reporting the numbers.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 26 Feb 2011, 15:01
The other article I just read talks about rear-end collisions caused by red light cameras: http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/bedard-crashes
This page doesn't actually offer any statistics, or even a link to where they might be found. It merely fulminates about what the author claims someone else's statistics mean. To be fair however the article doesn't actually go to the length of claiming that red-light cameras cause rear-end collisions, merely that there is a correlation. It does of course gloss over the fact that rear-enders at traffic lights (or anywhere else for that matter) are actually caused by drivers driving too close to the vehicle in front for the speed they're doing, and implicitly accepts that drivers should only brake for the red light, not the amber/yellow.

It's fairly standard motor-transport-advocacy-group stuff: "The NMA opposes the use of red-light cameras and proposes engineering solutions as the real fix for intersections with high accident rates." And there was I thinking driver behaviour might have something to do with accidents. How naive I was...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bicostp on 26 Feb 2011, 21:54
Watch the light until you pass the point of no return (where your car can't physically stop if the light turns). After that I only watch other cars, lights be damned. What good does slamming on the brakes do if you're going to wind up stopping in the middle of the intersection?

Another fun story from Interstate 95: on Thursday some idiot driving a blue SUV was too busy with their friggin phone to pay attention to their lane position, and almost performed the PIT maneuver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur8OLtX1Afk) against my front end. 12-year-old domestic economy cars are just part of the landscape I guess. :|
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 26 Feb 2011, 22:06
The other article I just read talks about rear-end collisions caused by red light cameras:

There were a couple of speed cameras (will go off if you are driving 11mph over the speed limit) on my way to work when I lived in Phoenix. They were one mile apart and when the first one would go off, the person would slam on their brakes, rather than going from 66+ to 55 (the speed limit) they would drop down to like 35-40.
This is really annoying and dangerous.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jhocking on 27 Feb 2011, 05:17
My fiancee slams her brakes for police; she is mostly a great driver, but that behavior annoys me a lot. The worst is if I'm driving (a rarity these days admittedly) and she shouts whenever she spots a cop, causing me to freak out.

This page doesn't actually offer any statistics, or even a link to where they might be found. It merely fulminates about what the author claims someone else's statistics mean.

Which was kind of my point. Sorry I didn't state that explicitly, since it often takes a while for my thoughts to actually gel in my mind. Both sides of the issue, both for and against red light cameras, have studies to back up their claims, but the studies are all riddled with bias. You know the old saying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

stopping in the middle of the intersection

Unrelated to the red light thing, but this reminds me, my mom has stopped in the middle of an intersection. She was lost, and finally just stopped randomly in order to look at her map.

In the middle of an intersection.

And then she was mad that people were yelling at her (including a cop who happened to be there directing traffic.)

*sigh*
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Feb 2011, 11:14
So here's my main bike which I've just freshly cleaned following a very mucky and wet 200k ride yesterday.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5058/5483072800_016f6f2f2c.jpg)

And here's the stable that it's kept in. How many bikes do you think you can see?

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5018/5482481193_65a3d52938.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 27 Feb 2011, 11:28
I make it eleven.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Feb 2011, 11:32
Nope.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 27 Feb 2011, 12:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XL3g4vPK30&feature=player_detailpage#t=52s
 :psyduck:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 27 Feb 2011, 13:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XL3g4vPK30&feature=player_detailpage#t=52s
 :psyduck:
Fuck! I'm no fan of Critical Mass events, but that's just...  :psyduck:  Some of the comments are revolting, but that's YouTube. Or maybe just people.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 27 Feb 2011, 14:19
I found the link on 4chan, which would explain a lot of the comments
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bicostp on 27 Feb 2011, 14:29
Damn! :-o

Critical Mass is just a bunch of self-entitled hippies causing a nuisance, but there's no way in hell they deserve that.  :-(
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: scarred on 27 Feb 2011, 22:41
Critical Mass is a protest, and like any other, people take to the streets. I've never seen a car plow into a crowd of pedestrians waving signs and walking down the street.

This is inexcusable. Whoever drives that car deserves to suffer a horrible, painful death.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bicostp on 27 Feb 2011, 23:04
The problem is, they don't take to the streets. They take over the streets. They clog both lanes of traffic and seize intersections by lying in front of conflicting traffic like they're Arthur Dent regardless of lights and right-of-ways. If they want motorists to 'share the road' they should be held to the same standards as mopeds and scooters: yield to faster traffic, follow the rules of the road, use hand signals. Critical Mass does not help improve the driving public's opinion of cyclists in the least, they just reinforce the negative stereotype that all cyclists think they should have all the rights of both a car and a pedestrian.

That doesn't mean they should be run down though. That's just wrong.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Feb 2011, 01:18
Forward the revolution! (but not on bicycles)

Sometimes the law is inadequate, or insufficiently regarded, and to gain improvement it seems necessary to step outside it.  I'm not sure that Critical Mass can claim this justification - but I have no experience of some of the conditions for cyclists that have come up in this thread.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: KharBevNor on 28 Feb 2011, 02:21
To be frank, given the current state of the environment I think if it was just a protest against the over-use and domination of cars it would be entirely justified. Getting people to drive less and cycle more is an extremely legitimate goal.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Feb 2011, 02:55
I agree with that goal, certainly, but giving people who don't cycle an example of what they perceive as bad behaviour by cyclists may not be an effective way to convert them to the cause!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bicostp on 28 Feb 2011, 16:43
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-golfclap.gif)

Precisely.

"Let's prove video games don't cause violence by going on a paintball rampage in replica Halo helmets!" (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-v.gif)

e:

If I lived in a city where I had to worry about critical mass I would drive the most awesome tank I could find

I think you meant to write this. I highly recommend a 1977 Trailduster with a 440.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 28 Feb 2011, 16:56
If I lived in a city where I had to worry about critical mass I would drive the biggest, oldest, diesel-est piece of rusty, black smoke blowing, winter ending, sky darkening tank I could find and run over every goddamn one of them that stopped in front of me.

Your solution to getting me to ride a bicycle is to make me late to work?

Yes, yes, I know, they have the right to peaceably assemble. I also have the right to tell them to fuck off out of my way. And when they decide to surround me and bang on my giant death-tank I will simply put it in 4LO and start rolling very slowly. They can move out of the way, or, more preferably, not.

In which case I can't wait to hear the sound of their carbon-nano-tube frame with titanium wheels and carbon fiber brakes and tires and stupid clippy shoes crunch under the enormous weight of whatever I find to drive.



All that said: As long as the dudes on bicycles obey the rules of the road, at least to the same degree I do, we'll get along fine, like I do with the bike riders here, because they aren't a bunch of smug twats who need to keep their goddamn yaps shut and mind their own goddamn business.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 28 Feb 2011, 20:47
For the record I didn't know that some dude ran a bunch of bikers over when I posted that.

For the record, had I known, I doubt it would have changed much more than the wording of the above post and hardly, if at all, affected the message therein, fuck people(in this case cyclists) who go out of their way to make life worse for those around them.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 28 Feb 2011, 23:23
If I lived in a city where I had to worry about critical mass I would drive the biggest, oldest, diesel-est piece of rusty, black smoke blowing, winter ending, sky darkening tank I could find and run over every goddamn one of them that stopped in front of me.

Your solution to getting me to ride a bicycle is to make me late to work?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. In response, the next time I get held up by cars in a traffic jam, I'm shoot all of the drivers in the face and beat any survivors with my D-lock. If you're going to be arrogant, greedy asshats then you truly deserve to be murderised.

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: David_Dovey on 01 Mar 2011, 07:37
Never mind Switty dude, this is pretty much just what he does. I'm not sure he actually thinks that people should die, he just likes to act misanthropic on the Internet. It's pretty cute.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 01 Mar 2011, 08:13
Hah, I was just riffing off him. Face-shooting and D-lock justice are reserve only for people who drive Audi's and Chelsea Tractors.

However I was looking over a few things on the internet last night and all the drivers complaining that cyclists don't obey the law are being a bit hypocritical. According to sources like the AAA and the Department for Transport, 80% of drivers admit to intentionally breaking the speed limit, 70% admit to intentionally runing red lights and at least 10% admit to drink driving among other offenses. You cheeky weasels (in a broad sense).

Also looked at some figures from the London Met. Back of a fag packet calculations strongly suggest that fines and penalties applied to cyclists is disproportionate to the level of damage, injury, death and distress caused in comparison to motorists.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 01 Mar 2011, 21:07
There is a far cry of difference between shooting everyone in the face and driving over people who are intentionally making life worse for everyone around them.

Do I really believe that they should die for it? Not really. If I were in a big truck surrounded by angry cyclists who were attacking my car? Fuck yes I would drive over them.

By the same token, the asshat in the pick up on the way to work this morning that was blocking two lanes of highway because he had failed to tie his load down should also be drawn and quartered by a team of very slow moving oxen.

Also, all that aside, I speed, run yellow(and red, on motorcycles. None of the lights in this entire fucking city will switch for a bike) lights, that said, I don't do either of these things when it would put other people on the road in danger. I don't speed in traffic and I don't run lights into the side of cross-traffic. I also have not, do not, and will not drive drunk, because all I risk by doing so is fucking it up for everyone else on the road(and myself, coincidentally), which would sort of go against this whole tirade.


All that aside, when was the last time someone on a bicycle stopped for a traffic jam? fuck you and your riding between stopped cars and on the sidewalk.

What I am saying is you should probably listen to dovey because really only about 5% of the things that ever come out of my mouth(or fingers) should ever be taken seriously, and almost none of that comes out over the internet, let alone in a post about driving a killdozer over bicyclists.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 01 Mar 2011, 22:41
I did yesterday morning, and the morning before that. Chatted briefly to another guy on a bike (we moaned about the bloody cars causing a traffic jam. If half those people were on bikes, it wouldn't have happened). I never ride on the pavement and it wasn't safe to go round the outside in a legal overtaking manouver. Yes, I'll ride between stopped cars, but only when it's safe to do so and it's still perfectly legal, otherwise I wouldn't do it.

As for shooting people in the face? Most of those people don't actually need to be driving along in cars so for the purposes of this argument, I reckon they're intentionally making my life worse so I reckong it is exactly and precisely the same (plus I get to shoot idiots in the face (lucky for them I don't own a gun(not really, I'm not the kind of asshat to use violence against fools (I'm a different kind of asshat))))
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 02 Mar 2011, 06:17
Ok really, they're intentionally making your life worse? I highly doubt that anyone has ever said, "Hey you know that guy, The Seldom Killer? I'm gonna find out what route he takes to work, and what time, and I'm going to get in my car and drive slowly in front of him." No.
Sure, probably a lot of people could ride instead of driving, but none of them are not doing it because of you. And what about people who physically couldn't ride the distance to their work, have jobs that require a dress code not conducive to comfortable cycling, would have an even longer commute if they were on a bike, need their car for their job, need their car to transport their family after work, or a hundred other reasons to "need" to drive besides being a lazyass who wants to ruin the environment and your (you personally, The Seldom Killer's) day?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 02 Mar 2011, 07:43
My apologies, I forgot to add  :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D and j/k to my post.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Something Witty on 03 Mar 2011, 01:09
Again, I fail to clarify. I'm not talking about cyclists, I'm talking about critical mass. I thought I made this point in basically every post I've made on the subject?

I'm not talking about Johnny Ridetowork, I'm talking about the bunch of twats who get out of bed on whatever day of the month and go swarm an intersection or whatever with cyclists for the sole purpose of being cocks about riding a bike. No offense, normal cyclist guy, but those guys can fuck right off.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 03 Mar 2011, 02:13
the bunch of twats who get out of bed on whatever day of the month and go swarm an intersection or whatever with cyclists for the sole purpose of being cocks about riding a bike.

I like how you've neatly distilled and explained exactly what Critical Mass is all about. Very insightful.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Jace on 03 Mar 2011, 08:11
Go to critical mass one day a year
>douchebagbiker.jpg
Drive to work all other days.

Critical mass, hit guys car, he shouts at you
>douchebagbiker.jpg
"Fuckin asshole drivers"
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: edwinalink on 03 Mar 2011, 23:36
I'm seriously considering selling my car and buying a bicycle to ride to school/work (same place). This both terrifies and excites me.

I'm doing the same.

its stressing me out right now. as my inseam is 28 inches, and that means I should ride a 49cm(small) frame, but I'm 5'10 which means I should ride a 56cm(large)

so I'm being told Neither one fits.

it was so much easier to pick Mountain Bikes.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 04 Mar 2011, 02:02
Any decent bike shop should allow you to test ride stuff to get an idea of the feel of it.

Bike sizes generally allow for a reasonable degree of seat post extension and an average reach to the handlebars designed to sit just behind the front hub. If you have below average leg length to height ratio then I'd advise a frame size in the middle with less extension through the seat post and put in a longer headset to balance out the reach. This would mean that you shouldn't get too much compromise on frame handling and reach handling for a person of your size.

The good thing about bikes is that, unlike cars, they are much easier to customise to fit you as a rider. If the model off the peg turns out not to suit you, it's pretty easy to exchange components and a good local bike shop will be able to help you with this pretty well. Some shops will even have a measuring jig to assess your riding position and lets them advise on which frames will match your physiognomy.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: greenMonkey on 07 Mar 2011, 18:18
Results from the collegiate road season opener:

Time Trial: 5th
Crit: 3rd
Points Race: 3rd

Not bad for my first weekend outside this year.  My teammates did really well too, one of them won the time trial in my category, then got 2nd in the points race.  Our captain got 2nd in his time trial (category above mine), crashed out of his crit, and then came back the next day to dominate his points race with an insane solo break which he maintained for a good 2/3rds of the race.

PICTURE (I'm the large one in the purple cow print kit):
(http://www.velocityresults.net/images/1927.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: valley_parade on 10 Mar 2011, 09:20
Not a bad start, dude!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 10 Mar 2011, 11:20
How about a compromise between bicycle and car?

(http://sites.google.com/site/mobilitylabbe/Home/waw/RoodWitCarbon.jpg)

I desperately want one of these.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 10 Mar 2011, 11:59
That's not a compromise with a car, it's a compromise with a Sinclair C5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 10 Mar 2011, 12:01
Give over, it's much faster and cooler than that.

It's also not designed by a short-tempered deluded megolamaniac.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 11 Mar 2011, 20:59
How about a compromise between bicycle and car?
The velomobile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velomobile). Combining the disadvantages of a car and a bicycle in one vehicle for over a century.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 12 Mar 2011, 00:02
Well, not all of the disadvantages of a car. For instance, the price and depletion of fuel doesn't continue to escalate at a rate beyond economic sustainability and it doesn't cost money to sit in traffic going nowhere. Also, like a bicycle, they don't feed exhaust fumes from other vehicles directly into the face of the driver (and passengers in cars) (University of Bristol study demonstrated that car drivers in traffic are subject to more exhaust fumes than cyclists in traffic and pedestrians at the kerbside, therefore at a higher toxicological risk of cancer, heart disease, dementia, developmental delay in children... the list is apparently quite long). Other motor vehicle related disadvantages are also avoided.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bicostp on 12 Mar 2011, 10:05
Thing is, you're subject to the exhaust fumes of other cars if you're stopped in traffic with those. You can't obnoxiously weave between lanes of traffic or ride on the sidewalk in a pedal car the size of a Fiesta.

My daily commute is 30 miles each way. No way in hell I'm doing that on a bicycle, and moving closer would cost more than the monthly gas use does. (One month's rent up there would cost about as much as the gas and car payment on a brand new Mustang GT.) My 12-year-old sedan gets 36 MPG on the cheap stuff and it's been paid off for years. I have every intention of driving it until the wheels fall off, then a few thousand miles further. (Then either an engine swap with a Cobalt SS or get another inexpensive commuter econobox.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 12 Mar 2011, 18:07
Well, not all of the disadvantages of a car.
I never said all, but the environmental advantages of a velomobile over a car are also offerred by a bicycle, at lower cost financially (usually, though admittedly there are stupidly expensive bikes (http://www.sidiergo.com/blog/10-most-expensive-bicycles-on-earth/) on the market), in natural resources, in "real estate" on the roads, and space required for parking/storage.

But hey, different pedal-strokes for different folks, right?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Blue Kitty on 25 Jun 2011, 14:23
So long after reading this thread I have noticed that a lot of people like to pass on the right instead of the left on the highway
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 26 Jun 2011, 16:11
So long after reading this thread I have noticed that a lot of people like to pass on the right instead of the left.
Roughly a third of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_on_the_right).  :-D

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 27 Jun 2011, 11:26
I think he means in right-driving regions, wherein this is rude and often illegal.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 27 Jun 2011, 11:46
In the countries where I drive (UK, Europe) it is generally not permitted to pass on the inside (to keep it generic), except in specific situations where traffic is stuck in lanes (in a jam where different lanes are inching forward at different times; in the turn lane at a junction).  In the UK, even bicycles are not strictly permitted to do this, say, to run up the inside of waiting vehicles at lights (unless a bicycle lane is marked out); but it is rare to find anyone who respects that fully.  Overtaking on the inside on a freely moving UK motorway will  get you stopped by the police if they see you.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 27 Jun 2011, 22:27
Yeah, it's not legal in several states here, but I doubt most people know that, given how many of them remember to use their turn signals ever. There are always exceptions (the one I encounter most often and the one I dislike the most being when some chump is just cruising in the passing lane going no faster than exactly the speed limit, especially right next to someone in the center lane who is also going precisely the speed limit), but they are exceptions.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 28 Jun 2011, 16:52
In the countries where I drive (UK, Europe) it is generally not permitted to pass on the inside (to keep it generic), except in specific situations where traffic is stuck in lanes (in a jam where different lanes are inching forward at different times; in the turn lane at a junction).  In the UK, even bicycles are not strictly permitted to do this, say, to run up the inside of waiting vehicles at lights (unless a bicycle lane is marked out); but it is rare to find anyone who respects that fully.
In New South Wales (traffic laws are a matter for the states in Australia) passing on the inside (the left for us) is permitted on "multi-lane roads" subject to certain restrictions.

Bicycles (not motorcycles) are specifically permitted to overtake on the inside in NSW even where there is no bike lane, but that is something that wise cyclists do with discretion, since it is a rule that motorists forget as soon as they've passed the obligatory exam required to get a license, and many pay little attention to their nearside. Special caution is required when overtaking on the inside between traffic and a row of parked cars, to avoid opening doors. Cyclists should also remember that the law does not require motorists to position their vehicles to provide clearance on the inside for our bicycles, nor excuse clipping or scraping any part of another vehicle, even it it is equipped with a ridiculously large door mirrors that the driver plainly does not use. Don't ride like a dickhead.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Inlander on 28 Jun 2011, 17:09
Special caution is required when overtaking on the inside between traffic and a row of parked cars, to avoid opening doors.

Wouldn't that be overtaking on the outside, ie, the side nearest the curb (and the parked cars)?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Jun 2011, 22:46
No; the lane nearest the curb is the inside or nearside lane, and the fast/overtaking one is the outside.  The outside lanes of the two carriageways are together, and the inside lanes are apart.  Sorry, but that's just how it is!

Anyway, how do you not know that and survive?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Inlander on 29 Jun 2011, 00:43
I survive by spending approximately 100% of my time on a bike observing the environment around me, and approximately 0% puzzling over nonsensical terminology.

If somebody pulled me over, put a gun to my head, and asked me "Which is the inside lane on a road?", clearly my survival would be in jeopardy.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 29 Jun 2011, 14:57
Considering how a road looks it seems to make more sense that the inside is to the middle, and the outside is to the edge. However, the reason why the curb side is designated inside is because cars are supposed to hug the curb side when driving. So the inside of the road becomes the side you'd be driving in, in a normal situation, while the outside is for situations out of the ordinary, like overtaking.

If we wanted to avoid confusion we could call it my side/your side or good side/bad side, but obviously everyone who partakes in traffic is aware of this rule (to some extent) so it doesn't matter as long as you know which side is for overtaking and which isn't.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: McTaggart on 29 Jun 2011, 16:18
I figured it was to do with cars passing during corners while in a race. The inside line is the one that cuts inside the curve of the car being passed, which is the part of the road furthest from the median.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 30 Jun 2011, 11:57
If we wanted to avoid confusion we could call it my side/your side or good side/bad side, but obviously everyone who partakes in traffic is aware of this rule (to some extent) so it doesn't matter as long as you know which side is for overtaking and which isn't.

I calls them port and starboard.


Agghrrrrrrr
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Van donk III on 02 Jul 2011, 04:16
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r309/van_donk_III/100_3328.jpg)

Just built this up. I shall call her beatrix.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: TinPenguin on 02 Jul 2011, 07:30
She is pretty. Beatrix the Bumblebee? :-P

I've taken a bike apart, but never put one together. I think I'd be too scared to ride on something of my own handiwork.

At present I get pretty much everywhere by mountain bike, which is obviously not built for roads, but it's all I've got and it gets me there quicker than walking and cheaper than a bus. I only really started using it a lot at the start of the year, but I can feel the benefit of the exercise already.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 03 Jul 2011, 02:45
Just built this up. I shall call her beatrix.
It is pretty. No room for mudguards though... :lol:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 16 Jul 2011, 01:19
Looks like there is a new game in town.

http://www.bikecommutenews.com/2011/07/los-angeles-cyclists-to-race-jet-blue.html?spref=tw (http://www.bikecommutenews.com/2011/07/los-angeles-cyclists-to-race-jet-blue.html?spref=tw)

Wish I lived in LA, I would definitely like to race a plane. Am now going to see if I can find out what the shorted commercial flight in the UK is and see whether I can race that.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 16 Jul 2011, 01:30
Seems it's up in the Orkneys, takes about 97 seconds but covers a body of water. After that comes Douglas to Liverpool, also covers a body of water. Dammit I want to race a plane.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lummer on 18 Jul 2011, 00:20
Seriously, FUCK BIKE THIEVES!!!!!!!  :x :x :x
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Patrick on 18 Jul 2011, 14:03
Seriously. I had my bike jacked like three times in my freshman year of high school. Cut the cable with bolt-cutters in their backpacks, it was fucked. I really, REALLY hope your post isn't relevant to your current situation, man.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: valley_parade on 18 Jul 2011, 14:33
A local antique dealer has this old Peugot listed on their site, and I'm kinda in love. Hoping it's the right size for my tall-ass body.

(http://mysite.verizon.net/marine57usa/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bike20.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 18 Jul 2011, 14:43
That is so like the Peugeot I had in the early 80s (apart from the blue tyres)!  Looks like a 21" frame to me.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: valley_parade on 18 Jul 2011, 14:56
That is so like the Peugeot I had in the early 80s (apart from the blue tyres)!  Looks like a 21" frame to me.

Braaaaargh! The chart I looked at said I'd need at least a 22". They had some other bikes listed on their site (and a little cheaper), I guess I'll just go check them out and get what feels/fits best for me.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 18 Jul 2011, 23:11
I'll caution you that old Peugeots are not always the lucky find they once seemed. Saddles are nigh impossible to change and this isn't helped by proprietary seatposts which just aren't available any more. Also the brakes are about as good as swiss cheese, although these are much easier to replace.

Still, they do look quite lovely and the chainset on that one doesn't seem to be the old unservicable version. If it is a bit too small for you, you can cover that extra inch by raising the saddle, setting it back and, in an emergency switching out the stem for one with a longer reach. Alas switching the stem means you'll lose the lovely blue bar tape.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Patrick on 19 Jul 2011, 02:56
You know seatposts are made out of metal pipe, right? That isn't exactly tough to come by. You might run into difficulty with metric measurements but even then I doubt it'd really be that big a deal.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: StaedlerMars on 19 Jul 2011, 04:40
I ran my bike into a tree about a month after I finally fixed my handlebars situation. Now my back wheel is all out of shape.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 19 Jul 2011, 04:42
...Did you run into it backwards?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: valley_parade on 19 Jul 2011, 11:08
You know seatposts are made out of metal pipe, right? That isn't exactly tough to come by. You might run into difficulty with metric measurements but even then I doubt it'd really be that big a deal.

57cm.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 19 Jul 2011, 13:03
You know seatposts are made out of metal pipe, right? That isn't exactly tough to come by. You might run into difficulty with metric measurements but even then I doubt it'd really be that big a deal.

You'd think so wouldn't you.

Sadly not all metal pipe is the same. Getting 24mm piping with adequate torsional capacity, collared tollerance, and thermal expansion properties isn't as easy as it might seem. Oddly these things aren't common place at the local hardware store. Then you need to get it inner beveled for a either a form forged brace or a canted mounting plate, neither of which are sold as a retail item. Should you manage to get hold of the one you want (I recommend plate over brace but for personal reasons), you would need to get someone to perform a heat expansion mounting.

Then again, you could always get the seat post rebored, although history hasn't born good witness to this practice. Current retrofit preferences seem to favour used of a CCS shim to adapt a smaller off-the-peg seat post.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: valley_parade on 19 Jul 2011, 13:48
GUYS IF THAT PEUGOT ISN'T MY SIZE I'LL GET A DIFFERENT BIKE, OKAY?

It's just pretty.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lunchbox on 19 Jul 2011, 16:47
I have an old peugeot.
It is pretty but it is so painful to ride, I think it is a bit big for me. The brakes are pretty much non-existent and the seat is the most uncomfortable thing ever, it hurts my lady areas so much.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 19 Jul 2011, 23:22
A diversion from the two wheeled/four wheeled discussion, but on a somewhat releant road safety issue, how in the blue festering fuck is this shit genuinely allowed to happen?

http://t4america.org/blog/2011/07/18/prosecuting-the-victim-absolving-the-perpetrators/ (http://t4america.org/blog/2011/07/18/prosecuting-the-victim-absolving-the-perpetrators/)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 19 Jul 2011, 23:51
Because there are people who truly believe that it's the right thing to happen; read the comments.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lummer on 20 Jul 2011, 00:43
Seriously. I had my bike jacked like three times in my freshman year of high school. Cut the cable with bolt-cutters in their backpacks, it was fucked. I really, REALLY hope your post isn't relevant to your current situation, man.

It was, unfortunately. Real "monday morning" kind of thing. Luckily I have a backup bike so I could still get to work, but that bike sucks so hard. It's a cheap MTB where EVERYTHING is rusted, and it's not even two years old. The fork can't move, brakes drag on the wheels and only two out of 18 gears work. Fuck that thing.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: valley_parade on 20 Jul 2011, 07:34
I have an old peugeot.
It is pretty but it is so painful to ride, I think it is a bit big for me. The brakes are pretty much non-existent and the seat is the most uncomfortable thing ever, it hurts my lady areas so much.

