February 9, 20232 yr Fantastic article from Clevelander Angie Schmitt on going car-free / car-light in middle America. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 12, 20232 yr "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 3, 20232 yr Holy cow this car crash. Also, yet another example of why police chases are bad policy. Innocent people getting hurt (the other vehicle) and property damage When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
March 3, 20232 yr 58 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said: Holy cow this car crash. Also, yet another example of why police chases are bad policy. Innocent people getting hurt (the other vehicle) and property damage It's ok I'm sure the person running has excellent insurance....
March 19, 20232 yr "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 19, 20232 yr "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 22, 20232 yr MORPC takes issue with that air quality report: Does Columbus have most polluted air among major U.S. cities? This report says so. “Brandi Whetstone, MORPC's sustainability officer, said the IQAir report isn't consistent with MORPC's regional monitoring, adding that central Ohio's air quality hasn't exceeded national standards for the last 12 years. Whetstone said she is seeking clarification from IQAir, an air purifier company, on their methodology. "We don't have enough information on the methodology to determine how these numbers were calculated," she said. In an interview, Whetstone identified elements of the report that she said could have led IQAir to mischaracterize the quality of central Ohio's air.“ https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2023/03/22/report-columbus-most-polluted-major-city-in-the-united-states-iqair/70033068007/
March 23, 20232 yr Also most cars on the road today are very good about maintaining their emissions compliance throughout their lifespan as opposed to 15-20 years ago when there were still lots of cars with carburetors, user-adjustable ignition timing, short-lived early catalytic converters, few sensors, vacuum lines everywhere, constantly clogging PCV valves, sticky EGRs etc. out on the roads. A lot of today's cars will go haywire and leave you stranded or at least into nearly undrivable Limp Mode if the emissions are out of spec.
March 23, 20232 yr 17 hours ago, GCrites80s said: Little air pollution from industry. Then, why is it required in Portage County?
March 23, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, dski44 said: Then, why is it required in Portage County? And Geauga County?
March 23, 20232 yr Wind bringing pollution from industry in nearby counties. Columbus doesn't have that. Anyway, no matter how clean ICE cars are getting we do have an issue with particulates at least according to the Dispatch print article and of course lack of rail transit is blamed. This city can't get that by now rail transit is mandatory for a city this size. I would additionally blame the massive influx of semis to the area over the past 10 years and the ridiculous number of SUVs and full-size pickup trucks here. E-Check wouldn't help since they would almost all pass. E-check is a '90s solution to a 2020 problem since it does nothing about out of town semis, lack of rail transit and vehicles that are running perfectly fine within parameters yet still polluting since they have ICE engines. It's main purpose is to catch gross polluters which in rust states barely exist anymore. In non-rust states like California where you routinely see 40 year old cars on the road gross polluters can still be an issue.
March 23, 20232 yr If industry is causing air quality issues in Cuyahoga and surrounding counties, they should eliminate e-check. Stop blaming it on cars.
March 23, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said: If industry is causing air quality issues in Cuyahoga and surrounding counties, they should eliminate e-check. Stop blaming it on cars. Are you advocating for more regulations on industry, or more asthma and respiratory illnesses?
March 23, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, GCrites80s said: Anyway, no matter how clean ICE cars The air is so much cleaner today than it was in the 80s and early 90s. Like 98% cleaner. I remember driving through Gary, IN around 1987 and the sky was RED/ORANGE. For MILES. There is absolutely nothing like that now. Closer to home, I thought Ohio was a light grey place until the late 90s, when the impacts of the Clean Air Act really started making a difference. The sky is blue, the clouds are white (the sky and clouds were the same thing for decades), and you can smell flowers in the city now.
March 23, 20232 yr 32 minutes ago, Lazarus said: The air is so much cleaner today than it was in the 80s and early 90s. Yes, but cleaner does not necessarily mean that the air is clean enough not to have a detrimental impact on our health.
March 23, 20232 yr A rant about the dangers of the shift to bigger, heavier vehicles over the past 40 years.
