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

bike lanes

Expand Messages
  • Simon Norton
    Sorry, I didn t think of that, but I doubt that the risk is greater than that of being crowded by a car moving into a parking space. I suppose the remedy is to
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 13 3:12 AM
      Sorry, I didn't think of that, but I doubt that the risk is greater than that of
      being crowded by a car moving into a parking space. I suppose the remedy is to
      have no parking (or, perhaps, parking in the centre of the road) and strict
      requirements to give way to cyclists when turning into a driveway.

      Incidentally, what would be the feasibility of equipping cars with folding or
      sliding doors so that they don't need to intrude on space they aren't actually
      occupying (well, only a little space in the case of folding doors when they open
      outwards) ? These are now standard on most buses and trains respectively in the
      UK. Slam doors are also anti-social because of the noise they cause, especially
      late at night. On one occasion I wrote to complain after staying in bed &
      breakfast accommodation close to a car park used by late night revellers.

      Simon Norton
    • Justice McPherson
      ... Double the risk of a standard bike lane according to the preliminary stuff I saw on the Copenhagen lane that they installed in Melbourne while I was
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 14 2:20 AM
        --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, Simon Norton <S.Norton@...> wrote:
        > Sorry, I didn't think of that, but I doubt that the risk is greater than that of
        > being crowded by a car moving into a parking space.

        Double the risk of a standard bike lane according to the preliminary stuff I saw on the "Copenhagen lane" that they installed in Melbourne while I was there. It puts the bikes out of sight of the cars who are about to hook across the path, and pedestrians don't respect it as a travel lane; both are deadly hazards.
      • John A. Ardelli
        ... Did you ever notice that, when there s a safety issue with a piece of technology, the tendency is to redesign the technology rather than educate the
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 12, 2009
          On 13-Jun-09, at 7:12 AM, Simon Norton wrote:
          > Incidentally, what would be the feasibility of equipping cars with
          > folding or sliding doors so that they don't need to intrude on space
          > they aren't actually occupying (well, only a little space in the
          > case of folding doors when they open outwards) ?
          >
          Did you ever notice that, when there's a safety issue with a piece of
          technology, the tendency is to redesign the technology rather than
          educate the people?

          For example, in the early to mid 20th Century, electrical circuits in
          households were generally protected by fuses; in some old houses,
          these fuse panels are even still in use and fuses for them are still
          readily available. Most households could handle a maximum continuous
          load, all circuits, of 60 amps. However, starting in the 1950s, we
          began to see more and more electrical devices come onto the market.
          By the 1970s, that 60 amp service was often not enough to drive all
          the devices a given homeowner had; blown fuses became common.

          Now people, not understanding the purpose of fuses, would get around
          that by overfusing circuits, upping a 15 amp fuse to, say, a 30 amp
          fuse or, worse, bypassing fusing altogether by putting a penny into
          the socket. OK, that keeps the fuse from blowing but now there's
          nothing to keep the load on that circuit from exceeding the capacity
          of the wiring. Junctions heat up; you get electrical fires.
          Obviously, people needed to be educated about the importance of using
          the proper fuse for the load capacity of a given circuit; a simple idea.

          Did we educate people? No. Instead, we made the transition to
          CIRCUIT BREAKERS. Circuit breakers are idiot-proof. They can't be
          removed so, if a breaker is designed for 15 amps, that's the end of
          the story; you're NOT getting that circuit to stay on if you try to
          load it with more than 15 amps, period. That, plus an increase of
          standard household amperage from 60 to 100 amps to accommodate the
          increasing number of electrical devices in homes, cut down the problem
          quite dramatically.

          Now, mind you, circuit breakers DO have OTHER advantages, not the
          least of which that you don't need to buy a replacement every time you
          overload the circuit; you just flip it back on. Still, that does say
          a lot about how we handle educating the general public about safety.
          It's not that fuse panels are inherently dangerous; they're not.
          That's why you're allowed to KEEP them if your house happens to have
          one. Fuse panels are only unusually dangerous when MISused, just as
          cycling is only unusually dangerous when done improperly.

          John A. Ardelli
          http://pedalingprince.blogspot.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.