'Parrently pro cyclist guy Dave Zabriskie has a company called "DZNuts" which makes dude and lady-part friendly seats.

edit: No, sorry Ally. Cream, not seats. Cream.
http://www.dz-nuts.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2&products_id=20
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: StaedlerMars on 20 Jul 2011, 07:39
...Did you run into it backwards?

It was a pretty impressive crash.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: valley_parade on 20 Jul 2011, 08:55
Hoogerland impressive?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Patrick on 20 Jul 2011, 12:43
I have an old peugeot.
It is pretty but it is so painful to ride, I think it is a bit big for me. The brakes are pretty much non-existent and the seat is the most uncomfortable thing ever, it hurts my lady areas so much.

'Parrently pro cyclist guy Dave Zabriskie has a company called "DZNuts" which makes dude and lady-part friendly seats.

edit: No, sorry Ally. Cream, not seats. Cream.
http://www.dz-nuts.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2&products_id=20

I am a little shocked you didn't remember something like that, considering the innuendos that could be made all day about that.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: valley_parade on 20 Jul 2011, 12:46
I'm pretty sure he had them in mind when he came up with the name. Zabriskie's a pretty funny dude.

edit: Pagebreak. The joke is "deez nuts".
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: look out! Ninjas! on 22 Jul 2011, 02:23
Hoogerland impressive?
Nothing is Hoogerland impressive
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Van donk III on 06 Aug 2011, 08:37
ebay has been kind to me

(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r309/van_donk_III/100_3464-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 13 Oct 2011, 13:05
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15207973 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15207973)

Quote
   Based on wasted time and fuel, congestion cost about $115bn (£74.5bn) in 2010
    1.9 billion gallons of fuel were wasted while standing idle, which would fill 38 super-tankers

Source: Texas Transportation Institute

Holy shit America, 1.9 billion gallons of fuel. You could drive all the way around the world 30,571,420 times at average commuting mileage.

If you take the population of the US to be 312,367,000 (wikipedia), eliminate 24.3% for those under the age of 18 and 12.9 % over 65 and the 9.1% national unemployment rate (US Census Bureau/US Bureau Labour Statistics) gives you 167,741,079. If we assume 80% of those commute by car at $3.50 a gallon in gas (AAA), every commuting driver spends $500 per year sat in their car going nowhere.

Really, in this economic climate you can't come up with anything better to do with your money than that?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ackblom12 on 13 Oct 2011, 13:25
Not with our average commute times and public transportation infrastructure.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 13 Oct 2011, 13:29
Yeah.. the public transportation freaking sucks. In Baltimore, at least, a bus will often not come on time at all.. then two will arrive at the next scheduled time. I was late to work all the fucking time when I took the bus.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 13 Oct 2011, 13:54
But if in Baltimore, a city of 2.7 million people, 50,000 of those single occupancy commuters were to move to public transport, that would be an extra 2.5 million into the local public transport economy, reduce congestion by the equivalent of 43,000 cars (even buses could move faster and more predictably) and create several jobs. That's just on the idling costs of commuting by car alone.

Other costs saved would be available to be disbursed into the local economy supporting local businesses. The only losers would be the Oil companies, a net drain on local economies and the national economy with much of their profits exported to tax havens and to oil producing companies, no shortage of which harbour entities hostile to the US (or terrorists as some people like to call them), which in turn the US spends a near metric ton of cash fighting in overseas wars.

Then there's the decline in fatal road accidents, which cost the US economy around 2.2million each time.

Too bad it'd never happen.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 13 Oct 2011, 14:09
For real? Public transport may get a lot of flak here in the Netherlands for various reasons - most commonly, everything seems to break down when the weather deviates from 'fair' in any degree - but in my experience as a train commuter, delays are the exception rather than the rule. I guess I'm not travelling the longer distances like you would in the US, but I wouldn't expect delays so regular and significant that you often run late even with careful planning.

Oh wait, this thread is about bikes, isn't it? Well, last week I found that my second (older) bike broke, apparently during the time it was in the secure bike storage. It was pedaling fine when I put it there a week before, then when I mount it later, the gears weren't connecting to the back wheel, so I was pedaling without result half the time. What the hell, bikes don't just break overnight, do they? The repairman said the mechanism was basically worn out, and the entire back wheel had to be replaced. So now I have a wheel that whirrs. Well, at least it keeps me going.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 13 Oct 2011, 14:25
Oh wait, this thread is about bikes, isn't it?

It started out being about cars and driving, but I changed its title a couple of times as the subject shifted to cars vs bicycles, and then mostly just bikes...

Quote
So now I have a wheel that whirrs.

I like fixing things like that; but it would cost you more to come to Oxford with it than to replace it, I imagine.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 13 Oct 2011, 14:41
Well, the guy was initially going to fix the connector, but then found that this particular wheel didn't allow the decoupling of wheel frame and connector. Whatever was broken was inside, thus impossible to fix. The bike wasn't completely useless; if I was very careful about the force I put on the pedals, and kept an even pace, it would connect just fine. But I didn't want to risk the thing breaking completely on me when I'm about to start my new job. Otherwise I'd have to endure a godawful tram ride there instead of being able to cycle - buses and trains are no problem, but I really don't like the city trams.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ackblom12 on 13 Oct 2011, 15:01
But if in Baltimore, a city of 2.7 million people, 50,000 of those single occupancy commuters were to move to public transport, that would be an extra 2.5 million into the local public transport economy, reduce congestion by the equivalent of 43,000 cars (even buses could move faster and more predictably) and create several jobs. That's just on the idling costs of commuting by car alone.

Yes, but you still have to cover the issues of "now" is the problem, and even then there's no guarantee that the bus system will actually change it's routine in a positive way. I can't say much for Baltimore's public transportation cause I have never been there, but there is a reason why the bus is not anyone's first choice in Rochester, NY. The only way to go anywhere in the city on the bus, is to either be on a good line directly to your destination, or you have to take a bus that heads to Downtown, and then transfer from the Downtown hub to wherever you want to go. This might not be so bad except that the only people who want to head downtown are the office workers. Downtown is a near deadzone otherwise. To top it off, the bus system changed to this from another system that, as I understand it was also poor, because the city council requested it and it was supposed to "revitalize" Downtown. It has of course had zero effect on Downtown and it's basically just forced longer bus commutes. This isn't even going into smaller cities and towns that have no public transportation option available at all.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 13 Oct 2011, 19:28
When I first got out of grad school and started working I bought a bike with fat tires and retro styling that I rode to work for years.  But a couple of years ago, when we decided to take our bikes on vacation, the bike rack fell off the van, and guess whose bike was at the back and broke the fall?  I did a few repairs, but it never rode right again, the frame was bent. 

Then I lost the in-town job, and had to drive to work.  Still do.  I pretty much quit biking completely and even scrapped the old bike. 

But a couple of weeks ago we were at an auction, and there was this bike, it seemed to be in pretty good shape for it's age, and it looked... somehow familiar.  I got it for $5, took it home, and miraculously the tires held air.  The chain was still lubricated, the derailleurs worked, the brakes were good.  I've been using it for errands and choir practice and the like, anything in town.  But the first time I rode it... it was spooky, and I realized why when I got a good look at the decals. 

It's an exact clone of a bike I had in grad school, over twenty years ago.  Same make and model - hell, it's the same fucking color.  Even the same pinstriping on the fenders... It can't be the same bike, that one was destroyed in a horrible accident involving a pickup truck that left me with a jaw broken into four pieces, and left the bike with its front wheel tangled on the pedals.  I missed that bike terribly, and the retro one was an attempt to replace it. 

I'd say it's like finding a long-lost friend, but I've never done that.  It's more like coming across one of your old favorite toys in the attic, only I'm not too big for it. 

Guys, you have no idea how happy this makes me! 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 13 Oct 2011, 23:20

Yes, but you still have to cover the issues of "now" is the problem, and even then there's no guarantee that the bus system will actually change it's routine in a positive way. I can't say much for Baltimore's public transportation cause I have never been there, but there is a reason why the bus is not anyone's first choice in Rochester, NY.

That is a very good point. My post was a very simplistic view of the economics alone and I'm fully aware of the complexities of implementing a funtional public transport system that meets the needs of the people in the areas that it serves. Any authority looking to do so would have to be prepared to make a lot of bold moves against the resistance of those whose lives it ultimately seeks to improve. It would also have to accept that it would be very unlikely to get it right first time and plan to make changes throughout the programme.

I say authority because I believe that local authorities should be strongly involved in any local public transport system in partnership with the bus companies. London is a great example if this. While it would be hard to describe the system as perfect (could any system be perfect?), the functional relationship between the city and the companies does work with companies running a service determined by the authority that supports them through road design, promotion, revenue management, planning and reacting to feedback and changes in demand. Subsequently, public transport in London isn't seems as the dirty and unreliable reserve of the poor and the unable to drive, a stigma that is often attached elsewhere.

If you think that a local authority would never introduce such investment in the face of stern objection, I point you to London again where the Congestion Charge was introduced. Many of the detractors now conceed that the system has worked and succeeded in its aims.

... It's more like coming across one of your old favorite toys in the attic, only I'm not too big for it. 

Guys, you have no idea how happy this makes me! 

Lovely story. I love the relationships that people have with their bikes, a trusted friend, the provider of freedom, an intimate sharer of trials, tribulations, discoveries and adventures. I sometimes have difficulty deciding which bike to take out, working out which one will enjoy it most. A dangerous case of anthromorphism.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: BlakeJustBlake on 25 Oct 2011, 03:13
I'm just going to neatly place these pictures of my bikes here.

(http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297279_1927073426457_1530810265_31641253_1588083243_n.jpg)

(http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/320862_10150262967428575_648638574_7751680_2120437_n.jpg)




Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 26 Jan 2013, 12:55
Alright, looks like this is the cycling thread, even though this will be a massive necropost...

Quick interlude on Ohio cycling laws:

Regarding roads that are unsafe to cycle on due to conditions such as blind corners and hills... IMO, it's irresponsible to ride on such roads due to the extreme risk of personal danger, but if they're the only way to get where you want to go reasonably, then it's justifiable - and, in many of those areas, getting dedicated cycling infrastructure is about as likely as the government buying everyone a holopony.

Re: Velomobiles, most of the popular ones are HEAVY. Like 75 pounds. But, once you get them going, as long as you don't have to go up a hill, they can get going QUITE fast, due to their greatly reduced drag (which is why most velomobiles are Dutch), and they've got weather protection (even the open cockpit ones - there are ways to get it).

Myself, this is my cycle:
(http://bhtooefr.org/images/terratrike4.jpg)

TerraTrike Path 8-speed, with a Sturmey-Archer X-RF8(W), no-name disc brakes on the front only (rear braking on a trike is a BAD, bad idea - it'll get you a nasty crash quickly), rack, fenders, Philips SafeRide 80 front light and the Philips LED rear light (StVZO compliant front lighting is the ONLY way to go for see-with lighting - mind you, be-seen lighting is a little different - and this is a damn good setup), and a Garmin Edge 205 (because I couldn't be bothered running cabling for a speed sensor, and wireless sucks especially on a 'bent, so I went for GPS so a sensor wasn't needed). I use Arkel RT-40 panniers (they're on backwards in that pic  :lol:), and not pictured are the Performance Bike el cheapo platform/SPD combo pedals (really, on a trike, you REALLY want some sort of foot attachment - you spend a lot of energy just keeping your feet on the pedals otherwise, and if your foot slips off, the trike will try to run you over, and that HURTS (luckily, the one time that happened to me, before going SPD, I was going slowly, so I didn't break my leg).

I'm slow, I usually average 12 mph (not including time stopped), but I'll blame the 40 psi tires for that. I'll switch to Schwalbe Trykers when these wear out.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 26 Jan 2013, 15:04
I am extraordinarily envious.  If I didn't have to climb over several mountain ridges to get to work...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 26 Jan 2013, 15:42
Annoyingly, one of the hills on the bike trail around here, while it's short, you have to carry speed into it, or you end up "ratcheting" up the hill. (On a bike, you'd have to get off and walk, though. But, a bike would be lighter - my trike is about 40 pounds before accessories, probably 45-50 laden.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 26 Jan 2013, 16:25
Mopeds here in Ohio are restricted to 20 mph on level ground under power, 1 bhp, must have pedals, and must be explicitly approved by the state of Ohio as a moped.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 26 Jan 2013, 16:44
Oh, that's another thing, cycle paths around here are strictly pedal power. So, you've gotta go on 35 mph roads with a moped.

You can get away with an electric-assist bicycle (which is 750 watts and no assist above 20 mph maximum), but Ohio doesn't recognize that class, so you could be ticketed for running an electric bicycle on the cycle paths.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 27 Jan 2013, 03:36
Myself, this is my cycle:
I'm not a huge fan of recumbent trikes, but that is a very nice rig. Mudguards, rack, matching luggage, serious lighting system... Very cool!

I switched to the Garmin Edge 200 (http://www.cyclingnews.com/reviews/garmin-edge-200-gps-computer-first-ride-review) last year, partly because my old wireless bike-computer system was such a pain. The three coin-shaped batteries in the sensors and computer on my old system frequently jolted out of position, requiring me to reseat them, and then re-initialise the comp to get things going again. Having a foot slip off a pedal is bad news on bikes too, and if you want to ride hard on rutted urban streets, rather than coasting over rough patches because you're afraid your feet will bounce off the pedals, some sort of foot-retention is highly recommended.

I wouldn't call 12mph (19kph) all that slow as an everyday average for a "transportation cyclist". I ride on Schwalbe Marathon tyres that are rated for 50-100psi, so after I got them, I experimented with a range of pressures. On anything over the minimum, I found no noticeable effect on my daily average speed, and the high pressures made the ride much harsher on me and the bike, so I settled on 450kPa (about 65psi).

If you can't ride up your local hills, your gears are too high! Seriously, lots of bikes are sold with inappropriate gears. I see their poor riders mashing away, struggling up hills and risking injury to their knees, especially if their saddles are set too low (which they often are, but that is a rant for another day). Sydney is a hilly city, so I specified "granny gear" ratios for my bike, enabling me to spin my way up the steepest hills I encounter. The trade-off, of course, is that I "spin out (http://cyclingskills.blogspot.com.au/2009/05/speed-leg-speed-and-spinning-out.html)" at about 42kph (26mph) in my highest gear, but since I am not strong enough to turn that gear except riding down a fairly steep hill, I can live with that. Getting excited about bicycle gearing is for the nerds that even other nerds think are nerds... (http://www.phred.org/~alex/kenkifer/www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/touring/gears.htm)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 27 Jan 2013, 04:06
Yeah, I need to switch to a smaller front chainring, although it's only the one hill that I really have trouble with, I can pretty much spin up every other hill I encounter now. I'll probably switch to a 36T front chainring, from 46T - that'll basically move my gear range up a gear, although the gaps in the gear range also move (current 1st becomes 2nd, current 2nd becomes 4th (with a new intermediate gear between the two), current 5th becomes 7th, current 6th disappears, current 7th becomes 8th).

Their entry level model comes with 32T, which given the target market for that model (it has a weight capacity of up to 400 lbs), and the rather poor aero of it (it's very tall), makes sense - you're not GOING fast.

Might also take the opportunity to try 160 or 165 mm cranks, see if they're a bit kinder to my knees. And, this'll be a good opportunity to switch to multi-speed chain - save about 2 pounds of weight (so much chain, and it's HEAVY chain right now), and I can then switch to the lower friction, much more durable TerraCycle idlers.

Advantage to a trike is, you can go to extremely short gearing, and it's actually useful, you won't fall over.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 27 Jan 2013, 06:34
If I had the space, the money (and I didn't live in such a crappy environment), I'd get a Rhoades car. Things are rather expensive though.

I do like my little Giant Revive. Looks like a recumbent, but it's actually a street bike with an upright chair.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img255/9610/2004giantreviveiv8.jpg)

Major difference between that photo and now is that I have a bike bag on that back platform. I used to have an add-on in-grip rear view mirror on the left, but my dad broke it in moving the bike up here to Central WI.

I used to take that thing all around Pewaukee when I lived down there. Nowadays I'm scared to take that thing out onto the streets here in Merrill, despite there being a lot of people who bike routinely.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 27 Jan 2013, 06:40
I hear the Rhoades Cars actually kinda suck. As in, absurdly heavy for what they are, and not that well built (so, they're extremely slow). There are quads that aren't that heavy, though. The main advantage over a three-wheeler is cornering stability, but they're still heavier.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 27 Jan 2013, 11:38
I can believe it. They don't look like they were made with the intent of being used in real world applications.

Who else makes quad bikes, though?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 27 Jan 2013, 12:29
I know Utah Trikes does quad (http://www.utahtrikes.com/TRIKE-UTCQUAD.html) conversions (http://www.utahtrikes.com/TRIKE-CTCAT4.html) and kits (http://www.utahtrikes.com/CAT-Quad%20Conversion.html) for some of the recumbent tadpole trikes, and Greenspeed sells a quad version of their Anura (http://www.greenspeed.com.au/Anura.Quad.html) recumbent delta trike.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 31 Jan 2013, 16:59
Heh. While checking the laws regarding bicycle lanes in my city, I found something annoying, and interesting.

Newark, OH Code of Ordinances, Part Four, Title Ten, Chapter 475.06-07 (http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=id$id=Newark,%20OH%20Code%20of%20Ordinances%3Ar%3A845c$cid=ohio$t=document-frame.htm$an=JD_475.06$3.0#JD_475.06)

So, bicycle registration is apparently a requirement. I know it's not enforced, but I'm tempted to see whether it's actually possible to get it done, given that it's $1. :D

I'd need to remove the boom on my trike, or they'll have to engrave another serial number on it, though, it looks like.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Zingoleb on 06 May 2013, 21:43
https://www.upworthy.com/the-one-video-i-guarantee-youll-watch-twice?c=ufb1
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 07 May 2013, 03:03
Yes, I've seen that before. It makes a valid point, but it is worrying that the makers equate cyclists with moonwalking bears with regard to things that a car-driver might expect to notice. A bicycle is a legal road vehicle (assuming it is properly equipped), precisely the sort of thing a driver should be noticing. A cyclist should be seen as one of the players, not an incongruous intrusion on the court.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 24 May 2013, 15:43
Apology-fail from motorist who boasted on Twitter about knocking of cyclist off his bike. (http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/emma-way-apologises-for-bloodycyclists-tweet--37420)

"If I did cause any damage to him I would obviously apologise but I didn’t feel him even touch my car. If I knew that he was hurt I would never have driven off. If I could take back doing that tweet I would, you know my whole career is at risk now, and any damage caused to the cyclist."

I'm really cut up about your career, love, but I suggest you go into politics. You have a definite talent for packing a whole lot of insincerity and self-pitying bullshit into three sentences.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 24 May 2013, 17:20
I was wondering if you'd seen that...  :laugh:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 16 Jun 2013, 02:23
It is, to me, rather indicative general Britishness that you can now buy this.

(http://www.bloodycyclist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BLOODYCYCLIST-JERSEY-front.jpg)

I won't say I'm not tempted.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lupercal on 22 Jun 2013, 02:32
Cycling in rural areas is rather nice, save for the odd white-van-man cutting far too close when overtaking.

Since I've been working in London I've seen/heard countless arguments occur between taxi drivers and cyclists. Taxi drivers rush too much and dive between lanes, cyclists never seem to adhere to a red light. I actually saw someone (pedestrian) get hit by a bicycle outside my office and it was pretty horrendous - that's the trouble with a road with two lanes going one way, and a third bus/cycle lane going the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 25 Jun 2013, 13:42
Even though this apparently is more of a cycling thread, I think it fits best for this topic.

I'm interested in how drivers education is being done in different countries. I'm currently working on my German driving license, and it's rather expensive and difficult. I'm mostly busy with filling out questionnaires online, so I don't fail the theoretical exam. Also I'm waiting for the appointment to take my first practical driving lesson.

Here's an example for a German theoretical exam (Official English questions, multiple answers allowed. Also it is German driving laws of course (StVO [Straßenverkehrsordnung]))

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

These are some of the easier questions though. But there are hilarious questions/answers as well. Here's an example:


Driving at night to the next discotheque by car, a group of young men and women wants to keep a good mood during the journey. They thus sing exuberantly, laugh and turn up the volume on the car radio. How should the driver of the car react in such a situation?

1. The driver responsible for safety must distance himself from the group in such a case and ask his passengers not to divert his attention  :roll:
2. Further heat up the good mood of the group by driving risky manoeuvres    :mrgreen:
3. Join in to avoid being a spoilsport  :-\

This is an actual question on the official theoretical exams.

All this theoretical and practical training and testing costs quite a sum. For a driving license which allows me to drive vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes and additionally trailers I'll have to pay around 2600€.

So how's drivers education in different countries?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Masterpiece on 25 Jun 2013, 13:59
As far as I know, a lot cheaper.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: cesium133 on 25 Jun 2013, 14:05
Getting a drivers' license in the U.S. is much cheaper than in Germany (at least it was when I got mine, I assume it hasn't changed that much). The exact requirements vary widely by state. The requirements when I got my license were a theoretical exam to get a learners' permit (20 questions, fairly easy; I only got one question wrong), then a drivers' ed course, I had to keep a log of my driving, and to get my license I had to take a driving test on a closed course. In the drivers' ed course we had to do driving practice with the instructor. It mainly consisted of driving small rural roads in the middle of nowhere. I think the guy was afraid of taking me out on the interstate.  :roll:

I think there is still a copy of the Oklahoma drivers' education manual in the lab here from when a former grad student from Germany took the test. If you want more specific details I can dig it up.

As for the question I got wrong, it turns out in Maryland it is legal on a two-lane road to pass someone waiting to turn left by driving on the shoulder.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Masterpiece on 25 Jun 2013, 14:14
You got tested on a closed course? I drove for an hour through the busy city, and was sent on the Autobahn.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 25 Jun 2013, 14:15
You are correct, cesium. And yeah you're not supposed to drive on the shoulder ever, except in the case of a problem or something like that.

So far the only thing I've paid for is the actual driving class, which was $400, and includes 6 hours of driving with an instructor. I've done one of those so far, plus the in-classroom work. I took the test to get my learner's which was free and easy, and I got one or two wrong. I have two more behind the wheel lessons and then I can schedule my full driving test. Since I'm over 25 I only need like 14 hours behind the wheel before I get my license, but younger than that you need 60 hours, all documented.

I believe the license costs $25 or some such, and then the big expense is the car, plus tags and title and inspection and whatnot.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: cesium133 on 25 Jun 2013, 14:18
Yup. This is the course I was tested on. (http://goo.gl/maps/4nFPj) The test basically consisted of driving down a hill, stopping at a stop sign, turning right, stopping at another stop sign, turning to avoid some cones, and parallel parking. I aced it on the first try. My sister somehow ended up taking five tries.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 25 Jun 2013, 14:39
I'm going to have to actually drive on the street for my test. Not that I mind. I did a lot of highway driving this weekend and did fairly well. I can do it :D
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Masterpiece on 25 Jun 2013, 14:49
I'm going to have to actually drive on the street for my test.

I really don't understand the emphasis there. Isn't that supposed to be the place you're tested in?! You're driving a car after all, the second highest cause of death (after wars). It makes perfect sense to be tested in real-life conditions.

I don't properly remember the amount of classes I had, but suffice it to say, they were a lot. Expensive too, I might add.
But I paid it all from money I earned myself, which is something I am rather proud of.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 25 Jun 2013, 16:08
American tests are incredibly easy for the level of danger you put yourself and others in.

Here's the manual for Ohio licenses, there's a 10 question sample test in the back (and you take a 40 question test, four options per question, select one IIRC, must get 75%+ to pass). Edit: HELPS IF I PUT THE LINK IN HERE, DURR. http://publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/hsy7607.pdf

It also covers the maneuverability test, which is basically driving forward through, and backing through, a cone course set up to simulate parallel parking, and a little on the road test.

Here's the route of my road test:

http://goo.gl/3BfVs

And my opinions on licensing standards here: http://bhtooefr.org/blog/2013/06/12/thoughts-on-drivers-licensing-standards-in-the-us/

And, because this is the cycling thread, a rant on transportational cycling gear that's been brewing for a while: http://bhtooefr.org/blog/2013/06/25/a-rant-about-transportational-cycling-gear-in-the-us/
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 25 Jun 2013, 16:08
Masterpiece:

I think it depends which MVA (Motor Vehicle Administration) location you test at. I got my license in Maryland as well, at a different location from Cesium but with the same course. It looks like Baltimore, where I assume Neko is going, doesn't have a course. They're only testing you on specific technical things - look both ways and use your turn signal, parallel park, do a three-point turn, stuff like that.

The learner's permit is only good for a year, and iirc you need to get 7 out of 10 questions correct. I had to get three, first because I hadn't finished my 60 hours and then because I failed my first driving test and couldn't schedule another before the second one expired. I had to do the driving test three times, too. The parallel parking fucked me up and I ran out of time.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: nekowafer on 25 Jun 2013, 16:18
Bingo. I think a lot of places do the driving course, but the MVA where I'm going doesn't have one, and I think it's actually a new policy that you have to do at least half the test on actual streets.

I think this is a much better idea than a course, for sure, but that's how they do it.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 25 Jun 2013, 17:39
This is long. If you don't care about driver licensing in New South Wales, Australia, don't open the spoiler.
(click to show/hide)

And, because this is the cycling thread, a rant on transportational cycling gear that's been brewing for a while: http://bhtooefr.org/blog/2013/06/25/a-rant-about-transportational-cycling-gear-in-the-us/
Exactly the same situation applies in Australia. There is precisely one shop in Sydney that specialises in transport cycling, and they are not cheap. Otherwise it is cycle-sports all the way. The problem for the cycle-trade is that cycle-commuters etc. are a niche market here. If a distributor imports a container-load of stuff from Europe, they'll have to pay import-duty, charge sales-tax, tie up their capital etc., when they know that people like us order direct from overseas vendors, don't have to pay sales-tax, and normally the cost is below the import-duty threshold. When I ask my LBS for European gear, they simply tell me, right up front, to order direct over the internet.

Incidentally, I do wish people would lay off the Lycra-hate. I commute in cycling-gear because it is well-suited for riding, and in a hot, hilly city I often arrive at my destination drenched in sweat. Summer or winter, riding hard in my rain-suit is another exercise in perspiration (Goretex breathes? Don't make me laugh...). I shower and change at work. Sure, I never wear replica pro-team kit, because that is lame, but there are good reasons to ride in Lycra.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 25 Jun 2013, 19:17
Lycra certainly has its uses, and it is comfortable to ride in. Some lycra disdain probably did leak into that post, but I didn't mean to knock lycra per se, just note that sometimes it's not the right tool for the job, and the insistence on it even when it's inappropriate is misguided. (Sometimes it is appropriate, and it sounds like your commute is one of those times.)

