Re: fast tires

On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 12:18:05 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 6/14/2025 12:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On 14 Jun 2025 16:37:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
 

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On 14 Jun 2025 15:46:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:

>
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
>

>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer
is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken,
you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days
after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to
rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery
for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're
thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I
won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( .

>
Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.

I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.

>
I'm curious about what happened.
>

>
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate
from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
>
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852

>
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.

>
Really???   unavoidable crashes while walking?

>
In the US you?re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie
other countries the trend to down.

>
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads
are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
>

It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing
pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that.
>
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
>

--
C'est bon
Soloman
>

>
Roger Merriman
>

>
>
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking.
Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to
rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most
likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he
shouldn't be walking.

>
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies
lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
>
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for
utility, I?ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before
returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
>
I?d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not.

The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently
ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data
because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against
the right wing.")
>
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about
7000 pedestrian fatalities. Most sources say cycling is safer per mile
traveled than pedestrian travel.
>

>
Indeed though considering how poorly provided for pedestrians seem to be in
the US and that the rate is rising compared to other 1st world etc places,
that?s a relatively low bar really!
>
Would seem a slight increase in rate. Which is broadly what one would
expect I guess.
>
Absolutely it?s clearly not a high risk method of travel, though as ever
risk and how comfortable it may feel are two different things.
>
Roger Merriman

>
As I said, most pedestrian accidents happen where the pedistrian is
not supposed to be, as dictated by law. Not so with bicycle accidents.
>
Obey the law, reduce the risk.
>

And if your pedestrian crossing has right turning traffic etc, ie will have
cars crossing as you are despite the sigh for you to go as US is very much
about car design.
>
Go for a walk about your neighbourhood and look really look at the
pavements and crossings.
>
Other places tend not to have jaywalking laws and have big bustling city’s
and big roads but have lower fatalities rate and one that is getting lower
US is the outlier in that it’s increasing.
>

--
C'est bon
Soloman
>

>
Roger Merriman

 
Like I said elsewhere, location and circumstance are relevant. Just
looking at total numbers and total miles traveled produces irrelevant
conclusions, that "some ignorant people" accept because it fits their
agenda.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
Without engaging this argument myself (meh) people do
compare both per mile and per hour, and the population sizes
are mostly conjecture anyway. (Who's a cyclist? Who's a
pedestrian?) so any conclusion at all will be challenged.

I believe most conclusions should be challenged. The first thing I
look at when I see an interesting news report or a collection of data
is, who did it and who funded it. That often eliminates my next action
which is to look at the actual complete raw data for my own analysis.
If none of that is available, I assume the conclusions are biased and
I ignore the entire thing.

--
C'est bon
Soloman