FWIW, I had exactly one show on WPTS and I don’t remember anything else I played except “Detachable Penis”.
I had a few shows on PTS, maybe once a week for half a semester in 86. Filled in for someone on RCT once or twice. Played punk and Dead. That’s ok though.
Sean interviewed me today for a show that will air on all 6 local Clear Channel stations in December. 4 of 6 will play it Sunday morning, December 23rd. I give myself a B+. I think I covered a lot of the things I wanted to. We’ll see what happens after they edit it down.
I can say this, Sean feels truly bad about his fb rant and is a very nice guy in person. I’m hoping this is the start of what becomes a solid partnership with WDVE/Clear Channel over the next few years. They have a ton of listeners and if we want to reach the Pittsburgh driving public, this is a good way to do it.
Anonymous 11/28/2012 at 7:41pm #
That is great news, Scott.
Anonymous 11/28/2012 at 9:07pm #
#1 thing here, and I do mean #1 is to get more people on bikes, especially traveler’s come out (of the car).
Attitudes improve as more people bike (obviously) as they see the unique benefits and challenges. And friends/family of someone that does ride will be much more tolerant than a stranger to the idea.
Same thing as seen with any other group fighting for rights and respect.
There are two interventions that we know increase walking and cycling: living in the Netherlands and living in Denmark.
—Dr Harry Rutter, (UK) National Obesity Observatory (quoted at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/nov/28/deadly-cycling-sitting-watching-tv –yes, it’s meant to be a joke. i think.)
I don’t agree with the notion that running a red on Grant on Sunday morning = idiot. There are clear lines of sight and there’s probably not a lot happening Sunday morning. Would he be upset if somebody jay walked the same roads?
I don’t understand this complete subservience to lights and signs in situations were we can clearly tell whether or not it is safe to cross the street. I guess that makes me a idiot.
I’m also not particularly concerned with some old white radio dude’s respect. My MP3 player doesn’t have a stance on how closely I follow traffic laws and plays music that’s much better aligned with my tastes and doesn’t have commercials.
I’m both looking forward to hearing the interview on sunday and excited that the topped thread brought the Black Flag/ Grateful Dead article to my attention! Punks is hippies!
Anonymous 11/28/2012 at 10:45pm #
@Pierce And why cars should not run red in this case?
I’m not a WDVE listener, but I’m really glad this is happening. I only wish it were being aired during drive time.
Anonymous 11/29/2012 at 4:45am #
Mikhail, there’s a good reason bikes should be able to go and cars not, cars out in the intersection are a mortal danger to all, bikes only to themselves.
Bikes breaking this rule are more or less the same as jaywalking pedestrians… a normal thing that while technically illegal, really doesn’t matter.
I still don’t do it in most cases where I know I could in perfect safely, not owing to technical illegality or any feelings of guilt, but because I don’t want to feed the road rage out there. Sigh.
In this particular case, it would be a lot harder for cars to see the intersection without being in it. Cyclists are much further in front and so they don’t have to be as far into the intersection.
Anonymous 11/29/2012 at 3:00pm #
@byogman and can you give them to me? You can use formulas — I am mathematician and studied physics for 4 years also in college.
The problem with these reasoning is that when there is no one on intersection so no mortal danger in this particular case. The problem is that once someone could/would use his/her one judge when it safe and when it’s not — you cannot trust people to be always reasonable.
BTW bicyclist could mortal danger for pedestrians. And we know cases when pedestrians have been killed by bicyclists. So we should talk about probability of it happening.
Anonymous 11/29/2012 at 3:11pm #
BTW I am pro for Idaho approach:
1. read as stop
2. stop as a yield
I am very aware about keeping momentum and how it helps reduce general time for cars sitting at stop and/or read. but Idaho approach still makes it bicyclists responsibility to follow law and if something happens bicyclists would hold accountable.
Anonymous 11/29/2012 at 4:31pm #
Mikhail, perplexed reading your last two posts side by side. I was speaking in generalities, but I think awfully strong ones.
