Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CF] Unauthorized Contact

Expand Messages
  • Steven Schoeffler
    Cork it, Sail. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 15 , Apr 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Cork it, Sail.


      On Apr 7, 2009, at 9:34 AM, sail4free wrote:

      > ==========
      > Perhaps I have only myself to blame, but Tom Frost has infiltrated
      > other groups I belong to -- including at least one that I own --
      > after me mentioning that I own several groups and moderate two
      > others . . . and NOW he is Emailing me direct OFFlist. (Frustrated,
      > no doubt, that newbies can't post without moderation on any groups
      > I own or moderate.) This is your public notice, Tom, that you are
      > NOT authorized to contact me direct and if you persist, things WILL
      > get ugly. As you appear in groups that I'm a member of, I'll also
      > be letting those list owners/moderators know what you're up to.
      > I've established a file to record your antics, and I can only hope
      > you have sense enough to back off and get a life. I thought others
      > in the group might want to know what we're dealing with here.
      > ==========
      > sail4free
      > ==========
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Peacenik
      Folks its time to move. All combatants have either left or been placed on moderated status. No further comment on this, or any other off-topic thread is
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 7, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Folks its time to move. All "combatants" have either left or been placed on
        moderated status.

        No further comment on this, or any other off-topic thread is required. Lets move on
        back to talking about CarFree issues.

        Pretty please.

        gil
        still your friendly, though more interventionist, moderator
      • Whitney Turner
        So.... At this time I m not even vaguely carfree, though I do tend to preach, teach, and facilitate wherever I can. I d like to get back to it pretty much
        Message 3 of 15 , Apr 7, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          So....

          At this time I'm not even vaguely carfree, though I do tend to
          preach, teach, and facilitate wherever I can. I'd like to get back
          to it pretty much full-time, but there are some logistical
          concerns. I'm now divorced, have a young daughter who'se outgrown a
          cheapass tow-bike, and I was wondering if anyone on here has/had a
          Burley Piccolo. I am wondering, in particular, what the reasonable
          upper weight limit is on these critters. I see on the website that
          they recommend not more than 85 lbs. child weight, but I'm curious if
          that's a bit conservative, and would like to hear from anyone with experience.

          My other option would be to go to an Xtracycle, but I've already got
          the tandem to store, and one long bike in the house is quite enough
          of a logistical issue.... :-)

          Thanks,
          Whitney
        • James & Ute Grayson
          From: Whitney Turner Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:14 PM So.... At this time I m not even vaguely carfree, though I do tend to preach, teach, and facilitate
          Message 4 of 15 , Apr 8, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            From: Whitney Turner Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:14 PM



            So....

            At this time I'm not even vaguely carfree, though I do tend to preach,
            teach, and facilitate wherever I can. I'd like to get back to it pretty much
            full-time, but there are some logistical concerns. I'm now divorced, have a
            young daughter who'se outgrown a cheapass tow-bike, and I was wondering if
            anyone on here has/had a Burley Piccolo. I am wondering, in particular, what
            the reasonable upper weight limit is on these critters. I see on the website
            that they recommend not more than 85 lbs. child weight, but I'm curious if
            that's a bit conservative, and would like to hear from anyone with
            experience.

            My other option would be to go to an Xtracycle, but I've already got the
            tandem to store, and one long bike in the house is quite enough of a
            logistical issue.... :-)

            Thanks,
            Whitney



            Hi Whitney,



            No, we never had a Burley Piccolo, but I've heard 'good things' about them.



            When our granddaughter was smaller, we had her on a pedal-trailer (Adams
            Trail-a-Bike), which we all enjoyed. She was able to participate, or not,
            as she wished, and we always knew exactly where she was.



            Another option we sometimes employed was for her to sit in the stoker's
            'cabin', but with her feet on a U-bolt lock mounted on the stoker seat tube.
            Obviously, she couldn't pedal, but it was satisfactory for short trips when
            it wasn't necessary for my regular stoker to be along. At one point, I
            considered attaching wooden blocks to both sides of the stoker pedals, but
            never completed that idea.



            As she grew taller, I was able to lower the stoker seat and she was able to
            reach the pedals at full bottom of the stroke. She is now 12 and stands 5'
            6" and can pedal without lowering the seat.



            Unless your tandem has a very high stoker top tube, I suspect your daughter
            will be able to reach the pedals of your tandem long before she exceeds the
            (suggested) 85-pound limit of the Piccolo.





