Saturday ride
Distance: 25mi
Time: 2 hours
It was a nice ride. I rode up to the edge of downtown, then jogged over toward the cemetery on O. Unfortunately, the only open entrance is on O, and I didn't want to mess with that to see graves!
So I rode down 33rd street to Normal. Then jogged over to the lake. I got pretty close to the lake when I heard "USE THE TRAIL" yelled from a car on the opposite side of the road. Maybe I should start yelling "USE A BICYCLE" at every motorist I see? I doubt they'd care, those sealed cabins are pretty sound proof. And it's not like it's the perfect temperature outside for rolled down windows (it is).
Then I went out East on the trail (I thought I'd take his advice, afterall there's no good road for where I was going).
Road past a "No Trespassing" sign that was practically on the trail. In fact, I was strongly tempted to rip it off: I pay to raise their land values and build a trail by their house, then they put up a no trespassing sign. Screw you buddy. See if I share with you again.
Road on East until the trail ran out. Then I proceeded through the muck on foot. I wanted to ride around in the really expensive section of housing out here. Apparently there's a hospital out there? It mentioned an emergency room but didn't mention a name.
Then I took a trip down to 84th, down 84th, then down Old Cheney. Decided I'd stop being obnoxious and use the Old Cheney trail once I got to 70th.
And on home I went. Good ride, only one rude driver. Alright, only one _really_ rude driver.
I'm convinced more of us should cycle on the road. Lincoln drivers have a lesson to learn. I'm thinking I should get a critical mass ride started. I think about 8:30AM on a Wednesday would be good.
It's our road too. We pay for it too.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Commuter Bike
So I decided it was time to stop commuting on my road bike. It's just too much work switching shoes every day, too much to deal with the mediocre roads I ride to work (they're paved, only minor pot holes, but they're cracked and there are permanent surface issues they never fix).So I decided I'd turn my winter commuter into my full time commuter bike!
So here's a shot of my winter commuter a it was when I got it:
And here we have it after some upgrades:1. Put a computer on it.
2. Front and rear fenders, not the nicest ones but this bike isn't setup for fenders.
3. Took the saddle pack, and its contents, from my road bike. It's easy to swap.
4. (This is the big one) New city slicks.
The first couple days have gone okay. The warped rear disc is driving me nuts, I'm gonna have to fix it. I lose a couple miles an hour over the road bike, but I gain much less obnoxious bumps on the road!
I also gain 10lbs to lug up and down the stairs :(.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Scoff Law
Today I found an old article on our local Journal Star newspaper. The interesting part though, is the comments. They're about two years old, so it'd be silly to respond.
A lot of people complain about scofflaw cyclists. Those cyclists who run red lights, pass on the right (I'm not sure if this is actually illegal), run stop signs, and in general don't fulfill each motorists every whim.
Frankly, this is crap. I don't do any tallies, but maybe I should start. I make a mental note each time a motorist breaks a law around me (on my bike) or threatens my safety by doing something that should be illegal (we really need a minimum passing distance, although I think 3ft is far too big for most streets and far too small on the highway).
Pretty much everyday someone makes an illegal pass. I'll define what I mean by this: Their pass crosses a double yellow line or is within 100ft of an intersection. Many times this pass is in the left turn lane for the other direction with mediocre visibility ahead.
About once or twice a week I get a rude honk. These aren't illegal, but they really should be. I see it as a very minor form of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It makes everyone nearby turn their head and slow up, and it scares the poor cyclist 4ft away out of his mind!
Seriously, just because you have a car doesn't mean you have the right to go honking your horn at each vehicle you pass! I don't care if you're too uninformed to realize that bike has a right to be there, there should be an extra penalty for not knowing the law and operating a motor vehicle! Learn the law, jerk!
So we all break the law when it's convenient for us, big surprise. We tend to do it in ways we won't get caught for. Cyclists can probably get away with more in most places for a couple reasons:
1. If you don't drive, the cost of a city ticket is a joke. It's the insurance increase that hurts you.
2. For the cop, you look like an idiot who's going to get himself hurt. Doing the same in a car makes you look like an idiot who may kill someone else. I wonder why he doesn't enforce the law equally?
This is a hard thing for most motor vehicle drivers to understand: You have more responsibility than cyclists do. That's because you can hurt more people in worse ways. We all have the same responsibilities to each other, but in a motor vehicle you stand to do much more damage with a smaller mistake.
Of course, that doesn't have anything to do with traffic tickets. It has to do with civil lawsuits.
The next thing to get here is that we're not banning vehicles from roads because of the actions of a some users. If we were, cars would be the number one hit. They do, after all, kill 40,000 people a year. How many do bicycles kill? About 600, almost entirely the cyclists themselves and most of those involve a motor vehicle.
