Bekologist
08-20-07, 12:15 PM
no doubt. any self styled advokate that discusses bike lights with alludes to 3W incandescent bulbs and acetylene lamps is woefully outdated.
View Full Version : Does John Forester still ride a bike?
billew
08-21-07, 07:05 PM
Mark, if you're running jhon forrestor approved :rolleyes: acetylene bike lights, no need for bright clothing!
I would also recomend some heavy woolen plus fours(knickers) and a woolen vest of course.
I would also recomend some heavy woolen plus fours(knickers) and a woolen vest of course.
John Forester
08-22-07, 04:59 PM
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Why do I hate environmentalists so much? I think that environmentalists is rather too broad a description; it is more accurate to say that I hate the anti-motoring part of environmentalism. Why them? Part of the answer is quite obvious from these discussions. Instead of actively encouraging people to cycle, they jumped on the motorists' bandwagon with their promotion of the motorists' system for controlling cyclists on the assumption that cyclists must be incompetent. I know a great deal about transportation beyond bicycle transportation, and I see that the anti-motorists spout misinformation at every opportunity, and have been doing so consistently for fifty years
Isn't this what you do? Ride like a driver?
Cyclist inferiority complex = incompetent cyclists?
John, you jumped on the motorists band wagon. You also call your cycling "vehicular" cycling. You expect cyclists to follow the rules of the road and the act 'vehicularly'. You oppose bike lanes, stressing that bikes should work with the normal flow of traffic, its normal signals, lane markings, etc.
And, to clarify, motorists and anti-motorists alike spout misinformation. Some motorists, governements, and corporations do this at every opportunity.
Are you trying to play semantic games by misusing terms? Or are you so misinformed that you don't understand the context?
When I remarked that the environmentally minded bicycle advocates "jumped on the motorists' bandwagon with their promotion of the motorists' system for controlling cyclists on the assumption that cyclists must be incompetent" I meant exactly what I wrote. Motorists had a system for controlling cyclists on the assumption that cyclists must be incompetent, and the bicycle advocates have always promoted that system as a major aspect of their campaign.
Did I "jump on the motorists' bandwagon"? Not in this context, in that for decades I have opposed the motorists' system regarding cyclists, arguing that both engineering and the law require cyclists to operate the same way as other drivers, as drivers of vehicles, rather than acting as if they were inferior to motorists in both status and skill.
You implicitly ask the question: "Cyclist inferiority complex = incompetent cyclists?" That's only partially correct. The person who lets his cycling be guided by the cyclist inferiority complex is bound to be operating incompetently. However, there are other causes than the CIC for cycling incompetently.
Why do I hate environmentalists so much? I think that environmentalists is rather too broad a description; it is more accurate to say that I hate the anti-motoring part of environmentalism. Why them? Part of the answer is quite obvious from these discussions. Instead of actively encouraging people to cycle, they jumped on the motorists' bandwagon with their promotion of the motorists' system for controlling cyclists on the assumption that cyclists must be incompetent. I know a great deal about transportation beyond bicycle transportation, and I see that the anti-motorists spout misinformation at every opportunity, and have been doing so consistently for fifty years
Isn't this what you do? Ride like a driver?
Cyclist inferiority complex = incompetent cyclists?
John, you jumped on the motorists band wagon. You also call your cycling "vehicular" cycling. You expect cyclists to follow the rules of the road and the act 'vehicularly'. You oppose bike lanes, stressing that bikes should work with the normal flow of traffic, its normal signals, lane markings, etc.
And, to clarify, motorists and anti-motorists alike spout misinformation. Some motorists, governements, and corporations do this at every opportunity.
Are you trying to play semantic games by misusing terms? Or are you so misinformed that you don't understand the context?