March 26, 20232 yr "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 5, 20232 yr The car industry is, I believe, aware it is reaching end of the road of "affordable" mass motordom (cars have always been doomed to run out of space), so is pivoting to making luxury products for rich people. But that has implications for used cars, too. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 5, 20232 yr 15 minutes ago, KJP said: The car industry is, I believe, aware it is reaching end of the road of "affordable" mass motordom (cars have always been doomed to run out of space), so is pivoting to making luxury products for rich people. But that has implications for used cars, too. Cars are more expensive because of the new fuel economy standards and rules. Either makers make all electric vehicles which would be a disaster for the economy because the infrastructure is not there (and personally I think electric is a poor model to move towards as those batteries are awful for the environment) or the gas engines have more stringent fuel economy rules that makers cannot manufacture affordable low end vehicles that get moderate fuel economy. So in order to justify the cost of the higher fuel economy, you need to manufacture vehicles with luxury features on them since you cant make a base model anymore and cover your costs.
April 5, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: Cars are more expensive because of the new fuel economy standards and rules. This would have happened regardless of the Obama-era rules. Our modern economy is hyper-focused on quarterly results and efficiencies. Why sell any cars that nets you $2k per unit sold when you can sell ones that make you $6k per unit sold (and put them on longer loans)? The American companies that ditched sedans will be taking their lumps during a recessionary period, while the Asian manufacturers will be well-positioned since they still have sedans in their lineups. You know what's short-term efficient? Selling cars with higher margins. It's as simple as that. This would have happened whether or not a Ford Escape gets 40mpgs or 20mpgs.
April 5, 20232 yr 19 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: Cars are more expensive because of the new fuel economy standards and rules. Complete and utter BS from someone who just showed that they don't know anything about cars. Buy a non-hybrid base Accord for $27k TODAY and average over 35MPG like I am. A large car. Buy a non-hybrid base Civic for $25K and average 38. Or be a Boomer and buy an F-150 for $70K and average 16. https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150 Weight, height, tire size and engine size are the enemies of affordable MPG, not the gubmint. Mid-size cars cost $15-20K in the mid-'90s, averaged 20MPG and have only increased $10K in 28 years.
April 5, 20232 yr 21 minutes ago, GCrites80s said: base Accord for $27k TODAY and average over 35MPG like I am. A large car. Buy a non-hybrid base Civic for $25K and average 38. Nobody got a new Honda in 2022 for less than $30k out the door. The dealerships were slapping a $4,000 inflation charge on all new cars, plus Ohio got $2,000. My sources tell me that there is a movement afoot amongst 30-40 year-old moms to avoid minivans at all costs. That's why you see all of the minivans disguised as SUVs, like the Honda CRV. I have the Honda HRV. It's a bit dorky but I can't believe how good the AWD is in snow. It's like the snow isn't even there, and that's with normal tires.
April 5, 20232 yr Depending on what part of Cincinnati you live in AWD or snow tires can definitely be important in snow. I remember amazing people people as I would chug up the steep Brighton Corners bridge over Central Parkway in my 944 with its rear-mounted manual transmission in 4 inches of snow.
April 5, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Lazarus said: My sources tell me that there is a movement afoot amongst 30-40 year-old moms to avoid minivans at all costs. That's why you see all of the minivans disguised as SUVs, like the Honda CRV. I may live in a bubble. The parking lots of both my youngest kid's daycare and my older kids' school look like minivan showroom lots. And those sliding doors are amazingly useful. 1 hour ago, Lazarus said: I have the Honda HRV. It's a bit dorky but I can't believe how good the AWD is in snow. It's like the snow isn't even there, and that's with normal tires. And when we got our minivan, we chose the Toyota Sienna because it was basically the only one on the market with an AWD option at the time. 1 hour ago, GCrites80s said: Complete and utter BS from someone who just showed that they don't know anything about cars. Buy a non-hybrid base Accord for $27k TODAY and average over 35MPG like I am. A large car. Buy a non-hybrid base Civic for $25K and average 38. Or be a Boomer and buy an F-150 for $70K and average 16. https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150 Weight, height, tire size and engine size are the enemies of affordable MPG, not the gubmint. Mid-size cars cost $15-20K in the mid-'90s, averaged 20MPG and have only increased $10K in 28 years. Even cars in those ranges have surprisingly high loan payments to buyers with less than sterling credit, and even worse is the fact that used cars often come with substantially higher interest rates and principal balances that aren't that far short of new. I've unfortunately seen people in the kind of situations where the best loan they could get for a used car was 24-25% for 72 or 84 months, and that's for secured debt secured by an asset that really isn't depreciating much in the current environment (though of course a lot could change in 72 or 84 months).