I will say this: It's too easy to get a license in the state of Nebraska. That's been made clear by the lack of understanding most citizens have for the rules of the road and by the number of DUI's (it's not especially high, but most states have this problem -- and it's a serious problem).
I'd propose an one hour written test, pass/fail (pass is 80% and above). Then a random drivers test where about one in four is tested. Anything less and many will bet on not being the one. You'd be allowed a retake of the drivers test only after retaking the written exam with either a higher score or an equally excellent score around 95%.
A DUI, by the way, would be a scale of punishments based on your level and the officers interpretation of how drunk you were (let's face it, if I'm at .05 I shouldn't drive, but I know people who are fine at .10). Something like, .08 (the legal limit) and you lose your license for a year. .12 and you lose it for life. No need to put them in prison, they're not violent criminals they're just idiots. Now, if they drive without a license, then it's time to throw them in the can.
This would mean a lot of drivers would lose their licenses. Fine. You'll see forms of public and alternate transportation take off, and we need this anyway.
Being that this is my opinion, it's subject to change. I predict I'll change my mind within the next month. Maybe I'll post it when I do :).
I'm not sure there's need for punishment for riding drunk. It's an incredibly stupid thing to do, but until we see more cyclists and pedestrians on the road they're mostly just endangering themselves. If it were like Amsterdam or Portland I'd say you need punishment there too.
A lot of people complain about scofflaw cyclists. Those cyclists who run red lights, pass on the right (I'm not sure if this is actually illegal), run stop signs, and in general don't fulfill each motorists every whim.
Frankly, this is crap. I don't do any tallies, but maybe I should start. I make a mental note each time a motorist breaks a law around me (on my bike) or threatens my safety by doing something that should be illegal (we really need a minimum passing distance, although I think 3ft is far too big for most streets and far too small on the highway).
Pretty much everyday someone makes an illegal pass. I'll define what I mean by this: Their pass crosses a double yellow line or is within 100ft of an intersection. Many times this pass is in the left turn lane for the other direction with mediocre visibility ahead.
About once or twice a week I get a rude honk. These aren't illegal, but they really should be. I see it as a very minor form of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It makes everyone nearby turn their head and slow up, and it scares the poor cyclist 4ft away out of his mind!
Seriously, just because you have a car doesn't mean you have the right to go honking your horn at each vehicle you pass! I don't care if you're too uninformed to realize that bike has a right to be there, there should be an extra penalty for not knowing the law and operating a motor vehicle! Learn the law, jerk!
So we all break the law when it's convenient for us, big surprise. We tend to do it in ways we won't get caught for. Cyclists can probably get away with more in most places for a couple reasons:
1. If you don't drive, the cost of a city ticket is a joke. It's the insurance increase that hurts you.
2. For the cop, you look like an idiot who's going to get himself hurt. Doing the same in a car makes you look like an idiot who may kill someone else. I wonder why he doesn't enforce the law equally?
This is a hard thing for most motor vehicle drivers to understand: You have more responsibility than cyclists do. That's because you can hurt more people in worse ways. We all have the same responsibilities to each other, but in a motor vehicle you stand to do much more damage with a smaller mistake.
Of course, that doesn't have anything to do with traffic tickets. It has to do with civil lawsuits.
The next thing to get here is that we're not banning vehicles from roads because of the actions of a some users. If we were, cars would be the number one hit. They do, after all, kill 40,000 people a year. How many do bicycles kill? About 600, almost entirely the cyclists themselves and most of those involve a motor vehicle.
I will say this: It's too easy to get a license in the state of Nebraska. That's been made clear by the lack of understanding most citizens have for the rules of the road and by the number of DUI's (it's not especially high, but most states have this problem -- and it's a serious problem).
I'd propose an one hour written test, pass/fail (pass is 80% and above). Then a random drivers test where about one in four is tested. Anything less and many will bet on not being the one. You'd be allowed a retake of the drivers test only after retaking the written exam with either a higher score or an equally excellent score around 95%.
A DUI, by the way, would be a scale of punishments based on your level and the officers interpretation of how drunk you were (let's face it, if I'm at .05 I shouldn't drive, but I know people who are fine at .10). Something like, .08 (the legal limit) and you lose your license for a year. .12 and you lose it for life. No need to put them in prison, they're not violent criminals they're just idiots. Now, if they drive without a license, then it's time to throw them in the can.
This would mean a lot of drivers would lose their licenses. Fine. You'll see forms of public and alternate transportation take off, and we need this anyway.
Being that this is my opinion, it's subject to change. I predict I'll change my mind within the next month. Maybe I'll post it when I do :).
I'm not sure there's need for punishment for riding drunk. It's an incredibly stupid thing to do, but until we see more cyclists and pedestrians on the road they're mostly just endangering themselves. If it were like Amsterdam or Portland I'd say you need punishment there too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)