            James Grayson



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • pystanis
            I want to thank fred (hope I got the name right) Unsafe passing is a real problem in my area ventura county, calif. Basically the attitude seems to be if they
            Message 5 of 15 , Apr 8, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I want to thank fred (hope I got the name right)

              Unsafe passing is a real problem in my area ventura
              county, calif. Basically the attitude seems to be
              if they can squeeze by me then it is a safe pass.
              Although we have a lot of bike lanes, typically at
              intersections the lane disappears setting me up
              for a sideswipe. This post talks about how the
              cars coming up from behind can prepare for a lane
              change if the cyclist is visible and I agree with
              the premise. On the other hand when the bicycle
              lane suddenly ends then I find myself having to
              merge suddenly or stop as there is no way to
              signal my intentions in a timely manner.
              Probably the only solution is to require passing
              motorists to move over a lane at all times.


              --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "fred_dot_u" <fred_dot_u@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > I've noted in the on-topic posts that many people comment about how
              > difficult it is to ride safely on our roads. Those cyclists who have
              > taken LAB road courses learn to manage the lane and enjoy safer riding
              > as a result. What many people do not realize is that there is a motor
              > vehicle result on the positive side.
              >
              > When I ride in the center of my lane, which is almost always
              > sub-standard width (under 14 feet), traffic behind me are able to see me
              > and plan and execute a lane change under less self-imposed stress. I
              > have seen in my mirror motorists change lanes as far back as a quarter
              > mile. I usually ride on high-speed multi-lane roadways because they are
              > usually the only route to my destination. I've also found that these
              > roads are in quite good condition, with respect to debris and road
              > deterioration.
              >
            • David Hansen
              ... Is this a lane which is part of the road, separated by some paint, or a separate one alongside the road? -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain
              Message 6 of 15 , Apr 9, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                On 8 Apr 2009 at 13:48, pystanis wrote:

                > This post talks about how the
                > cars coming up from behind can prepare for a lane
                > change if the cyclist is visible and I agree with
                > the premise. On the other hand when the bicycle
                > lane suddenly ends then I find myself having to
                > merge suddenly or stop as there is no way to
                > signal my intentions in a timely manner.

                Is this a lane which is part of the road, separated by some paint, or a
                separate one alongside the road?

                --
                David Hansen, Edinburgh
                I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents
                me
                http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
              • Justice McPherson
                ... They re supposed to dissapear at intersections; at an intersection, a bicycle is to insert themself into the appropriate vehicle positioning for navigating
                Message 7 of 15 , Apr 9, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "pystanis" <pystanis@...> wrote:

                  > Although we have a lot of bike lanes, typically at
                  > intersections the lane disappears setting me up
                  > for a sideswipe.

                  They're supposed to dissapear at intersections; at an intersection, a bicycle is to insert themself into the appropriate vehicle positioning for navigating the intersection. Otherwise it creates such perversions as placing straight travel lanes to the right of right turn lanes, which is what a straight-through separate side lane is.
                  Sidelanes are proven to roughly double per capita fatalities, by the way, which is why there is so much interest these days in sharrows. The standards for sharrows are to be added officially to the federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in the latest version.
                • pystanis
                  I appreciate the explanation, but the solution is nearly as bad as the alternative in my opinion. Ventura has a bike lane on johnson road somewhat narrow and
                  Message 8 of 15 , Apr 11, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I appreciate the explanation, but the solution is nearly as
                    bad as the alternative in my opinion.

                    Ventura has a bike lane on johnson road somewhat narrow and at this one intersection created a straight through bike lane which starts some distance before the intersection with a dotted line implying
                    that I should merge to the left to get into the new straight
                    through bike lane and also to allow traffic turning right to
                    cross my path. Invariably people speed ahead of me crossing
                    the bike lane to make their right turn instead of slowing down
                    to change lanes behind me.
                    Still this seems to me to be a better solution than to suddenly end the bike lane.
                    The worst spot on johnson is at bristol where three lanes become
                    one. The rightmost lane becomes a right turn only which I
                    have to cross and then the two remaining lanes merge. The intersection is narrow and the next section of road is residential with no bike lane, roadside parking and motorists in a hurry to
                    get to work, the result being unsafe passing with motorists trying to squeeze by me.

                    It is the second rate status of bicyclists that I object to,
                    why should I have to merge at every intersection not only
                    looking to both sides for safety but behind as well for motorists
                    not interested in slowing down as I merge? Invariably they
                    swing wide of me passing unsafely by me and partially into
                    oncoming traffic speeding up then cutting in front of me for
                    their purposes.

