Re: Disc brake maintenance tips

Am 27.06.2024 um 11:01 schrieb Catrike Ryder:

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:26:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 6/26/2024 7:01 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 6/25/2024 4:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
I'm sure Youngstown's bike mode share is minuscule, just like almost all
U.S. cities. Remember, the national average is far below one percent.
And despite all the "innovative" segregated infrastructure, it's falling.
>

Again national mode share particularly the US with a significant rural
population is not a useful metric.
>
Cities are where it’s at, and probably 5 mile or less journeys.

>
That may be true. But data for U.S. cities is not much better. I
frequent four or five medium to large U.S. cities. Only one has a
noticeable amount of bike use, and the great bulk of that is connected
with several inner-city colleges. Two others have extensive bike lanes
that are always empty of bikes.
>

That is one of the reasons london and other places have automatic counters
as they knew darn well that taxi etc would say “I never see a bike!” This
said clearly london is doing rather better and more than US cities let
alone number of European cities.
>
Essentially bikes don’t clump up in the same way as cars etc do.

>
This is not some visual deception. A couple years ago my wife and I did
a multi-day vacation in a large Ohio city, visiting museums, shopping
centers, bike shops, etc. We saw miles and miles of bike lanes, but
almost zero bikes using them. Near the very center of the downtown we
saw some electric scooters in bike lanes, but no bikes.
>
Fundamentally, very few Americans bike for utility.
>

Why is it falling? I suspect one factor is the constant propaganda
claiming everyone NEEDS a barrier-segregated facility to be safe on a
bike. That tells almost everybody "You can't ride a bike until that
stuff gets built." IOW, never.
>

>
That’s clutching at straws really is! don’t think the massive increase in
car sizes/volumes car centric infrastructure? To name but a few over the
last 70 so years?

>
You can't deny that there have also been massive increases in
"innovative" bike facilities! And car size is largely irrelevant.

>
Car size absolutely has its issues mainly width, and blocking views.
>
Most of the cycle lanes have been some bike symbols or painted lanes or
possibly some disjointed shared paths. Only segregated stuff seems to have
been alongside major roads which only exist as they need to keep access see
my old 1959 cycleway as example.
>
And very little if anything innovative, more box ticking.

>
"Innovative" doesn't impress me. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's the
"innovative" stuff that includes collision hazards or wheel deflection
hazards for the cyclists. It's the "innovative" stuff that sends
cyclists wrong-way into intersections.
>
And as I've said before, the "Paint & Path" fans have been moving the
goalposts for decades. "Bike lane stripes will get people out of their
cars!" But when that didn't happen, "Buffered bike lanes will get people
out of their cars!" When that didn't happen "Green paint will get people
out of their cars!" When that didn't happen, "Flex post barriers will
get people out of their cars!" When that didn't happen "Concrete
barriers will get people out of their cars!"
>
Innovation after innovation has been provided, as demanded. People are
still massively preferring cars to bikes.
>
And despite ever more lanes, paths, green paint, barriers, etc. bike
mode share is falling. See
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us/67b4a9e2-5d32-11ee-b961-94e18b27be28_story.html
>
Or see
https://data.bikeleague.org/data/national-rates-of-biking-and-walking/
>
Or see
https://activetrans.org/busreports/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020regionalmodesharereport.pdf
>

It really isn’t because someone said it’s dangerous to ride a bike or they
should wear a helmet.

>
So you say. But people regularly report that they think bicycling is too
dangerous. And they are frequently told that without special facilities,
bicycling is too dangerous. I'm surprised you don't admit the
possibility of a causative link.

 People believe riding in vehicle traffic is dangerous because they can
see for themselves that it is, not because of someone telling them
that it is.

I know that people do not have a sense for "dangerous", they only have a sense for "scary".  Scary is "potentially dangerous and very visible".
The main difference can be called "traps": dangerous but not scary because they are almost invisible.
Most scary situations in traffic pose little real danger: the truck as opposed to the lion is not out to get you.  It is out to avoid hitting you.
Therefore, in traffic you should behave opposite to in nature.  It might be meaningful to hide from a lion but it is most counter-productive to hide from a truck.
So in traffic the dangerous situations are traps: the cyclist should *learn* what is dangerous, like a trapper (because the drivers might not see you in time) rather than feel intutively what is scary.
Rolf