When I remarked that the environmentally minded bicycle advocates "jumped on the motorists' bandwagon with their promotion of the motorists' system for controlling cyclists on the assumption that cyclists must be incompetent" I meant exactly what I wrote. Motorists had a system for controlling cyclists on the assumption that cyclists must be incompetent, and the bicycle advocates have always promoted that system as a major aspect of their campaign.
Did I "jump on the motorists' bandwagon"? Not in this context, in that for decades I have opposed the motorists' system regarding cyclists, arguing that both engineering and the law require cyclists to operate the same way as other drivers, as drivers of vehicles, rather than acting as if they were inferior to motorists in both status and skill.
You implicitly ask the question: "Cyclist inferiority complex = incompetent cyclists?" That's only partially correct. The person who lets his cycling be guided by the cyclist inferiority complex is bound to be operating incompetently. However, there are other causes than the CIC for cycling incompetently.
John Forester
08-22-07, 05:01 PM
Said to be: Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Real wars have real speed limits!
Catchy.
Was the rest of the stream-of-consciousness supposed to mean anything? Learn to format your posts, man! It is hard to take you seriously when you are unable to show minimal writing and technical skills on forums.
I did not write such foolishness and I was not the original poster of it.
Real wars have real speed limits!
Catchy.
Was the rest of the stream-of-consciousness supposed to mean anything? Learn to format your posts, man! It is hard to take you seriously when you are unable to show minimal writing and technical skills on forums.
I did not write such foolishness and I was not the original poster of it.
LittleBigMan
08-22-07, 05:10 PM
no doubt. any self styled advokate that discusses bike lights with alludes to 3W incandescent bulbs and acetylene lamps is woefully outdated.
Zat so, "caveman biker?"
So what has changed so drastically from the 1970's? The speeds of cars? The width of lanes?
I can think of one thing: in the 1970's, we had huge vans, trucks were no different in size, and almost all American cars were freakin' huge, but the "ragin' cagers" just drove Firebirds, Camaros, GTO's, and other such gas-guzzling monstrosities.
Maybe the only other thing that has changed is that in the 1970's, we didn't wear helmets and our bikes were unsophisticated. But bikes still use a chain drive, derailleurs and brakes driven by cables, and are human-powered.
Are cyclists any faster, now? Are motorists larger, or more aggressive?
Was the pavement better in the '70's? I think not.
Someone will utter, "cellphones." Well, what can I say? In the 1970's, we had drunks, stoners, speeders, PCP heads, etc. Once while driving home, I was run off the road by someone who just wandered gradually into my lane, head on. I had do veer my car into someone's lawn to avoid him/her.
Cellphones weren't invented by a long shot.
Zat so, "caveman biker?"
So what has changed so drastically from the 1970's? The speeds of cars? The width of lanes?
I can think of one thing: in the 1970's, we had huge vans, trucks were no different in size, and almost all American cars were freakin' huge, but the "ragin' cagers" just drove Firebirds, Camaros, GTO's, and other such gas-guzzling monstrosities.
Maybe the only other thing that has changed is that in the 1970's, we didn't wear helmets and our bikes were unsophisticated. But bikes still use a chain drive, derailleurs and brakes driven by cables, and are human-powered.
Are cyclists any faster, now? Are motorists larger, or more aggressive?
Was the pavement better in the '70's? I think not.
Someone will utter, "cellphones." Well, what can I say? In the 1970's, we had drunks, stoners, speeders, PCP heads, etc. Once while driving home, I was run off the road by someone who just wandered gradually into my lane, head on. I had do veer my car into someone's lawn to avoid him/her.
Cellphones weren't invented by a long shot.
Jeronimo_
08-22-07, 05:48 PM
Pete, you troublemaker. You need to ride your bikes more.
billew
08-22-07, 05:59 PM
Zat so, "caveman biker?"
So what has changed so drastically from the 1970's? The speeds of cars? The width of lanes?
I can think of one thing: in the 1970's, we had huge vans, trucks were no different in size, and almost all American cars were freakin' huge, but the "ragin' cagers" just drove Firebirds, Camaros, GTO's, and other such gas-guzzling monstrosities.