                    Now in oxnard the bike lane on gonzales road is in my opinion
                    better in that it runs right up to the intersection. There is
                    a dashed section which is where right turning traffic can merge
                    so the motor vehicle has to watch for bicycles as they are making
                    the lane change.



                    --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "Justice McPherson" <JusticeZero@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "pystanis" <pystanis@> wrote:
                    >
                    > > Although we have a lot of bike lanes, typically at
                    > > intersections the lane disappears setting me up
                    > > for a sideswipe.
                    >
                    > They're supposed to dissapear at intersections; at an intersection, a bicycle is to insert themself into the appropriate vehicle positioning for navigating the intersection. Otherwise it creates such perversions as placing straight travel lanes to the right of right turn lanes, which is what a straight-through separate side lane is.
                    > Sidelanes are proven to roughly double per capita fatalities, by the way, which is why there is so much interest these days in sharrows. The standards for sharrows are to be added officially to the federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in the latest version.
                    >
                  • Justice McPherson
                    ... As noted, the MUTCD is adding sharrows into the latest edition, following tests in several cities.. Sharrows are, in essence, where engineers find the best
                    Message 9 of 15 , Apr 12, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "pystanis" <pystanis@...> wrote:
                      > I appreciate the explanation, but the solution is nearly as
                      > bad as the alternative in my opinion.

                      As noted, the MUTCD is adding sharrows into the latest edition, following tests in several cities.. Sharrows are, in essence, where engineers find the best place for cyclists to ride vehicularly, make sure the road is best suited for such vehicular riding, then mark the holy bejimminy out of that track with a gazillion bicycle arrows so that nobody can miss noticing them. In tests, they perform far better than bike lanes in terms of safety, and have a similar reassuring effect on potential facility users.
                    • fred_dot_u
                      An interesting concept. Engineers are going to determine where the road is best suited for vehicular cycling? From my experience, ALL roads are best suited for
                      Message 10 of 15 , Apr 13, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        An interesting concept. Engineers are going to determine where the road
                        is best suited for vehicular cycling? From my experience, ALL roads are
                        best suited for vehicular cycling, which simply means operating as a
                        vehicle, obeying traffic controls and the like. I can understand not
                        needing sharrows on standard width lanes, those fourteen feet wide and
                        wider, but how many of those exist for any distance? In this area, they
                        are usually loaded with parking spaces, so they are not truly standard
                        width lanes.

                        I suggest to any engineer to present to me a road not suited for
                        vehicular cycling, on which bicycles are currently not prohibited. This
                        excludes interstate highway lanes, unless otherwise permitted.

                        I'll certainly agree that marking the road with sharrows might pass
                        tests for safety and reassuring cyclists. I'd expect also that it
                        reduces the tendency of motor vehicle operators to think that the road
                        is for motor vehicles only.

                        --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "Justice McPherson" <JusticeZero@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "pystanis" pystanis@ wrote:
                        > > I appreciate the explanation, but the solution is nearly as
                        > > bad as the alternative in my opinion.
                        >
                        > As noted, the MUTCD is adding sharrows into the latest edition,
                        following tests in several cities.. Sharrows are, in essence, where
                        engineers find the best place for cyclists to ride vehicularly, make
                        sure the road is best suited for such vehicular riding, then mark the
                        holy bejimminy out of that track with a gazillion bicycle arrows so that
                        nobody can miss noticing them. In tests, they perform far better than
                        bike lanes in terms of safety, and have a similar reassuring effect on
                        potential facility users.
                        >
                      • Justice McPherson
                        ... By where , I mean what lane positioning is optimal; out of the door zone, best visibility, and so on so forth as opposed to which pieces of road are
                        Message 11 of 15 , Apr 14, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "fred_dot_u" <fred_dot_u@...> wrote:
                          > An interesting concept. Engineers are going to determine where the road
                          > is best suited for vehicular cycling? From my experience, ALL roads are
                          > best suited for vehicular cycling

                          By 'where', I mean what lane positioning is optimal; out of the door zone, best visibility, and so on so forth as opposed to "which pieces of road are best". Any road is a candidate for sharrows as a treatment really; it mostly just means making sure the road meets somewhat more stringent design standards that avoid creating hazards for bicyclists, then slapping a line of stencils down along the roadway out of things like door zones and whatnot.

                          > I'll certainly agree that marking the road with sharrows might pass
                          > tests for safety and reassuring cyclists. I'd expect also that it
                          > reduces the tendency of motor vehicle operators to think that the road
                          > is for motor vehicles only.

                          Kind've the point, yes. =)
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.