Also, re: your comment about the NSW government thinking kids are safer on motorcycles and scooters than in cars... well, it depends on who's safer.

Everyone else is definitely safer, especially with the power restrictions that are in place (although, they don't seem to legislate power directly, more displacements and specific models).

The operator may well be less safe - then again, that would help discourage distracted riding (and later distracted driving).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 26 Jun 2013, 03:53
Everyone else is definitely safer, especially with the power restrictions that are in place (although, they don't seem to legislate power directly, more displacements and specific models).
Apart from the maximum capacity limit of 660cc, the key number is power-to-weight ratio. It must not exceed 150 kilowatts per tonne. The list of small capacity bikes that are banned for learners are all two-strokes with high power-to-weight ratios.

By the way, I looked at your blog posting on your Dahon folder, and that is a nice bike. Mudguards (fenders), hub gears, sprung saddle, rack & bag, serious lights (though I'm not personally a big fan of dynamo systems); I'm nodding with approval here. I would add a rubber mudflap to each mudguard, at least in front, because the mudguards never come down far enough, and the front wheel sprays muck over your chainwheel, chain, and bottom-bracket. A rear flap is less necessary, unless you ride in a group. And yes, as you suggest, get some better pedals; I normally ride on Shimano PD-M324 (http://www.jensonusa.com/images/Color-Image/Zoom/510/G00009XC.jpg) so that I can cycle comfortably in ordinary shoes when I'm just pootling around, or clip in with cycling shoes when I want to ride hard.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: snalin on 26 Jun 2013, 04:32
[driving exam questions]

Some of the answers are horrible/hilarious. The best one was probably:
"2. Continue at the same speed because the children will certainly stop"
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 26 Jun 2013, 06:37
Yeah, last time I rode it on wet surfaces, I did notice that about spray coming off the bottom of the fender (my trike's fenders actually do have flaps from the factory). I'll come up with something eventually.

The pedals... the trick is that folding pedals make it smaller, and AFAIK, there is no folding SPD pedal. And, I'm not a huge fan of clipless on a bicycle, especially given that this bike is actually my pootling bike, the trike is what I normally use if I'm doing longer rides. (Although, I'll also be using it as a rainy-day commuter once I get my rain cape, so...) The trike, clipless is nearly mandatory for safety, is very nice for comfort (no need to constantly press against the pedals to keep your feet on them), and I don't have to worry about unclipping at stops anyway, so it's quite nice.

Oh, and re: the dynamo setup, it's actually only running the front light. This is a hub dynamo, not a sidewall dynamo, which reduces drag and eliminates tire wear and slippage. The headlight is switchable, and has a standlight (so it stays lit on lower brightness for ~5 minutes when stopped).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 26 Jun 2013, 19:09
The pedals... the trick is that folding pedals make it smaller, and AFAIK, there is no folding SPD pedal.
You might want to look at the MKS AR-2 EZY quick-release pedal system. I have not used it myself, but MKS stuff has a good reputation, and the users I've spoken to rate the system highly. You remove your old pedals and replace them with the "sockets" into which MKS pedals then lock. There are platform and SPD pedals available for the system, and you can buy the sockets separately, allowing you to swap pedals quickly between bikes. Bike Friday sells them (http://store.bikefriday.com/index.php?cPath=33&osCsid=e9dd887388cb66f420a0adf5ddd617a7), but you might be able to get them cheaper elsewhere.

Quote
Oh, and re: the dynamo setup, it's actually only running the front light. This is a hub dynamo, not a sidewall dynamo, which reduces drag and eliminates tire wear and slippage. The headlight is switchable, and has a standlight (so it stays lit on lower brightness for ~5 minutes when stopped).
Yeah, I could see that it was a hub dynamo (the only sort I would consider), and that you run a  battery-powered rear light. You have a nice set-up altogether. My problem with dynamo systems is more fundamental; I just don't think they are powerful enough, no matter how cleverly the optics are designed to make the best use of the rather limited power available from a bike generator.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 27 Jun 2013, 05:47
Here in Germany it's necessary to have dynamo lighting in front and rear. You are allowed to add battery lighting to it, but dynamo lighting is required if you're cycling on public roads. As headlight I have a B&M Lumotec IQ Fly Senso plus on a hub dynamo. More expensive than the Lyt, but also far brighter. I'm happy with it.

In other news, I have a flat on my rear tire. Again. Seriously, it's been only three weeks since the last one. Why do I have these frickin heavy and expensive Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires if they don't help at all? I still have to take a closer look at them, maybe it's even the valve which was ripped of. Had that once before. Also I might even need a new wheel. Don't know how I got that dent, but it's not good. Also the sides are pretty worn down now, because of the brakes.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 27 Jun 2013, 08:18
A damaged wheel likely means it's time to replace it.

Rim tape could've slipped, and there's some things that even Marathon Pluses can't stop.

Also, the modern dynamo lights are actually doing pretty amazing things. But, not quite as amazing as my Philips Saferide 80 battery light, I'll admit - but that thing is seriously overkill (can outshine car headlights with how well it places the light) on high power for my riding, in reality. I'd be quite happy with the Saferide 60.

Of course, the Saferide 80 can be, um, modified: http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tests/verlichting/dynamo_led_driver/index_en.html
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 27 Jun 2013, 20:59
If I lived any where with decent public transit I'd ditch the car for the train and one of these babies.

(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/3914/img00035200907011914.jpg)

The folded up Tokyo Citizen bike, not the girl. Though I doubt I'd complain about both. I saw a fair amount of those folding bikes in Japan and found them to be quite brilliant. Outside of moving stock in trucks or living out in the country side I really can't think of a decent reason to own a car in Japan because of their jaw dropping incredible metro system.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: PhillipFlowers on 02 Aug 2013, 10:54
Alright, looks like this is the cycling thread, even though this will be a massive necropost...

Quick interlude on Ohio cycling laws:
  • Passing in a double yellow has been explicitly legal since 2006, if it is safe to do so, and the vehicle you are passing is going less than 1/2 the speed limit.
  • Ohio requires that motor vehicles maintain a rate of speed that does not impede traffic - note that bicycles are not motor vehicles. That said, if traffic can't safely pass me, I'll pull off when it's safe to do so.
  • Ohio requires that cyclists stay as far right as practicable. This is widely interpreted as taking the lane any time the rideable (this means not riding in the marked shoulder or the door zone) lane is less than 14 feet wide - the minimum safe width for a cyclist and a vehicle to share a lane by AAHSTO standards. In certain situations, even 14 feet isn't enough
  • Ohio does not require that cyclists keep to the sidewalk, although it is allowed (except in municipalities that don't allow it). Personally, I avoid it, although I have done it, at walking speed, when the road wasn't practical.
  • Freeways are dedicated to motor vehicles with at least 5 bhp, and not farm vehicles. I may have once taken advantage of the fact that my Golf TDI has issues with fuel injection quantity, and sooted a roadie that got on the freeway, when there's an excellent trail that PARALLELS the freeway in question!

Regarding roads that are unsafe to cycle on due to conditions such as blind corners and hills... IMO, it's irresponsible to ride on such roads due to the extreme risk of personal danger, but if they're the only way to get where you want to go reasonably, then it's justifiable - and, in many of those areas, getting dedicated cycling infrastructure is about as likely as the government buying everyone a holopony.

Re: Velomobiles, most of the popular ones are HEAVY. Like 75 pounds. But, once you get them going, as long as you don't have to go up a hill, they can get going QUITE fast, due to their greatly reduced drag (which is why most velomobiles are Dutch), and they've got weather protection (even the open cockpit ones - there are ways to get it).

Myself, this is my cycle:
(http://bhtooefr.org/images/terratrike4.jpg)

TerraTrike Path 8-speed, with a Sturmey-Archer X-RF8(W), no-name disc brakes on the front only (rear braking on a trike is a BAD, bad idea - it'll get you a nasty crash quickly), rack, fenders, Philips SafeRide 80 front light and the Philips led lights (http://www.niceledlights.com) (StVZO compliant front lighting is the ONLY way to go for see-with lighting - mind you, be-seen lighting is a little different - and this is a damn good setup), and a Garmin Edge 205 (because I couldn't be bothered running cabling for a speed sensor, and wireless sucks especially on a 'bent, so I went for GPS so a sensor wasn't needed). I use Arkel RT-40 panniers (they're on backwards in that pic  :lol:), and not pictured are the Performance Bike el cheapo platform/SPD combo pedals (really, on a trike, you REALLY want some sort of foot attachment - you spend a lot of energy just keeping your feet on the pedals otherwise, and if your foot slips off, the trike will try to run you over, and that HURTS (luckily, the one time that happened to me, before going SPD, I was going slowly, so I didn't break my leg).

I'm slow, I usually average 12 mph (not including time stopped), but I'll blame the 40 psi tires for that. I'll switch to Schwalbe Trykers when these wear out.[/u]

Nice vehicles are coming now days.. Pretty efficient and energy saving.. I am looking to get one such cycle soon:)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 02 Aug 2013, 14:28
Update - apparently Imageshack lost my original photo:

(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3834/qt5r.jpg)

This thing's not a recumbent, but a seated street touring-bike. Haven't had it out recently - something I should do soon, I'd guess.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 02 Aug 2013, 14:36
Hmm. I don't think I'd like something like this. I like my bikes with large wheels, especially when sitting upwards. This thing looks almost unstable to me…

Also I consider my Brooks saddle to be quite comfortable.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 02 Aug 2013, 15:15
Funny you should say that: the first time I took it out for a test ride at the bike dealer, I nearly flipped it because - you guessed it - the ride wasn't stable. That's my biggest complaint about it: you have to hold on to the handlebars firmly with at least one hand.

I don't think I've replaced the rear view mirror yet, which will really prevent me from taking it back on the streets.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 02 Aug 2013, 16:07
I need to get a fairly bright, good-quality light (definitely a front one, probably a back one as well) for my bike, which I can attach despite the fact that I have a large rounded wicker basket on the front and therefore can't put the light bracket on my handle bars. I'd also prefer it if it was tricky to steal, either because it is very hard to remove, or because it's really easy to remove and therefore I can just remove it every time I stop somewhere.

Any suggestions? I also don't want to spend a fortune on it, but I need proper lighting if I'm going to cycle to uni and placement in the winter.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 02 Aug 2013, 16:15
light bracket on my handle bars

This one confused me.

Maybe it's because lights are mandatory on all bikes in Germany, but here we have light mounts which are screwed to the mount of the front mudguard.

I don't really know what you consider "hard to remove", but lights which are mounted that way are usually mounted with nuts and bolts.

I don't really know much about which lights are available where you live, but the German company B&M (Busch & Müller) makes some good ones. Especially the Lumotec Lyt line is very well made, bright and rather affordable.

p.s.: I just realised that I, in my local way of thinking, assumed that "bike light" = "dynamo light". Ahem. Well. Hub Dynamos are great!  :roll:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 02 Aug 2013, 16:30
This is the bike I have: http://www.bikes2udirect.com/B2711.html

The basket I have is a large one, which fills the space between the top of the handle bars and the top of the front mudguard. To me, the logical place to put a light is in the middle of the handle bars, so that it is high and central. That's where most bike lights are, here at least.

I have had a dynamo light before. I disliked it, because the brightness varied depending on how hard I was pedalling. I want a light that is constantly bright enough to see properly on dimly lit/unlit roads. I don't know the difference between the two types of dynamo you were talking about before, though.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Aug 2013, 16:38
(http://www.lsdinc.com/images/products/headlamp_app.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 02 Aug 2013, 17:09
Well, most bottle dynamos are really bad in my experience. Hub dynamos (which are built into the hub of the front wheel) are much more efficient, and you barely notice that they're there. The brightness is almost constant, the only time you'll really notice that it's not battery powered is when you're starting or stopping as hub dynamos deliver short bursts of energy, which will result in the light flickering, but like I said that's only noticeable when you're starting or stopping. Also the brightness of modern LED lights is not dependant on the speed you're going.

On the positioning of lights in Germany:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 02 Aug 2013, 21:22
I need to get a fairly bright, good-quality light (definitely a front one, probably a back one as well) for my bike, which I can attach despite the fact that I have a large rounded wicker basket on the front and therefore can't put the light bracket on my handle bars.

I am going to concentrate on the mounting issue first. I don't know exactly how your basket is mounted, so a certain amount of guessing is required.

If your basket is so large that it precludes a fork-crown mounting bracket  like this (http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/busch-and-muller-light-bracket-for-fork-crown-254mm-mount-prod22455/) (basically the sort shown in Ankhtahr's pics), you might need to mount your light on the outside front fork of your bike (Pic from USA so the light is on the wrong side for the UK (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomascosauce/3750626270/)). Minoura makes a mount called the Minoura Bésso LH-50 Fork Mount (http://www.minoura.jp/english/accessory-e/lh50-e.html) (BTW, you don't have to mount the light as low as they show in their pics, and wheel-hub level lights have some problems). Another option is the  Issimo Designs NOB XL (http://www.amazon.com/Issimo-Designs-Computer-Clamping-Diameter/dp/B004ZGSZLG) which is sold as a mounting for bike-computers etc. but is quite strong enough for mounting many lights too. I see that your bike has "direct pull" cantilever brakes, and Problem Solvers makes brake-boss light mountings (http://problemsolversbike.com/products/brake_stud_light_mounts).

Your rear light should not be a problem, because you have a rack on the back. Normally there is a light-mounting built into the rack. Get something like this (http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/cateye-tl-ld1100-10-led-opticube-rear-light-prod10788/) or this (http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/busch-and-muller-d-toplight-senso-battery-rear-led-light-rear-carrier-fitting-multifit-50-mm-or-80-mm-prod11880/), and bolt it to your rack. And fit a nice big red rear reflector too, if your light doesn't have one built in.

Bicycle lighting generally is a very deep rabbit-hole. How much night-riding do you expect to be doing, and on what sort of streets? I'm guessing UK urban with good street-lighting? How much motor traffic do you expect? Basically, the more traffic there is, the brighter lights you need. If you ride regularly at night, you will probably not want to go with a light that runs on disposable batteries, except as a backup. The realistic options are dynamo or rechargeable battery systems. Unfortunately neither is all that cheap for good quality.

Hub dynamos are the only ones worth considering IMHO, but they are not cheap (http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/dynamos-hub-dept366_pg1/#page=), and don't forget that you will have to pay for a new, or at least rebuilt, front wheel as well. The German Schmidt is considered "best of breed", but I have heard that Shimano's stuff is close and a lot cheaper. I'm not a fan of dynamo lighting, and don't use it myself, so seek advice elsewhere.

Rechargeable lights come in two main formats: "integrated" with the lamp and battery in a single unit like a torch (USA:flashlight), and "battery-pack" where the battery is in a separate case linked to the lamp by a cable (the more powerful, long lasting, systems are usually of this type). Batteries are heavy, so integrated lights can put more of a strain on the mounting bracket. The lamp of a battery-pack system is lighter, and so less hard on the mounting bracket, but you have to find somewhere to fit the battery, which usually straps to the frame, sits in a bag/basket, or slots into a bottle-cage.

I do not recommend head-mounted lights as your only lighting for road use. It might not be legal (lots of places insist that the bicycle be equipped with lights for legal night riding), you wave your light all over the place with every movement of your head, and you need to be careful about dazzling everyone you look at.

I am a rechargeable-battery girl, but it's difficult to make specific recommendations about what to buy in the UK, and you might want to talk to your LBS. In integrated lights, I've heard good things about Trelock products, especially the LS950, the Busch & Müller IXON, and also the Cateye Nano Shot. In battery-pack systems, the Nite Rider MiNewt (http://www.niterider.com/performance-bike-lights/minewt-mini-350-usb-plus-bike-light/) would be a good choice for commuting.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 03 Aug 2013, 03:42
I like small wheels, but you can get a recumbent or a crank forward (sometimes called a semi-recumbent) with larger wheels than that.

Myself, I prefer hub dynamos. With good lights, they have what's called a "standlight", which is a capacitor-based system to keep the lights on (although dimmer) at a stop. A good hub dynamo will get to full brightness at quite low speeds.

Unfortunately, my recumbent trike doesn't support a hub dynamo, so I'm using a Philips Saferide 80 battery-powered light. It's pretty awesome, although battery life on high power is mediocre. Low power is acceptable, though.

There are aftermarket accessory mounts that you can mount to your handlebar, so you can raise the light up above the basket. Also, depending on what the basket is, you might be able to get a bracket for it fabbed up.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 03 Aug 2013, 10:13
Thank you for all the advice, that's really helpful. I was leaning towards a hub dynamo but if I have to get the front wheel rebuilt that's not really an option financially. I can possibly wait a few months and ask for a decent quality bike light as a Christmas gift, but I'd have to find some interim solution for the winter months before December.

I haven't cycled the road route to uni yet, and I don't even know where I'll be going for hospital placements, but one of the places I'm intending to cycle in dusk at least, if not in the dark, is the canal towpath. So I'd need very good lights for that, since I suspect it's unlit.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Redball on 03 Aug 2013, 10:19
A dimly lit canal path! Shouldn't you ride with some kind of flotation gear? You could call it -- I dunno, maybe a May West?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Aug 2013, 13:39
Redball: the Pun Jar wants to have a word with you...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Aug 2013, 08:33
Vest!  May VEST!!

Nevermind. 

And the headlight was a joke. 

I use an old CatEye (http://www.cateye.com/en/products/category/3/) brand headlight that straps to the handlebar.  Don't know if it would be high enough to see over the basket, though.  And they've got much nicer lights now than the one I have... all bright LED's, some rechargeable ones.  Mine's basically a handlebar mounted incandescent torch that uses two C batteries... from 1989.  Still works well, though! 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 04 Aug 2013, 09:04
I haven't cycled the road route to uni yet, and I don't even know where I'll be going for hospital placements, but one of the places I'm intending to cycle in dusk at least, if not in the dark, is the canal towpath. So I'd need very good lights for that, since I suspect it's unlit.
I'll note that the strongest lighting requirements are generally when riding amongst cars, in unlit areas.

Lit areas, less lighting is needed just because there's other light to help out. Unlit areas without car traffic, less lighting is needed, because you aren't having to compete with the light from car headlights (to be seen, or to see).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lupercal on 15 Aug 2013, 14:25
Someone stole my fairly new bicycle.

The weird thing is, after a new chain and a bit of TLC, I'm now using my Mum's old bike that has to be about 15 years old. The ride is amazingly more comfortable than my old (new/cheap) bicycle, and the fact it's been outside a while and rusted in almost every once aesthetically pleasing place means it is deterring thieves. Huzzah!

Anybody got any other stories, or tips, on bike theft (or avoidance of this)? My bike is chained up at a railway station for about 12 hours a day between my arrival/departure.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 15 Aug 2013, 14:27
Conventional wisdom is, U-lock through the triangle AND through the rear wheel.

If in a high-risk situation, add a (good, with lock meant for it, not a normal padlock) chain through the triangle and front wheel.

Also, store the lock(s) there if at all possible, that way you can use much heavier locks.

Uglify the bike, although you've already done that unintentionally.

Park next to more attractive, less secure bikes. You don't have to outrun the bear, just the other guy.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 15 Aug 2013, 16:36
Your bike-parking situation is high-risk, I'm afraid; it would be nice if railways gave some attention to bike security at stations, but mostly they don't. So, all of the above, but:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 15 Aug 2013, 16:50
With the caveat that front disc brakes and quick releases are a horrible combination, and if you insist on doing it (no, doing the QR up correctly won't help you), lawyer lips will save your life.

The other thing is to consider a folding bike instead. Depending on your rail carrier's policies, you might be able to carry a folding bike onboard, and take it with you, and then store it indoors at your destination.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 16 Aug 2013, 00:24
I don't take nearly that much care, and have had four bikes stolen in 60 years.  The first two were unlocked, the third was locked to itself only, and the fourth time was locked to railings, but I guess that the rather rusty lock hadn't latched properly.  Only two had been new purchases, one was secondhand, and one was assembled from bits off a scrap heap at school (I rode that for ten years, including all through uni - it's the only one I feel nostalgic about; it had a four-speed hub gear that I had restored from being rusted fully solid.). 

The first to go was my first bike, when I was seven years old - it was taken from the churchyard while I was at choir practice.  As the police station was just over the road, I went in and reported it stolen myself, and then they called my parents to collect me so I didn't have to walk home in the dark.

I also reverse the advice about having the chain out; I prefer to put it in, as that exposes the dérailleur to less risk of bashing and bending when the bike next to it is moved.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 16 Aug 2013, 03:27
I'll bet that four-speed hub was  Sturmey-Archer. I have hub gears on my bike because I think they are better for commuting/transport cycling, and one reason is that they are much less vulnerable to damage than derailleurs.

A very good point from bhtooefr about disk-brakes and quick-releases. I was thinking that an older bike would have rim brakes.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 16 Aug 2013, 05:18
I'll bet that four-speed hub was  Sturmey-Archer.

Naturally!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 16 Aug 2013, 06:52
With my lock I'm more worried about somebody stealing my saddle than my bike. I've got a first generation Abus Bordo lock. In the newer generations (at least on the cheaper ones) they apparently replaced the more secure locks they used earlier with ordinary tumbler locks.

My bike lock has a key similar to this one (mine has several more tumblers):

(http://www.schluesseldienstruf.de/files/2012/09/bohrmuldenschluessel-1024x768.jpg)

When the German "Stiftung Warentest" (an organisation which tests various items independently) tested bike locks this one was much better than most of the U-locks they've tested, and better than every single cable lock.

I usually have this lock through the triangle, around a fixed object, through the rear wheel. I don't remove my front wheel, that would be a bit more difficult without a quick release and with the hub dynamo.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Kugai on 16 Aug 2013, 17:33
When I had my bike, I used to lock it up with 2 meters of this

(http://findingtheperfectfit.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/chain.jpg)

with one of these.

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqmlbDKjyoof6HJhbU1448ArKtZFecVD66n1quFRQZYGSasqZL0g)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Skewbrow on 17 Aug 2013, 01:52
  • Don't forget to lock your bike to a sturdy fixed object, whether the bike-rack, lamp-post or whatever. Don't laugh; I've seen locked bikes that a thief could just pick up and carry away.
This. But do consider the following (hopefully in your country this is irrelevant): in the 80s and 90s local insurance companies insisted that a bicycle theft claim should be accompanied by all the keys to a lock of a certified type that had to be permanently attached to the bike frame. Usually meaning that the lock woud be screwed/bolted to seat stays and thus only able to wrap around the rear wheel. I guess they were more worried about people forgetting to lock their bikes and/or false claims (if you used chain only, you had a harder time proving that you had not just been very careless). They have wisened up since I think. But, as evidence of this past, I present my wife's bike. That is still the only type of lock it has, but she rarely rides in the city, so risk of theft is very low (and it is obviously an unattractive target as an old bike). On my own bike I use an Abus U-lock (http://www.abus.com/eng/Mobile-Security/Bike-safety-and-security/Locks) that can reach around the front wheel, downtube and a railing/lamp post/rack.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Skewbrow on 17 Aug 2013, 02:03
I have hub gears on my bike because I think they are better for commuting/transport cycling, and one reason is that they are much less vulnerable to damage than derailleurs.
This may be true. I do not have any experience with hub gears. But I don't  want to try to service hub gears, whereas replacing a freewheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogset#Freewheels) is relatively straightforward (with proper tools). I realize that your point may be that hub gears rarely need such maintenance.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 17 Aug 2013, 02:06
The cogset isn't the issue, the dérailleur is because it's really quite delicate.  Hub gears just go on for ever, but I've got used to having a wider choice of gearing.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Pilchard123 on 17 Aug 2013, 02:36
IDK how relevant this is any more, but...

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Skewbrow on 17 Aug 2013, 02:48
Hmm. I still have the original 24-year-old rear derailleur on my Trek ATB. Either I have been lucky or I am missing something. I am not ruling out the possibility that its age is related to the fact that I spent a lot of time with its adjustment screws just last week. Time to experiment with the B-screw? (http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/rear-derailler-adjustments-derailleur)  I vaguely recall once having accidentally turned it without knowing what it does :oops:

Regularly cleaning and lubing the rear derailleur is essential, but undoubtedly you do that as a matter of course.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 17 Aug 2013, 02:51
It's fine if it doesn't get bashed - but if it does, you may be lucky or you may not (I've been not...).  Mine have never had that B-screw - it certainly would have helped.

As for the video about opening locks with a pen - I first heard about that with the Kryptonite brand of locks many years ago; it hurt their reputation significantly, and I think they stopped using that kind of key completely.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 17 Aug 2013, 04:06
Gear range in hubs is simply a matter of how much money you want to spend. The Rohloff Speedhub 14-speed (http://www.cheekytransport.com.au/stuff-we-sell/bits/rohloff/) will give you a range comparable to a mountain-bike triple-chainring, eight or nine sprocket set up, but it costs about $2000 here now. A Shimano Alfine 11-speed hub (http://www.wiggle.com.au/shimano-alfine-11-speed-disc-hub-without-fittings/) is under $500, while the 8-speed (http://www.wiggle.com.au/shimano-alfine-8-speed-disc-hub-without-fittings/) Alfine is under $300.00, and Shimano stuff is pretty good.

The only maintenance my hub requires is changing the oil once a year and replacing the occasional worn control cable. The whole unit is sealed against the weather, and much easier to keep clean and lubed than the typical eight or nine cog cluster and mech. Other plusses of hub gears are the ability to change gear while stationary (very handy for riding in city traffic), chain-retention is much better, you get a stronger rear wheel because the spokes are symmetrical on both sides, and you can typically always have a straight chainline from chainring to rear sprocket. The down-side of hub gears is that they are less efficient than equivalent derailleurs in some ratios, are slightly heavier, and tend to cost more up front. Oh, and hub-gear shifters can be difficult to fit on some designs of handlebar, especially drops or bullhorns.

I use a hardened steel chain in a fabric sleeve, and one of those Abus Discus locks too (though mine has a key more like ankhtahr's pic) because the frame design and wheel size of my bike make a U-lock impractical.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 17 Aug 2013, 04:16
The Dutch-style frame locks are certainly quite convenient the way they're set up, but they're not at all secure.

They'll keep honest people honest, but if someone's setting out to steal a bike, the bike is gone quickly, even a 50 pound Dutch bike. So, you need to lock it to something, not just itself.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 17 Aug 2013, 09:02
I've only ever seen the 3-speed gear hubs here in the US.  But to be honest, I don't hang out in bike shops. 

