[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32856 wrote:

I haven’t had any problems with not cold setting a frame when going up one size in axle spacing. For your reading pleasure: http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

You didn’t say “one size”, you said it “doesn’t really matter”; there are limits, and if he grabs a 135 wheelset he might hit those limits. Note that people started saying 126, but this could be a 120… (Note to original poster: see the sheldon brown link above to see what to measure.) And there’s a difference between “works” and “is pleasant”. If you don’t reset the frame, I don’t understand how you could not have to pull the stays apart to change a tire, which can be “unpleasant” if you’re standing on the side of the road in the rain cursing at a flat.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32841 wrote:

BTW, spacing doesn’t really matter with a steel bike.

Only up to a point, and only if you don’t care if changing a tire is a PITA or are willing to re-set the spacing.

[mstone]

@thecyclingeconomist 32720 wrote:

The tires on the moonlander are an OBSCENE 4.7″ wide… mwhahaha… I love that! It’s just stupid… which makes it worth coveting.

It’s not stupid, it’s very practical in this region. You could go down the steps of congress, or the washington monument.

[mstone]

Doesn’t putting yourself to sleep make it harder to finish the ride?

[mstone]

road traffic completely melted down today. I guess it’s been a while since it’s rained, and people were confused about what that wet stuff was all over the place.

[mstone]

@vvill 32667 wrote:

I don’t see too many commuters on bikes that could fit 29×2.35s!

“In my day we pedaled uphill BOTH WAYS!”

[mstone]

@Nemisys 32637 wrote:

I’m picking it up in Crystal City, so I’m probably going to abandon the Chesapeake bay idea and head up into Virginia instead. I’m looking at the “Washington and Old Dominion Trail”, is this truly dedicated path? Completely Paved?

Yup. Can be crowded near the city, but go out far enough and the crowd thins out a lot and you get some nice hill country which should be quite a contrast from AZ.

[mstone]

@krazygl00 32631 wrote:

I’ve lived in the Northern Hemisphere all my life and so far it has gotten cooler every single Fall. I’ve heard from those much older than me that this has always been true as long as they’ve known.

then, sometimes (like last year), it warms up for winter

[mstone]

@bikesnick 32619 wrote:

there is a large vacuum truck parked on the trail at the 90 degree bend coming down from brandymore castle. hopefully it will be cleared by evening commute time, but it was very narrow and noisy at 1230.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1765[/ATTACH]

probably much better there than slightly closer to the camera

[mstone]

I think you’re out of luck without a canoe.

[mstone]

@vvill 32484 wrote:

Same here.

And Metro rail doesn’t count. Whenever I’ve had to go back to it, it’s taken me a week to two to get used to the stop-start of it.

The new door policy should help, since you’ll just be sitting in the station not moving.

[mstone]

@Bilsko 32477 wrote:

Been a few days since anything covetable has come along. Here’s today’s covet:

http://www.moment-industries.com/products/bone-burner-rotor

Think of all the weight you could save by grinding off those skulls!

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32475 wrote:

No I wouldn’t. You still don’t understand my point.

You just said it – “you have the right to enter the street because the car has every reasonable opportunity to stop.” But NOT before that opportunity.

LOL. Really? That was your whole point? That you can’t legally step in front of a car that can’t possibly avoid running you over? Ok, you can have your point because nobody in this thread was ever stupid enough to argue otherwise. That’s still not what “right of way” means and it does nothing to inform what’s legally required when the car is far enough away to stop, even as a panic stop. And it’s not really what you said half a dozen pages ago.

[mstone]

@acl 32452 wrote:

But I still don’t know the answer to the first– if I am the pedestrian waiting to cross, and I see a car coming at a distance such that they can reasonably and safely slow or stop to allow me to cross (but they do have to slow or stop in order for me to safely make it across), can I begin crossing? If yes— if I can create a requirement for the driver to let me cross by entering the crosswalk, but the driver does not have that requirement to let me cross if I keep standing on the sidewalk waiting for my gap in traffic, doesn’t that create a situation where I have to– or at least am encouraged to– put myself in greater danger? ie, no one has to let me cross so long as I am waiting safely on the sidewalk (or trail) where there is no chance i might be hit by a distracted driver who doesn’t see me, but I can step into the street creating a legal requirement for a car to stop or slow as necessary (and reasonably able) to let me cross, but am now putting myself at risk of being hit if the driver doesn’t see me in time. If that’s the actual law, I think it’s nuts.* I personally don’t to think it’s safe to step into the street until I know the driver sees me, which I can only do by noticing him slowing to let me cross, which he doesn’t have to do unless I step into the street.

That’s exactly it. You have the right to enter the street because the car has every reasonable opportunity to stop, but you’re scared to do so because you don’t know if the driver is a whack-job that’s going to run over you for giggles. You are forced by circumstance have to give up your right to cross the street (biaskeli would say here “you have to stop! that means you don’t have the right of way! I was right!”) because some percentage of motorists are psychotic (or, generously, “just” not paying attention). Some people are happy with this and say “well, that means that no cars should slow down or stop ever because they don’t have to and the pedestrians are too scared to cross anyway”. (That is, they will actively discourage (!) motorists from being responsible and signaling to the pedestrian that the motorist will exercise his duty not to kill the pedestrian.) The logical conclusion of that train of thought is that pedestrians can never cross a street. “Oh no!”, they say, “it’s all about the laws of physics; as long as it’s safe the pedestrian can cross”. But they have redefined “safe” to be, effectively, “the pedestrian cannot cross the street if there is a car around, because it’s on the pedestrian to read the driver’s mind and the driver should not be expected by convention to signal intent to the pedestrian, and the liability is all on the pedestrian anyway”.

Perhaps it sucks that the current situation requires everyone to be polite and exercise a degree of courtesy above the bare minimum required by law in order for things to work reasonably and smoothly. As I said before, I don’t think this can be “fixed” in law. We simply do not have a practical mechanism for legislating that motorists signal their intent to obey the law to pedestrians. Trying to “fix” the problem by putting all of the burden on pedestrians seems like a huge leap in the wrong direction. Requiring motorists to come to a complete stop instead of just making eye contact with the pedestrian and slowing up a little seems onerous (and unenforceable in practice; how far away do they have to stop, etc.). The current law accommodates the realities of children, disabled (e.g., blind), and other vulnerable pedestrians far better than some scheme that pushes additional duties onto the pedestrian. The current law really isn’t that bad if everyone acts in good faith, and we shouldn’t let a few bad apples ruin things. No civilized society can work if people use the law to try to screw each other, so I don’t see that it’s worth trying to optimize for that case.

[mstone]

I give up, you win the internets.

[Author]

Posts