lordofthemark

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,481 through 3,495 (of 3,523 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: It’s funny because it’s true! #951790
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    On the other hand increasingly we are substituting Natural Gas for coal in electricity generation, and while NG is superior to coal in CO2 emissions per BTU, that is IIUC somewhat offset by leakage in NG transmission, methane itself being a significant green house gas. Thats also an issue for CNG fueled vehicles (where there is even more leakage, IIUC)

    in reply to: It’s funny because it’s true! #951786
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @DismalScientist 31696 wrote:

    Once you assume that exercise is a fixed cost, you have assumed your answer. I’m sure that there are some folks out there who wouldn’t be exercising as much if they did not ride bicycles regularly.

    IF those other folks are overweight, they may eat the same amount when cycling as when being sedentary – the extra exercise will lower their weight till they reach equilibrium with same calorie consumption and lower weight (their non exercise calorie burn will be lower at lower weights, which is why weight tends towards an equilibrium for a given diet/exercise regimen)

    OTOH IF they are normal weight and sedentary, the extra calories burned MUST be offset by higher calorie intake (or they will lose weight regaining equilibrium only at a (unhealthy?) point below normal weight. So for that group they need to eat more calories (with accompanying GHG resulting from food production and delivery)

    So,(to simplify) three cases – A. Exercising already and transportation cycling subs for other exercise – no net food cost (no improvement in health though) B. Sedentary, Overweight, and cycling results in lower weight for same diet regimen – no net food cost (and significant improvement in health) C. Sedentary and normal weight – Significant net food cost (some improvement in health, probably)

    In case C the GHGs associated with food production, delivery, preparation, etc COULD offset the GHG’s saved by not using a motorized form of transport. I defer to the experts on wattage and MPGs for that discussion.

    (note also – differences in GHGs associated with production of bikes vs motor vehicles, and production of infrastructure — Im not sure of those, but they also impact net GHG’s – this came up with cash for clunkers – subsidizing new more efficient vehicles isnt necessarily optimal from a GHG POV)

    in reply to: Favorite Cycling/Transportation quotes? #951616
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    “He cycled around Dublin…in his pin-striped suit with £10,000 on his head.”

    “Life is like riding a bicycle, to keep your balance you must keep moving”

    in reply to: Beware Anti-helmet ninnies #951214
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @JorgeGortex 31080 wrote:

    Yeah, I see the irony. I think my point was rather that CaBi survive or fail is irrelevant to my interest in people keeping their brains in one piece and not gooped on our shiny pavement.

    Copenhagen.

    in reply to: Beware Anti-helmet ninnies #951094
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @JorgeGortex 30966 wrote:

    From the looks of it, CaBi is doing quite well, so that is just fine. Should people using them wear helmets? yes. If they get hurt when they don’t? Well, they will deal with the long term consequences.

    And by the same token, someone who refrains from riding because they often don’t have a helmet with them and gets diabetes or heart disease will also have to deal with the long term consequences. (I own and use a bike helmet, and cannot remember when I last rode without one, and am not yet a CaBi member, but I think the concern about focusing on the dangers of cycling to the point that we discourage it, is not entirely without merit)

    in reply to: Beware Anti-helmet ninnies #950988
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @bobco85 30860 wrote:

    People wearing helmets will choose riskier routes and get in more accidents.

    Pelzman’s Law.(or at least the bike helmet corollary)

    Which of course does not mean its irrational behavior. If you CHOOSE to wear a helmet and take a more direct route, versus going helmet less and taking a longer route, it might be the best choice for you. I mean I could deliberately drive an unsafe car, but only at 3 MPH, but what would be the point?

    Where Pelzman’s law is relevant is to show that a regulation that is based on valuing consumers live’s or safety more than they do, can have its impact offset by people optimizing based on their own preference functions. Within limits though. A driver can adjust to mandated safety features by going faster, but may not want to pay speeding fines. A cyclist forced to wear a helmet can pick a faster but more dangerous route – but often there ISN’T a faster route, I guess.

    in reply to: Beware Anti-helmet ninnies #950958
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @DismalScientist 30837 wrote:

    What I find interesting is that a vehicular cycling blog would wade so deeply into helmet advocacy/non-advocacy.

    I always thought that vehicular cyclists (of which I consider myself) question the value of typical “segregated” bicycle facilities and advocate more of a “share the road” philosophy.

    Helmet use seems pretty tangential to this. Although I wear one, I wouldn’t mandate them. I assume that there are marginal benefits to their use, but I don’t have a dog in the fight. That said, I am surprised by the emphasis that a “vehicular cyclist” blog would put on this issue.

    I guess its part of their “stop thinking of biking as inherently dangerous” theme.

    A theme I sympathize with, even though I both wear a helmet, and often like to utilize segregated facilities .

    in reply to: higher gear for speed or conserve energy? #950297
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @off2ride 30093 wrote:

    Question…what are you trying to achieve? Faster lap times or go hard without feeling wiped out in the end. Just curious so I can try to give you good advice.

