Good news for Cyclists(commuters) [modified]
-
Google Maps now has Bike routes. It gave some interesting route from my home to work (about 15 miles) which is a little shorter (0.9 miles) than my regular route.
modified on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:03 PM
-
Google Maps now has Bike routes. It gave some interesting route from my home to work (about 15 miles) which is a little shorter (0.9 miles) than my regular route.
modified on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:03 PM
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Google Maps now has Bike routes.
Only in the US :(
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
-
Google Maps now has Bike routes. It gave some interesting route from my home to work (about 15 miles) which is a little shorter (0.9 miles) than my regular route.
modified on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:03 PM
But does the new direction take you through drug infested neighbourhoods ? :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Google Maps now has Bike routes. It gave some interesting route from my home to work (about 15 miles) which is a little shorter (0.9 miles) than my regular route.
modified on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:03 PM
I hope it keeps them on the woodland trails and off the city streets. A 50 mph road designed to accomodate high speed motor vehicles is not a place for targets bicycles, regardless of who pays what taxes. It's simply dangerous to both parties. [edit] I'd originally said "stupid and dangerous," which I've altered to remove the former as it wasn't my intention to be insulting. The dangerous aspect I stand by as I've seen spandex wearing cyclists cause countless close calls on roads where they really had no business being. [/edit] [edit2] And I did it before Rama threatened me with the hamsters![/edit2] :-D
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Servicesmodified on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:02 PM
-
I hope it keeps them on the woodland trails and off the city streets. A 50 mph road designed to accomodate high speed motor vehicles is not a place for targets bicycles, regardless of who pays what taxes. It's simply dangerous to both parties. [edit] I'd originally said "stupid and dangerous," which I've altered to remove the former as it wasn't my intention to be insulting. The dangerous aspect I stand by as I've seen spandex wearing cyclists cause countless close calls on roads where they really had no business being. [/edit] [edit2] And I did it before Rama threatened me with the hamsters![/edit2] :-D
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Servicesmodified on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:02 PM
Christopher Duncan wrote:
stupid and dangerous
That offense would have kicked you out of this site. Just remember that a biker owns this site. :)
Christopher Duncan wrote:
I've seen spandex wearing cyclists
I think, most spandex wearing bikers, are professional or semi-professional and follow the bike safety rules well. I always had issues with the people who ride on the wrong side wearing black clothes after the sun has set. I always drive once on the route I follow before riding on the bike to make sure it is safe.
-
But does the new direction take you through drug infested neighbourhoods ? :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Are you looking for this? Would you consider this a feature? :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
stupid and dangerous
That offense would have kicked you out of this site. Just remember that a biker owns this site. :)
Christopher Duncan wrote:
I've seen spandex wearing cyclists
I think, most spandex wearing bikers, are professional or semi-professional and follow the bike safety rules well. I always had issues with the people who ride on the wrong side wearing black clothes after the sun has set. I always drive once on the route I follow before riding on the bike to make sure it is safe.
Just for the record, bikers ride Harleys. Cyclists ride bicycles. But yeah, I'll probably have to watch for heavily armed hamsters just the same. :) It's not just the visibility that's the problem. The roads simply aren't built to safely accomodate a car driving 50 and a bike doing 20. In rare instances where bikes have a dedicated small lane off to the side it's fine. However, most lanes have been designed for the width of a car (and shoulders are often not terribly safe for the cyclist). What typically results is a cyclist riding on the right hand side of a lane and blocking traffic behind him, frequently leaving cars no option but to veer into the next lane in order to go around someone who's doing a fraction of the speed that the rest of the traffic is doing. If the car misjudges to the right, the cyclist gets clipped. Not a good day for either party. If the car misjudges to the left, it's a bad day for the car. Either way, it's a dangerous situation caused by misuse of the pavement. Roads are for cars. Trails are for bicycles.
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
Google Maps now has Bike routes. It gave some interesting route from my home to work (about 15 miles) which is a little shorter (0.9 miles) than my regular route.
modified on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:03 PM
Is this what the rest of the world would call cycling, or have the local Hell's Angels chapter moved into Google's offices?