Maybe the only other thing that has changed is that in the 1970's, we didn't wear helmets and our bikes were unsophisticated. But bikes still use a chain drive, derailleurs and brakes driven by cables, and are human-powered.
Are cyclists any faster, now? Are motorists larger, or more aggressive?
Is the pavement better? I think not.
Someone will utter, "cellphones." Well, what can I say? In the 1970's, we had drunks, stoners, speeders, PCP heads, etc. Once while driving home, I was run off the road by someone who just wandered gradually into my lane, head on. I had do veer my car into someone's lawn to avoid him/her.
Cellphones weren't invented by a long shot.
Hey LBM we still have all that and cell phones, trade PCP heads for meth or crack and things are worse today.
So what has changed so drastically from the 1970's? The speeds of cars? The width of lanes?
I can think of one thing: in the 1970's, we had huge vans, trucks were no different in size, and almost all American cars were freakin' huge, but the "ragin' cagers" just drove Firebirds, Camaros, GTO's, and other such gas-guzzling monstrosities.
Maybe the only other thing that has changed is that in the 1970's, we didn't wear helmets and our bikes were unsophisticated. But bikes still use a chain drive, derailleurs and brakes driven by cables, and are human-powered.
Are cyclists any faster, now? Are motorists larger, or more aggressive?
Is the pavement better? I think not.
Someone will utter, "cellphones." Well, what can I say? In the 1970's, we had drunks, stoners, speeders, PCP heads, etc. Once while driving home, I was run off the road by someone who just wandered gradually into my lane, head on. I had do veer my car into someone's lawn to avoid him/her.
Cellphones weren't invented by a long shot.
Hey LBM we still have all that and cell phones, trade PCP heads for meth or crack and things are worse today.
bmike
08-22-07, 08:13 PM
Are you trying to play semantic games by misusing terms? Or are you so misinformed that you don't understand the context?
I'm clearly uninformed.
You continue to force the issue of driver convenience and 200 pound cyclists acting just like 2 ton vehicles. I do believe it is you who has promoted the motorist way of controlling cyclists. Learn to act like a car, or get off the road.
I don't disagree that we should be consistent, be visible, signal, and take space on the road when we need it and follow the spirit of the 'rules of the road' - but you don't budge an inch when the discussion turns to alternatives to bikes and cars and trucks playing in the same space. You may have opposed the 'apparent' system of control by labeling cyclists as inferior - but your method is to blame the victim for the crime!
Instead of working to make cycling safe for more people, you insist that bikes act like other vehicles. Bicyclists aren't cars and trucks. They are also not pedestrians, horses, or Amish buggies. Even the most trained 'effective' cyclist cannot accelerate from a dead stop to 30 or 40 miles an hour with the push of their foot. Crossing 3-4-5 lanes of traffic to make a turn, or to get out of the way is not reasonable. Adding laws and markings and overlayed systems to our roadways helps to make other users visible to the motoring public. We have crosswalks... why not well designed bike lanes, sharrows, alternate traffic controls etc.?
Do you ever leverage against the convenience of motorists? Against the continued expansion of rights to those in motorized vehicles that share the public right of way with others? You demand that the burden is on cyclists to develop skills, to get over their inferiority, to 'grow up' and act like real vehicles. You never seem to indicate that perhaps there is a 'motorist superiority' complex at work, or that cars and trucks don't own the public right of way, or that perhaps lower speeds would make life more convenient for all users of that right of way.
By forcing the issue of cyclists as the problem, as the inferior ones, you consistently reinforce the motorists superiority complex, and as speed limits continue to rise, and public rights of ways continue to be designed primarily (and often exclusively) with cars and trucks in mind - you're implication that cyclists need to get over their inferiority only further distances seasoned and new cyclists from using the rights of ways in a safe, convenient manner - because regardless of the spirit of cycling effectively on our roads, following traffic laws, being visible and predictable - we still have to deal with physics - and by not honoring the fact the cyclists and pedestrians and cars and trucks and Amish buggies are inherently different and all deserve the same rights to convenience and safety while traveling the public rights of way you only further ghettoize any transport that is not motorized.