    I feel like I’d like to go faster so I am not passed so much on the trails, and get places faster in general. And just get in general better shape, especially cardio vascular health (yes I know that I need more frequent exercise than once every few weeks for the latter – I also walk)

    in reply to: higher gear for speed or conserve energy? #950293
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @acc 30080 wrote:

    Try exploring Annandale via Google Maps. When I clicked on the bike route suggestions, roads that are bike-friendly-ish popped up marked in hash marked green. That way you won’t waste time driving to a place to ride. And yeah, I do that all the time, but as the days shorten, daylight becomes more scarce. Even if you drove a mile to an area with many connecting residential streets, it will save you time. And if you have a cross bike or a mountain bike, or even a tough hybrid, you’re close to the CCT that picks up at Audrey Moore Recreation Center.

    Have fun. Ride safe.
    ann

    We are car lite, (and bike rack free at the moment) so I don’t like to take the car out for my rides (though I have) – the nice thing about the W&OD is that its easily bus accessible for me – but the time that takes makes it hard to justify for less than a couple of hours of riding. I can bike to the CCT at Wakefield – but have to wrestle the MTB up the hills on Americana to do that. Also my wife and I often walk the CCT, so its not the most novel place for me.

    I’ve looked on google maps and on the new FFX bike map, and asked here, wrt to routes around Annandale.

    I may try Columbia Pike again – at least that might get me close to Holmes Run in Alexandria in not TOO long a time.

    in reply to: higher gear for speed or conserve energy? #950274
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @PotomacCyclist 30067 wrote:

    If you’re only riding once every other week, you’re not going to develop much endurance or speed.

    Problem is its hard for me to take a big chunk of time for riding every weekend. I could probably do an hour or so on weekends I don’t have more time to spare, but that means basically a spin around my neighborhood, which is Annandale. I’m not fond of the biking here. Which leads me back to trying to make commuting realistic, I guess.

    in reply to: higher gear for speed or conserve energy? #950265
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @Jason B 30059 wrote:

    Not to mention by constantly focusing on your overall time and speed will lead to a very boring, grueling ride that will never end.

    I’ve definitely been enjoying my rides, from the weather to the scenery, and also keeping track of thinks like trail mile posts. Didn’t mean to indicate it was all about numbers, let alone overall numbers.

    in reply to: Missed connection #950235
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    you – pair of young women, more elite than me (well at least y’all WERE passing me). If you’re good enough to pass me, maybe, you should be good enough to pass single file on a trail as crowded as the W&OD is right in the heart of Vienna.

    to myself – just because the above got me upset, it was still a poor idea to blow through the next stop sign obliviously (IE not a deliberate Idaho stop) . Fortunately it was a slow cross street in Vienna, and nothing happened.

    to the joggers who run on the left on the W&OD – I kind of get that you want to be near where the better off trail conditions are, but I still find it disconcerting when I pass you

    to the walker salmoning IN the bike lane on Gallows Road – whiskey tango foxtrot. I am glad I was just sitting waiting for the bus at the time.

    to Fairfax DOT. It would have been nice if the bike racks on the Fairfax connector buses were the same as those on metrobuses. Would have saved me some embarrassment, and maybe saved a bus full of people some time (although I bet the driver made it up) I wonder if the difference is due to genuine technical differences between the buses, or is an unintended result of “objective” procurement practices.

    To the daddy teaching his 9 (or 8?) year old daughter to call “on the left”. That was really adorable. It was worth being passed by you two, as I neared the end of my ride.

    in reply to: Fairfax County Bike Map? #950234
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    I have a paper copy beside me as I write this, which I got (for free, though “$3” is printed on the front) from the mobile commuter store. They are also supposed to be available at the county govt facilities in each magisterial district, I think.

    in reply to: Is there a source online for specs for old bikes? #950109
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @Certifried 29861 wrote:

    Here are some interesting graphs on tire resistances.

    http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rolres.html

    For me, needing to lose about 30 pounds, I won’t bother spending too much time or money on trying to get my bike more ELITE. If I get down to my ultimate body weight, then I’ll worry about all that

    Ah, I was afraid someone would say something like this, but the laws of physics I guess care as much about my weight (about 12 to 15 pounds over what I would like based on that hop on the scale to weigh the bike) as the weight of the bike.

    And I guess I will lose weight as fast or faster riding the MTB, though I won’t get as far in the time I have for riding.

    in reply to: Is there a source online for specs for old bikes? #950053
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @ShawnoftheDread 29720 wrote:

    Sure, sounds right. My hybrid is 31 lbs. Next time you’re pedaling your tank up a hill, just think how fast and strong you’ll feel when you’re on a 20 pound road bike sometime in the future.

    see thats actually why I wanted to know the weight

    1. To better inform my bike buying strategy – since I will want a bike eventually for commuting (pentagon metro to M Street SE) AND for weekend rides on the W&OD, etc, I might not get a 20 lb road bike, and I wanted to see where Im starting at, relative to what I might get

    2. I also want excuses (aside from fitness level and biking inexperience) for my current slow speeds

    Is the weight the only thing about this bike that might be slowing me down? I would think a road or city bike would also be faster due to different tires – is that the case, holding weight equal? Are there other factors?

Viewing 15 posts - 3,481 through 3,495 (of 3,523 total)