Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Ross Mason,
The highlighted bit may be of use to cyclists and those who advocate retroreflective bits on pedals and wheels.
I thought most pedals have retroreflective strips already. Every bike I've owned since the early 80s has.
How does retroreflective on the wheels work? Is it on the tyre itself? It can't be sticking out, there's no room between spoke and fork for anything sticking out.
For rear visibility, does anything really beat a bright red light, something that is already mandatory on bicycles at night? I personally see those well before I see anything else on cyclists.
ETA: I set mine to flash. I think that's the most eye catching, and it saves power, makes the light batteries last way longer.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Between nine and 10 dozens, but still dozens :P
Heh, yes, I guess you're stuck for plurals in between there. It's not "hundreds". It is "scores", but who knows that term these days?
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Johnny Canuck,
NZ road toll over the last 12 months incl. 30 pedestrians and 8 "pedal cyclists". In the 12 months before that it was 37 pedestrians and 7 cyclists.
And then the elephant in the room, 205 people in cars.
On per capita and per KM travelled bases, I suspect cyclists are more vulnerable (since almost everyone is a pedestrian at some point, yet relatively few people clock up much time on their bikes).
Hard to say, because a bike goes a lot faster than a pedestrian, and those people who are clocking up time are clocking up quite a lot of time, often. But it's not apples and apples at all. Pedestrian is a term that includes anyone on foot, so small children and the elderly are in there, which blows things in terms of road sense, ability to cover distance, frailty, visibility, and the ability to even be on a bike at all for comparison purposes.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Ben Gracewood,
Yup, I ride over the Waima St footbridge (and walk up that killer hill) on the way to work, but cruise down the road on the way home. Dunno why :)
Well, you've got to climb that hill one way or another. Pushing the bike up a really steep part is probably the same total effort exerted as riding it up Chinaman's Hill, then Gt North Rd, or taking the cycleway to Newton Rd and up that way. Also, walking the bike can be restful, because it's a changing which muscles are used.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Russell Brown,
For variety, you could always get on the Arch Hill path on the north side of the motorway, from Bond Street -- that's quite fun -- and join the main cycleway at Mountain View Rd.
Yup. Or just take the cycleway from Newton Rd on-ramp. Crossing to it seems like it should be hair raising, but I've never actually found it so.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Ben Gracewood,
And just so I'm not always a complainer, here's a sped-up version of my commute home to Te Atatu:
Nice video! Curious that you choose to bomb Williamson Ave rather than take Gt North Rd, though. You'd save yourself the climb at the end, and you can pretty much sit on your own in the bus lane the whole way.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
It requires a 100W (at best) motor to become completely stationary and then try to safely pull away while sharing with other vehicles that have engine outputs that are hundreds of times greater
Often thousands of times greater, in fact. The average new American car has around a 130 kilowatt output. I'd guess it's comparable here.
But in a car I've got the protection of a steel cage and I've got dozens of kilowatts of dinosaur juice awaiting my merest beckoning foot movement.
What kind of weakmobile are you driving? Suzuki 800 or something?
It's really quite amazing that bikes can go as fast as they do on the flat, considering their power levels. Extremely efficient devices.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Ben Gracewood,
Handlebars now eh? :-)
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Maz,
Does that mean that motorists should wear helmets? No.
Well, it means that if cyclists should, there's a strong argument that motorists also should. The question of whether either should is not so clear, but they are related if the justification is harm-prevention overriding all other concerns.
And that is the nub, both at the collective AND the individual level. Harm-prevention is not the whole story, nor should it ever be, otherwise bikes and car would be things we couldn't use at all. It's a trade-off between harms and goods. The miniscule chance of death on the road does not dissuade me from the amazing utility of being able to use the road. Indeed, I don't even think it's irrational to put concerns about comfort and fashion above concerns about safety. The question is not "does safety always override fashion and comfort?", it's "to what extent does it override fashion and comfort?". And the example of the motorvehicle shows that actually it's pretty normal for comfort and fashion to override the small chance of bashing one's head in a car.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Kiwiiano,
Re the fears around helmets and hair: if you want to see messed up hair, check out the head injuries ward.
Yes, they're full of people who didn't wear helmets in their damned car! Hair, schmair!
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 374 375 376 377 378 … 1066 Older→ First