Stop blaming the victim John! Cyclists are not inferior. Honor the inherent strengths of the bicycle, and work to make travel on public rights of ways equitable to all users.
I'm clearly uninformed.
You continue to force the issue of driver convenience and 200 pound cyclists acting just like 2 ton vehicles. I do believe it is you who has promoted the motorist way of controlling cyclists. Learn to act like a car, or get off the road.
I don't disagree that we should be consistent, be visible, signal, and take space on the road when we need it and follow the spirit of the 'rules of the road' - but you don't budge an inch when the discussion turns to alternatives to bikes and cars and trucks playing in the same space. You may have opposed the 'apparent' system of control by labeling cyclists as inferior - but your method is to blame the victim for the crime!
Instead of working to make cycling safe for more people, you insist that bikes act like other vehicles. Bicyclists aren't cars and trucks. They are also not pedestrians, horses, or Amish buggies. Even the most trained 'effective' cyclist cannot accelerate from a dead stop to 30 or 40 miles an hour with the push of their foot. Crossing 3-4-5 lanes of traffic to make a turn, or to get out of the way is not reasonable. Adding laws and markings and overlayed systems to our roadways helps to make other users visible to the motoring public. We have crosswalks... why not well designed bike lanes, sharrows, alternate traffic controls etc.?
Do you ever leverage against the convenience of motorists? Against the continued expansion of rights to those in motorized vehicles that share the public right of way with others? You demand that the burden is on cyclists to develop skills, to get over their inferiority, to 'grow up' and act like real vehicles. You never seem to indicate that perhaps there is a 'motorist superiority' complex at work, or that cars and trucks don't own the public right of way, or that perhaps lower speeds would make life more convenient for all users of that right of way.
By forcing the issue of cyclists as the problem, as the inferior ones, you consistently reinforce the motorists superiority complex, and as speed limits continue to rise, and public rights of ways continue to be designed primarily (and often exclusively) with cars and trucks in mind - you're implication that cyclists need to get over their inferiority only further distances seasoned and new cyclists from using the rights of ways in a safe, convenient manner - because regardless of the spirit of cycling effectively on our roads, following traffic laws, being visible and predictable - we still have to deal with physics - and by not honoring the fact the cyclists and pedestrians and cars and trucks and Amish buggies are inherently different and all deserve the same rights to convenience and safety while traveling the public rights of way you only further ghettoize any transport that is not motorized.
Stop blaming the victim John! Cyclists are not inferior. Honor the inherent strengths of the bicycle, and work to make travel on public rights of ways equitable to all users.
LittleBigMan
08-22-07, 08:18 PM
Hey LBM we still have all that and cell phones, trade PCP heads for meth or crack and things are worse today.
Maybe, maybe not.
I'd trade a crack-head for a PCP head driver any day. At least the ba$tard is alert.
When I was 18, I could legally drink (and illegally drive--not that I did.)
Today (in Georgia,) you have to be 21.
That's a tremendous difference, considering that young people have a great deal more crashes, even sober.
Maybe, maybe not.
I'd trade a crack-head for a PCP head driver any day. At least the ba$tard is alert.
When I was 18, I could legally drink (and illegally drive--not that I did.)
Today (in Georgia,) you have to be 21.
That's a tremendous difference, considering that young people have a great deal more crashes, even sober.
LittleBigMan
08-22-07, 08:21 PM
I just looked at bike #1. No brakes driven by cables.
Go figure. I guess at least one thing has changed since the 70s.
:lol:
How do you pedal, Pete?
Wow, cycling has changed so much...
Given the number of fixies I see, cycling hasn't changed at all.