-
Is this what the rest of the world would call cycling, or have the local Hell's Angels chapter moved into Google's offices?
Shhh! You're going to spoil all the fun when these guys walk into a Harley filled bar and announce that they're bikers. :-D
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
Just for the record, bikers ride Harleys. Cyclists ride bicycles. But yeah, I'll probably have to watch for heavily armed hamsters just the same. :) It's not just the visibility that's the problem. The roads simply aren't built to safely accomodate a car driving 50 and a bike doing 20. In rare instances where bikes have a dedicated small lane off to the side it's fine. However, most lanes have been designed for the width of a car (and shoulders are often not terribly safe for the cyclist). What typically results is a cyclist riding on the right hand side of a lane and blocking traffic behind him, frequently leaving cars no option but to veer into the next lane in order to go around someone who's doing a fraction of the speed that the rest of the traffic is doing. If the car misjudges to the right, the cyclist gets clipped. Not a good day for either party. If the car misjudges to the left, it's a bad day for the car. Either way, it's a dangerous situation caused by misuse of the pavement. Roads are for cars. Trails are for bicycles.
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesChristopher Duncan wrote:
bikers ride Harleys
Interesting, you are right. Bikers call themselves bikers when they are with other bikers. Cyclists is the right term. :)
-
Are you looking for this? Would you consider this a feature? :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
Great minds think alike... :-D
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Christopher Duncan wrote:
bikers ride Harleys
Interesting, you are right. Bikers call themselves bikers when they are with other bikers. Cyclists is the right term. :)
Yeah, I offered that in the spirit of public safety. These guys wear t-shirts that say, I'd rather have a sister in a whorehouse than a brother on a Honda. Can you imagine how they'd react to a 10 speed? :-D
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
Shhh! You're going to spoil all the fun when these guys walk into a Harley filled bar and announce that they're bikers. :-D
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesAs a matter of fact, this is what happened to my biker cyclist friend whom I was asking about the correct use of term. Here is what he said (pasted from IM conversation): we were heading up to a race and there were signs that said "welcome bikers - free coffee”. it was meant for motorcyclists. little funny to see bunch of guys in spandex on bicycles pull up next a bunch of guys in leather on harley's
-
As a matter of fact, this is what happened to my biker cyclist friend whom I was asking about the correct use of term. Here is what he said (pasted from IM conversation): we were heading up to a race and there were signs that said "welcome bikers - free coffee”. it was meant for motorcyclists. little funny to see bunch of guys in spandex on bicycles pull up next a bunch of guys in leather on harley's
I would have paid the cover charge to watch that!
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
I hope it keeps them on the woodland trails and off the city streets. A 50 mph road designed to accomodate high speed motor vehicles is not a place for targets bicycles, regardless of who pays what taxes. It's simply dangerous to both parties. [edit] I'd originally said "stupid and dangerous," which I've altered to remove the former as it wasn't my intention to be insulting. The dangerous aspect I stand by as I've seen spandex wearing cyclists cause countless close calls on roads where they really had no business being. [/edit] [edit2] And I did it before Rama threatened me with the hamsters![/edit2] :-D
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Servicesmodified on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:02 PM
50 Mph? Bah. The road into town from here is officially 65 Mph and that's just the posted speed. Even so, there are plenty of cyclists on it. I tried it a couple of times, and decided it wasn't worth the risk... ended up cutting through fences, a creek and a junk yard to avoid it last time though, so I can't really blame the folks with decent bicycles for wanting to stay on the pavement. And it's probably not worth pushing for Google to recommend a dirt route with heavy construction interrupting it mid-way...
-
50 Mph? Bah. The road into town from here is officially 65 Mph and that's just the posted speed. Even so, there are plenty of cyclists on it. I tried it a couple of times, and decided it wasn't worth the risk... ended up cutting through fences, a creek and a junk yard to avoid it last time though, so I can't really blame the folks with decent bicycles for wanting to stay on the pavement. And it's probably not worth pushing for Google to recommend a dirt route with heavy construction interrupting it mid-way...
