On 10/11/2021 11:50 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:53:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/10/2021 6:31 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know why people feel compelled to have mis-aimed, mega-lumen lights for a two-way cycletrack.
>> Why, for safety! You can't be safe enough! You can NEVER be safe enough!
>>
>> (That was sarcasm, folks.)
>
> Frank, you are allowed your opinion that having a light 1/10th the luminosity of that of a car makes you safe. Most of the rest of us believe otherwise.

Which is why nobody survived riding bikes at night until the year 2010?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/11/2021 11:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> With all of this depends on how well they have been built, my commute uses
> a few miles of segregated from the 90s which runs for few miles parallel to
> a horrible urban dual carriageway, plus it bypasses some though not all
> junctions.
>
> In short flawed it maybe. As it’s narrow etc, it does work.

As I've said, there are places where segregated bike facilities do make
sense. If I could remake history, I'd have had them added along many
interstate highways, especially in cities - and preferably separated by
a sound barrier wall. (Once, riding my bike home from Toronto, I was on
just such a facility somewhere west of that city. That wall was a great
benefit.)

The trouble is, 99% of bike lanes give the rest a bad name.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 9:20:07 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/11/2021 11:50 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:53:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 10/10/2021 6:31 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't know why people feel compelled to have mis-aimed, mega-lumen lights for a two-way cycletrack.
> >> Why, for safety! You can't be safe enough! You can NEVER be safe enough!
> >>
> >> (That was sarcasm, folks.)
> >
> > Frank, you are allowed your opinion that having a light 1/10th the luminosity of that of a car makes you safe. Most of the rest of us believe otherwise.
> Which is why nobody survived riding bikes at night until the year 2010?

Frank, why do you insist on making yourself look the ass all of the time? Deaths on bicycles INCREASED over the last year while bicycle INJURIES decreased four times as much. Now i will leave you to try to figure out what would cause that after I've also shown you that visibility makes all of the difference in preventing bicycle accidents. You simply cannot stop yourself from trying to defend your ancient ways can you?

On 10/11/2021 12:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 9:20:07 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/11/2021 11:50 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:53:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/10/2021 6:31 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know why people feel compelled to have mis-aimed, mega-lumen lights for a two-way cycletrack.
>>>> Why, for safety! You can't be safe enough! You can NEVER be safe enough!
>>>>
>>>> (That was sarcasm, folks.)
>>>
>>> Frank, you are allowed your opinion that having a light 1/10th the luminosity of that of a car makes you safe. Most of the rest of us believe otherwise.
>> Which is why nobody survived riding bikes at night until the year 2010?
>
> Frank, why do you insist on making yourself look the ass all of the time? Deaths on bicycles INCREASED over the last year while bicycle INJURIES decreased four times as much.

So what's your point? Glaring, unfocused bright bike headlights have
somehow caused more deaths but fewer injuries?

Please try to be explicit, and try to make sense.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 10/11/2021 11:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> With all of this depends on how well they have been built, my commute uses
>> a few miles of segregated from the 90s which runs for few miles parallel to
>> a horrible urban dual carriageway, plus it bypasses some though not all
>> junctions.
>>
>> In short flawed it maybe. As it’s narrow etc, it does work.
>
> As I've said, there are places where segregated bike facilities do make
> sense. If I could remake history, I'd have had them added along many
> interstate highways, especially in cities - and preferably separated by
> a sound barrier wall. (Once, riding my bike home from Toronto, I was on
> just such a facility somewhere west of that city. That wall was a great
> benefit.)
>
> The trouble is, 99% of bike lanes give the rest a bad name.
>
>
The newer stuff is better generally, have a segregated one down the
embankment which now has kids and what not, that you’d never see before
just fast brave folks like myself!

Is it slower now? Almost certainly but it’s better for more folks, so.

Roger Merriman

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:38:16 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 10/11/2021 11:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >>
> >> With all of this depends on how well they have been built, my commute uses
> >> a few miles of segregated from the 90s which runs for few miles parallel to
> >> a horrible urban dual carriageway, plus it bypasses some though not all
> >> junctions.
> >>
> >> In short flawed it maybe. As it’s narrow etc, it does work.
> >
> > As I've said, there are places where segregated bike facilities do make
> > sense. If I could remake history, I'd have had them added along many
> > interstate highways, especially in cities - and preferably separated by
> > a sound barrier wall. (Once, riding my bike home from Toronto, I was on
> > just such a facility somewhere west of that city. That wall was a great
> > benefit.)
> >
> > The trouble is, 99% of bike lanes give the rest a bad name.
> >
> >
> The newer stuff is better generally, have a segregated one down the
> embankment which now has kids and what not, that you’d never see before
> just fast brave folks like myself!
>
> Is it slower now? Almost certainly but it’s better for more folks, so.

With the advent of means of easier identification of a bicycle, it appears that Frank cannot understand any reasons that injuries should be down sharply more than deaths. Cyclist deaths are usually not because they were unseen but because someone in a motor vehicle made a gross error in judgement. Automobile injuries are almost entirely due to drivers not realizing that the cyclist was there. This I guess is far too difficult for a college professor to make out.