For the first, since you mention physics, hypothetical but reasonable back of the envelope mv^2/2 comparisons between bikes and cars is a good intuition check on their comparability. Mostly, um, no. Not the whole story but a strong intro chapter.
Also, since the bike doesn’t give you an armored shell, people who enter intersections are placing their own safety at risk when they do the same to others. So while there will be yahoos, and I don’t doubt that there have been a small number of real tragedies, I seriously doubt there have been the sort of number that make sense to make public policy over.
But it sounds at the end of the day like we both favor a very similar approach. I never was suggesting blowing through red lights at full speed was safe. So I’m not sure we’re arguing about anything but word choice and tone?
Anonymous 11/29/2012 at 11:24pm #
“hypothetical but reasonable back of the envelope mv^2/2 comparisons between bikes and cars is a good intuition check on their comparability. Mostly, um, no. Not the whole story but a strong intro chapter.”
An you understand why is not applicable in case when is no one on intersection? In addition — this is kinetic energy. And you should worry about momentum for the most part — just m*v.
“since the bike doesn’t give you an armored shell, people who enter intersections are placing their own safety at risk when they do the same to others.”
And there is no one on intersection so no danger.
I hate this fallacy in logic. It gives other side to do exactly the same.
BTW what is going to happen if car at speed 1 mph would push you and stop right away? I bet with probability 0.95 that you would not even fall. Now count car kinetic energy and your kinetic energy and compare (kind of useless compare). Do you still think that car at 1mph going through stop is dangerous?
So one more time — why car should stop at red on intersection if there is no one there? What is a danger?
In my mind the danger is not that car have more momentum and/or energy saved. The danger is that driver starts to think that even when intersection is not empty (s)he could do it safely. And it exactly the moment when energy-momentum start to play their role — probability of happening of something bad is now high. For a bicyclist (as a statistical unit)probability to harm pedestrian would rise with number of bicyclist.
Man, I hate to see when bicyclist flying through pedestrian crossing while people crossing a road. At this moment I am ready to use “2 by 4 inforcer”.
Anonymous 11/30/2012 at 5:23am #
I’m again confused by these statements measured against your prior statements about Idaho rules. At the end you’re still talking about those that blow through intersections on a bike even though I already indicated that to me they’re idiots. I really think we’re actually pretty close here.
I’m going to continue for now because I think there’s some interesting stuff that comes of exploring, but I’m happy to stop at any point here, too and just continue the discussion offline. I get concerned about back and forths getting potentially heated and I apologize for being the first to call out by name.
So, going over your first two paragraphs and the point about nobody being in the intersection is lost on me. Of course it’s true, let’s say 99.9% of the time, but what we should care about is the .1% misjudgment where there is possible danger, no? Of course, the numbers may not be the same with cars and bikes, Pierce brought up a good point about visibility, but we’ll ignore that for now. In the rare case, what are we looking at?
You say that momentum is what you should worry about for the most part but then mention the car at 1mph is not a danger in spite of having (compared to a bike) high momentum. Not sure where you were going with momentum, but let’s concentrate on the latter case.
Sure a car at 1mph is not a big danger to others, this is contrived considering idling speed. Let’s consider a slightly more reasonable 5mph. I submit that even at this highly cautious speed where a driver needs to keep their foot steadily on the break a car is still a pretty dangerous thing. Let’s say we have a relatively light car and a relatively heavy cyclist. To make the numbers squaring friendly let’s say that’s a 16x ratio on weight. That means 16X more momentum and energy than a bicylist at the same speed, but also almost twice the energy more than 5x the momentum of the bicyclist going 15mph… you don’t get the same energy till the bike is going 20mph or if you prefer momentum, you don’t get there until the bike is going 80mph (I was not a physics major and certainly never studied collision dynamics, but this sort of number is part of my intuition about why momentum is the wrong measure here, also your 1mph example).
