Re: Disc brake maintenance tips

On 6/27/2024 10:21 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/27/2024 8:53 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:49:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

  But recreational cyclists (you, for
example) can choose routes wherever they prefer and you
prefer cycle/pedestrian only. Which is fine.
>
Commuter/utility cyclists don't have that luxury of choice
and either learn to ride in a real world of 3000lb hurtling
missiles piloted by distracted/high/homicidal killers or
suffer from 'frisson de voiture' events.

Sorry, but I've got to disagree with that portrayal. I almost never experience hostility or significant danger from motorists. Perhaps two or three times per year, someone honks at me. I haven't had to take evasive action for decades. It's just not that bad out there! In fact, it's not bad at all.
Now I'll grant that I usually choose more pleasant routes, not the highest traffic arterials. But I do ride those arterials from time to time, as I've always done. They may not be aesthetically pleasing, but they are far from hellish.

Forester argued against bicycle infrastructure.

Forester correctly pointed out the hazards inherent in many types of bike infrastructure. His influence even there was beneficial, in that from about 1980 till about 2005, bike infrastructure became not as bad as it had been. Example: His first serious rant against bike infra described his attempt to ride what was essentially a sidewalk bike path at a normal speed, which was a very dangerous exercise. Engineers on design standards committees recognized the correctness of his complaints and began improving design standards. (After roughly 2005, the Paint & Path industry gained political control and found ways to say "Feel free to try whatever comes into your little mind." Hence bi-directional on-street bike chutes.)

Thank goodness his
agenda failed and thus recreational bicycling has grown as had the
manufacture and sales of bicycles.

Sure, the bicycle industry is just thriving! (That was sarcastic.)

Forester encouraged already known, common sense cyclist behavior for
people who choose to ride amongst vehicles. I don't understand why so
many people pay him homage.

 OK, I agree, reification from both extremes.

As I explained, and as Forester explained, the perfectly logical techniques he espoused were largely unknown in America. The flood of new bicyclists in the early 1970s knew next to nothing about how to behave on the road. Common sense was far from common. The proper techniques were "already known," but not here. He taught what he had been taught when he was young, in Britain.
It was all very new to Americans, including American traffic engineers. (His lesser-known book, _Bicycle Transportation Engineering_, was directed specifically at them.) He did a great service when he introduced that information to America.

And your cycling is a good example of infrastructure which is useful to you. Magnitude, extent and cost are legitimate public policy discussions ( or conflicts, if you will).

I note that the Very Independent, Very Fiscally Conservative tricycle rider is fine with the Evil Government spending millions of tax dollars for the benefit of the very, very few - as long as he's one of those few.

Antipersonnel devices in traffic lanes, wrong-way green paint lanes and so on are much less defensible.

Agreed.
--
- Frank Krygowski