April 5, 20232 yr In the used realm it might behoove people to shop for another vehicle rather than a different lender when faced with those rates. An enormous amount of vehicles on the used market today are domestic crossovers with 3.6 liter V6s that have a history of going boom without much warning. GM, Ford and Chrysler. That risk gets priced into the loan since people refuse to pay off cars with blown engines so the lender has to repo it then send it to auction sitting next to all the other blown-up crossovers.
April 5, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, 10albersa said: This would have happened regardless of the Obama-era rules. Our modern economy is hyper-focused on quarterly results and efficiencies. Why sell any cars that nets you $2k per unit sold when you can sell ones that make you $6k per unit sold (and put them on longer loans)? The American companies that ditched sedans will be taking their lumps during a recessionary period, while the Asian manufacturers will be well-positioned since they still have sedans in their lineups. You know what's short-term efficient? Selling cars with higher margins. It's as simple as that. This would have happened whether or not a Ford Escape gets 40mpgs or 20mpgs. But the car companies have to have their fleets meet certain fuel standards. It means less ability to produce some of the mid-sized trucks that average say 20-25mpg because there is more demand for the larger (yes even less fuel efficient car) truck that has a higher margin. Furthermore, they need to offset that profit center by selling EV's and other more expensive to produce cars that may not have as high of demand so that they can meet the fuel efficiency requirements for their overall production. So the area of the market that would cater to middle income or lower income drivers can no longer be effectively served because of many of the government's restrictiosn.
April 5, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Gramarye said: 3 hours ago, Lazarus said: My sources tell me that there is a movement afoot amongst 30-40 year-old moms to avoid minivans at all costs. That's why you see all of the minivans disguised as SUVs, like the Honda CRV. I may live in a bubble. The parking lots of both my youngest kid's daycare and my older kids' school look like minivan showroom lots. And those sliding doors are amazingly useful. All 30-40 year old moms say they will never drive a minivan when they become a mom but in 3-4 years they all want one because they are practical and easy to haul kids. My wife said the same thing but when we had multiple kids she wanted to join the legions of minivan owners so we have an Odyssey which i refer to as her dream car.
April 5, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, Gramarye said: I've unfortunately seen people in the kind of situations where the best loan they could get for a used car was 24-25% for 72 or 84 months, and that's for secured debt secured by an asset that really isn't depreciating much in the current environment (though of course a lot could change in 72 or 84 months). So the bank gets 25% interest for a year or so, then gets the car.
April 5, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: All 30-40 year old moms say they will never drive a minivan when they become a mom but in 3-4 years they all want one because they are practical and easy to haul kids. My wife said the same thing but when we had multiple kids she wanted to join the legions of minivan owners so we have an Odyssey which i refer to as her dream car. All? My wife drives a Civic. She had a Mini Cooper and wanted another but they've gotten too expensive. I drive a Maxima Platinum, my second lease of one in a row. I'd consider another but Nissan doesn't make them anymore. I may go with a Honda Accord Touring next. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 6, 20232 yr 13 hours ago, KJP said: All? My wife drives a Civic. She had a Mini Cooper and wanted another but they've gotten too expensive. I drive a Maxima Platinum, my second lease of one in a row. I'd consider another but Nissan doesn't make them anymore. I may go with a Honda Accord Touring next. You are right, ALL is probably too all encompassing and certainly it is not "All". Also, to your point, when we only had one child, it was quite convenient to drive our Honda Accord and Saturn that we had at the time. With 3 kids and hauling friends around the minivan is certainly a good option. Also, I do not necessarily look at choosing between a Honda Accord/Civic/Nissan Maxima/Camry etc. vs minivan as the decision that most people are deciding with. I think what you see is that most people want to get the "family car" and are choosing between some type of SUV or minivan. I do not see people debate between the sedan vs minivan route as much.
April 6, 20232 yr I used to work with a guy whose daughter had 5 kids by age 23. I worked with the guy long enough to hear about her various car purchases - she never bought a vehicle large enough to take all 5 kids somewhere. The oldest kid was over 10 and had never left Butler County, ever, for any reason.
April 6, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, Lazarus said: I used to work with a guy whose daughter had 5 kids by age 23. I worked with the guy long enough to hear about her various car purchases - she never bought a vehicle large enough to take all 5 kids somewhere. The oldest kid was over 10 and had never left Butler County, ever, for any reason. I think when you have 5 kids by 23 you probably are not in position to get a large enough car nor leave your local area too often. I had an employee at one time who was in that situation and their kids pretty much never left their little corner at all either.