I know what you mean. In my area, the 50 mph roads are easily spotted by signs that say, "Speed Limit 25." The real solution to this is for cities to fund roads that have a dedicated small strip on the right, in addition to the normal width of the lane, that's just for bikes. If they had their own slot I have no doubt they'd stay in it and everyone would be well served. I do admire the people who ride bikes out of a sense of environmental consciousness. I just wish it was coupled with a more practical implementation. Until then, any vehicle who could get their butt kicked by flimsy, fiberglass Corvette (and in a collision I'd probably even lose an argument with a Harley) should just stay on the porch. :)
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
Just for the record, bikers ride Harleys. Cyclists ride bicycles. But yeah, I'll probably have to watch for heavily armed hamsters just the same. :) It's not just the visibility that's the problem. The roads simply aren't built to safely accomodate a car driving 50 and a bike doing 20. In rare instances where bikes have a dedicated small lane off to the side it's fine. However, most lanes have been designed for the width of a car (and shoulders are often not terribly safe for the cyclist). What typically results is a cyclist riding on the right hand side of a lane and blocking traffic behind him, frequently leaving cars no option but to veer into the next lane in order to go around someone who's doing a fraction of the speed that the rest of the traffic is doing. If the car misjudges to the right, the cyclist gets clipped. Not a good day for either party. If the car misjudges to the left, it's a bad day for the car. Either way, it's a dangerous situation caused by misuse of the pavement. Roads are for cars. Trails are for bicycles.
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesSeveral fives here; the cyclists riding on suburbia roads where the speed limit is 40-50 are definitely suicidal individuals. It’s not a matter of if it’s a matter of when you will get seriously injured. City, town, park, reservation area even the highways are more save/because of the bigger shoulders/ than the two lane roads.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Just for the record, bikers ride Harleys. Cyclists ride bicycles. But yeah, I'll probably have to watch for heavily armed hamsters just the same. :) It's not just the visibility that's the problem. The roads simply aren't built to safely accomodate a car driving 50 and a bike doing 20. In rare instances where bikes have a dedicated small lane off to the side it's fine. However, most lanes have been designed for the width of a car (and shoulders are often not terribly safe for the cyclist). What typically results is a cyclist riding on the right hand side of a lane and blocking traffic behind him, frequently leaving cars no option but to veer into the next lane in order to go around someone who's doing a fraction of the speed that the rest of the traffic is doing. If the car misjudges to the right, the cyclist gets clipped. Not a good day for either party. If the car misjudges to the left, it's a bad day for the car. Either way, it's a dangerous situation caused by misuse of the pavement. Roads are for cars. Trails are for bicycles.
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesChristopher Duncan wrote:
Either way, it's a dangerous situation caused by misuse of the pavement. Roads are for cars. Trails are for bicycles.
You might find that your local law enforcement see it a little differently. If a car has difficulty getting around a bicycle, it is incumbent on the motorist to wait until he can safely pass. It's called sharing the road, and it's the law. Impatience is no excuse for violating the law and causing injury to yourself, another motorist, or a cyclist, nor does it make it the fault of the cyclist. ;P
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Either way, it's a dangerous situation caused by misuse of the pavement. Roads are for cars. Trails are for bicycles.
You might find that your local law enforcement see it a little differently. If a car has difficulty getting around a bicycle, it is incumbent on the motorist to wait until he can safely pass. It's called sharing the road, and it's the law. Impatience is no excuse for violating the law and causing injury to yourself, another motorist, or a cyclist, nor does it make it the fault of the cyclist. ;P
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
Yeah, that's the argument I hear all the time. Believe it or not, some laws are actually stupid. This is one of them.
LunaticFringe wrote:
If a car has difficulty getting around a bicycle, it is incumbent on the motorist to wait until he can safely pass.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, when a cyclist is holding up a 50 mph road doing 20 during rush hour traffic, his greatest danger is not getting hit by a car, but rather that some yahoo with a shotgun will go Easy Rider on him. Sharing the road is a very, very bad idea, and is much like a mouse sharing a cave with an underfed lion. Perhaps it's just and fair that they should both have shelter from the rain, but there's just no way that it's going to end well.
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
I would have paid the cover charge to watch that!
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesFunnily, it happened in Canton :)