HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elr@trintex.uucp (Ed Ravin)
Subject: Re: Ballantine on safety [Long]
Organization: Four Wheels Bad, Two Wheels Good
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:40:59 GMT

In article <rlewis.724449924@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis) writes:

>Like the fact that bike lanes and paths make things worse for cyclists?
>Or the fact that it's more dangerous using bike lanes than the road?

I don't recall Mike Smith or any other "Heap Big Eco-Warriors" making
the argument that these things should be concealed, as your post implies
they did.

>Like the
>fact that uniform enforcement of the traffic laws helps cyclists ... ?

Uniform enforcement?  Here in NYC we've finally gotten the police department
to tell us how many speeding and reckless driving tickets they give out
each year.  95% of all their speeding tickets are on limited access highways,
meaning essentially that they do not enforce speeding on normal city streets.
And get this -- average number of tickets issued for reckless driving in
each of the last three years is 46.  Forty six.

Transportation Alternatives in NYC has been asking for uniform enforcement for
years -- the police already have units that focus on ticketing cyclists,
sometimes even for bogus infractions like not using one the 6th avenue killer
bike lane.  Unfortunately, the cops don't ticket the worst-behaved cyclists,
'cause they're too fast to catch up with and won't provide proper ID anyway.
Meanwhile, a bill has been introduced in City Council that would allow
the cops to confiscate a bicycle for any traffic offense.  It has 30
co-sponsers.

Again, noone has called out for "concealment of the facts", and its a bit
disingenous to argue against something that hasn't happened.  The cyclists
who advocate automobile reduction do so because we want roadway space
(that's roadways, not bike paths) for bicycles that would otherwise be
usurped by unchecked automobile proliferation.  And we want the less
tangible "space" of a street where motorists accept the fact that the
roads are shared.  Not to mention the air pollution, water and ocean
pollution, solid waste disposal problems, materials usage, and the other
ten thousand environmental problems presented by the world's (and especially
the USA's) automobile habit.
-- 
Ed Ravin- elr@trintex.uucp| I like to think (and the sooner the better!)
  elr%trintex@uunet.uu.net| Of a cybernetic meadow where mammals and computers
           +1-914-993-4737| Live together in mutually programming harmony
my opinions, nobody else's| Like pure water touching clear sky.  -R. Brautigan
From: ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Politics of Cycling Speed
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 23:00:00 EST(-0500)
Organization: Accuracy, Ltd.
Reply-To: ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v0

ncherry@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (neil j.cherry) writes:
> > Second, read John Forester's book, EFFECTIVE CYCLING.
> ......
> It has been suggested and I will look into it. I hope to order the book soon,

If you have trouble finding the book -- I have seldom seen it in bike shops --
you can order it from Bikecentennial.

   Effective Cycling
      catalog #GB-179
      $17.50
      shipping $5, free for members, more for foreign orders

   Membership
      $22 / year

   Bikecentennial
      PO Box 8308
      Missoula, MT 59807
      1-800-933-1116 (orders only, 7x24)
      +1 406 721 8719 (sales, inquiries, membership, 8-5 Mountain Time)
      +1 406 721 1776 (general, 8-5 Mountain Time)

Edward Reid  (8*}>
  eel:   ed@titipu.resun.com  or  nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!ed
  snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330
From: jrdodd@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Cycling Magazine New Zealand (address)
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:38:21 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand


For those that do want to subscribe to this magazine,  I've heard some people
are having problems getting through to the publishers.

I got the subscription details from the small print at the front,  but they're
also running a competition for those who subscribe and the address they provide
in nice big writing is slightly different:

Cycling Magazine New Zealand
PO Box 90550
Auckland
New Zealand

Hassles with overseas currency should be overcome easily as they'll accept
Visa or Mastercard.

From the colonies (hey - the States are a colony too...)