April 6, 20232 yr 9 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: You are right, ALL is probably too all encompassing and certainly it is not "All". Also, to your point, when we only had one child, it was quite convenient to drive our Honda Accord and Saturn that we had at the time. With 3 kids and hauling friends around the minivan is certainly a good option. Also, I do not necessarily look at choosing between a Honda Accord/Civic/Nissan Maxima/Camry etc. vs minivan as the decision that most people are deciding with. I think what you see is that most people want to get the "family car" and are choosing between some type of SUV or minivan. I do not see people debate between the sedan vs minivan route as much. And we have both. There have been times we wished we had two minivans, but having both options available is good, especially since most of the time in the sedan, it's just me driving. Meanwhile, even the minivan gets crowded when my wife's parents are visiting from India, which they usually do for 3-5 months per year. During those times, there are many occasions when we fill all 7 seats in the minivan. (And I stand by the claim that the proper way to measure the efficiency or appropriateness of using a personal vehicle is passenger-miles, not vehicle-miles, because if we considered public transport as an alternative option, that's 7 tickets we just replaced by taking the minivan, not 1.) But the issue of this thread is car dependency, and it's fair to note that while car dependency isn't necessarily changing, the bite of it certainly is as vehicles, including used ones, get more expensive. When I bought my car in 2018, the $49,000 price tag seemed exorbitant (but I was really ready to trade in the LEAF.) Average new consumer vehicle sales prices have come really close to that just five years later--and it might even be average sales price of cars, excluding trucks and SUVs, though I'd need to check that again.
April 6, 20232 yr 2020 and later simply a bad time to buy just about anything. Manufacturing capacity, supply chain and all that was set up around the fact that minimalism and the shift to experiences went all the way back to 2008 -- and even a bit earlier. Possessions shifted to being for mid-Xers and up. When all ages started demanding more stuff the system wasn't ready. And it's still not ready. It has not been a good time to buy a car since early 2020 and it will not be for two years minimum. The problem is when a "bad time to buy a car" lasts this long too many peoples' situations change and too many cars wear out or rust.
April 6, 20232 yr "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 6, 20232 yr On 4/5/2023 at 10:27 AM, Brutus_buckeye said: Cars are more expensive because of the new fuel economy standards and rules. Either makers make all electric vehicles which would be a disaster for the economy because the infrastructure is not there (and personally I think electric is a poor model to move towards as those batteries are awful for the environment) or the gas engines have more stringent fuel economy rules that makers cannot manufacture affordable low end vehicles that get moderate fuel economy. So in order to justify the cost of the higher fuel economy, you need to manufacture vehicles with luxury features on them since you cant make a base model anymore and cover your costs. Yet part of the reason why automakers made the move to SUVs is because they are classified as "trucks" and therefore are not held to the same CAFE standards as cars -- so it's hard to believe that fuel economy requirements are behind the trend of higher prices in what most people are buying -- SUVs and trucks. I suspect that the relatively low price of gasoline, which when adjusted for inflation has remained relatively steady except for a few periods of high prices that we simply "weathered" until now, has meant that consumers care more about "what extras can I get" than a few extra mpg in gas mileage. And automakers were happy to oblige. https://www.offgridweb.com/transportation/infographic-a-history-of-gas-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/ And adding batteries is adding a lot of cost to future cars. The average person is soon going to be paying a huge proportion of their income to have and drive a personal car. Lack of investment in transit infrastructure is going to bite the poor and middle class in the A$$, and they don't (want to) see it coming.