Go figure. I guess at least one thing has changed since the 70s.
:lol:
How do you pedal, Pete?
Wow, cycling has changed so much...
Given the number of fixies I see, cycling hasn't changed at all.
LittleBigMan
08-22-07, 08:35 PM
Instead of working to make cycling safe for more people, you [John Forester] insist that bikes act like other vehicles. Bicyclists aren't cars and trucks. They are also not pedestrians, horses, or Amish buggies. Even the most trained 'effective' cyclist cannot accelerate from a dead stop to 30 or 40 miles an hour with the push of their foot.
Straw man.
Nobody ever said cyclists should act like motorists. Cyclists should ride like vehicles, but they are human-powered. There is no cyclist that does not understand the limitations of human power compared to motorized power.
The point is that cyclists flowing with traffic according to similar principles as all other vehicles tends to be the safest method.
That by no means means acting like a motorist, or riding on the freeway in the center of the lane, or always using the most direct route.
All straw men.
Vehicles can ride wherever they choose. The keyword is, "choose."
People who say "vehicular cyclists" always want to ride in the center of the lane on the busiest street are totally clueless.
In fact, cyclists who choose to ride vehicularly are completely aware of the limitations of their size, speed, and close proximity to "2 ton hunks of metal."
How could they not be?
Straw man.
Nobody ever said cyclists should act like motorists. Cyclists should ride like vehicles, but they are human-powered. There is no cyclist that does not understand the limitations of human power compared to motorized power.
The point is that cyclists flowing with traffic according to similar principles as all other vehicles tends to be the safest method.
That by no means means acting like a motorist, or riding on the freeway in the center of the lane, or always using the most direct route.
All straw men.
Vehicles can ride wherever they choose. The keyword is, "choose."
People who say "vehicular cyclists" always want to ride in the center of the lane on the busiest street are totally clueless.
In fact, cyclists who choose to ride vehicularly are completely aware of the limitations of their size, speed, and close proximity to "2 ton hunks of metal."
How could they not be?
Bekologist
08-22-07, 09:09 PM
....I agree that someone discussing an acetylene lamp in the context of bicycle lighting systems is offering undeniable proof that they are out of touch with the state of modern cycling realities.
yeah, no doubt. but a 3W incandescent is the top of the walk in night lighting systems.
john is seriously out of touch. seriously.
yeah, no doubt. but a 3W incandescent is the top of the walk in night lighting systems.
john is seriously out of touch. seriously.
Six jours
08-22-07, 10:00 PM
Bicyclists aren't cars and trucks. They are also not pedestrians, horses, or Amish buggies....we still have to deal with physics
Yes. Exactly. The entire debate boils down to this point and everything else is semantics, politics, ideology, and Kool-Aid.
Yes. Exactly. The entire debate boils down to this point and everything else is semantics, politics, ideology, and Kool-Aid.
Six jours
08-22-07, 10:07 PM
The point is that cyclists flowing with traffic according to similar principles as all other vehicles tends to be the safest method.
Prove it.
People who say "vehicular cyclists" always want to ride in the center of the lane on the busiest street are totally clueless.
All I know about "VC" has come from this forum. And I have not seen any two advocates of "VC" who are in complete agreement about what "VC" actually is. So frankly, I have decided that it's some kind of loose-knit cult made up of people who get to decide "VC" is whatever they say it is. This would be annoying if "VC" was actually practiced by anyone outside of this insular little BF communtity. As it is, of course, none of it matters at all. So the three of you can have fun riding in traffic, or whatever the hell "VC" means at this particular moment.
Prove it.
People who say "vehicular cyclists" always want to ride in the center of the lane on the busiest street are totally clueless.