Jonathan.
> 
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: gsurbeck@eng.umd.edu (Gregory D. Surbeck)
Subject: Bike paths (FROM Re: Cycling and Environmentalism)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 15:38:06 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park

Several people, including John Forester and Les Earnest, have
mentioned that bikepaths are unsafe.  I would like to know why (notice
that this a question, not an opinion).
	Designs for planned bikepaths in Prince George's County,MD are >
12 feet wide with 2 distinct lanes to separate the flow of traffic.
Pedestrians and motorized vehicles are not allowed.  PG Cty.
distinguishes between bikepaths and hiker-biker-equestrian paths, which have a
width of about 3 to 12 feet (mostly about 5 for the newer ones) and
may be accessed by any pedestrian, horse, or non-motorized vehicle.
All three are encourage on h-b-e trails and definite yield rules,
identical to IMBA's seal, hold.
	Do John Forester and Les Earnest (don't want to mistake a Dr.
for a Mr. or vice-versa) refer to what in this area are called h-b-e
trails or are they referring to what are known as bikepaths in PG
cty.?
	I also want to note that in some cases, pedestrian paths are
planned alongside bikepaths to insure that traffic is segregated.
	Thank you for the information.

				Greg Surbeck

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: trailrdr@well.sf.ca.us (Alan Goldman)
Subject: National Park Service Trail Closures
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: All
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:23:32 GMT


I have just learned that the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
(Marin Headlands, near San Francisco California) has published it's
trail plan in the Federal Register on December 10, 1992. This means
that the restrictions on bicycle use of trails will go into effect
on January 11, 1993.

The trail plan will close many single track trails and fire roads
that bicyclist's have used for many years with little conflict. The
Recreation area was specifically created to serve the recreational
needs of the local urban population. The Park service has ignored
this directive in writing their trail plan. The Bicycle Trails
Council of Marin, with the support of other cycling groups, has
prepared a lawsuit against the National Park Service should they
attempt to enforce their regulations.

We have negotiated in good faith for years with the Park Service,
and will continue to attempt to settle this issue without resorting
to the legal system. They have, however, rejected all of our
attempts to work out a compromise.

In about 10 days I hope to have more information on our options at
this point. It ain't over yet.

Alan   CA
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis)
Subject: Re: Ballantine on safety [Long]
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:55:38 GMT

smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:


>If you're designing a new city or town from scratch, then, sure, cycle
>paths should be integrated in.  

I once believed this, however after a visit to Milton-Keynes I really
wonder.  For those who haven't visited the new town of Milton-Keynes, it
was built with a system of completly segregated cycle tracks
(employing under-passes at intersections).  After thrashing around on
them for a while trying to find the local Youth Hostel (poorly signed,
didn't go directly to where we wanted to go), we gave up on them and
used the roads.  On leaving M-K we stuck to the roads.  The only thing
to be said for them was that there wasn't much traffic (more pedestrians
than bikes).  Despite haveing (at least advertized as) the most complete
systems of cycle paths in the U.K. I didn't notice a great ammount of
cycling there.

>                                In an existing city turning roads into
>cycle paths might be a good idea (but is about as likely as the sun
>rising in the West); and I've got no problem with the idea of providing
>(well designed) cycleways where that's possible.  But reinforcing the
>attitude that bikes don't belong on roads is incredibly counterproductive.  
>I'm surprised to see Ballantine stepping into that trap.

In fact the whole tactic of describing the roads as killing grounds by
those purportedly promoting pedal power is truely bizarre.  How this 
helps cycling is beyond me, it would only seem to validate the excuses 
many people have for not cycling while supporting that part of the 
motoring lobby that wants to get bikes of the road (for our own good 
of course).  I guess it allows them to see themselves as brave
eco-warriors in the great crusade against the automobile but is clearly
doesn't do anything to promote cycling.

