How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>Motor vehicles need the heavy expensive roads. Not bicycles. I could live
>with a smooth dirt path that is 'maintained' by constant bicycle travel.

That would be a rutted dirt path in short order, unless it rained in which case
it would wash away. Even some of the asphalt bike paths around
here are rutted from bicycle use.

>Without bicyclists there never would have been good roads in the USA.

Sure there would have. A few might have been later.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:

>> Motor vehicles need the heavy expensive roads. Not bicycles. I could
>> live with a smooth dirt path that is 'maintained' by constant
>> bicycle travel.

> That would be a rutted dirt path in short order, unless it rained in
> which case it would wash away. Even some of the asphalt bike paths
> around here are rutted from bicycle use.

Your first sentence is totally false. Your second one is just ridiculous.
(Channeling MV, perhaps?)

Other than that, great post.

BS

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:24:47 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:

>>Keep right except to pass. Otherwise your just a pedestrian LLB.
>
> Bull****.
>
> Cite the law (in any state you like) that tells pedestrians which
> "lane" they need to walk in. Answer: YOU CAN'T because no such law
> exists.

I didn't claim there was a law.

It's sad considerate behavior requires laws these days.

In article >,
Bill Sornson > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Brent P > wrote:
>
>>> Motor vehicles need the heavy expensive roads. Not bicycles. I could
>>> live with a smooth dirt path that is 'maintained' by constant
>>> bicycle travel.
>
>> That would be a rutted dirt path in short order, unless it rained in
>> which case it would wash away. Even some of the asphalt bike paths
>> around here are rutted from bicycle use.
>
>Your first sentence is totally false. Your second one is just ridiculous.

There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think
they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates?

The first statement is true as well; bicycles cut ruts in dirt paths.
What would you expect to happen when you continually put ~200 pounds
of pressure on two dinky little contact patches on dirt? You'll get a
rut in fairly short order.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Bill Sornson > wrote:
>> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Brent P > wrote:
>>
>>>> Motor vehicles need the heavy expensive roads. Not bicycles. I
>>>> could live with a smooth dirt path that is 'maintained' by constant
>>>> bicycle travel.
>>
>>> That would be a rutted dirt path in short order, unless it rained in
>>> which case it would wash away. Even some of the asphalt bike paths
>>> around here are rutted from bicycle use.
>>
>> Your first sentence is totally false. Your second one is just
>> ridiculous.
>
> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think
> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates?

Unless someone rode on /wet/ asphalt, there's no way a bike (or bikes) could
cause "ruts" or even an imprint.

> The first statement is true as well; bicycles cut ruts in dirt paths.
> What would you expect to happen when you continually put ~200 pounds
> of pressure on two dinky little contact patches on dirt? You'll get a
> rut in fairly short order.

This and your original statement are too "absolutist". A well-designed and
properly drained "dirt path" will NOT become rutted and/or wash away. I've
been riding the same trails for nearly 10 years now, and they haven't
changed appreciably at all. (Others were damaged by fires and subsequent
heavy rains.)

Bicycles can harm soft, wet trails, no doubt; not hard-packed, well-drained
paths and certainly not asphalt.

JMO, BS

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think
> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates?

The only time I've seen such things it was because kids rode across the
surface before it was cured. The tire tracks then become part of the
surface when it hardens.

> The first statement is true as well; bicycles cut ruts in dirt paths.
> What would you expect to happen when you continually put ~200 pounds
> of pressure on two dinky little contact patches on dirt? You'll get a
> rut in fairly short order.

Some of the best and fastest trails are ones that are just smoothly
dished 'rut'.

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Wayne Pein > wrote in
> om:
>
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used.
>>
>>I don't believe that. Can you provide documentation to support your
>>assertion?
>>
>>Wayne
>>
>>
>
>
> freeze-thaw cycles,heat buckling,water erosion of the bed underneath the
> paving(sinkholes in Florida!)
>
> Just a few examples.
>

As far as I know, freeze-thaw damage only occurs when cracks are first
formed in the surface from heavy vehicle use and water enters these and
freezes. I've never seen heat buckling in my neck of the woods here in
NC, but I can't discount that it might happen elsewhere. I suspect that
it occurs when heavy vehicles operate on the hot surface and is not a
function of mere heat. Water erosion of the subsurface can happen in
floods, but that is not quite what I believe the original poster meant
by deterioration, which implies slow degregation. Any natural disaster
can destroy roads, but the culprit of deterioration is not age from just
sitting there but use from motor vehicles, and more precisely heavy ones.

Wayne

Wayne Pein wrote:
> As far as I know, freeze-thaw damage only occurs when cracks are first
> formed in the surface from heavy vehicle use and water enters these and
> freezes. I've never seen heat buckling in my neck of the woods here in
> NC, but I can't discount that it might happen elsewhere. I suspect that
> it occurs when heavy vehicles operate on the hot surface and is not a
> function of mere heat. Water erosion of the subsurface can happen in
> floods, but that is not quite what I believe the original poster meant
> by deterioration, which implies slow degregation. Any natural disaster
> can destroy roads, but the culprit of deterioration is not age from just
> sitting there but use from motor vehicles, and more precisely heavy ones.

Wayne,

I think more damage is done to most roads where it snows and ices by
keeping them clear than by use or disuse. Check out the parts of the
Blue Ridge Parkway (in western NC) that are never cleared in winter;
they need to be repaved every 15-20 years, where nearby roads are
potholed after 5 years.

Let's see, the last numbers I saw indicated 41% of highway costs were
not paid by gas taxes and user fees. Throw cars off the roads, cut
re-paving and paving costs drop by 75%, and you still have 16% savings
from other taxes, right?

Pat

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote
> > fbloogyudsr wrote:
> >> "Bob" > wrote
> >> > I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
> >> > cyclists are causing.
> >>
> >> Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small,
is
> >> significant." If the answer was different (i.e., insignificant),
> > then *NO*
> >> separations for different traffic would exist. For instance,
no-one
> >> (in the Seattle area for instance) would be discussing bicycle
lanes,
> >> Bus Rapid Transit lanes, Light Rail, Monorail (the ultimate in
grade
> >> separation!), HOV lanes, HOT lanes, etc.
> >>
> >> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
> >> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
> >> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
> >> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.
> >>
> >> Floyd
> >
> > That's a non-answer that reminds me of Loncoln's famous reply when
> > someone asked him how long his legs were. He meant his reply of,
"Long
> > enough to reach the ground when I stand.", as a joke though.
> > To answer your implied question, yes I would if I was on a two lane
> > road and there were five or more vehicles formed in a line behind
me
> > and opposing traffic or other conditions made it unsafe for those
> > vehicles to pass me. That's what RCW 46.61.427 actually mandates.
> > That's a far cry from what seems to be your position of "any delay
is
> > significant so get the hell off the road".
>
> I double-dog-dare you to find any post where I wrote anything like
> your paraphrase directly above.
>
> Floyd

I said "any delay is significant so get the hell off the road" SEEMS to
be your position. If it isn't then I apologize for misinterpreting your
post. Fair enough?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 17 May 2005 23:05:08 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.

Autos don't pay anything. Their operators do.
Paying the fair share, perhaps, are all the haughty, egotistical,
road-hogging, milegage-logging SUV owners/drivers.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBQo1lFwIk7T39FC4ZEQLy3wCfSQxE9PLOtVlN5kLpXzhBHA AQAuAAn2fx
SuuzUYPZYEyGgmXN2Bj3uaHj
=NONi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info