Now, consider that 15mph is really a pretty high speed for a bike to reach going just from one side of the intersection to the other. A heavy bicyclist has to work at it to create a level of danger that’s still not at the level of about the most cautious plausible driver of a light car. So that tells me why these are different classes of conveyance and using the same rules doesn’t make sense. I think, actually, returning to your statements about Idaho rules that we agree on all this, no?
If so, the remaining question is what to do in the presence of a rule set that doesn’t fit. I don’t buy the slippery slope argument, after all, how many pedestrians don’t ever jaywalk? 5-10% maybe? And these are our drivers. So they’re clearly capable of separating some modes of conveyance mentally and discerning that rules can be broken as a pedestrian that can’t be as a driver.
I don’t see confusion, I don’t see significant direct danger, I see anger and danger from that. Anger that comes down to the rat race mentality and fact that bikes sometimes slow cars down, and that combined with the fact that in these stop and red light scenarios a bike may actually be able to get there faster occasionally. It just breads ill will. So I try to mostly avoid it. But in a calmer world, I would consistently just go ahead when clear. It would be nice for sure if the rule-book said that, too, but I wouldn’t necessarily wait for that. There are a lot of broken laws out there.
Anonymous 12/10/2012 at 4:49pm #
Started to write a big post but it looks like a scientic paper. So decided to search the Internet.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag4BVZR-9Z4IdHJHY0NzdDZhSFp1a3ZmQ3g5OGJxUVE shows kinetic energy calculated for some bodies and speeds. You can see that subsonic bullet kills with energy about 630J while trolly would not kill a humang being at speed of 1 mph even energy is morer than 3 times of bullet.
In short what is important is not kinetic energy by itself but preservation of momentum and then energy. It allows us to calculate how much and how fast of momentum (vector, not scalar!) has been chaged and how much energy has been transfered (scalar valuue). And from this we can measure Impulse and furhter force and time during which force has been applied.
This video basically shows everything. Pay close attention to elastic and non elastic collisions. In our case it’s in between. Please notice that for non elastic collision conservation of kinetic energy is not working (the principle of conservation energy still woks but you should account heat dissipation, deformation, etc which are not kinetic type of energy).
Some standard problems to solve
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/u4l2b.cfm — look for check understanding and answers.
This is more advanced modeling of car-car collisions and car-human collisiosn:
Anonymous 12/10/2012 at 6:05pm #
I will look at this more when I’m home and it’s not a few minutes over lunch.
I was using kinetic energy as an intro argument. Obviously how much of that is actually dissipated and how suddenly are huge factors. And I certainly recognize that far less of a car’s energy will dissipate in initial contact with a pedestrian than bike and rider’s will.
But unlike the bike/pedestrian case which, due to somewhat matched weights, gives you mostly very little to worry about other than initial impact, you have a lot to keep worrying about with the car.
If you’re assuming a relatively elastic collision the pedestrian goes FLYING presumably into more traffic. That’s probably less realistic than assuming a relatively inelastic collision. In that case the driver better act fast or they’ll very, very soon be running OVER that pedestrian crunching them under tire. Or I guess they could be scooping them up and flinging them head/torso first into a windshield next and from there who knows. Pretty frightening that that’s the least bad fairly plausible outcome, at least to me it is.
This could be modeled over and over with a million different assumptions about these and more.
To me, it gets down to this. Show me numbers. I saw the case in San Francisco, as expected along with a lot of ranting about cyclists. Any time they got to any numbers it was of pedestrians and cyclists being killed by cars. In the absence of broader evidence, I treat it as a freak occurrence not worth making policy over.
Just my 2c on the subject.
Anonymous 12/10/2012 at 6:30pm #
“Show me numbers.” What kind of numbers? Spreadsheet shows quite a few of them.
And you missing my point — I don’t argue that human being in a car is safer. I argue that faulty logic cannot be used to prove it.
And still want to know why car at red light should stop even there is no one around.
And still want to know why car at red light should stop even there is no one around.