All I know about "VC" has come from this forum. And I have not seen any two advocates of "VC" who are in complete agreement about what "VC" actually is. So frankly, I have decided that it's some kind of loose-knit cult made up of people who get to decide "VC" is whatever they say it is. This would be annoying if "VC" was actually practiced by anyone outside of this insular little BF communtity. As it is, of course, none of it matters at all. So the three of you can have fun riding in traffic, or whatever the hell "VC" means at this particular moment.
Bekologist
08-22-07, 10:43 PM
the cult of jhon -
riding in the dimly lit beam of 3w incandescence, while one of BF's rezident "VC" proponents declares "ANYTHING GOES" and jhon rebuts that joker doesn't know VC if it bit him in the chamois.
where do I get me one of dem acetylene bike lamps?
riding in the dimly lit beam of 3w incandescence, while one of BF's rezident "VC" proponents declares "ANYTHING GOES" and jhon rebuts that joker doesn't know VC if it bit him in the chamois.
where do I get me one of dem acetylene bike lamps?
Bekologist
08-22-07, 10:45 PM
oh, jhon doesn't ride much anymore, and confuses road, drivers and traffic conditions in the 1940's thru the 1970's with today.
Six jours
08-22-07, 10:57 PM
while one of BF's rezident "VC" proponents declares "ANYTHING GOES" and jhon rebuts that joker doesn't know VC if it bit him in the chamois.
With apologies to P.J. O'Rourke, "VC is made up of me and you and I'm not too sure about you."
Acetylene lamps, BTW, work reasonably well, or at least those lamps made for early motorcycles do. I'm not quite sure what happens if you crash with one, but I'll bet it's exciting. I'd try Ebay.
With apologies to P.J. O'Rourke, "VC is made up of me and you and I'm not too sure about you."
Acetylene lamps, BTW, work reasonably well, or at least those lamps made for early motorcycles do. I'm not quite sure what happens if you crash with one, but I'll bet it's exciting. I'd try Ebay.
bmike
08-23-07, 04:09 PM
Straw man.
Most used phrase in A&S and VC!
http://www.uwsp.edu/english/cwilliams/scarecrow/scarecrow_wizard.jpg
Most used phrase in A&S and VC!
http://www.uwsp.edu/english/cwilliams/scarecrow/scarecrow_wizard.jpg
The Human Car
08-24-07, 02:42 PM
I was talking to a friend, fellow cycling advocate and riding buddy the other day and the subject of age came up, he’s 73 and has gone on 80 mile bike rides with me. Not only does he still ride he also knows almost every road in the state. If you want to know a good bike route he is a great source of information. He also has a good feel about cyclists comfort, yah sure there are times we’ll ride anything just to get were we are going but at the same time acknowledging the road could be better designed to accommodate cyclists.
Another person I have ridden with is in his mid 70’s and he has something like a 14-16mph average pace and he likes 20-40 mile long rides. (I will note that this fellow’s physical outline is similar in characteristics to JF’s.)
If you were to ask either of these fellows how much they ride they will probably say “not enough” or “not as much as I would like too” but they are still out there riding and they put in around 2,000 miles a year on the bike. Anyway I see great things being done in this state by those who still ride and ride with a passion. A lot of the junk that happens here are caused by people within government who appoint themselves representative of cyclists even though they hardly ever speak to cyclists and if they do it is generally a disagreement about what constitutes accommodating cyclists.
There are too many cycling advocates who feel as if they are on a holy mission and do not have to be held accountable to mere mortals.
Another person I have ridden with is in his mid 70’s and he has something like a 14-16mph average pace and he likes 20-40 mile long rides. (I will note that this fellow’s physical outline is similar in characteristics to JF’s.)
If you were to ask either of these fellows how much they ride they will probably say “not enough” or “not as much as I would like too” but they are still out there riding and they put in around 2,000 miles a year on the bike. Anyway I see great things being done in this state by those who still ride and ride with a passion. A lot of the junk that happens here are caused by people within government who appoint themselves representative of cyclists even though they hardly ever speak to cyclists and if they do it is generally a disagreement about what constitutes accommodating cyclists.