April 6, 20232 yr 7 minutes ago, Foraker said: And adding batteries is adding a lot of cost to future cars. The average person is soon going to be paying a huge proportion of their income to have and drive a personal car. Lack of investment in transit infrastructure is going to bite the poor and middle class in the A$$, and they don't (want to) see it coming. At the very least, car dependency is. Lack of transit infrastructure and capabilities is one obvious deficiency, but transit will not always going to work as a solution given current land use patterns (and even if we change those patterns, which I generally support, the existing autocentric buildout will largely remain). One thing I've seen gaining a lot more attention, and I'll be interested in seeing where it goes in the coming years, is the growth of street-legal personal vehicles smaller (and cheaper) than cars. From about a year ago, April 2022: New Research Shows That E-Bikes Are Outpacing Electric Cars Sales in the U.S. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a39838840/ebikes-are-outpacing-electric-car-sales-in-the-us/ E-bike sales have also surpassed non-e-bike sales in terms of popularity and growth (though not actual numbers quite yet), reports market research company NPD. With 240 percent growth in sales in the last year, e-bikes are outstripping even road bikes. ======== I seem to have lost the link but I saw something similar not long ago about mopeds and motor scooters (Vespas and the like). If we end up restructuring the gas tax into a vehicle-weight-mile tax, the popularity of lightweight personal vehicle options will probably increase even further. I've already started thinking about options like that for my oldest child's first vehicle, even though it'll be years before he's old enough to drive even a moped or motor scooter. I crashed the first car my parents gave me, and that was a 1991 Ford Escort. I'm not sure I want the first car I put him in control of to be a $50,000, 455+ hp EV that goes 0-60 in 4.1.
April 6, 20232 yr 7 hours ago, Gramarye said: (And I stand by the claim that the proper way to measure the efficiency or appropriateness of using a personal vehicle is passenger-miles, not vehicle-miles, because if we considered public transport as an alternative option, that's 7 tickets we just replaced by taking the minivan, not 1.) That is the one argument overlooked by the mass transit proponents. When you have a vehicle with 4-5 people in it, it is actually cheaper to operate in many cases than taking mass transit. We were in Atlanta a few months back for the peach bowl and took the subway to the game. It costs $20 round trip for my family and I. Whereas driving would have cost about $4.00 in gas. $10 to park (and walk a few blocks to the stadium at a more moderate priced garage/street parking) plus $3-$4 in possible additional wear and tear.
April 6, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: That is the one argument overlooked by the mass transit proponents. When you have a vehicle with 4-5 people in it, it is actually cheaper to operate in many cases than taking mass transit. We were in Atlanta a few months back for the peach bowl and took the subway to the game. It costs $20 round trip for my family and I. Whereas driving would have cost about $4.00 in gas. $10 to park (and walk a few blocks to the stadium at a more moderate priced garage/street parking) plus $3-$4 in possible additional wear and tear. It's not overlooked. Average vehicle occupancy is 1.5 people, so that 4-5 people is a rarity, with most trips being 1 or 2 ppl. I don't think anyone doesn't recognize the efficiency of putting 5 ppl in a minivan. That is the reasoning behind mass transit, after all.
April 6, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: That is the one argument overlooked by the mass transit proponents. When you have a vehicle with 4-5 people in it, it is actually cheaper to operate in many cases than taking mass transit. We were in Atlanta a few months back for the peach bowl and took the subway to the game. It costs $20 round trip for my family and I. Whereas driving would have cost about $4.00 in gas. $10 to park (and walk a few blocks to the stadium at a more moderate priced garage/street parking) plus $3-$4 in possible additional wear and tear. You don't really save big $ using public transportation until you entirely rid yourself of owning a car. That's really tough to do if you have kids and don't live in Manhattan, although living with one car is possible in many areas. People don't fully calculate the cost of going on trips because they don't count the sunk cost of apartment rent or paying for the house that they're not using while on the trip. Also, dogs are horrendously expensive. Don't get a dog.
April 6, 20232 yr The other benefit of carpooling is that it is very green (compared to the alternatives). A full mini van is probably pretty equivalent in terms of emissions per person as a full bus. Indeed, most of the math I've seen puts cars as more efficient than the average bus (~10 people) at only the first passenger (2nd person) (buses have much higher empty running carbon cost). Unfortunately most cars only have one person in them most of the time. I'm not saying carpooling is better in terms of emissions than taking a bus (since the bus will run regardless of whether or not you're on it). Just pointing out that gas efficiencies tend to be pretty similar if you actually fill all the seats.