Because it’s the law! If we just start to disregard laws we quickly go down the slippey slope to to chaos.
I am kidding! 4 am no one in sight at a red light, I sure would be tempted to stop and proceed cautiously through a red light in my car, and would not think twice about doing so on my bike.
Anonymous 12/10/2012 at 8:03pm #
Mikhail, I will look at the spreadsheet at home, but the numbers I was referring to were of actual people, killed or at least very seriously hurt by a cyclist. Until someone shows me otherwise, I maintain there must be very, very few, otherwise they would get flogged rather constantly by anti-cyclists.
I’m not arguing that a human being in a car is safer and didn’t think you were either!? I’m talking about the difference between a person on a bicycle vs. a person in a car and the danger they present to a person walking in an intersection.
I still don’t see the fault in my logic and perhaps it’s better to take this to PMs now since I think it’s clear we’re talking past each other.
Helen, my argument is that the slope isn’t actually so slippery, I know what you have is tongue in cheek but it then the turn at the end and is giving just the “See, SEE! example” that will drag this on, and on, and on. Argh!!!! Anyways, it’s hardly an intractable problem. The solution is to turn traffic signals into flasher mode at night when the intersections merit and many places do.
And still want to know why car at red light should stop even there is no one around.
Some drivers aren’t very observant. They’re supposed to only go through an intersection when it’s clear AND there’s a green light. If you change that AND to OR, you’re relying entirely on their ability to notice the pedestrian or cyclist on the cross street. Some will, some won’t.
If we could trust drivers to always correctly determine when there’s no one around, we could change the law to let them go through red lights in such cases. But we don’t, and shouldn’t.
@mikhail: the consequences of a driver in an automobile of misjudging an intersection as empty are much more dire (for the public, not the driver) than a cyclist making the same mistake. additionally, due to the relative speeds at which they travel, a driver in a car is less able to judge whether an intersection is, or is about to be, occupied, than a person riding a bicycle.
note that i am making this statement about public policy, not personal ethics. i do believe that “idaho stops” should be explored further in areas outside idaho, and i do not think the same rules should apply to automobiles. but if you carefully roll a stop sign or stop at a red light and then inch through it, at 4 am on a tuesday morning, i’m not really going to judge you.
Anonymous 12/10/2012 at 9:26pm #
And I think that if we got 20-30% of people commuting by bikes then we will face similar situation with bicyclists.
Anonymous 12/10/2012 at 9:27pm #
@HV You think that car rolling through intersection at speed 2 mph (an not at 4 am) would cause a lot of damage?
Anonymous 12/11/2012 at 1:49am #
Mikhail, 1 mph, 2 mph, these are theoretically possible speeds that nobody, not even the most cautious actually drive.
What’s important are realistic cases. And even when I went to the outer edge of what I thought a possibly realistic case favoring your argument was, the car still looked noticeably more dangerous to me.
Maybe you disagree. But the frequencies matter, too, and a bike would only infrequently be going that fast and cars would only infrequently be going that slow. I would expect the car to be faster than the bike typically, and then that’s just compounding the danger that’s already vastly worse from the vastly higher weight.
That leaves the slippery slope argument which I don’t really buy because most drivers already jaywalk, but don’t just go ahead at a red when things look clear.
Anonymous 12/11/2012 at 6:34pm #
@byogman “That leaves the slippery slope argument which I don’t really buy because most drivers already jaywalk, but don’t just go ahead at a red when things look clear.”
This is because to enforcement of the law not because drivers are so cautious. But even now most drivers roll through stop signs. Imagine if police starts to enforce stop signs for bicyclists…
“I would expect the car to be faster than the bike typically”
At red light? I don’t argue in general — I am still in context of rolling through intersection on red light when there is no one there.
@mikhail – are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or do you believe automobiles proceeding through a red light poses no greater danger than bicyclists proceeding through a red light? it’s pretty clear that they do. once you concede that people will behave dangerously and stretch the law (you have conceded this), it is obvious that a moving automobile presents more danger to other road users.