Robert M. Lewis			rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca
Department of Sociology
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
From: JForester@cup.portal.com (John - Forester)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Bikes unwanted at U-Michigan
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:26:42 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na

   The problem with cycling on university campuses is that
pedestrians and cyclists don't mix safely and the pedestrians,
on campus where they are the voting majority, are rebelling. I
have advised several campus planning directors on ways to
separate bicycles from pedestrians, nearly always by making
cyclists use the campus streets along with the service vehicles,
while pedestrians use paths. Nearly always the center of the
campus is too crowded, busy, and with too many directions of
travel to allow this. Therefore, at campus centers it is typical
to have dismount zones; bicycles are allowed into or across the
zone, but they must be walked while in it. 

   JForester@cup.portal.com             John Forester
                                        726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426                            Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: gsurbeck@eng.umd.edu (Gregory D. Surbeck)
Subject: mtn biking and trail maintenance
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 02:04:50 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park

	What amount of trail maintenance is necessary to compensate
for an hour of mtn biking time?  If I ride for 2 hours, how long does
it take to "fix" any damage I do?  What kind of maintenance is
required?  Direct answers or books would be welcome.  Although I have
seen cycling and city-planning books frequently cited on the net, I
have not seen any that make reference to mtn. biking.
	I talked to a park ranger in Greenbelt Park near Wash, DC last
weekend.  I asked her that if a mtn bike group were willing to
maintain trails, would she allow that group rights to cycle in the
Park.  Let me start by saying that horses are allowed on the trails
and people (walkers and joggers) are allowed on the trail at no cost.
Horses are rare, but I usually see a few pedestrians (about one to 4)
when I jog over there (for about 1-1/2 hours).  Trails are narrow,
with some singletrack and all trails being less than 36" wide with the
exception of one short fire road.  The condition of the trail is not
good.  The hills tend to have a lot of exposed roots and some of it
looks like an impromptu stream bed between trees -- very sandy, leaves
are cleared out of just that stretch.  I can't cite rainfall
statistics, but I expect them to be "average" (isn't that what
everyone calls their area?).
	I enjoy jogging back there and would love to ride my bike back
there without restriction -- currently they can force you to simply
dismount up to confiscating your bike (extreme situation which I might
be mistaken about) if Park Police (an extension of Md. State Police) 
catch you.  The main reason that they allow horses and not mtn bikers
back in the park is because there are simply so few horses and so many
mtn. bikers in the area.  The erosion due to that many people would be
tremendous.  Many of the areas in the park are ecologically sensitive,
according to the ranger I talked to.
	What I proposed to the ranger would be to grant rights to the
(as of yet non-existent) Univ of Md mtn bike club in exchange for
trail maintenance.  She said that she didn't think a group would
follow through with that claim, but I was able to point out another
area just outside the Wash Beltway (and nearly inaccessible without a
car) in Greenbelt that is maintained by mtn. bikers.
	I need to come up with a definite plan action to take to the
head ranger.  What is trail maintenance?  How much is necessary given
the (brief) conditions that I mentioned?
	And as a little side note, what would be the best way to go
about creating a bike club?  Post or please e-mail me.  Thanx in
advance!

			Greg Surbeck

			gsurbeck@eng.umd.edu

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: eravin@panix.com (Ed Ravin)
Subject: Re: Cycling and Environmentalism
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:28:57 GMT
Organization: Not Just Another Pretty Face

In article <1992Dec19.024142.4181@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
les@cs.stanford.edu writes: (quoting little ol' me)

>   Most bicycling advocacy organizations have a broad agenda -- they want
>   some bike paths here, better roads there, bike parking in some other places.
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Only organizations populated by closet motorheads would advocate more
>bike paths.  They are truly unsafe and a waste of money.

What kinds of bike paths, Les?  Are all bike paths evil and part of the
"anti-cycling" and "closet motorhead" conspiracy?  I'm in favor of a few
more bike paths in NY City, though I'm more in favor of measures that will
encourage bicycle coexistence on regular streets.  Does that make me a "closet
motorhead?"

