cracking down on bicycles - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about sports cars, aeroplanes, ships, rockets etc.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By Godstud
#13628887
There's still ice on sidewalks and you can still end up just as injured. Don't shoot common sense and intelligence in the foot merely because you're against "buying" anything. :roll:

Common Sense Intelligence says: "Don't ride a bicycle in winter."
By Pants-of-dog
#13628920
QatzelOk wrote:Voluntary simplicity says: "take the empty sidewalks, they're safer than the roads after a snowstorm."


Not really. Unplowed sidewalks with an inch of packed snow are more slippery than a rut left by tires. Those ruts have only a few millimeters of snow over clean asphalt. A set of studded 700x28s can easily cut through those few millimeters to get traction underneath, and the studs will prevent you from slipping on ice.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13629471
Both of you are arguing that a slippery sidewalk is just as dangerous as a slippery road.

This is the "helmet" mentality that thinks that cyclists just need padding and discipline to co-exist with mass quantities of cars and trucks.

The sidewalk has no cars: this is a thousand times safer than the road.

[youtube]PXd5lb-iNEU[/youtube]
.

The most dangerous parts of sidewalks are where garage exits have been implanted into mid-block buildings - usually highrises.

But after a snowstorm, the sidewalk is a thousand times safer than the road. You can cycle stoned on the sidewalk, and not risk anything more dangerous than a sliding fall on crushed snow.

Trying to put an ideological spin on environmental adaptation - as you both Godstud and Pants are doing - is part of our Modern sickness. You have to adapt to each challenging environmental condition as it comes. Sticking to ideological "rules" won't work. You need to pay attention to the actual situation, and consider all of your options. Not just the ones that are written in the sacred books (the rules of the road).
.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13629685
Both of you are arguing that a slippery sidewalk is just as dangerous as a slippery road.

Then let cars drive on the sidewalks.

Oh wait, sidewalks are meant for pedestrians, which excludes bicyclists too. Your entire shpeel there Qatz is a defense of rude and dangerous driving. Why is it that you on your vehicle endangering pedestrians is more acceptable then cars endangering cyclists?
By Pants-of-dog
#13629726
QatzelOk wrote:Both of you are arguing that a slippery sidewalk is just as dangerous as a slippery road.


No. I am arguing that the street is less slippery than a sidewalk.

This is the "helmet" mentality that thinks that cyclists just need padding and discipline to co-exist with mass quantities of cars and trucks.

The sidewalk has no cars: this is a thousand times safer than the road.

The most dangerous parts of sidewalks are where garage exits have been implanted into mid-block buildings - usually highrises.

But after a snowstorm, the sidewalk is a thousand times safer than the road. You can cycle stoned on the sidewalk, and not risk anything more dangerous than a sliding fall on crushed snow.


Like I said, the sidewalk is for children and pedestrians. If you cycle as fast as my kids, then feel free to go on the sidewalks. I go as fast as most cars. I'll use the road. Safety has nothing to do with padding. It has to do with awareness, visibility, good bike maintenance, and being able to anticipate possible dangers.

Trying to put an ideological spin on environmental adaptation - as you both Godstud and Pants are doing - is part of our Modern sickness. You have to adapt to each challenging environmental condition as it comes. Sticking to ideological "rules" won't work. You need to pay attention to the actual situation, and consider all of your options. Not just the ones that are written in the sacred books (the rules of the road).


Refusing to use studded tires is your way of considering all of your options?
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13629858
Pants wrote:the sidewalk is for children and pedestrians

This statement, like "bikes are vehicles like cars," and "helmets save lives" are examples of ideology, and not of common sense.

Likewise "Just buy product x" is an example of the ideology of consumerism.

These ideologies have practically replaced common sense and utilitarian logic in wealthy, consumer societies. If all I need to do is "buy" my way to safety, I think I'll get myself a GMC Yukon with kangaroo bars. :lol:
By Pants-of-dog
#13629896
Yes, I can see how much more utilitarian and common sensical it is to ride on the thicker snow of the sidewalk (with all the pedestrians) without a helmet or studded tires at speeds that are either dangerous or uselessly slow, as compared to moving along with traffic at a useful speed on tires that grip the asphalt well by slicing cleanly through the thin covering of snow (as they were designed to) while wearing highly visible gear and riding a well maintained bicycle with lights and all the reflectors required by the highway code.

I must be blinded by consumer ideology.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13629946
QatzelOk wrote:This statement, like "bikes are vehicles like cars," and "helmets save lives" are examples of ideology, and not of common sense.

:knife:
1. A bicycle is a vehicle.
Vehicle
A device or structure for transporting persons or things;


2. Helmets do save lives;
Bicycle Deaths by Helmet Use
1994-2006
Year No Helmet Helmet Total*
1994 776 (97%) 19 (2%) 796
1995 783 (95%) 34 (4%) 828
1996 731 (96%) 27 (4%) 761
1997 785 (97%) 23 (3%) 811
1998 741 (98%) 16 (2%) 757
1999 698 (93%) 42 (6%) 750
2000 622 (90%) 50 (7%) 689
2001 616 (84%) 60 (8%) 729
2002 589 (89%) 54 (8%) 663
2003 535 (85%) 58 (9%) 626
2004 602 (83%) 87 (12%) 722
2005 676 (86%) 77 (10%) 784
2006 730 (95%) 37 (5%) 669
2007 646 (92%) 50 (7%) 699
2008 653 (91%) 58 (8%) 714

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

I hope you're wearing a helmet when you go cycling. The stats speak for themselves.