Anonymous 12/11/2012 at 9:08pm #
Proceeding through a red light how would a car behave? Well, I suppose it’s a question mark since people expect enforcement in cars.
But considering what I see when signal lights are blinking and it is legal for cars to treat as a stop and proceed, yes, I would say most cars go roughly as fast at the start of the “stop” and accelerate much faster through the intersection. Not a guest I want to invite to the party.
I would also say that while a larger minority of car drivers than cyclists do come to a complete stop at a stop sign, most already roll through the sign about as fast as I do, and again, accelerate much more quickly after the “stop”.
It’s not necessarily recklessness most of the time, it’s that the perception of speed is just so low in those things, and idling speed gives a continuous push up that even cautious drivers simply don’t notice. It’s very easy for it to get very dangerous, and we need to keep a lid on it. Enforcement is key, as you said.
Bikes however!? Well what if we do put ourselves in intersections? It’s far easier for us to weave through safely, and consequences fall generally about as much on us as any other parties so we have an additional STRONG incentive. People know this, that’s why they don’t follow in their cars, they just get angry because they’re stuck in a dangerous lumbering beast and proceed to drive more aggressively afterward to “make up for lost time”.
Imagine if that anger were directed in a constructive, not destructive way, like it once was before cars became dominant. See the TED talk referenced in this thread: http://bike-pgh.org/bbpress/topic/bicycle-culture-by-design. Traffic lights, which previously were rare became commonplace because CARS were killing lots of people. And they were hated for it.
And they still do kill a ton of people, we’ve just learned to ignore it! But unless traffic safety authorities start widely and systematically tracking pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists, I’m going to think of it as a freak occurrence not worth making policy over or even really guiding enforcement of existing rules over.
Certainly not worth enforcing the rules against those that crawl through an intersection. Some jag-off goes through at full speed, please do ticket him, but otherwise it just ain’t worth it.
Without Idaho rules codified, and it’s HARD to get rules changed officially, I prefer to at least have the option to use them in practice. It’s one I don’t often take at stoplights mind you due to road raging, but at stop signs, sure, when things are clear I roll slowly through, and in a better world with less road raging I consider proceeding from stoplights depending on the intersection and conditions.
Anyways, I think that’s my last 2c on the subject.
Anonymous 12/12/2012 at 3:13am #
@HV “it’s pretty clear that they do.”
Could you provide some proof of this statement?
I am against bogus arguments and faulty logic.
Anonymous 12/12/2012 at 3:16am #
“It’s far easier for us to weave through safely, and consequences fall generally about as much on us as any other parties so we have an additional STRONG incentive. “
Did you read thread that Steve started that cross guard complained about bicyclist flying through crossing when they must to stop?
Anonymous 12/12/2012 at 1:12pm #
Hi Mikhail, I’m not going to address relative danger level presented by bikes vs. cars, I’ve presented all I can and still apparently haven’t convinced you, so that’s that I guess.
Weaving creates the wrong mental image, I’m sorry if I confused matters with it. Yes, I did read the blog post from the crossing guard… I’m sensitive to these issues as well because my daughter walks home from school in warmer months.
But I do think it’s ok for a bike to proceed AT LOW SPEED and yielding to pedestrians, when the intersection is only relatively clear of pedestrians, not just when absolutely clear… unlike cars which clearly can’t cut a narrow and safe path through.
I’m not an absolutist, laws have to be written as they do, in absolutes. I wish there were separate laws for bikes that acknowledged their differences, but in the here and now I still think there’s room for common sense differences in enforcement, and there again, I don’t see a way of convincing you.
Anonymous 12/12/2012 at 4:39pm #
Mikhail, seeing how another thread devolved, I think we’ve done pretty well, but my last paragraph devolved a bit and I want to apologize publicly.
This thread is fortunately the more typical example of long running arguments on this board.
Well, this got posted on friday:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.