There are too many cycling advocates who feel as if they are on a holy mission and do not have to be held accountable to mere mortals.
invisiblehand
08-24-07, 02:44 PM
Most used phrase in A&S and VC!
http://www.uwsp.edu/english/cwilliams/scarecrow/scarecrow_wizard.jpg
:lol:
http://www.uwsp.edu/english/cwilliams/scarecrow/scarecrow_wizard.jpg
:lol:
genec
08-24-07, 03:14 PM
The way I pedal depends upon the terrain.
The fact of the matter is that your myopia led you to post "and brakes driven by cables" when many bikes don't use brakes driven by cables.
If you were to educate yourself a bit, you wouldn't post such blatantly silly claims.
"Many bikes?" or "Most bikes?" What are you trying to say there... Walk into most bike shops and you will still see most bikes are still controlled by cables.
Now that is not to say that certain bikes have tended toward disc brakes and hydraulic systems... but even some disc systems are still cable driven. I think therefore that most bike brakes are still cable controlled.
The fact of the matter is that your myopia led you to post "and brakes driven by cables" when many bikes don't use brakes driven by cables.
If you were to educate yourself a bit, you wouldn't post such blatantly silly claims.
"Many bikes?" or "Most bikes?" What are you trying to say there... Walk into most bike shops and you will still see most bikes are still controlled by cables.
Now that is not to say that certain bikes have tended toward disc brakes and hydraulic systems... but even some disc systems are still cable driven. I think therefore that most bike brakes are still cable controlled.
genec
08-24-07, 04:14 PM
Any bikes.
LBM offered cable driven brakes as an example that things hadn't changed.
The fact is that things have changed and brakes that don't use cables are just one example that contradicts his claim.
"Maybe the only other thing that has changed is that in the 1970's, we didn't wear helmets and our bikes were unsophisticated. But bikes still use a chain drive, derailleurs and brakes driven by cables, and are human-powered."
OK, heck we can go into the derailleur issue too, as many bikes in the '70s did not have derailleurs, and there are bikes today that do not, yet still offer "shifting systems."
The bottom line is there have been changes, some great, some minor, but all an indication of change... and certainly the same applies to the cycling environment in general... it is hardly the same environment of post WWII and has indeed changed since even the 70's. I think overall that is the point... and the issue at hand.
LBM offered cable driven brakes as an example that things hadn't changed.
The fact is that things have changed and brakes that don't use cables are just one example that contradicts his claim.
"Maybe the only other thing that has changed is that in the 1970's, we didn't wear helmets and our bikes were unsophisticated. But bikes still use a chain drive, derailleurs and brakes driven by cables, and are human-powered."
OK, heck we can go into the derailleur issue too, as many bikes in the '70s did not have derailleurs, and there are bikes today that do not, yet still offer "shifting systems."
The bottom line is there have been changes, some great, some minor, but all an indication of change... and certainly the same applies to the cycling environment in general... it is hardly the same environment of post WWII and has indeed changed since even the 70's. I think overall that is the point... and the issue at hand.
larryfeltonj
08-29-07, 06:21 PM
OK, heck we can go into the derailleur issue too, as many bikes in the '70s did not have derailleurs, and there are bikes today that do not, yet still offer "shifting systems."
The bottom line is there have been changes, some great, some minor, but all an indication of change... and certainly the same applies to the cycling environment in general... it is hardly the same environment of post WWII and has indeed changed since even the 70's. I think overall that is the point... and the issue at hand.
I've become a bit bemused with the notion that VC advocates are claiming that no changes have occurred in cycling conditions or equipment and technology over the past fifty years. I have two bikes sporting Sturmey-Archer three speed hubs, one of which I'm going to replace with a newer seven or eight speed hub (I haven't decided which). Even Forester, whom many of you are trying to paint as some sort of fossil wrote a very useful section on the relative advantages of internal hub gears in Effective Cycling.