My folks had a tandem from the late 60's with a two-speed hub that shifted by reversing the pedals.  It's still in their garage...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 17 Aug 2013, 12:27
And most bike shops don't carry anything with IGH in the US.

3-speeds are old-school, and are still popular, but now, 8-speeds are very common (both Shimano and Sturmey-Archer), and an 11-speed Shimano and a 14-speed Rohloff are available as higher-end options.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Aug 2013, 15:34
We have plenty of Treks around here (given that Trek is made in Wisconsin, of course). A bit pricey for my likes, though.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 22 Aug 2013, 16:50
I'm seriously interested in the CVT transmission that's available.  Mind you, it and most of the other options cost twice what I paid for my bike...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 22 Aug 2013, 18:34
General consensus is that it's horrendously inefficient, but some riders like the smoothness enough to look past that, and it is apparently tolerant of very high torque. (Meaning, people who have issues that require them to ride extremely slowly can gear it ridiculously far down - much further than any conventional IGH can hold up to, and deep into the shortest MTB derailleur gearing available - and it holds up.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Skewbrow on 23 Aug 2013, 05:22
It is generally easier on my knees, if I user a tad lower gear and maintain a higher cadence. Is that ratio adjustable in a CVT?

Mind you, the point Akima mentioned about being able to shift gears (on a hub gear system) while standing in traffic lights IS something I miss. Let's see. Currently I have 3 chain rings and a cogset of 6 (from year -89, when that was considered cool). On the largest chain ring I only use the three smallest cogs, same on the smallest. I guess I have combined the middle chain ring with all six cogs, but the extremal ones are rare. Still 3+4+3=10 combos. Should I try to cut that down to 8, or should I wait for the prices of 10-12 speed hub gears to come down before buying a new bike? Hmm.

Just last week I gave up the struggle (after experiencing a bearing jam with a brand new rear axle+bearings) and let a mechanic take a look. The verdict was that the rear hub was so worn out that it could no longer properly support the bearings. So I invested 55 euros on a new rear wheel, and have been enjoying the ride since. I guess that means I'm hoping to get a couple more years from this bike.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 23 Aug 2013, 18:19
Currently I have 3 chain rings and a cogset of 6 (from year -89, when that was considered cool). On the largest chain ring I only use the three smallest cogs
That is because you have a clue. It is a very bad idea to ride large-chainring-large-rear-cog, or small-chainring-small-rear-cog. It's inefficient and hard on your equipment. One of the reasons I think hub gears are better for utility cyclists is because their operation is simpler; just one control to shift up and down, and no need to worry about juggling chainring and cluster shifts to get the ratio you want.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 24 Aug 2013, 00:24
It is a very bad idea to ride large-chainring-large-rear-cog, or small-chainring-small-rear-cog. It's inefficient and hard on your equipment.

Apparently it actually has very little effect on efficiency; it does on chain wear, though.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 24 Aug 2013, 06:14
And then on many recumbents, it doesn't even have an effect on chain wear, because the chains are so long that the flex in the chain for large-large or small-small is less than the flex on the "normal" gears on an upright bike.

(Of course, some recumbent riders get stupid with the gearing setups. A common one is to have a front derailleur (with two or three chainrings), a rear derailleur (with a 7-speed cassette), and a SRAM Dual Drive (which is a 3-speed IGH designed to take a 7-speed cassette).)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 28 Oct 2013, 11:30
So I don't have much luck in bicycle related things currently. On the way to university I crossed a street at the wrong place, and hit the curb too hard. My rear wheel now definitely needs to be changed. One edge of the rim is dented about 0.7 mm to the outside. That's far enough to scratch on the brake pads.

Damn. I don't really have the money to buy a new wheel, and I can't really afford not having my bike either, as the tram is very inconvenient currently due to construction on multiple parts of the road. I'd have to change between bus and tram three times, which would double the time I need to get to university. And classes begin at 08:00 tomorrow. Yay.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Oct 2013, 12:06
I once made a wheel like that usable again by hammering it using a club hammer with the other side of the rim resting on a large piece of wood to prevent further damage.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 28 Oct 2013, 12:11
Should be alright to slacken off the rear brake 0.7mm. Yes it'll be a longer pull to engage and yes it'll mean some clippy braking but nothing that can't be lived with for a bit.

Earlier this year the salt and rain managed to get my rear brake on my road bike to seize up a bit so it wouldn't return to open after braking. I happily went about 4 months being too lazy to bother sorting it out so just mostly ran on the front brake for a while, rear brake for emergencies only. Not the best thing to be doing in a hilly areal like this but doable.

If there's any second hand or helpful bike shops/ cycling groups in the area they might be able to put you on to a cheap/loaner rear wheel while you're saving up.

On a vaguely related note, I went out for a ride around the Cheshire Plains on the fixed wheel at the weekend before last and got the bike absolutely filthy. On the Sunday I skived off cleaning duties to go and do some pedalcar testing around the newly built Sport York cycle track (awesome). When I got home my wife had kindly cleaned my bike. Absolutely chuffed until I took it out on Tuesday evening and didn't discover that she hadn't done the front brake up until I started rolling down a hill. Led to a nice panic moment where my right foot popped out of the cleats leaving me accelerating down a hill, one footed, fixed wheel on the verge of crying because I was convinced of my own certain death.

Fortunately I didn't die, which was nice.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 28 Oct 2013, 12:19
Damn. Did I write 0.7mm? I meant to write 0.7cm. It's a pretty big dent. I'm afraid that when I try to bend it back the aluminium will break.

I had to unhinge the rear brake so the bike could roll again. And yes, I admit, I rode to university with only my front brake.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 28 Oct 2013, 12:26
A little over a quarter-inch shouldn't be that difficult to pound back to level, using the method Paul suggested.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 28 Oct 2013, 12:32
As long as you don't rip along you should be fine with just a front brake. Mind you, this does generally tend to mean you aren't road legal.

0.7cm bend, I'd either follow the pwhodges method or line some broad pliers/grips in cloth and manually bend it back in. Aluminium is a brittle metal so don't go crazy on it, it needs a firm, smooth bending action and avoid any twisting. If the rim deflects in a bit you'll be OK.

I realise that this is a bit horse, stable door but if you bent the rim by hitting kerb then that usually suggests the tyre wasn't at a high enough pressure. Obviously it depends on what bike/tyres you're running on but 60psi+ tends to keep that from happening. And always unweight if you have to bump up something, or through a pothole.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 28 Oct 2013, 12:38
Yep, the tyre pressure is too low. I know about that, and I had the adaptor for filling them up at the nearest gas station in my pocket, but I didn't manage to do it until then. I never said it wasn't my fault.

I have to fill my tyres to a really high pressure. I'm having Schwalbe Marathon Plus, and the suggested maximum pressure is 6 bar/87psi, the suggested minimum pressure is 3.5 bar/50psi. I'm currently at about 3.7 bar, but I like to keep them at high pressure to minimise friction and to avoid shit like this.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 28 Oct 2013, 12:41
My bike probably needs its tires pumping. It certainly needs cleaning (I am reluctant to do this because it will take approximately 0.212 seconds cycling to uni next week before it's covered in mud again, but that is not really a good reason) and I realised that one of the brakes is no longer working at all and I'm not sure why. I think the seat needs to be raised and I don't know how to do that, and it needs better lights.

Basically what I am saying is that I need to go to my local bike shop and beg them to fix everything and also teach me basic bike maintenance.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 29 Oct 2013, 17:26
Yep, the tyre pressure is too low. I know about that, and I had the adaptor for filling them up at the nearest gas station in my pocket, but I didn't manage to do it until then. I never said it wasn't my fault.
Pumping up bicycle tyres (or rather inner-tubes) at air-lines designed for cars is a bad idea. The gauges are inaccurate, especially at the high pressures (relative to typical car tyres) used for bikes, and many have mechanisms that deliver air in "bursts" which are fine for high-volume/low-pressure car tyres, but can blow the tyre off the rim on high-pressure/low-volume bicycle tyres. The worst pumps in this regard are the ones where you set the target pressure on the pump, and the pump decides when it has reached it. With Schwalbe Marathons (I ride those too!), if you are pumping them to their minimum pressure, you will probably get away with using a car air-line, but what you really want is a floor-pump. I recommend the Topeak "Joe Blow" range (http://www.topeak.com/products/Floor-Pumps); I bought the cheapest that had a built-in pressure gauge years ago and it is still going strong. You will want to carry a pump on the road as well, and if your budget will not stretch to two pumps (or you have nowhere secure to store a floor-pump), I suggest the Topeak Morph range (http://www.topeak.com/products/Morph-Pumps). No, I don't own shares in Topeak :wink:, but their pumps are good, and I own two.

It certainly needs cleaning (I am reluctant to do this because it will take approximately 0.212 seconds cycling to uni next week before it's covered in mud again
As I recall, your bike is something like this:
(http://www.bikes2udirect.com/bikes_html/images/items/B2711.jpg)
You have mudguards (USA:fenders), so you are off to a good start. The problem is that the mudguards are way too short. They always are because bike manufacturers are obsessed with people breaking them on kerbs. Unfortunately, that means that the front one does nothing to protect your bottom bracket, sprockets, mech, chain etc. or even your feet. The rear mudguard is less critical, since it is long enough already to protect your rack, saddle etc., and extending it, while not a bad idea, mainly protects riders behind you.

The answer to your problem is mudflaps (insert inevitable "I herd U leik Mudflaps" joke here :roll:). You need to remove the silly little plastic "tail" from your mudguards (usually you just have to drill out the rivets that hold it), then cut a long flap from rubber matting, and "sew" to the rivet-holes with nylon cable-ties (the cyclist's friend). The flap should be cut long enough to nearly touch the road. No, mudflaps do not add style to your bike, but they are the answer to mud on the drive-train and your feet.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 30 Oct 2013, 04:12
Thank you! That would help a lot - I always arrive at uni looking like I just lost a mud-wrestling competition. I have seen people cycling around without any mudguards at all and it staggers me. They usually have mud all up the back of their coat.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 30 Oct 2013, 04:31
I take my mudguards off in dry weather (the cycle racks at work a fuller then, and people don't take care), but wouldn't cycle in the wet without them.

Apropos of nothing in particular, I was thinking as I cycled to work today that I'm quite attached to my old bike; but then I thought:

Main frame - original
forks - replaced
handlebars - replaced
handlebar stem - replaced
both wheels - replaced
rear gear block - replaced
chain-set and pedals - replaced
front dérailleur - original
control for same - original
bottom bracket - replaced (to align new chain-set with rear)
rear dérailleur - replaced
control for same - replaced (operated in opposite direction)
saddle - replaced
seat post - original
V-brakes - original
(brake levers included with gear controls, so one old, one new)
tyres and tubes - replaced (of course)
cables and brake blocks - replaced (of course)

Well, I guess the frame size and alignment does define the feel of the bike (along with the handlebar stem), but even so...!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 30 Oct 2013, 10:21
Well, I guess the frame size and alignment does define the feel of the bike (along with the handlebar stem), but even so...!

Wheels will have some effect on the feel of the bike but most factory wheels will feel pretty much the same if you're buying the same type of wheel for the bike. From what I remember of your bike, you're unlikely to be rocking any deep V or 16 spoke, straight-laced wheels any time soon.

Over the course of the summer there have been many long, tedious discussions at the local polo court over the minutia of frame geometry and it's impact on handling and playability. It could be described as a quite interesting subject, but usually in the same way that a geneticist might describe inherited bovine gene variation in Lancastrian livestock as quite interesting. Unless you have any intentions above riding your bike around and enjoying yourself, it's a rabbit hole subject best avoided.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 31 Oct 2013, 03:23
Mind you, different frame geometries actually matter for riding your bike around and enjoying yourself, too.

It's just that most people that care about the minutia of frame geometry are not riding in that style.

(Look at the frame geometry of, say, a Dutch bike.)

Anyway, barmymoo, I'd recommend reading up on Sheldon Brown's website (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/), as well as taking classes on bicycle maintenance. You should be able to do the following maintenance on your own, as a minimum, really:


Raising the seat post in theory is easy, you just loosen the seatpost binder bolt, raise it, make sure everything's lined up, and retighten it, but sometimes the seatpost can freeze in the frame, and that's where things can get... tricky.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Nov 2013, 19:33
Ankhtar, I know I'm late, but may I recommend (instead of a hammer or pliers) a c-clamp to take the dent down?  It applies pressure evenly to both sides of the rim at once, and can be tightened slowly and gently, avoiding the potential splitting of the rim. 

(http://www.weltgroups.com/hardtools/clamp.jpg)

You'll always have a ripple there, but it will at least hold the tire better and allow you to brake again. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 21 Nov 2013, 06:10
Bicycles get a mention, but this is mainly about innovative and effective road design for shared space at a town-centre junction; recommended:

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 21 Nov 2013, 10:10
I've been going to Poynton regularly over the past few years for Audax rides that start and finish there and from my own perspective reckon it's a very good development. Admittedly I only visit on the weekends but I can see how the design functions in weekday and rush hour traffic. I'm aware that there are criticisms of the development, including from people on the cyclist/pedestrian safety front but I don't think that any of them would suggest that it's worse than it was before. My only criticism as a cyclist is that the brick work is of the type that tends to be a bit slippy when it rains. Mind you, that really only encourages cyclists to slow down and in terms of safety and humanising the environment it's probably a good thing.

Something that I find very interesting is that they stated the cost of the development as £4 million. For a piece of works on effectively a small satellite town to a secondary city, that sounds like a lot of money. However, in the film they discussed the observable decline in collisions and injuries since the completion of the works. From memory, the cost to the economy of a death on the road is around £1.1M and a serious injury is around £200k. In those terms I can't see how that piece of work won't effectively pay for itself with in the space of a couple of years.

I hope that this design principle will be brought to other areas as a matter of course.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 21 Nov 2013, 10:16
In other news, I now have one of these.

It's a little unstable, a bit hard to get used to and slightly scary. It is also a lot of fun.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8428/7881557776_d250158da1.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: calenlass on 21 Nov 2013, 13:19
Hey, this thread! 2.5 years later and all the shit on the first page still drives me nuts on a daily basis. I have since learned that Georgia is the most expensive place in the country to own a car (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/08/21/302370.htm), on account of higher insurance fees and taxes and whatnot. Atlanta sprawls more than 30 miles across, and because it has always been so suburban-centric, businesses are incredibly spread out and the commute is necessary for a whole lot of people. Supposedly we are starting a new trend for pedestrian-friendly, walk-up type developments, but I'm not holding my breath. Hooray, this bullshit!

I have a bike. It is a good lookin' cruiser, but now I live 20 miles away from everyone I know on the other side of the city, so I don't get to ride it anymore.

(http://venicebeachbicycles.com/wp-content/files/beach-cruiser-bicycle-venice-beach.jpg)

(This is not my bike, but it is the same model and color, so)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 22 Nov 2013, 09:51
It's a little unstable, a bit hard to get used to and slightly scary. It is also a lot of fun.

I heard an interview with a guy who makes recumbent bikes the other day.  He was saying that, with a normal bike, you balance and steer it with your hips - not an option on a recumbent.  You need to use your shoulders and upper body more to keep it balanced, and for cornering, and it's very counter-intuitive for "normal" bike riders. 

But knowing that might make it a little more manageable for you! 


I want one someday, I think.  At least, my knees will. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 22 Nov 2013, 15:18
AH. THAT explains it.

The first time I took my Giant Revive out for a test-ride at the bike shop, I lost my balance and nearly flipped it over. Now I know why (and why I have to leave a hand on the handlebars at all times).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 22 Nov 2013, 15:56
TSK's 'bent is very cool (review here (http://mccraw.co.uk/challenge-fujin-sl-review/)). I would not like to manoeuvre it round a lot of the stupidly-tight hairpins on cycle-paths in Sydney though.

As for knees, I'm not sure how far a 'bent bicycle would help. One of the advantages claimed for 'bent trikes is that you can install gearing as low as you like, and never face the risk of falling, no matter how slowly you crawl up hills, but that might not apply to a two-wheeler. The keys to protecting your knees while cycling are 1) Get a bike that fits you. 2) Set it up properly. 3) Select gearing that lets you spin (turn the pedals quickly) up the steepest hills you encounter. A knee-endangering problem I see frequently is cyclists setting their saddles too low, and a 'bent might help with that, because seat-height and pedal-reach are not tied together as they are in a conventional bike design.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 25 Nov 2013, 05:43
*Racing cyclists (especially criterium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterium) racers) like high bottom-brackets because they can continue pedalling through tighter corners without a pedal striking the ground. Mountain-bikers like high bottom-brackets to give them better ground-clearance over logs, rocks etc. Bicycle manufacturers like to use the same frames in bikes sold for multiple purposes because it reduces their costs.

Although, with drum and disc brakes, one way to lower the bottom bracket on an existing frame design easily is to use smaller wheels. (Rim brakes make that harder to pull off.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 25 Nov 2013, 09:37
Bike season would appear to be done.  Back to trainer season.

Overall I'm really happy with how much I rode this year.  Lots of bike commuting, and I'm already missing it pretty badly.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 25 Nov 2013, 11:17
Bike season is never over.

Ever
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 25 Nov 2013, 11:20
People do ride bikes year around here.  But you need to understand - it's dangerous.  There may be snow, ice and slush on the roads almost every day from now until mid-March.

Like I said, trainer season.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 25 Nov 2013, 11:45
Where I am, weather is pretty variable in winter.

So one day can be a blizzard, two days later it's like spring.

And, they actually do clear snow from the bike trails here, so there's that too.

Also, there are ways to set bikes up for winter specifically. Studded tires are a thing, after all.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 25 Nov 2013, 13:17
I don't know about bikes but I know that studded tires for cars are illegal in the UK.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 25 Nov 2013, 13:22
Go to: http://www.icebike.com

I ride year-round, but of course the climate here is much less severe than in many places. The heat in summer is more of a challenge than the cold in winter, and that mostly just comes down to drinking enough fluid.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 25 Nov 2013, 13:24
I know that studded tires for cars are illegal in the UK.

Not quite; it's illegal to use them in conditions such that they could cause damage to the road - i.e. without a layer of ice or snow.  Since our ice and snow comes and goes so fast that changing wheels is not practical, this amounts to much the same thing.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 25 Nov 2013, 13:35
Also, I've seen where zip ties have been used to get a similar effect to studs without the whole metal studs thing.

Obviously doesn't work with rim brakes.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 25 Nov 2013, 14:15
I am considering my options for when the bad worse weather arrives and have concluded that walking is probably the most reliable one. That or just sleeping in the university library.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 26 Nov 2013, 20:32
I've been known to spend the night in my office when there was a bad storm. 


Back when I had an office.  Now I work from home mostly, so I sleep a lot sitting at the kitchen table instead of at my desk anyway... :roll:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Nov 2013, 00:10
TSK's 'bent is very cool (review here (http://mccraw.co.uk/challenge-fujin-sl-review/)). I would not like to manoeuvre it round a lot of the stupidly-tight hairpins on cycle-paths in Sydney though.

As for knees, I'm not sure how far a 'bent bicycle would help. One of the advantages claimed for 'bent trikes is that you can install gearing as low as you like, and never face the risk of falling, no matter how slowly you crawl up hills, but that might not apply to a two-wheeler.

Slight misposting on my part as I actually have the Fujin Sport. The only real difference is that is comes with front suspension as well. I'm kind of tempted to take that out though so that I can shed a bit of weight and do some HPV races next year. That won't make much difference to the manouverability and it definitely isn't designed for tight cornering. I've already had to bail out of trying to cruise through a couple of cycle gates. Moving onto this kind of bike introduces you to the concepts of boom swing and heel overlap. Another mod that I'm considering is to change out the hamster bars for something a bit broader to make the steering a little less twitchy.

Going uphill on this means you have to deal with stalling speed. Go to slow and you'll stall and tip over. As you approach that point you have to be ready to unclip, lock the brakes and stand up in one fluid movement to avoid ditching onto the floor. Not to bad at that fortunately.

I took it up to the Audax UK AGM in York the other weekend and then rode back under a full moon. The ride back was lovely although I realise how dangerous the temptation is to just roll along staring at the moon. Might molish a headpad as well for optimum high speed grinning slackery.

I was planning on riding audaxes on it pretty soon but I still need to sort out the gear shifting, it's being a bit awkward. Instead I'm going to take the fixed wheel out this weekend for a trip from Stockport to Holyhead and back. The route takes me through Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochuchaf, which makes me quite happy.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 27 Nov 2013, 23:14
I had friends who lived in LlanfairPG, so I know it a bit; we had a cat that came from there, too.  But then my (first) wife had an affair with the husband.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 28 Nov 2013, 01:41
Noted, I shall resist any urges to be a homewrecker when I'm passing through. This presumes I safely evade the temptresses of Prestatyn.

Progress will be tweeted @cyclingtiger probably with photos (Welsh reception permitting) possibly with good photos.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 28 Nov 2013, 09:42
I now have the train stations of the Holyhead line ringing through my mind.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 22 Jan 2014, 06:35
So I'm venturing into this thread with hopes to receive some of the occasional tips for motorised vehicles as I am... forcibly back on the market shall we say.

Here's the vehicles I'm looking at so far by catagory:

Top vehicle so far:
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4294604066.html

Do want:
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4298988841.html
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4266210059.html

Less Desireable:
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4295352328.html
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4287964592.html
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4292485337.html

Huh:
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4298790447.html

Something HAS to be wrong with it I'm not seeing:
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4298709624.html


Thoughts?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 22 Jan 2014, 08:20
You couldn't pay me to own that Cadillac.

Also, the Accord will be a scammer. The car doesn't exist, and there will be requests to wire the seller money before you can look at the car.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 22 Jan 2014, 10:19
Yeah, it's been pulled. 

I've driven an X-terra, don't like 'em - boxy, and they feel like they're going to tip in a strong wind. 

Good luck! 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 22 Jan 2014, 11:04
Most people are favoring the X-terra at present, and honestly so am I. It's a big larger then my usual vehicle >.>;
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 22 Jan 2014, 11:45
Spoilered for ranting.

(click to show/hide)

/rant
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 22 Jan 2014, 12:34
I normally prefer smaller vehicles in general, but I live in areas with significantly adverse road conditions, which can make larger 4x4 vehicles extremely valuable. I'm also a hunter, shooter and do a variety of outdoorsmanship stuff that requires a fair amount of room. I get by on catching rides with friends and doing what I can with my small cars, but since I have to buy a car I may as well get one I like that carries more of my stuff.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 22 Jan 2014, 13:45
Compact hatchbacks and wagons FTMFW for most real-world load carrying, for what it's worth. SUVs don't really get you much in cargo room (although, yes, they do get you the ground clearance and AWD benefits, but a set of good snow tires can go a LONG way, and if the roads are such that you're high-centering a compact car, you probably shouldn't be on them anyway).

A few things to look for:

Ford Focus wagon - just make sure you get the Zetec or Duratec engine, not the SPI engine
Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe - oil consumption can be a problem with these, and parts that are specific to the Vibe are harder to get nowadays though
Ford Escort wagon - quite cheap to buy, although they're known for breaking springs, and be careful of the 1997+ ones (they get the 2.0 SPI engine that's known for dropping valves, although as I understand not as badly as the Focus version of it)
VW Jetta wagon - with the 2.0 and a manual (don't buy an automatic), and with regular timing belt changes, pretty bulletproof
Subaru Impreza wagon and Outback Sport - not the greatest efficiency, but AWD, acceptable cargo space, and the Outback Sport even has decent ground clearance
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 22 Jan 2014, 17:57
I won't buy a Ford. You couldn't PAY me to take one honestly. Subaru wagons cost a fortune out here for some reason. Checking out the Acura this weekend, my mechanic buddy is convincing me to check out the Cadillac actually.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 22 Jan 2014, 18:24
I'll agree about not buying more vehicle than you need. 
I bought a Dodge 1500 because I fell in love with it.
I don't use it hardly enough.
Cause 15MPG really, really sucks.

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 22 Jan 2014, 19:53
So here's the new short list

Stand out lead: http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4299645931.html

http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4294650228.html
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4287375665.html
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4282621687.html
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4299921994.html
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4299869034.html
http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4294167725.html

and this is a possibility I might do with my next door neighbors: http://delaware.craigslist.org/cto/4299113423.html

Two beamers for the price of one? Intriguing.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 23 Jan 2014, 03:09
Heh, you put a Ford in that list. One thing to note is that the Focus is a Euro Ford, not a US Ford, and that the 91+ Escort is actually a 90-94 Mazda 323/Protege.

Which, actually, Mazda Protege5 could do, too.

The TDIs... be careful. When they're good, they're excellent. When they're bad, they're horrible, and a lot of these are starting to need the really expensive bits. (I own a 99.5 Golf TDI. I've replaced most of the suspension, the clutch and flywheel, the injection pump, and the turbo.) DO NOT buy one with an automatic, Volkswagen automatics back then were horrible as far as reliability goes (and you lose quite a bit of efficiency, too). And, worse, dealer service often isn't a good thing, due to systemic problems with the VW dealer network. The expensive bits that these often need, in rough order of cost: automatic transmission (lasts 100-180k mi typically, and you're looking at a $5k bill if it fails (and the only rebuilds that actually last are the VW ones, third-party rebuilds often only make it 20k mi)), suspension (shocks and bushings are shot by 100k mi typically on these, and replacing everything is $2k), manual transmission flywheel (the dual mass flywheels like to fail around 150-200k or so, but at least a single-mass flywheel is cheaper, you're looking at around $1k), injection pump (at 200k mi, a lot of these are getting worn out, and there's another $1k or so, more if it's an automatic (the automatic pump is a performance upgrade for the manuals, too, so they're highly desirable)), turbocharger (some of these are fine, but 150-200k is when these start to fail, and that's another $1k), and the timing belt (this is a maintenance item, not a failure) is due every 40-100k mi interval depending on year and transmission (but the competent independent mechanics install the 100k mi kit on everything), the dealers often do these wrong leading to one of several kinds of catastrophic failure down the road (if you see paint pen on the timing belt, it needs the job redone ASAP), and it's another $800-1k typically.

And I've gotta get mine in for a heater core replacement... damn pain in the ass job...

Oh, and by the time they're this old, the interiors rattle like crazy.

