| |
Main
Date: 16 Sep 2007 19:11:05
From: Stan
Subject: Preventing rust at gouged top tube
|
While on tour recently, the top tube of my Reynolds 531 steel tubed,
1971-built Raleigh "Super Course" was gouged when the bicycle fell over
while leaning against a tree. The original bronze green paint and whatever
coating was under the paint were removed during the fall and now bare
metal shows in the small gouged area.
What's a good treatment to prevent rust there? Since this happened this
past July and since I just returned from my long tour, I've only had a
piece of duct tape - applied in July - over the gouged spot. Do I have to
sand the area, use some primer and then try to find some paint to match
the original bronze green color? What are the steps and materials to get
and use?
Thanks
[To contact me, drop one 'i'.]
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 21:54:21
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Traffic question
|
"!Jones" <piss@off.com > wrote in message
news:8sgre3dc95otbmu9i84e8l0gtgnagi4p8r@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:56:46 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
> <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>Looks like you only read the last line of my post.
>
> Most of the time, people only read the first sentence or so.
> Actually, I did read it; I thought the last line summed it up by
> design.
>
>>What I said was the USA needs to adopt the Dutch and German attitude that
>>it's largely the motorist's fault when peds and cyclists get hurt. It
>>doesn't matter that you think the cyclist is 50% at fault. Over there it's
>>legally up to the motorist to watch out for the little guys whereas over
>>here the law treats the little guys like they're blocking traffic and
>>shouldn't even be on the road.
>
> Now, I went back and read it again... and I don't think that's what
> you said. Further, I don't think that's quite an accurate statement
> of European law. Bicycles are better accepted by society at large,
> though, and are seen as having equal rights to the road, which is as
> it should be.
>
> So, when a cyclist hits a ped, is it always the cyclist's fault? I
> used to teach at UT, Austin, and that was a daily occurrence.
>
> Jones
>
I was talking about Dutch and German law.
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/NatBSMotorists.htm
"2.1 Affirm the Right of Citizens to Ride Bicycle in Traffic
Komanoff asserts that "American cyclists cannot be certain that their legal
right-of-way will be observed by drivers, enforced by the police, or upheld
by the courts. In [Komanoff's] view, the practical lack of this right is the
single greatest impediment to widespread cycling and cycling safety. ... The
first step to help cycling thrive is to affirm the right of citizens to ride
bicycles in traffic." "
"Fatality rate per trip, 3 times for cyclists than for motorists.
"Fewer than 1% of streets have bicycle lanes."
"New York police rarely enforce the cyclist's right of way."
Cyclists adopt unlawful tactics in search of self-preservation, not to break
the law."
"Dutch and German laws "require motorists to anticipate unsafe walking and
cycling." If a car-bike collision involves a child or a elderly person, "the
motorist is usually judged to be entirely at fault." "When a crash is caused
by an illegal move by a cyclist or a pedestrian, the motorist is almost
always judged to be partly at fault.""
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 18:06:30
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Traffic question
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:54:21 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
<prbj@adelphia.net > wrote:
>I was talking about Dutch and German law.
>http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/NatBSMotorists.htm
If you're going to quote Komanoff, then perhaps you should refer to
one of *his* writings. I think that most of your quotes come from a
1993 article titled: "The Bicycle Blueprint -- A Plan to Bring the
Bicycle into the Mainstream in New York City". It was heavily
excerpted and extended in the 2000 paper. I think that the 1993
article is your primary source.
The article you cite (Forester, ND) is actually highly critical of
Komanoff's ideas and conclusions. If you'll read the author's
conclusion, you'll see that he says: "It is difficult to place much
credibility in [Komanoff's] thought processes..."
Whether you do or you don't, Komanoff is certainly quotable and
controversial; he takes a strong position. Quoting Komanoff as an
authority on bicycle philosophy is a bit like quoting the NRA on the
gun rights debate. He's an important voice; however, many question
his objectivity. In fact, the Forester article (see your citation)
pretty well articulates these concerns. I tend to think that the
criticism is justified.
Jones
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 23:12:52
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Traffic question
|
"!Jones" <piss@off.com > wrote in message
news:ou0ue3901e27assmo53ocpqhjcd1i0ralf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:54:21 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
> <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>I was talking about Dutch and German law.
>>http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/NatBSMotorists.htm
>
> If you're going to quote Komanoff, then perhaps you should refer to
> one of *his* writings. I think that most of your quotes come from a
> 1993 article titled: "The Bicycle Blueprint -- A Plan to Bring the
> Bicycle into the Mainstream in New York City". It was heavily
> excerpted and extended in the 2000 paper. I think that the 1993
> article is your primary source.
>
> The article you cite (Forester, ND) is actually highly critical of
> Komanoff's ideas and conclusions. If you'll read the author's
> conclusion, you'll see that he says: "It is difficult to place much
> credibility in [Komanoff's] thought processes..."
>
> Whether you do or you don't, Komanoff is certainly quotable and
> controversial; he takes a strong position. Quoting Komanoff as an
> authority on bicycle philosophy is a bit like quoting the NRA on the
> gun rights debate. He's an important voice; however, many question
> his objectivity. In fact, the Forester article (see your citation)
> pretty well articulates these concerns. I tend to think that the
> criticism is justified.
>
> Jones
>
I was aware of the fact that the article I linked to was highly critical of
Komanoff. There are always people that are highly critical of someone who
has something to say. I thought Komanoff was right. I thought he had better
credentials and was more professional. Komanoff's site was more
professional. (I did go to it) I'm not afraid to let other people see the
other side of the argument unlike Frank who thinks it's important to
suppress info that suggests cycling is anthing less than safe, uh, not worth
worrying about, errr, lots less deaths than motoring or ah, comparing quite
favorably to base jumping as long as you spend as much time falling out of
the sky as you do riding a bike.
In other words I don't hold you down and shove my stats down your throat
like Frank does. I don't think lying is necessary or admirable.
|
|
