[mstone]

@Greenbelt 33878 wrote:

One thing I’ve learned the hard way (get it?) is that saddles wear out, even if they don’t look it. New saddle comfy nice.

Leather just improves

[mstone]

Saddle choice is highly dependent on type of bike and level of experience, so also not necessarily a long-term investment.

[mstone]

@KelOnWheels 33862 wrote:

If they’re going to have that much boardwalk, could they at least put in a Thrasher’s Fries stand?

Maybe a frozen custard place too. 😎

I feel that greasy fries on the bikeway would have the same effect as banana peels in a hanna-barbera feature.

[mstone]

Yes, the “stop required by law” is invalid (though if you see a cop it’s easier to pretend than deal with the hassle).

Ask yourself a simple question: why did the state start painting lines on the road like that? Was it because there was concern that pedestrians would get confused and start milling about in the middle of the road, unable to find the other side? Or, perhaps, are the lines there to tell autos to do something? If the latter, what is it that we would expect autos to do when there are lines across the road and a pedestrian is trying to cross?

Crosswalks really aren’t that hard, and it’s depressing to anyone concerned about the future of the American experiment that we’ve managed to screw it up. By posting idiotic and illegal signs like “stop” or “cars have the right of way” we’ve managed to confuse people to the point that it’s now statistically safer to cross at an unmarked crosswalk than an unsignalized marked crosswalk. Because we don’t want cars to ever slow down or exercise caution, we have come to a point where we have to install tens of thousands of dollars worth of traffic control devices if we want to let people cross the street safely. People complain that it’s because the rules aren’t clear; nonsense–people just don’t want to slow down their cars. Ironically, my experience suggests that the same people who don’t want to slow down (and force us into signalizing) are the ones who complain about high taxes and insufficient money for road maintenance.

Anyway, if there’s a crosswalk you have a right to cross which is superior to any car’s right to keep going. If the people in charge of the infrastructure don’t want that to be true in a particular location, they can remove the crosswalk. If they take another option like putting up an illegal sign, they are confused and we should all protest them putting us in danger and confusing the very simple concept of the crosswalk.

None of this has anything to do with how you actually cross in practice, because there are a lot of nut jobs driving cars and almost no enforcement to keep them in check.

[mstone]

I don’t think it’s a cost issue as much as a “they don’t want to use concrete”issue. One of those aesthetic things, like refusing to put in signals where people get run over by cars when using a crosswalk. From the picture at least, it looks like the new “boardwalk” will actually be paved and common sense won over aesthetics. That said, other elements of the pictures are pure fantasy, so I guess it’s an open question.

[mstone]

Oh, and remember that most places are hesitant to spend too much time on first timers these days because it’s all too common for them to burn a couple of hours of staff time doing research for an internet purchase.

[mstone]

Electronics at big box stores are the same as bikes or yarn. Walmart has its own models from the big name manufacturers, which are down-spec’d to a price point. Just like anything else, you need a certain level of expertise in the field to understand what was cut from one tv vs another.

I agree that upgrading a cheap bike probably isn’t worth it, and an ethical bike shop will be leery. If you’re dead set on doing it you’ll need to make it very clear to them that you intend to buy a few hundred dollars worth of stuff, throw it out in a few months, and not blame them. They’ll still probably be leery because it would be more cost effective to buy multiple bikes and sell the ones you don’t like. (There would be more residual value.)

Frankly it sounds like you’re going in, saying “give me a rock” and then telling them it’s the wrong rock. You either need to be a lot more specific or take some of the advice as-is.

Note that I say this as someone who hasn’t found an LBS he really likes. (Bikenetic is on my list to try but I haven’t gotten there yet.) It just seems like you’re not even giving them a chance to succeed.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 33810 wrote:

Sorry… does not compute.

Likewise; I use the same bike for both. You can generally cover a couple of categories with one bike as long as they aren’t on completely opposite ends of the spectrum, like road racing and downhill mountain.