Quite rewarding cars to own when they're in good shape and you keep up with the maintenance, and they last a long time, but a lot of them are in their expensive phase now. Good news is, they can be brought out of their expensive phase, too.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 23 Jan 2014, 04:12
Yes there's a Ford in the list, for the same reason those TDIs are in there. My neighbor is a mechanic and is assisting me with my shopping. "At least look at them" "...fine"
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 23 Jan 2014, 06:23
I'd personally duck the VWs...
the Focus is a possibility.
but I'd also avoid a vehicle which is due for 'Antique' status in less than a year.
unless it has underwent a full rebuild, 20+ years of driving is hella hard on a vehicle.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 23 Jan 2014, 08:23
....none of those are antiques really. I mean I drove a 95 Toyota up till last year and I didn't have to do anything for it besides regular/annual maintenance
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 23 Jan 2014, 10:03
Round three! Desperation cause I basically have this weekend to sort this edition!

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19173&endYear=2015&showcaseOwnerId=626199&startYear=1995&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=3500&listingId=362190169&listingIndex=15&Log=0

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19173&endYear=2015&showcaseOwnerId=626199&startYear=1995&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=3500&listingId=355562718&listingIndex=24&Log=0

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19173&endYear=2015&showcaseOwnerId=626199&startYear=1995&firstRecord=226&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=3500&listingId=362656303&listingIndex=4&Log=0

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19173&endYear=2015&showcaseOwnerId=626199&startYear=1995&firstRecord=201&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=3500&listingId=361116633&listingIndex=16&Log=0

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19173&endYear=2015&showcaseOwnerId=626199&startYear=1995&firstRecord=101&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=3500&listingId=316475971&listingIndex=25&Log=0

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19173&endYear=2015&showcaseOwnerId=626199&startYear=1995&firstRecord=76&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=3500&listingId=351486870&listingIndex=10&Log=0

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19173&endYear=2015&showcaseOwnerId=626199&startYear=1995&firstRecord=76&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=3500&listingId=363034008&listingIndex=1&Log=0

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19173&endYear=2015&showcaseOwnerId=626199&startYear=1995&firstRecord=51&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=3500&listingId=363977060&listingIndex=5&Log=0

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19173&endYear=2015&showcaseOwnerId=626199&startYear=1995&firstRecord=26&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=3500&listingId=359304834&listingIndex=6&Log=0


This is kinda the stand out to my eyes:
http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19173&endYear=2015&showcaseOwnerId=626199&startYear=1995&firstRecord=151&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=3500&listingId=358148371&listingIndex=6&Log=0

Sure 200k, but it's a HONDA.

It easily has another 200k in it with proper care and feeding.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 23 Jan 2014, 10:31
Based on mileage and maintenance cost, I like the following:
1998 Honda Accord EX  and the 2001 Subaru Forester.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 23 Jan 2014, 10:46
Yeah I liked the Subaru and the 98 Accord too.

Fuck. I'll have to move some money around, but if those check out I should be able to pick up either of them Saturday paying cash. Like a boss.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 23 Jan 2014, 10:58
Good for you.
I'm at that point where a 5 year payment plan isnt a barrier to my peace of mind when it comes to repairs and reliability.  I miss the days when I could pay cash for a car.
...somedays...
and then I remember all those busted knuckles and sweaty/frozen days spent underneath said 'Cash Only' cars....
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 25 Jan 2014, 17:04
I got the 98' Accord, it didn't have a photo up on the website yet because they literally got it this week. It was in great condition, fresh tires, good breaks. Needs a little work, but nothing serious or pressing. 130k miles on it, which means the engine is just about broken in on a Honda. Roughly $250 (in parts) to get it all the way up to 100%, as I said, nothing serious. No body damage of any kind, the engine is legitimately CLEAN and doesn't purr like a kitten, no my friends it just murmurs quietly and takes care of business.

Some thoughts: Fuck the stock stereo in this car. No tape deck or aux cable port = complete bullshit.

Getting handed the title for the vehicle with the keys? Goddamn that's sexy.

So any way I need to pick up $50 or so in parts (not factored in to the $250 above) to swap the stock stereo with the stereo from my last car, and put fresh windshield wipers on, then I'll drop it off for a complete fluid flush and replacement, swap in fresh spark plugs myself next weekend and I should be in business.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 25 Jan 2014, 19:18
TRY not to have the stereo be more valuable than the car...

:D
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 26 Jan 2014, 08:15
My stereo didn't cost that much! I may want to upgrade the speakers though... hmmm... an amp and some subs wouldn't go amiss either....
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 26 Jan 2014, 11:56
Welp, there goes the trunk space!   :roll:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 26 Jan 2014, 13:59
and thus... GM's new ride:

(http://photos.imageevent.com/motorbiker/newspics3/Super-Stereo.jpg)

ignore the breeze, enjoy the tunes....  :D LOL :D





Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 26 Jan 2014, 18:26
(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1614401_10152246602155815_457089541_o.jpg)

Yeah baby! Purple!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 26 Jan 2014, 21:38
that AINT purple.

that is DEEP BRUISE.

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 27 Jan 2014, 02:14
Aubergine!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 27 Jan 2014, 04:00
Now y'all are just making colors up.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 27 Jan 2014, 05:12
I'd call it aubergine as well, from what the photo shows.

(An Aubergine being an Egg-plant, in case the term is not universal.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 27 Jan 2014, 12:43
for someone who paints W40K figures, I figured you'd be very familiar with Deep Bruise.  ;D
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 27 Jan 2014, 13:22
Fuck, and the check engine light is on! Dammnit all. Looks like I need to the spark plugs and wire harness. At least.

Shit.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 27 Jan 2014, 17:56
Fuck, and the check engine light is on! Dammnit all. Looks like I need to the spark plugs and wire harness. At least.

Shit.

Did you get it scanned?  Autozone will scan the engine computer for free, even printout the codes for you.  Then yoiu can do some diagnosis before throwing your cash at the wrong problem. 

Although plugs and wires are usually a good idea, they're rarely changed often enough, but if there's a vacuum leak or something else, the light's not going to go out. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 27 Jan 2014, 18:17
I pulled the codes at lunch (at auto zone as it happens, you East Coast types are weird again, out West you give them your driver's license, they give you the scanner and go get your own codes, here they do it for you! Madness!) Any way misfires on all six cylinders plus the random misfire code. Apparently that's commonly an issue with the plugs and wires, and can also be a sensor screen getting gunked up from shitty oil. The other primary possibilities are the coil going bad, the timing belt being off, which at my mileage needs to be changed if it hasn't been already or and this would REALLY suck, the computer being on the fritz.

Steps I have taken as of right this second:
1. Put a fresh bottle of oil in and an oil additive to help do some gunk fighting in case there's any build up.

Other then that I'm just taking it slow and gentle commuting. The issue's definently intermittent. Also getting a slight kick on shifting, which is usually a sign some tranny fluid, (tranny in this case being accepted, normal slang for a transmission, as opposed to a transsexual person) or this lovely bottle of fluid I got from those fine people at Lucas needs to be added.

Honestly this is about what I expected. When I buy a used car my rule of thumb tends to be to expect 1/3 the cost of the vehicle in maintenance in the first six months. People always look at me funny when I say that, but on average for a used car at the very LEAST you are going to need to get the brakes done (my brakes are in shockingly good condition), an oil change and most likely fresh tires (again, shockingly good condition on the Accord). So stuff like this arising from a lack of advanced maintenance on what was most likely a grandma car prior to it finding it's way to me (excellent interior condition, brakes are in good shape, fresh tires, no body damage, driven under 10,000 miles a year = someone's grandma was driving it) such as not getting the 100,000k tune up done, or missing a timing belt change, or not accelerating hard enough/fast enough to notice the transmission's starting to give a bit of a kick, is really not surprising to me at all.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 27 Jan 2014, 19:40
the salesperson didn't...
oh yeah.
private seller.  youch.


crossing of fingers. hope it aint too expensive.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 27 Jan 2014, 20:57
Nope not a private seller. Just the reality of buying from used dealerships. It'd been on their lot three days and was as far as they could tell mechanically sound.

Honestly it's probably the coil if it's something past "Motherfucker! The spark plugs. Change them." which runs $100 and some change in parts. So yeah no I ain't worried about this. It's more annoying then it is anything else.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 28 Jan 2014, 00:53
The transmission kick may well just be the engine being underpowered from the misfiring - get that cleared up and I'm betting you'll have no problem. 

I mean, you should probably change the transmission fluid anyway, but I don't think you have a real problem in there. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 28 Jan 2014, 02:04
It's worth noting that this engine is an interference engine.

If you don't know that the timing belt has been changed on time, or changed properly per manufacturer recommendations, get it replaced. It's cheaper than replacing the heads.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 28 Jan 2014, 03:56
Yep. Easy way to slag an engine.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 29 Jan 2014, 13:28
The British Advertising Standards Agency have seen fit to ignore decades of experience, study, provable facts and analysis and banned an advert encouraging cycling because it doesn't fit with an outmoded and ill advised point of view.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 29 Jan 2014, 14:25
Sounds like it's time to send some ASA people through a free safe cycling course?

(FWIW, I'm of the opinion that vehicular cycling is an excellent coping strategy with inadequate infrastructure (although a lot of VC advocates believe that their strategy is the be-all end-all of cycling for transportation, and therefore they oppose all attempts at infrastructure due to the fear of mandatory usage of poor infrastructure). Requiring a car to go into the oncoming lane to pass, when it's unsafe to pass in the lane, is a good thing, too.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lupercal on 29 Jan 2014, 14:53
Jesus Christ.

All these people have to do is look at the deaths on roads and see how many people would've been saved by a helmet. I mean, the majority of cyclists don't use one - I don't, but I'm only cycling 2 miles at any one time in a rural area. I'm not saying they're not necessary, but it's not going to save you if you're crushed under a vehicle.

And doesn't this encourage people to give you a hair's width on the road? The driver may think "whew, passed the cyclist whilst not swerving into oncoming traffic" but the cyclist is thinking "holy shit you almost killed me!".
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 29 Jan 2014, 15:19
Cycling training that I'm aware of encourages the cyclist to take a whole lane, precisely to avoid cars trying to squeeze past, and also recommends not pulling in to odd small spaces between parked cars to let cars get by.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 30 Jan 2014, 05:41
I agree that cycling in the middle of the lane will encourage drivers to drive dangerously. Which is a problem with the drivers, not the cyclists.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 30 Jan 2014, 07:04
The British Advertising Standards Agency have seen fit to ignore decades of experience, study, provable facts and analysis and banned an advert encouraging cycling because it doesn't fit with an outmoded and ill advised point of view.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572)

That's a very strong opinion.  I assume you're referring specifically to helmets?

I had the priviledge of watching a bright, likably guy repeat grade 12 after a very slow speed bike accident.  It was pretty heartbreaking.

I'm open to stats trumping anecdotes, but my personal anecdote of watching someone try to relearn what they KNEW they'd learned last year but couldn't quite remember will always influence me to wear a helmet.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 30 Jan 2014, 07:23
Personally cyclists should fuck off back to the sidewalk.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 30 Jan 2014, 07:29
They were never there, and should never be there.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 30 Jan 2014, 07:49
Personally cyclists should fuck off back to the sidewalk.
How can you cycle on the sidewalk? It's full of pedestrians!

Here in Sweden the division between bike path and sidewalk is not very clear, especially outside the city center. Lots of snow means pedestrians tend to walk on the bike paths, which are plowed, when the sidewalks aren't, so I had to get a working bell on my bike as soon as possible. The other day I was riding through a park with asphalt roads and there were three middle-aged ladies walking their dogs in front of me, completely blocking the path. I rang my bell behind them, and first they stopped, then they turned around, and then they looked, and when I was a meter away from them they finally decided to step out of the way. It's like they've never seen a cyclist before!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 30 Jan 2014, 07:51
How can you cycle on the road? It's full of cars!

If you can't keep up with the speed and flow of automotive traffic, get out of the way.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 30 Jan 2014, 07:53
How can you cycle on the road? It's full of cars!

If you can't keep up with the speed and flow of automotive traffic, get out of the way.

So in a city during rush hour, if the cars cant' keep up with the speed and flow of bikes, they should pull over, too, right?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 30 Jan 2014, 07:57
How can you cycle on the road? It's full of cars!

If you can't keep up with the speed and flow of automotive traffic, get out of the way.

Exactly, cars which generally form two orderly lines, and the space between the front of one car and the back of another should already be enough to accomodate a cyclist. You can't say that for pedestrians.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 30 Jan 2014, 07:57
It would be safer and better for the environment if cars would fuck off completely and leave the road to the cyclists.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Redball on 30 Jan 2014, 08:13
Bikes in Michigan share the road with cars, and motorists are expected to avoid the bikes. But it's still a hairy, risky experience. I like the idea of dedicated bike lanes, and I think in the U.S., some federal highway funds are allocated for development of non-motorized vehicles.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 30 Jan 2014, 08:22
Every time you see a bike in front of you, remember that it could have been an SUV instead.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 30 Jan 2014, 08:31
Bikes in Michigan share the road with cars, and motorists are expected to avoid the bikes. But it's still a hairy, risky experience. I like the idea of dedicated bike lanes, and I think in the U.S., some federal highway funds are allocated for development of non-motorized vehicles.

However, it does need to be done properly, which also means that funds need to be allocated to the MAINTENANCE of cycling infrastructure. And, the state of the art for cycling infrastructure needs to be followed, not things that the Dutch figured out were bad ideas 40 years ago.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 30 Jan 2014, 08:39
Every time you see a bike in front of you, remember that it could have been an SUV instead.

Every time you see a bike in front of you, BACK OFF.  We stop a lot faster than you can. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 30 Jan 2014, 08:41
Every time you see a bike in front of you, remember that it could have been an SUV instead.

Every time you see a bike in front of you, BACK OFF.  We stop a lot faster than you can.

Same for motorcycles.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 30 Jan 2014, 14:10
Every time you see a bike in front of you, BACK OFF.  We stop a lot faster than you can.
Unless of course it is some clown on a brainless brakeless fixie...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 30 Jan 2014, 14:26
Today I learned that Akima is bikesnobaus.   :P
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 30 Jan 2014, 14:27
She hasn't talked about crabon saddles rubbing on scranuses yet, though.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 30 Jan 2014, 15:34
I rode a fixie with backpedal brakes all summer when I lived in the States. Frankly it was terrifying the first few times, but I survived it and got pretty good at stopping. At the time I was deeply offended when Eed followed me in her car to church the first morning I cycled (I think I felt patronised - relevant: I was on the wrong anti-baby pills and it transpired later that summer that they were making me suicidal and sending me off my head, so I guess I was oversensitive) but in retrospect it was a sensible idea.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 30 Jan 2014, 23:27
That's a very strong opinion.  I assume you're referring specifically to helmets?

I had the priviledge of watching a bright, likably guy repeat grade 12 after a very slow speed bike accident.  It was pretty heartbreaking.

I'm open to stats trumping anecdotes, but my personal anecdote of watching someone try to relearn what they KNEW they'd learned last year but couldn't quite remember will always influence me to wear a helmet.

No, pretty much the whole thing.

On helmets, I'm very much an advocate of free choice. A lot of people use personal stories (anecdotes doesn't really cut it for me) to campaign for helmets and I can understand that they are motivated by something that is very important to them. I absolutely respect that. However, there is a wealth of debate, studies, information, statistics and analysis, none of which genuinely supports mandatory helmet use. Furthermore, for all of the stories where someone didn't wear a helmet and it was tragic or someone did wear a helmet and it "saved their life" is the reality is that we simply do no know. The conditions on the road do not adhere to scientific testing standards and you cannot change one variable simply by the wearing or not wearing of a helmet. I have no intention of trying to take away from your personal story and your motivations, but an authority shouldn't be thinking like that. In my view they have an obligation to base their decision on facts, reasoned analysis and science. What the ASA actually did was look at the British Highway Code, see that it "recommends" that cyclists wear helmets and decided that this meant Cycling Scotland had failed in an obligation it plainly doesn't have.

Moving on to the other stuff, we know that mandating helmet use will almost definitely result in a decline in cycling numbers and the net health benefit that comes from it. On the other hand, the idea that cyclists should ride no more than 50cm from the edge of the road, that really will get people killed. It directly contravenes any Government and ACPO approved cycling training in use in the UK today.

As an update, following the response from cyclists and cycling groups across the country, the ASA has withdrawn it's ruling pending an independent review. I very much doubt it will be reinstated, at least not in it's current form.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 31 Jan 2014, 00:13
the idea that cyclists should ride no more than 50cm from the edge of the road, that really will get people killed. It directly contravenes any Government and ACPO approved cycling training in use in the UK today.

It's also a directly anti-cycling idea, given the state of that section of the road surface in many (most?) urban areas these days.  In a road I cycle to work along, that would mean my cycling over a pothole on which I once damaged a wheel beyond repair - they "resurfaced" that road last month, which actually meant patching the part that cars drive on, and leaving the pothole near the curb untouched.  And this in a city with one of the highest levels of cycling in the UK.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 31 Jan 2014, 06:05
Furthermore, for all of the stories where someone didn't wear a helmet and it was tragic or someone did wear a helmet and it "saved their life" is the reality is that we simply do no know.

I'm pretty sure that the stats are inconclusive.

Oh, another true story.  I know a guy for whom not wearing a seatbelt in a car once saved his live.  Truth.

I'm still in favour of wearing helmets, but I'm ambivalent about regulatory bodies enforcing helmet use.

Moving on to the other stuff, we know that mandating helmet use will almost definitely result in a decline in cycling numbers

Yeah, you're going to need to bring some actual stats to the party, because that seems pretty damned implausible to me.  Why?  Because if you grow up in a world of mandatory seatbelts, it never occurs to you to not drive because seatbelts are mandatory.  Ditto bikes and helmets, sure it affects the numbers for a while, but not permenantly.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 31 Jan 2014, 06:13
Yeah, you're going to need to bring some actual stats to the party,

Here you are. (http://cyclehelmets.org/1194.html)

because that seems pretty damned implausible to me.  Why?  Because if you grow up in a world of mandatory seatbelts, it never occurs to you to not drive because seatbelts are mandatory.  Ditto bikes and helmets, sure it affects the numbers for a while, but not permenantly.

Quote
There has been no recovery to pre-law levels – the trend continued downward over the next decade,

Note also the fact that the substantial fall in hospital admissions related to bicycle accidents was almost exactly equal to the drop in cycling at the same point - thus showing that helmets themselves made no significant contribution.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 31 Jan 2014, 06:34
Yeah, you're going to need to bring some actual stats to the party,

Here you are. (http://cyclehelmets.org/1194.html)

Thanks.

Fwiw,
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 31 Jan 2014, 06:57
I think you won't find long term studies that can exclude other factors - countries without mandatory helmet laws have higher cycling rates than ones that do have such laws, although they also have other factors that encourage cycling.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 31 Jan 2014, 09:08
I was hoping for a MUCH longer duration survey.

The census data covers thirty years, some of the other data covers ten, fifteen years, or more; but some of the studies concentrate on the years immediately around the change, which is only natural.

There may be other studies; I only linked the first sensible page I found in a simple search.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 31 Jan 2014, 11:36
Yeah, you're going to need to bring some actual stats to the party,

Here you are. (http://cyclehelmets.org/1194.html)

Thanks.

Fwiw,
(click to show/hide)

See also the three year study in British Columbia Canada http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1103.html (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1103.html)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 01 Feb 2014, 16:28
I pulled the codes at lunch (at auto zone as it happens, you East Coast types are weird again, out West you give them your driver's license, they give you the scanner and go get your own codes, here they do it for you! Madness!) Any way misfires on all six cylinders plus the random misfire code. Apparently that's commonly an issue with the plugs and wires, and can also be a sensor screen getting gunked up from shitty oil. The other primary possibilities are the coil going bad, the timing belt being off, which at my mileage needs to be changed if it hasn't been already or and this would REALLY suck, the computer being on the fritz.

So my buddy and I did some more diagnostics and decided it was probably the spark plugs causing the issues. So we replaced those, the car's still shifting a little hard now and then, but much rare and there's no power loss issues. So I believe I can stick a fork in her and call her done for now. Going to hopefully clear the codes tomorrow and then we'll see if something else pops up over the next few days.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Lupercal on 02 Feb 2014, 02:42
How can you cycle on the road? It's full of cars!

If you can't keep up with the speed and flow of automotive traffic, get out of the way.

So in a city during rush hour, if the cars cant' keep up with the speed and flow of bikes, they should pull over, too, right?

This. If I get on my bike and cycle to the train station in the school-run rush, I can easily bypass about half a mile of queued traffic. Unfortunately, I do have to get on the sidewalk/pavement for some of it, as drivers seem to have this fantastic habit of seeing a cyclist coming and then moving in as close to the curb as possible so no gap exists between the vehicle and the sidewalk.

If anything this thread does completely showcase the argument that cyclists and drivers seem to be locked in. I do think that if a driver saw anything else on the road - motorcycle, horse, etc - they would have to slow down for it before overtaking.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Redball on 02 Feb 2014, 06:01
In this part of Michigan, the road is shared with the occasional Amish buggy, and the overtaking motorist makes some calculations. Even if the double-yellow center lines prohibit passing, do I have enough distance/time to go around? Drivers occasionally make poor calculations, and death and injury of Amish folks is a result. At the least, it should make drivers more aware when going up a hill that they've no idea what might be stopped or slow-moving in their lane below the crest.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 02 Feb 2014, 06:13
I'm about to cycle for the first time in several weeks, I hope my bike is ok!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 02 Feb 2014, 06:41
Mind you, Ohio has an interesting approach to solid yellow lines.

If the vehicle to be passed is going less than half the speed limit - doesn't matter what it is, it could be a bicycle, buggy, tractor, malfunctioning car, whatever - the solid yellow line functions as a broken line. (You still have to perform the pass safely, but it becomes legal to pass in a no-passing zone.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Redball on 02 Feb 2014, 07:01
That makes enormous sense. For all I know, Michigan now has a similar law. Along the same line, I was impressed years ago when driving through Yellowstone that slow-moving RVs were required to pull off the road if they have half a dozen vehicles behind them. Out here, it makes no sense to rail at slow-moving vehicles; you've have to include farm equipment with the buggies, and some of the equipment is as wide as two lanes.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Feb 2014, 19:59
Nothing strikes dread and loathing into the heart of someone running late as seeing a combine pull out in front of them...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 02 Feb 2014, 20:48
sit back and enjoy the scenery, city boy.  :D

but really, if you're VERY desperate, pulling out far enough to be seen in the side mirrors & waving out to the side, is generally considered as a 'request to pass'

Just don't wave AT the driver and DONT use just one finger.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 02 Feb 2014, 23:06
Last time a combine pulled out in front of me I did a little sprint, got behind the rear wheel and drafted it for about a mile and a half.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 03 Feb 2014, 05:55
Got a few rides in in January.  All of them in Skyrim....
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 03 Feb 2014, 06:07
Hey, I actually got a ride in with it being -16 F last Tuesday.

Mainly because my car didn't want to start in those conditions, but hey.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 12 Feb 2014, 06:06
Okay so the required maintenance light came on today. The day I'm going in to the DMV. Fuck nuggets. However the light is just that, a light, that suggests you look into maintenance. So that shouldn't fuck me at the DMV.

I'm going to see about running it in for a Timing Belt change, oil change and possibly a transmission oil change. I am going to consider bringing in my own parts and oil and be like "Use my shit. Especially my filter. I wanna watch you put it in"
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 12 Feb 2014, 12:06
... eh... I'd suggest a little humility.  Hard for a former Marine, i understand; but presenting the attitude of "I wanna learn by watching you put it in" will go over a lot easier than "I wanna watch you put it in because I don't trust you/ you crook".

I've actually gotten a price break on labor by being willing to stand there, hold tools and observe.

them there is my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 12 Feb 2014, 18:38
I am an asshole in my head. I am very polite to the outside world.

If I am being an asshole to you personally.... congrats you have dun fucked up good.

Any way, went to the DMV and inspection was clean. So any issues the car has now are not a "oh fuck me I can't get my fucking license plate" problem.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 12 Feb 2014, 22:17
I am an asshole in my head. I am very polite to the outside world.

Moar people ought to be like this.   :-D
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 16 Mar 2014, 05:45
I'm slowly getting used to doing more bicycle related stuff myself. I just replaced the shift cables on my bike, as I had managed to tear both within one week. But it looks like I'll need to have chain, chainwheels and cassette replaced soon. That's bad, as I can't afford it.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 17 Mar 2014, 03:43
It's mid march.  A bit of snow is gone.  Highs above freezing for most of the week.

I want to bike to work SO badly.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 17 Mar 2014, 04:14
after repairing my bike yesterday I tested it. I don't really know where it's nice to cycle out here, so I just took off without any real direction. I took a wrong turn and ended up cycling up the local hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turmberg). Apparently I'm out of training, because this 20 minute tour totally exhausted me. But at least on the way down I managed a maximum speed of 60km/h
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 17 Mar 2014, 06:05
60 is my limit.  I can go faster, but I'm plenty nervous at 60, and try to keep it under that.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 19 Mar 2014, 14:44
I set my bike's overall gearing very low, so that I can keep my cadence (http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ca-g.html#cadence) high climbing the steep hills in my district, so I spin out at only about 42kph in my highest gear. After that, it's just a matter of the equilibrium between gravity and wind-resistance, but I don't exceed 50kph normally. It is the posted speed limit on many of the roads I ride, anyway*. I have done 60+ on the steep approach to Roseville Bridge (60-80kph speed limit), but it was a bit scary; I'd hit the tarmac pretty hard even at 50 if I fell, and cycling gear is not like motorcycle leathers. Cyclists should consider too how readily they can stop from high speeds; bicycle brakes have traditionally not been that great, and even the most super-duper modern disk set-up still relies mainly on that tiny patch where your front tyre contacts the road surface (which is why you should fit a front brake on your fixie).

*It is a matter of some debate whether legal speed limits apply to bicycles in NSW, and I've never been able to find a definitive answer. There are those who argue that since bicycles are not required by law to be equipped with speedometers, then speed limits are "obviously" not intended to apply to bikes. That strikes me as very dubious logic. I choose to assume that speed limits apply to all vehicles on the public roads on the "equal access, equal rights, equal responsibility" basis. The Bicycle Rider's Handbook published by the state government simply says "Bicycle riders have the same rights and responsibilities on the road as other road users. There are also special road rules that only apply to bicycle riders", and none of those special rules exempts cyclists from speed-limits. Obviously limits higher than 50-60kph are academic for most riders on most bicycles most of the time (see clip below), but in my district there are sections of road with limits of 40kph and lower.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 20 Mar 2014, 00:28
The range on the triple chainset on my old road bike used to be set that I could hit about 50kph on the flat at a push in favourable conditions and still make the steep climbs in my area. It did take a couple of attempts to get up Winnats Pass in one go. That's a tricky beast of a climb though and easy to overdo it on the lower slopes and write off you're ability on the upper slopes.

