Whatever became of the UWB positioning system? The trials appeared to be successful, but to my knowledge the system has not yet been adapted in NYC or elsewhere.
Not sure which grips you're using, but I found using the stock foam grips gave me severe wrist pain quite quickly. I changed to Ergon GP1 grips (they have much better hand support) and now ride long distances without discomfort.
New York did some trials with UWB several years ago, which were claimed to have been successful. Since then, there has been very little news of permanent deployment or future developments either in New York or elsewhere.
Not sure whether this means that the various signalling suppliers are waiting for a customer to take on the technical risk of being the first to deploy UWB CBTC, or that there were costs or disadvantages that make it unattractive.
SelTrac has been around since the mid 80s, and was originally a German developed product (Standard Elektrik Lorenz) based on LZB technology.
My understanding of LZB is limited, but it appears to be a fixed block system with wayside detection of trains, albeit with shorter blocks than lineside signals would usually have. This is different to SelTrac which is moving block.
I had it done twice, both times without sedation by choice. I did have analgesics, and a cannula in my wrist in case I changed my mind mid-way.
It was quite tolerable, just a few moments of short lived cramping pains (similar to diarrhea pains) as the endoscope turned the corners of my insides. My recovery was about half an hour of sitting up and having tea and toast, while those that were sedated slept off the drugs.
I'd do the same again if ever I get another one, and recommend it to anyone who can't have or doesn't want sedation.
>Not sure why the conspiracy theorists have decided to make Oxford their place to protest all this stuff
Because they have maliciously or stupidly confused the permits which would allow residents to drive through traffic filters (instead of taking a longer route), with a passport system that wouldn't let them leave the zone at all.
But they will be able to travel without a permit, it's just that those journeys may need to be rerouted to take a less direct route to avoid the traffic filters.
Traffic filters are not new to the UK, and plenty have existed for decades in cities like London without controversy or conspiracy. They do not form an impermeable cordon around an area.
They restrict through traffic on certain streets, in order to provide faster and safer routes for either bikes or buses. As far as I can tell the Oxford proposal is less restrictive than traditional filters as permits allow car driver to bypass the restrictions a certain number of times a month.
That assumes that the tourists and visitors confine themselves to the major tourist areas. If you bother to cycle outside the major tourist areas of the Netherlands, whether to minor cities or villages, you'll still notice many people cycling for local journeys.
The mistake is people used to car dependence being unable to imagine any alternative, thus refusing to believe that it can be true.
Dutch cycling infrastructure is close to ubiquitous, extending practically the length and breadth of the country. The idea that bikes are used only in city centres is another distortion. But of course the bike tends to be used for shorter, local trips.
Your (roughly 130 km) journey would have been less fast had those people making their shorter distance journeys by bike got into their cars instead.
The original poster claimed that car usage is the norm in the Netherlands, which implies that anything else is outside the norm, or unusual. This is obviously incorrectly.
There are various other posts in this thread that also give statistics, and the number of car vs bike journeys is not so far apart.
In a country that famously has more bikes then people, the idea that if half the bike journeys converted to cars there would only be a ten percent increase in traffic is quite clearly ridiculous. Especially within cities bikes carry volumes of people that would overwhelm roads if those people used space-inefficient cars.
>First, let's establish that the Netherlands is a car country...On a typical day, 1 million people use public transport. Cars are the norm, not trains or bicycles.
Anyone visiting a Dutch city can see what a distortion this comment is. The sheer volume of bike traffic on largely safe infrastructure is phenomenal. Imagine if even half of these people took to cars instead, it would be gridlock. Life may be good for Dutch drivers, but only because so many others leave their cars at home.
The 'elderly parent to the doctor' case is still an argument for bike infrastructure. The more people choose to travel by bike instead of by car, the more space is available on the roads for those that need motor vehicles.
I've rented bikes in the Netherlands several times as a UK citizen, but perhaps in different areas.
Part of the reason the Netherlands is the perfect place for a car owner is that so many people are able to go by bike instead, freeing up space on the roads.
Not sure if your comment was confined to the USA or not, but I live in outer suburban London, and I have the schools, small Sainsbury's supermarket, libraries, a small gym, soccer grounds and tennis courts within an easy walk. Larger gym and larger supermarkets are an easy bike ride away. There is nothing at all unusual or remarkable about my particular part of London.
The local water company does not provide deluxe or budget versions, water is water. The same applies to gas and electricity. All are major household expenses.
In the context of a large city, there certainly is differentiation in transport. You can grab a large amount of the scarce road space for yourself with a car (even more if you park on-street) or taxi, or you can take a smaller share of it by getting on a bus, bike or tram.
But food at the supermarket, clothes, even water from the tap are all priced without regard to individual income. Why would road usage be any different?
The wealthy are always able to buy the nicest things, and addressing income inequality is a very valid goal. But what realistic alternative is there to the price mechanism that still allows for a level
of individual choice, and permits vehicle journeys that are economically necessary (e.g. tradespeople) while discouraging car journeys that could me made by other means.
As for the minimum wage earner, they are the least likely to be able to afford to keep a car. The current roads free-for-all means their bus journeys are far slower due to the traffic, and more expensive due to the larger number of buses required to maintain frequency on congested roads.
A possible solution to reduce inequality from road charging while still maintaining the benefits of the price mechanism would be to return the proceeds (after maintenance costs) to the residents of the city in the form of transport credits. These credits would be able to be spent on road access, public transport, or cycling as the individual preferred.
It certainly seems progressive to me. Charging private vehicles to access the roads reduces demand, which allows other modes such as buses, trams and bikes to move more people more quickly.
I don't see what's progressive about letting private cars clog the roads up and slowing down London's vast and comprehensive bus network.
I do a regular 25 mile commute one way across London, train back myself.
One of my routes includes Hampstead and Highgate, a decent amount of climb. I tried the 3 speed hire Bromptons, but went for the 6 speed when I purchased one. The upgrade was well worth the money, I doubt I'd be able to get up those hills on the 3 speed.