>   [.  .  .]  They're also concerned about land use issues
>   and the spread of suburban sprawl, which separates workplaces and homes
>   so that non-automobile travel becomes untenable.
>
>Just as John Forester created "environmentalist" straw men and then
>burned them, it appears here that Ed Ravin is projecting his personal
>agenda on "most bicycling advocvacy organizations."  I suggest that he
>just tell us what he thinks so that we don't have to tangle with
>another organizational myth.

There's no doubt that I project my own personal bias onto the things I post,
just as everyone else does.  But I don't think I'm way off base when I
describe what I think are the main points of bicycle advocates around the
country -- apart from being involved in the NYC bike and pedestrian advocacy
movement, I read the newsletters from a couple of California groups,
Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, the L.A.W. advocacy bulletin,
and the "evil" Sierra club and Rails-to-Trails conservancy.  Land use issues
that force people to use cars are on the minds of all these groups.

-- 
Ed Ravin            | I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology
eravin@panix.com    | where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature
philabs!trintex!elr | returned to our mammal brothers and sisters,
+1 914 993 4737     | and all watched over by machines of loving grace
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Cycling and Environmentalism
Reply-To: les@cs.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:41:42 GMT

Ed Ravin writes:
   .  .  .
   Most bicycling advocacy organizations have a broad agenda -- they want
   some bike paths here, better roads there, bike parking in some other places.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Only organizations populated by closet motorheads would advocate more
bike paths.  They are truly unsafe and a waste of money.

   [.  .  .]  They're also concerned about land use issues
   and the spread of suburban sprawl, which separates workplaces and homes
   so that non-automobile travel becomes untenable.

Just as John Forester created "environmentalist" straw men and then
burned them, it appears here that Ed Ravin is projecting his personal
agenda on "most bicycling advocvacy organizations."  I suggest that he
just tell us what he thinks so that we don't have to tangle with
another organizational myth.

   [.  .  .]
   So why does Forester bash bicycle advocates?

Aha!  So Ed thinks that his views are those of REAL bicycle advocates,
while John is just a troublemaker.  Sorry, Ed, I'm not with you or
others who hide their personal agendas under a pretense of bicycle
advocacy.

   Thanks Forester, but no thanks -- we can get along fine without
   you.

Likewise, I'm sure.  Unfortunately, the ill-conceived program that Ed
advocates is the one under which the current U.S. government operates.
I hope that these issues will be reevaluated with the coming "changing
of the guard."

--
Les Earnest           Phone:  415 941-3984    Fax: 415 941-3934
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: jsweeney@geppetto.encore.com (Joe Sweeney)
Subject: Re: BICYLCING MAGAZINES - EUROPEAN RACING
Organization: Encore Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:15:13 GMT

dhm1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DANIEL HILL MCCAULEY) writes:

>   Does anyone know of a magazine that covers mostly european racing/results

Dan,

Winning Illustrated (Published by Winning International) covers all major
events.  Of course, that would mean 'mostly European racing/results' 
since the majority are there.  

Joe
-- 
JOE SWEENEY (jsweeney@encore.com) ENCORE COMPUTER CORP.; MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
My postings/letters are flame proof.  If you've taken offense, you may have
misunderstood me.  If you differ with me, that's just fine and your response
is welcome.  ****Please place :-) at all locations you feel necessary.****
From: JForester@cup.portal.com (John - Forester)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Front Brake Usage
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 19:48:37 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

   Joe Riel is correct in one way in saying that the actual
deceleration achieved on a descent equals (approximately) the braking
force less the slope of the descent. However, I was discussing the
effects of braking, specifically the force required to cause
pitchover on the descent, and the force required remains the same
regardless of the slope (to a close approximation). That is because
the decelerating force produced by the brake equals the force
required to produce the deceleration experienced plus the force
required to hold the bicycle on the slope. In the case discussed, if
pitchover on level ground occurred with a deceleration of 0.67g, with
brake lever force F, then pitchover on a 15% descent would require
the same brake lever force F, but the actual deceleration would be,
as Riel says, 0.52g. Since I was giving the account from the point of
the view of the cyclist, I said he applied the brake to give more
than 0.67 g deceleration and pitched over. 