The fastest I've hit on a descent is 83kph (or 51mph for our Imperial friends). I wouldn't quite call it scary but certainly requires a particular type and amount of nerve. The most dangerous bit for me wasn't the speed but the sudden desire to throw my hands in the air in victory once I broke 50mph limit. It doesn't have quite the same feel to it if you have to come to a nice sensible stop at a safe location at the side of the road before jumping around in celebration.

As for the law, in the UK, the clarification comes in the specific rules governing speed which states that it is for motorised vehicles. The rights and responsibilities as other road users is generally accepted to mean the right to be on the road, the right to priority at junctions etc and the responsibility to the safety of other road users. Therefore, the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists. However, other cycling specific offences allow for speed to be assessed as part of behaviour and theoretically governed to one lower than the posted limit of a law enforcement officer determined it unsafe for the conditions of the road.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Redball on 20 Mar 2014, 12:10
on the bus from Heathrow today I saw signs referring to "variable speed limits." Is that the same thing?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 20 Mar 2014, 13:19
the fastest I've ever been was 45mph on a 10 speed riding down a long, steep hill.

I was 16 and scared to death.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 20 Mar 2014, 16:58
on the bus from Heathrow today I saw signs referring to "variable speed limits." Is that the same thing?

On parts of the M25 round London, and part of the M42 round Birmingham, and in some other places, the speed limit is displayed on electronic signs, and can be controlled centrally on the basis of the traffic density.  It has been found that setting a lower speed limit as the density increases helps the traffic keep moving smoothly instead of just piling into a big jam, and as a result the capacity of the road is effectively increased.  I don't know if there is any automation of the speed setting on the basis of analysis of the traffic camera images (bear in mind we have a lot of that kind of analysis - for instance, we have average speed checks across distance, based on the time elapsed between reading the same number plate at different cameras along a road; this is most commonly used at extended roadworks).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 21 Mar 2014, 02:41
The city expressways and tunnels in Sydney have the same sort of system PWH describes. We have the cameras that read your number plate too, used for speed-limit enforcement, to spot unregistered/uninsured vehicles, and to enforce maximum driving-hour rules on truck-drivers. The roads have a thousand eyes...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 21 Mar 2014, 04:28
Creepy.

Orwell much?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 21 Mar 2014, 09:22
Honestly, I don't really care if the government know where my car is. In fact, I'd rather they knew, particularly if someone other than me was driving it! Given the choice between roads full of uninsured, unregistered, speeding vehicles and an automated system of computers logging numberplates, I would prefer the former. I don't think liberty for its own sake is the epitome of all goals (of course, it should only be infringed for a good reason - but I happen to consider traffic regulation to be a pretty good reason, considering one of my friends was killed in an accident involving a drunk, unlicensed driver in a stolen car).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 21 Mar 2014, 09:43
I think we all agree some degree of regulation is a good thing, it's the amount of regulation where things get sticky.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 21 Mar 2014, 09:46
Given the choice between roads full of uninsured, unregistered, speeding vehicles and an automated system of computers logging numberplates, I would prefer the former.

Latter, surely!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 21 Mar 2014, 09:47
I think we all agree some degree of regulation is a good thing, it's the amount of regulation where things get sticky.

And that, quite simply, depends on the degree to which society can trust its members to keep to the agreed laws.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 21 Mar 2014, 09:51
Given the choice between roads full of uninsured, unregistered, speeding vehicles and an automated system of computers logging numberplates, I would prefer the former.

Latter, surely!

It is worth pointing out the options here, police state vs. anarchy is a bit hyperbolic
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 21 Mar 2014, 10:25
Given the choice between roads full of uninsured, unregistered, speeding vehicles and an automated system of computers logging numberplates, I would prefer the former.

Latter, surely!

Haha yes, brain fart moment there.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 21 Mar 2014, 11:08
I know people who got speeding tickets on their bikes in my hometown.  The town is nestled between a large lake and a reasonbly high hill, and the roads down the hill were all fast.  One of them was even out of the way, but if bikes had trouble doing 50km/h down it, I can't imagine how cars ever succeeded.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 21 Mar 2014, 14:52
On a side note, my vehicle's transmission issue has cleared up with the use of some fluid restorative and the return of weather that is less then balls cold.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 13 Apr 2014, 07:09
Nothing quite like cycling into a stiff headwind on a ~45 pound trike with ~20-30 lbs of groceries on the back...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 13 Apr 2014, 15:02
It just makes you stronger!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 14 Apr 2014, 07:11
Rode about 4km with a kid on Saturday.  Weather is about to diver, but 95% of our snow is gone, so the bike thing is imminent.   8-)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 20 Apr 2014, 10:25
Fffffffuuuuuuuuuu.

Tweaked one of the fenders on my trike when I was carrying it outside, and APPARENTLY shoved the fender mounting bolts up against the sidewall of one of my tires. And, these tires have really thin, supple sidewalls to reduce rolling resistance and improve ride comfort, because they don't need as strong sidewalls as a standard bicycle tire has (the thing isn't riding on the sides of the tread after all).

About 4.5 mi into my ride, and 4 mi from home, got a slow flat. Headed for a safe location, found what happened, and decided to see what I could do with a replacement tube. The sidewall damage was enough that even with a little air, it started bulging, so I deflated it, stuck a $5 in where it was bulging, and then partially inflated it, and rode home, being careful to miss all the potholes. Even hit 19.5 mph when I was trying to keep up with traffic, and it was... fine.

And, the manufacturer's US site is out of stock, although I did find that a trike dealer in Utah had four in stock, so I ordered two from them. (Realizing how easy these are to shred, I figure keeping a spare at home isn't a bad idea.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 20 Apr 2014, 15:27
I'd give the end of your fender (mudguard) mounting bolts a feel to see if there are any sharp burrs, and file them off if there are. What tyres do you run, BTW?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 20 Apr 2014, 17:04
Schwalbe Trykers, they're a 40-406 tire meant specifically for recumbent tricycles.

Edit: Stuck one of the old stock 44-406 Cheng Shin tires on. We'll see how this affects the handling, I'm feeling too lazy to match the fronts.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 21 Apr 2014, 12:48
I think most of the trike people I know are running Kojaks or other non-genre specific tires. Not sure what would, or should be different about trike specific tires though. Interestingly enough a lot of bike polo people in the UK are migrating to Kojaks as well as a tire of choice. Those or Big Apples if the frame will take it.

After a bit of trawling around with the Marathon Plus on the Fujin, I moved over to Kojaks as well. The difference is tangible, although I do worry about the side walls a bit. Mind you, I've been running all manner of skinny, folding, thin side walled tires on my audax bikes for years to no problem. The only time I've ever suffered a catastrophic fail was when a plastic fork met an Armadillo at speed.

In other Fujin related news, I changed from tiller to open cockpit bars. This may be the best bike related money I have ever spent.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 21 Apr 2014, 14:09
Yeah, lots of Kojaks on faster trikes, and Marathon series tires on slower trikes. Sometimes Duranos or Ultremos, too, on the really fast stuff.

The advantage of the Tryker is that it has all of its tread on a narrow strip, and ridiculously thin sidewalls. Long treadwear due to the concentration of rubber at the contact patch (because it's not cornering onto the sides of the tire, very little rubber needs to be off the contact patch), very low rolling resistance, and allegedly better handling (but my trike can't take advantage of that part, it'll lift a wheel before that matters).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 21 Apr 2014, 18:56
I really do need to get the Revive out and running again - before the temps decide to take a dip back into our sub-arctic weather patterns.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 22 Apr 2014, 20:37
I run Schwalbe Marathon HS420s in 40x406 on my bike. They're a bit heavy, but I like the puncture protection for those ride-to-work-on-Monday-after-weekend-revellers-have-broken-beer-bottles-all-over-the-cycle-path mornings. One of the definite advantages of recumbents becoming more popular has been a wider range of tyres for small-wheeled bikes. I'm probably going to switch to Primo Comet Kevlars on my next tyre change. They have a good rep for puncture resistance, and they're around 230g lighter per tyre.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 22 Apr 2014, 20:38
IIRC, the Trykers have similar puncture resistance as the Marathon Racers, for what it's worth.

I know someone who went for Marathon Pluses due to "weekend revellers have tossed broken beer bottles out the windows of their pickup trucks, and they never get cleaned off the shoulder, ever" riding conditions...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 23 Apr 2014, 06:28
so I rode my bike from the train station to work today.
ugh.
yes, it's a beater, and it's been sitting outside for 3 months... but fuck.
chain and crank are stiff as hell.
happily... the tires are still good.
but some asshole stole my cheapo helmet off the bike.
but either way...
I rode my bike today.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 22 May 2014, 06:13
So my total cost for an oil change and a timing belt change is just over $600.

They tried to get DOUBLE that out of me.

Fuck man...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 22 May 2014, 19:59
youch.

4 or 6 cylinder?
$600 for a 6 cyl. timing belt is about right.
thery'e usually $100 per cylinder.

but still. that sucks.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 23 May 2014, 01:27
Heh, $600 is dirt cheap for a timing belt job on my (4-cylinder, but diesel) car. (An engine mount has to be taken out of the way, and the timing belt path is more complex due to the fuel injection pump having to be timed.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 23 May 2014, 04:23
6 cylinder. I miss my four bangers. I even had a "Fear the Four Banger" bumper sticker. I love those engines.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 30 May 2014, 17:31
This is an interesting clip. Google's self-driving car is at least as cyclist-aware as a human driver. Frankly it seems much better than most.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 12 Jul 2014, 08:45
Why bikes make smart people say dumb things. (https://medium.com/@CarlAlviani/why-bikes-make-smart-people-say-dumb-things-9316abbd5735) An interesting examination of Americans' irrational biases against bikes and cyclists.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 13 Jul 2014, 08:16
It's not irrational. Cyclists are second class citizens and should be relegated to their tiny gutter like "road". They can get motorcycles if they want some respect.

Sarcasm aside I really hate talking to aggressive cyclists who are trying to convert the flock. I ran into one in San Francisco this weekend and he was very upset that I don't cycle or take public transit. Namely because I don't have six odd hours spare in my day. Sadly we can't all be urban types and actually have to go places in a quick and timely manner. I know this is where several forum members jump in with plans for forced urbanization but for myself personally and a large number of other people young and old, to hell with that nonsense.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Masterpiece on 13 Jul 2014, 08:24
I don't even know what you just said.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 13 Jul 2014, 08:30
(http://satwcomic.com/art/how-to-use-a-bike.png)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 13 Jul 2014, 08:33
I've never been to Denmark but that doesn't seem to be true for England; a fair number of people in flat places cycle for transport and in Cambridge at least, lots of people cycle without paying attention and endanger pedestrians!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 13 Jul 2014, 08:35
I should probably add the author's commentary as well:

Quote
When I moved to England I noticed a lot of differences from Denmark. When I moved back to Denmark I noticed even more. One being that "cyclist" means different things.

In Denmark a cyclist just means a person on a bike (and most Danes are cyclists), but in England it's mostly used about people who are really really REALLY into bikes.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 13 Jul 2014, 08:53
Hm actually that does make more sense - I wouldn't say I'm a cyclist, just that I have a bike and cycle to get places.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 13 Jul 2014, 10:00
I really hate talking to aggressive cyclists who are trying to convert the flock.

Well indeed, so do I; just as I hate talking to aggressive motorcyclists or aggressive car drivers.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 13 Jul 2014, 16:21
Sarcasm aside I really hate talking to aggressive cyclists who are trying to convert the flock.
It's a funny thing about people who care passionately about something, are deeply concerned about legal threats to their right to continue their preferred activity, are irritated by misrepresentation of them in media, and have *ahem* forceful opinions about people who do not share their interests. We had a thread on one such subject (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28160.0.html)...

I wouldn't say I'm a cyclist, just that I have a bike and cycle to get places.
"I'm not one of those feminists, it's just that believe in equality for women!"

This kind of "salami slicing" about cyclists, often based on whether or not we wear Lycra® (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/04/the-curious-effect-of-lycra-clad-cyclists-on-otherwise-rational-people) for some reason, is irritating. On my commute to/from work, I wear a helmet, cycling clothes, cleated shoes etc. like the "English cyclist"*. On the other hand my bike is nothing like a racing bike, being small-wheeled and fully equipped with lights, reflectors, luggage rack, mudguards, panniers when I'm doing the shopping, and a large saddle-bag, rather like the "Danish cyclist" (though I don't ride distracted). I don't race, time-trial or participate in any cycle-sport. So, am I a cyclist, or do I just have a bike and cycle to get places?

*However I dressed, I would arrive all sweaty and disgusting after riding across hilly Sydney, especially in summer, so it's much better to wear clothes designed for riding, and then shower and change into "normal clothes" at work. Not everyone is as lucky as I am in my workplace, so the terrain and climate here are a definite barrier to cycle-commuting.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 13 Jul 2014, 17:54
Sarcasm aside I really hate talking to aggressive cyclists who are trying to convert the flock.
It's a funny thing about people who care passionately about something, are deeply concerned about legal threats to their right to continue their preferred activity, are irritated by misrepresentation of them in media, and have *ahem* forceful opinions about people who do not share their interests. We had a thread on one such subject (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28160.0.html)...

Yes but I won't call you terrible names if you choose not to participate, just if you try and limit my ability to do so*. I'm all for bike lanes and for laws that protect cyclists, I am all for cycle commuting and would do it myself if I lived any where it was vaguely feasible. It does not however make me a bad person for not commuting via bike when my commute is long already and I don't have a spare six hours to dedicate to just getting from A to B.

*and I like to think I don't call names too often.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 14 Jul 2014, 07:24
Why bikes make smart people say dumb things. (https://medium.com/@CarlAlviani/why-bikes-make-smart-people-say-dumb-things-9316abbd5735) An interesting examination of Americans' irrational biases against bikes and cyclists.

Excellent article.  I'm glad it was about the bikesnobnyc interaction.

Thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 14 Jul 2014, 07:28
Sadly we can't all be urban types and actually have to go places in a quick and timely manner.

I'll admit, I bike commute a lot more in the summers now that I'm in a position where it does not cost me any time over mass transit/car commuting.

Also, I live in the country, and when I say I bike commute a lot, I drive 2/3 or more of the way to work, then bike through the urban component, along a riverside bike path.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 14 Jul 2014, 07:52
and if you have that option, that's wonderful for you. Please enjoy with my compliments.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 14 Jul 2014, 08:42
I don't mean that I object to the word cyclist or have an image of what it means that doesn't apply to me, just that I don't say to people "I'm a cyclist" in the same way that I used to say "I'm a runner" - do people say "I'm a driver" or do they say "I drive to work"? For me it's just one of the many ways I get around, and something I quite enjoy doing but don't do competitively or purely for enjoyment. Like I wouldn't say "I'm an eater" even though I eat because I need to and I generally enjoy it.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 14 Jul 2014, 08:49
Yet you need a license to be a driver.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 14 Jul 2014, 08:57
I used to bike-commute to the local campus when I taught there.  4.5 miles each way, through a town that is distinctly bicycle un-friendly.  I managed to find a relatively flat course through town (we have SF nob-hill type streets around here), but one thing that always amazed me was the way drivers reacted when passing me. 

Now, I'm not skinny, and my bike's a 30 year old 12 speed tourer, but I don't really need a whole lane to myself either.  I appreciate the 3 - 5 feet that most drivers give me, veering around me a bit as I try to keep to the gutter without falling into the drain grates. 

But every once in a while, someone feels the need to give me 10 - 12 feet or more, veering completely into the oncoming lane.  And yes, someone got hit once and tried to blame me.  It's the same mentality as those who stop at an intersection with no stop sign, motioning the people with a stop sign on, like it was a 4-way stop.  There's one of those in front of our house, and the result is an occasional rear-ending.  Worse, someone got t-boned when they accepted the other driver's offer, but the car going the opposite way had no intention of stopping without a stop sign. 

Excessive politeness can be a hazard... usually only when mixed with stupidity, though. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: cesium133 on 14 Jul 2014, 09:00
It's the same mentality as those who stop at an intersection with no stop sign, motioning the people with a stop sign on, like it was a 4-way stop.  There's one of those in front of our house, and the result is an occasional rear-ending.  Worse, someone got t-boned when they accepted the other driver's offer, but the car going the opposite way had no intention of stopping without a stop sign. 

Excessive politeness can be a hazard... usually only when mixed with stupidity, though.
Here I've seen the opposite problem. 4-way stops are so common here that I have to be extra-careful at intersections that aren't 4-way stops, because people will assume that the fact that they have a stop sign means that I have a stop sign as well.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 14 Jul 2014, 09:04
To be fair, sometimes larger vehicles DO need to give a ton of room when they drive by a cyclist.  A dumptruck travelling at 50mph/80kph generates a strong enough gust to endanger the life of a cyclist if they pass too closely.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 14 Jul 2014, 10:32
Yes, of course.  But I'm talking in town, cars, barely doing 30.  The occasional minivan or pickup truck, but nothing that needs too give me that much space - certainly not to the point of endangering others! 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Barmymoo on 14 Jul 2014, 10:34
I think often they're making a point - "look how far I have to swerve to get past you, you selfish *****!". Anyone genuinely concerned about safety would either pass safely, or drive slowly til the road is wide enough to do so.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 14 Jul 2014, 10:43
Agree, Carl, just making the point in case any didn't know.

Also, I frequently get caught behind slow-moving farm equipment, and yes, everyone gets annoyed, but nobody seems to infer that it's their god-given right to pass immediately, with no thought of slowing down or gauging oncoming traffic.  But replace the farm equipment with a bicycle, and people's thoughts and emotions are often very different.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 30 Jul 2014, 09:39
Gah. So car repairs. I have a savings account for this, but a $1200 hit is never fun to take.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 30 Jul 2014, 12:46
Having bashed out a year on the fixed wheel with occasional use of the recumbent, I'm going back to having a geared bike (with some more use of the recumbent). Went out and did a test ride on a nice full carbon bike this evening. It was rather lovely. It's going to come in at around £1200 (£1k on the bike to work scheme) fully built but it could easily be sold for quite a bit more. It's hard to decide on a 20 minute test ride whether a bike is going to be suitable for a 1200k ride but I reckon this could be the one.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 30 Jul 2014, 13:00
What's the 1200km ride?

I currently have the following on my bucket list:
- Transcan, from current location to hometown (380km)
- Pacific Coast Highway, California
- John O'Graots to Lands End
- Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

EDIT Wait, PBP is 1200km, isn't it?  For some reason, I had it as 300km each way, but I bet it's double that.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 30 Jul 2014, 13:01
When in Cambodia, I was interested to see bikes with bamboo frames.  I was even more interested to see one parked at work today!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 30 Jul 2014, 13:50
Indeed it is the PBP. Went out in the 90 group last time (2011) bit I'm going to have a punt at the 84 hour group. Did Super Brevet Scandinavia last year which was pretty impressive and there's a couple of others on the list;

Mumbai-Indore-Mumbai
The Silk Road 1200 (political situation needs to stabalise in Uzbekistan before I have a go at that)
Grasslands 1400 in Mongolia

If I even manage one of those I'll be pretty chuffed.

I cycled across Canada in 2006 and Cape Breton was pretty awesome. Even better was the Petit Train du Nord in Quebec which I think is local to you.

I may never actually do Lands End to John O'Groats although I've done a lot of the roads that make it up. Give us a shout if you come over though, I'd be happy to give you come company on the Welsh Marches.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 30 Jul 2014, 14:07
When in Cambodia, I was interested to see bikes with bamboo frames.  I was even more interested to see one parked at work today!
I saw one of those for sale online and it was about ten times as expensive as a similar bike made of metal. Guess it's down to the marketing as eco-friendly! and sustainable! and trendy as fuck! but not affordable, oh no.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 30 Jul 2014, 16:45
There are DIY plans for building a bamboo bike, but basically it consists of making carbon fiber lugs around bamboo tubes, typically.

It's a labor-intensive way of building a frame, that requires expensive materials for bonding the tubes together, and is very picky about the quality of the bamboo (meaning a lot gets rejected, increasing the cost significantly). And, I wouldn't be surprised if the resource usage for a bamboo frame is actually higher than a good 4130 frame, which will last quite a bit longer, and have far more consistent quality and lower assembly cost.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 31 Jul 2014, 00:59
No carbon fibre on the ones I've seen.  The joints seem to be made with lots of fibrous binding and loads of what looks suspiciously like epoxy resin.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 31 Jul 2014, 06:33
Indeed it is the PBP. Went out in the 90 group last time (2011) bit I'm going to have a punt at the 84 hour group. Did Super Brevet Scandinavia last year which was pretty impressive and there's a couple of others on the list;

Nice.  I'm not sure that PBP is right for me, at leas for now. I'm more of a casual cyclist, I've only once done over 100km, and I'm not much of a camper, but it's an intriguing challenge nonetheless.  GLHF for sure.

I cycled across Canada in 2006 and Cape Breton was pretty awesome. Even better was the Petit Train du Nord in Quebec which I think is local to you.

I wonder if I should take this offline, but I'd love to hear about it.  I'm guessing if you did Petit Train du Nord then you took the northern route across Ontario?  That would have been....remote....  (I lived up there for 3 years when I was a child, and then lived on the southern route for 14 years.)

And yeah, Petit Train du Nord is somewhat close.  It's one side of the triangle between Ottawa, Montreal, and Mont Tremblant.  The far side.  I've thought about going once or twice.  Someday.

I may never actually do Lands End to John O'Groats although I've done a lot of the roads that make it up. Give us a shout if you come over though, I'd be happy to give you come company on the Welsh Marches.

Hah you bet.  I have a few friends in the US who have interest in that and PCH as well.  I also have a ton of family, 99% of whom I've never met, in England, so that ride might be an interesting opportunity to meet some relatives (assuming I can figure out where they are and string them together).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 31 Jul 2014, 20:42
going to take the Son&Heir's birthday gift to the garage tomorrow.
I think it will pass inspection, so I can get used to driving a stick again.

the gift is a beat to hell, worn to the nub, faded to a lovely pink, 2000 Ford Ranger pickup.
it's got more dents than my last 5 vehicles combined.  :D
total cost to resurrect it from the junk pile and make it legal (so far): $650
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: hedgie on 31 Jul 2014, 21:07
It's going to come in at around £1200 (£1k on the bike to work scheme) fully built but it could easily be sold for quite a bit more.
Fuck, there's no way I'd ever pay that much for a bike if it didn't have a motor and at least 750cc.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 31 Jul 2014, 23:21
(does the conversion)

Wait - about US$2,200 for a BICYCLE?

A high-end TREK bicycle comes in at less than that... though at $1,979, with tax added it probably nicks that total.

Yeesh. Sorry, I'm not buying a bike like that for THAT much.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 31 Jul 2014, 23:34
It's matter of you get what you pay for.

My previous geared bike was an aluminium frame with carbon forks and (subject to several component changes) lasted me 10 years through 8-10 thousand miles a year and multiple crashes, bumps, bounces and other rough handling. It cost me £350 and it finally succumbed to metal fatigue.

To buy the same bike now would cost about £800. The extra £400 is going to get me a far lighter, stronger frame, higher quality components and a set of hand built wheels which are always better than factory built. In the current market, what I'm buying should cost me at least another £300-£400 so is very much a bargain. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't buy the components and build this up from scratch for cheaper, a realistic option for more expensive bikes or bikes of lower quality.

It's worth bearing in mind that this isn't going to be a pub bike or a commuter or a bike for pottering around town or up quiet little country lanes on a Sunday afternoon. This is a bike for adventures and epic quests in far away places. Now if you were buying a motorbike straight off the showroom floor for adventures and epic quests, would you really only spend £1200 on it?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: hedgie on 01 Aug 2014, 00:36
I dunno, a friend of mine got his for about that much, and it was totally new, just the previous model year, so it was heavily discounted.  And it was a rather nice bike.  Not quite the sex on wheels that Ducatis are, but still damned nice.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 01 Aug 2014, 02:11
If I'm going to spend that much on a bike, it's going to be something like a Rhoads Car. (http://www.rhoadescar.com/factsheet/4w2pcp.html)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 01 Aug 2014, 05:03
A high-end TREK bicycle comes in at less than that... though at $1,979, with tax added it probably nicks that total.

That's... not high-end, and Trek's got a bike over $10k.

$2000 is very much mid-range.

The trick is that bicycles, especially high-performance road bikes, have to have far more advanced engineering in their frames and some components, than a car, to be sufficiently light-weight yet strong. And, they have to do it without the economies of scale of car production, unless they're a single-speed rod brake roadster (at which point you can get a Flying Pigeon in China for $30, but you end up having to rebuild the thing yourself as soon as you buy it).

And, the Rhoades Cars are incredibly heavy junk, as I understand.

I'll note that I paid $1100 for my recumbent trike, and it's very much low-end, heavy, flexy, and with cheap components.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 01 Aug 2014, 06:16
Fucking hell. that Rhoades Car weighs 179lb. If I spent that much money on a biie I'd want one that I could still ride up Walkley Bank after a100miler in the Peak District. Or indeed ride anywhere in Sheffield without crying.

B is righ $2000 is is the ballpark figure for a mid range bike these days
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 01 Aug 2014, 06:39
I'll just say something about motorised vehicles now.

I had the opportunity to drive a BMW i3. It's a fully electric car. It's amazing. It takes a moment to get used to, as it starts recharging as soon as you lift your foot of the gas pedal, so it feels like you're braking relatively strongly. In fact it's perfectly possible to stop for red lights without ever touching the brake pedal. Luckily the car turns on your brake indicators when you do that, otherwise people would definitely crash into you.

It's really fascinating how quiet that car is. And how much torque it has. No need for a clutch, as in contrast to an engine running on petrol it can supply torque while standing still, so you don't lose any energy.

This was a really interesting experience, but now I want an electro car, and I could never afford one. Maybe an electro bike. There are ones which will go up to 45 km/h (legal limit in Germany). But first I'll need to fix my daily bike. And I'd also love to have a lightweight single speed bike. I'm considering buying an old racing bike and making it single speed on my own. Seems like the cheapest option.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 01 Aug 2014, 07:17
All this talk about $2000 motorcycles reminds me I need to look into motorcycle lessons so I can get my Class M endorsement in Colorado... then I'm going to buy an 885 Harley Sportster or comparable bike if I can find one. I forgot to mention I got my first motorcycle lessons while I was in California, running around on little 85cc Yamaha Chapees was a blast and I'm absolutely hooked.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 01 Aug 2014, 07:50
A high-end TREK bicycle comes in at less than that... though at $1,979, with tax added it probably nicks that total.

That's... not high-end, and Trek's got a bike over $10k.

$2000 is very much mid-range.

This.

I'm still on aluminum-wtih-carbon-fork (and Tiagra components), but I can see myself moving into that price ranger sooner or later.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Aug 2014, 08:20
All this talk about $2000 motorcycles ...

Where?  Those are $2000 bicycles.

And that Harley you're talking about is more like $20,000 new, depending on the level of "factory customization" involved. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 02 Aug 2014, 10:06
Hedgie was talking about motorcycles, and a Harley Sportster can be had for cheap if you do your own work, and buy one from the 80s. I don't buy nearly ANYTHING new.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 02 Aug 2014, 10:41
the Ranger failed inspection.
must have a short someplace, because 3 different lights burnt out in the past 72 hours.

and then the tie rod ends  and the passenger ball joint are shot as well.
Waiting to get some more estimates for the repairs.
so far, I've heard: $600 and $850....  :(
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: hedgie on 03 Aug 2014, 14:23
Hedgie was talking about motorcycles, and a Harley Sportster can be had for cheap if you do your own work, and buy one from the 80s. I don't buy nearly ANYTHING new.
For a lot of things, it's better that way, especially if one is frugal || on a tight budget.  It rather boggles my mind what some people pay for the new shiny, when after 6 months, it can be found second-hand, or discounted to being a model that's being phased out, or a refurb for a fraction of the price.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Aug 2014, 18:18
Somebody's gotta be the first, or it never gets used.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 03 Aug 2014, 19:02
Or the price drops till more people are willing to purchase it.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Aug 2014, 20:48
Sorry, it was like 4 posts between hedgie and yours, so I was off a bit. 

Used is definitely the way to go, but even used Harley's ain't cheap, especially if they've been kept up at all.  $2000 for one from the 80's might get you one that runs, but probably not, and even if it does it'll need a shit-ton of work. 

Grognard, I feel your pain - our inspection just came up first of August.  Thought I just needed tires and an alignment. 

Sway bar links had gone bad.  We got it done, but it was the final drain on the bank account until some more cash comes in. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 03 Aug 2014, 21:12
I honestly wouldn't want a Harley right off the bat unless I get a steal somewhere... something more like the Classic styled Hondas or a used Victory, something like that. No need to get a higher end (*cough* not really any more *cough*) bike for my first one.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: celticgeek on 03 Aug 2014, 21:22
Here is what you need:  Motorcycles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxKTzwaEa2o)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 03 Aug 2014, 21:38
My 'Beast' is still limping around with a Spare tire.
Two new tires will run $250-300.

...and I'm still UNDER-employed.  :(

fuck.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Aug 2014, 23:17
My 'Beast' is still limping around with a Spare tire.
Two new tires will run $250-300.

...and I'm still UNDER-employed.  :(

fuck.

Like I said, get used.  I needed a pair of front tires for the inspection - after running on a bad sway bar, both were bald, one had belt showing on the inside edge. 

$38 for a matched pair of tires with nice, deep treads from the local U-pull-it yard.  $25 to get them mounted and balanced. 

I haven't bought new tires since... ummm....


I'm not sure I ever have. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 05 Aug 2014, 19:54
the local 'pick-a-part' places have caught on to that.  Now days, they pull the good tires as the vehicles come in.
but even at $50 each, I'd save.
hmmm...
maybe Saturday.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 16 Aug 2014, 02:06
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: Dalillama on 11 Oct 2014, 03:13
Nice little bit of advice


But man, fuck roundabouts.  They put in a few in north of my city and nobody gets how to use them. More often then not traffic is jammed an extra mile cause of those fuckers.

...No offence meant, but anyone who can't figure out a simple roundabout in under thirty seconds has no business piloting anything motorised in any public place whatsoever.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 11 Oct 2014, 03:25
The problem is that in the US, things are so car-centric that it's downright impractical right now to get those people out of cars. And, because of how massively and invisibly subsidized car travel is, and how allergic people are to subsidizing infrastructure that isn't car infrastructure, mass transit and cycling infrastructure investment is nonexistent (and city structures in the US were designed around the car, making things worse).

I had some ideas for how to gradually fix this from the "incompetent people operating heavy machinery" direction, though, from the direction of creating a new class of car similar in concept to Europe's heavy quadricycle (although much heavier and more powerful to fit a few existing used cars into the category), with greatly reduced safety standards and the current licensing standards, and then creating much stricter licensing for normal cars: https://bhtooefr.org/blog/2013/06/12/thoughts-on-drivers-licensing-standards-in-the-us/
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 11 Oct 2014, 03:28
I think some of the problem comes when people figure them out differently. Even in the UK, where they're commonplace, people do different stuff on them. Mind you, I would like to see tougher and repeated driving proficiency testing.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 11 Oct 2014, 08:20
"Heavy quadricycle"?

(Looks up on WP)

Oh.

Uhm, one small problem.

Smart cars are nice - if you live in a big city. If you live out in the middle of frakkin' nowhere, they're not much help - especially if you burn an entire tank of fuel/all of your battery power going one way to the next major city.

Which is what happens in the US.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 11 Oct 2014, 08:47
Smart cars are actually far heavier than the heavy quadricycle class, or even my proposed American analogue to it (which is nearly twice as heavy). And, I wasn't talking about electrics at all. (That's actually another separate discussion, but in-road in-motion charging is the answer there.) Also, I actually really hate the Smart, it's awful at almost everything it does, but it won't leave you stranded in the middle of nowhere out of fuel.

Most Smarts in the US run on gasoline, have an 8.7 gallon tank, and EPA combined mileage is 36 city/highway. That's 313 miles. Or, if you're driving far enough in a day that this is a concern, it's gonna be all highway, and EPA highway is 41. That's 357 miles.

357 miles will get you to a gas station. OK, you need premium, but 357 will get you to one that has premium, too. And, if you're driving 357 miles one way to work, you are far from typical, policy shouldn't be written around you, and when the hell are you going to sleep?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 11 Oct 2014, 13:40
I was speaking of cars smaller than a smart car (note: that's how they spell it, without the capital S - except when it's at the start of a sentence; take that, grammarians!). Smaller city cars with smaller motors and smaller engines won't get you as far.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 11 Oct 2014, 14:13
Keep in mind that something like a Geo Metro would meet my idea of a regulation, and that would get you plenty far (and using less fuel and in more comfort than any smart...) And, it's just a matter of power to weight, drag (those two affecting performance), and fuel tank size versus vehicle efficiency (affecting range), for how far you can go. And, because I'm proposing rolling back safety regulations for this class (which, European heavy quadricycles also have rolled back safety regulations, being a four-wheeled three-wheel motorcycle (I know, that sentence doesn't parse at all correctly) legally), weight can be far lower for a given amount of capability.

And, the heavy quadricycle is the closest analogue I've got due to the rollback in safety standards, although the kind of car I'm proposing is really more like Japan's keijidosha class in capability. You wouldn't want to take it on the freeway, but it's capable of it.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 11 Oct 2014, 14:27
Geo Metro LSI ... I got some photos of my wreck which would make you never to want to drive one.

Beer can with Styrofoam for rigidity.

I'm VERY lucky to have survived.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 11 Oct 2014, 14:35
The problem with that argument is that it both declares the wreck inevitable, and also makes it worse for everyone who accepts that risk (and therefore makes it less likely that people will accept that risk).

Keep in mind that I do ride this to work sometimes:
(http://bhtooefr.org/images/terratrike4.jpg)

That thing versus your Geo Metro? You'd feel the crash, but I'd be at severe risk of dying. However, I'd be at much less risk than if you were in, say, a modern SUV.

So, I'm saying, for drivers that haven't proven themselves competent to the standards that other nations have, make lighter vehicles with rolled-back safety standards, so they can get to work still, but don't cause as much damage to whatever they run into, be it pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, or another motor vehicle. And, if it's clear that it's less safe, they may be more careful (the spike-instead-of-an-airbag effect), and have an incentive to learn to avoid accidents.

Essentially, what I'm saying is, I don't want to have to wrap myself in 2000+ pounds of steel and plastic and airbags (my current car's curb weight is 2790) to be safe, so I want everyone else who isn't held to a very high standard to not be in that SUV.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Dalillama on 11 Oct 2014, 15:58
The thing is, when you have enough people piloting massive high-speed hunks of metal around, be they never so skilled (and most of them never are very skilled at all), the crash is kind of inevitable; I don't think I've ever met any regular driver who hasn't been in some kind of crash, even if it's a relatively minor fender bender.  That's why I principally favor alterations in the built environment though infrastructure construction and zoning laws. For instance, the idea (quite common in American zoning), that stores, residences, and office blocks should all be zoned independently of one another in separate blocs, thus requiring a car to drive the miles through the endless houses and then endless offices to get to work, often eliminating even the possibility of living, working, and shopping within walking distance of home.  Installation of lightrail systems brings development to rail stations and hubs as a natural consequence, in a similar fashion to highways but at much less total expense; if said development is permitted/encouraged to be mixed-use, the benefits increase.  A good deal of manufacturing can be incorporated into the urban fabric as well, assuming that rules about emissions are strictly enforced.  The upshot, of course, is dramatically fewer people needing to drive, and thus much less incentive to bear the expense of a car. 


Smart cars are nice - if you live in a big city. If you live out in the middle of frakkin' nowhere, they're not much help - especially if you burn an entire tank of fuel/all of your battery power going one way to the next major city.

I advise not living in the middle of frakking nowhere, as over four in five of your fellow Americans do.  Or, if you want to enjoy the privilege of living in the middle of nowhere and regularly commuting to the city, accept that such a lifestyle has costs associated with it.   High-tech society and urbanization are inescapable partners, arable land is not infinite, and there's a whole, whole lot of people in the world.  The idea that you can live on farmland and not use it at all, while you work at some urban job and leach off the urban infrastructure, is simply not a tenable one in the modern world.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 11 Oct 2014, 17:58
Do you KNOW why we live "out in the middle of fricken nowhere"?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT 2/3RDS OF THE COUNTRY IS.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 11 Oct 2014, 18:11
Spoken like a city slicker up there who'd never left the environs of the same.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Grognard on 11 Oct 2014, 19:57
Ah kin put y'all up in dem mountins where bycicles lik that'un will getcha kilt on tha roads.

so fer back in th'holler that th'folks pipe in thar sunny-shine.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 11 Oct 2014, 21:14
Spoken like a city slicker up there who'd never left the environs of the same.

Hush, you. I'm a good half hour from anywhere that serves a grande skinny latte with an extra shot and a side of biscotti.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 11 Oct 2014, 22:56
Not you. Dalil...somethingsomething.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 12 Oct 2014, 01:42
Ah kin put y'all up in dem mountins where bycicles lik that'un will getcha kilt on tha roads.
It isn't bicycles that get cyclists killed; it is cars, vans, trucks etc. The fact that an incident where a car is driven into a bicycle, and kills the rider, is called a "bicycle accident", and the death is listed as a "cycling fatality", and it is bicycles that are labelled as "dangerous", is victim-blaming and responsibility-avoidance of a rather disgusting kind. It is essentially like arguing that shirts are dangerous rather than guns, because if you get shot in the chest, the shirt won't keep out the bullets.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: hedgie on 12 Oct 2014, 02:08
Spoken like a city slicker up there who'd never left the environs of the same.

Hush, you. I'm a good half hour from anywhere that serves a grande skinny latte with an extra shot and a side of biscotti.
Grande is Starfucks-speak (yes, I know it means large), and biscotti is a plural term :P
Title: Re: Bicycle awareness & not killing cyclists thread (+ Some things about driving)
Post by: HiFranc on 12 Oct 2014, 02:51
Please tell me all you QC cyclists wear at least 1 of those blinking lights that atrap to your arm, or have one on your bike. When it gets to be dusk, people on bikes without lights are ridiculously hard to fucking see from a vehicle. I'm not sure why, but its the truth.

From what I can tell, this hasn't been answered so here goes:

Not seeing things that well at dawn and dusk is a known issue with humans.  In fact most accidents involving pediastrians used to happen around that time.  The problem is that we have two visual systems.  The day system (cones) needs bright light needs bright light and allows us to perceive colour.  Night vision (rods) work in low light but are in black and white.  Dawn and dusk are times when there's not really enough light for us to use the day vision system fully but there's too much light for the night vision system to kick in.

Nowadays, I always wear hi-vis tops when cycling (and I've found a coat for when I'm on my bike (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blackrock-Contractor-Bomber-Brace-Large/dp/B00B6SYBAA/)).  Accept when there's bright sunlight (and the sun is high in the sky), I'll have my lights flashing.  After all, I only do city riding (although I have plans to change that) so I don't need a steady light.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 12 Oct 2014, 12:25
Just a comment on that then.

http://road.cc/content/news/95353-study-says-cyclists-should-make-themselves-seen-reflective-clothing-not-hi-vis (http://road.cc/content/news/95353-study-says-cyclists-should-make-themselves-seen-reflective-clothing-not-hi-vis)

The highlight from that is that is hi vis is not really effective at night. Retro-reflective, like the piping and flashing on my otherwise non hi vis jerseys and jackets is what really works. Also, in urban environment, moving hi viz lacks the consistent contrast to really distinguish a rider from their background. Out in the country, hi vis orange trumps hi vis yellow although all this is trumped by a pale blue. Riding defensively and out in the middle of the lane is commonly the easiest way to get noticed by drivers, both on the same road or junctioning on to your road.

Flashing lights are generally good but again experience visibility issues in urban environments over rural. Flashing lights also make it harder for a driver to gauge distance and closing speed. They also have issues with hypnotic disregard where a driver following them for a length of time stops really being able to pay attention to them.

Of course the other highlight from that article is that 61% of accidents on the road are attributable to driver inattention. Now obviously it's difficult from a scientific perspective to say that at any given time two thirds of drivers aren't paying sufficient attention to safely operate a motorised vehicle, but sometimes it really does feel that way.

As for me, I don't habitually wear hi vis. On the occasions that I have, I haven't noticed in difference in the behavior of adjacent motorised traffic. I'm also of the opinion that if it's legal for someone to do something (i.e. wear normal clothing while riding a bicycle), it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect people to do that. An expectation of wearing special clothing starts to be a barrier to people doing that thing which for day to day activities like riding a bicycle shouldn't be considered a reasonable expectation.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Dalillama on 12 Oct 2014, 15:12
Do you KNOW why we live "out in the middle of fricken nowhere"?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT 2/3RDS OF THE COUNTRY IS.
But not, and this is rather the point I was getting at, 90% of the jobs, housing, amenities, etc.  Those are all in cities.  And if you want to enjoy those things and the bonuses of living in the country, via a long commute by automobile, then you're going to have to, essentially, pay extra.  In the context of the discussion where you brought up living out in the boonies, you were complaining about someone's proposal to allow persons with lower qualifications to drive a class of small compacts.  You complained that said compacts would not have the range you wanted, and wouldn't let you get to the city (although you were shown to be incorrect in this assertion).  Under such a set of rules, though, you would simply have to meet higher qualifications to get licenced to drive the large cars you think you need and feel entitled to.  That is simply the cost of trying to have it both ways.

Spoken like a city slicker up there who'd never left the environs of the same.

(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001109331/HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg)

No, seriously, I grew up halfway to the ass end of nowhere,  and my husband's from all the way out in the asshole of nowhere.  That doesn't take away even slightly from my actual points.  Indeed, it reinforces them.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 12 Oct 2014, 15:19
The better and more humanist solution is to do away with cities, they drain resources and generate nothing.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 12 Oct 2014, 16:13
I'm gonna need citations for that assertion.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: downtowneddie on 12 Oct 2014, 16:20
(Urban political scientist here.) Two books worth reading to shed some light on the city / urban vs rural debate, most likely available through your local public library or bookseller: 1. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier by Edward Glaeser and 2. A Country of Cities: A Manifesto for an Urban America by Vishaan Chakrabarti. I have led urban-centric book club conversations using these two texts as our basis.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 12 Oct 2014, 16:37
The county in which I live has a total population of about roughly 20,000.

Just about 10,000 live in the city (and I use that term begrudgingly) where I reside. There is a smaller city to the north of me that has about 6,500 . The rest of the population is scattered around the county.

My "city" is located on the south edge of the county. The county is 907 square miles - and it's practically square, too.

To go from one end of the city to the other is just over four miles - and it's not all flat.

To go from one end of the county to the other... is about 31 miles, and ALL of it is rural, and practically NONE of it is straight-line.
Title: Re: Some things about driving
Post by: ev4n on 12 Oct 2014, 18:22
...No offence meant, but anyone who can't figure out a simple roundabout in under thirty seconds has no business piloting anything motorised in any public place whatsoever.

I don't know if it's true, but I've heard the rules of right-of-way on roundabouts are totally different between Europe and North America.

The roundabout I saw in Halifax had traffic lights, and I'm not sure I fully understood them.

In other news, saw people riding their bikes today, and man was I jealous.  Maybe I need to go out tomorrow, regardless of the weather?  (oh man, 23C on Tuesday.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 12 Oct 2014, 19:32
Three basic rules of roundabouts:

1. Vehicles in the roundabout have the right of way.
2. You should ALWAYS stop or slow down before entering a roundabout.
3. DO NOT STOP if you are in a roundabout!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Dalillama on 12 Oct 2014, 19:58
The better and more humanist solution is to do away with cities, they drain resources and generate nothing.

Are you volunteering to be part of the ~90% of the human race that has to die for that to happen?  Remember the bit about arable land being in limited supply?  There's nowhere to put the human race except cities.  Also, as noted above, basically all technology more advanced than a wooden plow is the product of cities, and it would be quite impossible to have things like, say, webcomics and internet fora without a vastly urbanized society[ies] to support such a thing.
The county in which I live has a total population of about roughly 20,000.

Just about 10,000 live in the city (and I use that term begrudgingly) where I reside. There is a smaller city to the north of me that has about 6,500 . The rest of the population is scattered around the county.

My "city" is located on the south edge of the county. The county is 907 square miles - and it's practically square, too.

To go from one end of the city to the other is just over four miles - and it's not all flat.

To go from one end of the county to the other... is about 31 miles, and ALL of it is rural, and practically NONE of it is straight-line.
Then your gripe about fuel capacity frankly sounds even sillier; I could bike one end of the county to the other in a few hours, let alone drive.  I used to ride further for recreation, when I didn't live in the city.  (It's a lot harder to find 30 miles of pleasant ride around here, and the traffic and signals and the like slows me up considerable as well).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 12 Oct 2014, 20:20
Oh, by the way, did I happen to mention the ROUTINELY SUB-ZERO TEMPERATURES from November through March?
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 12 Oct 2014, 23:03
That reminds me of my commute in Toronto.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 12 Oct 2014, 23:12
Three basic rules of roundabouts:

1. Vehicles in the roundabout have the right of way.
2. You should ALWAYS stop or slow down before entering a roundabout.
3. DO NOT STOP if you are in a roundabout!

In the UK 1 kind of applies, 2 is largely subject to approach speed, layout, traffic and visibility*, 3 is also subject to variations. If there's congestion it's OK to stop on a roundabout as long as you don't impede other vehicle's entry or exit.

*in some places they actually put up baffles to force deceleration as you can't see if the roundabout is clear, in others they actively maintain clear liines of sight to promote continuation of speed.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 13 Oct 2014, 01:31
Are you volunteering to be part of the ~90% of the human race that has to die for that to happen?  Remember the bit about arable land being in limited supply?  There's nowhere to put the human race except cities.
This basically. My hometown of Shanghai has a population roughly equal to the whole of Australia (about 23 million), and has an land area roughly half that of Sydney. Imagine it... The entire human population (except for a few miners, farmers, oil-rig workers etc.) in one city, and the rest of the continent for food production, resource extraction, and national parks. We might even finally get some decent public transport. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I should read "The Caves Of Steel" again. It's so quaint that Isaac Asimov imagined his far future, tremendously over-populated, on the verge of starvation, imaginary world as having a population of eight billion. We're at about 7.25 billion already.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: downtowneddie on 13 Oct 2014, 12:58
There is a great infographic in the Chakrabarti book I mentioned earlier -- A Country of Cities: A Manifesto for an Urban America -- that says the entire world population of ca. 7.2 billion could fit into the land area of the state of Texas at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre, which is, essentially, reasonably sized townhouses.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 13 Oct 2014, 16:00
The question remains why you would want to do such a terrible thing. And having listened to Chakrabarti's lecture at Harvard good answers don't seem to be forthcoming.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 13 Oct 2014, 16:12
Reduction in resource consumption, ease of socialization (and networking), the ability to not have to drive half an hour to do anything, concentration of employers, more culture than country music, national chain restaurants, and hunting clubs (nothing wrong with hunting clubs and older country, but...)?

There's a reason why urbanization is increasing.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 13 Oct 2014, 17:15
Every time I live in a city it's a race against time to see what happens first. Killing myself or being able to move somewhere civilized. Also I find less small restaurants then chains in Urban areas, you might get more varieties in your chains however...

I honestly can't comprehend the desire to live in one of America's various urban hell holes.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Dalillama on 13 Oct 2014, 17:50
Indeed, the most of American cities are pretty poorly designed.  That was the gist of my initial comment, in fact; that, given the imperative nature of urbanization, it would pay great dividends were we to devote more thought and resources to building urban areas that don't suck.  Portland, Oregon (where I live), NYC, Minneapolis (so I hear), and surprisingly (to me anyway) Chicago are examples of same.  Also Seattle and a few other places, to an extent. 
national chain restaurants
I spit on your national chains, from a great height.  I can walk five minute from my home and pass half a dozen local eateries.  Downtown, where I work, I'm within 4 blocks of two separate food cart pods, which stretch for blocks and have literally (sic) dozens of different food options, from nearly as many different cultures.  That's not even mentioning the coffeeshops, which may outnumber the eateries; it's hard to say. 
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: GarandMarine on 13 Oct 2014, 21:21
I have been to every city you just listed except Portland and they ALL suck. Especially NYC. I've seen more appealing landfills. That smelled better come to think of it.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: hedgie on 13 Oct 2014, 22:24
Hmm.  I know that GM hates SF (a place weird enough were I actually feel at home), but I haven't been to many US cities.  Madison, WI is pretty cool, even if the winters are a wee bit cold.  Other than those, I've been to more European cities.  I can't stand to be in small towns, since it seems that the only culture is of the bacterial nature.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 14 Oct 2014, 06:51
Living in close quarters has caused many of the ills of society, some would suggest. Remember the story of the tower of Babel.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 14 Oct 2014, 07:04
But it would equally have facilitated some of societies greatest developments. See also the story of the Tower of Babel
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 14 Oct 2014, 19:01
Ok so it was 24 today, and I had an appointment at the garage, so I biked from the garage to work. Sadly, while the weather was ok, the number of hours of daylight was just not, so the bike is back in the basement.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 15 Oct 2014, 03:49
There's no shame in investing in a decent set of lights.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 15 Oct 2014, 04:18
I freaking <3 my Philips Saferide 80. (I just wish I could put a dynamo on my trike, rather than have to recharge that thing. But, it's got a Mini-USB to charge from, and takes NiMH AAs, so...)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 15 Oct 2014, 09:06
There's no shame in investing in a decent set of lights.

True.  The problem is the large overlap of dark and snow in Canada.

Still, I'll probably pull the trigger on something like this over the winter, to be ready for spring.  Daytime highs in the single digits are looming.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 15 Oct 2014, 15:54
I just wish I could put a dynamo on my trike, rather than have to recharge that thing.
Dynamo lights (actually, modern systems use an alternator, not a dynamo) are elegant, and the better ones impose little drag. The problem with them, in my opinion, is that they are simply not bright enough for riding at night in city traffic where they have to compete with so many, much brighter, lights in an environment designed around motor-vehicles.

Most good quality hub generators (Schmidt, Shimano etc.) are built to meet German legal requirements and have a rated output at 15kph of 0.5A @ 6V, or 3W. Even if you install a battery-powered rear light, so you can devote that entire output to your headlamp, it is not very much. Good systems have very well designed optics to make the best possible use of the light, but it is just not adequate for night riding in a totally car-centric city in my opinion.

I think the 12V Busch-Muller Dymotec S12 is still available, and that has a more respectable 6W output, but it is a "bottle" style generator that relies on a drive-wheel pressed against the side of your bike's rear tyre. These tend to suffer from slippage in wet weather, and impose wear on your sidewall, but are an option to consider. The 6W output is still not that great, however.

I have a 12V 5A/Hr rechargeable battery on my bike, driving a 25W halogen headlamp and a 9-LED non-flashing rear light. The current drain is such that the battery can run the system for about 1.5 hours (my current commute ride is roughly 30 minutes, my longest ever was just under an hour). I went for a sealed lead-acid battery rather than anything more exotic because they are relatively inexpensive, and good-quality "float" battery-chargers are available from car/motorbike accessory places at low cost so you can easily afford to have one at home and one at work if needed. More modern, lighter weight battery types (NiCd, NiMH, LiIon etc.) and their chargers are much more expensive. A general rule with bike lighting is: "Light, Cheap, Powerful: Chose two".

If I were thinking about doing the Paris-Brest-Paris (http://www.audax.org.au/public/index.php/paris-brest-paris) randonnée, or something else that required riding all night, I would install a generator lighting system, but for city night-commuting I think the money (for good generator systems are not cheap) is much better spent on a powerful rechargeable battery system.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 15 Oct 2014, 16:16
Mind you, my cycle commuting is mostly on cycle infrastructure or through business driveways, which does help with the whole having to compete against cars thing.

I could always get new steering knuckles made for my trike to take the available single-sided hub (the SON XS-M), mind you... and then on a tadpole trike, there's the possibility of running two of them for extra power.

The other thing that can help increase power output is reducing wheel size while using a hub set up for a large wheel, although the SON XS is already set up for ~20" wheels.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 15 Oct 2014, 16:38
Boosting the output of your generator by fitting it in a smaller wheel than it was designed for, or simply riding faster than the stately 15kph assumed by German law, raises problems of bulb-matching. Many generator lighting systems have voltage-control electronics to prevent excess voltage blowing the bulb. If you bypass that and install a bulb that can run at higher voltage, you need to make sure the mounting can stand up to the increased heating. And even if you double the output, it is still not high compared to a battery system.