It's not ideology, it's fact.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13630621
^^ According to that chart, hundreds of helmet-wearing-cyclists have been killed while sharing the road with cars.

This demonstrates that the sidewalk is the correct place to cycle if safety is a concern.

Cars kill you no matter what you wear.

And sending people to their deaths wearing a helmet is the methodology of warfare, and not sane transportation advice.

Ideology has caused your opinion on this matter. It's not a rational stance for a mammal to take.
Last edited by QatzelOk on 16 Feb 2011 04:34, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By Trilobite
#13630630
In my city, cyclists say "left" or "right" as they come up behind you, so you know which side they'll be passing you on. If you're a newbie, it can be a bit frightening, but you do get used to it and come to expect it. *Shrugs*
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13630633
Trolobite wrote:you do get used to it and come to expect it.

Until most of the cars are eliminated, pedestrians and cyclists have got to get used to sharing too-narrow sidewalks together.

Sidewalks have their own etiquette, and cyclists need to remember that they are the guests when they are using them, and not the owners.

Likewise, when pedestrians walk on cycle paths they need to show the same grace.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13630766
QatzelOk wrote:Ideology has caused your opinion on this matter. It's not a rational stance for a mammal to take.
An opinion based on nothing more than your motor vehicle antipathy and your own ideological misconceptions. I truly have doubts that you know what rational is.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13631125
Referring to my opinions on bike safety, Godstud wrote:ideological misconceptions

I actually use my bike every day all year round as basic transportation.

Is that how YOU got your own opinions on the matter, or did you read texts about bike safety that made you want to stand up and cheer? (ideological misconceptions)
User avatar
By Godstud
#13631164
Are you at least smart enough to wear a helmet? You don't need to have a car involved to have an accident. I had many bicycle accidents(one where I broke my collarbone, and not my skull because I was wearing a helmet) and no car was ever involved with them. I also have a friend who suffered brain damage in an accident, but since he was wearing a helmet at the time, he isn't dead.

QatzelOk wrote:Is that how YOU got your own opinions on the matter,
I happen to be a Occupational Health & Safety professional whose job is safety. That's how I got my opinion. I am actually qualified to speak on the topic of safety. It's my career. I give seminars on the topic. As a result of this, I am always very aware of safety concerns. My opinions are based in knowledge.

FYI, the ties on the bike tires, while providing more traction during winter, are not going to protect your skull from impacts. Protect that brain of yours. Complacency is a main cause of accidents.
By Pants-of-dog
#13631227
QatzelOk wrote:...
This demonstrates that the sidewalk is the correct place to cycle if safety is a concern.


If only your safety is a concern. If pedestrian safety is a concern, then the sidewalk is a dangerous place for bikes.

QatzelOk wrote:Until most of the cars are eliminated, pedestrians and cyclists have got to get used to sharing too-narrow sidewalks together.


No. Some of us cyclists prefer to use the street. In my experience, it is faster and safer.

QatzelOk wrote:I actually use my bike every day all year round as basic transportation.

Is that how YOU got your own opinions on the matter, or did you read texts about bike safety that made you want to stand up and cheer? (ideological misconceptions)


Like you, I also ride my bike every day of the year. Every year I modify the design to make it safer.

And I use a helmet.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13632807
Every year I modify the design to make it safer.

And I use a helmet.

You're really obsessed with how dangerous cycling is.

Do you wear a helmet when you rollerblade as well?

Image
don't try this if you live in a militarized society

The safest places in the world for cycling, virtually no one wears "special equipment." Instead, the collective (government) reorganizes the public space (roadways) to make this popular lifestyle possible.

In North America, car companies own our governments, so we have a crappy built environment.

And until that changes, cyclists who fear our horrible and dangerous roads (that kill hundreds of helmet heads with the best of intentions) should just use the sidwalk.

In fact, using the sidewalk is a good way to protest shitty bike infrastructure.
Plus, you're much less likely to be killed by cars.
By Pants-of-dog
#13633116
QatzelOk wrote:You're really obsessed with how dangerous cycling is.

....
Plus, you're much less likely to be killed by cars.


Please do not quote my posts unless you are going to address my actual points.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13633935
Please do not quote my posts unless you are going to address my actual points.

I'll have my lawyers contact yours about any intellectual copyright infringements.

In responding to the bike venom of Pants, I must call everyone's attention to the fact that one of the crankiest groups for "cracking down" on cyclists is the spandex nazis. This group is composed of self-loathing cyclists who see themselves as part of some kind of mother-earth machine-cult.

Likewise, there are many "well meaning" endurance cyclists who frown at the vulgarization of what they see as part of their fetish-constructed identity. They use media to present the case for extreme laws and discipline.

These groups - like Pants, perhaps - see themselves as the Marquis de Sades of toe-clips.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13633998
QatzelOk. The only person directing any venom and spewing vitriol, is you. Your absolute ignorance of the subject, despite laying false claims to knowledge, is amazing.
By Pants-of-dog
#13634245
Godstud wrote:FYI, the ties on the bike tires, while providing more traction during winter, are not going to protect your skull from impacts. Protect that brain of yours. Complacency is a main cause of accidents.


Ties on bike tires seem like they would interfere with your brakes unless you have disk brakes. Disc brakes are expensive. If you have the money to buy disc brakes, you can afford studded tires.

To be fair, the first time around wasn't too dif[…]

Why do US citizens leave to live abroad? 1. H[…]

1. Hyper-nationalism. This attribute is not co[…]

"Not enough young workers"

I've never heard the complaint "not enough yo[…]