2 ms·
>it's the physical AND mental effort required to evaluate all the possible options for stopping and then balancing the bike, then choosing and encating the righ
by Nadya 11y ago
>it's the physical AND mental effort required to evaluate all the possible options for stopping and then balancing the bike, then choosing and encating the right one.
My argument against this is that it takes very little physical effort and almost no mental effort to come to a stop when biking for the majority of the population beyond the training stages of riding a bike, in which it takes a lot more mental effort to maintain balance and come to a safe and complete stop.
I wasn't focusing on your "a little annoying" statement but on this mountain of a mole hill you created after saying it was only "a little annoying" by making it sound like a long and arduous problem that was mentally straining and physically difficult where every possible option (what option besides "apply brakes" is there?) has to be considered while maintaining balance on the bike (something not difficult for the general population) and properly selecting from these many options (1?), selecting the proper course of action (of the only course of action?) and after all of that mental effort (that had to be done in mere moments!) to actually physically act upon it without screwing it up!
Now, I would like to repeat myself, I don't think many people find deciding whether to brake or not or the act of braking on a bicycle to be that mentally or physically taxing beyond the training stages. In fact, I would say it's more reflexive and "muscle memory" ingrained within them that their subconscious is able to take care of a majority of the process without much conscious thought of the cyclist.
>In all cases of this i've seen someone was holding the bike and making sure the learner won't just crash uncontrollably. I'm wondering whether you ever learned how to ride a bike.
I was presented a bike on my 5th birthday. My father removed the training wheels on the 2nd day against my mother's wishes and offered no supervision beyond watching me fall. By the end of the day I was riding around, although rather scraped up. I still ride my 21 speed around the canyon I live in because skateboarding on these canyon roads is suicidal - too many rocks and there isn't even an official "bike lane" to ride in. You share the same lane as the cars. Really impatient cars who are going 80mph in a 55mph. I'd rather not risk hitting a rock.
>You don't actually seem to have a mental model of what stopping on a bike at an intersection entails
Slow down while approaching the intersection. Tilt the bike towards the curb (right-hand side in the U.S.A) and place your right foot down to create a tripod.
Braking a bike isn't rocket science.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoCyclists blow through red lights because it takes energy to get going again if you stop. That's it. Call it laziness, but if you're commuting it can save a lot of energy for whatever you're doing when you get there.
- Nadya 11y agoCars could save a lot of time blowing through red lights too. They'd burn a lot less gas if they didn't stop & go, which would save energy and world resources. Assuming they don't crash of course; but since we're assuming the cyclist isn't being hit and killed on their way to work - I think we can assume the car is making it through okay too. It is laziness - and a sense of entitlement. "I'm on a bike so everyone else must wait on me and find a way to break the laws of physics (pun intended) to prevent their car from hitting me". It saves a lot of time and energy until you get struck by a car. Which could result in the loss of all of your time and energy. Not a worthy trade off.
- Mithaldu 11y agoYou continue to insist that your opinion of "one only has to brake and there's nothing else to consider" is a fact, going so far as to ask the right question in parens, but then immediately barging on to indicate you don't even care to hear or consider what else there might be. Unless you show signs of actually caring to learn, i won't go in great detail, but do yourself a favor and consider these bullet points: Pedestrians, other bikers, visibility when stopped, space available for tilt, viability of tilt aids (curb, poles, rails, trees), car parking gaps, street vs bike path. It's not a giant problem, but it's also not nothing either. > canyon roads So, nothing like this? https://goo.gl/maps/gYhhk https://goo.gl/maps/gYhhk https://goo.gl/maps/NxGza https://goo.gl/maps/NxGza https://goo.gl/maps/YcGHN https://goo.gl/maps/YcGHN > Tilt the bike towards the curb (right-hand side in the U.S.A) and place your right foot down to create a tripod. You're making the mistake of assuming that that kind of condition is universally present. See above for a non-exhaustive list that may change your situation wildly.
- Nadya 11y agoMy "continued usage of my 21 speed in the canyons" does not mean I've never cycled anywhere else in my life or in more "difficult" (I struggle to use the word difficult here) scenarios. I don't define "difficult" as "showing absolutely no regard for your own and other's safety by maintaining a speed not suitable for the area". What that translates to is I go faster on the open canyon road and I go slower in areas with more pedestrians. It isn't more physically or mentally taxing, but simply requires me to maintain a safer speed. Similar to how the speed limit on a freeway is 100-120km/h but on a residential street is 40km/h. To me, your argument sums up to "I want to go 120km in the residential". Which indeed would make safety more difficult. You should treat your bike like a car. Sure it doesn't weigh 1,500 kilos and won't necessarily kill someone if you strike them; you're still a potential hazard for walking pedestrians and should respect that by maintaining a safe speed. Not the one you desire to go simply because you aren't in a car. (That's the entitlement I was mentioning earlier.) https://goo.gl/maps/8OpD7 https://goo.gl/maps/8OpD7 https://goo.gl/maps/c82C3 https://goo.gl/maps/c82C3