I have seen clever designs (http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~daniel/sreg.htm) for home-brewed electronic regulators that divert excess generator output to charge batteries, and then draw on the batteries to prevent the headlamp dimming when riding slowly, uphill for example, but I don't think anything like that is available on the retail market. If I went for a generator system, I would consider building one.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 15 Oct 2014, 17:09
Although, if you're designing the light driver electronics specifically for the higher power available, complete with a LED module and all that's optimized for it... (It might be worth looking at the pedelec version of the Saferide 80, for that, actually...)

And, actually, the B&M IQ2 Luxos U stores excess energy to do short bursts of 90 lux operation (default is 70 lux). Of course, that doesn't say anything about how many lumens it is...
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 15 Oct 2014, 22:54
Akima,

I find it strange that you say you would have higher powered lighting for the city than you would for rural riding. I usually downpower for city and urban riding and save the bigger stuff for night riding out in the country. This is pretty much standard practice for cyclists in the UK and on a personal level I don't experience an increase in visibility issues at night.

My current set up is to have a small Cateye light on top of my handlebars and a Hope Vision 1 slung underneath. The Hope runs on it's lowest power setting unless there's oncoming traffic that I want to dip their headlights or the surface is rough/I'm on a fast descent. I might also bump it up if the weather related visibility is exceptionally poor. As soon as I hit an urban area or a long stretch of road with lighting I switch to the Cateye and usually on flashing mode.

On the rear I usually run a couple of 1/2W Smarts on flashing and a Fibre Flare. If I'm in a group then that gets knocked down to a single Smart on constant unless I'm Charlie-ing for any reason.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 16 Oct 2014, 01:16
I find it strange that you say you would have higher powered lighting for the city than you would for rural riding.
I didn't. Ideally, I would have powerful lighting all the time, town or country. The reason I'd go with lower-powered lighting on a PBP ride, for example, is that powerful battery lights wouldn't last throughout the night. I know that the "conventional wisdom" is that some glow-worm-like blinkie is adequate for riding in the city, I just don't buy it. I've had to take avoiding action on too many occasions when drivers plainly didn't pick me out of the river of headlights flowing toward them as they squint into the dazzle.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 16 Oct 2014, 01:41
PBP is a bit of a weird one because for at least the first 60 hours of most people's riding there's the function of a constant stream of bike traffic. It's also very well known and understood by the communities that it passes through. High powered lighting feels uncessecary for most of it although the high speed descent of Roc Trevezel demands the best lighting you can give it. On Super Brevet Scandinavia I had a rechargable light and had a charger in my drop bag. However in August you're looking at 5 hours of proper darkness tops, a couple of which will likely be spent sleeping.

Next years PBP will probably be the Hope Vision 1 and buying AA batteries on the fly. The current riding plan puts me on 2.5 night sections if my training plan pans out. If I make it to the Transcontinental in 2016 then I will most likely aim for a hub dynamo light and a small AA powered back up light and a modded head torch. The hub will also be used to charge devices during the day.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ev4n on 17 Oct 2014, 05:51
Man, PBP is like the holy grail for me, in some respects.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 17 Oct 2014, 06:41
Do it. You have 10 months to train up to it which is enough, particularly for someone who has some base fitness in place anyway. Admittedly Canada isn't the best place to start a training programme in October but box set turbo sessions in the basement and a SS ratbike for getting out on the good days will do a lot to get ready to head out as soon as the weather breaks in Spring.

I know it's a bit of a daunting prospect but I reckon just commiting to doing it is the hard starting part. You don't have to commit to doing it until registration time in June and you won't want to regret not doing it for another four years. Your local randonneuring group should be able to give some advice about how it's done from your neck of the woods.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: SubaruStephen on 18 Oct 2014, 07:49
A high-end TREK bicycle comes in at less than that... though at $1,979, with tax added it probably nicks that total.

That's... not high-end, and Trek's got a bike over $10k.

My Uncle bought one of those, it's insanely light, I can literally pick it up with one finger.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 24 Apr 2015, 15:02
Does anyone own a Trek? If so, this (http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/news/article/trek-issues-massive-quick-release-skewer-recall-44144/) might be of interest.

The potential for serious problems if QR skewers are improperly used is one of the reasons why I think they are a silly idea unless you're taking part in a cycle-sport where quick wheel-changing is important. Seriously, just use a nutted axle and carry a spanner.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 27 Apr 2015, 12:27
The problem is only if you don't do up the catch.  I dare say there are dangers if you don't do up your wheel nuts as well.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 27 Apr 2015, 12:34
The likelihood of failure is roughly the same but  the consequences are potentially far worse. I'm hesitant as to whether this warrants a recall but clearly Trek have gone through their calculations and determined it to be a cost they would rather bear.

Mind you, despite over a decade with a majority of my wheels being quick release, I've never failed to do them up and noticed pretty quickly on the one bike I got on where someone had.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 27 Apr 2015, 15:41
I dare say there are dangers if you don't do up your wheel nuts as well.
I agree, but threaded nuts are something that most people understand pretty well because they are so widely used. QRs are more complex and you have to learn how to use them (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/HowTo/UseAQuickRelease.htm)*. Of course there is a wider problem here of casual cyclists receiving little, if any, guidance or training, especially if they buy their bike somewhere other than a bike-shop (though there are plenty of crappy bike-shops around too). The prevalence of "lawyer lips" on the front forks of many bikes (which remove the advantage of QR attachment anyway), is more evidence of this.

*I don't agree with the author of that article on QRs vs. nutted axles, but it illustrates the point.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Apr 2015, 03:49
So the real problem is people not knowing that they don't know how to use things.  There will never be a way of getting round all the consequences of that!

For my part, it was just blindingly obvious - I suppose that part of my brain is why I became an engineer.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: mustang6172 on 01 May 2015, 18:38
Yesterday morning I witnessed a young man riding a bike on a 5-lane highway going the wrong way while texting.

(http://www.cavemancircus.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2012/februrary/i_dont_want_to_live_on_this_planet_anymore/i_dont_want_to_live_on_this_planet_anymore_20.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: hedgie on 01 May 2015, 20:58
I tend to think of them as "Darwin Awards in training".  I walk, cycle, or take the bus or take transit everywhere, but some people are just too incompetent.  It doesn't help that I live in a University town, so every term, there's a new crop of kids who will be riding three or four across, out of the bike lane and just don't give a shit.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 02 May 2015, 01:42
Salmoning while texting on a 5-lane highway? :psyduck:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: ankhtahr on 16 May 2015, 11:43
I just looked into getting my bicycle in shape again. Shimano's service instructions website (http://si.shimano.com/) is directly from hell. I spent over an hour trying to find out, what kind of chainwheel I currently have, so I could find out which chainrings would fit. Turns out that the replacement chainrings aren't mentioned on that site at all. Also: buying the whole chainwheel again is actually cheaper than exchanging the chainrings. Funfact: the instructions given by Shimano on how to install the chainwheel are one singular sentence: "Use an 8mm Allen key to install the chainwheel". That's the whole installation instructions. Well, so far I've shown some talent in bike repairs, so I don't think that should be a problem. My common sense is good in regard to mechanics.

So far I can't afford bike parts anyway, but at least now I know that buying the tools required and the parts costs about half of what the bike store told me as an estimate for a repair.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 18 May 2015, 03:04
OK, two questions,

1) What is the make and model of your bike.

2) What do you need to replace the chainwheel (presuming here that you mean the big cog attached to the pedals sometimes referred to as a chainring)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 18 May 2015, 15:33
Might be useful: http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/chainrings.html and http://sheldonbrown.com/cribsheet-bcd.html

Ankhtar distinguishes between chainwheel and chainring in his post. I assume that by chainwheel, he means the the whole chainring/stackbolts/crank assembly.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 18 May 2015, 23:21
Which is something that I would call a chainset or crankset.

Actually, not that I think of of it, an 8mm Allen key would be common use for removing a crank locking pin. But there's currently a few different systems so after that it can vary a bit. http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help (http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help) can be helpful as well with some fairly good video guides. May also be work seeing of there's a bike kitchen or free access bike repair space in your area. These are places where you can make free use of tools and get advice from experienced people in exchange for volunteering a bit of time further down the line.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Stoon on 21 May 2015, 19:57
I bicycle until there's snow on the ground.  I drive through the winter, and then when the snow melts bicycle again.

I used bike in winter as well, but my bike at the time wasn't the best.  I got a new bike, which was truly awful for winter biking, and haven't cycled in winter since.

I think I'm one of only 3 people in the city who follow the rules of the road cycling. 

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 22 May 2015, 17:27
In Sydney, I am lucky enough to be able to cycle through the winter pretty easily. There's no ice on the road, and the coldest I've known in the city is low single figures Celsius. Heavy rain is the main weather challenge here. Years ago, I switched to wearing motocross goggles (http://www.mxstore.com.au/category/protective-gear/adult-protective-gear/adult-goggles) for eye protection, partly because of the clouds of dirty spray thrown up by the wheels and air-turbulence of passing trucks.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Caleb on 15 Sep 2015, 23:53
Bicycle rant.  If anyone who knows anything about bikes can weigh in that would be great.

So my Raleigh's back wheel finally needed replacement.

I went the place in town three times.  The first time I was unsure of why the wheel price was like %50 less than what I had been told before.

So it seemed the wheel they put on there was much thinner than the original wheel.  Like MUCH thinner.  I even took it in after I picked it up and was told that it was fine.

The wheel broke a spoke within a few bike rides.  I hardly used it.

I took back the bike again and again told them to please get a proper wheel on it.

They ONLY replaced the wheel and used the same tire.  SO it's the SAME type of thin wheel that broke before.

They must think I am an idiot because they left the HAND tuned spoke price tag of $189 on it.

i just don't understand how the SAME type of wheel could possibly not just break in the same way no matter how hand tuned the spokes.

And of course the comments regarding my weight weren't helpful either.  I am just under 300 pounds now.  THE ORIGINAL WHEEL WAS FINE.   I don't see how saying "it's not the wheel it's the amount of strain / strength you put on it".  "it's not going to handle going over a curb with you on it".  The original wheel MAGICALLY didn't crumple under my weight after years of heavy use.

So yeah $150 for the first round and now another $120 for this wheel replacement.

Which again I don't understand since it's the SAME type of wheel.  How can having a price tag saying $198 spokes make a difference?  Is this a real thing?  I mean if the wheel is the wrong wheel having a more expensive WRONG type of wheel and tire can't possibly make a difference.

And of course a 5 second google search found the local raleigh official shop in VT and they told me they could get me a replacement easily.  I just DON'T understand.  Why couldn't this shop simply get me a proper wheel off the internet.

Pictures of the replacement wheel that broke after about 5 miles of biking.  So you can see the difference between the big beefy front wheel and the shit thin back wheel.  (well you can't really see it but yeah)

(http://i516.photobucket.com/albums/u330/Dreamcastguy/IMG_4206.jpg) (http://s516.photobucket.com/user/Dreamcastguy/media/IMG_4206.jpg.html)

(http://i516.photobucket.com/albums/u330/Dreamcastguy/IMG_4207.jpg) (http://s516.photobucket.com/user/Dreamcastguy/media/IMG_4207.jpg.html)

(http://i516.photobucket.com/albums/u330/Dreamcastguy/IMG_4208.jpg) (http://s516.photobucket.com/user/Dreamcastguy/media/IMG_4208.jpg.html)

(http://i516.photobucket.com/albums/u330/Dreamcastguy/IMG_4209.jpg) (http://s516.photobucket.com/user/Dreamcastguy/media/IMG_4209.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 16 Sep 2015, 02:30
And of course a 5 second google search found the local raleigh official shop in VT and they told me they could get me a replacement easily.  I just DON'T understand.  Why couldn't this shop simply get me a proper wheel off the internet.
Just as there are shitty garages that rip you off, I'm afraid there are shitty bike shops that do the same, and unfortunately you found one. Possibly they are cycle-sport jerks who don't know or care about transportation cycling, or maybe they are just jerks.

On spokes, careful tuning of their tension can improve their life, but this is not normally relevant or required for transportation bikes. It's more of a racing-bike thing where light weight is the Holy Grail.

Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 16 Sep 2015, 04:07
The width of the wheel isn't a big issue. The Bontrager TLR is a double wall rim that functionally isn't going to be any weaker than the Weinmann XC260 rim that you have on the front. Also, this isn't going to be the cause of the spoke breaking. The hub itself is going to be of pretty much the same dimensions including the flanges and the spokes are still going to lace to centre rim. If anything the depth of the Bontrager rim means you're more likely have shorter spokes which comes with a greater breaking strain. Size doesn't immediately correlate to strength in this instance.

Obviously this doesn't gel with your experience which means that something else is at play. The main cause of spoke breakage is metal fatigue through flexing of a untensioned/detensioned spoke. However, from experience, this is unlikely to happen in 5 miles of usage. 20 maybe, 50 most likely. It's one of those exponential things. So I'm inclined to think it's simple mechanical failure. Metal is a crystaline structure and every now and again there will be imperfections in it. So while it may have been fine in construction of the wheel, a shear plate could easily come exposed under load. That's the most likely explanation to me.

I've had a very similar experience to you. I bought a new wheel, had a spoke go within about ten miles of using it. I took it back to the shop, the mechanic there gave it a quick check on the other spokes, felt they were OK, put a new one in and the wheel then lasted me for a good long time with minimal servicing.

Your 300lbs isn't that big an issue either. While touring in Canada we ended up with a dying rear wheel in the middle of the prairie provinces. We picked up the only 700c wheel that was actually available for sale in a town we stopped in. It was a thin, lightweight racing wheel similar to your rear wheel and again with minimal servicing lasted the remaining 2500 miles of our journey and quite some time after that. This was on a bike fully loaded with rider, panniers, tent, sleeping mat etc. You may find that a narrower rim is a less comfortable ride and slightly more prone to torsional distortion (going out of true through hard cornering) but that's about it.

Your description of the bike shop does suggest that they sold you what they had, not what they wanted which is pretty bad and any comments about your weight are both insensitive and irrelevant. On that basis I wouldn't go back to them as a customer.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Caleb on 17 Sep 2015, 10:39
Thanks for the replies guys.

This new wheel hasn't broke yet.

So shorter spokes are a thing.  But does more spokes = more toughness?

Because this new wheel seems to have more spokes than the one that broke.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 17 Sep 2015, 10:41
More spokes means more fault tolerance - if a spoke isn't quite evenly tensioned, more spokes take up the load, and then it's less likely to fail. It's not necessarily a stronger wheel if everything's tensioned properly, but it's a wheel that can take weakness in the structure more easily.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 17 Sep 2015, 13:13
Bit strange if it seems to have a higher spoke count as the TLR is designed as a low spoke count , low weight, race ready wheel. I would expect a 24 spoke wheel but, unless you're doing proper cross country or cyclocross then you shouldn't notice a different. It may be a bit stiffer and therefore a fraction less comfortable at higher speeds depending on what tyre you're using. If you aren't happy with the current one, stick on a Schwalbe Kojak at mid pressure, a fine tyre well suited to utility cycling as well as longer recreational efforts.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Caleb on 17 Sep 2015, 16:10
WHY would they put a RACE ready wheel on my comfort bike that I am riding everyday to work to lose weight???????????

Sheesh.

I will take your advice and keep the new wheel at mid pressure.  I was doing that anyway since it seemed to make sense for my situation.

I am sorry for complaining so much about this.  I make nothing at my current job and I can't afford this nonsense and time wasted.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 17 Sep 2015, 20:02
I think "TLR" in Bontrager-speak simply means "tube-less ready". They apply it to a whole family of wheels ranging from low-spoke roadie rims to higher spoke-count mountain-bike wheels.

Spoke-count is not the only factor in wheel strength, but generally, other things being equal, a wheel with more spokes will be tougher, which is why you see higher spoke-counts on MTB wheels, and low spoke-counts on wheels intended for riding on smooth roads. Essentially, your weight, and the weight of all non-wheel parts of your bike, "hang" on the spokes at the top of the wheels, and sharing that over more spokes gives you a greater margin for error. There is also the issue of lateral stiffness, and generally speaking low-spoke count wheels are less stiff that wheels with more spokes (again other things being equal). The main driver for low-spoke wheels is aerodynamics, which is chiefly a racing concern.

These are rather abstruse points for a transport cyclist, but commuting can be hard on wheels. Most of the ride will be on smoothish tarmac/concrete etc. but it is not always possible to avoid areas where the surface has broken up, and sometimes you have to bunny-hop a kerb, or take radical avoiding action. My bike has 406mm wheels (the same size as most BMX bikes) with 32-spoke Velocity Aeroheat wheels. It is probably a bit over-built, but so far the wheels have stood up well.

WHY would they put a RACE ready wheel on my comfort bike that I am riding everyday to work to lose weight???????????
Leaving aside the probability that they are just a bunch of pricks (which seems high given their comments on your weight), there is a significant problem with bike-shops in Australia focussing very strongly on cycle-sports, and this might be true in the USA too. There is only one bike-shop in Sydney (as far as I know) that specialises in transportation cycling. It is fair to say that this reflects the emphasis of the cycling industry generally, at least in the English-speaking world, and it leads to poor choices being offered to transport cyclists.

For example, there are plenty of "comfort bikes" on offer that are built on frames better suited to fast road riding than commuting, because manufacturers like to share the frames across a wide range of bikes. The tight clearances at the top of the forks, and sometimes the choice of brakes, don't provide clearance for sensibly-wide tyres, and the bikes are sold with narrow wheels and slim high-pressure tyres, which give a harsher ride, and require closer attention to maintaining pressure if you want to avoid pinch-flats. Then, to address the harshness, they fit suspension forks, adding an additional weight and complexity that would not be necessary if sensible wheels and tyres could be fitted. Unnecessarily high bottom-brackets on transport or comfort bikes built on sporting frames is another example of a "sport" feature being imposed where it is not fit for the purpose, and it can even lead to knee injury if the rider is not clued up.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 18 Sep 2015, 05:08
Vaguely relevant to the thread and for those who are interested in such things, we have a new speed record for a human powered vehicle. Todd Reichert hit a speed of 85.71mph in a relatively big leap towards the holy grail of the 100.

More details here for those easily impressed by feats of radical engineering and swathes of carbon fibre*:

https://jnyyz.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/bm2015-todd-reichert-is-the-fastest-man-on-earth/ (https://jnyyz.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/bm2015-todd-reichert-is-the-fastest-man-on-earth/)

*raises hand
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 18 Sep 2015, 11:41
There is debate that I've seen in the past about whether cameraliner records are really legitimate, though, as the camera is a system required to ride the vehicle at all, and is powered from stored energy (nobody's running cameras and the displays off of dynamo hubs).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 18 Sep 2015, 12:35
That sounds a little nitpicky but I guess they have something of a point. Of course on a flat, straight, closed road like Battle Mountain, the visual accuity required to pilot along it with limited port holes. With a bit of clever lensing and good join tech you could be balancing drag against tech weight. Not sure where these debates stand on solar or even cameras powered by dermal conductivity. It's all a reminder that we're still very much in the proof of concept stage. I'm not sure how much a purpose engineered dyno hub would have affected the speed though.

Fascinating stuff.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 19 Sep 2015, 01:14
Reichert now at 86.5.

Final day today and some optimism for a McFly. Hard to imagine as Reichert looked like he could barely stand after the 85.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 19 Sep 2015, 04:30
http://ihpva.org/rules.htm is a useful read. (And, similar language exists in older revisions of the rules.)

And, here's the relevant rules:
Quote
3.1.1 Power: Vehicles must be driven solely by human power. Non-human power sources (batteries, solar cells, etc.) are permitted only for powering sensors, displays, communication equipment and lights. Control devices, cooling fans, powered aerodynamic devices, etc., may not be powered from non-human sources.

3.1.2 Energy Storage: No device which stores energy over more than one input power cycle (e.g., one leg stroke), or which releases energy under control of the operator, may be used in any event except the road race, or speed events longer than one mile. Energy storage devices are permitted in these events provided no energy is stored before the start of the event (this means absolutely no chemical, electrical, kinetic, potential, or other form of energy storage at the start.)

I'd argue that solar power is treated identically to a pre-charged battery by the regulations. Dermal conduction is power generated by the human, however (unless someone slathers additives to the skin to increase the energy in that cell, then it becomes a pre-charged battery again)...

I think part of the controversy was that the "sensors" and "displays" language was intended for cycle computers running off of coin cells, that were helpful but not strictly necessary, not cameras and big backlit color displays running off of a Li-Ion, that were critical to piloting the vehicle.

In any case, there's been at least two rules revisions since that debate happened, and I think the consensus was that as long as the wheels are propelled solely by human power, the vehicle is steered solely by human power, and any aerodynamic effect changes during the run are made solely by human power, it's good. (This is why the language about cooling fans needing to be human-powered exists - and Australian International Pedal Prix actually revised their rules for this year to ban cooling fans, to avoid cheating by using a cooling fan to propel the vehicle.)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 20 Sep 2015, 09:06
An interesting comment from a guy who does reporting from Battle Mountain every year.

Quote
Cameras do make it easier to get a nice clean shape as the rider can be leaned further back.  Jan-Marcel says that in his riding position he'd only be able to see his knees.  As a bonus, the electronics enhance the view in low light such as we get when the evening sessions are running late.  Reliability and resolution are now both very good and if you're suitably clever you can overlay all sorts of information onto the basic view rather than just scrawling a list of target speeds on the inside of the windscreen with a crayon.  Todd is even monitoring CO2 levels 


As for the Aussie Pedal Prix, I have bern begging my team manager for leg venting for years and still haven't got it. I doubt I'd be allowed a cooling fan of any description.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 11 Aug 2017, 15:50
An illustration of how dangerous rail/tram tracks can be, how important it is to cross them at an angle as close to ninety degrees as possible, and how quite minor changes to cycling infrastructure can make cycling safer:
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 18 Aug 2017, 06:45
You know, I very occasionally hear about inexperienced cyclists (tourists and exchange students mostly) getting caught in a tram track here in Amsterdam but I've never seen it happen, nor has it happened to me, and I have no problems crossing roads such as these (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Tram_Ceintuurbaan.jpg) as long as I avoid aligning my front wheel with the track. Are our tram tracks just different? (http://osbexact.nl/images/warmte/warmte_uitzetting_tramspoor_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 20 Aug 2017, 17:11
Tram-tracks in Australia (https://railgallery.wongm.com/albums/melbourne-tram-tracks/E122_5182.jpg) look very much the same. In the video I linked above, the tracks are for trains rather than trams, and might be larger or have wider slots. I think rider familiarity with tram/rail tracks is the key factor. Riding over them is not difficult or dangerous provided that one takes the right angle. It *might* be that narrower wheels and tyres are more prone to "falling into" the track slot, and so require more care, which could be an issue in places (like Australia) where the bicycles mostly offered for sale are more oriented towards cycle-sports than transportation riding.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Ignominious on 21 Aug 2017, 04:54
I can confirm this. My polo bike is fitted with tyres which are of a width more common to those used for daily use in places like the Netherlands and Denmark. I've occasionally taken a lazy (or drunk) line over the tracks in my home town and, apart from a light squirm, tracks don't really catch the wheel. OTOH, I have dumped the front wheel of my road bike in tram tracks and it's never a good thing.

For reference, the tyres common to a 29er are almost completely untroubled by tram tracks at pretty much any angle.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 21 Aug 2017, 06:14
Oh, they're train tracks. I would never have guessed; the idea of a train crossing without multiple conspicuous red-and-white signs and automatic barriers (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZCqlv2yxlI8/maxresdefault.jpg) I find so alien, it's almost unimaginable. On top of that, the vast majority of train crossings here are also oriented at ninety degrees so it's basically impossible for riders to get caught between the tracks.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Akima on 21 Aug 2017, 15:55
That's pretty much true in Australia too now, however in rural districts you still see level-crossings that are signposted, but not equipped with warning lights or barriers (http://h7.alamy.com/comp/J64327/rural-railway-crossing-berry-new-south-wales-nsw-australia-J64327.jpg). Drivers are simply expected to stop and look for oncoming trains. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/more-country-rail-crossings-to-get-safety-boost-after-vline-smash-20160724-gqcou6.html). Even where there are barriers and warning lights, you can't stop idiots from being idiots (https://www.acri.net.au/event/rtsa-engineers-australia-level-crossing-presentation/).
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 21 Aug 2017, 17:56
You're also seeing it from overhead.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: LTK on 22 Aug 2017, 04:53
That's pretty much true in Australia too now, however in rural districts you still see level-crossings that are signposted, but not equipped with warning lights or barriers (http://h7.alamy.com/comp/J64327/rural-railway-crossing-berry-new-south-wales-nsw-australia-J64327.jpg). Drivers are simply expected to stop and look for oncoming trains. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/more-country-rail-crossings-to-get-safety-boost-after-vline-smash-20160724-gqcou6.html). Even where there are barriers and warning lights, you can't stop idiots from being idiots (https://www.acri.net.au/event/rtsa-engineers-australia-level-crossing-presentation/).
Funnily enough, the same is true of my country, even though 'rural' means something very different in a country roughly the size of New York.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: bhtooefr on 10 May 2018, 07:45
I'll put this here because it does end up intersecting bicycles, although it's about cars.

‘Wild West’ Ohio Beckons Self-Driving Cars Even After Uber Death (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-09/uber-car-death-doesn-t-faze-kasich-from-making-ohio-wild-west)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: JoeCovenant on 11 May 2018, 05:23

This thread cropped up in the Unreads - never seen it before - but a bit of synchronicity, as I saw *this* yesterday

 Bike Share Oversupply (https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-oversupply-in-china-huge-piles-of-abandoned-and-broken-bicycles/556268/)
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: pwhodges on 11 May 2018, 05:35
We have four companies doing bike share in Oxford.  No piles like that, but bikes abandoned in the oddest places!
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: Ignominious on 11 May 2018, 07:25
Ofo, Mobike and some of the others have been implementing codes of conduct with local authorities where they want to offer services. I know Ofo have actually lead on this in order to assuage councils that have fears about what happened in China and some of the other places they operate. Part of that is introducing supply in line with demand and usage.

Abandonment in strange places is an occupational hazard of dockless systems but companies are getting better about rounding them up and being responsive to reports from the public.
Title: Re: Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
Post by: jwhouk on 11 May 2018, 12:14
Ofo and GridBike operate here in Mesa. The bikes are all over the place, but are most notably at bus stops (which isn't surprising, of course).

I haven't tried either one, though I do have the app on my iPad.

Other news: the Giant Revive is back in business, after suffering a flat tire in the front. I now also have a supercool basket on the back, instead of the saddlebag I was using to store stuff. I can actually use the bike for more than just back-and-forth stuff.

Now, I only need to convince the wife to let me use it out on the city streets...