[mstone]

@JustinW 33800 wrote:

You could try this:
– Seatpost rack that accommodates panniers: http://www.performancebike.com/bikes/Product_10052_10551_1023820_-1_400031_400005_400104
– Then add pannier(s) of your choice.

Mildly amusing that the demo bike in the picture has all the brazeons for a real rack. The seatpost racks will work, but they’re definitely less desirable than a real rack if you can use one. (The seatpost ones will always tend to have more sway due to physics. You also want to avoid clamping anything to a carbon seatpost.) Topeak also has a zillion seat post models for different kinds of bikes (http://www.topeak.com/products/BeamRacks-MTX http://www.topeak.com/products/BeamRacks-RX) and also has side bars that let you use a light pannier. If you have a topeak rack, they also have a series of bags that clip in and out pretty easily.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 33673 wrote:

My crazy-ass theory – simply not crossing on a “Don’t Walk” signal as intended by the signal – is cheaper and immediate.

And, as pointed out by many, doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.

[mstone]

Yet another good reason to automate enforcement

[mstone]

Just this weekend I had a car cross a double yellow to swing around me and the rest of the backed up cars to jockey to a better spot at a light. It’s not the mode, it’s the moron.

[mstone]

The cyclist would generally be nuts to get to the right of a car about to turn right, because that’s a good way for the cyclist to get run over. The proper way to turn right in the presence of a bike lane is to first enter the bike lane (when it is clear) and then make the right turn from the bike lane. That should be done far enough from the intersection that you’re not having to cut sharply across the bike lane to make the turn.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 33583 wrote:

No, the entire point of the countdown is to inform pedestrians (not us – we weren’t thought of) how long they have to finish crossing, but NOT to allow them to start to cross.[/quote]

No, that really wasn’t the case (note: I’m talking about the logic of the system, not the law). The old system had the crossing just start blinking, usually a standard few seconds before the cycle ended, and nobody had any idea how much time was left. Often there wasn’t enough time to finish crossing by the time the signal turned to steady red. The obvious solution was to increase the amount of time that the hand blinked red after the walk signal was illuminated for long enough to cross, but “nobody” wanted to hold the cars up any longer for mere pedestrians. So some brilliant traffic engineer came up with this idea of a countdown. Now they could increase the amount of time that the signal flashed a warning, people would know whether they had enough time to start crossing (different answer for a 20-something running across vs a senior with a walker), and they didn’t have to give any more total time to pedestrians. But make no mistake, the blinking countdown is coming out of the time that used to be the walking white man, not the time that used to be the flashing red hand. At many wide streets you’ll see literally only a few seconds of walk signal before the countdown begins. It is quite common for me to be crossing one of those, look for an approaching car, stare down the guy who wasn’t planning to stop at the line, look back at the signal, and already see it counting down. Literally, like a 35 second countdown for a 40 second cycle on an 8 lane road. I’m simply not going to stand there and wait and hope that next time the cars will really stop within 5 seconds so I can scurry across on my grudgingly given time. And doing so wouldn’t increase my safety, because I’ve already got this guy stared down and stopped, and maybe the next guy will be texting while turning right on red without stopping.

Quote:

Meanwhile, we have right on red. And cars are looking in the intersection for pedestrian and bike traffic. They are probably not going to see, or look for, bikes coming into the intersection from the trail at that point. That’s when waiting makes sense for a bike.

Waiting makes no difference–the turn can happen during the walk signal just as easily as during the countdown. Don’t be an ass and zoom across without slowing and looking, but if the way is clear there’s zero benefit to waiting unnecessarily and zero chance that you’ll be able to cross at the next signal without still having to look around for some asshat who’s not going to stop just because you’re in the crosswalk.

[mstone]

@KS1G 33576 wrote:

Bring something to flavor H&B site pump water in case they biys think it tastes “weird”.[/quote]

If they don’t think the water tastes weird, there’s something wrong with them.

[Author]

Posts