So all you're really stating here is that 1945 is not the same year as 1970 is not the same year as 2007.
My own assertion is that the proper methods of cycling haven't changed that much since 1970 and the present. A secondary assertion of mine is that in Atlanta, cycling conditions have gotten better since 1970 (I can't speak for other sections of the country).
The bottom line is there have been changes, some great, some minor, but all an indication of change... and certainly the same applies to the cycling environment in general... it is hardly the same environment of post WWII and has indeed changed since even the 70's. I think overall that is the point... and the issue at hand.
I've become a bit bemused with the notion that VC advocates are claiming that no changes have occurred in cycling conditions or equipment and technology over the past fifty years. I have two bikes sporting Sturmey-Archer three speed hubs, one of which I'm going to replace with a newer seven or eight speed hub (I haven't decided which). Even Forester, whom many of you are trying to paint as some sort of fossil wrote a very useful section on the relative advantages of internal hub gears in Effective Cycling.
So all you're really stating here is that 1945 is not the same year as 1970 is not the same year as 2007.
My own assertion is that the proper methods of cycling haven't changed that much since 1970 and the present. A secondary assertion of mine is that in Atlanta, cycling conditions have gotten better since 1970 (I can't speak for other sections of the country).
Bekologist
08-29-07, 07:51 PM
I'm amused by VC advocates like Larry claiming that little or no changes have occured in the American road landscape in the last 60 years.
And showing a remarkable lack of contemporary knowledge about the sport of bicycling, John, in his commentary about acetylene bike lamps and 3 watt incandescents, is showing his remarkably out of date status as a less-than-modern bicyclist.
when's the last time you got honked at rudely by a driver on a cellphone, john? you DO know what a 'cellphone' is, correct? when did you last see a driver, head down, texting? do you know what 'texting' is, and how terribly it distracts drivers?
And showing a remarkable lack of contemporary knowledge about the sport of bicycling, John, in his commentary about acetylene bike lamps and 3 watt incandescents, is showing his remarkably out of date status as a less-than-modern bicyclist.
when's the last time you got honked at rudely by a driver on a cellphone, john? you DO know what a 'cellphone' is, correct? when did you last see a driver, head down, texting? do you know what 'texting' is, and how terribly it distracts drivers?
larryfeltonj
08-29-07, 08:10 PM
I'm amused by VC advocates like Larry claiming that little or no changes have occured in the American road landscape in the last 60 years.
I'm glad you're amused, since I really enjoy entertaining folks. But I'm sorry to point out that you didn't read my last post very carefully. Neither me, nor any other VC advocate has claimed that "little or no changes have occured in the American road landscape in the last 60 years".
What I have claimed is that proper road cycling techniques have remained stable. And I've also claimed that cycling in my area has gotten easier over the past few decades.
That being said, I've just returned from the Catskills area, so the spirit of stand up comics long departed have inspired me to be even more amusing than my usual drop-dead-funny self. So be prepared for some rib ticklin', rim-shot inducing fun.
I'm glad you're amused, since I really enjoy entertaining folks. But I'm sorry to point out that you didn't read my last post very carefully. Neither me, nor any other VC advocate has claimed that "little or no changes have occured in the American road landscape in the last 60 years".
What I have claimed is that proper road cycling techniques have remained stable. And I've also claimed that cycling in my area has gotten easier over the past few decades.
That being said, I've just returned from the Catskills area, so the spirit of stand up comics long departed have inspired me to be even more amusing than my usual drop-dead-funny self. So be prepared for some rib ticklin', rim-shot inducing fun.
LittleBigMan
08-31-07, 07:01 PM
What I have claimed is that proper road cycling techniques have remained stable. And I've also claimed that cycling in my area [Atlanta] has gotten easier over the past few decades.
I don't know about that, Larry. We still don't have electricity down here in the South...:D
I don't know about that, Larry. We still don't have electricity down here in the South...:D
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.