April 6, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Gramarye said: I seem to have lost the link but I saw something similar not long ago about mopeds and motor scooters (Vespas and the like). If we end up restructuring the gas tax into a vehicle-weight-mile tax, the popularity of lightweight personal vehicle options will probably increase even further. I've already started thinking about options like that for my oldest child's first vehicle, even though it'll be years before he's old enough to drive even a moped or motor scooter. I crashed the first car my parents gave me, and that was a 1991 Ford Escort. I'm not sure I want the first car I put him in control of to be a $50,000, 455+ hp EV that goes 0-60 in 4.1. And this is why we advocate for bicycle highways and separated bike lanes -- you definitely wouldn't want a cyclist (particularly your kid or your elderly parent) "sharing the lane" with a heavy vehicle with both users distracted by their cell phones as everyone seems to be these days. The Dutch can give a masterclass on cycle highways. On the other hand, the US always thinks that more power is better, so in the US electric bikes can go much faster than is permitted in much of Europe -- too fast for a path shared with pedestrians but still slow compared to the much larger vehicles on the road. Electric scooters are losing some of their luster. https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/02/paris-votes-overwhelmingly-to-ban-shared-e-scooters/ But larger electric Vespa-types, with more power than an electric bicycle (and better brakes in most cases), but less power than most motorcycles, may be more popular if they can keep up with traffic (and at least on city streets that should be the case).
April 6, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Foraker said: On the other hand, the US always thinks that more power is better, so in the US electric bikes can go much faster than is permitted in much of Europe -- too fast for a path shared with pedestrians but still slow compared to the much larger vehicles on the road. They kind of have to. Protected and separated bike infrastructure is so rare in the US that the vast majority of cyclists are going to need something that has acceleration to not only rid with car traffic, but get through dangerous intersections as quickly as possible.
April 7, 20232 yr 14 hours ago, Dev said: They kind of have to. Protected and separated bike infrastructure is so rare in the US that the vast majority of cyclists are going to need something that has acceleration to not only rid with car traffic, but get through dangerous intersections as quickly as possible. I understand the feeling, but it's not rational. If even a small car hits a cyclist (or a parked driver opens a car door in front of a cyclist's path), the speed of the cyclist, whether 5mph or 30mph, is pretty much irrelevant -- the cyclist is going to lose.
April 7, 20232 yr You don't need or want to "keep up" with traffic while riding a bike. If a lot of traffic comes along, just pull over to the side of the road and wait for it to pass. It's possible to safely bike on "busy" city streets and suburban arterials by simply waiting for gaps to appear.
April 7, 20232 yr 34 minutes ago, Foraker said: I understand the feeling, but it's not rational. If even a small car hits a cyclist (or a parked driver opens a car door in front of a cyclist's path), the speed of the cyclist, whether 5mph or 30mph, is pretty much irrelevant -- the cyclist is going to lose. That's beside the point. The objective is to not get hit and I'm going to do what I can to maximize that chance. If I'm riding closer to the speed that the cars are going, there's a little bit less chance that'll happen. Places like Paris are lowering their speed limits for cars to 30 kph/18 mph to get them closer to the typical speed of a cyclist. Since that political willpower does not exist in the US, I need a class 3 ebike that will get me closer to the typical speed of a car, even if it's just on a slower residential-only street. 26 minutes ago, Lazarus said: You don't need or want to "keep up" with traffic while riding a bike. If a lot of traffic comes along, just pull over to the side of the road and wait for it to pass. It's possible to safely bike on "busy" city streets and suburban arterials by simply waiting for gaps to appear. Given the volume of traffic we have, you're stating that I have to go our of my way to go from point A to point B, travel at non-peak hours, and/or constantly pull over. I am not a fan of the vehicular cyclist dogma but it makes sense given the existing infrastructure conditions.
April 7, 20232 yr You really don't want to ride quickly while bike commuting since you need time to react to unexpected things in the street (glass, screws, nails, etc.). Having to brake or swerve at a higher speed increases the likelihood of clipping the curb or hitting an oil slick. 1 hour ago, Dev said: Given the volume of traffic we have, you're stating that I have to go our of my way to go from point A to point B, travel at non-peak hours, and/or constantly pull over. I am not a fan of the vehicular cyclist dogma but it makes sense given the existing infrastructure conditions. In Ohio, the character of roads is typically much more conducive to biking than in some other places, but especially the entire South. Biking in other places I've been like Nashville and Knoxville is terrible because of typical street characteristics. Meanwhile, Detroit is pretty much a perfect biking city because...nobody's around. Every former residential side street is like a wide-open bike path. It's also easy to ride in much of Los Angeles, since there are endless alternates to the main arterials. Why would you ride on Wilshire Blvd when you can ride on the side streets that parallel it for 15~ miles? LA does have pinch points. Sunset Blvd in Westwood doesn't have a parallel alternative. But you can still easily get from, say, Pacific Palisades to West Hollywood with a mile detour south of UCLA. (Mod edit: merged. --Gramarye.)
Create an account or sign in to comment