   However, Joe is overly optimistic in thinking that moving one's
butt off and behind the saddle will improve the maximum deceleration
by 19%. He used guessed values for the change in the location of the
center of mass, values for D and H. I made the experiment many years
ago. While I forget the actual change in D and H, the result was that
the change in maximum possible deceleration was less than 5%. It is
on the basis of that measurement that I recommend that the cyclist in
an emergency braking situation remain on the saddle in normal cycling
posture, to be best able to steer the bicycle in a safer direction
once the speed has dropped to a value that permits such maneuvering.

JForester@cup.portal.com               John Forester
                                       726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426                           Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: seligman@CS.Stanford.EDU (Scott Seligman)
Subject: Re: Politics of Cycling Speed
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:50:01 GMT

In article <29609@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
> 
> There is at least one more important kind of fear in cycling, and that
> is rational avoidance of something deduced to be dangerous

I wonder how much of this discussion is based on people's differing
and sometimes unusual definitions of "fear".  I would not call the
rational minimization of danger "fear".  I would call that "common
sense".  Fear to me is something that makes yours eyes widen, your
pulse quicken, your adrenaline flow.  From Webster's 9th: "an
unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of
danger... anxious concern... reason for alarm".

If you [that's a generic "you" -- I don't mean you, Chris] agree with
my definition of fear and you fear cycling in traffic, perhaps you
need to gain more experience and read up on the actual dangers.  If
you already have experience and still fear riding, then I suppose you
should give it up.  You're just not cut out for it (unless you enjoy
fear, I suppose).  The rest of us are hopefully aware of the dangers
and act appropriately, but we do not live in fear.


Scott Seligman

Internet:  seligman@CS.Stanford.EDU
UUCP:      {uunet,decwrl,sun}!cs.stanford.edu!seligman
Packet:    kc6ock @ n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis)
Subject: Re: Ballantine on safety [Long]
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:05:24 GMT

"Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com> writes:

>Heap Big Eco-Warrior responds:

[deleted section]

>I'm very much in favor of promoting cycling, but I can't believe that 
>concealing the facts forms any part of an appropriate strategy for doing 
>so. 

Like the fact that bike lanes and paths make things worse for cyclists?
Or the fact that it's more dangerous using bike lanes than the road?  Or 
do you pass off the popular anti-auto line that, while they don't really 
make things better for cyclists, most non-cyclists think they do so we 
should put them in and ignore or hide the increase in accidents. 

Like the fact that increased cyclists' education and helmet use are the
two most significant methods of decrease cyclists fatalities?  Like the
fact that uniform enforcement of the traffic laws helps cyclists (well
we already know your position on this)?  Or do you believe in
cultivating fear among cyclists in order to push your political ends.

>As for "crusading against the automobile" -- there I'm guilty as 
>charged, and quite unrepentant. The hegemony of the car in North 
>American society is a terribly destructive thing. Ecrasez l'infame!

Fine, but don't confound these two prinicpals, making things worse for
motorists does not necessarily make things better for cyclists.  If you
want to declare a Macabean holy war on the automobile feel free to, just
don't claim to be speaking for cyclists when doing so.  Part of any holy
war is the heightening of hostilities and the promotion of martydom.
Just leave me out of it, things are unpleasant enough in this world with
out people like you telling drivers that they are at war with cyclists
and that cyclists plan to drive them off of the road.  I have no desire
to see any martyrs.

I happen to believe that possiblity of automobiles dissappearing from
the world to in almost infinitely small.  Unfortunately I do not believe
that the possiblity of bicycles dissappearing from the road, and being
relegated to glorified sidewalks, is also so infinetly small.  The 
arguments of the eco-warriors and much of the motoring lobby is 
wonderfully harmonious on this point.

Robert M. Lewis			rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca
Department of Sociology
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada