bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 22 Jul 2007 16:21:44 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great (and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes. Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right? Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic, if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good 80MPG. So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the market for the hell of it)... WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote BIKE FOR PEACE http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace   Date: 08 Aug 2007 14:58:12 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: you think the monkeys will ever learn to drive? On Aug 8, 8:46 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net > wrote: > > How about requiring these TRUCKS to require a TRUCK DRIVER'S LICENSE > > (a step above driving a regular car but not a fully semi driver's > > license) and banning cell phones, etc? I guess that would be too much > > for the big business involved in SUVs... > > Write a legal definition of "truck" so that it can be determined who has > to have such a license (can't be "everybody knows what a truck is", it > has to be one that a lawyer can't argue away in court) and figure out > what training should be required and come up with a convincing argument > why that particular training would improve safety then suggest it to > your Congresscritter and you may be surprised at what happens. SUVs are > basically a way of working around the CAFE tax and if that could be > closed wihout seeming to be an SUV ban until after it was in place the > Congresscritters might be all over it. > > As for banning cell phones, that's not going to happen. That genii is > well and truly out of the bottle and any Congress than successfully > enacted legislation prohibiting their sale and possession would be out > of office at the next election. > > As for bans on using them while driving, such bans are essentially > unenforceable--yeah, a cop can bust somebody if he catches them in the > act, but cops can't be everywhere all the time and most people who use > them while driving don't use them all the time, so the likelihood of > actually getting caught is too low to serve as a deterrent. > > Personally though I've never noticed SUVs "zigzagging around all over > the place playing a game of Russian Roulette". The big problem I have > with them is that SUV drivers seem to be unwilling to just PASS THE > EFFING TRUCK. They'll pull up behind an 18-wheeler, take ten minutes to > slowly creep by it, and having passed it then take off at 90 mph. And > meanwhile I'm sitting there in the buffet zone waiting for this circus > to end so I can get by the blasted thing. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair I think the paper on which I'd write to my Congressman (woman) could be put to better use. It's all about money, you know... 'And what does Detroit think about all this? They love it. Why? Because when they sell an SUV, they're selling their lowest-tech vehicle that has the least R&D expense and costs the least to produce, since its basically the same product they've been selling -- as a truck -- for the last 50 years. Come on, people! Challenge Detroit! Ask for a product they have to break a sweat to design and build! "No thank you," says Mr. and Mrs. America, "even though we spent the 1980s and 1990s putting down American cars as being technologically inferior to European and Japanese products, we've changed our minds now and want to buy cars that American manufacturers were good at making -- in 1950." So much for the idiotic decision to buy an SUV that America has been making in showrooms for the last ten years. What about SUVs on the road? Let's face it: Most people aren't very good drivers and even the best drivers have bad moments. This is one reason SUVs are popular. When I rant about SUVs to my friends (many of whom drive SUVs), they often respond that they feel "safer" in an SUV. They're right, in one sense: Surrounded by a ton of unnecessary extra steel, they're likely to come out of an accident with a normal-sized car better off than the people in the car. But they don't ask themselves whether being in the SUV may have contributed to the accident in the first place: With a higher center of gravity, poor handling and terrible stopping power due to the extra mass of the vehicle, I think this is a real factor in a lot of accidents. But, please, let's not think about what we're doing, OK? Let's just wrap an extra ton of steel around the kids.' http://www.gregburch.net/cars/suvs.html My effort go toward THE REVOLUTION. Hey, it may never happen, but I'm having fun... By the way, you think the monkeys will ever learn to drive? What do you think of the monkeys? Well, put your headphones on --and grab a banana-- before you can enjoy/cry over what these stupid monkeys are doing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24 Oh, we should add that some of them want to believe themselves to be lions... *** Hey, I don't want to leave you depressed with those stupid monkeys. Some monkeys really know how to have fun... Do you imagine life as a monkey would be like? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_EyXPs2_Jk A lot of fun, for sure. I sure like to play with those lady monkeys. Hey, if you are really proud of who you are, you may consider this T- shirt: "Have you felt like monkeying around without any apparent reason and with a sense of guilt? Well, now you know what to do..." http://www.zazzle.com/product/235602224199217660 WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote THE BANANA REVOLUTION http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 __________________ "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" -M.L. King   Date: 07 Aug 2007 09:43:20 From: Pat Subject: Re: I guess the scooter ain't very safe either On Aug 7, 12:11 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 6, 8:32 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > > > Zigzagging: Most Dangerous Driving > > > > Don't ask me for a study that backs up such a statement, it's just > > > obvious. Every time you get on the road you see these wild vehicles > > > (usually SUVs and larger vehicles) zigzagging all around playing a > > > game of Russian Roulette --a game they always win since they are > > > bigger... > > > You guys always lose me with these SUVs are evil threads. I never > > have any problems with them when I'm on my motorcycle. You just have > > to drive your motorcycle like a car, following the same rules, keep > > your high beam on in the daytime, and make eye contact. > > You'll be lucky if you can make eye contact. Most of them have tinted > windows. > > If you are > > > experiencing problems, I would guess it is one of three things: you > > are not keeping up to road speed, you are not accelerating as quickly > > as everyone else, or your bike just too small to be seen/noticed. > > If they can miss a scooter, what comfort there's for a bicycle? Or > could it be that they simply miss it because they are engaged on the > phone, changing pampers, etc? > > > > > You might want to consider something a bit bigger. I've ridden the > > Honda Silver Wing and that's a sweet ride. > > > Other than that, the best you can do is get a really loud horn, such a > > boat horn or something.- > > How about requiring these TRUCKS to require a TRUCK DRIVER'S LICENSE > (a step above driving a regular car but not a fully semi driver's > license) and banning cell phones, etc? I guess that would be too much > for the big business involved in SUVs... I am curious as to where you live. In NYS, you can't tint front windows or windshields, so that problem goes away. It is also illegal to talk on a cell phone (except with hands-free or a headset).     Date: 07 Aug 2007 16:51:32 From: Neil Brooks Subject: Re: I guess the scooter ain't very safe either On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:43:20 -0700, Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote: >In NYS, you can't tint front windows or windshields, so that problem >goes away. It is also illegal to talk on a cell phone (except with >hands-free or a headset). The (numerous) studies that I've seen show that this is EQUALLY unsafe. The issue is the distracted mind, not the occupied hands. Another issue -- that somebody else pointed out -- is that the driver with the phone IN his hands serves as a warning to us on two wheels: "Look out! I'm totally distracted and likely to kill you." The hands-free-using-driver, OTOH, gives off no such obvious clues. That really COULD make them even more dangerous to us cycling types.   Date: 07 Aug 2007 09:11:47 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: I guess the scooter ain't very safe either On Aug 6, 8:32 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > > Zigzagging: Most Dangerous Driving > > > Don't ask me for a study that backs up such a statement, it's just > > obvious. Every time you get on the road you see these wild vehicles > > (usually SUVs and larger vehicles) zigzagging all around playing a > > game of Russian Roulette --a game they always win since they are > > bigger... > > You guys always lose me with these SUVs are evil threads. I never > have any problems with them when I'm on my motorcycle. You just have > to drive your motorcycle like a car, following the same rules, keep > your high beam on in the daytime, and make eye contact. You'll be lucky if you can make eye contact. Most of them have tinted windows. If you are > experiencing problems, I would guess it is one of three things: you > are not keeping up to road speed, you are not accelerating as quickly > as everyone else, or your bike just too small to be seen/noticed. If they can miss a scooter, what comfort there's for a bicycle? Or could it be that they simply miss it because they are engaged on the phone, changing pampers, etc? > > You might want to consider something a bit bigger. I've ridden the > Honda Silver Wing and that's a sweet ride. > > Other than that, the best you can do is get a really loud horn, such a > boat horn or something.- How about requiring these TRUCKS to require a TRUCK DRIVER'S LICENSE (a step above driving a regular car but not a fully semi driver's license) and banning cell phones, etc? I guess that would be too much for the big business involved in SUVs...   Date: 06 Aug 2007 17:32:46 From: Pat Subject: Re: I guess the scooter ain't very safe either On Aug 6, 1:43 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > I guess the scooter ain't very safe either... > > Zigzagging: Most Dangerous Driving > > Don't ask me for a study that backs up such a statement, it's just > obvious. Every time you get on the road you see these wild vehicles > (usually SUVs and larger vehicles) zigzagging all around playing a > game of Russian Roulette --a game they always win since they are > bigger... > > So there I was last night riding my scooter with my girlfriend > (sitting ducks, so to speak), taking the middle lane on a three lane > road, when a beat-up van with three terrorist rats* cut me off almost > to the point of making catastrophic contact (*forgive me my jungle > talk referring to the small time predators, unlike the big time > predators in SUVs). > > WHY? Well, I know that if I had had a gun I would have emptied it in > his head and so feeding the ROAD RAGE ESCALATION, but I didn't and I > wouldn't have caught up with him anyway. So I was left to cope with my > rage and impotence, if only having the consolation to be alive. But > still that hasn't answered my question. WHY? I guess it may have do to > with the instinct in "Natural Born Killers,"** but there's some deeper > cause, one that points at the system that doesn't crack down on them, > and that simply fails to implement some basic RULES OF THE ROAD. > > This dawned on me later: They were provoked into this reckless, > criminal driving (no excuses for that) by a road that was completely > blocked by a few cars, oblivious to that basic rule of "slow vehicles > keep to the right." And there's lies the problem: When there are no > rules of the road, then you get the Law of the Jungle... > > ** NATURAL BORN KILLERS, the movie > > REVIEW > Why not kill them at birth, or even before > By Jacques COULARDEAU > > This is Apocalypto in the all-American modern version. Our society > produces, be they born or not born, a whole fringe of killers that > absolutely know what is wrong or right, good or bad, but who do not > care a fig about it, even if at times they do not find any pleasure in > murdering. The film explores the destiny of a couple of two young > people who meet by accident but find in themselves so many common > alienations and frustrations based on about the same social, cultural > and personal environment : sexual abuse and violence from parents, > rejection from society, total lack of care and help in education that > is inexistant or social counselling that is just impotent. They end up > taking what they want by force since it is not provided to them free. > But the film goes a lot further. It analyzes the role of the media > that systematically sell paper and prime time advertising with this > showing of violence and with fake or unfake interviews of murderers > and other criminals. The lower, the better. The nastier, the more > profitable. The bloodier, the tastier. Then the film also shows that > the prison system is a system of incarceration and containment, in no > way of reform, education and improvement. These prisoners are there to > survive because no one dares execute them all. They are the > sacrificial victims of society that needs them to regenerate its lost > virginity, purity and morality. They are the sacrificial victims of a > god that has nothing to envy the Maya gods. This god is the god of > selfish greedy consumerism. Till it explodes. And the official end of > the film shows that such criminals can disappear in society forever, > and they are then living among us unknown and unseen. The alternative > ending shows that you need the intervention of an angel to execute > these criminals. The film preaches and advocates that these criminals > are natural born killers, hence that they will never be anything else, > hence that they have to be purely and simply executed as soon as they > are noticed and as fast as possible to avoid as many victims as > possible, why not at birth ? This vision of crime in our society is > criminal in itself because it produces the criminals concerned by > considering there is no other way, it is their fate and ours. > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1 You guys always lose me with these SUVs are evil threads. I never have any problems with them when I'm on my motorcycle. You just have to drive your motorcycle like a car, following the same rules, keep your high beam on in the daytime, and make eye contact. If you are experiencing problems, I would guess it is one of three things: you are not keeping up to road speed, you are not accelerating as quickly as everyone else, or your bike just too small to be seen/noticed. You might want to consider something a bit bigger. I've ridden the Honda Silver Wing and that's a sweet ride. Other than that, the best you can do is get a really loud horn, such a boat horn or something.   Date: 06 Aug 2007 10:43:07 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: I guess the scooter ain't very safe either I guess the scooter ain't very safe either... Zigzagging: Most Dangerous Driving Don't ask me for a study that backs up such a statement, it's just obvious. Every time you get on the road you see these wild vehicles (usually SUVs and larger vehicles) zigzagging all around playing a game of Russian Roulette --a game they always win since they are bigger... So there I was last night riding my scooter with my girlfriend (sitting ducks, so to speak), taking the middle lane on a three lane road, when a beat-up van with three terrorist rats* cut me off almost to the point of making catastrophic contact (*forgive me my jungle talk referring to the small time predators, unlike the big time predators in SUVs). WHY? Well, I know that if I had had a gun I would have emptied it in his head and so feeding the ROAD RAGE ESCALATION, but I didn't and I wouldn't have caught up with him anyway. So I was left to cope with my rage and impotence, if only having the consolation to be alive. But still that hasn't answered my question. WHY? I guess it may have do to with the instinct in "Natural Born Killers,"** but there's some deeper cause, one that points at the system that doesn't crack down on them, and that simply fails to implement some basic RULES OF THE ROAD. This dawned on me later: They were provoked into this reckless, criminal driving (no excuses for that) by a road that was completely blocked by a few cars, oblivious to that basic rule of "slow vehicles keep to the right." And there's lies the problem: When there are no rules of the road, then you get the Law of the Jungle... ** NATURAL BORN KILLERS, the movie REVIEW Why not kill them at birth, or even before By Jacques COULARDEAU This is Apocalypto in the all-American modern version. Our society produces, be they born or not born, a whole fringe of killers that absolutely know what is wrong or right, good or bad, but who do not care a fig about it, even if at times they do not find any pleasure in murdering. The film explores the destiny of a couple of two young people who meet by accident but find in themselves so many common alienations and frustrations based on about the same social, cultural and personal environment : sexual abuse and violence from parents, rejection from society, total lack of care and help in education that is inexistant or social counselling that is just impotent. They end up taking what they want by force since it is not provided to them free. But the film goes a lot further. It analyzes the role of the media that systematically sell paper and prime time advertising with this showing of violence and with fake or unfake interviews of murderers and other criminals. The lower, the better. The nastier, the more profitable. The bloodier, the tastier. Then the film also shows that the prison system is a system of incarceration and containment, in no way of reform, education and improvement. These prisoners are there to survive because no one dares execute them all. They are the sacrificial victims of society that needs them to regenerate its lost virginity, purity and morality. They are the sacrificial victims of a god that has nothing to envy the Maya gods. This god is the god of selfish greedy consumerism. Till it explodes. And the official end of the film shows that such criminals can disappear in society forever, and they are then living among us unknown and unseen. The alternative ending shows that you need the intervention of an angel to execute these criminals. The film preaches and advocates that these criminals are natural born killers, hence that they will never be anything else, hence that they have to be purely and simply executed as soon as they are noticed and as fast as possible to avoid as many victims as possible, why not at birth ? This vision of crime in our society is criminal in itself because it produces the criminals concerned by considering there is no other way, it is their fate and ours. WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1     Date: 06 Aug 2007 20:10:45 From: Noweldrecumbent Subject: Re: I guess the scooter ain't very safe either It seems like everyone knows or has a sixth sense that something very bad has happened or is happening to this country. It is comming out in aggressive ways. "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1186422187.675277.246790@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... >I guess the scooter ain't very safe either... > > Zigzagging: Most Dangerous Driving > > Don't ask me for a study that backs up such a statement, it's just > obvious. Every time you get on the road you see these wild vehicles > (usually SUVs and larger vehicles) zigzagging all around playing a > game of Russian Roulette --a game they always win since they are > bigger... > > So there I was last night riding my scooter with my girlfriend > (sitting ducks, so to speak), taking the middle lane on a three lane > road, when a beat-up van with three terrorist rats* cut me off almost > to the point of making catastrophic contact (*forgive me my jungle > talk referring to the small time predators, unlike the big time > predators in SUVs). > > WHY? Well, I know that if I had had a gun I would have emptied it in > his head and so feeding the ROAD RAGE ESCALATION, but I didn't and I > wouldn't have caught up with him anyway. So I was left to cope with my > rage and impotence, if only having the consolation to be alive. But > still that hasn't answered my question. WHY? I guess it may have do to > with the instinct in "Natural Born Killers,"** but there's some deeper > cause, one that points at the system that doesn't crack down on them, > and that simply fails to implement some basic RULES OF THE ROAD. > > This dawned on me later: They were provoked into this reckless, > criminal driving (no excuses for that) by a road that was completely > blocked by a few cars, oblivious to that basic rule of "slow vehicles > keep to the right." And there's lies the problem: When there are no > rules of the road, then you get the Law of the Jungle... > > ** NATURAL BORN KILLERS, the movie > > REVIEW > Why not kill them at birth, or even before > By Jacques COULARDEAU > > This is Apocalypto in the all-American modern version. Our society > produces, be they born or not born, a whole fringe of killers that > absolutely know what is wrong or right, good or bad, but who do not > care a fig about it, even if at times they do not find any pleasure in > murdering. The film explores the destiny of a couple of two young > people who meet by accident but find in themselves so many common > alienations and frustrations based on about the same social, cultural > and personal environment : sexual abuse and violence from parents, > rejection from society, total lack of care and help in education that > is inexistant or social counselling that is just impotent. They end up > taking what they want by force since it is not provided to them free. > But the film goes a lot further. It analyzes the role of the media > that systematically sell paper and prime time advertising with this > showing of violence and with fake or unfake interviews of murderers > and other criminals. The lower, the better. The nastier, the more > profitable. The bloodier, the tastier. Then the film also shows that > the prison system is a system of incarceration and containment, in no > way of reform, education and improvement. These prisoners are there to > survive because no one dares execute them all. They are the > sacrificial victims of society that needs them to regenerate its lost > virginity, purity and morality. They are the sacrificial victims of a > god that has nothing to envy the Maya gods. This god is the god of > selfish greedy consumerism. Till it explodes. And the official end of > the film shows that such criminals can disappear in society forever, > and they are then living among us unknown and unseen. The alternative > ending shows that you need the intervention of an angel to execute > these criminals. The film preaches and advocates that these criminals > are natural born killers, hence that they will never be anything else, > hence that they have to be purely and simply executed as soon as they > are noticed and as fast as possible to avoid as many victims as > possible, why not at birth ? This vision of crime in our society is > criminal in itself because it produces the criminals concerned by > considering there is no other way, it is their fate and ours. > > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1 >   Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:10:29 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 3, 12:56 pm, Marz <marzjenni...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 3, 10:16 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Martin Dann <martin.d...@virgin.net> wrote: > > > > As I don't live in the USA, I > > > Maybe that's why you don't understand what's going on here. Slower > > vehicles don't have to drive on the right at all, nor should drivers > > pay be paying attention to driving, simply you get these SUV behemoths > > whistling past you that leave you shaking in your commitment to ride > > anymore. > > What?? Please explain what you mean by saying,'nor should drivers pay > be paying attention to driving.' Because most drivers (in the US) I > see are paying attention to the road. > > I ride most days along side SUV behemoths here in Texas and they've > not put me or any of my friends off riding. Maybe it's how you ride > that's causing you too many close encounters with other road users. They simply are NOT paying attention to a large extent. If you are on the cell phone you are NOT paying any more attention than if you had a six pack of beer. And tell MADD that's a good thing.   Date: 03 Aug 2007 16:56:14 From: Marz Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 3, 10:16 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Martin Dann <martin.d...@virgin.net> wrote: > > > As I don't live in the USA, I > > Maybe that's why you don't understand what's going on here. Slower > vehicles don't have to drive on the right at all, nor should drivers > pay be paying attention to driving, simply you get these SUV behemoths > whistling past you that leave you shaking in your commitment to ride > anymore. What?? Please explain what you mean by saying,'nor should drivers pay be paying attention to driving.' Because most drivers (in the US) I see are paying attention to the road. I ride most days along side SUV behemoths here in Texas and they've not put me or any of my friends off riding. Maybe it's how you ride that's causing you too many close encounters with other road users.   Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:45:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The chihuahua says, "Amigo, I want bike lanes!" On Aug 2, 6:33 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 2, 2:37 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > > > I've been passed while driving by a speeding vehicle that decided to > > use a bike lane to get by, even though there was no on-coming traffic > > and the road was completely straight. You can always find some idiot > > on the road who is competely irresponsible. What else is new? It > > simply has nothing to do with bike lanes - they'll do something > > incredibly stupid regardless. > > You don't seem to realize that the incident you describe argues > against the common pro-bike lane idea - "If only I could be separated > from cars by a white line, I'd be safe." > > In the real world, the white stripe does not protect you. It merely > shows where the glass and gravel begin. Don't be such a pessimist. Our cities don't have to be like Mexico. And you can have lots of people to go out and try a new sport. The chihuahua says, "Amigo, I want bike lanes!"   Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:16:07 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Martin Dann <martin.d...@virgin.net > wrote: > As I don't live in the USA, I Maybe that's why you don't understand what's going on here. Slower vehicles don't have to drive on the right at all, nor should drivers pay be paying attention to driving, simply you get these SUV behemoths whistling past you that leave you shaking in your commitment to ride anymore. > > It is my opinion, and that of a great many cyclists that > cycles should be on the main road, not segregated and > pushed onto poor facilities. Why do they have to be poor? > > > I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage. > > It is completely dishonest. > > What is dishonest is promoting second class cycling > facilities as a good idea.- Are you actually saying that Holland is a very discriminatory country? They got something like 20,000km of bike lanes and seem pretty democratic to me. Actually they are much more democratic than those places where SUVs and rule the roads.   Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:06:29 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 2, 5:50 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > >> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel > >> them through bike lanes. > > I think letting you loose out of your cell would be dangerous. Sorry, cell phones are mostly dangerous when driving an SUV.   Date: 03 Aug 2007 13:24:55 From: William Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? > No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at > the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as > walking. > Make an informed choice - visitwww.cyclehelmets.org. Except the fact that your going a lot faster with a lot less control....     Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:31:40 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? William wrote: >> No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at >> the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as >> walking. >> Make an informed choice - visitwww.cyclehelmets.org. > > Except the fact that your going a lot faster with a lot less > control.... However fast and control free you might be, it doesn't alter the fact that wearing a helmet has a track record of not improving serious head injury rates in populations that adopt them. That's what happens. It's what has always happened anywhere we look. "Not safer" is "not safer". It's not "not safer, except...", it's "not safer". And that's based on their actual, real world performance, not a pious hope or a theory. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 02 Aug 2007 19:38:27 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 2, 5:27 am, Mike Clark <m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > In message <1186004419.923909.283...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 1:13 pm, Mike Clark <m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > [snip] > > > In contrast to the 'idea' of ever more separate lanes being good for > > > improved safety there is the contradictory data that shows that in > > > places where you remove all the lane markings, signs and junction > > > priorities you often get a measurable increase in safety. > > > Should we erase the car lanes too? I think we could have bike lanes > > and still enforce those breaking the law, so they can pay for more > > bike lanes. Are you parked in the bike lane? You got a fine for 100 > > bucks... > > Yes the data is based on situations where all the lane markings and > junction priorities, traffic lights etc are removed. Basically people > stop driving as if they have a known priority and instead start looking > out for and avoiding other road users. OK, either lanes for all or lanes for none. When do we start that campaign?   Date: 02 Aug 2007 11:55:00 From: Pat Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 5:49 pm, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 1, 2:28 pm, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 11:12 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but > > > > > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you > > > > > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned > > > > > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use > > > > > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. > > > > > > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not > > > > > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* > > > > > > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE > > > > > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH > > > > > > OR DANISH LEVELS? > > > > > > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong direction. > > > > > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". > > > > > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address > > > > > that. > > > > > > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to bike > > > > > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get > > > > > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might > > > > > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. > > > > > > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for football > > > > > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school > > > > > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I just > > > > > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, there's > > > > > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually because > > > > > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is > > > > > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is > > > > > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at > > > > > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9 > > > > > hour bike ride. > > > > > I don't blame you, biking works best > > > > when everything is > > > > more central and dense like a metro area. > > > > > > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The > > > > > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way issue. > > > > > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to people, > > > > > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in > > > > > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 > > > > > trip. > > > > > > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to > > > > > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more > > > > > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping > > > > > by bike. > > > > > Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your > > > > from nowhere land. > > > > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of > > > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the > > > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a > > > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle. > > > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow > > > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry > > > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 > > > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is > > > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom > > > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a > > > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to > > > me, because I don't wear a watch. > > > > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by > > > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me. > > > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the > > > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. > > > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But > > > that's what makes it nice. > > > > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the > > > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's > > > excitement around here. > > > > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to > > > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each > > > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each) > > > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys > > > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle. > > > > So what about this "quality" thing? > > > Pat, Walmart is McDonalds department stores. In every way. If you wanna > > call that quality go right ahead. Just keep that bull shit out of the > > city. > > To be more specific, ever notice how a lot of things, not > ALL things but a lot, are a heck of a lot crappier at walmart as > apposed to the other extreme like William-sanoma or crate and barrel? > I'm not saying that every place should be as expensive and *high tech* > for a lack of a better word as those places are. But ever notice how > theres a lot of poor people at Walmart? I guess you would'nt since > thats all you have in nowhere land but here in the cities when people > have more options then the lowest and crappiest, we tend to shoot for > the happy medium between excessive and contemptible. > > I prove via internet: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=2403033 > > Wal*Mart:Lowest Common Denominator > Look at this cool set of pots and pans and the mounted rack. Only > 34.32!!! > But in reality,look at cheap and thin the metal on the cooking > utensils and the pots is. Don't expect those to get through a > thanksgiving dinner.... > > Kohls: A Happy Mediumhttp://www.kohls.com/products/product_page_vanilla0.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3E... > A good medium, not to bad it gets the job done. 170$ is pretty > reasonable, closer on the low end of things but again it will get the > job done. > > William-Sonoma: When brains collide with class and stlye Bet you don't > have one of these at "The Rez" do you Pat?http://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/sku9639873/index.cfm?pkey=cck... > 600 dollars and just for the pots. Yea I would say this would out live > the competition in ever way by a large margin. Still, nothing to there > 1,400$$$ one. ttp://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/sku8991465/index.cfm?pkey=cckwseti > Hey, you get what ya pay for! > > Now, cheap prices may seem all good, but why not just pay a little > extra for the one that will last? > (Ahem* because your either poor or have no options or you just have no > sense of quality) > > Now Pat, you may be saying to yourself that those other sets of pots > are expensive only for more profit, but if that was true, do you > REALLY think William-Sonoma would still be around? Umm, eh eh, shhh, but go look again. For Walmart, you compared the price of the pot RACK to the cost of the pots in the other stores. Second, I've hear of Kohls but have no idea what they sell. Sorry. I've never hear of William-whatever and there probably isn't one with a few hundred miles of here. Sounds like one of those too-much-money and too-little-brains stores for people who have a cook do their cooking for them. $1200 for pots is ridiculous. Anyway, you wouldn't believe the stuff I use. On the rare occasion that I need to buy cookware, I swing by a restaurant supply store in Buffalo and get what I need. Strictly utilization, but great quality. You can beat on the stuff with no damage. My teflon frying pan, which I use all the time, is probably over 5 years old and the teflon is still perfect. Oh, and the stuff is pretty cheap. My tea pot is from K-Mart and is probably going on 10 years old. It's Revereware. Great stuff. What you have to understand about rural areas is the simplicity of the place. If you wanted $1200 pots, you wouldn't live here. You can get almost anything you want at Walmart. You just want different things. Here's a better comparision for you: http://www.kohls.com/products/product_page_vanilla2.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=132792567&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=436514383&bmUID=1186080661287 http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5673563 But I suppose the ones from Walmart are somehow inherently inferior..   Date: 02 Aug 2007 10:08:11 From: Pat Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 2, 12:02 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Pat who? wrote: > > ...If you don't like it, go talk to the lawmakers. > > That is not a practical suggestion for those of us who can not afford to > attend $1000/plate fund-raising dinners. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com Weird. Our State Assemblyman and Senator are both VERY accessible. I've met with them often on things. You call, make an appointment and you go see them. If you're in Albany on a trip or whatever, it's easier to get in because they have so few constituents see them there. It takes a bit longer to get into see our Congressman, but he does set up "Town Hall" meetings once-a-year that are well publicized. He stops makes 6 or 7 stops in the county in the day he is there, so you never have to go very far to see him. But few people bother to show up. But he makes the effort. I don't terribly like the guy, but he is accessible and he tries to get out into the district (which is quite large). Our Senators, though, are a bit more distant. Schumer travels the state pretty regularly. I think you it's pretty easy to get to see Hillary, too, as long as you travel to Iowa to do it -- but still under the $1000 ticket threshold. I did pay to go to an event to see Spitzer, but it was only $60 for the conference. He's shorter than he looks.   Date: 02 Aug 2007 08:11:38 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 2, 12:02 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Pat who? wrote: > > ...If you don't like it, go talk to the lawmakers. > > That is not a practical suggestion for those of us who can not afford to > attend $1000/plate fund-raising dinners. > That's only the price to get in. To get listened to you need at least 100 times that amount.     Date: 02 Aug 2007 20:45:58 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? "donquijote1954" WHO? wrote: > On Aug 2, 12:02 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Pat who? wrote: >>> ...If you don't like it, go talk to the lawmakers. >> That is not a practical suggestion for those of us who can not afford to >> attend $1000/plate fund-raising dinners. >> > > That's only the price to get in. To get listened to you need at least > 100 times that amount. See <http://www.tpj.org/docs/pioneers/pioneers_table.jsp > for a list of those who have collected "bundled" contributions to Bush the Lesser of $100,000 or more. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 02 Aug 2007 08:08:30 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 1, 10:22 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > j...@phred.org aka Joshua Putnam wrote: > > > ... > > Even the limited-access freeway near me has its shoulder open to > > bicycles -- bikes are allowed on many miles of Interstates, boring and > > noisy, but safe and direct.... > > Do the drivers look for cyclists crossing their path when merging and > exiting? They only talking on the phone. But then again, we need to retire them.   Date: 02 Aug 2007 08:06:13 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 10:01 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" who? wrote: > > ... > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVE[L]S TO THE DUTCH > > OR DANISH LEVELS?... > > The Danes have almost a 100% tax on new automobiles, high gas taxes, and > (in the cities) very limited and expensive parking. They also have a > beautiful cool spring to fall climate, and winters that can be mostly > handled with proper raingear. > > Ride to work even a short distance at a slow pace in much of the U.S. > during summer and you will be soaked in sweat. You know some bikes do have an electric motor? We can use some of those. Where I live is real hot, but doable in the early morning and late afternoon.   Date: 02 Aug 2007 08:03:11 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SO HERE'S THE CAMPAIGN! On Aug 1, 9:55 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" who? wrote: > > ... > > Thank you for explaining so well what I have in mind. Actually that's > > the idea behind... > > >http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories > > I think a better solution would be two jerseys [1]. In the morning [2], > the jersey worn would say in large letters on the back "RIDING TO WORK". > The afternoon jersey would say "RIDING HOME FROM WORK". > > [1] Or a reversible sign for recumbents. > [2] Reverse for night shift workers. Yeah, but then you need more like, "RIDING TO THE MARKET," "RIDING TO HAVE A DATE," etc. ;)     Date: 02 Aug 2007 20:36:03 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: SO HERE'S THE CAMPAIGN! "donquijote1954" who? wrote: > On Aug 1, 9:55 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "donquijote1954" who? wrote: >>> ... >>> Thank you for explaining so well what I have in mind. Actually that's >>> the idea behind... >>> http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories >> I think a better solution would be two jerseys [1]. In the morning [2], >> the jersey worn would say in large letters on the back "RIDING TO WORK". >> The afternoon jersey would say "RIDING HOME FROM WORK". >> >> [1] Or a reversible sign for recumbents. >> [2] Reverse for night shift workers. > > Yeah, but then you need more like, "RIDING TO THE MARKET," "RIDING TO > HAVE A DATE," etc. ;) The point is the motorists (with half a brain) will understand that you are just another poor schulb going to work. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 02 Aug 2007 08:00:24 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 9:40 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > And what do you > > expect to have when you go around electing members of a political > > party (whose name starts with "R") whose official position is that > > government can't work? > > We have been making progress on that front in recent years. > > [1] This, in many cases DOES not including exceeding the speed limit, > which is about the only thing that ever seems to be enforced. > [2] To a point. Obviously, in a country with a ridiculous level of > overpopulation such as China, cycling in urban areas is not enjoyable > unless one likes being part of a slow moving congested mass of people on > bicycles. OK, I finally figured you out. We may disagree on the bike lane as part of the solution, but we totally agree on the absolute need to retire a bunch of bad drivers, and enforce some rules of the road. Lane discipline should be a high priority so you don't drivers overtaking on the right lane at supersonic speeds, right next to the bicycles. This is addressed too in our Political Platform... "Our roads, where the Law of the Jungle rules, should be made safer, say by enforcing passing on the left only." See http://webspawner.com/users/elections2008   Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:53:30 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 9:58 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower > > > > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, > > > > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless > > > > > preparing for a turn across that lane. > > > > > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even > > > > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD > > > > NOT be anywhere else. > > > > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane, > > > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I > > > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning > > > cars can get by. > > > They Smile? What a depressing life one must have if there highlight of > > the day was a bike made it eaiser for you to make a right turn.... > > When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure > job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-) People around here > are very busy, so anything that helps them get to where they are going > faster gets a positive reaction. > > Also, it is a very liberal community by U.S. standards (although not > quite as liberal as San Francisco). Here's a picture of our local > movie theater <http://www.stanfordtheatre.org/stf/>. Click on "This > Week" to see what we get. You'll be truly amazed. It must really be liberal because it got such a great theater, not a conservative place with a mega church and all. They really hate the arts and bike lanes. I see them driving SUVs...   Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:31:00 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 8:04 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? So what's solution to bring the ridership to, say, 30%? If we banned cars from city centers we could bring it up 100% I guess. Holland is a really stupid and violent place. They have the cheek to say, "Beware of bikes!" Not so in America. To begin with we hardly any cyclists out there doing real things with bikes. And then we got the SUVs that are real dangerous, but we simply don't brag about it. Yeap, it's a violent place out there... Beware of bikes! Besides freeways, bus lanes and sideways, The Netherlands have numerous bicycle paths, approximately 20000 kilometres in total length! Because the country is so tiny and flat, the bicycle provides an easy way to transport yourself, your friend, your dog and your groceries, and is also handy when you're moving to a different apartment or house. http://www.siw.nl/english/thenetherlands.php   Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:14:56 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 6:11 pm, Martin Dann <martin.d...@virgin.net > wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road. > > But it makes most cagers think that the rules have changed. > It is like have seating for coloured people on buses, you > think it helps, but it just causes antagonism between groups. > > > In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic > > have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state > > standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other > > traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to > > use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left > > turn, > > So if I see bike lanes in your state as inherently > dangerous, I can ignore them completely? > If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does > it has to get out of my way, or do these rules only work > one way (e.g. niggers have to give up their bus seats for > the superior whites). > > From you arguments it sounds like you just want to keep > normal traffic (cyclists) out of your way. > > [1] On my bike I am normal traffic. While your civil right activism is impressive, you are just choosing the wrong parallel. A cyclist among cars is like you swimming in a pool full of sharks. Feeding the sharks, so to speak... http://www.flickr.com/photos/36133139@N00/389281903/ I'm watching "Shark Week" on Discovery, and I can draw some conclusions: 1- Never swim with the sharks; 2- Sharks are stupid; 3- Sharks are unpredictable... 2 and 3 are the issues that concern me the most: You never know when the shark or which shark is going to eat you. So go back to #1 and you are likely to have a long life.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 20:52:39 From: Pat Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 1:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > > news:1185986935.706809.292940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Aug 1, 12:39 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > > >>news:1185984742.195387.107300@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > >> >> > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > >> >> > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at > >> >> > > > you, > >> >> > > > but > >> >> > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. > >> >> > > > If you > >> >> > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more > >> >> > > > maligned > >> >> > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice > >> >> > > > to > >> >> > > > use > >> >> > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. > > >> >> > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not > >> >> > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* > > >> >> > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW > >> >> > > DO > >> >> > > WE > >> >> > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE > >> >> > > DUTCH > >> >> > > OR DANISH LEVELS? > > >> >> > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong > >> >> > direction. > >> >> > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". > >> >> > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address > >> >> > that. > > >> >> > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to > >> >> > bike > >> >> > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get > >> >> > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might > >> >> > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. > > >> >> > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for > >> >> > football > >> >> > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school > >> >> > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I > >> >> > just > >> >> > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, > >> >> > there's > >> >> > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually > >> >> > because > >> >> > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is > >> >> > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is > >> >> > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at > >> >> > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9 > >> >> > hour bike ride. > > >> >> I don't blame you, biking works best > >> >> when everything is > >> >> more central and dense like a metro area. > > >> >> > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The > >> >> > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way > >> >> > issue. > >> >> > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to > >> >> > people, > >> >> > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in > >> >> > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 > >> >> > trip. > > >> >> > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to > >> >> > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more > >> >> > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage > >> >> > shopping > >> >> > by bike. > > >> >> Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your > >> >> from nowhere land. > > >> > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of > >> > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the > >> > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a > >> > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle. > >> > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow > >> > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry > >> > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 > >> > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is > >> > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom > >> > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a > >> > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to > >> > me, because I don't wear a watch. > > >> > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by > >> > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me. > >> > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the > >> > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. > >> > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But > >> > that's what makes it nice. > > >> > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the > >> > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's > >> > excitement around here. > > >> > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to > >> > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each > >> > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each) > >> > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys > >> > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle. > > >> > So what about this "quality" thing? > > >> If you had a Wal-Mart right there they would immediately start > >> four-laning > >> the road in front of it and put in access roads. That would make it far > >> less bike friendly. Most ordinary sized grocery stores, however, do not > >> insist on four lane highways. Cluster a number of smaller shops around > >> it > >> and you have most of the selection of Wal-Mart, probably better quality, > >> and > >> a more bike-friendly environment. > > >> -Amy > > > Man, I am dating myself, but remember the days when a few bigger > > grocery stores out build next to a department store and share a common > > entrance. It was like a Jamesway next to a Shop Rite. Jamesway, > > Barkers and others all did that, here and there. You could go between > > the stores, up at the front. > > > Now, all of those departments stores are closed. Must not have been > > such a good idea. > > > The thing is, people LIKE Walmart. Maybe you don't and William > > doesn't, but there are sure a whole lot of people out there who do. > > > We'd like one here. The sales tax revenue would help the city coffers > > and people wouldn't have to drive so far to buy skivies. > > About that sales tax revenue... > > http://www.newrules.org/retail/policefactsheet.pdfhttp://amiba.net/pdf/barnstable_fiscal_impact_report.pdfhttp://edlabor.house.gov/publications/WALMARTREPORT.pdf 3 interesting -- and useless -- studies. The first one suggests that somehow, the sales tax from Walmart will be less than the sales taxes from stores that close because of WM. Well, that would only be true if the total volume of taxable sales fell because of WM. Granted, it will redistribute sales taxes because they will spike in the area near WM as WM has it sales and the store in that area see increased sales. Sales tax will fall 20 to 30 miles away where WM has a negative impact on stores. That study is also interesting in that it blames WM for increased crime. I don't know about you, but I think the CRIMINAL is responsible for the crime, not the victim. If a sexy woman wears a tiny bit of clothing down the street and gets rapes, is SHE to blame or is it the rapist? The second study is typical government-trash. The government hires a consultant who then interviews the government officials and develops a study that legitimizes their views. That's what the methodology says they did. The most interesting part of the study is that is discusses assessment based on cost, not replacement value. That is easy data collection but bad assessment practice. The other interesting thing is that the study was significantly biases away from hotels. There is another problem with this type of study, which I call "The Salt Situation". It involves a great deal of research I did on the cost of road salt. The conclusion can only be summarized as the cost/ benefit of de-icing salt is whatever you want it to be and it changes depending on how you want to measure cost & benefit. This study uses a snapshot approach, which is the most limited view but I will stay with The Salt Situation to explain things. If you look at the cost of buying salt v. the cost of sand, salt is more expensive. But, if you you factor in the fact that you need fewer applications, it appears to move into the lead. But if you then factor in the added storage costs and trucking, it falls behind. But if you then factor in the fact that you don't have to clean it up in the spring, if goes back to the front. Then if you factor in environmental damage, it again is more expensive. But if you figure in the societal savings due to fewer accidents, rustouts, and paint chips, if is gains cheaper. Whether salt is more expensive or cheaper is not really determinable because the outcome came be made to be whatever you want it to be. This study is the same way. Okay, some town hires an additional cop at the cost of $75,000 per year. So WM costs the town money, right. Well, maybe or maybe not. What about the savings that the town residents get on their shopping. If that totals over $75,000 per year, then the residents are still better off. Then answer is determined by how you ask the question and what you choose to include in a your cost/benefit analysis. The third study was just plain ridicules. The government cannot fault someone for following the law. If the government, esp. Congress, doesn't like the current minimum wage or labor laws, they should change them -- not fault someone else for following them. Are their lapses, sure. But their always are in any organization of that size, just as their are lapse in the government following the law. As long as they comply with the law, they are okay. If you don't like it, go talk to the lawmakers.     Date: 02 Aug 2007 11:41:26 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1186026759.465588.281360@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 1, 1:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message >> >> news:1185986935.706809.292940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Aug 1, 12:39 pm, "Amy Blankenship" >> > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> >> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1185984742.195387.107300@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> >> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at >> >> >> > > > you, >> >> >> > > > but >> >> >> > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the >> >> >> > > > paintwork. >> >> >> > > > If you >> >> >> > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far >> >> >> > > > more >> >> >> > > > maligned >> >> >> > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no >> >> >> > > > choice >> >> >> > > > to >> >> >> > > > use >> >> >> > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. >> >> >> >> > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them >> >> >> > > > not >> >> >> > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* >> >> >> >> > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, >> >> >> > > HOW >> >> >> > > DO >> >> >> > > WE >> >> >> > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE >> >> >> > > DUTCH >> >> >> > > OR DANISH LEVELS? >> >> >> >> > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong >> >> >> > direction. >> >> >> > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone >> >> >> > else". >> >> >> > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and >> >> >> > address >> >> >> > that. >> >> >> >> > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to >> >> >> > bike >> >> >> > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they >> >> >> > get >> >> >> > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might >> >> >> > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not >> >> >> > really. >> >> >> >> > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for >> >> >> > football >> >> >> > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school >> >> >> > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I >> >> >> > just >> >> >> > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, >> >> >> > there's >> >> >> > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually >> >> >> > because >> >> >> > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is >> >> >> > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So >> >> >> > at >> >> >> > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking >> >> >> > at 9 >> >> >> > hour bike ride. >> >> >> >> I don't blame you, biking works best >> >> >> when everything is >> >> >> more central and dense like a metro area. >> >> >> >> > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The >> >> >> > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way >> >> >> > issue. >> >> >> > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to >> >> >> > people, >> >> >> > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in >> >> >> > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in >> >> >> > 1 >> >> >> > trip. >> >> >> >> > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more >> >> >> > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage >> >> >> > shopping >> >> >> > by bike. >> >> >> >> Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your >> >> >> from nowhere land. >> >> >> > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of >> >> > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the >> >> > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is >> >> > a >> >> > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle. >> >> > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow >> >> > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry >> >> > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 >> >> > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is >> >> > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom >> >> > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a >> >> > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter >> >> > to >> >> > me, because I don't wear a watch. >> >> >> > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by >> >> > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me. >> >> > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill >> >> > the >> >> > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. >> >> > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But >> >> > that's what makes it nice. >> >> >> > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the >> >> > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. >> >> > That's >> >> > excitement around here. >> >> >> > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes >> >> > to >> >> > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each >> >> > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 >> >> > (each) >> >> > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys >> >> > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle. >> >> >> > So what about this "quality" thing? >> >> >> If you had a Wal-Mart right there they would immediately start >> >> four-laning >> >> the road in front of it and put in access roads. That would make it >> >> far >> >> less bike friendly. Most ordinary sized grocery stores, however, do >> >> not >> >> insist on four lane highways. Cluster a number of smaller shops >> >> around >> >> it >> >> and you have most of the selection of Wal-Mart, probably better >> >> quality, >> >> and >> >> a more bike-friendly environment. >> >> >> -Amy >> >> > Man, I am dating myself, but remember the days when a few bigger >> > grocery stores out build next to a department store and share a common >> > entrance. It was like a Jamesway next to a Shop Rite. Jamesway, >> > Barkers and others all did that, here and there. You could go between >> > the stores, up at the front. >> >> > Now, all of those departments stores are closed. Must not have been >> > such a good idea. >> >> > The thing is, people LIKE Walmart. Maybe you don't and William >> > doesn't, but there are sure a whole lot of people out there who do. >> >> > We'd like one here. The sales tax revenue would help the city coffers >> > and people wouldn't have to drive so far to buy skivies. >> >> About that sales tax revenue... >> >> http://www.newrules.org/retail/policefactsheet.pdfhttp://amiba.net/pdf/barnstable_fiscal_impact_report.pdfhttp://edlabor.house.gov/publications/WALMARTREPORT.pdf > > 3 interesting -- and useless -- studies. > > The first one suggests that somehow, the sales tax from Walmart will > be less than the sales taxes from stores that close because of WM. > Well, that would only be true if the total volume of taxable sales > fell because of WM. Granted, it will redistribute sales taxes because > they will spike in the area near WM as WM has it sales and the store > in that area see increased sales. Sales tax will fall 20 to 30 miles > away where WM has a negative impact on stores. > > That study is also interesting in that it blames WM for increased > crime. I don't know about you, but I think the CRIMINAL is > responsible for the crime, not the victim. If a sexy woman wears a > tiny bit of clothing down the street and gets rapes, is SHE to blame > or is it the rapist? > > The second study is typical government-trash. The government hires a > consultant who then interviews the government officials and develops a > study that legitimizes their views. That's what the methodology says > they did. The most interesting part of the study is that is discusses > assessment based on cost, not replacement value. That is easy data > collection but bad assessment practice. The other interesting thing > is that the study was significantly biases away from hotels. > > There is another problem with this type of study, which I call "The > Salt Situation". It involves a great deal of research I did on the > cost of road salt. The conclusion can only be summarized as the cost/ > benefit of de-icing salt is whatever you want it to be and it changes > depending on how you want to measure cost & benefit. This study uses > a snapshot approach, which is the most limited view but I will stay > with The Salt Situation to explain things. If you look at the cost of > buying salt v. the cost of sand, salt is more expensive. But, if you > you factor in the fact that you need fewer applications, it appears to > move into the lead. But if you then factor in the added storage costs > and trucking, it falls behind. But if you then factor in the fact > that you don't have to clean it up in the spring, if goes back to the > front. Then if you factor in environmental damage, it again is more > expensive. But if you figure in the societal savings due to fewer > accidents, rustouts, and paint chips, if is gains cheaper. Whether > salt is more expensive or cheaper is not really determinable because > the outcome came be made to be whatever you want it to be. > > This study is the same way. Okay, some town hires an additional cop > at the cost of $75,000 per year. So WM costs the town money, right. > Well, maybe or maybe not. What about the savings that the town > residents get on their shopping. If that totals over $75,000 per > year, then the residents are still better off. Then answer is > determined by how you ask the question and what you choose to include > in a your cost/benefit analysis. http://www.epinet.org/workingpapers/wp276.pdf > The third study was just plain ridicules. The government cannot fault > someone for following the law. If the government, esp. Congress, > doesn't like the current minimum wage or labor laws, they should > change them -- not fault someone else for following them. Are their > lapses, sure. But their always are in any organization of that size, > just as their are lapse in the government following the law. As long > as they comply with the law, they are okay. If you don't like it, go > talk to the lawmakers. So "encouraging" workers to work off the clock is following the law? -Amy     Date: 01 Aug 2007 23:02:40 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? Pat who? wrote: > ...If you don't like it, go talk to the lawmakers. That is not a practical suggestion for those of us who can not afford to attend $1000/plate fund-raising dinners. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 01 Aug 2007 22:08:42 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 5:55 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> writes: > > Zauman lives on Bike Lane Fantasy Island. None of those words above > > address the real world where the presence of a bike lane creates > > "motor vehicle lanes" that motorists then vigorously defend. > > Pein has a serious emotional problem and should seek professional help > for it, as this sort of outburst from him shows. He apparently didn't > like my post even though I merely quoted official California state > government publications. He fits the profile of a Hummer driver (too aggressive)... "The industry has come to some unflattering conclusions about the people who buy its SUVs. As summarized by Bradsher: They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interests in their neighbors and communities. They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social than most Americans are." and... "SUV owners want to be more like, 'I'm in control of the people around me.'" http://savefuel.tribe.net/thread/45bad811-c1a9-498b-989f-228e221cb482 Cylists are more social, you know. In other words, Pein fits the profile of the lion, and us, cycists, are more like social monkeys.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:53:37 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 4:26 pm, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > > My strategy is demonstrating that cycling is a safe, normal thing > that normal people can do in safety and without special armour. > Doesn't piss anyone much off, doesn't call people idiots and > antagonise them, doesn't characterise what I'm doing with > ridiculous and self evidently non-sensical hyperbole, doesn't > deamnd that they put themselves out and into perceived danger for > some cause. I think all of those things it doesn't do makes it a > positive way to proceed, unlike calling for things that don't help > and stridently getting on folks' cases. OK, your strategy doesn't motivate anyone because people are no fools. They know cars fly by too close for comfort. That's why there's no significant number of people riding bikes on busy thoroughfares. It just doesn't make sense to push people onto roads and then having to say, "Sorry, shit happens."     Date: 02 Aug 2007 08:20:14 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? donquijote1954 wrote: > OK, your strategy doesn't motivate anyone because people are no > fools. They know cars fly by too close for comfort. Not if you're properly positioned, as per the advice in UK National Standard Training or the "Cyclecraft" manual. How do I know? Because I'm out there on busy thoroughfares and they don't fly by me too close for comfort. Which I can (and do) point out to people who say I'm a marvel because "it's so dangerous out there!". I also point out it's not nearly as dangerous as they think. In fact, compared to pedestrians on their "safe" segregated sidewalks, cyclists get slightly fewer serious injuries per unit distance. Counter intuitive, but true. > That's why there's > no significant number of people riding bikes on busy thoroughfares. It > just doesn't make sense to push people onto roads and then having to > say, "Sorry, shit happens." Though it's perfectly all right to shove them onto a lane or track which doesn't have any better safety record, and if they get mown down at a junction (which is where most accidents happen, not getting hit from behind on normal road) saying "Sorry, shit happens"? When are you going to account for reality being the bottom line and not your personal hopes for what it /should/ be? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 01 Aug 2007 14:49:43 From: William Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 2:28 pm, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 1, 11:12 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but > > > > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you > > > > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned > > > > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use > > > > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. > > > > > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not > > > > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* > > > > > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE > > > > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH > > > > > OR DANISH LEVELS? > > > > > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong direction. > > > > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". > > > > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address > > > > that. > > > > > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to bike > > > > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get > > > > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might > > > > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. > > > > > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for football > > > > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school > > > > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I just > > > > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, there's > > > > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually because > > > > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is > > > > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is > > > > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at > > > > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9 > > > > hour bike ride. > > > > I don't blame you, biking works best > > > when everything is > > > more central and dense like a metro area. > > > > > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The > > > > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way issue. > > > > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to people, > > > > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in > > > > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 > > > > trip. > > > > > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to > > > > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more > > > > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping > > > > by bike. > > > > Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your > > > from nowhere land. > > > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of > > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the > > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a > > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle. > > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow > > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry > > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 > > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is > > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom > > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a > > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to > > me, because I don't wear a watch. > > > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by > > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me. > > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the > > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. > > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But > > that's what makes it nice. > > > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the > > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's > > excitement around here. > > > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to > > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each > > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each) > > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys > > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle. > > > So what about this "quality" thing? > > Pat, Walmart is McDonalds department stores. In every way. If you wanna > call that quality go right ahead. Just keep that bull shit out of the > city. To be more specific, ever notice how a lot of things, not ALL things but a lot, are a heck of a lot crappier at walmart as apposed to the other extreme like William-sanoma or crate and barrel? I'm not saying that every place should be as expensive and *high tech* for a lack of a better word as those places are. But ever notice how theres a lot of poor people at Walmart? I guess you would'nt since thats all you have in nowhere land but here in the cities when people have more options then the lowest and crappiest, we tend to shoot for the happy medium between excessive and contemptible. I prove via internet: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=2403033 Wal*Mart:Lowest Common Denominator Look at this cool set of pots and pans and the mounted rack. Only 34.32!!! But in reality,look at cheap and thin the metal on the cooking utensils and the pots is. Don't expect those to get through a thanksgiving dinner.... Kohls: A Happy Medium http://www.kohls.com/products/product_page_vanilla0.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=27926195&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=440616035&bmUID=1186004381433 A good medium, not to bad it gets the job done. 170$ is pretty reasonable, closer on the low end of things but again it will get the job done. William-Sonoma: When brains collide with class and stlye Bet you don't have one of these at "The Rez" do you Pat? http://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/sku9639873/index.cfm?pkey=cckwseti 600 dollars and just for the pots. Yea I would say this would out live the competition in ever way by a large margin. Still, nothing to there 1,400$$$ one. ttp://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/sku8991465/index.cfm?pkey=cckwseti Hey, you get what ya pay for! Now, cheap prices may seem all good, but why not just pay a little extra for the one that will last? (Ahem* because your either poor or have no options or you just have no sense of quality) Now Pat, you may be saying to yourself that those other sets of pots are expensive only for more profit, but if that was true, do you REALLY think William-Sonoma would still be around?     Date: 02 Aug 2007 11:43:37 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? "William" <willbecool10@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1186004983.785166.167890@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 1, 2:28 pm, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Aug 1, 11:12 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >> >> > > > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> > > > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at >> > > > > > you, but >> > > > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the >> > > > > > paintwork. If you >> > > > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more >> > > > > > maligned >> > > > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice >> > > > > > to use >> > > > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. >> >> > > > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them >> > > > > > not >> > > > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* >> >> > > > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW >> > > > > DO WE >> > > > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE >> > > > > DUTCH >> > > > > OR DANISH LEVELS? >> >> > > > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong >> > > > direction. >> > > > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". >> > > > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and >> > > > address >> > > > that. >> >> > > > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to >> > > > bike >> > > > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get >> > > > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might >> > > > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. >> >> > > > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for >> > > > football >> > > > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school >> > > > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I >> > > > just >> > > > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, >> > > > there's >> > > > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually >> > > > because >> > > > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is >> > > > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is >> > > > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So >> > > > at >> > > > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at >> > > > 9 >> > > > hour bike ride. >> >> > > I don't blame you, biking works best >> > > when everything is >> > > more central and dense like a metro area. >> >> > > > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The >> > > > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way >> > > > issue. >> > > > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to >> > > > people, >> > > > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in >> > > > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 >> > > > trip. >> >> > > > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place >> > > > to >> > > > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more >> > > > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage >> > > > shopping >> > > > by bike. >> >> > > Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your >> > > from nowhere land. >> >> > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of >> > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the >> > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a >> > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle. >> > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow >> > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry >> > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 >> > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is >> > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom >> > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a >> > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to >> > me, because I don't wear a watch. >> >> > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by >> > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me. >> > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the >> > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. >> > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But >> > that's what makes it nice. >> >> > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the >> > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's >> > excitement around here. >> >> > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to >> > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each >> > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each) >> > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys >> > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle. >> >> > So what about this "quality" thing? >> >> Pat, Walmart is McDonalds department stores. In every way. If you wanna >> call that quality go right ahead. Just keep that bull shit out of the >> city. > > To be more specific, ever notice how a lot of things, not > ALL things but a lot, are a heck of a lot crappier at walmart as > apposed to the other extreme like William-sanoma or crate and barrel? > I'm not saying that every place should be as expensive and *high tech* > for a lack of a better word as those places are. But ever notice how > theres a lot of poor people at Walmart? I guess you would'nt since > thats all you have in nowhere land but here in the cities when people > have more options then the lowest and crappiest, we tend to shoot for > the happy medium between excessive and contemptible. I'm not sure that it's the best argument against Wal-Mart that it gives the poor a place that they can afford. BTW, hope you're ok.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:44:10 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 4:16 pm, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > Are you saying that those committed cyclists are stupid and that they > > don't know what they are asking for? > > It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of knowledge. > "Common sense" suggests segregated facilities will improve one's > lot (and in /some/ limited cases I agree they do), but just like > "common sense" indicating helmets substantially reduce serious head > injuries and compulsory seat belts must reduce road casualties it > turns out the effect in the real world doesn't know much about your > "common sense" and it is contarry to popular assumption and belief. > > > Remember they are not kids, but > > real cyclists that tell you the real problems out there. How more real > > can you get? > > The accident figures from segregated facilities that show us that > Real Cyclists suffer just as many Real Accidents on segregated > facilties (or rather, where they meet roads, as they inevitably do) > are just as real, and are far more representative than your small > sample quoted. > > You really need to find out the effects of things before you start > proclaiming to the rooftops that they're The Answer. WHATEVER GETS PEOPLE OUT IS GOOD, then we polish it up along the way.     Date: 02 Aug 2007 08:11:23 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? donquijote1954 wrote: > WHATEVER GETS PEOPLE OUT IS GOOD, then we polish it up along the way. But it doesn't actually do that much in getting people out. Milton Keyenes and Stevenage were designed from the ground up with segregated cycle lanes. Are they a cycling Mecca compared to other towns in that part of England? Doesn't appear to be the case, and those cyclists who do use them aren't any better off than those on the roads in terms of safety, but they do take longer to get where they're going. And even if they do go out, and find it's not all magic like they thought it would be, they'll go back in again. So, you may well find that, like NL and Germany, you've spent one hell of a lot of money on new infrastructure but not actually generated much (if any) extra cycling. Real life lessons that run counter to your pet theories hurt, I know (been there myself often enough), but ultimately it's better if you actually learn from them rather than assume your pet theory will magically become right if you just repeat it often/loud enough. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:40:19 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 1:13 pm, Mike Clark <m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > In message <1185984581.435106.183...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 11:02 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > >http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ > > > > They don't really help. And they've been shown not to help and we can > > > see them not helping in practice. > > > Are you saying that those committed cyclists are stupid and that they > > don't know what they are asking for? Remember they are not kids, but > > real cyclists that tell you the real problems out there. How more real > > can you get? > > Lessons in life are often counter-intuitive. > > Separated bike lanes are fine where they are separated, it's just that > sooner or later you have to have a junction and if you have more > separated lanes you end up with more complex junctions and that's where > the accidents happen. > > What good is it if you decrease the accident rate at point 'a' along > a route and at the same time increase it at point 'b' along a route such > that the overall accident rate is higher? > > In contrast to the 'idea' of ever more separate lanes being good for > improved safety there is the contradictory data that shows that in > places where you remove all the lane markings, signs and junction > priorities you often get a measurable increase in safety. Should we erase the car lanes too? I think we could have bike lanes and still enforce those breaking the law, so they can pay for more bike lanes. Are you parked in the bike lane? You got a fine for 100 bucks...   Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:36:48 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 12:59 pm, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185987198.894818.4960@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > On Aug 1, 11:07 am, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > > >> There are other ways, but most are not what would be acceptable in a > >> civilised culture - eg the one which was responsible for a large increase > >> in > >> riding in London unfortunately involved killing 52 people... > > > In what way? It sounds like terrorism to me... > > There's a good reason for that... > > (what it did was put people off using PT, so they gave bikes a try - it was > summer.) Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel them through bike lanes.     Date: 02 Aug 2007 08:14:13 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? donquijote1954 wrote: > Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel > them through bike lanes. Bike lanes don't have a better safety track record than the roads. Go to http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html and actually do some reading around the subject. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:50:47 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? > donquijote1954 wrote: > >> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel >> them through bike lanes. I think letting you loose out of your cell would be dangerous. Wayne       Date: 02 Aug 2007 09:24:36 From: Ace Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:14:13 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >donquijote1954 wrote: > >> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel >> them through bike lanes. > >Bike lanes don't have a better safety track record than the roads. > >Go to http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html and actually do >some reading around the subject. Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac. -- Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom         Date: 02 Aug 2007 10:08:26 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? Ace wrote: > > Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly > clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously > take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac. > Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his neighbourhood ;-) Tony           Date: 02 Aug 2007 11:24:25 From: Ace Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:08:26 +0100, Tony Raven <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: >Ace wrote: >> >> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly >> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously >> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac. >> > >Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets >killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his >neighbourhood ;-) That'd be a shame. -- Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom             Date: 02 Aug 2007 10:28:43 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? Ace wrote: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:08:26 +0100, Tony Raven <traven@gotadsl.co.uk> > wrote: > >> Ace wrote: >>> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly >>> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously >>> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac. >>> >> Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets >> killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his >> neighbourhood ;-) > > That'd be a shame. > Or an exaggeration. Tony         Date: 02 Aug 2007 09:22:32 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? Ace wrote: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:14:13 +0100, Peter Clinch > <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > >> donquijote1954 wrote: >> >>> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel >>> them through bike lanes. >> Bike lanes don't have a better safety track record than the roads. >> >> Go to http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html and actually do >> some reading around the subject. > > Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly > clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously > take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac. Fair point... Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:35:31 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 12:12 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > > Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your > > from nowhere land. > > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of > nowhere. That's great. Can you be in the middle of nowhere and have a Walmart next door? I bet they got a section on bear hunting gear. ;)   Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:33:28 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SO HERE'S THE CAMPAIGN! On Aug 1, 11:42 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > In other words, we need an identifying, conspicuous and explanatory T- > > shirt that makes us part of an ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN. "In union there's > > strength," you know. > > Within the union, yes, but you're trying to address people outside it. > One way of putting off "normal people", IME, is being a strident > activist. Look at recycling: green evangelists go on about it and not > much happens, but if the Normal People next door are doing it then other > Normal People will join in. You want to aim at the average Joe and Jane out there. The Jane that want's to do something about the environment and the Joe that wants to save the buck in gas and insurance. > > > You want to make friends, not enemies. > > Absolutely. See above. > > > As for the profits, we can set up ALL of it to create more bike lanes > > --adjacent or separated from the road. > > Even though we know they don't help. You still haven't taken that on > board, but it's still true. Bike lanes are not the answer to anyone > except the road paint industry. The road paint industry doesn't have powerful lobbies up there. That's why we don't have bike lanes.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 12:28:44 From: William Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 11:12 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but > > > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you > > > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned > > > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use > > > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. > > > > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not > > > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* > > > > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE > > > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH > > > > OR DANISH LEVELS? > > > > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong direction. > > > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". > > > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address > > > that. > > > > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to bike > > > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get > > > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might > > > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. > > > > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for football > > > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school > > > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I just > > > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, there's > > > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually because > > > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is > > > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is > > > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at > > > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9 > > > hour bike ride. > > > I don't blame you, biking works best > > when everything is > > more central and dense like a metro area. > > > > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The > > > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way issue. > > > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to people, > > > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in > > > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 > > > trip. > > > > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to > > > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more > > > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping > > > by bike. > > > Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your > > from nowhere land. > > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle. > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to > me, because I don't wear a watch. > > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me. > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But > that's what makes it nice. > > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's > excitement around here. > > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each) > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle. > > So what about this "quality" thing? Pat, Walmart is McDonalds of fast food. In *every* way. If you wanna call that quality go right ahead. Just keep that bull shit out of the city.     Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:18:57 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? William who? wrote: > ...Just keep that bull shit out of the city. These people would likely have some if you really need it: <http://www.absglobal.com/ >. [indefinite pronouns intentional] -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 01 Aug 2007 09:53:18 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 11:07 am, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote: > There are other ways, but most are not what would be acceptable in a > civilised culture - eg the one which was responsible for a large increase in > riding in London unfortunately involved killing 52 people... > > cheers, > clive In what way? It sounds like terrorism to me...     Date: 01 Aug 2007 17:59:26 From: Clive George Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185987198.894818.4960@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 1, 11:07 am, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > >> There are other ways, but most are not what would be acceptable in a >> civilised culture - eg the one which was responsible for a large increase >> in >> riding in London unfortunately involved killing 52 people... >> > > In what way? It sounds like terrorism to me... There's a good reason for that... (what it did was put people off using PT, so they gave bikes a try - it was summer.) cheers, clive   Date: 01 Aug 2007 09:51:40 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 12:12 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's > excitement around here. > Though I live next to glamorous South Beach in Miami, I still find the canoe the most exciting thing, and I got one ready to launch... In South Beach you find quite a bit of biking particulary because parking is so limited. Hardly any bike lanes, but people enjoy the "safety in numbers," I guess. Same situation in Key West. So limited parking is a good thing for biking. Scooters too are a good option for some --like me-- beyond the distance doable in a bike. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION IS THE WAY TO GO, meaning bicycles, public transportation, fast trains and, of course, cars, which include carpooling, car sharing, etc.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 09:48:55 From: Pat Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 12:39 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > > news:1185984742.195387.107300@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > >> > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > >> > wrote: > > >> > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > >> > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, > >> > > > but > >> > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. > >> > > > If you > >> > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more > >> > > > maligned > >> > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to > >> > > > use > >> > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. > > >> > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not > >> > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* > > >> > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO > >> > > WE > >> > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH > >> > > OR DANISH LEVELS? > > >> > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong direction. > >> > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". > >> > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address > >> > that. > > >> > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to bike > >> > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get > >> > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might > >> > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. > > >> > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for football > >> > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school > >> > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I just > >> > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, there's > >> > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually because > >> > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is > >> > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is > >> > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at > >> > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9 > >> > hour bike ride. > > >> I don't blame you, biking works best > >> when everything is > >> more central and dense like a metro area. > > >> > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The > >> > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way issue. > >> > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to people, > >> > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in > >> > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 > >> > trip. > > >> > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to > >> > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more > >> > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping > >> > by bike. > > >> Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your > >> from nowhere land. > > > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of > > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the > > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a > > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle. > > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow > > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry > > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 > > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is > > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom > > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a > > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to > > me, because I don't wear a watch. > > > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by > > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me. > > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the > > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. > > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But > > that's what makes it nice. > > > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the > > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's > > excitement around here. > > > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to > > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each > > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each) > > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys > > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle. > > > So what about this "quality" thing? > > If you had a Wal-Mart right there they would immediately start four-laning > the road in front of it and put in access roads. That would make it far > less bike friendly. Most ordinary sized grocery stores, however, do not > insist on four lane highways. Cluster a number of smaller shops around it > and you have most of the selection of Wal-Mart, probably better quality, and > a more bike-friendly environment. > > -Amy Man, I am dating myself, but remember the days when a few bigger grocery stores out build next to a department store and share a common entrance. It was like a Jamesway next to a Shop Rite. Jamesway, Barkers and others all did that, here and there. You could go between the stores, up at the front. Now, all of those departments stores are closed. Must not have been such a good idea. The thing is, people LIKE Walmart. Maybe you don't and William doesn't, but there are sure a whole lot of people out there who do. We'd like one here. The sales tax revenue would help the city coffers and people wouldn't have to drive so far to buy skivies.     Date: 01 Aug 2007 12:25:32 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1185986935.706809.292940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 1, 12:39 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message >> >> news:1185984742.195387.107300@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >> >> >> > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> >> > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at >> >> > > > you, >> >> > > > but >> >> > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. >> >> > > > If you >> >> > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more >> >> > > > maligned >> >> > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > use >> >> > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. >> >> >> > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not >> >> > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* >> >> >> > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW >> >> > > DO >> >> > > WE >> >> > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE >> >> > > DUTCH >> >> > > OR DANISH LEVELS? >> >> >> > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong >> >> > direction. >> >> > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". >> >> > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address >> >> > that. >> >> >> > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to >> >> > bike >> >> > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get >> >> > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might >> >> > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. >> >> >> > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for >> >> > football >> >> > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school >> >> > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I >> >> > just >> >> > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, >> >> > there's >> >> > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually >> >> > because >> >> > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is >> >> > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is >> >> > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at >> >> > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9 >> >> > hour bike ride. >> >> >> I don't blame you, biking works best >> >> when everything is >> >> more central and dense like a metro area. >> >> >> > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The >> >> > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way >> >> > issue. >> >> > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to >> >> > people, >> >> > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in >> >> > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 >> >> > trip. >> >> >> > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to >> >> > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more >> >> > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage >> >> > shopping >> >> > by bike. >> >> >> Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your >> >> from nowhere land. >> >> > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of >> > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the >> > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a >> > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle. >> > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow >> > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry >> > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 >> > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is >> > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom >> > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a >> > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to >> > me, because I don't wear a watch. >> >> > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by >> > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me. >> > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the >> > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. >> > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But >> > that's what makes it nice. >> >> > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the >> > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's >> > excitement around here. >> >> > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to >> > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each >> > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each) >> > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys >> > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle. >> >> > So what about this "quality" thing? >> >> If you had a Wal-Mart right there they would immediately start >> four-laning >> the road in front of it and put in access roads. That would make it far >> less bike friendly. Most ordinary sized grocery stores, however, do not >> insist on four lane highways. Cluster a number of smaller shops around >> it >> and you have most of the selection of Wal-Mart, probably better quality, >> and >> a more bike-friendly environment. >> >> -Amy > > Man, I am dating myself, but remember the days when a few bigger > grocery stores out build next to a department store and share a common > entrance. It was like a Jamesway next to a Shop Rite. Jamesway, > Barkers and others all did that, here and there. You could go between > the stores, up at the front. > > Now, all of those departments stores are closed. Must not have been > such a good idea. > > The thing is, people LIKE Walmart. Maybe you don't and William > doesn't, but there are sure a whole lot of people out there who do. > > We'd like one here. The sales tax revenue would help the city coffers > and people wouldn't have to drive so far to buy skivies. About that sales tax revenue... http://www.newrules.org/retail/policefactsheet.pdf http://amiba.net/pdf/barnstable_fiscal_impact_report.pdf http://edlabor.house.gov/publications/WALMARTREPORT.pdf   Date: 01 Aug 2007 09:19:23 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 11:48 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > Don't expect the police to take the role of your Mommy, to hold your > hand and tell the other guy he's being bad. You've got a right to the > road. Use it! Don't give any satisfaction to the jerks, and don't > let them worry you. > > And for God's sake, stop whining! > > - Frank Krygowski Oh sure. And what you got to show for it, 1% of ridership? I guess 99% of Americans don't have the balls to go and out there and ride either. Actually, they go for the biggest SUV they can possibly find just to play it safe. "Mom, I want an SUV!" http://www.beststuff.com/images/articles/042604a.jpg   Date: 01 Aug 2007 09:12:22 From: Pat Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but > > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you > > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned > > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use > > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. > > > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not > > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* > > > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE > > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH > > > OR DANISH LEVELS? > > > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong direction. > > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". > > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address > > that. > > > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to bike > > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get > > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might > > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. > > > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for football > > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school > > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I just > > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, there's > > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually because > > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is > > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is > > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at > > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9 > > hour bike ride. > > I don't blame you, biking works best > when everything is > more central and dense like a metro area. > > > > > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The > > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way issue. > > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to people, > > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in > > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 > > trip. > > > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to > > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more > > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping > > by bike. > > Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your > from nowhere land. I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle. What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to me, because I don't wear a watch. You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me. You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But that's what makes it nice. On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's excitement around here. Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each) any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle. So what about this "quality" thing?     Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:12:50 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? Pat WHO? wrote: > ...The $18 Harry > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 > version in your corner bookstore?... Actually, it might well have. The U.S. published versions have some of the British English spellings and words changed to American English equivalents. The corner bookstore may carry or would special order the unbastardized Commonwealth version - good luck with that at Wal-Mart. :( -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 01 Aug 2007 11:39:52 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1185984742.195387.107300@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, >> > > > but >> > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. >> > > > If you >> > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more >> > > > maligned >> > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to >> > > > use >> > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. >> >> > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not >> > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* >> >> > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO >> > > WE >> > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH >> > > OR DANISH LEVELS? >> >> > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong direction. >> > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". >> > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address >> > that. >> >> > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to bike >> > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get >> > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might >> > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. >> >> > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for football >> > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school >> > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I just >> > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, there's >> > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually because >> > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is >> > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is >> > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at >> > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9 >> > hour bike ride. >> >> I don't blame you, biking works best >> when everything is >> more central and dense like a metro area. >> >> >> >> > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The >> > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way issue. >> > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to people, >> > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in >> > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 >> > trip. >> >> > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to >> > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more >> > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping >> > by bike. >> >> Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your >> from nowhere land. > > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle. > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32 > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to > me, because I don't wear a watch. > > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me. > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But > that's what makes it nice. > > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's > excitement around here. > > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each) > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle. > > So what about this "quality" thing? If you had a Wal-Mart right there they would immediately start four-laning the road in front of it and put in access roads. That would make it far less bike friendly. Most ordinary sized grocery stores, however, do not insist on four lane highways. Cluster a number of smaller shops around it and you have most of the selection of Wal-Mart, probably better quality, and a more bike-friendly environment. -Amy   Date: 01 Aug 2007 09:09:41 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 11:02 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > >http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ > > They don't really help. And they've been shown not to help and we can > see them not helping in practice. Are you saying that those committed cyclists are stupid and that they don't know what they are asking for? Remember they are not kids, but real cyclists that tell you the real problems out there. How more real can you get?     Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:16:35 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? donquijote1954 wrote: > Are you saying that those committed cyclists are stupid and that they > don't know what they are asking for? It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of knowledge. "Common sense" suggests segregated facilities will improve one's lot (and in /some/ limited cases I agree they do), but just like "common sense" indicating helmets substantially reduce serious head injuries and compulsory seat belts must reduce road casualties it turns out the effect in the real world doesn't know much about your "common sense" and it is contarry to popular assumption and belief. > Remember they are not kids, but > real cyclists that tell you the real problems out there. How more real > can you get? The accident figures from segregated facilities that show us that Real Cyclists suffer just as many Real Accidents on segregated facilties (or rather, where they meet roads, as they inevitably do) are just as real, and are far more representative than your small sample quoted. You really need to find out the effects of things before you start proclaiming to the rooftops that they're The Answer. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 01 Aug 2007 09:04:51 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 11:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping > by bike. Pat, a big underlying cause of it all is called THE SPRAWL. Our cities have been designed around the car, and, regrettably, we often have to rely on it to get places, say, over 5 miles. Nobody is saying to ban cars here. A car makes sense sometimes, and it doesn't in others. We are trying to address here those instances where the bike is both doable and desirable. And connecting shopping areas by bike lanes and bike paths is a good way to encourage people to get out there and do something for the environment and for themselves.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 08:54:43 From: William Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. > > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* > > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH > > OR DANISH LEVELS? > > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong direction. > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address > that. > > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to bike > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. > > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for football > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I just > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, there's > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually because > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9 > hour bike ride. I don't blame you, biking works best when everything is more central and dense like a metro area. > > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way issue. > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to people, > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 > trip. > > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping > by bike. Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your from nowhere land.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 15:48:25 From: Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 11:02 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > > > One thing you can do to encourage more people onto bikes is stop > routinely exaggerating the dangers. Why are people going to want to go > cycling if it's a "war zone"? > > What you need to do is tell it like it /actually is/: a relatively safe > and remarkably efficient, cheap and healthy way to get about. As > opposed to some ridiculous story where folks will run over them for the > sake of it, where they need to be civilly disobedient to get their > rights, and where there's a war going on. That really sounds like a > good reason to start using a bike! (not) Peter Clinch is absolutely right. "Donquijote1954" returns time and again, whining loudly about the terrible dangers of riding a bicycle. He cries and pleads for a complete redesign of the world's infrastructure. Meanwhile, millions of us are using this existing world, riding our bikes for transportation and recreation, enjoying it immensely, and suffering none of the horrors he imagines. What is it that makes characters like "Donquijote" portray bicycling as dangerous? How can they remain so ignorant of the real data showing how safe it is? Why do they try so hard to scare people away from a beneficial activity they pretend to love? Since I can't think of a gentler metaphor, pardon me - but "Donquijote," you need to grow some balls! Some people are going to occasionally honk their horns at you or yell at you, whether you walk, ride your bicycle, ride your motorcycle or drive your car. It's true whether there are bike lanes or no, whether the road is wide or narrow, whether you're on a street or path or bike lane or crosswalk or sidewalk. Don't expect the police to take the role of your Mommy, to hold your hand and tell the other guy he's being bad. You've got a right to the road. Use it! Don't give any satisfaction to the jerks, and don't let them worry you. And for God's sake, stop whining! - Frank Krygowski     Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:06:15 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote: > On Aug 1, 11:02 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> One thing you can do to encourage more people onto bikes is stop >> routinely exaggerating the dangers. Why are people going to want to go >> cycling if it's a "war zone"? >> >> What you need to do is tell it like it /actually is/: a relatively safe >> and remarkably efficient, cheap and healthy way to get about. As >> opposed to some ridiculous story where folks will run over them for the >> sake of it, where they need to be civilly disobedient to get their >> rights, and where there's a war going on. That really sounds like a >> good reason to start using a bike! (not) > > Peter Clinch is absolutely right. > > "Donquijote1954" returns time and again, whining loudly about the > terrible dangers of riding a bicycle. He cries and pleads for a > complete redesign of the world's infrastructure. Meanwhile, millions > of us are using this existing world, riding our bikes for > transportation and recreation, enjoying it immensely, and suffering > none of the horrors he imagines. > > What is it that makes characters like "Donquijote" portray bicycling > as dangerous? How can they remain so ignorant of the real data > showing how safe it is? Why do they try so hard to scare people away > from a beneficial activity they pretend to love? > > Since I can't think of a gentler metaphor, pardon me - but > "Donquijote," you need to grow some balls! Some people are going to > occasionally honk their horns at you or yell at you, whether you walk, > ride your bicycle, ride your motorcycle or drive your car. It's true > whether there are bike lanes or no, whether the road is wide or > narrow, whether you're on a street or path or bike lane or crosswalk > or sidewalk. > > Don't expect the police to take the role of your Mommy, to hold your > hand and tell the other guy he's being bad. You've got a right to the > road. Use it! Don't give any satisfaction to the jerks, and don't > let them worry you. > > And for God's sake, stop whining! HOT DOG! WE HAVE ANOTHER WEINER! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 01 Aug 2007 08:46:03 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 11:02 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > No it's not, unless you're into pointless exaggeration. > > One thing you can do to encourage more people onto bikes is stop > routinely exaggerating the dangers. Why are people going to want to go > cycling if it's a "war zone"? > > What you need to do is tell it like it /actually is/: a relatively safe > and remarkably efficient, cheap and healthy way to get about. As > opposed to some ridiculous story where folks will run over them for the > sake of it, where they need to be civilly disobedient to get their > rights, and where there's a war going on. That really sounds like a > good reason to start using a bike! (not) > Would you tell the people going into Iraq that it's a piece of cake? No, I guess... You tell them IT'S A WAR ZONE, and then you give them proper armor and ammunition to survive, right? Well, the armor and ammunition here is your strategy, ie. A NONVIOLENT CAMPAIGN TO TAKE THE LANE. I doubt the terrorists are ready for that. ;)     Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:26:16 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? donquijote1954 wrote: > Would you tell the people going into Iraq that it's a piece of cake? > No, I guess... You tell them IT'S A WAR ZONE, and then you give them > proper armor and ammunition to survive, right? Certainly, on the grounds that Iraq is indeed a war zone, what with the, ummmm, war going on there. OTOH, I've just cycled down to the store to get a trolley load of shopping. I used the road, I didn't wear any special clothing aside from a cotton cap with a peak to keep the sun out of my eyes. I didn't have any near misses, I wasn't scared. So saying it's a war zone is total and utter bollocks. You want to get people riding? Is telling them it's a war zone going to help? If so, how? Going on about how dangerous cycling is puts people off. We know that from helmet promotion campaigns consistently putting people off. We know that from people citing safety as a reason not to cycle. Do you think these people will increase their /perceived/ danger fighting your "war" for you? I don't. You want to get people out of cars and onto bikes? Is characterising them as morons with homicidal tendencies going to win them over to your way of thinking? I doubt it. My strategy is demonstrating that cycling is a safe, normal thing that normal people can do in safety and without special armour. Doesn't piss anyone much off, doesn't call people idiots and antagonise them, doesn't characterise what I'm doing with ridiculous and self evidently non-sensical hyperbole, doesn't deamnd that they put themselves out and into perceived danger for some cause. I think all of those things it doesn't do makes it a positive way to proceed, unlike calling for things that don't help and stridently getting on folks' cases. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 01 Aug 2007 08:38:57 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 1, 9:54 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net > wrote: > "DougC" <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote in message > > news:qE%ri.1$qc1.0@newsfe02.lga... > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > ... I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the > > > supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. > > > > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > > > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule.... > > > ... Great places are within biking > > > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > > > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe..... > > > The problem with this plan is that typically "the squeaky wheel gets the > > grease". The only way that gov't would know that a bike lane was even > > necessary was if there were lots of complaints of motorists being held > > up by bicyclists. > > Based on the bicycle militants posting here, bicycles do not "hold up" > cars. More often than not stupid drivers hold up other smart drivers. As for the bikes, MORE BIKES MEANS FEWER CARS!   Date: 01 Aug 2007 08:34:53 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SO HERE'S THE CAMPAIGN! On Aug 1, 9:11 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > ... I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the > > supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. > > > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule.... > > ... Great places are within biking > > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe..... > > The problem with this plan is that typically "the squeaky wheel gets the > grease". The only way that gov't would know that a bike lane was even > necessary was if there were lots of complaints of motorists being held > up by bicyclists. > > Where I live the only roads prohibited for bicycles are interstate > highways; every other road is legal and free. Get a good rear-view > mirror, get out there, and get in the way. Every motorist that gets > pissed off at you for slowing them down is one more "advocate" for bike > lanes. > ~ Thank you for explaining so well what I have in mind. Actually that's the idea behind... http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories In other words, we need an identifying, conspicuous and explanatory T- shirt that makes us part of an ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN. "In union there's strength," you know. If I currently "play it safe" is because there's nobody else out there challenging the status quo in significant numbers or in an organized way. And Critical Mass doesn't cut it for me, as they try to block the road, not just TAKE THE LANE and let drivers pass you on the next lanes. You want to make friends, not enemies. And Critical Mass doesn't do it regularly either, like we need in real life situations such as getting to the market, work, etc. Once we get it going though I'll be the first one in the line of duty. As for the profits, we can set up ALL of it to create more bike lanes --adjacent or separated from the road. So everybody should be happy, bikers and drivers, pro bike lanes and anti bike lanes. Well, these last ones are hard to please.     Date: 01 Aug 2007 20:55:33 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: SO HERE'S THE CAMPAIGN! "donquijote1954" who? wrote: > ... > Thank you for explaining so well what I have in mind. Actually that's > the idea behind... > > http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories I think a better solution would be two jerseys [1]. In the morning [2], the jersey worn would say in large letters on the back "RIDING TO WORK". The afternoon jersey would say "RIDING HOME FROM WORK". [1] Or a reversible sign for recumbents. [2] Reverse for night shift workers. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 01 Aug 2007 16:42:49 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: SO HERE'S THE CAMPAIGN! donquijote1954 wrote: > In other words, we need an identifying, conspicuous and explanatory T- > shirt that makes us part of an ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN. "In union there's > strength," you know. Within the union, yes, but you're trying to address people outside it. One way of putting off "normal people", IME, is being a strident activist. Look at recycling: green evangelists go on about it and not much happens, but if the Normal People next door are doing it then other Normal People will join in. > You want to make friends, not enemies. Absolutely. See above. > As for the profits, we can set up ALL of it to create more bike lanes > --adjacent or separated from the road. Even though we know they don't help. You still haven't taken that on board, but it's still true. Bike lanes are not the answer to anyone except the road paint industry. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 01 Aug 2007 08:25:14 From: Pat Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH > OR DANISH LEVELS? You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong direction. You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else". Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address that. Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to bike & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really. For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for football practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I just need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, there's a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually because I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9 hour bike ride. So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way issue. But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to people, the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1 trip. So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping by bike.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 07:43:13 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH OR DANISH LEVELS? Would you deny that bike lanes bring people out? How 'bout this other setup? http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ Remember this piece in the dialog, "It's a war zone out there"... (The Great Ed is gonna love this!)     Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:01:12 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? "donquijote1954" who? wrote: > ... > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVE[L]S TO THE DUTCH > OR DANISH LEVELS?... The Danes have almost a 100% tax on new automobiles, high gas taxes, and (in the cities) very limited and expensive parking. They also have a beautiful cool spring to fall climate, and winters that can be mostly handled with proper raingear. Ride to work even a short distance at a slow pace in much of the U.S. during summer and you will be soaked in sweat. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 01 Aug 2007 16:02:59 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? donquijote1954 wrote: > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH > OR DANISH LEVELS? Level all the hills and change history so we'd never lost our bike culture. Or in other words, stop dreaming and get real. If it does happen it's going to take a /very/ long time and you'll need more than bike lanes to achieve it. > Would you deny that bike lanes bring people out? How 'bout this other > setup? I haven't seen any particular evidence that they do. I've seen plenty of suggestions from people that they'd cycle if there were more, but where there have been more it hasn't appeared to make any real difference because the excuse is just an excuse. The basic problem is not being in the habit. > http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ They don't really help. And they've been shown not to help and we can see them not helping in practice. Take the Milton Keynes Redways, a New Town in England built with completely separate bike lanes so everyone can get about by bike. Only they tend not to, and those that do don't appear to be any safer than folks in other places using the roads. > Remember this piece in the dialog, "It's a war zone out there"... No it's not, unless you're into pointless exaggeration. One thing you can do to encourage more people onto bikes is stop routinely exaggerating the dangers. Why are people going to want to go cycling if it's a "war zone"? What you need to do is tell it like it /actually is/: a relatively safe and remarkably efficient, cheap and healthy way to get about. As opposed to some ridiculous story where folks will run over them for the sake of it, where they need to be civilly disobedient to get their rights, and where there's a war going on. That really sounds like a good reason to start using a bike! (not) Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 01 Aug 2007 16:07:08 From: Clive George Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:5hbll3F3ju7c4U1@mid.individual.net... > donquijote1954 wrote: > >> You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE >> BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH >> OR DANISH LEVELS? > > Level all the hills and change history so we'd never lost our bike > culture. There are other ways, but most are not what would be acceptable in a civilised culture - eg the one which was responsible for a large increase in riding in London unfortunately involved killing 52 people... cheers, clive         Date: 01 Aug 2007 16:22:25 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? Clive George wrote: > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:5hbll3F3ju7c4U1@mid.individual.net... >> donquijote1954 wrote: >> >>> You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE >>> BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH >>> OR DANISH LEVELS? >> >> Level all the hills and change history so we'd never lost our bike >> culture. > > There are other ways, but most are not what would be acceptable in a > civilised culture - eg the one which was responsible for a large > increase in riding in London unfortunately involved killing 52 people... Even that's not enough, and nor are "punitive measures in a war against the motorist" like the Congestion Charge. Yes, cycling is up in London by an amazing amount, but to "Dutch or Danish levels" as asked for? Nowhere near it, AFAICT. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 01 Aug 2007 07:29:20 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: UNDER THAT SORT OF TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE On Aug 1, 12:13 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote: > In article <1185935347.598175.181...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 31, 7:53 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman > > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Big Billy also needs to be taught a lesson. Videotaping the behavior > > > would be a good start. Send the video to the local police, and if that > > > does not help, send it to all the local television stations. Complain > > > to the police commission, alderman, mayor, etc, and make yourself a > > > nuisance until someone does something. > > > I saw somewhere I video camera that attaches to your helmet. That > > would come real handy, but it would turn you into a vigilante fighting > > the bad guys on the road. And that would make you more crazy than > > DonQuixote fighting the windmills as there too many reckless drivers > > out there. > > Nah. Here's how Don Quixote, equipped only with his trusty video camera > (we'll call it "Sancho") would operate: > > 1) obnoxious behaviour recorded > 2) without confronting the driver, a copy of the incident is sent to the > police as an adjunct to a formal complaint. > > There is no step 3, Makes sense. It would have to record sound though so all that name calling goes with the report: "Hey you, stupid asshole, get outta my way."   Date: 01 Aug 2007 07:17:37 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: UNDER THAT SORT OF TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE On Jul 31, 10:39 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > ... > > > Pein has yet to explain why a bike lane stripe is worse than a > > > shoulder stripe place a foot or two to the right of where the bike > > > lane stripe is. > > > The bicycle lane leads motor vehicles operators (who are not cyclists) > > to believe that cyclists should be confined to bike lanes, bike paths, > > etc. This creates an especial difficulty when needing to make a left > > turn [1], since the cagers wonder "what the hell is the cyclist doing > > out of the bike lane?" > > Except it is not true - that is simply a bogus argument some people > have put out. Look up the California Driver's Handbook > <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm> and > specifically <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike>: The cavemen driving out there are not THAT stupid. They just want to use their vehicles as clubs.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 07:14:09 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Bike lanes are so easy even a caveman can do it! On Jul 31, 10:29 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> writes: > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy > > > spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little > > > boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up. > > > Damn, you are fool. Get off the floor Zauman! > > (Of course, being embarassed by his behavior, Pein snipped his > infantile insults before replying.) > > Pein, why don't you get some professional help for your problem? You > might start with an anger-management class, although a psychiatrist > might be able to give you a more apropos suggestion. If a psychiatrist can help a caveman, he should benefit from it. Bike lanes are so easy even a caveman can do it!   Date: 01 Aug 2007 08:11:51 From: DougC Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? donquijote1954 wrote: > ... I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the > supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. > > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule.... > ... Great places are within biking > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe..... > The problem with this plan is that typically "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". The only way that gov't would know that a bike lane was even necessary was if there were lots of complaints of motorists being held up by bicyclists. Where I live the only roads prohibited for bicycles are interstate highways; every other road is legal and free. Get a good rear-view mirror, get out there, and get in the way. Every motorist that gets pissed off at you for slowing them down is one more "advocate" for bike lanes. ~     Date: 01 Aug 2007 11:17:14 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? In article <qE%ri.1$qc1.0@newsfe02.lga >, dcimper@norcom2000.com says... > Where I live the only roads prohibited for bicycles are interstate > highways; every other road is legal and free. Even the limited-access freeway near me has its shoulder open to bicycles -- bikes are allowed on many miles of Interstates, boring and noisy, but safe and direct. > Get a good rear-view > mirror, get out there, and get in the way. Every motorist that gets > pissed off at you for slowing them down is one more "advocate" for bike > lanes. I'd prefer not to have bike lanes, I'd much rather have wide curb lanes without the magical paint stripe. Paint doesn't actually stop reckless drivers from hitting things, but it does stop careful drivers from driving to the right when there isn't a bike present. That means the bike lane doesn't get swept by passing cars, so it builds up broken glass and radial tire wires. -- josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/ > Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >       Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:22:08 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? josh@phred.org aka Joshua Putnam wrote: > ... > Even the limited-access freeway near me has its shoulder open to > bicycles -- bikes are allowed on many miles of Interstates, boring and > noisy, but safe and direct.... Do the drivers look for cyclists crossing their path when merging and exiting? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 01 Aug 2007 17:40:08 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? josh@phred.org wrote: > I'd prefer not to have bike lanes, I'd much rather have wide curb lanes > without the magical paint stripe. > > Paint doesn't actually stop reckless drivers from hitting things, but it > does stop careful drivers from driving to the right when there isn't a > bike present. That means the bike lane doesn't get swept by passing > cars, so it builds up broken glass and radial tire wires. > Bike lanes collect debris? Preposterous! http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/Debris.pdf (2.34 MB) Wayne         Date: 03 Aug 2007 09:53:34 From: Colin McKenzie Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein wrote: > josh@phred.org wrote: >> I'd prefer not to have bike lanes, I'd much rather have wide curb >> lanes without the magical paint stripe. >> Paint doesn't actually stop reckless drivers from hitting things, but >> it does stop careful drivers from driving to the right when there >> isn't a bike present. That means the bike lane doesn't get swept by >> passing cars, so it builds up broken glass and radial tire wires. > Bike lanes collect debris? Preposterous! > > http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/Debris.pdf (2.34 MB) Fig 4 was interesting - you get the debris but at least the potholes are out of your way. But on balance I'd still rather do without the cycle lane - especially with a 15-foot lane overall. Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.     Date: 01 Aug 2007 13:54:32 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message news:qE%ri.1$qc1.0@newsfe02.lga... > donquijote1954 wrote: > > ... I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the > > supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. > > > > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule.... > > ... Great places are within biking > > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe..... > > > > The problem with this plan is that typically "the squeaky wheel gets the > grease". The only way that gov't would know that a bike lane was even > necessary was if there were lots of complaints of motorists being held > up by bicyclists. Based on the bicycle militants posting here, bicycles do not "hold up" cars.       Date: 01 Aug 2007 15:18:30 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? George Conklin wrote: > Based on the bicycle militants posting here, bicycles do not "hold up" > cars. For some values of "holding up"... I know how much I get held up by bikes in the car, and it's typically not very much at all, despite being religiously careful in overtaking giving huge amounts of room (because I appreciate that myself when I'm on a bike and people do it for me). Often as many as /whole seconds/ pass before I have a good overtaking opportunity, and where it actual trickles on into minutes normally I'm only being held up in getting to the next delay a little later. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 31 Jul 2007 19:29:07 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: UNDER THAT SORT OF TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE On Jul 31, 7:53 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Big Billy also needs to be taught a lesson. Videotaping the behavior > would be a good start. Send the video to the local police, and if that > does not help, send it to all the local television stations. Complain > to the police commission, alderman, mayor, etc, and make yourself a > nuisance until someone does something. > I saw somewhere I video camera that attaches to your helmet. That would come real handy, but it would turn you into a vigilante fighting the bad guys on the road. And that would make you more crazy than DonQuixote fighting the windmills as there too many reckless drivers out there.     Date: 01 Aug 2007 04:13:51 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: UNDER THAT SORT OF TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE In article <1185935347.598175.181960@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 31, 7:53 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Big Billy also needs to be taught a lesson. Videotaping the behavior > > would be a good start. Send the video to the local police, and if that > > does not help, send it to all the local television stations. Complain > > to the police commission, alderman, mayor, etc, and make yourself a > > nuisance until someone does something. > > > > I saw somewhere I video camera that attaches to your helmet. That > would come real handy, but it would turn you into a vigilante fighting > the bad guys on the road. And that would make you more crazy than > DonQuixote fighting the windmills as there too many reckless drivers > out there. Nah. Here's how Don Quixote, equipped only with his trusty video camera (we'll call it "Sancho") would operate: 1) obnoxious behaviour recorded 2) without confronting the driver, a copy of the incident is sent to the police as an adjunct to a formal complaint. There is no step 3, -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos   Date: 31 Jul 2007 18:10:52 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > ... > Pein has yet to explain why a bike lane stripe is worse than a > shoulder stripe place a foot or two to the right of where the bike > lane stripe is. The bicycle lane leads motor vehicles operators (who are not cyclists) to believe that cyclists should be confined to bike lanes, bike paths, etc. This creates an especial difficulty when needing to make a left turn [1], since the cagers wonder "what the hell is the cyclist doing out of the bike lane?" [1] Right turn for the Japanese and Commonwealth islands. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful     Date: 01 Aug 2007 02:39:30 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > ... > > Pein has yet to explain why a bike lane stripe is worse than a > > shoulder stripe place a foot or two to the right of where the bike > > lane stripe is. > > The bicycle lane leads motor vehicles operators (who are not cyclists) > to believe that cyclists should be confined to bike lanes, bike paths, > etc. This creates an especial difficulty when needing to make a left > turn [1], since the cagers wonder "what the hell is the cyclist doing > out of the bike lane?" Except it is not true - that is simply a bogus argument some people have put out. Look up the California Driver's Handbook <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm > and specifically <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike >: "Bicyclists on public streets have the same rights and responsibilities as automobile drivers. Respect the right-of-way of bicyclists because they are entitled to share the road with other drivers." Also <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln >: "A bicycle lane is shown by a solid white line along either side of the street, four or more feet from the curb. The white line will usually be broken near the corner and the words "BIKE LANE" will be painted in the lane. When you are making a right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for the turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time." You have to read this handbook to pass the California driver's test. Drivers know what the rules are. If they harrass you anyway, it is not because they weren't taught the rules. It's because they don't care. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 01 Aug 2007 17:34:49 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >>The bicycle lane leads motor vehicles operators (who are not cyclists) >>to believe that cyclists should be confined to bike lanes, bike paths, >>etc. This creates an especial difficulty when needing to make a left >>turn [1], since the cagers wonder "what the hell is the cyclist doing >>out of the bike lane?" > > > Except it is not true - that is simply a bogus argument some people > have put out. Look up the California Driver's Handbook > <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm> and > specifically <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike>: > > "Bicyclists on public streets have the same rights and > responsibilities as automobile drivers. Respect the > right-of-way of bicyclists because they are entitled to share > the road with other drivers." > > Also <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln>: > > "A bicycle lane is shown by a solid white line along either > side of the street, four or more feet from the curb. The white > line will usually be broken near the corner and the words > "BIKE LANE" will be painted in the lane. When you are making a > right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other > driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for the > turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time." > > You have to read this handbook to pass the California driver's test. > Drivers know what the rules are. If they harrass you anyway, it is > not because they weren't taught the rules. It's because they don't > care. Zauman lives on Bike Lane Fantasy Island. None of those words above address the real world where the presence of a bike lane creates "motor vehicle lanes" that motorists then vigorously defend. Wayne         Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:55:58 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >>The bicycle lane leads motor vehicles operators (who are not cyclists) > >>to believe that cyclists should be confined to bike lanes, bike paths, > >>etc. This creates an especial difficulty when needing to make a left > >>turn [1], since the cagers wonder "what the hell is the cyclist doing > >>out of the bike lane?" > > Except it is not true - that is simply a bogus argument some people > > have put out. Look up the California Driver's Handbook > > <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm> and > > specifically <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike>: > > "Bicyclists on public streets have the same rights and > > responsibilities as automobile drivers. Respect the > > right-of-way of bicyclists because they are entitled to share > > the road with other drivers." > > Also <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln>: > > "A bicycle lane is shown by a solid white line along either > > side of the street, four or more feet from the curb. The white > > line will usually be broken near the corner and the words > > "BIKE LANE" will be painted in the lane. When you are making a > > right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other > > driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for the > > turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time." > > You have to read this handbook to pass the California driver's test. > > Drivers know what the rules are. If they harrass you anyway, it is > > not because they weren't taught the rules. It's because they don't > > care. > > Zauman lives on Bike Lane Fantasy Island. None of those words above > address the real world where the presence of a bike lane creates > "motor vehicle lanes" that motorists then vigorously defend. Pein has a serious emotional problem and should seek professional help for it, as this sort of outburst from him shows. He apparently didn't like my post even though I merely quoted official California state government publications. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 31 Jul 2007 18:01:46 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein wrote: > ... > Yet you sit in your underware [sic] and type the above.... While using softwear (sic), no doubt. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful   Date: 31 Jul 2007 16:53:56 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: UNDER THAT SORT OF TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE "donquijote1954" who? wrote: > ... > One basic reason YOU NEED BIKE LANES is that when you don't have them, > YOU ARE LEFT WITH NO LANES. THE CARS THINK (AND ACT) LIKE THEY OWN THE > LANES, all of them. And since you are at a little thing at the bottom > of the food chain, drivers can shout at you, throw things at you, and > even spit at you --or simply run you over. And UNDER THAT SORT OF > TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE... > > (same lady quoted above) > > Mr. Irate Motorist, just how many lanes do you want? > A familiar sound. Behind me, "HONK HONK!" Sigh. Here we go again. > "HONK HONK HONK!!!" I maintain my position in the center of the lane > as it's too narrow to share with a car. I'm on Division, a one way > street, three lanes, very light traffic, but Mr. Irate Motorist is > pissed off that I've taken one of three lanes. Most people just change > lanes to pass me, like they would any other slow-moving vehicle, but > Mr. Irate Motorist slows to my pace, window rolled down, half in my > lane, half in the next, beside me. "BLAH BLAH BLAH SHOULDN'T BE ON THE > ROAD BLAH BLAH BLAH SPEED LIMIT BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!" I can't understand > half of what he's saying, but I imagine it's what I've heard before. > He thinks I shouldn't be on the road since I can't maintain the speed > limit. Do people even understand anymore that the speed limit is > supposed to be the maximum speed allowed, not the minimum? I suppose > not, since the police don't ticket anyone unless they're going well > over the posted limit. > > I yell over his words, "THERE'S A PASSING LANE! THERE'S A PASSING > LANE! THERE'S A PASSING LANE!" over and over, as clearly as I can, all > the way to Ann, where I turn right and continue my journey to work. > After I turn I glance back and see a police car on Division, > continuing past Ann. No flashing lights though. I would think the > police officer would have witnessed the motorist driving half in one > lane, half in the other for several blocks, keeping pace with me while > I was yelling. Didn't it occur to the officer that the motorist was > harassing me? If it did, police don't seem to think harassment of > cyclists is a problem. > > My thoughts returned to Mr. Irate Motorist. What I had said to him > was, "There's a passing lane." What I should have said was, "You've > got two passing lanes! This road is three lanes wide! Just how many > lanes do you want? Quit harassing me, you dumbass!" Some motorists are > like grown up versions of possessive children who don't want to share > their toys. It isn't that they're able to play with all of their toys > themselves simultaneously; they just don't want anyone else to play > with anything. They want everything for themselves. > > I have a hunch that if someone did a study they would find that the > motorists who harass cyclists, don't want them on "their" roads, argue > about maintaining speed limits, paying road taxes, and all the other > ridiculous things cyclists have all heard, are the same people who > were possessive children who didn't want to share toys or take turns > on playground equipment. It isn't about speed limits or road taxes. > It's about personality. One develops one's essential personality as a > young child. It's a core part of one's being. Interests and skills > will come and go throughout life, and beliefs may change, but > personality isn't going to change much. > > I'm not a parent, and I realize there are different approaches to > parenting. I have no idea what works. How do you deal with a little > kid who wants to have all the toys? How do you get little Billy to get > it into his thick little head that it doesn't really matter that he > wants all the toys? Other kids want to play too. If he keeps all the > toys to himself, he's being a jerk. Is there some way to make him see > that? Tell Little Billy that he is unworthy as a person and if he keeps on behaving that way you will no longer love him. If that does not work, take away ALL his toys and don't let him play with the other children until he learns to behave. If this fails, turn him over to the custody of the state. > If there is, that's what we need to do with grown up Bill. We need to > make him see that it really doesn't matter that he wants the whole > road to himself. Other people need to use it too. If he tries to keep > the whole road to himself, he's being a jerk.... Big Billy also needs to be taught a lesson. Videotaping the behavior would be a good start. Send the video to the local police, and if that does not help, send it to all the local television stations. Complain to the police commission, alderman, mayor, etc, and make yourself a nuisance until someone does something. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful   Date: 31 Jul 2007 15:05:59 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: UNDER THAT SORT OF TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE On Jul 31, 4:46 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Most experienced bicylists can handle bike lanes just fine, and > > find that ones in compliance with the current standards are not > > a problem (ones that are substandard can be a problem). I know > > people who have ridden across the U.S. who have no objections to > > properly designed bike lanes. > > > So, why don't you cut your infantile ad hominem arguments? You > > are just making yourself look like a fool. > > Why should experienced bicyclists have to "handle" bike lanes when they > can already handle normal non-bike lane roads. Why do we have to adjust > our riding for cry babies like you? One basic reason YOU NEED BIKE LANES is that when you don't have them, YOU ARE LEFT WITH NO LANES. THE CARS THINK (AND ACT) LIKE THEY OWN THE LANES, all of them. And since you are at a little thing at the bottom of the food chain, drivers can shout at you, throw things at you, and even spit at you --or simply run you over. And UNDER THAT SORT OF TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE... (same lady quoted above) Mr. Irate Motorist, just how many lanes do you want? A familiar sound. Behind me, "HONK HONK!" Sigh. Here we go again. "HONK HONK HONK!!!" I maintain my position in the center of the lane as it's too narrow to share with a car. I'm on Division, a one way street, three lanes, very light traffic, but Mr. Irate Motorist is pissed off that I've taken one of three lanes. Most people just change lanes to pass me, like they would any other slow-moving vehicle, but Mr. Irate Motorist slows to my pace, window rolled down, half in my lane, half in the next, beside me. "BLAH BLAH BLAH SHOULDN'T BE ON THE ROAD BLAH BLAH BLAH SPEED LIMIT BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!" I can't understand half of what he's saying, but I imagine it's what I've heard before. He thinks I shouldn't be on the road since I can't maintain the speed limit. Do people even understand anymore that the speed limit is supposed to be the maximum speed allowed, not the minimum? I suppose not, since the police don't ticket anyone unless they're going well over the posted limit. I yell over his words, "THERE'S A PASSING LANE! THERE'S A PASSING LANE! THERE'S A PASSING LANE!" over and over, as clearly as I can, all the way to Ann, where I turn right and continue my journey to work. After I turn I glance back and see a police car on Division, continuing past Ann. No flashing lights though. I would think the police officer would have witnessed the motorist driving half in one lane, half in the other for several blocks, keeping pace with me while I was yelling. Didn't it occur to the officer that the motorist was harassing me? If it did, police don't seem to think harassment of cyclists is a problem. My thoughts returned to Mr. Irate Motorist. What I had said to him was, "There's a passing lane." What I should have said was, "You've got two passing lanes! This road is three lanes wide! Just how many lanes do you want? Quit harassing me, you dumbass!" Some motorists are like grown up versions of possessive children who don't want to share their toys. It isn't that they're able to play with all of their toys themselves simultaneously; they just don't want anyone else to play with anything. They want everything for themselves. I have a hunch that if someone did a study they would find that the motorists who harass cyclists, don't want them on "their" roads, argue about maintaining speed limits, paying road taxes, and all the other ridiculous things cyclists have all heard, are the same people who were possessive children who didn't want to share toys or take turns on playground equipment. It isn't about speed limits or road taxes. It's about personality. One develops one's essential personality as a young child. It's a core part of one's being. Interests and skills will come and go throughout life, and beliefs may change, but personality isn't going to change much. I'm not a parent, and I realize there are different approaches to parenting. I have no idea what works. How do you deal with a little kid who wants to have all the toys? How do you get little Billy to get it into his thick little head that it doesn't really matter that he wants all the toys? Other kids want to play too. If he keeps all the toys to himself, he's being a jerk. Is there some way to make him see that? If there is, that's what we need to do with grown up Bill. We need to make him see that it really doesn't matter that he wants the whole road to himself. Other people need to use it too. If he tries to keep the whole road to himself, he's being a jerk. http://www.riinsrants.info/bikes/howmany.htm     Date: 02 Aug 2007 19:36:58 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 2, 5:08 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > Ace wrote: > > > Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly > > clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously > > take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac. > > Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets > killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his > neighbourhood ;-) A real possibility for me, like that of you getting killed by terrorists. Well, they are both terrorists, right?     Date: 02 Aug 2007 19:35:33 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 2, 3:24 am, Ace <see...@virgin.net > wrote: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:14:13 +0100, Peter Clinch > > <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > >donquijote1954 wrote: > > >> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel > >> them through bike lanes. > > >Bike lanes don't have a better safety track record than the roads. > > >Go tohttp://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.htmland actually do > >some reading around the subject. > > Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly > clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously > take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac. Bike lanes and thus people riding bikes and saving gas is such monomaniacal idea. Reasonable people just drive a country to war and get more oil. They all want to be like Napoleon. Isn't that a clinical case?     Date: 01 Aug 2007 09:00:51 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: UNDER THAT SORT OF TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE donquijote1954 wrote: > One basic reason YOU NEED BIKE LANES is that when you don't have them, > YOU ARE LEFT WITH NO LANES. And as I know from mostly not having any bike lanes, that's not actually a problem. I know that from real, empirical experience. Here it comes again: we know bike lanes are not a Big Win, because their real world track record shows us that they are typically more dangerous than the roads. I know you don't want to hear that, but closing your ears doesn't make it go away. > THE CARS THINK (AND ACT) LIKE THEY OWN THE > LANES, all of them. You're greatly exaggerating. For a start, many, many cyclists are drivers too, and they don't have their minds magically morphed into a Jekyll/Hyde thing by getting into their cars. IME (which is on Planet Earth) I get consideration from drivers when I show it in return, and we co-exist very well for the most part. Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead. They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?* Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 03 Aug 2007 11:58:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 2, 9:38 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > I saw a bumper sticker today that here is quite revolutionary: SLOWER > > TRAFFIC KEEP TO THE RIGHT... AVOID ROAD RAGE! That must be a communist > > attempt at bringing regulation to our roads. We want to zigzag if we > > please, and drive our SUVs while on the phone if we want, so we can > > remain a free nation! > > > Rage is part of life in the jungle, and the strong shall survive. > > Hallelujah! > > People that pass on the right or drive slower than traffic in the left > lane (reverse for Japan and Commonwealth islands) should have their > vehicles crushed in a public spectacle. And should be able to earn the label "terrorist," cause they cause a lot of destruction, mayhem and death to innocent parties.       Date: 02 Aug 2007 19:46:10 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 2, 5:28 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > Ace wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:08:26 +0100, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> > > wrote: > > >> Ace wrote: > >>> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly > >>> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously > >>> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac. > > >> Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets > >> killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his > >> neighbourhood ;-) > > > That'd be a shame. > > Or an exaggeration. Well, *I* exaggerated. My risk of getting killed by road terrorism is greater, much greater, than you getting killed by the other type of terrorism. I saw a bumper sticker today that here is quite revolutionary: SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP TO THE RIGHT... AVOID ROAD RAGE! That must be a communist attempt at bringing regulation to our roads. We want to zigzag if we please, and drive our SUVs while on the phone if we want, so we can remain a free nation! Rage is part of life in the jungle, and the strong shall survive. Hallelujah!         Date: 02 Aug 2007 20:38:33 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? "donquijote1954" WHO? wrote: > On Aug 2, 5:28 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: >> Ace wrote: >>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:08:26 +0100, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> Ace wrote: >>>>> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly >>>>> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously >>>>> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac. >>>> Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets >>>> killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his >>>> neighbourhood ;-) >>> That'd be a shame. >> Or an exaggeration. > > Well, *I* exaggerated. My risk of getting killed by road terrorism is > greater, much greater, than you getting killed by the other type of > terrorism. > > I saw a bumper sticker today that here is quite revolutionary: SLOWER > TRAFFIC KEEP TO THE RIGHT... AVOID ROAD RAGE! That must be a communist > attempt at bringing regulation to our roads. We want to zigzag if we > please, and drive our SUVs while on the phone if we want, so we can > remain a free nation! > > Rage is part of life in the jungle, and the strong shall survive. > Hallelujah! People that pass on the right or drive slower than traffic in the left lane (reverse for Japan and Commonwealth islands) should have their vehicles crushed in a public spectacle. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 31 Jul 2007 04:57:00 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 31, 5:31 am, biking-geordie <p...@mapalytics.com > wrote: > I'm not sure about scooters - particularly if they're powered by a tw- > stroke engine. Matt Seaton makes the point in his new book that the > emissions from these things are 11 times worse than from a car or > motorbike using a (regular) 4 stroke petrol engine or diesel engine. > Might be worth looking into if this is an issue for you. > Mine is a four stroke engine, with a new catalytic that I guess now it's mandatory. And I get 80MPG with 2 people. I got it because there's no room for bikes on major roads and because I want to stay away from cars and car insurance --and the cavemen.   Date: 31 Jul 2007 02:31:33 From: biking-geordie Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? I'm not sure about scooters - particularly if they're powered by a tw- stroke engine. Matt Seaton makes the point in his new book that the emissions from these things are 11 times worse than from a car or motorbike using a (regular) 4 stroke petrol engine or diesel engine. Might be worth looking into if this is an issue for you. On 23 Jul, 22:15, "Michael Plog" <mbp...@insightbb.com > wrote: > I also bought a scooter (moped) as a toy, but I take it for errands as often > as possible. I do ride it to work, and do not end up sweaty. My wife and I > still ride our recumbents for entertainment and exercise (especially > cardiac), but the moped is good for other things. I get close to 150mpg, so > I feel pretty good buying one gallon of gas at a time. > > A word about traffic. I take side streets on both the bicycle and moped. > Sometimes that is impossible, but generally there will be streets with very > little traffic yet getting where you need to be. > > Happy trails! > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185146504.198253.88250@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in > > America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great > > (and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that > > uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes. > > Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by > > chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the > > supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet > > most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle > > use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the > > percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right? > > > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And > > that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking > > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of > > fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out > > there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food > > chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic, > > if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good > > 80MPG. > > > So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live > > long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off > > I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the > > market for the hell of it)... > > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE > >http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > > BIKE FOR PEACE > >http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 30 Jul 2007 19:40:13 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: I'm not advocating some sort of violent revolution --just peaceful revolution While some here keep using and abusing their red-herring arguments that bike lanes are more dangerous (fine, let's do it with or without bike lanes), there's people out there that have decided to change, even challenge the beast, so they can have a better, healthier life, and they are part of the revolution... Bikes are better than cars The last time I drove the car was October 27, 2002. It was a very bad day. I vowed that I would never drive again. I have kept that vow. I ride my bike everywhere I go. I've lost about 45 lbs since I started bike commuting, and my blood pressure is lower. I've found myself expressing optimism, which was something new for me. I don't get as depressed as I used to, especially in the winter. I think cycling is a kind of meditation. I could never go back to driving a car. My Beliefs I think bikes are inherently better than cars. I honestly believe that if more people used bikes instead of cars, the world would be a much better place. I think people would be healthier. They would be more physically fit, and they would be mentally healthier, both happier and more relaxed. Those are just the benefits to the cyclist. Everyone benefits from fewer cars. Fewer cars mean less asthma. Fewer cars mean fewer traffic deaths (more than 42,000 people per year die in the US as a result of motor vehicle "accidents"). These are health benefits for everyone. Our car culture has hastened sprawl and destroyed wildlife habitat. People are becoming so far removed from nature, they don't even know they need nature, not just for their physical health, but for their mental health. Cars insulate people from nature. Bikes allow people to experience it. I don't want to be a passive observer of the weather. I like feeling the rain and wind on my face -- it makes me know I'm alive! When I ride as the snow falls, I can't help but smile. I feel like I'm playing. Riding in a strong headwind is extra work, but it's extra work for a car too. People driving cars are simply unaware that they're consuming extra fuel. They're insulated from nature. I'll wear the right clothing to keep me comfortable for the weather, but I want to experience it, not just sit inside a metal and glass cage on a cushy seat where the weather might as well be something on television. It's a real world out there! I want to be IN it! A cyclist can also observe plants and animals that a motorist can't. Cars just whiz by everything too fast for a motorist to see most things, and the motion and noise of cars send most animals running from the horrible machine. Bicycles are quiet. They move at a sane pace. I can actually see what I'm riding past instead of everything being a blur. I also believe that if more people used bicycles instead of cars, cyclists would be more respected. We would be treated as human beings instead of as second-class citizens. People deny us services, yell at us, swear at us, honk at us, throw things at us, and in extreme cases assault us, or sometimes even kill us, for no reason other than because we are riding bicycles. In other words, people treat us like a despised minority. We haven't had much luck being treated as equals. And there's still that whole business of cars destroying the environment and belching carcinogens and other particulates into the air (asthma, anyone?). So...this means we need to become the majority. We need to outnumber them. I'm not advocating some sort of violent revolution. That's the farthest thing from what I want -- I'm a pacifist. I simply want cyclists -- peaceful cyclists -- to be the majority. Sure, it's Utopian, but it's what I want. So it's a goal to strive for. (lots of good stuff) http://www.riinsrants.info/bikes/   Date: 30 Jul 2007 18:04:36 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: This is a good argument to stay away from cars: NO INSURANCE This is a good argument to stay away from cars: NO INSURANCE. With bikes you save that much money every month, and as an extra bonus you free yourself from the cavemen... After Geico's stupid ads I'm considering smashing my TV After the ad that shows the caveman and the psychologist, the one about the Gecko (whatever the relationship with Geico) that spoke a hard to decipher British English, and other far-fetched, obscure commercials, I've started seriously considering delivering a fatal blow to my TV. As if the sheer number of commercials weren't enough, these and similar ads do test the intelligence of the innocent TV watcher. For years we have been enduring with great patience the incredible feats by the Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles to conquer mountains and drop cliffs, particularly when they are mostly used in an urban scenario, but nothing came close to a caveman getting a call from his mom interrupting the session with the psychologist... I really don't get it. So here I am, really frustrated... "Mom, can you hand me a hammer?" ;) GEICO IS NOT FOR EVERYONE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNp2wIR52t0   Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:07:52 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING? On Jul 30, 3:50 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: > > > In > > my experience of riding in NL (not huge, but a couple of weeks' worth so > > not inconsequential either) the real difference is drivers who > > understand, account for and defer to cycles sharing the roads with them. > > They have to, because there are so many bikes. > > Don't forget that with large numbers cycling, the majority of the > drivers are also cyclists which helps enormously IMO. I'm telling you: Being smart is contagious. And so being stupid, just look at many people drive SUVs in America.   Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:06:36 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING? On Jul 30, 3:39 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > OK, let's put aside for a moment the argument of what makes me safe, > > and allow me to ask you, "WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF > > PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING?" 10 bucks a gallon? A revolution? I think > > so. ;) > > US$10 per gallon isn't far off what fuel costs here (part of that is the > current weak dollar, which doesn't really affect those not changing > money, but even so...), and it's *not* driving people away from cars. > On the other hand, one revolutionary thing that did work was the Mayor > of London introducing the "congestion charge": ~$10 to drive into the > centre of London. Congestion went down, cycling went up. Sadly it only > worked because the mayor had the power to do it without a vote. Similar > problems in Edinburgh, but it had to go to democratic public vote, and > the turkeys voted for Christmas... Democracy ain't always what it's > cracked up to be :-( > > The revolution is realising that cycling isn't necessarily hard and > horrible work, and is often quicker and more pleasant than sitting in a > traffic jam. Some places have never forgotten that, NL and Denmark, for > example, and hordes of people get around by bike. Not necessarily > /enjoying/ it, it's just a form of transport, but using it as the best > tool for the job in hand. > > What do you have in NL and Denmark that you don't get elsewhere? While > there are a lot of cycle facilities they're not actually as universal as > folk often assume, and in a lot of places you have to use the roads. In > my experience of riding in NL (not huge, but a couple of weeks' worth so > not inconsequential either) the real difference is drivers who > understand, account for and defer to cycles sharing the roads with them. > They have to, because there are so many bikes. What you need is a > critical mass of cyclists. In the US and UK that's an incremental > thing, but at least in the UK cycling is on the up. Unbelievable.,.. A smart comment from you? Well, you been absorbing some of the good stuff from others here, right?     Date: 30 Jul 2007 16:21:10 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING? donquijote1954 wrote: > Unbelievable.,.. A smart comment from you? Well, you been absorbing > some of the good stuff from others here, right? My comments are quite consistent. The one here, that you need a critical mass of cyclists on the roads to make drivers take notice, is completely consistent with saying bike lanes aren't often worth the time of day. As many cycles as you want can be segregated on bike lanes and paths, and the drivers won't have to take any notice of them because they're somewhere else. The comments are based on reality, not on pipe dreams. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 30 Jul 2007 07:40:51 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 30, 5:30 am, Tadej Brezina <tadej_use...@gmx.at > wrote: > Jack May wrote: > > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message > >news:vOadnY1OD7awWzrbnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > >>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >>>On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > > >>Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what > >>it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the > >>better! > > > At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the > > market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought. > > As you seem to be well informed, just a little greedy with the > transmission of your information when it gets down to details: > What kinds of alternatives might this glut consist of? Just a few? > Coal, gas, solar, geothermal, ... 1) or some other fancy sci-fi stuff? > > 1) H2 and biofuels not counted here If you could only tap the power of ego, SUV drivers should be able to have an almost unlimited fuel supply. ;)     Date: 31 Jul 2007 10:25:46 From: Tadej Brezina Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? donquijote1954 wrote: > On Jul 30, 5:30 am, Tadej Brezina <tadej_use...@gmx.at> wrote: > >>Jack May wrote: >> >>>"Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message >>>news:vOadnY1OD7awWzrbnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> >>>>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>>On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> >>>>Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what >>>>it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the >>>>better! >> >>>At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the >>>market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought. >> >>As you seem to be well informed, just a little greedy with the >>transmission of your information when it gets down to details: >>What kinds of alternatives might this glut consist of? Just a few? >>Coal, gas, solar, geothermal, ... 1) or some other fancy sci-fi stuff? >> >>1) H2 and biofuels not counted here > > If you could only tap the power of ego, SUV drivers should be able to > have an almost unlimited fuel supply. ;) Well, when it comes to SUV-drivers ... I think you are wrong! It's not the ego but must be insecurity. Why would anyone try to 'increase ones size' (not talking about your average spam-mail content, although this sure are related phenomena) just for the matter of showing off? Tadej -- "Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat." <Martina Diel in d.t.r >   Date: 30 Jul 2007 07:37:15 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: RIDING THE LANE On Jul 30, 9:36 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com > wrote: > Aspects of the cycling infrastructure may be viewed as either cyclist- > hostile or as cyclist-friendly. In general, roads infrastructure based > on prioritising motoring and attempting to create a state of constant > "flow" for cars will tend to be hostile to non-car users. In 1996, the > British Cyclists Touring Club (CTC) and the Institute for Highways and > Transportation jointly produced the document "Cycle-friendly > infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design". This defined a > hierarchy of measures for cycling promotion in which the goal is to > convert a more or less cyclist-hostile roads infrastructure into one > which encourages and facilitates cycling.- Thank you for your valuable info. However I don't think much will be accomplished when there's no political will. Our approach should be to work on the political will by having actual campaigns of civil disobedience (not budging from center of lane). RIDING THE LANE is a good way to claim our place under the sun, and not always be on the lookout for the dinosaurs. A good identifying T-shirt should help to create the strength given by numbers... http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories   Date: 30 Jul 2007 06:36:42 From: William Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 29, 7:32 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "rotten" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185499361.817887.57470@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jul 26, 1:34 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > [...] > >> It all has to do with population density. Hey, you want America to be > >> like > >> it was when we grew up? Then you have to get rid of 150 million people. > >> But > >> we are now at 300 million and we will soon be at 1 billion the way things > >> are going. Europe is just ahead of us, that is all. We will have to play > >> catch up since we cannot control our population. > > > More kooky looniness. Europe is far more populated than we are. > > But we are getting there you confounded idiot! If and when we become as > populated as Europe we will have to resort to their way of managing things. > Wyoming is empty compared to England; the Eastern Seaboard is not. What is > there about this that you do not understand? > > Demography is destiny. Population 101. > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Cycling infrastructure The cycling infrastructure comprises all the public ways that are available to cyclists traveling from one destination to another. This includes the same network of public roads that is used by drivers of motor vehicles minus those roads from which every cyclist has been banned (most freeways) and plus additional routes that are not available to motorised traffic, such as cycle tracks and (in some jurisdictions) sidewalks. The manner in which the public roads network is designed, built and managed can have a significant effect on the utility and safety of cycling as a form of transport. The key issue is whether the cycling network provides the users with direct, convenient routes minimising unnecessary delay and effort in reaching key destinations. Here it is argued that settlements that provide a dense roads network consisting of interconnected streets will tend to be viable utility cycling environments. In contrast, other communities may use a cul-de-sac based, housing estate/housing subdivision model where minor roads are disconnected and only feed into a street hierarchy of progressively more "arterial" type roads. It is arguable that such communities discourage cycling by imposing unnecessary detours and forcing all cyclists onto busy and dangerous arterial roads for all trips regardless of destination or purpose. It is also reported that the extra motor-traffic such communities generate tends to increase overall per-capita traffic casualty rates. Designs that propose to resolve the contradiction between the cul-de-sac and the traditional interconnected network, such as the Fused Grid, have been proposed and built with varying levels of success. Particular issues have arisen with personal security and public order problems in some housing schemes using "back alley" type links. Aspects of the cycling infrastructure may be viewed as either cyclist- hostile or as cyclist-friendly. In general, roads infrastructure based on prioritising motoring and attempting to create a state of constant "flow" for cars will tend to be hostile to non-car users. In 1996, the British Cyclists Touring Club (CTC) and the Institute for Highways and Transportation jointly produced the document "Cycle-friendly infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design". This defined a hierarchy of measures for cycling promotion in which the goal is to convert a more or less cyclist-hostile roads infrastructure into one which encourages and facilitates cycling.     Date: 30 Jul 2007 22:51:12 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "William" <willbecool10@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1185802602.247737.96610@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 29, 7:32 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> "rotten" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1185499361.817887.57470@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jul 26, 1:34 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> [...] >> >> It all has to do with population density. Hey, you want America to be >> >> like >> >> it was when we grew up? Then you have to get rid of 150 million >> >> people. >> >> But >> >> we are now at 300 million and we will soon be at 1 billion the way >> >> things >> >> are going. Europe is just ahead of us, that is all. We will have to >> >> play >> >> catch up since we cannot control our population. >> >> > More kooky looniness. Europe is far more populated than we are. >> >> But we are getting there you confounded idiot! If and when we become as >> populated as Europe we will have to resort to their way of managing >> things. >> Wyoming is empty compared to England; the Eastern Seaboard is not. What >> is >> there about this that you do not understand? >> >> Demography is destiny. Population 101. > > Cycling infrastructure > > The cycling infrastructure comprises all the public ways that are > available to cyclists traveling from one destination to another. This > includes the same network of public roads that is used by drivers of > motor vehicles minus those roads from which every cyclist has been > banned (most freeways) and plus additional routes that are not > available to motorised traffic, such as cycle tracks and (in some > jurisdictions) sidewalks. > > The manner in which the public roads network is designed, built and > managed can have a significant effect on the utility and safety of > cycling as a form of transport. The key issue is whether the cycling > network provides the users with direct, convenient routes minimising > unnecessary delay and effort in reaching key destinations. Here it is > argued that settlements that provide a dense roads network consisting > of interconnected streets will tend to be viable utility cycling > environments. > > In contrast, other communities may use a cul-de-sac based, housing > estate/housing subdivision model where minor roads are disconnected > and only feed into a street hierarchy of progressively more "arterial" > type roads. It is arguable that such communities discourage cycling by > imposing unnecessary detours and forcing all cyclists onto busy and > dangerous arterial roads for all trips regardless of destination or > purpose. It is also reported that the extra motor-traffic such > communities generate tends to increase overall per-capita traffic > casualty rates. Designs that propose to resolve the contradiction > between the cul-de-sac and the traditional interconnected network, > such as the Fused Grid, have been proposed and built with varying > levels of success. Particular issues have arisen with personal > security and public order problems in some housing schemes using "back > alley" type links. > > Aspects of the cycling infrastructure may be viewed as either cyclist- > hostile or as cyclist-friendly. In general, roads infrastructure based > on prioritising motoring and attempting to create a state of constant > "flow" for cars will tend to be hostile to non-car users. In 1996, the > British Cyclists Touring Club (CTC) and the Institute for Highways and > Transportation jointly produced the document "Cycle-friendly > infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design". This defined a > hierarchy of measures for cycling promotion in which the goal is to > convert a more or less cyclist-hostile roads infrastructure into one > which encourages and facilitates cycling. All of the above is only too true, which is why I am grateful I do not live in a Metro. Small towns work best for cycling. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 29 Jul 2007 09:38:35 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 29, 5:10 am, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk > wrote: > in message <877ioljhlk....@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z. > > ('nob...@nospam.pacbell.net') wrote: > >> > Oh, so you don't care about "most cylclists who are ingorant [sic] of > >> > proper bicycling" and would favor natural selection to get rid of > >> > them? Some of these cyclists who are "ignorant" are children who are > >> > too young > >> > to drive a motor vehicle. What do you propose to do with them? Do > >> > you really have a problem with a bike lane along a two lane street > >> > with a 25 mph speed limit and relatively little traffic, going past an > >> > elementary school? > > >> Yes. What is the point of a bike lane on a low volume low speed street? > > > Keeping the parents of school kids happy for one. > > They'd be happier if their kids lived to be adults. Which means learning to > use the road safely. Research in London (and Denmark and the Netherlands) > shows that bike lanes contribute precisely nothing at all to cyclist > safety. The same money which paints a bike lane buys a lot of quality > training, which has a far greater effect on children's safety. > > Things may be different in the States, where streets are typically wider > and the density of cyclists is so much lower. In Europe, cycle lanes are > not a benefit. In the States we would have to start by TRAINING THE DRIVERS and banning some nasty behavior like cell phones. That's before they start enough attention to the roads as to notice a bike.   Date: 29 Jul 2007 06:08:52 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Jul 28, 10:32 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: for yourself. > > > Evolution seldom runs backwards, so present conditions give a good > > indication of how things are evolving, Your (2) statement is false. > > Evolution selects what will survive and flourish. > > Maybe the sharks and alligators are just biding their time. Or the roaches > :)- Maybe the best solution is to call the Orkin Man.   Date: 28 Jul 2007 15:54:51 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 28, 6:14 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net > wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message > > news:vOadnY1OD7awWzrbnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > > > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > ... > > > Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what > > it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the > > better! > > At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the > market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought. The lazy fat couch potatoes are really stubborn. The word "change" terrifies them, and bicycles are really out of their mind. Nevermind they will get in shape and lead a healthy life. They are idiots (to borrow Ed's word), and how can we expect idiots to see the need for change. Well, at least alternative energy won't pollute as much.   Date: 28 Jul 2007 15:40:32 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Jul 28, 6:09 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net > wrote: > Evolution seldom runs backwards, so present conditions give a good > indication of how things are evolving, Your (2) statement is false. > Evolution selects what will survive and flourish.- Evolution is on the side of the small and smart. That's why dinosaurs went down the drain, and furry animals prospered, and thus we are here. Well, perhaps some of are not that smart.   Date: 28 Jul 2007 15:37:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Jul 28, 6:05 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net > wrote: > "Michael Warner" <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:ngyz2lm24s7o.1k7utc9rtd4n1.dlg@40tude.net... > > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:14:44 -0700, Jack May wrote: > > >> So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all > >> your arguments are worthless. > > > I consider the average car driver to be a fat, lazy, overstressed, > > thoughtless slob, even if he gets there first. So much for /your/ > > arguments. > > Nobody cares what you think. Technology evolution providing what people > want or killing what they don't want is what decides success and failure. > Your bike is clearly not the winner I think you are killing the whole planet for that matter. The lazy and stupid couldn't care less, or do they? Presidential candidates don't talk about issues like bike lanes, but whether homosexuals could marry or not, which, by the way, is a red herring.   Date: 28 Jul 2007 10:04:33 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING? On Jul 28, 5:50 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > Your facts are very relative. Relative to wheter you drive or ride a > > bike. That's the Theory of Relativity applied to bikes on the road. > > If you ride a bike, bike facilities don't typically make you safer. > If you drive a car, bike facilities don't typically make cyclists > any safer. > > I suppose there is some difference between those two (true) > statements in a relative sort of sense, but not a difference that > makes me want bike lanes. FWIW, I drive cars and ride bikes on the > same roads. OK, let's put aside for a moment the argument of what makes me safe, and allow me to ask you, "WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING?" 10 bucks a gallon? A revolution? I think so. ;)     Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:39:49 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING? donquijote1954 wrote: > OK, let's put aside for a moment the argument of what makes me safe, > and allow me to ask you, "WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF > PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING?" 10 bucks a gallon? A revolution? I think > so. ;) US$10 per gallon isn't far off what fuel costs here (part of that is the current weak dollar, which doesn't really affect those not changing money, but even so...), and it's *not* driving people away from cars. On the other hand, one revolutionary thing that did work was the Mayor of London introducing the "congestion charge": ~$10 to drive into the centre of London. Congestion went down, cycling went up. Sadly it only worked because the mayor had the power to do it without a vote. Similar problems in Edinburgh, but it had to go to democratic public vote, and the turkeys voted for Christmas... Democracy ain't always what it's cracked up to be :-( The revolution is realising that cycling isn't necessarily hard and horrible work, and is often quicker and more pleasant than sitting in a traffic jam. Some places have never forgotten that, NL and Denmark, for example, and hordes of people get around by bike. Not necessarily /enjoying/ it, it's just a form of transport, but using it as the best tool for the job in hand. What do you have in NL and Denmark that you don't get elsewhere? While there are a lot of cycle facilities they're not actually as universal as folk often assume, and in a lot of places you have to use the roads. In my experience of riding in NL (not huge, but a couple of weeks' worth so not inconsequential either) the real difference is drivers who understand, account for and defer to cycles sharing the roads with them. They have to, because there are so many bikes. What you need is a critical mass of cyclists. In the US and UK that's an incremental thing, but at least in the UK cycling is on the up. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:50:19 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING? Peter Clinch wrote: > > In > my experience of riding in NL (not huge, but a couple of weeks' worth so > not inconsequential either) the real difference is drivers who > understand, account for and defer to cycles sharing the roads with them. > They have to, because there are so many bikes. Don't forget that with large numbers cycling, the majority of the drivers are also cyclists which helps enormously IMO. Tony         Date: 30 Jul 2007 10:06:34 From: Ace Subject: Re: WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING? On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:50:19 +0100, Tony Raven <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: >Peter Clinch wrote: >> >> In >> my experience of riding in NL (not huge, but a couple of weeks' worth so >> not inconsequential either) the real difference is drivers who >> understand, account for and defer to cycles sharing the roads with them. >> They have to, because there are so many bikes. > >Don't forget that with large numbers cycling, the majority of the >drivers are also cyclists which helps enormously IMO. Absolutely. This is also very apparent in Basel city and in the general countryside around where I live in France. If kids are introduced early to the flexibility and independence of 2-wheeled transport and are not able to always get mummy or daddy to drive them around, they'll grow up to be much more cycle-aware drivers. -- Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom   Date: 28 Jul 2007 09:49:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 10:49 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu > wrote: > A Muzi wrote: > >>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > > -snip the usual- > > >> "rotten" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts > >>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large > >>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find > >>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. > > > Amy Blankenship wrote: > >> How often do polls reach people without phones? > > > Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a > > margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. > > Typical polling does not correct for those without phones, it usually > just ignores them. They are a small sample, but a biased one in such a > pole, since they would tend to be otherwise marginalized, and might be > more disappointed than average in their nonexistent healthcare and so > much more likely to support universal health insurance. > > But, they also don't tend to buy the products advertised on the programs > that discuss the poles, so no one cares. They probably also don't tend > to vote. Rich folks with a lot to lose (so they think) are the ones > pollsters and politicians care about. > > Margins of error correct for random anomalies, not systematic ones. > Fundamental statistical assumptions include a random sample, and those > who do not have phones (and, more seriously, those who do not deal with > pollsters on the phone) are not random samples. > > Polls are entertainment, not science. And when they are not useful to the system, they are simply ignored. Case in point... "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?" Approve 25 Disapprove 69 http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm   Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:05:59 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:-JOdnUc2jZmO0zfbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >>> How often do polls reach people without phones? > > >> Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers. > > > It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup. > > You are _so_ not in touch with your inner crackpot. What are you doing > here, anyway? I think he represents motorized lobby. You know, they are very crafty in lying. Big Tobacco hired some PR agents to throw smoke on the whole issue even after they knew smoking lead to cancer. Now Big Oil is doing the same with Global Warming. Never trust the fox and follow the money to find his trail.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:01:44 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL "donquijote1954" who? wrote: > > If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If you not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful   Date: 27 Jul 2007 18:54:48 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 4:31 pm, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > > "The effect of the cycle lane studied in this report is to reduce the > amount of roadspace available to cyclists, and therefore makes > conditions significantly worse for cyclists." > > Tony They can't get any worse. People just don't go out and ride in practical situations. The few that do ride sidewalks thereby endangering pedestrians and themselves.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 18:53:40 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 4:58 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185569402.040631.271220@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jul 27, 3:48 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> How often do polls reach people without phones? > > >> > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers. > > >> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this > >> newsgroup. > > > It's more rational than saying bike lanes are bad for bikes. Are car > > lanes bad for cars? Or should we erase all lines between lanes and let > > drivers do as they please? Please! > > So what was your point, that they only poll "Lexus and Mercedes dealers"? > You're such a nut, you're hardly worth debating. But this is fun. That the poll among the well-to-do (those that can afford Lexus and health insurance) are no evidence that we don't need health insurance. You may ask THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE INSURANCE if you want to have some credibility. And the same applies to bikes. Ask the working class if they want to have bike lanes to get to work. I bet you they go for it.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 18:39:31 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized Andrew Muzi wrote: > ... > I have no personal telephone, either land or cell. Haven't you spent all your waking hours in the shop every day since 1 April, 1971? > I do not fit the > demographic you had in mind I bet. Pointedly I have no systemic > healthcare gripes. > > (Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street > force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we employers here, as > they currently threaten). There are some serious analysts who disagree with the presumption of greater waste and cost. With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing decisions. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful     Date: 27 Jul 2007 22:38:07 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1185586771.535672.55960@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat > people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if > they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has > failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing > decisions. The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from the truth.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 14:13:33 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 27, 4:49 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185568939.979723.43700@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > I wouldn't want my president to micromanage anything. Just solve the > > big problems (Global Warming) and small problems (dangerous roads) so > > I can chip in with the effort. > > Stop changing the fucking subject headers will you? It makes you look like > an even bigger loony. > > I don't think it's up to the president to solve any of those problems, he is > the Chief Executive and merely executes the laws of Congress. It's not his > responsibility to micromanage traffic policy to satisfy the rantings of > USENET kooks. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 14:11:56 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 4:50 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185569030.699363.46680@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jul 27, 3:35 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist > >> >> because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely > >> >> asinine. > > >> > The Scandinavians are remarkably sane people. > > >> Great, I don't see what that has to do with this conversation though.- > > > Make the connection. They have decided to solve the problem installing > > more bike lanes and bike paths. I guess they are more egalitarian and > > democratic. > > Or the needs of their citizens are different. I wouldn't expect you to have > the ability, mentally, to make that connection, though. A cycle oriented society would signal a more egalitarian society. A society where SUVs are the symbol of power and status though signals a Darwinist view of the world... Quality of Life, Income, Education and Life Expectancy If we would only focus on per capita income statistics, we would perhaps be surprised to hear that the inhabitants of the small central European nation of Luxembourg are the wealthiest in the world, with an average salary of $53,780. The average salary in Norway is $45,000 but the Nordic countries are above all known for being an egalitarian society; of the seventeen richest countries in the world, Sweden ranks first as having the fewest people living in poverty and the fewest illiterate people, while other rich countries such us the United States have the the most, showing that stark inequality persists even in middle or high-income countries. http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/society/UNreport.htm TurboN from Norway says I am stunned by the ignorance some of you Americans are displaying.... "The best to live in when ur rich.." Cant u see the social differences in your own country? U have ghettos and way past a million living below the international poverty-line, ur health care is a joke and ur welfare isnt much better. Its a social-darwinistic society blinded by the "American dream" and 9/11, its fucking scary to see how ignorant some of you are regarding the rest of the world, and the things that are happening. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/information/16298/3/Best_Country_to_Live_in.html Another argument for the revolution, huh?     Date: 27 Jul 2007 18:17:51 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185570716.501288.278180@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > A cycle oriented society would signal a more egalitarian society. A > society where SUVs are the symbol of power and status though signals a > Darwinist view of the world... If you say so, I'd say it signals a society where SUV's are symbols of power and status... nothing more. > Quality of Life, Income, Education and Life Expectancy > > If we would only focus on per capita income statistics, we would > perhaps be surprised to hear that the inhabitants of the small central > European nation of Luxembourg are the wealthiest in the world, with an > average salary of $53,780. The average salary in Norway is $45,000 but > the Nordic countries are above all known for being an egalitarian > society; of the seventeen richest countries in the world, Sweden ranks > first as having the fewest people living in poverty and the fewest > illiterate people, while other rich countries such us the United > States have the the most, showing that stark inequality persists even > in middle or high-income countries. Luxemburg is a teeny tiny country compared to the US which clocks in at 300,000,000. We're mammoth even compared to Scandanavia. The US does have an inequality problem. But that doesn't make us undemocratic by any means (except if you are a kook). I don't think cars have anything to do with it, cars are democratic, they give to the masses what was at one time only available to the wealthy. You think only the wealthy should have access to large houses and generous expanses of land? And why are you trying so hard to go offtopic? > http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/society/UNreport.htm > > TurboN from Norway says > I am stunned by the ignorance some of you Americans are displaying.... > "The best to live in when ur rich.." Cant u see the social differences > in your own country? U have ghettos and way past a million living > below the international poverty-line, ur health care is a joke and ur > welfare isnt much better. Its a social-darwinistic society blinded by > the "American dream" and 9/11, its fucking scary to see how ignorant > some of you are regarding the rest of the world, and the things that > are happening. > > http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/information/16298/3/Best_Country_to_Live_in.html > > Another argument for the revolution, huh? No, I'd say you've found a fellow netkook.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:59:58 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 27, 4:49 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185568939.979723.43700@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > I wouldn't want my president to micromanage anything. Just solve the > > big problems (Global Warming) and small problems (dangerous roads) so > > I can chip in with the effort. > > Stop changing the fucking subject headers will you? It makes you look like > an even bigger loony. > > I don't think it's up to the president to solve any of those problems, he is > the Chief Executive and merely executes the laws of Congress. It's not his > responsibility to micromanage traffic policy to satisfy the rantings of > USENET kooks. They won't listen to us anyway. Lions have different needs from monkeys. Their heads are into "more important" stuff... HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite words... Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would have had to run after them and even risk resistance." And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle -- to the effect of exploring life in other planets...   Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:50:02 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 3:48 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> How often do polls reach people without phones? > > > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers. > > It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup. It's more rational than saying bike lanes are bad for bikes. Are car lanes bad for cars? Or should we erase all lines between lanes and let drivers do as they please? Please!     Date: 27 Jul 2007 16:58:42 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185569402.040631.271220@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 27, 3:48 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> How often do polls reach people without phones? >> >> > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers. >> >> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this >> newsgroup. > > It's more rational than saying bike lanes are bad for bikes. Are car > lanes bad for cars? Or should we erase all lines between lanes and let > drivers do as they please? Please! So what was your point, that they only poll "Lexus and Mercedes dealers"? You're such a nut, you're hardly worth debating. But this is fun.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:43:50 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 3:35 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist > >> because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely > >> asinine. > > > The Scandinavians are remarkably sane people. > > Great, I don't see what that has to do with this conversation though.- Make the connection. They have decided to solve the problem installing more bike lanes and bike paths. I guess they are more egalitarian and democratic.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 16:50:32 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185569030.699363.46680@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 27, 3:35 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist >> >> because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely >> >> asinine. >> >> > The Scandinavians are remarkably sane people. >> >> Great, I don't see what that has to do with this conversation though.- > > Make the connection. They have decided to solve the problem installing > more bike lanes and bike paths. I guess they are more egalitarian and > democratic. Or the needs of their citizens are different. I wouldn't expect you to have the ability, mentally, to make that connection, though.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 17:14:04 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:nYGdnQUoXOcFxzfbnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com... > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1185569030.699363.46680@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 27, 3:35 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist >>> >> because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely >>> >> asinine. >>> >>> > The Scandinavians are remarkably sane people. >>> >>> Great, I don't see what that has to do with this conversation though.- >> >> Make the connection. They have decided to solve the problem installing >> more bike lanes and bike paths. I guess they are more egalitarian and >> democratic. > > Or the needs of their citizens are different. I wouldn't expect you to > have the ability, mentally, to make that connection, though. That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are. :-) They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed.         Date: 27 Jul 2007 18:24:01 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:16uqi.7957$ae7.4302@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not > become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are. :-) > > They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed. Hopefully they won't adopt the low-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet that we did, then.           Date: 27 Jul 2007 18:09:16 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:EeKdnQikFOIc7TfbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > news:16uqi.7957$ae7.4302@bignews7.bellsouth.net... >> That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not >> become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are. :-) >> >> They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed. > > Hopefully they won't adopt the low-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet > that we did, then. The main thing you have to watch out for there is the rich desserts!   Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:42:19 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 27, 3:46 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185548606.047182.178170@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > OK, say I was the President I'd go before the people and say, "My > > fellow Americans, the state of transportation is pitiful. It's a > > jungle out there. There are too many accidents on the roads while the > > Public Transportation and Biking infrastructure sucks. Such sad state > > of affairs also leads to pollution and war, so all the more reason to > > change. You know CHANGE is a force of evolution, without it dinosaurs > > die... So from now on, bicycles will have priority on the right lane > > of multiple lane roads as well as have other bike facilities. You > > know, lions still keep their share of the road, but now monkeys can > > bike in peace. And all other infracture geared for the monkeys will be > > vastly improved, creating jobs in the process. That's real DEMOCRACY, > > a place where the monkeys are not discriminated against just for being > > monkeys. And, of course, you will all have bananas." > > I would think transportation issues are mostly local issues and should > therefor be addressed there. I wouldn't want my president attempting to > micromanage traffic policy. I wouldn't want my president to micromanage anything. Just solve the big problems (Global Warming) and small problems (dangerous roads) so I can chip in with the effort.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 16:49:45 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185568939.979723.43700@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > I wouldn't want my president to micromanage anything. Just solve the > big problems (Global Warming) and small problems (dangerous roads) so > I can chip in with the effort. Stop changing the fucking subject headers will you? It makes you look like an even bigger loony. I don't think it's up to the president to solve any of those problems, he is the Chief Executive and merely executes the laws of Congress. It's not his responsibility to micromanage traffic policy to satisfy the rantings of USENET kooks.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:40:26 From: Brian Huntley Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 2:36 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type of > informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of the > plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition, > you may want to consider using "us". As in "Us, the people...." The usage was "we employers." Sounds right to me.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 17:22:32 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Brian Huntley" <brian_huntley@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185568826.902070.40740@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 27, 2:36 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type >> of >> informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of >> the >> plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition, >> you may want to consider using "us". > > > As in "Us, the people...." > > The usage was "we employers." Sounds right to me. Yes, it is sad that it sounds right to too many of us Americans. Your problem is that you do not realize that the usage is: We... do ordain and establish... "...the people of the United States of America" is modifying we, but has nothing to do with why we was chosen over us. We is the subject. The dependent clauses in between are also not relevant to its selection. For purposes of deciding what pronoun to use, the OP should have truncated the sentence like this: "Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we." When you do that, it becomes more clearly evident that it is incorrect and should be: "Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on us." Hope this clarifies; Amy     Date: 27 Jul 2007 15:20:36 From: Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:40:26 -0700, Brian Huntley <brian_huntley@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Jul 27, 2:36 pm, "Amy Blankenship" ><Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type of >> informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of the >> plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition, >> you may want to consider using "us". > > >As in "Us, the people...." > >The usage was "we employers." Sounds right to me. Dear Brian, Sorry, but it's common to confuse subjective and objective case. Whether we-employers or us-employers is correct depends on whether the phrase is used as the subject or the object of a phrase or clause. We, the people, are the proud subject of this sentence. But this sentence refers to us, the people, as merely the object of a preposition. Thus we (not us) grammarians write that he (not him) must be goofing on us (not on-we). We like to sneer at whoever/whomever . . . Sorry, not enough information yet--will whoever/whomever be the subject or the object of the as-yet unknown subordinate clause? . . . at whoever is dumb enough to screw up niggling little points. (he is dumb enough, subjective) . . . at whomever we can catch screwing up niggling little points. (we can catch him, objective) A dollar and such expertise (expressed with typical snottiness) is usually enough to get a cup of hot coffee spilled on your lap by a waiter who/whom . . . . . . who (not whom) is annoyed by us jerks. Subjective case--he is annoyed, not him is annoyed. . . . who (not whom) we thought would not be annoyed by jerks like us. Still subjective case--we thought (that) he, not him, would not be annoyed. . . . whom (not who) we also failed to tip. Objective case--we failed to tip him, not he. Another deadly trap is the linking verb, such as to be, which restates or renames the subject and therfore uses the subjective case. Technically, you should reply, "It is I" when someone shouts "Who the hell's at the door?" The predicate noun takes the objective form, so only an ill-educated policeman will yell "It is me" before kicking the door in. Language, however, is an arbitrary collection of customs, not a logical system resembling computer programming. The proper grammatical reply "It is I" is never contracted to "It's I"--we say "It's me, who'd ya think it was?" Or perhaps _we_ should say, "It is we"? Aaargh! It's us! Time to go for my ride before it starts raining, whatever "it" may refer to. Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:13:34 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 27, 12:48 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > > This is another bogus argument - most cyclists tend to stay way too > > close to the curb. > > Who cares about most cyclists who are ingorant of proper bicycling? Get > education! Cyclists are ignorants? So are drivers of SUVs. But they got 5 tons of metal to get their own way. By the way, isn't a bike lane a good way to keep ignorant cyclists in one place? Wasting my time. I guess you are more ignorant than them.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:08:56 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On Jul 27, 12:40 pm, coyoteboy <coyotebo...@hotmail.com > wrote: > >> They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no effort and > >> they get to think they're doing something useful. > > From what I hear the highways engineers hate them but are required to > include certain percentages. They ride SUVs, why should they care.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:08:04 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Riding a bike is elitist On Jul 27, 12:33 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > If the bike lane stripe wasn't there, there'd be a very wide space that > the vehicle (ie bicyclist) in front would have right of way to. A bike > lane is nanny state micromanagement of bicyclist's lateral position. Driving a car is democratic in America, any asshole can drive. Riding a bike is elitist though. Where the lions live there's plenty of bike lanes. If you are a monkey though ride if you dare.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 12:57:31 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths On Jul 27, 11:34 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > On Jul 27, 3:22 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > >> donquijote1954 wrote: > > >>> Maybe many individual drivers are good, but reckless driving is the > >>> rule. > >>> Just compare the stats of the UK vs. the USA. > >> So USA cyclist deaths per annum is about 700, UK about 140, a ratio of > >> 5:1. > >> USA population is about 300 million, UK 60 millio. A ration of 5:1. > >> Deaths per million vehicle kms; USA 2.5, UK 2.0. > >> Ratio of total vehicle km travelled (USA:UK) 7:1. > > >> Looks pretty comparable to me. > > >> Tony > > > I said driving, not biking. Your rates are much lower than here, which > > shows your drivers are more attentive and better trained, resulting in > > less Darwinian roads. > > Hmmmm, Deaths per million vehicle kms; USA 2.5, UK 2.0 looks pretty much > like driving to me and looks pretty similar to me. YMMV Well, sorry, but you seem to be out of touch with reality... "Sweden and Britain each reported about 35 deaths for every billion kilometers driven in 1970, more than the 30 in the United States. But in 2005 both European countries reported about 6 deaths for every billion kilometers, compared with 9 in the United States." and... "Bella Dinh-Zarr, the North American director of Make Roads Safe, a nonprofit organization based in London, said other countries had stricter laws, better enforcement, more accessible public transportation, greater awareness, public support and more rigorous training and licensing standards." This article is quite enlightening... Safety First? True Once, but U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths By TANYA MOHN Published: July 22, 2007 DRIVING has never been safer. Cars, which once had just one air bag, can now have six or more, and there are crumple zones to protect occupants in a crash and electronic stability control to avoid crashes in the first place. There are run-flat tires and antilock brakes. The rate of highway fatalities has plummeted since 1970, when the United States led the world in road safety. Still, despite its head start and that cocoon of technology, the nation has steadily slipped behind other countries, becoming comparatively one of the most dangerous places to drive in the industrialized world. The United States ranks 42nd of the 48 countries measured in the number of fatalities per capita, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Transport Forum. Australia, Britain, France, Germany and Japan all did significantly better. And in what many safety experts consider a more precise measure, fatalities per distance driven, the United States was No. 1 in 1970 with the lowest death rate among industrialized countries reporting data. It now ranks 11th, with some countries reporting rates that are 25 percent lower. "Here we are, probably the richest country in the world," said Barbara L. Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety offices. "Why are other countries doing a better job than we are?" Safety experts said the reasons were many. One, they said, was inadequate driver training. Some countries require that teenagers have 100 hours behind the wheel before they receive a license, compared to about 6 in the United States. But expert after expert said the real problem was one of culture. With personal freedom being a cornerstone of the United States, many states are loath to pass legislation that curtails them, even when it comes to road safety. So while the governments of other countries can easily pass laws to make driving safer, like a national ban on hand-held cellphone use, those laws here are left up to the states to impose, and that is often not so easy. New Hampshire, for example, is the only state with no seat belt law for adults, and in May its state Senate rejected a bill that would have mandated the use of belts. "The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by anyone else what to do," said State Senator Robert E. Clegg Jr. Fred Wegman, managing director of the National Institute for Road Safety Research in the Netherlands, said attitudes were different in Europe. There, he said, safety is not just about the individual, but is the responsibility of society as a whole. "European countries fundamentally pay more political attention to road safety," he said. more... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/automobiles/22SAFETY.html     Date: 28 Jul 2007 06:53:23 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths donquijote1954 wrote: > New Hampshire, for example, is the only state with no seat belt law > for adults, and in May its state Senate rejected a bill that would > have mandated the use of belts. > > "The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by anyone else > what to do," said State Senator Robert E. Clegg Jr. "Live free and die"       Date: 28 Jul 2007 12:01:07 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths Peter Cole wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > >> New Hampshire, for example, is the only state with no seat belt law >> for adults, and in May its state Senate rejected a bill that would >> have mandated the use of belts. >> >> "The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by anyone else >> what to do," said State Senator Robert E. Clegg Jr. > > "Live free and die" You've never heard of the Isles Report then? When seat belts were made mandatory in the UK two things happened. Car occupant deaths did not change while pedestrian and cyclist deaths increased significantly. It and similar studies from other countries are one of the central pieces of evidence for the risk homeostasis theory. The counter side is the observation that if every steering wheel was fitted with a sharp steel spike in the centre, drivers would be much more careful. Tony     Date: 27 Jul 2007 16:09:09 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185566251.302317.180820@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... You obviously do not have the brains to realize that the per capita statistic is completely meaningless.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 08:18:25 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 9:16 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "rotten" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185499963.969424.217510@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > >> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in > >> messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't know > >> of > >> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy with > >> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every > >> other > >> industrialized nation in the world. > > > Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts > > then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large > > problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find > > that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. > > How often do polls reach people without phones? Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 15:48:45 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> How often do polls reach people without phones? > > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers. It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 17:08:53 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:-JOdnUc2jZmO0zfbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>> How often do polls reach people without phones? >> >> Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers. > > It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup. You are _so_ not in touch with your inner crackpot. What are you doing here, anyway?   Date: 27 Jul 2007 08:16:40 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 9:12 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > > Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist > > because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely > > asinine. > > The Scandinavians are remarkably sane people. And they are a remarkable model for America. They used to live from the spoils of war. ;)   Date: 27 Jul 2007 08:09:49 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 4:17 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > Practice riding on the road and buy Life Insurance. Your loved ones > > will appreciate it. ;) > > I do practice riding on the road. As does my wife. We don't have life > insurance. It would actually be just as relevant to being a pedestrian > if you look at the figures rather than jump to unwarranted conclusions. > OK, would you like to see droves of people biking in the UK? Why not turn to the other European nations, namely Holland, Germany, Denmark? Or you find it easier to invade a country that has plenty of oil? It doesn't look very smart to me --let alone civilized.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 08:03:26 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 27, 4:11 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > But before I leave you, I'd like like to comment on a commercial now > > showing here... A group of co-workers is having lunch when one of them > > starts choking. Then one guy makes all kinds of comments he read about > > what to do in such cases --but does nothing. And another guy finally > > helps the choking man out of suffocation. > > > SO WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THE CHOKING BICYCLE FACILITIES??? > > First, see what causes the choking, and then act. > > Rather than say, "I know what to do, I saw it on TV!", wade in and kill > your choker with what turns out to be inappropriate action. > > If you study the effects of bike infrastructure you see it doesn't help. > So going ahead with something you know won't work, because it's been > seen not to, is just a case of "we must do something. This is > something. So we'll do it". All you'll do is waste money and time /and > not actually stop the choking/. OK, say I was the President I'd go before the people and say, "My fellow Americans, the state of transportation is pitiful. It's a jungle out there. There are too many accidents on the roads while the Public Transportation and Biking infrastructure sucks. Such sad state of affairs also leads to pollution and war, so all the more reason to change. You know CHANGE is a force of evolution, without it dinosaurs die... So from now on, bicycles will have priority on the right lane of multiple lane roads as well as have other bike facilities. You know, lions still keep their share of the road, but now monkeys can bike in peace. And all other infracture geared for the monkeys will be vastly improved, creating jobs in the process. That's real DEMOCRACY, a place where the monkeys are not discriminated against just for being monkeys. And, of course, you will all have bananas."     Date: 27 Jul 2007 15:46:39 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185548606.047182.178170@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > OK, say I was the President I'd go before the people and say, "My > fellow Americans, the state of transportation is pitiful. It's a > jungle out there. There are too many accidents on the roads while the > Public Transportation and Biking infrastructure sucks. Such sad state > of affairs also leads to pollution and war, so all the more reason to > change. You know CHANGE is a force of evolution, without it dinosaurs > die... So from now on, bicycles will have priority on the right lane > of multiple lane roads as well as have other bike facilities. You > know, lions still keep their share of the road, but now monkeys can > bike in peace. And all other infracture geared for the monkeys will be > vastly improved, creating jobs in the process. That's real DEMOCRACY, > a place where the monkeys are not discriminated against just for being > monkeys. And, of course, you will all have bananas." I would think transportation issues are mostly local issues and should therefor be addressed there. I wouldn't want my president attempting to micromanage traffic policy.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 07:42:15 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On Jul 27, 3:22 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > Maybe many individual drivers are good, but reckless driving is the > > rule. > > > Just compare the stats of the UK vs. the USA. > > So USA cyclist deaths per annum is about 700, UK about 140, a ratio of > 5:1. > USA population is about 300 million, UK 60 millio. A ration of 5:1. > Deaths per million vehicle kms; USA 2.5, UK 2.0. > Ratio of total vehicle km travelled (USA:UK) 7:1. > > Looks pretty comparable to me. > > Tony I said driving, not biking. Your rates are much lower than here, which shows your drivers are more attentive and better trained, resulting in less Darwinian roads.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 16:34:21 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? donquijote1954 wrote: > On Jul 27, 3:22 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: >> donquijote1954 wrote: >> >>> Maybe many individual drivers are good, but reckless driving is the >>> rule. >>> Just compare the stats of the UK vs. the USA. >> So USA cyclist deaths per annum is about 700, UK about 140, a ratio of >> 5:1. >> USA population is about 300 million, UK 60 millio. A ration of 5:1. >> Deaths per million vehicle kms; USA 2.5, UK 2.0. >> Ratio of total vehicle km travelled (USA:UK) 7:1. >> >> Looks pretty comparable to me. >> >> Tony > > I said driving, not biking. Your rates are much lower than here, which > shows your drivers are more attentive and better trained, resulting in > less Darwinian roads. > Hmmmm, Deaths per million vehicle kms; USA 2.5, UK 2.0 looks pretty much like driving to me and looks pretty similar to me. YMMV Tony   Date: 27 Jul 2007 07:36:16 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 27, 3:09 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > No bike paths? Ok, then let the whole right lane belong to the bikes > > and other smart transportation. Keep the dinosaurs aways from the > > smart furry mammals. > > Is the wrong answer. Segregation, as in most other walks of life, fails > because the dinosaurs do not have to learn to co-exist with the small > furry mammals. Mix them up and they both learn and the safety increases > is a well known phenomenom. In London cycling increased 83% and the > number of accidents decreased 28%. It has been well documented in the > literature for other countries that increases in the number cycling > leads to a decrease in the accident rate. > > Tony Well, I know you are the champions of segregating people in neighborhoods, economic status, etc, I don't know why you don't want to segregate things that really don't mix. OK, let's speak metaphorically here: The lions tells the monkey, "Come down from the trees, nothing to fear." And the monkey says wisely, "I appeciate your good will, but while you got nothing to fear, I'm shaking all over."   Date: 27 Jul 2007 07:23:52 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 1:05 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> writes: > > On Jul 26, 11:45 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I live in Boston, so most likely the latter.- > > > Playing among the sharks is playing sitting duck. When they are > > allowed to run wild, and few regulations are enforced, many things can > > happen, even by accident... > > > Boy's Foot Nearly Severed By SUV > > > A 14-year-old boy was seriously injured Thursday when his bicycle was > > hit by a sport utility vehicle, police said. > > Too bad, but the article didn't say what caused the accident or who > was responsible. > > About 15 years ago in the area I live in, a small girl on a bicycle > was killed in a head-on collisions with a pickup trip. The accident > was used as a justification for a mandatory helmet law applicable to > children. The accident happened at around 6:30 PM in October, just at > the point where 6:30 PM was a bit after sunset, but not late enough > for it to be completely dark. The girl was riding without a helmet, > but the constributing factors to the accident were that she was riding > against the flow of traffic without a light in low-light conditions. > > The idea that maybe children should be taught to ride in the same > direction as vehicular traffic and use lights when it is getting dark > was simply ignored, even though the driver said that he didn't see the > girl in time to stop, time that traveling in the same direction might > have provided. > > Why her parents let her ride a bike without a light under those > conditions was also never brought up. All people would talk about > were helmets - while using one might have helped, that is not a > substitute for avoiding the accident in the first place. In the case at hand, I would put the blame squarely... on the lenient system (POLITICIANS, TRAFFIC OFFICIALS) that allows boys to drive SUVs without asking hard questions. Actually the older boy at 16 should have been riding another bike, and no accident would have happened. One easy way to accomplish this is to require a minimum of 25 years of age to drive these behemoths. Now to the other accident you relate to us, I can tell you that the same thing happens with accidents in general: NOT AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION, JUST MORE ARMOR, whether in the form of helmets or Hummers. That's the approach to survival in this jungle: ARMOR.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 22:11:20 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Edward Dolan wrote: > > I have been quite impressed lately by the posts of Zoot Katz. Even though > she is a dyke, she is nonetheless very intelligent and, unlike the rest of > you, seldom says anything really stupid. I will have to start paying more > attention to her posts in the future. When did Zoot have a sex change operation? Zoot is the one riding the bicycle in the middle of the lawn: <http://mypage.direct.ca/i/imnot/pix/dino1_april.jpg >. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful     Date: 27 Jul 2007 00:33:53 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:11:20 -0700, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: >Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> I have been quite impressed lately by the posts of Zoot Katz. Even though >> she is a dyke, she is nonetheless very intelligent and, unlike the rest of >> you, seldom says anything really stupid. I will have to start paying more >> attention to her posts in the future. > >When did Zoot have a sex change operation? Since she started getting whooped by girls on mountain bikes. > >Zoot is the one riding the bicycle in the middle of the lawn: ><http://mypage.direct.ca/i/imnot/pix/dino1_april.jpg>. She's uglier than swamp gator on a week-long drunk. -- zk   Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:42:07 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 11:45 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > I live in Boston, so most likely the latter.- Playing among the sharks is playing sitting duck. When they are allowed to run wild, and few regulations are enforced, many things can happen, even by accident... Boy's Foot Nearly Severed By SUV A 14-year-old boy was seriously injured Thursday when his bicycle was hit by a sport utility vehicle, police said. The boy was riding on Orchard Avenue across Ebers Street when a Dodge Durango hit him, according to investigators. His foot was partially severed in the collision, authorities said. His condition was not immediately known The driver of the Durango was a 16-year-old boy. The collision was being investigated by police.     Date: 26 Jul 2007 22:05:19 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > writes: > On Jul 26, 11:45 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I live in Boston, so most likely the latter.- > > Playing among the sharks is playing sitting duck. When they are > allowed to run wild, and few regulations are enforced, many things can > happen, even by accident... > > Boy's Foot Nearly Severed By SUV > > A 14-year-old boy was seriously injured Thursday when his bicycle was > hit by a sport utility vehicle, police said. Too bad, but the article didn't say what caused the accident or who was responsible. About 15 years ago in the area I live in, a small girl on a bicycle was killed in a head-on collisions with a pickup trip. The accident was used as a justification for a mandatory helmet law applicable to children. The accident happened at around 6:30 PM in October, just at the point where 6:30 PM was a bit after sunset, but not late enough for it to be completely dark. The girl was riding without a helmet, but the constributing factors to the accident were that she was riding against the flow of traffic without a light in low-light conditions. The idea that maybe children should be taught to ride in the same direction as vehicular traffic and use lights when it is getting dark was simply ignored, even though the driver said that he didn't see the girl in time to stop, time that traveling in the same direction might have provided. Why her parents let her ride a bike without a light under those conditions was also never brought up. All people would talk about were helmets - while using one might have helped, that is not a substitute for avoiding the accident in the first place. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 27 Jul 2007 08:15:29 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:87r6muighc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes: > >> On Jul 26, 11:45 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I live in Boston, so most likely the latter.- >> >> Playing among the sharks is playing sitting duck. When they are >> allowed to run wild, and few regulations are enforced, many things can >> happen, even by accident... >> >> Boy's Foot Nearly Severed By SUV >> >> A 14-year-old boy was seriously injured Thursday when his bicycle was >> hit by a sport utility vehicle, police said. > > Too bad, but the article didn't say what caused the accident or who > was responsible. > > About 15 years ago in the area I live in, a small girl on a bicycle > was killed in a head-on collisions with a pickup trip. The accident > was used as a justification for a mandatory helmet law applicable to > children. The accident happened at around 6:30 PM in October, just at > the point where 6:30 PM was a bit after sunset, but not late enough > for it to be completely dark. The girl was riding without a helmet, > but the constributing factors to the accident were that she was riding > against the flow of traffic without a light in low-light conditions. > > The idea that maybe children should be taught to ride in the same > direction as vehicular traffic and use lights when it is getting dark > was simply ignored, even though the driver said that he didn't see the > girl in time to stop, time that traveling in the same direction might > have provided. > > Why her parents let her ride a bike without a light under those > conditions was also never brought up. All people would talk about > were helmets - while using one might have helped, that is not a > substitute for avoiding the accident in the first place. I see cyclists going against traffic on busy roads all the time. Nuts.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:19:34 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 11:44 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 26, 10:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 9:26 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 11:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > > > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > > > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > I think if you visit Scandinavian countries, you will find that the issue of > > > > bike-friendly infrastructure and healthcare are intimately connected in ways > > > > that are difficult to explain to people who are not open to making such > > > > connections easily. > > > > Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist > > > because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely > > > asinine. > > > Well, we are democratic in the sense of "the best democracy money can > > buy," but bicyles hardly feed the corportations the way SUVs do, you > > know. > > Who makes bikes? Isn't it corporations? Who makes mass transit? > Corporations, right?- Doesn't compare. These predators are after the big game, the fat wallets, someone said.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:18:04 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 10:33 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> writes: > > On Jul 26, 9:21 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> writes: > > > > Experienced cyclists are killed all the time because of incredibly stupid > > > > drivers. > > > > So are experienced drivers, so what is your point? > > > You better have a lot of armor to survive in the jungle. That's why > > people buy SUVs. Well, besides their Napoleonic Complex... > > Instead of buying "armor", why don't we simply take away the licenses > of obviously incompetent drivers? Because nobody gives a shit. Well, nobody except their victims.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 20:45:05 From: rotten Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 10:17 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 26, 9:31 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 26, 3:58 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 9:14 am, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:1185451051.423299.308700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) > > > > >> and > > > > >> I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car > > > > >> people > > > > >> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you > > > > >> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or > > > > >> whatever, > > > > >> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. > > > > > > America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no > > > > > harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path -- > > > > > Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike > > > > > lanes. > > > > > You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You wanted > > > > a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to do with > > > > the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes and most > > > > people are happy with their own personal health care. Period. > > > > Are YOU happy with it? Do YOU personally have healthcare insurance? > > > The US system IS broken, but yes I have health insurance. > > > > It's like asking about bike lanes to someone who hates bikes. Do YOU > > > go to the market by bike? > > > My bike was in hiatus, I'm working on getting it up and running, > > hopefully this weekend. If you want to know how it turns out, email > > me.- > > Keep us posted. Tell us if you ride the sidewalk, or mingle with the > sharks. I live in Boston, so most likely the latter.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 20:44:34 From: rotten Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 10:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 26, 9:26 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 26, 11:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > I think if you visit Scandinavian countries, you will find that the issue of > > > bike-friendly infrastructure and healthcare are intimately connected in ways > > > that are difficult to explain to people who are not open to making such > > > connections easily. > > > Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist > > because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely > > asinine. > > Well, we are democratic in the sense of "the best democracy money can > buy," but bicyles hardly feed the corportations the way SUVs do, you > know. Who makes bikes? Isn't it corporations? Who makes mass transit? Corporations, right?   Date: 26 Jul 2007 20:43:48 From: rotten Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 10:13 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 26, 9:22 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Haha, "false sense of independence". I like that one. Apparently > > people don't know what's best for them.- > > The sheep just follow the slogans. "War good, healthcare baaaaad." Right, because you obviously know my position on both right? You're a presumptious asshole.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 19:25:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 9:34 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 26, 2:31 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > > > > > > > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:FO2dnQUOX9R6vjXbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > > > >>> Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be > > >>> thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is > > >>> that > > >>> none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the > > >>> lane with motor vehicles. > > > >> They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads > > >> will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we > > >> insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing > > >> from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though... > > > >>http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Bana... > > > >> THE BANANA REVOLUTION > > >>http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 > > > > Cuckoo, cuckkoo. > > > Don Quijote is a near genius almost on my level. But all of this is way > > beyond your poor powers of perception. > > Sure he is. Uh huh. > > > Cuckoo indeed! > > Couldn't have said it better myself.- I can say it even better... "The system that we've got has got a lot of problems. Our goal is to show what's wrong with the systemin ways that are fun and strange and entertaining." - Mike Bonanno of the Yes Men Yes, I make it strange and entertaining so it appeals to people. Not to the lions, but to the monkeys. You know what the monkey told the lion? Read on... WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote THE BANANA REVOLUTION http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40   Date: 26 Jul 2007 19:17:26 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 9:31 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 26, 3:58 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 9:14 am, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1185451051.423299.308700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) > > > >> and > > > >> I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car > > > >> people > > > >> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you > > > >> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or > > > >> whatever, > > > >> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. > > > > > America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no > > > > harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path -- > > > > Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike > > > > lanes. > > > > You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You wanted > > > a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to do with > > > the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes and most > > > people are happy with their own personal health care. Period. > > > Are YOU happy with it? Do YOU personally have healthcare insurance? > > The US system IS broken, but yes I have health insurance. > > > It's like asking about bike lanes to someone who hates bikes. Do YOU > > go to the market by bike? > > My bike was in hiatus, I'm working on getting it up and running, > hopefully this weekend. If you want to know how it turns out, email > me.- Keep us posted. Tell us if you ride the sidewalk, or mingle with the sharks.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 19:15:55 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 9:26 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 26, 11:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... > > I think if you visit Scandinavian countries, you will find that the issue of > > bike-friendly infrastructure and healthcare are intimately connected in ways > > that are difficult to explain to people who are not open to making such > > connections easily. > > Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist > because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely > asinine. Well, we are democratic in the sense of "the best democracy money can buy," but bicyles hardly feed the corportations the way SUVs do, you know.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 19:13:43 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 9:22 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > Haha, "false sense of independence". I like that one. Apparently > people don't know what's best for them.- The sheep just follow the slogans. "War good, healthcare baaaaad."   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:55:45 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 9:21 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> writes: > > Experienced cyclists are killed all the time because of incredibly stupid > > drivers. > > So are experienced drivers, so what is your point? You better have a lot of armor to survive in the jungle. That's why people buy SUVs. Well, besides their Napoleonic Complex...     Date: 27 Jul 2007 02:33:07 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > writes: > On Jul 26, 9:21 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> writes: > > > Experienced cyclists are killed all the time because of incredibly stupid > > > drivers. > > > > So are experienced drivers, so what is your point? > > You better have a lot of armor to survive in the jungle. That's why > people buy SUVs. Well, besides their Napoleonic Complex... Instead of buying "armor", why don't we simply take away the licenses of obviously incompetent drivers? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:54:08 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 5:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "Zoot Katz" <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote in message > > news:jn5ga3l9v15vasst3smlva0d6rac52rts1@4ax.com... > > > > > > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:21:46 -0400, "Sancho Panza" > > <otterpo...@xhotmail.com> wrote: > > >>"Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > >>news:un4in4-npf.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > >>> More people live in cities than in > >>> rural areas, and the proportion is still shifting towards cities. > > >>The last several Censuses demonstrate that you forgot the advent of the > >>suburbs. > > > Worldwide urbanisation is increasing while the rural populations are > > decreasing. > > > Suburbs are usually lumped in with their greater metropolitan areas > > when looking at urbanisation. > > > There is also a move back to the cities as previously depressed areas > > are gentrified or redeveloped. > > > Cities are getting bigger by increasing density and suburbs are > > spreading until they butt up against the next one. The whole eastern > > seaboard is comprised of a few metropolitan regions spreading to > > become one huge strip city from New York to Miami. > > Alas, all of the above is only too true > > I have been quite impressed lately by the posts of Zoot Katz. Even though > she is a dyke, she is nonetheless very intelligent and, unlike the rest of > you, seldom says anything really stupid. I will have to start paying more > attention to her posts in the future. Yep, remember all those who support biking are good, car supporters are real bad people. Like this: "Two wheel good, four wheel bad."   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:50:17 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On Jul 26, 4:02 pm, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > Perhaps you guys have better trained drivers, not engaged on the > > phone, or driving Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles around. You know, it > > all adds to the terror... > > I've cycled extensively in your country including some very busy roads > and find your drivers more courteous and less worrying than our drivers > in the UK. YMMV. Maybe many individual drivers are good, but reckless driving is the rule. Just compare the stats of the UK vs. the USA.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 08:22:09 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? donquijote1954 wrote: > > Maybe many individual drivers are good, but reckless driving is the > rule. > > Just compare the stats of the UK vs. the USA. > So USA cyclist deaths per annum is about 700, UK about 140, a ratio of 5:1. USA population is about 300 million, UK 60 millio. A ration of 5:1. Deaths per million vehicle kms; USA 2.5, UK 2.0. Ratio of total vehicle km travelled (USA:UK) 7:1. Looks pretty comparable to me. Tony   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:46:08 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 26, 4:56 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > So what's your solution? I say let the right lane be the bike lane. No > > cars there, period. Car hitting bicycle upon making right could have a > > nice vacation on Guantanamo Base. Orange uniform will fit them nicely. > > The outside normal lane *is* the "bike lane." There just happens to be > cars and other motor vehicles in it. If you don't want them to pass you > in your lane, use more of it. No, I don't want to be a sitting duck. Drivers are minding their cell phones while driving oversized vehicles. Then they hit you and run. It's a jungle out there... SUV hits, kills boy riding bike By Marc Robins, Globe Correspondent   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:34:21 From: rotten Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 2:31 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:FO2dnQUOX9R6vjXbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > > >>> Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be > >>> thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is > >>> that > >>> none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the > >>> lane with motor vehicles. > > >> They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads > >> will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we > >> insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing > >> from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though... > > >>http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Bana... > > >> THE BANANA REVOLUTION > >>http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 > > > Cuckoo, cuckkoo. > > Don Quijote is a near genius almost on my level. But all of this is way > beyond your poor powers of perception. Sure he is. Uh huh. > Cuckoo indeed! Couldn't have said it better myself.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:33:49 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 26, 4:37 pm, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > "The Bikeway Controversy" > > > No more controversies please. Just the problem (no bike facilities) > > and the solution (bike lanes, bike paths, right lane is bike lane, or > > just letting the gallon of gas be $10). > > You have it the wrong way round. The problems are the bike lanes, bike > paths etc. The solution is no bike facilities. But I doubt you will > accept that whatever the evidence. No bike paths? Ok, then let the whole right lane belong to the bikes and other smart transportation. Keep the dinosaurs aways from the smart furry mammals.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 08:09:10 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL donquijote1954 wrote: > > No bike paths? Ok, then let the whole right lane belong to the bikes > and other smart transportation. Keep the dinosaurs aways from the > smart furry mammals. > Is the wrong answer. Segregation, as in most other walks of life, fails because the dinosaurs do not have to learn to co-exist with the small furry mammals. Mix them up and they both learn and the safety increases is a well known phenomenom. In London cycling increased 83% and the number of accidents decreased 28%. It has been well documented in the literature for other countries that increases in the number cycling leads to a decrease in the accident rate. Tony   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:32:43 From: rotten Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... > The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't know of > anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy with > it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every other > industrialized nation in the world. Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. Your idiotically biased opinions do not speak for the entire country: http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm > The Repubs had better get on board on this issue or they are going to find > themselves a permanent minority party just like they did after the Great > Depression when Coolidge (or was it fucking Hoover) thought the government > did not have any business providing jobs, let alone welfare. Learn your history, it was more complicated then that. > What the hell do you think government is for if not to provided services to > people? It's purpose is to govern, kook. > PS. Get rid of your fucking user name We here on these cycling newsgroups do > not give a damn how much you stink, although your messages are smelling up > the place I must admit. Choke on it. > PS2. Anyone seen the Michael Moore movie "Sicko"? I would not mind seeing > this move myself since I am such a great critic of our present healthcare > system. Then buy a ticket and see it. Even a man of your limited means (and abilities) should find that not too hard.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 08:16:59 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1185499963.969424.217510@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in >> messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... >> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't know >> of >> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy with >> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every >> other >> industrialized nation in the world. > > Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts > then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large > problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find > that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. How often do polls reach people without phones?       Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:16:18 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Aug 4, 10:23 am, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 23:47:15 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> > wrote: > > >Such a health care system will be like the public school > >system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense. It ought to be > >financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich and/or a value > >added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A total no-brainer! > > Funny, I've come to think that Health Care is a luxury in the USA. I think it's more like WE CAN'T AFFORD THE LUXURY TO GET SICK. Other luxuries we can probably afford, well at least with a good credit.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 15:37:54 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:kfmqi.7485$zJ1.5735@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1185499963.969424.217510@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in >>> messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't >>> know of >>> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy >>> with >>> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every >>> other >>> industrialized nation in the world. >> >> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts >> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large >> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find >> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. > > How often do polls reach people without phones? Who doesn't have a phone? It's the best technique we have, and errors are accounted for in the polls. That still doesn't reflect what occured in Massachusetts and Oregon referendums.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 10:58:00 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized >> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: -snip the usual- > "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message >> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts >> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large >> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find >> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. Amy Blankenship wrote: > How often do polls reach people without phones? Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd have to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971         Date: 27 Jul 2007 22:49:02 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized A Muzi wrote: >>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > -snip the usual- > >> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts >>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large >>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find >>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. > > Amy Blankenship wrote: >> How often do polls reach people without phones? > > Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a > margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. Typical polling does not correct for those without phones, it usually just ignores them. They are a small sample, but a biased one in such a pole, since they would tend to be otherwise marginalized, and might be more disappointed than average in their nonexistent healthcare and so much more likely to support universal health insurance. But, they also don't tend to buy the products advertised on the programs that discuss the poles, so no one cares. They probably also don't tend to vote. Rich folks with a lot to lose (so they think) are the ones pollsters and politicians care about. Margins of error correct for random anomalies, not systematic ones. Fundamental statistical assumptions include a random sample, and those who do not have phones (and, more seriously, those who do not deal with pollsters on the phone) are not random samples. Polls are entertainment, not science. -- David L. Johnson Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. -- Michael Crichton           Date: 28 Jul 2007 10:46:10 From: Mark Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized David L. Johnson wrote: > Typical polling does not correct for those without phones, it usually > just ignores them. They are a small sample, but a biased one in such a > pole, since they would tend to be otherwise marginalized, and might be > more disappointed than average in their nonexistent healthcare and so > much more likely to support universal health insurance. Increasing numbers of young (and presumably non-poor, non-marginalized) US residents have no /land-line/ phone (cell only), and I believe phone polls exclude cellphones as well, since (I believe) it is prohibited to random-digit dial cellphone prefixes. This tends to reverse the economic bias in polls caused by missing the phoneless. In the short term, the two may cancel out, but I suspect the new phenomenon's influence will overwhelm the older one's within a few years. [...] > Margins of error correct for random anomalies, not systematic ones. > Fundamental statistical assumptions include a random sample, and those > who do not have phones (and, more seriously, those who do not deal with > pollsters on the phone) are not random samples. Agreed absolutely, though I tend to think the professional pollsters would try a few heuristic corrections to deal with their sample selection problems - I have seen a good paper on dealing with non-response - but of course there is no way to estimate the resulting error except for further heuristics. IOW, if non-response isn't ignored entirely, then there's more art than science in the way it's dealt with. > > Polls are entertainment, not science. Don't tell Roper/Gallup/Zogby. Mark J.         Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:25:48 From: Mark Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized A Muzi wrote: >>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > -snip the usual- > >> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts >>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large >>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find >>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. > > Amy Blankenship wrote: >> How often do polls reach people without phones? > > Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a > margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. Well, actually, the reported margins of error routinely line up with those for 95% confidence intervals for simple random samples of the same size. In non-technical language, if they /hadn't/ taken phoneless people into account, and used the most common margin-of-error estimate of random sampling error, in most cases they'd get the _same_ margin of error as is reported in the press. I check this a lot, since I routinely use survey reporting in teaching my statistics classes. It's not that the pollsters aren't smart, they certainly know that the phoneless (and the land-line-less) could be a cause of systematic error in their polls. Further, most(!) pollsters have strong incentives to accuracy (it's what they sell) - they don't want another embarrassment like calling the '48 race for Dewey over Truman. On the other hand, with the exception of election predictions, there are very few opportunities for phone-only polls to be proven wrong because of missing the phoneless (they will only be compared to other phone-only polls, seemingly), and you can even argue away weak election predictions. It's possible that the pros (Gallup, etc) have made estimates that show that !currently! the land-line-less aren't systematically different enough (or numerous enough) to make a difference. Or it could be that the problem is being brushed under the rug because there's little to be done about it. Mark J. You'd > have to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed > persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it. >         Date: 27 Jul 2007 11:08:01 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13ak5gee6p7868@corp.supernews.com... >>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > -snip the usual- > >> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts >>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large >>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find >>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. > > Amy Blankenship wrote: >> How often do polls reach people without phones? > > Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a > margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd have > to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed > persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it. People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those likely to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess not.           Date: 27 Jul 2007 15:56:27 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:HLoqi.6978$P32.5659@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their > healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those > likely to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess > not. Who the hell doesn't have any sort of phone? It's not likely to be any different than any other country: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_mai_lin_in_use_percap-main-lines-use-per-capita Don't quote me on this, but I don't think this includes cell phone either.           Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:06:57 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized >>>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> -snip the usual- >>> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts >>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large >>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find >>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. >> Amy Blankenship wrote: >>> How often do polls reach people without phones? > "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote >> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a >> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd have >> to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed >> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it. Amy Blankenship wrote: > People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their > healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those likely > to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess not. I have no personal telephone, either land or cell. I do not fit the demographic you had in mind I bet. Pointedly I have no systemic healthcare gripes. (Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we employers here, as they currently threaten) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971             Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:36:47 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13akd26o96c7t49@corp.supernews.com... >>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >>> -snip the usual- > >>>> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts >>>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large >>>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find >>>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare. > >>> Amy Blankenship wrote: >>>> How often do polls reach people without phones? > >> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote >>> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a >>> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd >>> have to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed >>> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it. > > Amy Blankenship wrote: >> People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their >> healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those >> likely to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess >> not. > > I have no personal telephone, either land or cell. I do not fit the > demographic you had in mind I bet. Pointedly I have no systemic healthcare > gripes. > > (Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street force > a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we employers here, as they > currently threaten) Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type of informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of the plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition, you may want to consider using "us". HTH; Amy   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:31:55 From: rotten Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 3:58 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 26, 9:14 am, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1185451051.423299.308700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) > > >> and > > >> I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car > > >> people > > >> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you > > >> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or > > >> whatever, > > >> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. > > > > America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no > > > harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path -- > > > Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike > > > lanes. > > > You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You wanted > > a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to do with > > the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes and most > > people are happy with their own personal health care. Period. > > Are YOU happy with it? Do YOU personally have healthcare insurance? The US system IS broken, but yes I have health insurance. > It's like asking about bike lanes to someone who hates bikes. Do YOU > go to the market by bike? My bike was in hiatus, I'm working on getting it up and running, hopefully this weekend. If you want to know how it turns out, email me.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:26:01 From: rotten Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 11:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... > I think if you visit Scandinavian countries, you will find that the issue of > bike-friendly infrastructure and healthcare are intimately connected in ways > that are difficult to explain to people who are not open to making such > connections easily. Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely asinine.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 08:12:58 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1185499561.003402.72260@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 26, 11:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in >> messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... >> I think if you visit Scandinavian countries, you will find that the issue >> of >> bike-friendly infrastructure and healthcare are intimately connected in >> ways >> that are difficult to explain to people who are not open to making such >> connections easily. > > Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist > because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely > asinine. The Scandinavians are remarkably sane people.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 15:35:54 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:zbmqi.7482$zJ1.3568@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1185499561.003402.72260@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 26, 11:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" >> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in >>> messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> I think if you visit Scandinavian countries, you will find that the >>> issue of >>> bike-friendly infrastructure and healthcare are intimately connected in >>> ways >>> that are difficult to explain to people who are not open to making such >>> connections easily. >> >> Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist >> because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely >> asinine. > > The Scandinavians are remarkably sane people. Great, I don't see what that has to do with this conversation though.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:22:51 From: rotten Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 10:12 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <FO2dnQoOX9R6vjXbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdn...@comcast.com>, > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message > >news:CJSdncWuINxHOjrbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > >> Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of > > >> transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles. > > > > Joe, about once a year I visit a major metro and I am appalled by > > > the traffic congestion that I see everywhere in those metros. It is > > > simply insane how we keep piling up motor vehicles on top of motor > > > vehicles. > > > It's how people want to live. > > No, it's how people think they have to live because they've been on the > receiving end of massive social engineering by the automotive and oil > industries to benefit the automotive and oil industries. You're a kook and yes I've heard of this. All this did was replace streetcars with busses. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy > > If you ask people whether they *want* to spend the equivalent an a work > week every year sitting in traffic, they'd tell you "no." Except for a > few weirdos. I calculated once that if I didn't own a car and pay the > associated costs, I could work four days a week and come out ahead. My > compromise is to buy a good used car for cash and replace it every 10 > years if needed, and to ride my bike for practical use (going to work, > going to the store, going to visit friends, etc.) when I can. People are willing to accept a little traffic for having a nice house out in the burbs. I'm sorry to tell you this but it's true. > > Oh God here we go with Europe again. Europe does this, Europe does > > that. You're like someone's bitchy annoying relative ("Why don't you > > be more like your cousing Jeffy?"). I don't know how or why they do > > that in Europe, but our citizens enjoy living their life differently. > > "Enjoy" is perhaps not the right word, given the endless bitching I hear > from people about traffic. But they also don't want to pay the trillion > dollars in taxes that it would take for our state to eliminate the road > congestion caused by our one-car-per-person lifestyle. Americans do > like the false sense of independence they get from using a car, I'll > certainly agree with you there, but car dependence creates many problems. Haha, "false sense of independence". I like that one. Apparently people don't know what's best for them.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:22:41 From: rotten Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 1:34 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:FO2dnQoOX9R6vjXbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message > >news:CJSdncWuINxHOjrbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > >>> Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of > >>> transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles. > > >> Joe, about once a year I visit a major metro and I am appalled by the > >> traffic congestion that I see everywhere in those metros. It is simply > >> insane how we keep piling up motor vehicles on top of motor vehicles. > > > It's how people want to live. > > Screw the people! I know better what is good for them than they do > themselves. You may laugh but this is an accepted premise in these kooky websites listed above. > >> I believe there is a 12 lane highway going into Washington DC from > >> Maryland and it is still not enough. God damn it - 12 lanes! Just how > >> fucking stupid can we get? > > > It's the 21st century. The government and the economy is set up to > > accomadate what people want realistically. To me a 12 lane highway is a > > great engineering achievement. If we ever get flying cars, we might look > > back at highway travel with the same silly nostaligia we look back on mass > > transit with. > > There are all kinds of wind power generators going up in the countryside > around here (SW Minnesota) and I took note of more new high power utility > lines going up along the interstate highway the other day. My God, the > countryside is being totally ruined! Take your brave new world and shove it > up your ass! I guess your computer is run by FIRE. > >> I would like to see all private motor vehicles banned forever from a > >> civilized nation. They reek of the 20th century and we no longer need > >> that kind of aggravation. > > > Well I'm sure you'd make a great and popular president. > > I just love to see grid lock in the Metros. I look at all the fools sitting > in their cars and think ... what g.d. fools they are! > > >> Mass transit is the only solution. Europe had this figured out many years > >> ago and now we will have to figure it out too. Personally, I have always > >> liked trolley cars. I remember that the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and > >> St.Paul) had a fairly good system back in the 40's and 50's. > > > Oh God here we go with Europe again. Europe does this, Europe does that. > > You're like someone's bitchy annoying relative ("Why don't you be more > > like your cousing Jeffy?"). I don't know how or why they do that in > > Europe, but our citizens enjoy living their life differently. A bunch of > > kooky, angry, impotent USENET posters isn't going to change that, or > > anything. > > It all has to do with population density. Hey, you want America to be like > it was when we grew up? Then you have to get rid of 150 million people. But > we are now at 300 million and we will soon be at 1 billion the way things > are going. Europe is just ahead of us, that is all. We will have to play > catch up since we cannot control our population. More kooky looniness. Europe is far more populated than we are.     Date: 29 Jul 2007 19:32:22 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1185499361.817887.57470@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 26, 1:34 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: [...] >> It all has to do with population density. Hey, you want America to be >> like >> it was when we grew up? Then you have to get rid of 150 million people. >> But >> we are now at 300 million and we will soon be at 1 billion the way things >> are going. Europe is just ahead of us, that is all. We will have to play >> catch up since we cannot control our population. > > More kooky looniness. Europe is far more populated than we are. But we are getting there you confounded idiot! If and when we become as populated as Europe we will have to resort to their way of managing things. Wyoming is empty compared to England; the Eastern Seaboard is not. What is there about this that you do not understand? Demography is destiny. Population 101. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:17:18 From: rotten Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 11:45 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:P-GdnaUTCO8ItTXbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > >news:DOUpi.4289$P32.3607@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > >> I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. For instance, we know that > >> having railroad tracks at grade with car and pedestrian traffic is less > >> safe than separating the two. However, often the unsafe situation is > >> allowed to remain for cost or other reasons (such as people don't want > >> the disruption of the construction involved). Another example is that > >> the absolute safest you can keep your child is if you lock him or her > >> into a bubble made of diamond. There are a lot of reasons why you might > >> make choices to allow him or her to be less safe than that. Hence > >> children on bike trails ;-). > > > I think it's generally nearly always your fault if you're a car or a > > pedestrian and you hit a train. If you're that stupid you deserve it. > > What if you're just waiting innocently in traffic an someone else gets hit > by the train and goes flying into you or derails the train on top of you? > Do you deserve that as well? In the rare event that that happens no, but it's still not the train's fault.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:31:34 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 4:08 pm, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > >> What I said. Psychle Farcilities are a thoroughly bad idea. They are > >> more dangerous, slower and more inconvenient than using the roads. The > >> less we have of them the better. Practice Vehicular Cycling on the road. > > > Practice riding on the road and buy Life Insurance. Your loved ones > > will appreciate it. ;) > > Good name choice, Don Quijote. Keep tilting at your windmills. > > Tony The windmills are very real... http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote6   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:30:08 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 26, 4:00 pm, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > SO WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THE CHOKING BICYCLE FACILITIES??? > > Try starting here:http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/TransQuart01.htm > > Tony "The Bikeway Controversy" No more controversies please. Just the problem (no bike facilities) and the solution (bike lanes, bike paths, right lane is bike lane, or just letting the gallon of gas be $10).     Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:37:09 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL donquijote1954 wrote: > > "The Bikeway Controversy" > > No more controversies please. Just the problem (no bike facilities) > and the solution (bike lanes, bike paths, right lane is bike lane, or > just letting the gallon of gas be $10). > You have it the wrong way round. The problems are the bike lanes, bike paths etc. The solution is no bike facilities. But I doubt you will accept that whatever the evidence. Tony     Date: 26 Jul 2007 20:33:46 From: Ian Smith Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.] On Thu, 26 Jul, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: > > "The Bikeway Controversy" > > No more controversies please. Just the problem (no bike facilities) > and the solution (bike lanes, bike paths, right lane is bike lane, or > just letting the gallon of gas be $10). You mean something must be done, and you don't care whether it's right or useful or beneficial? Are you running for office? regards, Ian SMith --   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:25:11 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 2:23 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > Are all the English idiots or just those who post to cycling newsgroups? I think others are more modest about it. They elected the wrong Prime Minister but at least they showed regret.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:18:46 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 1:22 pm, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > > Bike lanes reduce the ability of bicyclists to manage their lateral > > position, and their space is reduced. > > And they encourage cars to pass closer.http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf > > Tony So they recommend this... "Cycle Friendly Infrastructure [1] recommends that cycle lanes should be 2m wide wherever possible." Suggestion taken 2m (6 feet) should be plenty safe in wide fast roads.     Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:31:28 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? donquijote1954 wrote: > > So they recommend this... > > "Cycle Friendly Infrastructure [1] recommends that cycle lanes should > be 2m wide wherever possible." > No they don't. That was a statement not a recommendation. Their recommendations are: "Sub-standard cycle lanes should not be installed. All existing cycle lanes should be reviewed and either widened to the 2m recommended Cycle Friendly Infrastructure or removed. Further studies should be undertaken to discover how wide cycle lanes need to be in order to be of any benefit to cyclists." And their conclusions are: "The effect of the cycle lane studied in this report is to reduce the amount of roadspace available to cyclists, and therefore makes conditions significantly worse for cyclists." Tony   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:16:24 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 1:11 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > > We have very wide roads around here by European standards. One effect > > the bike lanes have is to make inexperienced cyclists more comfortable > > riding further from the curb than they otherwise would, and that > > decreases the chance of being cut off by a turning vehicle, but > > doesn't reduce it to zero. > > The increased distance inexperienced cyclists ride from the curb in a > bike lane is insignificant and has no bearing on the occurance of a hook > collision. > > For experts, the bike lanes make very > > > little difference (as long as they follow current design standards). > > Bike lanes reduce the ability of bicyclists to manage their lateral > position, and their space is reduced. So what's your solution? I say let the right lane be the bike lane. No cars there, period. Car hitting bicycle upon making right could have a nice vacation on Guantanamo Base. Orange uniform will fit them nicely.     Date: 26 Jul 2007 16:56:11 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? donquijote1954 wrote: > So what's your solution? I say let the right lane be the bike lane. No > cars there, period. Car hitting bicycle upon making right could have a > nice vacation on Guantanamo Base. Orange uniform will fit them nicely. > The outside normal lane *is* the "bike lane." There just happens to be cars and other motor vehicles in it. If you don't want them to pass you in your lane, use more of it. Wayne   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:09:00 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 12:30 pm, Roger Thorpe <myinitial.mysurn...@warwick.ac.uk > wrote: > Edward Dolan wrote: > > > He is an Englishman living in Dundee, Scotland who has the worst signature > > in all of Usenet. Look it up! Furthermore, he is a Medical Physics IT > > Officer (whatever the hell that is) at some fucking hospital. You have been > > warned. > > > Regards, > > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > > aka > > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > Notice that he puts his phone number on the sig. Are you brave enough to > do that and if not why not? > If you agree with the system you got nothing to fear. It's when you oppose it that you start getting nervous... Read "1984" for a refreshing view of being in the opposition.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:07:20 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 12:25 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:FO2dnQsOX9R6vjXbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message > >news:osGdnShm0PvqPjrbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > >> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:F46dnRJUrcUtDDrbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@comcast.com... > > >>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message > >>>news:g4SdnVUGO448HTrbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > >>>> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > >>>>news:5goi9kF3h93cpU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>> Joe the Aroma wrote: > > >>>>>> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen > >>>>>> is because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and > >>>>>> therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. > > >>>>> Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: > >>>>> they tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, > >>>>> provide routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and > >>>>> routing) and give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on > >>>>> the roads. > > >>>>> The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm > >>>>> sure, vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a > >>>>> problem, and you look at the government's figures for accidents and > >>>>> you can see that it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less > >>>>> dangerous than being a pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is > >>>>> that it's verging on the suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic > >>>>> and thus we need bike paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we > >>>>> don't. > > >>>> What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth > >>>> responding to. > > >>> You know I'm right, little man. > > >> Examine Peter Clinch's self-serving signature and then examine mine. Now > >> you know who is Great and who is a midget and a dwarf. Ah, for the good > >> old days of Victorian and Edwardian England! > > > What? Who the fsck is Peter Clinch? > > He is an Englishman living in Dundee, Scotland who has the worst signature > in all of Usenet. Look it up! Furthermore, he is a Medical Physics IT > Officer (whatever the hell that is) at some fucking hospital. You have been > warned. I don't know, his views are too American. Well, Americans can wake up too, so we hope.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:05:43 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 11:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1185451051.423299.308700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >> On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) > >>> and > >>> I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car > >>> people > >>> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you > >>> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or > >>> whatever, > >>> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. > > >> America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no > >> harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path -- > >> Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike > >> lanes. > > > You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You > > wanted a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to > > do with the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes > > and most people are happy with their own personal health care. Period. > > I think if you visit Scandinavian countries, you will find that the issue of > bike-friendly infrastructure and healthcare are intimately connected in ways > that are difficult to explain to people who are not open to making such > connections easily.- Yep, but the connecting word is loud and clear: DEMOCRACY.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:02:53 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On Jul 26, 9:58 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: > > Tony Raven wrote: > > >> Which is I believe known as policy based evidence making. > > > Indeed. > > > Start with the "common sense" conclusion, rather than end with it, and > > then design all your so-called research so that it shows what you've > > decided is the answer. It's so much easier than doing actual proper > > science because the world is so much more predictable when you ignore > > what it really does! > > As a Prof A Einstein once said "If the facts don't fit the theory, > change the facts." Your facts are very relative. Relative to wheter you drive or ride a bike. That's the Theory of Relativity applied to bikes on the road.     Date: 28 Jul 2007 10:50:30 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? donquijote1954 wrote: > Your facts are very relative. Relative to wheter you drive or ride a > bike. That's the Theory of Relativity applied to bikes on the road. If you ride a bike, bike facilities don't typically make you safer. If you drive a car, bike facilities don't typically make cyclists any safer. I suppose there is some difference between those two (true) statements in a relative sort of sense, but not a difference that makes me want bike lanes. FWIW, I drive cars and ride bikes on the same roads. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:00:08 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 9:39 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > Joe the Aroma wrote: > > "Tony Raven" <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:Oradnf3FmYBCEDXbnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net... > >> Joe the Aroma wrote: > >>> No wonder you anti-car people are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're > >>> LOONY, and if you weren't you could actually convince people to create > >>> bike lanes or trails or whatever, and it would be a good thing. Posting > >>> loony article does you no good. > > >> Oh I don't know. If it keeps them from building more cycle farcilities > >> many cyclists would see that as a good thing. > > > What? > > What I said. Psychle Farcilities are a thoroughly bad idea. They are > more dangerous, slower and more inconvenient than using the roads. The > less we have of them the better. Practice Vehicular Cycling on the road. Practice riding on the road and buy Life Insurance. Your loved ones will appreciate it. ;)     Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:17:08 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized donquijote1954 wrote: > Practice riding on the road and buy Life Insurance. Your loved ones > will appreciate it. ;) I do practice riding on the road. As does my wife. We don't have life insurance. It would actually be just as relevant to being a pedestrian if you look at the figures rather than jump to unwarranted conclusions. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:08:34 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized donquijote1954 wrote: >> What I said. Psychle Farcilities are a thoroughly bad idea. They are >> more dangerous, slower and more inconvenient than using the roads. The >> less we have of them the better. Practice Vehicular Cycling on the road. > > Practice riding on the road and buy Life Insurance. Your loved ones > will appreciate it. ;) > Good name choice, Don Quijote. Keep tilting at your windmills. Tony   Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:58:41 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 26, 9:14 am, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185451051.423299.308700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) > >> and > >> I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car > >> people > >> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you > >> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or > >> whatever, > >> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. > > > America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no > > harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path -- > > Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike > > lanes. > > You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You wanted > a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to do with > the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes and most > people are happy with their own personal health care. Period. Are YOU happy with it? Do YOU personally have healthcare insurance? It's like asking about bike lanes to someone who hates bikes. Do YOU go to the market by bike? I rest my case.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:55:53 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 26, 9:12 am, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Just look at OUR MAN TO THE WHITE HOUSE... > > You're a kook. This has nothing to do with Bush, these policies were in > place before Bush, kook. I know, I know. That's why I don't believe in Democrats either, or even Michael for that matter... OPEN LETTER TO MICHAEL MOORE Michael, here's the Candidate for you We know you failed last time since your candidate wasn't elected (and even if he did, he wouldn't have made much of a difference), so now we are proposing to you a real winner, with real solutions like, "Naturally, education and healthcare should be the maximum priorities; they should be free --or low cost, in the case of higher education-- and accessible to all." Very timely with your new Sicko movie, right? Anyway, we know you are very busy with the press and everything, but we got to find a solution somehow. You know the powers that be won't let it happen without a fight. IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY, you know. Luckily we got someone who won't do like Clinton did in '92. You know even well intentioned people change their mind when they face THE JUNGLE. Did you hear all about it? Well, I don't want to carry on, but perhaps the thought that we must change the jungle first. Hey, we are even considering giving you one of those T-shirts that are the rage in the jungle. Good for monkeys, you know... http://cafepress.com/peacebanana Almost like PEACE AND LOVE, right? Well, we added the word JUSTICE, which is so important if we are to come out of the jungle. Shoot! You are a very busy man enjoying the limelight now, so I'll let you go. Just remember that we need a solution. Quickly. We are all sick and tired of the jungle, you know. Or perhaps the jungle is making us sick, whatever. Here it goes... Our Man to the White House http://webspawner.com/users/elections2008   Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:51:11 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On Jul 26, 9:09 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > Have you been reading this thread? Did you hear about SPEED > > DIFFERENTIAL? Do you know why scooters are not allowed on highways? > > Right, SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. If you ride a bike on a major road, you'll > > be a sitting duck because the driver behind you --who otherwise is > > engaged on the phone-- won't expect a vehicle to be travelling 10MPH. > > And you only got one life, you know. Just like many that went into > > that predatory war well know. > > Have you been reading the data. Being hit from behind is a very rare > accident on the roads. The vast majority of accidents are conflicts at > junctions. In the UK riding on the road is safer than walking on the > sidewalk as far as being killed by a motor vehicle is concerned. In > fact it is estimated that if you cycled at 15mph for 8 hours a day 365 > days a year the mean time to a fatal accident would be 8,600 years. I > think I have more important threats to my life to worry about. The risk > for experienced cyclists is 5-8 times lower still while the health > benefits give regular cyclists a two year increased life expectancy. > > But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good scare story. Perhaps you guys have better trained drivers, not engaged on the phone, or driving Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles around. You know, it all adds to the terror...     Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:02:57 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? donquijote1954 wrote: > > Perhaps you guys have better trained drivers, not engaged on the > phone, or driving Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles around. You know, it > all adds to the terror... > I've cycled extensively in your country including some very busy roads and find your drivers more courteous and less worrying than our drivers in the UK. YMMV. Tony   Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:46:05 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 26, 9:07 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > > Have you been reading this thread? Did you hear about SPEED > > DIFFERENTIAL? Do you know why scooters are not allowed on highways? > > Right, SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. If you ride a bike on a major road, you'll > > be a sitting duck because the driver behind you --who otherwise is > > engaged on the phone-- won't expect a vehicle to be travelling 10MPH. > > Yet despite all these things you say /will/ be the case, the actual > accident figures tell a different story, and the story they tell is what > *actually happens*. > > "Common sense" isn't either common or necessarily sensible. For a > better idea of what happens, look at what happens, rather than theorise > what you think ought to. Are you talking about the UK or America? I know people in America don't take a bike to go to the market. And the 1% that commutes by bike tells you how many people out there ride them for real life situations. Actually the stats I saw of the UK are not better than 3%, so your lack bike facilities shows too.     Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:00:10 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL donquijote1954 wrote: > > Actually the stats I saw of the UK are not better than 3%, > so your lack bike facilities shows too. > Facilities have nothing to do with numbers cycling despite popular myths. In the late '80s and early '90s the Netherlands doubled and Germany trebled their cycle network with no change in the numbers cycling. The place that saw a growth in cycling over that period was the USA that did virtually nothing to its facilities. Tony   Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:41:08 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 26, 9:03 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > Well yes, since it ghettoises me and increases my risk while slowing me > down and often removing my priorities at junctions, and in places where > there is no such lane drivers are no longer expecting me to be sharing > their space and they're no longer used to bikes. > > The call for more bike lines/paths assumes, without any critical > analysis, that they /must/ be better. That's the wrong way to go about > it. You first establish that they genuinely *are* better before calling > for more of them. I have yet to see any real analysis showing they make > life better, I find on the ground that they typically make my life > worse, I have seen some real analysis suggesting they make life worse. > Doesn't look like a copper-bottomed idea to ask for lots more of them... You know what, I need a study of the causes and consequences, as well as the moral aspects as well, of all your viewpoints. But before I leave you, I'd like like to comment on a commercial now showing here... A group of co-workers is having lunch when one of them starts choking. Then one guy makes all kinds of comments he read about what to do in such cases --but does nothing. And another guy finally helps the choking man out of suffocation. SO WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THE CHOKING BICYCLE FACILITIES???     Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:11:31 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL donquijote1954 wrote: > But before I leave you, I'd like like to comment on a commercial now > showing here... A group of co-workers is having lunch when one of them > starts choking. Then one guy makes all kinds of comments he read about > what to do in such cases --but does nothing. And another guy finally > helps the choking man out of suffocation. > > SO WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THE CHOKING BICYCLE FACILITIES??? First, see what causes the choking, and then act. Rather than say, "I know what to do, I saw it on TV!", wade in and kill your choker with what turns out to be inappropriate action. If you study the effects of bike infrastructure you see it doesn't help. So going ahead with something you know won't work, because it's been seen not to, is just a case of "we must do something. This is something. So we'll do it". All you'll do is waste money and time /and not actually stop the choking/. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:00:47 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL donquijote1954 wrote: > > > SO WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THE CHOKING BICYCLE FACILITIES??? > Try starting here: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/TransQuart01.htm Tony   Date: 26 Jul 2007 05:29:05 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Jul 26, 7:21 am, Tadej Brezina <tadej_use...@gmx.at > wrote: > Jack May wrote: > > "Zoot Katz" <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote in message > >news:iqtca3pkrnssqctmv3mc9m00lt6rukpao1@4ax.com... > >>On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May" > >><jack....@comcast.net> missed it when he wrote: > >>Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with > >>their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing > >>non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car. > > Oh here we go again with somebody throwing everything they can think of into > > a cost number to pump it up as high as possible. Useless approach. > > Similarly useless as all those approaches externalising many of those > costs produced by cars. > > >>Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's > >>destination is well within bicycling range. > > > So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all > > your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an > > evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game. > > Hey Jack, if you would have a clue about evolution, not just using it as > a fancy pseudo argument, then two basic evolutionary principles would > come to your mind, that directly contradict your repeating claims: > > 1. Evolution aint over, till it's over. Mamals once were also only a > rather small portion of life, and the dinosaurs, if they were able to > with their tiny brains, probably also thought "Mamals have lost the > evolution game, he he he". > > 2. Evolution always goes the maximum efficiency / minimum energy > expenditure per purpose way in the long run. > That modern/western world's fossile fuel consumming and polluting > transport system does not fit nature's principles is figured out by > every elementary school pupil. > So go figure it out for yourself. We may as well use this quotation: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin     Date: 26 Jul 2007 17:01:34 From: Tadej Brezina Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? donquijote1954 wrote: > On Jul 26, 7:21 am, Tadej Brezina <tadej_use...@gmx.at> wrote: > >>Jack May wrote: >> >>>"Zoot Katz" <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote in message >>>news:iqtca3pkrnssqctmv3mc9m00lt6rukpao1@4ax.com... >>> >>>>On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May" >>>><jack....@comcast.net> missed it when he wrote: >>>>Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with >>>>their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing >>>>non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car. >>> >>>Oh here we go again with somebody throwing everything they can think of into >>>a cost number to pump it up as high as possible. Useless approach. >> >>Similarly useless as all those approaches externalising many of those >>costs produced by cars. >> >> >>>>Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's >>>>destination is well within bicycling range. >> >>>So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all >>>your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an >>>evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game. >> >>Hey Jack, if you would have a clue about evolution, not just using it as >>a fancy pseudo argument, then two basic evolutionary principles would >>come to your mind, that directly contradict your repeating claims: >> >>1. Evolution aint over, till it's over. Mamals once were also only a >>rather small portion of life, and the dinosaurs, if they were able to >>with their tiny brains, probably also thought "Mamals have lost the >>evolution game, he he he". >> >>2. Evolution always goes the maximum efficiency / minimum energy >>expenditure per purpose way in the long run. >>That modern/western world's fossile fuel consumming and polluting >>transport system does not fit nature's principles is figured out by >>every elementary school pupil. >>So go figure it out for yourself. > > > We may as well use this quotation: "It is not the strongest of the > species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most > responsive to change." -Charles Darwin Although trait number 2 may specifically be of help for trait number 3! Tadej -- "Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat." <Martina Diel in d.t.r >   Date: 26 Jul 2007 05:27:00 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL On Jul 26, 4:19 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > Would you have given up driving amongst cars and trucks if you'd had a > similarly nasty accident while driving? Would you have given up being a > pedestrian along streets if a similarly nasty accident had happened to > you while being a pedestrian? If you don't want to cycle with traffic > any more then it's your life and I'm not trying to force you, but I > don't see it pays you to treat cycling differently to walking or > driving, which can get you killed similarly easily. > Your lack of common sense shows that America doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity. Actually your are the only civilized country that went along in this predatory war over oil. Have you been reading this thread? Did you hear about SPEED DIFFERENTIAL? Do you know why scooters are not allowed on highways? Right, SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. If you ride a bike on a major road, you'll be a sitting duck because the driver behind you --who otherwise is engaged on the phone-- won't expect a vehicle to be travelling 10MPH. And you only got one life, you know. Just like many that went into that predatory war well know.     Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:09:58 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL donquijote1954 wrote: > > Have you been reading this thread? Did you hear about SPEED > DIFFERENTIAL? Do you know why scooters are not allowed on highways? > Right, SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. If you ride a bike on a major road, you'll > be a sitting duck because the driver behind you --who otherwise is > engaged on the phone-- won't expect a vehicle to be travelling 10MPH. > And you only got one life, you know. Just like many that went into > that predatory war well know. > Have you been reading the data. Being hit from behind is a very rare accident on the roads. The vast majority of accidents are conflicts at junctions. In the UK riding on the road is safer than walking on the sidewalk as far as being killed by a motor vehicle is concerned. In fact it is estimated that if you cycled at 15mph for 8 hours a day 365 days a year the mean time to a fatal accident would be 8,600 years. I think I have more important threats to my life to worry about. The risk for experienced cyclists is 5-8 times lower still while the health benefits give regular cyclists a two year increased life expectancy. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good scare story. Tony       Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:23:37 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL "Tony Raven" <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote in message news:3--dnRKs5fm0ADXbnZ2dnUVZ8qaqnZ2d@pipex.net... > donquijote1954 wrote: > >> >> Have you been reading this thread? Did you hear about SPEED >> DIFFERENTIAL? Do you know why scooters are not allowed on highways? >> Right, SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. If you ride a bike on a major road, you'll >> be a sitting duck because the driver behind you --who otherwise is >> engaged on the phone-- won't expect a vehicle to be travelling 10MPH. >> And you only got one life, you know. Just like many that went into >> that predatory war well know. >> > > Have you been reading the data. Being hit from behind is a very rare > accident on the roads. The vast majority of accidents are conflicts at > junctions. In the UK riding on the road is safer than walking on the > sidewalk as far as being killed by a motor vehicle is concerned. In fact > it is estimated that if you cycled at 15mph for 8 hours a day 365 days a > year the mean time to a fatal accident would be 8,600 years. I think I > have more important threats to my life to worry about. The risk for > experienced cyclists is 5-8 times lower still while the health benefits > give regular cyclists a two year increased life expectancy. > > But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good scare story. I never let any so-called facts get in the way of my commonsense. Any idiot knows that cycling on the highways and byways with motor vehicles can easily get you killed, whereas walking on a sidewalk is very safe indeed. Are all the English idiots or just those who post to cycling newsgroups? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota PS. I have come to the conclusion that most of you do know what to do with a fact. You need to treat it with the contempt that it deserves. What matters is not the fact, but what you THINK about the fact. Please try to get up to speed, why don't you?     Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:07:40 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL donquijote1954 wrote: > Your lack of common sense shows that America doesn't have a monopoly > on stupidity. Actually your are the only civilized country that went > along in this predatory war over oil. > > Have you been reading this thread? Did you hear about SPEED > DIFFERENTIAL? Do you know why scooters are not allowed on highways? > Right, SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. If you ride a bike on a major road, you'll > be a sitting duck because the driver behind you --who otherwise is > engaged on the phone-- won't expect a vehicle to be travelling 10MPH. Yet despite all these things you say /will/ be the case, the actual accident figures tell a different story, and the story they tell is what *actually happens*. "Common sense" isn't either common or necessarily sensible. For a better idea of what happens, look at what happens, rather than theorise what you think ought to. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:10:58 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:5grkktF3hqd4tU1@mid.individual.net... > donquijote1954 wrote: > >> Your lack of common sense shows that America doesn't have a monopoly >> on stupidity. Actually your are the only civilized country that went >> along in this predatory war over oil. >> >> Have you been reading this thread? Did you hear about SPEED >> DIFFERENTIAL? Do you know why scooters are not allowed on highways? >> Right, SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. If you ride a bike on a major road, you'll >> be a sitting duck because the driver behind you --who otherwise is >> engaged on the phone-- won't expect a vehicle to be travelling 10MPH. > > Yet despite all these things you say /will/ be the case, the actual > accident figures tell a different story, and the story they tell is what > *actually happens*. > > "Common sense" isn't either common or necessarily sensible. For a better > idea of what happens, look at what happens, rather than theorise what you > think ought to. What an idiot! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 26 Jul 2007 05:18:24 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On Jul 26, 3:53 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes > > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, > > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything > > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being > > injured. > > It doesn't surprise me at all, but all the same it would be much, much, > much better if they supported things that *actually* reduce the chances, > rather than things that they assume reduce them, but have no clear track > record of actually doing so. > > > Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more > > comfortable when there is one. > > For some values of "comfortable". I doubt that the several documented > cases of commuters being crushed (fatally, in several cases) against > roadside railings by left turning trucks (that'll be equivalent to right > turn if you drive on the right where you're reading this) as they > "comfortably" made their way up the inside on cycle lanes just as the > lights turned green were too comfortable as they had the life squeezed > out of them. > > > And our traffic engineers like them as > > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes > > double as breakdown lanes > > So when I'm cycling along there's asuddenly a broken down vehicle in my > way, and now I have to go out into the main traffic flow /where nobody > expects me because there is a bike lane/. That's not a Good Thing. > They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no effort and > they get to think they're doing something useful. > > The most common effect of these lanes is to force cyclists closer to the > kerb than it's often wise to cycle, and allows drivers to think it's > fine to overtake with minimal clearance just as long as there's a white > line between them and the cyclist. Compare and contrast to how you > should overtake on a road with no such lane:http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139 > > > In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road > > and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely > > separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really > > bicycle/pedestrian paths. > > They are popular amongst people who /assume/ they are a safety benefit. > They are less popular among cyclists who've read the record of what > they actually achieve. > Seehttp://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html I'm still waiting for YOUR solution. Bike Lanes don't work, the Status Quo is even worse, so what's f*** solution? I got one: LET THE RIGHT LANE BE A BIKE LANE. Any objections?     Date: 27 Jul 2007 17:40:16 From: coyoteboy Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? >> They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no effort and >> they get to think they're doing something useful. From what I hear the highways engineers hate them but are required to include certain percentages.     Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:03:36 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? donquijote1954 wrote: > I'm still waiting for YOUR solution. Bike Lanes don't work, the Status > Quo is even worse You /assume/ it's worse, but if you look at some actual figures, rather than what you assume they probably might be, you'll find that cycling on the roads is not actually worse (and is indeed typically better) than cycling on bike lanes and bike paths. There will be exceptions to that, but they're the exceptions, not the rules. > so what's f*** solution? The first thing is do decent quantitative analysis of the problem. Since it typically turns out that people have more accidents on bike lanes and paths than on roads, it's not shouting out that the solution is more bike lanes/paths. > I got one: LET THE RIGHT > LANE BE A BIKE LANE. Any objections? Well yes, since it ghettoises me and increases my risk while slowing me down and often removing my priorities at junctions, and in places where there is no such lane drivers are no longer expecting me to be sharing their space and they're no longer used to bikes. The call for more bike lines/paths assumes, without any critical analysis, that they /must/ be better. That's the wrong way to go about it. You first establish that they genuinely *are* better before calling for more of them. I have yet to see any real analysis showing they make life better, I find on the ground that they typically make my life worse, I have seen some real analysis suggesting they make life worse. Doesn't look like a copper-bottomed idea to ask for lots more of them... Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:12:27 From: dgk Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:03:36 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >donquijote1954 wrote: > >> I'm still waiting for YOUR solution. Bike Lanes don't work, the Status >> Quo is even worse > >You /assume/ it's worse, but if you look at some actual figures, rather >than what you assume they probably might be, you'll find that cycling on >the roads is not actually worse (and is indeed typically better) than >cycling on bike lanes and bike paths. There will be exceptions to that, >but they're the exceptions, not the rules. > >> so what's f*** solution? Cycling needs to be fun or folks won't do it. The parts of my ride where I am on major streets (like 2nd ave heading south in Manhattan) are not fun. Riding on a path where I don't need to worry about cars, buses, trucks, and taxis, is fun. Most people do not enjoy riding bikes in car traffic.       Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:13:19 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? Peter Clinch wrote: > > it's not shouting out that the solution is more > bike lanes/paths. > Which is I believe known as policy based evidence making. Tony         Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:50:40 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? Tony Raven wrote: > Which is I believe known as policy based evidence making. Indeed. Start with the "common sense" conclusion, rather than end with it, and then design all your so-called research so that it shows what you've decided is the answer. It's so much easier than doing actual proper science because the world is so much more predictable when you ignore what it really does! Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:13:49 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:5grn5gF3doiosU1@mid.individual.net... > Tony Raven wrote: > >> Which is I believe known as policy based evidence making. > > Indeed. > > Start with the "common sense" conclusion, rather than end with it, and > then design all your so-called research so that it shows what you've > decided is the answer. It's so much easier than doing actual proper > science because the world is so much more predictable when you ignore what > it really does! > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ Poor Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland would not know anything about science anymore than a fucking Medical Physics IT Officer would. How you get to be so stupid as him is one for the books. Why don't the Scots kick this execrable Englishman out of their country? God Damn Anglo-Saxons anyway! We Celts hate them! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:58:31 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? Peter Clinch wrote: > Tony Raven wrote: > >> Which is I believe known as policy based evidence making. > > Indeed. > > Start with the "common sense" conclusion, rather than end with it, and > then design all your so-called research so that it shows what you've > decided is the answer. It's so much easier than doing actual proper > science because the world is so much more predictable when you ignore > what it really does! > As a Prof A Einstein once said "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." Tony             Date: 26 Jul 2007 15:50:33 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? Tony Raven wrote: > As a Prof A Einstein once said "If the facts don't fit the theory, > change the facts." I didn't realise that was Einstein. I'd seen one in the Murphy's Law book: "If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of. Corollary: if no more than 50% of the data has to be thrown away, the theory can be considered a success." Still don't think that lets in cycle infrastructure as a success, mind... ;-/ Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 26 Jul 2007 04:57:31 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) and > I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car people > are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you > could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or whatever, > and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path -- Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike lanes.     Date: 05 Aug 2007 12:17:19 From: Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Aug 5, 11:18 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 5, 7:12 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > > > > > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote in messagenews:46b4f24d$0$30848$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > > > > Andrew Muzi wrote: > > >>>>>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed, > > >>>>>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US. > > > >>>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote > > >>>>> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago > > >>>>> when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is > > >>>>> now, > > > >>>> Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote: > > >>>>> I think it's hasty to make that conclusion. > > > >>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote > > >>>> My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market > > >>>> health care in the U.S. > > > >> Edward Dolan wrote: > > >>> Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US. The > > >>> present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single payer > > >>> system (the government). Such a health care system will be like the > > >>> public school system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense. > > >>> It ought to be financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich > > >>> and/or a value added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A > > >>> total no-brainer! > > > >> You have obviously not thought that through to its logical conclusion > > > > My logical conclusion was that I could not afford to get treatment for a > > > chronic health problem, since my portion of the expenses was more than my > > > discretionary income - and yes, I am "covered" under a[n] employer > > > provided "health plan". I really need to start trying to get a job in > > > Canada. > > > > More than 50% of recent personal bankruptcies in the US are from people > > > who got sick, lost their jobs and/or health coverage or exceeded the > > > coverage limits, and exhausted their financial assets on medical bills. > > > Great system, eh? > > > Mr. Sherman is a professional civil engineer with a very good job and yet he > > finds himself in trouble. That says it all. > > > No nation that has gone to government paid health care has ever voted to > > give it up. Most of us do not want transplants or other heroic medical > > procedures, but we do want garden variety health care. Heath care needs to > > be made a right and not something you can only get if you can afford to pay > > for it. Where the Hell did such a crazy idea ever come from in the first > > place? > > > The sooner the present system goes kaput, the better. If I did not have the > > VA, I would have to think about emigrating to Canada myself. > > I suggested this to you elsewhere: Relocate the capital to Ottawa. How > would we go about it? (Within the Constitution, that is?) Hey, that's where I live! We've got some very nice bike paths (sorry, "multi-user recreational pathwways" that started out as just bike paths) , about 180 kilometres worth. I use them on occasion, but there is enough of a cycling presence here that most motorists are pretty considerate. There are of course a few suburban arterial roads that I'd rather not be on if I can help it, but then again I try to avoid the suburbs in general. That said, we have a severe shortage of family doctors here. In Ottawa I think the number without a family physician is 40%. Of course there are lots of walk-in clinics, but a regular family doctor is much preferred as one gets old and starts needing those regular tests... Mark       Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:39:33 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized <mark@drumbent.com > wrote in message news:1186341439.475281.234550@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 5, 11:18 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On Aug 5, 7:12 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote in >> > messagenews:46b4f24d$0$30848$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... >> >> > > Andrew Muzi wrote: >> > >>>>>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has >> > >>>>>> failed, >> > >>>>>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US. >> >> > >>>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote >> > >>>>> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons >> > >>>>> ago >> > >>>>> when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it >> > >>>>> is >> > >>>>> now, >> >> > >>>> Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote: >> > >>>>> I think it's hasty to make that conclusion. >> >> > >>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote >> > >>>> My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free >> > >>>> market >> > >>>> health care in the U.S. >> >> > >> Edward Dolan wrote: >> > >>> Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the >> > >>> US. The >> > >>> present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single >> > >>> payer >> > >>> system (the government). Such a health care system will be like the >> > >>> public school system. It is not socialism, but simply good common >> > >>> sense. >> > >>> It ought to be financed via higher progressive income taxes on the >> > >>> rich >> > >>> and/or a value added tax on those who like to spend money on >> > >>> luxuries. A >> > >>> total no-brainer! >> >> > >> You have obviously not thought that through to its logical >> > >> conclusion >> >> > > My logical conclusion was that I could not afford to get treatment >> > > for a >> > > chronic health problem, since my portion of the expenses was more >> > > than my >> > > discretionary income - and yes, I am "covered" under a[n] employer >> > > provided "health plan". I really need to start trying to get a job in >> > > Canada. >> >> > > More than 50% of recent personal bankruptcies in the US are from >> > > people >> > > who got sick, lost their jobs and/or health coverage or exceeded the >> > > coverage limits, and exhausted their financial assets on medical >> > > bills. >> > > Great system, eh? >> >> > Mr. Sherman is a professional civil engineer with a very good job and >> > yet he >> > finds himself in trouble. That says it all. >> >> > No nation that has gone to government paid health care has ever voted >> > to >> > give it up. Most of us do not want transplants or other heroic medical >> > procedures, but we do want garden variety health care. Heath care needs >> > to >> > be made a right and not something you can only get if you can afford to >> > pay >> > for it. Where the Hell did such a crazy idea ever come from in the >> > first >> > place? >> >> > The sooner the present system goes kaput, the better. If I did not have >> > the >> > VA, I would have to think about emigrating to Canada myself. >> >> I suggested this to you elsewhere: Relocate the capital to Ottawa. How >> would we go about it? (Within the Constitution, that is?) > > > Hey, that's where I live! We've got some very nice bike paths (sorry, > "multi-user recreational pathwways" that started out as just bike > paths) , about 180 kilometres worth. I use them on occasion, but > there is enough of a cycling presence here that most motorists are > pretty considerate. There are of course a few suburban arterial roads > that I'd rather not be on if I can help it, but then again I try to > avoid the suburbs in general. > > That said, we have a severe shortage of family doctors here. In Ottawa > I think the number without a family physician is 40%. Of course there > are lots of walk-in clinics, but a regular family doctor is much > preferred as one gets old and starts needing those regular tests... "No nation that has gone to government paid health care has ever voted to give it up." - Ed Dolan Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota     Date: 26 Jul 2007 09:14:32 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185451051.423299.308700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) >> and >> I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car >> people >> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you >> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or >> whatever, >> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. > > America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no > harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path -- > Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike > lanes. You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You wanted a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to do with the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes and most people are happy with their own personal health care. Period.       Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:45:54 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Aug 5, 3:24 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > >> donquijote1954 who? wrote: > >>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > >>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: > >>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: > >>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask > >>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE > >>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... > >>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak. > >>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the > >>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down > >>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention > >>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the > >>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is. > > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote > >> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is > >> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken > >> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true > >> danger of cycling. > Edward Dolan wrote: > > Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely > > dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much. > > Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone > from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in > the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home > bitching will kill you sooner. > -- > Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971- For some people the option is STATIONARY BIKES. (And they come with handlebars for upper body workout,)       Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:05:26 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1185451051.423299.308700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) >>> and >>> I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car >>> people >>> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you >>> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or >>> whatever, >>> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. >> >> America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no >> harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path -- >> Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike >> lanes. > > You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You > wanted a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to > do with the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes > and most people are happy with their own personal health care. Period. The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't know of anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy with it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every other industrialized nation in the world. The Repubs had better get on board on this issue or they are going to find themselves a permanent minority party just like they did after the Great Depression when Coolidge (or was it fucking Hoover) thought the government did not have any business providing jobs, let alone welfare. What the hell do you think government is for if not to provided services to people? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota PS. Get rid of your fucking user name We here on these cycling newsgroups do not give a damn how much you stink, although your messages are smelling up the place I must admit. PS2. Anyone seen the Michael Moore movie "Sicko"? I would not mind seeing this move myself since I am such a great critic of our present healthcare system.         Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:56:40 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: TAMING THE BEAST On Aug 5, 4:26 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> writes: > > > On 04 Aug 2007 17:07:43 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > > said in <87ejiin8s0....@nospam.pacbell.net>: > > > >so you were a young, inexerpienced cyclist at one point and had > > >problems that cleared up when you had more experience, but for some > > >reason you attributed your former problems to bike lanes rather than > > >to your lack of experience. > > > What always amuses me about your posts, Bill, is that you make > > comments like this without spotting the self-evident irony. > > What's always amusing about you anti-bikelane fanatics is how you > act like a bull in a china shop whenever anyone doesn't disparage > bike lanes. :-) > > > See how Tome points out what happened as he became a more > > experienced and skilful cyclist? He took to not using cycle > > "facilities", just as many other experienced cyclists choose to > > avoid them, and for the same reasons: they fix a problem which is > > largely illusory (danger from same direction traffic) at the expense > > of increasing a danger which absolutely is not (danger at junctions > > and from opposing traffic). > > Nope, he merely developed the skills needed to ride safely in traffic, > and then got some sort of anti-bike lane religion, I don't think the believes held by the anti-lane crowd is a religion... It's a more of a sect, luckily mostly confined to America, and some copycats in the UK.         Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:47:55 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Aug 5, 3:28 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com > wrote: > Andrew Muzi wrote: > > Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone > > from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in > > the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home > > bitching will kill you sooner. > > Don't you find the commute much safer when UW is on break? The moronic > undergraduate pedestrians wandering out into the street and idiotic > motor scooter riders create considerable chaos. The scooters are not that idiotic. They fill a void particularly when riding a bike in traffic puts you at odds with cars. Mine is parked outside. ;)           Date: 05 Aug 2007 22:10:19 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized donquijote1954 wrote: > On Aug 5, 3:28 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >> Andrew Muzi wrote: >>> Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone >>> from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in >>> the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home >>> bitching will kill you sooner. >> Don't you find the commute much safer when UW is on break? The moronic >> undergraduate pedestrians wandering out into the street and idiotic >> motor scooter riders create considerable chaos. > > The scooters are not that idiotic. They fill a void particularly when > riding a bike in traffic puts you at odds with cars. > > Mine is parked outside. ;) Note that the adjective "idiotic" modifies "riders", not "scooters". Considering that motor scooters can travel the speed limit or more on urban streets, and some can keep up with traffic on arterial roads, they need to be operated the same way as motorcycles, not as bicycles. However, in the area near Andrew's shop, it is not uncommon to find students on scooters riding at considerable speed on the side walk, across pedestrian only areas, running stop signs and stop lights, etc. When climate allows, modern scooters (with low emission engines) are more desirable than single occupant cars, since they use less fuel and space. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:14:52 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Aug 5, 6:53 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote in messagenews:46b4eb50$0$16403$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > > > > > > > donquijote1954 who? wrote: > >> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > >> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: > >>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: > >>>> ... > >>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask > >>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE > >>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... > >>> Google "Hubbert's Peak. > > >> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the > >> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down > >> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention > >> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the > >> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is. > > > How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is > > and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken > > Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true > > danger of cycling. > > Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely > dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much. Even a caveman knows that. 15 minutes in the street is all you need to know that.       Date: 26 Jul 2007 10:49:25 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1185451051.423299.308700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) >>> and >>> I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car >>> people >>> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you >>> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or >>> whatever, >>> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. >> >> America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no >> harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path -- >> Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike >> lanes. > > You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You > wanted a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to > do with the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes > and most people are happy with their own personal health care. Period. I think if you visit Scandinavian countries, you will find that the issue of bike-friendly infrastructure and healthcare are intimately connected in ways that are difficult to explain to people who are not open to making such connections easily.   Date: 26 Jul 2007 04:53:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 25, 6:57 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Oh yes. Democratic societies would build BIKE LANES and have HEALTH > > INSURANCE, though I don't know how the last one applies here. ;) > > Errr, no they wouldn't. The last might be true if most people didn't have > health insurance. You think the only democratic activity is voting a president every four year, who's really no different from the opposition? Democratic endeavors would make people participate --demand-- healthcare and bike lanes by those who most need it. That's a wrong concept of "democracy" you have. > > OK, and where are they coexisting? Perhaps in small places like Key > > West? No wonder people feel so free down there. > > Well... not in a lot of places. We need to change some policies changed in > this country, along with some fundamental assumptions. I won't get into > them, other than to say that the one that comes to mind is that driving is a > "right" and not a "priveledge".- That's a good one, but also need to change what we look in a candidate --not soundbites but ISSUES. Just look at OUR MAN TO THE WHITE HOUSE... "History has tried hard to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of the government couldn't be wise." -Mark Twain Yes, we, the Banana Revolution, has decided to join the race to the White House with a unique specimen that will not lie, launch territorial wars, or oppose environmental commitments. Well, he's not given to many words, but he's a real doer. A "man of action" so to speak. And he doesn't even eat large salaries and kickbacks, just peanuts. Oh, and he's all for EVOLUTION (revolution where it is denied), since he realizes the need for change. He will indeed challenge laws long established in the jungle like THE LION'S SHARE (a few keep the best part of the pie), MONOPOLY (like that held by the automobile), THE BIG FISH EATS THE LITTLE FISH (try riding a bike out there), EVERYONE TO HIMSELF (too bad you don't have medical insurance), etc. Without further ado... http://www.teddybearfriends.co.uk/images/teddy-bears/large/gund-teddy-bear-mambo-monkey.jpg Isn't he loveable?* Well, we won't send him up there without proper tools because we plan to arm him with something his predecessors lacked: A POLITICAL PLATFORM, in writing, so anyone --WE THE PEOPLE-- can follow it, and there's no forgetting of electoral promises. Anyway here's our Platform: COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1 There are additional advantages to having a puppet up there: 1- No need for expensive campaigns which are financed by the corporations 2- Some say presidents are puppets to the same corporations, so having a real puppet is a very attractive proposition 3- They are cute, unlike some of our presidents who scare people. Well, just kidding... And, if you think it would be selfish for us to submit our own Platform exclusively, we may as well consider similar proposals going for meaningful necessary change. Case in point is this outside platform... "When you hold views which are radical from the perspective of the status quo, it's hard to write a political platform, because it's hard to know exactly where to stop. If I were going to write a platform giving full voice to my values, it would include measures such as putting a cap of $10 million on the total of tangible and liquid assents which any individual is permitted to own, above which there is a 100% tax, and a substantial penalty for attempted evasion, with the proceeds going to assorted social programs. What I've written below is much more modest; it is a move in a particular direction, but not nearly so fundamental a departure from the status quo." http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/platform.html * As you may have noticed, the "UK" on the stuffed monkey seems to indicate he's got a British pedigree. And we don't want that since we fought a King George so we could have our own President George. Anyway as soon as we find an American puppet we'll put it up there. Not easy though when most products are "Made in China." Or perhaps it just doesn't matter in the era of globalization.     Date: 26 Jul 2007 09:12:11 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185450786.718151.52440@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 25, 6:57 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Oh yes. Democratic societies would build BIKE LANES and have HEALTH >> > INSURANCE, though I don't know how the last one applies here. ;) >> >> Errr, no they wouldn't. The last might be true if most people didn't have >> health insurance. > > You think the only democratic activity is voting a president every > four year, who's really no different from the opposition? > > Democratic endeavors would make people participate --demand-- > healthcare and bike lanes by those who most need it. That's a wrong > concept of "democracy" you have. The fact that you threw health care in there is pretty kooky. People may not like the health care system as a whole, but they are generally happy with their own care. Hence polls as well as the referendums on single payer care. >> > OK, and where are they coexisting? Perhaps in small places like Key >> > West? No wonder people feel so free down there. >> >> Well... not in a lot of places. We need to change some policies changed >> in >> this country, along with some fundamental assumptions. I won't get into >> them, other than to say that the one that comes to mind is that driving >> is a >> "right" and not a "priveledge".- > > That's a good one, but also need to change what we look in a candidate > --not soundbites but ISSUES. > > Just look at OUR MAN TO THE WHITE HOUSE... You're a kook. This has nothing to do with Bush, these policies were in place before Bush, kook. <snip looniness >   Date: 26 Jul 2007 04:38:54 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Jul 25, 8:01 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:46:49 +0930, Michael Warner > > <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote: > >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:50:23 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote: > > >> garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending > >> consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy. > > >Americans go to meetings to learn how to buy cars? Wow. > > They attend automobile trade shows in droves. And the "free" automobile drawing sure has to do with it. Bicycles used to be that important in the late 1800's, before "bigger is better" was the slogan. People go to see all kinds of shows though.     Date: 26 Jul 2007 09:08:37 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185449934.670523.31680@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 25, 8:01 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:46:49 +0930, Michael Warner >> >> <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote: >> >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:50:23 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote: >> >> >> garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending >> >> consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy. >> >> >Americans go to meetings to learn how to buy cars? Wow. >> >> They attend automobile trade shows in droves. > > And the "free" automobile drawing sure has to do with it. Bicycles > used to be that important in the late 1800's, before "bigger is > better" was the slogan. > > People go to see all kinds of shows though. Clearly we need to ban "automobile drawings".   Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:39:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 25, 9:33 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > The History Channel on Cable TV is showing a series of programs on The > Universe. I do not think it would be such a bad thing if a large asteroid > came crashing into the earth and sent us the way of the dinosaurs. I don't > know about you, but I am heartily sick of human kind. The sooner we perish, > the better! Well, the revolution should be getting here on time before the next... EVOLVE OR ELSE! Once upon a time lived a race of dinosaurs whose violence and appetite alarmed everybody... One day a Little Ant, tired of feeling stepped upon, and worried about her cooperative enterprise, came up to the Americanus Raptor --the biggest dinosaur of them all-- and asked: "Why you eat and eat everything in your path? Why don't you slim down? Why can't we little animals at least have our own way?" Then the dinosaur, blowing the Little Ant away, shouted: "Bigger is better, so get lost!" The Little Ant, then, gathered the whole cooperative and said: "Comrades, our world is being threatened by the dinosaurs, so..." And at that precise moment the Earth was hit by a big ball of fire, destroying all but the small animals... Moral: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin   Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:12:28 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 25, 7:10 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote: > Tony Raven wrote: > > Amy Blankenship wrote: > > >> I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar. > > > If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with > > their annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact > > that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end > > up with about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is > > about 17 miles of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car > > like the Prius. And that allows nothing for the fossil fuel > > consumption of agriculture in farm vehicles, fertiliser, transport > > and distribution. > > Surprised? > > Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. "They" don't want to hear this. We better feed all-American cows than feed injustice in the world. Well, I hope they are not crazy anyway.   Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:03:34 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 25, 5:52 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > > >> Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be > >> thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is > >> that > >> none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the > >> lane with motor vehicles. > > > They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads > > will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we > > insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing > > from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though... > > Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what it > will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the better! The couch potatoes will have to abandon the comfort of their automatic vehicles. Which, by the way, it's killing them in types of deseases. The dictatorship of the lazy and stupid over the fit and smart will end.   Date: 25 Jul 2007 18:56:42 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 25, 3:55 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185391619.271811.310020@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jul 25, 12:16 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > > >> > These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the > >> > part > >> > of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, > >> > possibly > >> > because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical > >> > information from it. > > >> You only need to die once in order to be quite dead. > > > Unless you believe you can enjoy biking in Heaven. I don't. :( > > Don Quijote appears to be a kindred soul. I will have to pay more attention > to him in the future. > > By the way, what is with the 1954? That is the year of my graduation from > high school. It only means that the new Quixote was born in that year. ;) I got an idea for a new type of car. Well, the mechanics of it have been around for a while, but now it really comes handy when we are fighting (and losing) a war over oil and producing Global Warming. Here it is... http://www.rhoadescar.com/ We can perfectly ride in the middle of the lane, while all those engine-bound couch potatoes participate in the rat race. Like the idea, Sancho?   Date: 25 Jul 2007 13:46:15 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be > thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is that > none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the > lane with motor vehicles. They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though... http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4= THE BANANA REVOLUTION http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40     Date: 02 Aug 2007 10:27:54 From: Mike Clark Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? In message <1186004419.923909.283880@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com > donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 1, 1:13 pm, Mike Clark <m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote: [snip] > > In contrast to the 'idea' of ever more separate lanes being good for > > improved safety there is the contradictory data that shows that in > > places where you remove all the lane markings, signs and junction > > priorities you often get a measurable increase in safety. > > Should we erase the car lanes too? I think we could have bike lanes > and still enforce those breaking the law, so they can pay for more > bike lanes. Are you parked in the bike lane? You got a fine for 100 > bucks... > Yes the data is based on situations where all the lane markings and junction priorities, traffic lights etc are removed. Basically people stop driving as if they have a known priority and instead start looking out for and avoiding other road users. Mike -- o/ \\ //     Date: 01 Aug 2007 18:13:35 From: Mike Clark Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? In message <1185984581.435106.183530@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com > donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 1, 11:02 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ > > > > They don't really help. And they've been shown not to help and we can > > see them not helping in practice. > > Are you saying that those committed cyclists are stupid and that they > don't know what they are asking for? Remember they are not kids, but > real cyclists that tell you the real problems out there. How more real > can you get? > Lessons in life are often counter-intuitive. Separated bike lanes are fine where they are separated, it's just that sooner or later you have to have a junction and if you have more separated lanes you end up with more complex junctions and that's where the accidents happen. What good is it if you decrease the accident rate at point 'a' along a route and at the same time increase it at point 'b' along a route such that the overall accident rate is higher? In contrast to the 'idea' of ever more separate lanes being good for improved safety there is the contradictory data that shows that in places where you remove all the lane markings, signs and junction priorities you often get a measurable increase in safety. Mike -- o/ \\ //     Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:11:17 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > >> Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be >> thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is >> that >> none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the >> lane with motor vehicles. > > They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads > will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we > insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing > from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though... > > http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4= > > THE BANANA REVOLUTION > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 Cuckoo, cuckkoo.       Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:31:54 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:FO2dnQUOX9R6vjXbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> >>> Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be >>> thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is >>> that >>> none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the >>> lane with motor vehicles. >> >> They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads >> will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we >> insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing >> from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though... >> >> http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4= >> >> THE BANANA REVOLUTION >> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 > > Cuckoo, cuckkoo. Don Quijote is a near genius almost on my level. But all of this is way beyond your poor powers of perception. Cuckoo indeed! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota     Date: 25 Jul 2007 16:52:28 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > >> Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be >> thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is >> that >> none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the >> lane with motor vehicles. > > They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads > will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we > insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing > from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though... Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the better! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:04:14 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: OK, how about separated bike lanes? On Aug 2, 11:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > Besides, if "separate but equal" is the law of the land in many areas, > > particularly applied to those who live beyond walled communities, I > > don't see why it should apply to bikes and SUVs. They do NOT mix, just > > as lions and monkeys. > > Some of the monkeys (ok, apes) learned to walk upright and used their > now free forelimbs to make and hold weapons. The lions learned to stay > well away from these otherwise slow and weak creatures.\ The lions learned to wait until the monkeys killed each other for them to have a good lunch. Yep, lions are scavengers too!       Date: 28 Jul 2007 15:14:36 From: Jack May Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:vOadnY1OD7awWzrbnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: ... > > Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what > it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the > better! At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought.         Date: 30 Jul 2007 11:30:56 From: Tadej Brezina Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Jack May wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:vOadnY1OD7awWzrbnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@prairiewave.com... > >>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >>>On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > >>Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what >>it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the >>better! > > At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the > market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought. As you seem to be well informed, just a little greedy with the transmission of your information when it gets down to details: What kinds of alternatives might this glut consist of? Just a few? Coal, gas, solar, geothermal, ... 1) or some other fancy sci-fi stuff? 1) H2 and biofuels not counted here Tadej -- "Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat." <Martina Diel in d.t.r >         Date: 29 Jul 2007 19:42:30 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote in message news:x4ednWHHVa1XIjbbnZ2dnUVZ_ruqnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:vOadnY1OD7awWzrbnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > ... >> >> Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what >> it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the >> better! > > At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the > market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought. Nope, the fact is there are no good alternative sources of fuel for powering motor vehicles. It there were, they would already be here. All alternative sources of fuel for motor vehicles have proven a dismal failure without subsidy. Most folks could never afford to have a private motor vehicle if fuel cost anything like $20. a gallon. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 25 Jul 2007 12:26:59 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 25, 12:16 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > > These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part > > of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly > > because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical > > information from it. > > You only need to die once in order to be quite dead. Unless you believe you can enjoy biking in Heaven. I don't. :(     Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:55:38 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185391619.271811.310020@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 25, 12:16 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > >> > These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the >> > part >> > of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, >> > possibly >> > because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical >> > information from it. >> >> You only need to die once in order to be quite dead. > > Unless you believe you can enjoy biking in Heaven. I don't. :( Don Quijote appears to be a kindred soul. I will have to pay more attention to him in the future. By the way, what is with the 1954? That is the year of my graduation from high school. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 25 Jul 2007 12:25:20 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 25, 11:57 am, "Jeff Grippe" <j...@door7.com > wrote: > > Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken > > driver. > > Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite > country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver. > > No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become > zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but > its not the only thing that I enjoy doing. I would avoid both to ride bikes among cars and to swim among sharks. Sometimes they are hungry, sometimes they are plain stupid.     Date: 25 Jul 2007 22:48:09 From: marc Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? donquijote1954 wrote: > On Jul 25, 11:57 am, "Jeff Grippe" <j...@door7.com> wrote: > >>> Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken >>> driver. >> Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite >> country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver. >> >> No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become >> zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but >> its not the only thing that I enjoy doing. > > I would avoid both to ride bikes among cars and to swim among sharks. > Sometimes they are hungry, sometimes they are plain stupid. Cars are always stupid.       Date: 25 Jul 2007 17:08:20 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "marc" <initial.surname@btinternet.com > wrote in message news:1YSdnYo9Zd-GWDrbnZ2dnUVZ8sTinZ2d@bt.com... > donquijote1954 wrote: >> On Jul 25, 11:57 am, "Jeff Grippe" <j...@door7.com> wrote: >> >>>> Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken >>>> driver. >>> Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite >>> country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver. >>> >>> No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they >>> become >>> zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle >>> but >>> its not the only thing that I enjoy doing. >> >> I would avoid both to ride bikes among cars and to swim among sharks. >> Sometimes they are hungry, sometimes they are plain stupid. > > > Cars are always stupid. Marc, the day of the car is numbered. There is just no way we can continue to support this extravagance much longer. Yea, we will HAVE to get back to mass transit, cycling and walking in order to maintain some sanity in the universe. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota         Date: 26 Jul 2007 00:51:03 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message > > Marc, the day of the car is numbered. Like mules, right?           Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:56:03 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? George Conklin wrote: > Like mules, right? Can take 'em or leave 'em.           Date: 25 Jul 2007 20:33:19 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:XdSpi.11769$Od7.10121@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > > >> Marc, the day of the car is numbered. > > Like mules, right? Exactly so! In fact, we would all be better off to bring back the humble mule and get rid of our god damn cars. The motor vehicle is a total abomination. We need to kill it even if we have to drive a wooden stake through its heart. The History Channel on Cable TV is showing a series of programs on The Universe. I do not think it would be such a bad thing if a large asteroid came crashing into the earth and sent us the way of the dinosaurs. I don't know about you, but I am heartily sick of human kind. The sooner we perish, the better! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 25 Jul 2007 12:22:18 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 25, 4:40 am, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185332808.134754.100470@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere > > peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though... > > > RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS > > > OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to > > listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the > > secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word > > of choice... > > > "The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom' > > nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of > > participation" -A. d. Benoist > > > Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young > > who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a > > waste of time --and money. > > > "Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying) > > > "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book) > > > And this one... > > > "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the > > government listens" -Alastair Farrugia > > > Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future. > > Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is > because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor > do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. OK fine, we will have them with the revolution. The sheep in democracy votes for the wolf in sheep's clothing. And the wolf couldn't care less about bikes once in power. Take the lane and problem solved... The Revolution Will Not be Motorized by Robin Buckallew So you say you want a revolution? Well, we all want to change the world. So what? Quit bitching and moaning, quit bellyaching, and get off your duff. There is no way to change the world by sitting on your ass in an air conditioned room, even if you listen to nothing but early Dylan and read nothing but Hunter Thompson. You can't change the world unless you change yourself first. As Gandhi used to say, "Be the change you want to see in the world". http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/GlobalWarning/1054.html *WORLDWIDE CAMPAIGN TO TAKE THE LANE* Yes, why not. If we are some more than a nuisance to drivers, then we too belong in the lane, the middle of the lane that is, since we can't be happy with the scraps of riding in the gutter, and then be terrorized there too, like it happened to me the other day when a black SUV blasted the horn in an act of intimidation. The Big Fish eats the Little Fish, but the sardines had it. Well, the Jungle may never be the same... Please see 'RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS' at http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88     Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:18:40 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Aug 5, 7:12 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote in messagenews:46b4f24d$0$30848$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > > > > > > > Andrew Muzi wrote: > >>>>>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed, > >>>>>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US. > > >>>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote > >>>>> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago > >>>>> when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is > >>>>> now, > > >>>> Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote: > >>>>> I think it's hasty to make that conclusion. > > >>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote > >>>> My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market > >>>> health care in the U.S. > > >> Edward Dolan wrote: > >>> Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US. The > >>> present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single payer > >>> system (the government). Such a health care system will be like the > >>> public school system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense. > >>> It ought to be financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich > >>> and/or a value added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A > >>> total no-brainer! > > >> You have obviously not thought that through to its logical conclusion > > > My logical conclusion was that I could not afford to get treatment for a > > chronic health problem, since my portion of the expenses was more than my > > discretionary income - and yes, I am "covered" under a[n] employer > > provided "health plan". I really need to start trying to get a job in > > Canada. > > > More than 50% of recent personal bankruptcies in the US are from people > > who got sick, lost their jobs and/or health coverage or exceeded the > > coverage limits, and exhausted their financial assets on medical bills. > > Great system, eh? > > Mr. Sherman is a professional civil engineer with a very good job and yet he > finds himself in trouble. That says it all. > > No nation that has gone to government paid health care has ever voted to > give it up. Most of us do not want transplants or other heroic medical > procedures, but we do want garden variety health care. Heath care needs to > be made a right and not something you can only get if you can afford to pay > for it. Where the Hell did such a crazy idea ever come from in the first > place? > > The sooner the present system goes kaput, the better. If I did not have the > VA, I would have to think about emigrating to Canada myself. > I suggested this to you elsewhere: Relocate the capital to Ottawa. How would we go about it? (Within the Constitution, that is?)     Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:03:02 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185391338.925228.228540@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 25, 4:40 am, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1185332808.134754.100470@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere >> > peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though... >> >> > RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS >> >> > OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to >> > listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the >> > secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word >> > of choice... >> >> > "The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom' >> > nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of >> > participation" -A. d. Benoist >> >> > Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young >> > who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a >> > waste of time --and money. >> >> > "Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying) >> >> > "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book) >> >> > And this one... >> >> > "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the >> > government listens" -Alastair Farrugia >> >> > Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future. >> >> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is >> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and >> therefor >> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. > > OK fine, we will have them with the revolution. The sheep in democracy > votes for the wolf in sheep's clothing. And the wolf couldn't care > less about bikes once in power. Take the lane and problem solved... > > The Revolution Will Not be Motorized > by Robin Buckallew > So you say you want a revolution? Well, we all want to change the > world. So what? Quit bitching and moaning, quit bellyaching, and get > off your duff. There is no way to change the world by sitting on your > ass in an air conditioned room, even if you listen to nothing but > early Dylan and read nothing but Hunter Thompson. You can't change the > world unless you change yourself first. As Gandhi used to say, "Be the > change you want to see in the world". > http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/GlobalWarning/1054.html > > *WORLDWIDE CAMPAIGN TO TAKE THE LANE* > Yes, why not. If we are some more than a nuisance to drivers, then we > too belong in the lane, the middle of the lane that is, since we can't > be happy with the scraps of riding in the gutter, and then be > terrorized there too, like it happened to me the other day when a > black SUV blasted the horn in an act of intimidation. The Big Fish > eats the Little Fish, but the sardines had it. Well, the Jungle may > never be the same... I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) and I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car people are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or whatever, and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. > Please see 'RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS' at > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88 >       Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:06:01 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: TAMING THE BEAST On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com > wrote: > donquijote1954 who? wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: > >> donquijote1954 who? wrote: > >>> ... > >>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask > >>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE > >>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... > >> Google "Hubbert's Peak. > > > Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the > > couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down > > hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention > > in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the > > dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is. > > How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is > and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken > Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true > danger of cycling. > OK, let me put my week of watching predator behavior (Shark Week on Discovery Channel) to the test... Some fearless people have learned to hang from the pectoral fin of a shark and get a free ride! But one guy was bitten in front of the camera and his calf was gone. And then we have the majority of people who just fear the shark, period. So how this majority of people want to approach the predator is up to them, but I'd start by, a) TAMING THE BEAST (traffic calming measures), and/or b) separating the predator from the prey (BIKE LANES). And since some of you don't want to hear about the latter (everyone has a phobia), then let's turn our attention to... (all of these things are a package that comes with the revolution) TRAFFIC CALMING Traffic calming is a set of strategies used by urban planners and traffic engineers which aim to slow down or reduce traffic, thereby improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as improving the environment for residents. Calming measures are common in Europe, especially Northern Europe; less so in North America. Traffic calming was traditionally justified on the grounds of pedestrian safety and reduction of noise and local air pollution which are side effects of the traffic. However, streets have many social and recreational functions which are severely impaired by car traffic. The Livable Streets study by Donald Appleyard (circa 1977) found that residents of streets with light traffic had, on average, three more friends and twice as many acquaintances as the people on streets with heavy traffic which were otherwise similar in dimensions, income, etc. For much of the twentieth century, streets were designed by engineers who were charged only with ensuring traffic flow and not with fostering the other functions of streets. The basis for traffic calming is broadening traffic engineering to include designing for these functions. There are 3 "E"'s that traffic engineers refer to when discussing traffic calming: engineering, (community) education, and (police) enforcement. Because neighborhood traffic management studies have shown that often it is the residents themselves who are contributing to the perceived speeding problem within the neighborhood, it is stressed that the most effective traffic calming plans will entail all three components, and that engineering measures alone will not produce satisfactory results. A number of visual changes to roads are being made to many streets to bring about more attentive driving, reduced speeds, reduced crashes, and greater tendency to yield to pedestrians. Visual traffic calming includes lane narrowings (9-10'), road diets (reduction in lanes), use of trees next to streets, on-street parking, and buildings placed in urban fashion close to streets. Some additional traffic calming techniques that are often used are speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables. These devices vary in size based on the desired speed. Humps, cushions and tables slow cars to between 10 and 25 miles per hour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming COMING SOON http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4=         Date: 05 Aug 2007 10:36:06 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: TAMING THE BEAST donquijote1954 who? wrote: > On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask >>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE >>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... >>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak. >>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the >>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down >>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention >>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the >>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is. >> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is >> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken >> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true >> danger of cycling. >> > > OK, let me put my week of watching predator behavior (Shark Week on > Discovery Channel) to the test... Some fearless people have learned to > hang from the pectoral fin of a shark and get a free ride! But one guy > was bitten in front of the camera and his calf was gone. And then we > have the majority of people who just fear the shark, period. > > So how this majority of people want to approach the predator is up to > them, but I'd start by, a) TAMING THE BEAST (traffic calming > measures), and/or b) separating the predator from the prey (BIKE > LANES). And since some of you don't want to hear about the latter > (everyone has a phobia), then let's turn our attention to... > > (all of these things are a package that comes with the revolution) > > TRAFFIC CALMING > > Traffic calming is a set of strategies used by urban planners and > traffic engineers which aim to slow down or reduce traffic, thereby > improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as improving > the environment for residents. Calming measures are common in Europe, > especially Northern Europe; less so in North America. > > Traffic calming was traditionally justified on the grounds of > pedestrian safety and reduction of noise and local air pollution which > are side effects of the traffic. However, streets have many social and > recreational functions which are severely impaired by car traffic. The > Livable Streets study by Donald Appleyard (circa 1977) found that > residents of streets with light traffic had, on average, three more > friends and twice as many acquaintances as the people on streets with > heavy traffic which were otherwise similar in dimensions, income, etc. > For much of the twentieth century, streets were designed by engineers > who were charged only with ensuring traffic flow and not with > fostering the other functions of streets. The basis for traffic > calming is broadening traffic engineering to include designing for > these functions. > > There are 3 "E"'s that traffic engineers refer to when discussing > traffic calming: engineering, (community) education, and (police) > enforcement. Because neighborhood traffic management studies have > shown that often it is the residents themselves who are contributing > to the perceived speeding problem within the neighborhood, it is > stressed that the most effective traffic calming plans will entail all > three components, and that engineering measures alone will not produce > satisfactory results. > > A number of visual changes to roads are being made to many streets to > bring about more attentive driving, reduced speeds, reduced crashes, > and greater tendency to yield to pedestrians. Visual traffic calming > includes lane narrowings (9-10'), road diets (reduction in lanes), use > of trees next to streets, on-street parking, and buildings placed in > urban fashion close to streets. > > Some additional traffic calming techniques that are often used are > speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables. These devices vary in > size based on the desired speed. Humps, cushions and tables slow cars > to between 10 and 25 miles per hour. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming > > COMING SOON > http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4= > All of that ignores the real problem that no one wants to deal with because of the difficulties in implementing the solution. The could be a decent life for everyone if the world's population was 2 to 2.5 Billion. At 6.5+ Billion or more, forget about it, and that includes low enough traffic to make cycling reasonable almost everywhere. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com           Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:58:36 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: TAMING THE BEAST >>>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask >>>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE >>>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... >>>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >>>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak. >>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the >>>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down >>>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention >>>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the >>>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is. >> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >>> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is >>> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken >>> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true >>> danger of cycling. > donquijote1954 who? wrote: >> OK, let me put my week of watching predator behavior (Shark Week on >> Discovery Channel) to the test... Some fearless people have learned to >> hang from the pectoral fin of a shark and get a free ride! But one guy >> was bitten in front of the camera and his calf was gone. And then we >> have the majority of people who just fear the shark, period. >> >> So how this majority of people want to approach the predator is up to >> them, but I'd start by, a) TAMING THE BEAST (traffic calming >> measures), and/or b) separating the predator from the prey (BIKE >> LANES). And since some of you don't want to hear about the latter >> (everyone has a phobia), then let's turn our attention to... >> (all of these things are a package that comes with the revolution) >> TRAFFIC CALMING >> Traffic calming is a set of strategies used by urban planners and >> traffic engineers which aim to slow down or reduce traffic, thereby >> improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as improving >> the environment for residents. Calming measures are common in Europe, >> especially Northern Europe; less so in North America. >> >> Traffic calming was traditionally justified on the grounds of >> pedestrian safety and reduction of noise and local air pollution which -snip- >> Some additional traffic calming techniques that are often used are >> speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables. These devices vary in >> size based on the desired speed. Humps, cushions and tables slow cars >> to between 10 and 25 miles per hour. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming >> >> COMING SOON >> http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4= Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > All of that ignores the real problem that no one wants to deal with > because of the difficulties in implementing the solution. > The could be a decent life for everyone if the world's population was 2 > to 2.5 Billion. At 6.5+ Billion or more, forget about it, and that > includes low enough traffic to make cycling reasonable almost everywhere. A highly elitist analysis. (you volunteering to disappear??) Let's go back to the real world and attainable solutions. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971             Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:28:00 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: TAMING THE BEAST Andrew Muzi wrote: >>>>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>>>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask >>>>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS >>>>>>> THE >>>>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... > >>>>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>>>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >>>>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak. > >>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>>>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the >>>>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down >>>>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention >>>>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the >>>>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is. > >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >>>> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous >>>> cycling is >>>> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken >>>> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the >>>> true >>>> danger of cycling. > >> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>> OK, let me put my week of watching predator behavior (Shark Week on >>> Discovery Channel) to the test... Some fearless people have learned to >>> hang from the pectoral fin of a shark and get a free ride! But one guy >>> was bitten in front of the camera and his calf was gone. And then we >>> have the majority of people who just fear the shark, period. >>> >>> So how this majority of people want to approach the predator is up to >>> them, but I'd start by, a) TAMING THE BEAST (traffic calming >>> measures), and/or b) separating the predator from the prey (BIKE >>> LANES). And since some of you don't want to hear about the latter >>> (everyone has a phobia), then let's turn our attention to... >>> (all of these things are a package that comes with the revolution) >>> TRAFFIC CALMING >>> Traffic calming is a set of strategies used by urban planners and >>> traffic engineers which aim to slow down or reduce traffic, thereby >>> improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as improving >>> the environment for residents. Calming measures are common in Europe, >>> especially Northern Europe; less so in North America. >>> >>> Traffic calming was traditionally justified on the grounds of >>> pedestrian safety and reduction of noise and local air pollution which > -snip- >>> Some additional traffic calming techniques that are often used are >>> speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables. These devices vary in >>> size based on the desired speed. Humps, cushions and tables slow cars >>> to between 10 and 25 miles per hour. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming >>> >>> COMING SOON >>> http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4= > > > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> All of that ignores the real problem that no one wants to deal with >> because of the difficulties in implementing the solution. >> The could be a decent life for everyone if the world's population was >> 2 to 2.5 Billion. At 6.5+ Billion or more, forget about it, and that >> includes low enough traffic to make cycling reasonable almost everywhere. > > A highly elitist analysis. (you volunteering to disappear??) I have no children and no plans to have any. Good enough? > Let's go back to the real world and attainable solutions. The world will implement population control, and there will be nothing the foolish hominids can do about it. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com               Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:35:27 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: TAMING THE BEAST "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message news:46b626b6$0$20193$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > Andrew Muzi wrote: [...] >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> All of that ignores the real problem that no one wants to deal with >>> because of the difficulties in implementing the solution. >>> The could be a decent life for everyone if the world's population was 2 >>> to 2.5 Billion. At 6.5+ Billion or more, forget about it, and that >>> includes low enough traffic to make cycling reasonable almost >>> everywhere. >> >> A highly elitist analysis. (you volunteering to disappear??) > > I have no children and no plans to have any. Good enough? > >> Let's go back to the real world and attainable solutions. > > The world will implement population control, and there will be nothing the > foolish hominids can do about it. ;) I most emphatically agree with Mr. Sherman's point of view on population. Unfortunately, the human species is programmed to reproduce like crazy lemmings. The future is full of horror as yet undreamed of because of this - and there is nothing that can be done about it unless you get into the human gene ("Brave New World") and change the way we are biologically. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                 Date: 09 Aug 2007 12:38:02 From: Dana Myers Subject: Re: TAMING THE BEAST Edward Dolan wrote: > I most emphatically agree with Mr. Sherman's point of view on population. > Unfortunately, the human species is programmed to reproduce like crazy > lemmings. Evolution has a way of doing that - programming surviving species to "reproduce". Dana                   Date: 11 Aug 2007 08:46:06 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: TAMING THE BEAST "Dana Myers" <dana.myers@gmail.com > wrote in message news:JaGdnSVItKi78CbbnZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@comcast.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: > >> I most emphatically agree with Mr. Sherman's point of view on population. >> Unfortunately, the human species is programmed to reproduce like crazy >> lemmings. > > Evolution has a way of doing that - programming surviving species to > "reproduce". Yes, but unfortunately the human species is no longer bound by natural checks and balances. We shall end up on a planet populated only by ourselves and various pests, like rats and cockroaches. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:04:43 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized Joe the Aroma wrote: > > No wonder you anti-car people > are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you > could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or whatever, > and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good. > Oh I don't know. If it keeps them from building more cycle farcilities many cyclists would see that as a good thing. Tony         Date: 26 Jul 2007 09:15:41 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Tony Raven" <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote in message news:Oradnf3FmYBCEDXbnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net... > Joe the Aroma wrote: >> >> No wonder you anti-car people are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're >> LOONY, and if you weren't you could actually convince people to create >> bike lanes or trails or whatever, and it would be a good thing. Posting >> loony article does you no good. >> > > Oh I don't know. If it keeps them from building more cycle farcilities > many cyclists would see that as a good thing. What?           Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:39:54 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized Joe the Aroma wrote: > "Tony Raven" <traven@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message > news:Oradnf3FmYBCEDXbnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net... >> Joe the Aroma wrote: >>> No wonder you anti-car people are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're >>> LOONY, and if you weren't you could actually convince people to create >>> bike lanes or trails or whatever, and it would be a good thing. Posting >>> loony article does you no good. >>> >> Oh I don't know. If it keeps them from building more cycle farcilities >> many cyclists would see that as a good thing. > > What? > What I said. Psychle Farcilities are a thoroughly bad idea. They are more dangerous, slower and more inconvenient than using the roads. The less we have of them the better. Practice Vehicular Cycling on the road. Tony             Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:08:17 From: dgk Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:39:54 +0100, Tony Raven <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: >Joe the Aroma wrote: >> "Tony Raven" <traven@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:Oradnf3FmYBCEDXbnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net... >>> Joe the Aroma wrote: >>>> No wonder you anti-car people are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're >>>> LOONY, and if you weren't you could actually convince people to create >>>> bike lanes or trails or whatever, and it would be a good thing. Posting >>>> loony article does you no good. >>>> >>> Oh I don't know. If it keeps them from building more cycle farcilities >>> many cyclists would see that as a good thing. >> >> What? >> > >What I said. Psychle Farcilities are a thoroughly bad idea. They are >more dangerous, slower and more inconvenient than using the roads. The >less we have of them the better. Practice Vehicular Cycling on the road. > >Tony Nonsense. I use a bike/pedestrian way down the east side of Manhattan on my daily commute. It adds about a half mile, making it an even 15 in each direction, but it speeds up the commute because I don't have to deal with lights or cars. I can simply pedal along without looking in my mirror all the time. I AM NOT A CAR. Repeat I AM NOT A CAR. I can't go as fast. Bottom line. I do not expect folks in cars to go 12 mph to accomodate me. That would be obnoxious. There are places that I share the road, and cars have to also. But there are places that I don't need to share the road, and I appreciate them.   Date: 25 Jul 2007 12:14:23 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 25, 2:11 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message > > news:a6SdnWgikJ6cHTrbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > > Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of the > > hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too much > > democracy in action is a recipe for disaster. > > Hey, all I'm saying is that don't think it's a lack of democracy that is the > reason there isn't bike lanes. Oh yes. Democratic societies would build BIKE LANES and have HEALTH INSURANCE, though I don't know how the last one applies here. ;) > > >> I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot > >> cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is > >> the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish > >> the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic > >> greens spout off. > > > We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) and > > we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need to > > get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle. > > Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of > transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles. OK, and where are they coexisting? Perhaps in small places like Key West? No wonder people feel so free down there.     Date: 25 Jul 2007 18:57:39 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185390863.448334.91670@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 25, 2:11 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message >> >> news:a6SdnWgikJ6cHTrbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> >> > Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of >> > the >> > hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too >> > much >> > democracy in action is a recipe for disaster. >> >> Hey, all I'm saying is that don't think it's a lack of democracy that is >> the >> reason there isn't bike lanes. > > Oh yes. Democratic societies would build BIKE LANES and have HEALTH > INSURANCE, though I don't know how the last one applies here. ;) Errr, no they wouldn't. The last might be true if most people didn't have health insurance. >> >> I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot >> >> cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding >> >> is >> >> the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I >> >> wish >> >> the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic >> >> greens spout off. >> >> > We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) >> > and >> > we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need >> > to >> > get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle. >> >> Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of >> transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles. > > OK, and where are they coexisting? Perhaps in small places like Key > West? No wonder people feel so free down there. Well... not in a lot of places. We need to change some policies changed in this country, along with some fundamental assumptions. I won't get into them, other than to say that the one that comes to mind is that driving is a "right" and not a "priveledge".   Date: 25 Jul 2007 12:06:29 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 25, 3:06 am, "Geoff Pearson" <gspearson1...@hotmail.com > wrote: > what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than > cycling?- A gallon of milk is better than a gallon of gas. Hopefully the milk is still "Made in USA"... Gas guzzlers are feeding injustice and terrorism.     Date: 25 Jul 2007 21:46:46 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? donquijote1954 wrote: > On Jul 25, 3:06 am, "Geoff Pearson" <gspearson1...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than >> cycling?- > > A gallon of milk is better than a gallon of gas. Hopefully the milk is > still "Made in USA"... > > Gas guzzlers are feeding injustice and terrorism. > > Do you know how much gas is consumed and methane produced in the production and delivery of a gallon of milk? Tony       Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:01:45 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:46:46 +0100, Tony Raven <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: >donquijote1954 wrote: >> On Jul 25, 3:06 am, "Geoff Pearson" <gspearson1...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than >>> cycling?- >> >> A gallon of milk is better than a gallon of gas. Hopefully the milk is >> still "Made in USA"... >> >> Gas guzzlers are feeding injustice and terrorism. >> >> > >Do you know how much gas is consumed and methane produced in the >production and delivery of a gallon of milk? > >Tony "It takes thirty-five calories of fossil fuel to make one calorie of beef, sixty-eight to make one calorie of pork." "Every single calorie we eat is backed by at least a calorie of oil, more like ten. In 1940 the average farm in the United States produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil energy it used. By 1974 (the last year in which anyone looked closely at this issue), that ratio was 1:1. And this understates the problem, because at the same time that there is more oil in our food there is less oil in our oil. A couple of generations ago we spent a lot less energy drilling, pumping, and distributing than we do now. In the 1940s we got about 100 barrels of oil back for every barrel of oil we spent getting it. Today each barrel invested in the process returns only ten." "According to one set of calculations, we spend more calories of fossil-fuel energy making ethanol from grain than we gain from it. The Department of Agriculture says the ratio is closer to a gallon and a quart of ethanol for every gallon of fossil fuel we invest." Excerpted from http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915 -- zk       Date: 25 Jul 2007 17:04:28 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tony Raven" <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote in message news:ApydnU8Lf_gkKzrbnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d@bt.com... > donquijote1954 wrote: >> On Jul 25, 3:06 am, "Geoff Pearson" <gspearson1...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than >>> cycling?- >> >> A gallon of milk is better than a gallon of gas. Hopefully the milk is >> still "Made in USA"... >> >> Gas guzzlers are feeding injustice and terrorism. >> >> > > Do you know how much gas is consumed and methane produced in the > production and delivery of a gallon of milk? Hm, not sure how much gas goes into the production of a 50 lb bag of feed, but a good dairy goat will eat approximately 1-2 lb of feed a day. My friend buys hers 400 lb at a time, because that will fit in her storage bin. 2 miles to the feed store, so 4 miles round trip. At 20 mpg, that is .2 gallons of gas per 400 lb of feed, or roughly .001 gal gas/day. Most goats will produce between .75-1.5 gal milk per day, depending on how recently they've given birth and when they are scheduled to be bred again. Non-milking goats need to be fed almost nothing most of the year, except kids. So if you factor in energy cost of production of the feed + feeding studs and goats to breeding age, probably a good guess would be .01-.03 gal gas/gal milk. I drive about 1 mile to get milk. Goats usually don't fart unless they're sick, but they belch fairly regularly. I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar. HTH; Amy         Date: 25 Jul 2007 23:25:13 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Amy Blankenship wrote: > > I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar. > If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with their annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end up with about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is about 17 miles of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car like the Prius. And that allows nothing for the fossil fuel consumption of agriculture in farm vehicles, fertiliser, transport and distribution. Surprised? Tony           Date: 25 Jul 2007 23:07:06 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tony Raven" <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote in message news:h5WdnWwiL7tWUDrbRVnyuwA@bt.com... > Amy Blankenship wrote: >> >> I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar. >> > > If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with their > annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact that > methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end up with > about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is about 17 miles > of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car like the Prius. And > that allows nothing for the fossil fuel consumption of agriculture in farm > vehicles, fertiliser, transport and distribution. http://www.newrules.org/agri/netenergyresponse.pdf http://www.newrules.org/de/archives/000172.html           Date: 25 Jul 2007 22:52:14 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tony Raven" <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote in message news:h5WdnWwiL7tWUDrbRVnyuwA@bt.com... > Amy Blankenship wrote: >> >> I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar. >> > > If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with their > annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact that > methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end up with > about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is about 17 miles > of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car like the Prius. And > that allows nothing for the fossil fuel consumption of agriculture in farm > vehicles, fertiliser, transport and distribution. Wouldn't that methane be produced anyway, though, by the natural breakdown of the vegetable matter that they eat?             Date: 26 Jul 2007 07:56:52 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Amy Blankenship wrote: > > Wouldn't that methane be produced anyway, though, by the natural breakdown > of the vegetable matter that they eat? > > Not methane, CO2 which is approx 30 times less potent as a greenhouse gas. Tony               Date: 26 Jul 2007 10:37:50 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tony Raven" <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote in message news:17Kdndkd5f4q2DXbRVnygAA@pipex.net... > Amy Blankenship wrote: > >> >> Wouldn't that methane be produced anyway, though, by the natural >> breakdown of the vegetable matter that they eat? > > Not methane, CO2 which is approx 30 times less potent as a greenhouse gas. Sure. Plants don't produce methane, while growing or breaking down ;-) http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/methane_pain.html http://tinyurl.com/3bxd9m                 Date: 26 Jul 2007 17:35:27 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Amy Blankenship wrote: > > Sure. Plants don't produce methane, while growing or breaking down ;-) > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/methane_pain.html If you create special anaerobic conditions by sealing them in a tank or submerging them in deep low oxygen reservoirs then you will get methane from anoxic decomposition. But I don't think the cows would survive grazing in those environments. > http://tinyurl.com/3bxd9m > > There has been a lot of debate about that particular paper - see for example Dueck T A et al, No evidence for substantial aerobic methane emission by terrestrial plants: a 13C-labelling approach, New Phytologist, 175 (1), pp. 29-35, July 2007 and http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/5867/2006/acpd-6-5867-2006.pdf http://www.cosis.net/copernicus/EGU/acpd/6/S927/acpd-6-S927.pdf Tony           Date: 25 Jul 2007 16:10:07 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Tony Raven wrote: > Amy Blankenship wrote: >> >> I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar. >> > > If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with > their annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact > that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end > up with about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is > about 17 miles of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car > like the Prius. And that allows nothing for the fossil fuel > consumption of agriculture in farm vehicles, fertiliser, transport > and distribution. > Surprised? Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. "They" don't want to hear this.   Date: 25 Jul 2007 08:06:21 From: Geoff Pearson Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185146504.198253.88250@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in > America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great > (and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that > uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes. > Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by > chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the > supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet > most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle > use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the > percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right? > > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And > that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of > fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out > there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food > chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic, > if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good > 80MPG. > > So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live > long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off > I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the > market for the hell of it)... > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > BIKE FOR PEACE > http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace > what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than cycling?   Date: 25 Jul 2007 09:49:34 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Jul 24, 4:39 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net > wrote: > "Zoot Katz" <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote in message > > news:jbica352hftp3c3jrr0lgphoric4454tqk@4ax.com... > > > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC), D_Frumiou...@ndersnat.ch > > > The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: > > less than five miles an hour." > > The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5 > minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt > occasionally to tell truth? > > http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/commuting.pdf > (page 4) Jack The problem here is that the authors apparently are using the arethmetic mean. Unless the distribution is normal the mean is almost certainly inflated by outliers. Do you know if anyone has done this type of study using median commuting distance rather than mean ? in Canada the median commute is about 7.5 km . The Canadian situtation would seem quite different if you took the mean. If you look at the actual distribution in Canada the majority of commuters travel less than 10 km (6.2 miles). See http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. I would not be terribly surprised to find a similar distribution, althougth, perhaps with a slightly larger median value for US commutes. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 25 Jul 2007 10:23:10 From: Jack May Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1185382174.902641.287570@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 24, 4:39 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: >> "Zoot Katz" <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:jbica352hftp3c3jrr0lgphoric4454tqk@4ax.com... >> >> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC), D_Frumiou...@ndersnat.ch >> >> > The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: >> > less than five miles an hour." >> >> The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5 >> minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt >> occasionally to tell truth? >> >> http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/commuting.pdf >> (page 4) > > Jack > The problem here is that the authors apparently are using the > arethmetic mean. Unless the distribution is normal the mean is almost > certainly inflated by outliers. Do you know if anyone has done this > type of study using median commuting distance rather than mean ? Almost all real world statistics are non-Gaussian and the average is a poor indicator. The table says the data uses averages > > in Canada the median commute is about 7.5 km . The Canadian > situtation would seem quite different if you took the mean. If you > look at the actual distribution in Canada the majority of commuters > travel less than 10 km (6.2 miles). See > http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. > I would not be terribly surprised to find a similar distribution, > althougth, perhaps with a slightly larger median value for US > commutes. Most real world statistics are power law which means the statistics for different countries will be similar.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 20:27:11 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 24, 1:29 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net > wrote: > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > > > > There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that > > is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely > > work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the > > case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist. > > But very few of us live in a congested urban area. True, perhaps. But for short enough trips, the other benefits of cycling are worth the slight extra time, in my view. Certainly, up to about two miles - if level terrain - the increased time is negligible. > > If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up > making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip. There may be no _official_ place to lock it up, but IME there's always _some_ place I can lock it. You just have to be a little creative. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 24 Jul 2007 20:06:48 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 24, 5:08 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > But you are not far from wrong. Essentially, it is NEVER 100% safe to be on > the road with motor vehicles. That is why I am such a proponent of bike > paths. Why there are not more of them is one of the eternal mysteries of > life. I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though... RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word of choice... "The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom' nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of participation" -A. d. Benoist Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a waste of time --and money. "Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying) "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book) And this one... "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens" -Alastair Farrugia Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future.     Date: 25 Jul 2007 04:40:48 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185332808.134754.100470@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere > peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though... > > RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS > > OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to > listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the > secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word > of choice... > > "The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom' > nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of > participation" -A. d. Benoist > > Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young > who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a > waste of time --and money. > > "Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying) > > "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book) > > And this one... > > "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the > government listens" -Alastair Farrugia > > Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future. Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic greens spout off.       Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:23:54 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com > wrote: > donquijote1954 who? wrote: > > ... > > OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask > > you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE > > SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... > > Google "Hubbert's Peak. > Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.         Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:02:19 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized donquijote1954 who? wrote: > On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>> ... >>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask >>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE >>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... >> Google "Hubbert's Peak. >> > > Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the > couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down > hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention > in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the > dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is. How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true danger of cycling. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com           Date: 05 Aug 2007 05:53:18 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote in message news:46b4eb50$0$16403$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > donquijote1954 who? wrote: >> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>>> ... >>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask >>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE >>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... >>> Google "Hubbert's Peak. >>> >> >> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the >> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down >> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention >> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the >> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is. > > How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is > and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken > Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true > danger of cycling. Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota             Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:24:46 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized >> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask >>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE >>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... >>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak. >>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the >>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down >>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention >>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the >>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is. > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote >> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is >> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken >> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true >> danger of cycling. Edward Dolan wrote: > Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely > dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much. Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home bitching will kill you sooner. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971               Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:20:21 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13bc8vqmtu2mc5b@corp.supernews.com... >>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: >>>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask >>>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE >>>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... >>>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak. >>>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the >>>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down >>>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention >>>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the >>>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is. > >> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote >>> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is >>> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken >>> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true >>> danger of cycling. > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely >> dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much. > > Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone > from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in the > morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home bitching > will kill you sooner. It is just a matter of time and you will die like a dog on the road that you are. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:28:28 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized Andrew Muzi wrote: > Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone > from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in > the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home > bitching will kill you sooner. Don't you find the commute much safer when UW is on break? The moronic undergraduate pedestrians wandering out into the street and idiotic motor scooter riders create considerable chaos. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:18:57 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized > Andrew Muzi wrote: >> Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long >> gone from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between >> buses in the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! >> Sitting home bitching will kill you sooner. Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Don't you find the commute much safer when UW is on break? The moronic > undergraduate pedestrians wandering out into the street and idiotic > motor scooter riders create considerable chaos. you're right. A drunk corn-fed 300lb Sophomore on a Spree is a daunting sight careening through a red light. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971       Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:10:20 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Aug 4, 11:16 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > Sidewalk cycling IS more dangerous than roadway cycling. Pretending > that people will do it only in one direction is specious, and > pretending they won't be at risk if they do is worse. > > Note, I'm not saying that nobody should ever ride on a sidewalk. > There are times and places where it may make sense, and there are > times and places where it can be done safely. But whitewashing the > situation, pretending all the risk comes from riding the wrong-way, > ignores the real dangers: cars cutting across sidewalks at driveways > and parking lots, numerous blind spots, sidewalk edges that trap > wheels, pedestrians & joggers & dogs with their random movements, sub- > standard or dangerous pavement, interactions with surprised motorists > when the cyclist crosses a road, etc. > > If a cyclist plans to use a sidewalk, even for fifty feet, they need > to be aware of all of those things, and be on high alert. But the > common thinking is "I'm just on the sidewalk; I'm safe." That's a > delusion, and your posts purposely contribute toward that delusion. > > Fact is, you're so intent on gaining imaginary "arguing" points that > you're willing to distort facts, spread misinformation, and endanger > novices who read your posts. Those novices need to be warned against > you. OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership? Or you believe yourself to be among a supreme elite smart enough to ride a bike among traffic while the stupid 99% stay away from it? JUST ANSWER! Or just admit you've riding a stationary bike!         Date: 04 Aug 2007 13:15:48 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized donquijote1954 who? wrote: > ... > OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask > you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE > SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... Google "Hubbert's Peak. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com           Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:43:12 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized > donquijote1954 who? wrote: >> ... >> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask >> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE >> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Google "Hubbert's Peak. Yeah I remember when "We're gonna run out in 1975!!" was all the rage. Back when "New Ice Age" sold newspapers, long before the bogus "Warming" Whatever. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971             Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:54:08 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized A Muzi wrote: >> donquijote1954 who? wrote: >>> ... >>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask >>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE >>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?... > > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> Google "Hubbert's Peak. > > Yeah I remember when "We're gonna run out in 1975!!" was all the rage. > > Back when "New Ice Age" sold newspapers, long before the bogus "Warming" > > Whatever. Hubbert's prediction of when US domestic oil production would peak proved to be correct. Unless one believes that oil is made from some process in the center of the earth that does not rely on ancient plant matter (for which no evidence exists), oil will become more and more scarce. Certainly the extraction costs are much higher than in the past and keep rising. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia GHAWAR IS DYING! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:37:56 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 1, 9:01 pm, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > > > > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower > > > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, > > > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless > > > > preparing for a turn across that lane. > > > > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even > > > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD > > > NOT be anywhere else. > > > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane, > > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I > > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning > > cars can get by. > > > > Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go > > > when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001). > > > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay > > > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? > > > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and > > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably > > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained. > > > -- > > My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB > > Your bike paths are swept? How often does someone on a bike A) have > trash and B) Drop it on the bike path when you could just drop it > in a trash can? And "Bike Path Sweeping" is not considred maintenence. > The asphalt or concert can take a little,,,, a whatever gets on it. > Not sure what though....- They don't have budgets to clean the bike lanes? Where is that Africa?       Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:36:31 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 1, 8:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower > > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, > > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless > > > preparing for a turn across that lane. > > > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even > > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD > > NOT be anywhere else. > > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane, > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning > cars can get by. > > > Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go > > when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001). > > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay > > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? > > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained. Maybe where he lives the crooked politicians, you know, pocket the money...       Date: 01 Aug 2007 18:06:49 From: William Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower > > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, > > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless > > > preparing for a turn across that lane. > > > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even > > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD > > NOT be anywhere else. > > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane, > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning > cars can get by. They Smile? What a depressing life one must have if there highlight of the day was a bike made it eaiser for you to make a right turn....         Date: 01 Aug 2007 18:58:49 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? William <willbecool10@gmail.com > writes: > On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower > > > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, > > > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless > > > > preparing for a turn across that lane. > > > > > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even > > > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD > > > NOT be anywhere else. > > > > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane, > > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I > > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning > > cars can get by. > > They Smile? What a depressing life one must have if there highlight of > the day was a bike made it eaiser for you to make a right turn.... When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-) People around here are very busy, so anything that helps them get to where they are going faster gets a positive reaction. Also, it is a very liberal community by U.S. standards (although not quite as liberal as San Francisco). Here's a picture of our local movie theater <http://www.stanfordtheatre.org/stf/ >. Click on "This Week" to see what we get. You'll be truly amazed. If you really don't think our city takes bicycling seriously, download <http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7293 > (which should contain the bicycle transportation plan). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 01 Aug 2007 22:21:48 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > ... > When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure > job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-)... I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high four figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income. :) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com             Date: 02 Aug 2007 00:03:41 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > ... > > When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure > > job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-)... > > I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and > hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high > four figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income. :) There are some things you can't outsource to India. Working on an OS is one of them, particularly when new hardware is involved (and India is mostly doing software, not hardware). Some of the hardware design done in Silicon Valley requires a huge capital investment in server farms for chip verification. That is not available in India or China right now, which may be why we have so many people from India or China living here and getting U.S.-level salaries. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB               Date: 02 Aug 2007 06:15:27 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> ... >>> When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure >>> job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-)... >> >> I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and >> hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high >> four figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income. :) > > There are some things you can't outsource to India. Working on an OS > is one of them, particularly when new hardware is involved (and India > is mostly doing software, not hardware). For now. > Some of the hardware design > done in Silicon Valley requires a huge capital investment in server > farms for chip verification. That is not available in India or China > right now, ^^^^^^^^^ Exactly. > which may be why we have so many people from India or > China living here and getting U.S.-level salaries. Expanded guest worker program, perhaps? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 02 Aug 2007 18:32:22 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman writes: > > > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>> ... > >>> When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure > >>> job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-)... > >> > >> I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and > >> hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high > >> four figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income. :) > > There are some things you can't outsource to India. Working on an OS > > is one of them, particularly when new hardware is involved (and India > > is mostly doing software, not hardware). > > For now. No, for a very long time to come, as long as the U.S. has a substantial technical edge, and if India and China catch up, their incomes will become comparable to ours. Also, infrastructure is important - when you are running chip simulations that need the largest machines you can get your hands on and that have to run for a day or more (maybe a lot more), you can't get by in a place where there are regular power failures on a weekly or daily basis. > > Some of the hardware design > > done in Silicon Valley requires a huge capital investment in server > > farms for chip verification. That is not available in India or China > > right now, > ^^^^^^^^^ > > Exactly. except it is for as long as those countries are not at the top of the heap in the high-tech world. > > which may be why we have so many people from India or > > China living here and getting U.S.-level salaries. > > Expanded guest worker program, perhaps? We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in the area to know why. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                   Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:20:32 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman writes: >>> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure >>>>> job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-)... >> >> >>>> I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and >>>> hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high >>>> four figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income. :) >>> There are some things you can't outsource to India. Working on an OS >>> is one of them, particularly when new hardware is involved (and India >>> is mostly doing software, not hardware). >> For now. > > No, for a very long time to come, as long as the U.S. has a > substantial technical edge, and if India and China catch up, their > incomes will become comparable to ours. > > Also, infrastructure is important - when you are running chip > simulations that need the largest machines you can get your hands on > and that have to run for a day or more (maybe a lot more), you can't > get by in a place where there are regular power failures on a weekly > or daily basis. > >>> Some of the hardware design >>> done in Silicon Valley requires a huge capital investment in server >>> farms for chip verification. That is not available in India or China >>> right now, >> ^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Exactly. > > except it is for as long as those countries are not at the top of the > heap in the high-tech world. > >>> which may be why we have so many people from India or >>> China living here and getting U.S.-level salaries. >> Expanded guest worker program, perhaps? > > We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in > the area to know why. But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities. Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                     Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:24:49 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in > > the area to know why. > > But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to > know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities. > Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China. But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda. As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than HOV lanes. > Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus? Maybe you can try to improve your grammar? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                       Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:57:49 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans > design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than > HOV lanes. The whole concept of bike lanes is bad. That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations. You keep bringing up a comparison between bike lanes and HOV lanes. Apparently you have an inability to distinguish differences. HOV lanes are 12' wide, are used on freeways, are typically (always?) the left lane (US), are intended to allow their users to pass congestion, are not mandatory, do not collect debris, and are universally loved by their users. Bike lanes are 4' wide, are used on normal streets which is an inappropriate treatment, are typically the rightmost lane (US), are intended to allow motorists to pass bicyclists easier while sometimes stopped motorists block the bike lane, are typically mandatory (if not mandatory, motorists enforce their use anyway), collect debris, and are often despised by their intended users. Wayne                         Date: 03 Aug 2007 21:58:11 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > >> As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans >> design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than >> HOV lanes. > > The whole concept of bike lanes is bad. > > That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere > they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations.... Agreed. I used to live in a river divided metropolitan area, and three of the five bridges were inaccessible to cyclists since they were Interstate Highways. All such bridges should provide a physically separated path for cyclists and pedestrians, unless there is another bridge close by. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                         Date: 03 Aug 2007 22:10:48 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans > > design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than > > HOV lanes. > > The whole concept of bike lanes is bad. > > That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere > they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations. Pein, cut your idiotic rhetoric and show what you think is wrong with the Caltrans standards for bike lanes. > > You keep bringing up a comparison between bike lanes and HOV > lanes. Apparently you have an inability to distinguish differences. > > HOV lanes are 12' wide, are used on freeways, are typically (always?) > the left lane (US), are intended to allow their users to pass > congestion, are not mandatory, do not collect debris, and are > universally loved by their users. > > Bike lanes are 4' wide, are used on normal streets which is an > inappropriate treatment, are typically the rightmost lane (US), are > intended to allow motorists to pass bicyclists easier while sometimes > stopped motorists block the bike lane, are typically mandatory (if not > mandatory, motorists enforce their use anyway), collect debris, and > are often despised by their intended users. Bike lanes are usually wider than 4' around here, sometimes a lot wider, are clear of debris, and are in most cases popular with "their intended users." The use of the lane is not mandatory in general, but rather simply reflects the normal "slower traffic keeps to the right" rule. The people who get as emotional as you do are very much a minority, albeit a vocal one on usenet. Also, bike lanes allow bicyclists to pass congestion whenever the congestion is so bad that a bicyclist can ride faster than normal traffic, and when that is the case, the use of the bike lane is completely optional. It is pointless to argue about it - the CVC is available on line. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                       Date: 03 Aug 2007 06:29:53 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in >>> the area to know why. >> But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to >> know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities. >> > Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China. Do you deny that many of the "high-tech" jobs that were supposed to replace the outsourced manufacturing jobs are also being outsourced to China, India and other low wage countries? > But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda. > As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans > design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than > HOV lanes. > >> Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus? > > Maybe you can try to improve your grammar? That is an editing error, not a fundamental mistake in grammar. I will be checking Zaumen's posts for perfection in spelling and grammar from now on. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                         Date: 03 Aug 2007 17:12:25 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>> We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in > >>> the area to know why. > >> But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to > >> know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities. > >> > > Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China. > > Do you deny that many of the "high-tech" jobs that were supposed to > replace the outsourced manufacturing jobs are also being outsourced to > China, India and other low wage countries? Read what I said. Some things can't be outsourced to third-world countries, for the reasons I gave you. Those countries could, of course, catch up to us. I'll give you a hint - you won't find the 10 gigabit/second NIC cards coming out of China until they become a commodity, nor the device drivers for them (the chips typically have problems that require software 'work arounds', and you need a close collaboration between hardware and software engineers to get everything working). Various new CPUs are designed in the Bay Area and the software groups that provide OS support. You can look at SUN's recent CPUs with multiple cores and multiple threads per core as an example. In this sort of work, you have to develop the hardware and software at the same time as you need both for a finished product, so heavy use is made of simulators that allow the software to be tested before the hardware is ready, and these require an enormous amount of computation. > > > But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda. > > As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans > > design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than > > HOV lanes. > > > >> Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus? > > Maybe you can try to improve your grammar? > > That is an editing error, not a fundamental mistake in grammar. It's a grammar error (whether due to bad editing or not) that made the sentence completely incomprehensible. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                           Date: 03 Aug 2007 21:54:04 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>>>> We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in >>>>> the area to know why. >>>> But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to >>>> know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities. >>>> >>> Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China. >> Do you deny that many of the "high-tech" jobs that were supposed to >> replace the outsourced manufacturing jobs are also being outsourced to >> China, India and other low wage countries? > > Read what I said. Some things can't be outsourced to third-world > countries, for the reasons I gave you. Those countries could, of > course, catch up to us. I'll give you a hint - you won't find the 10 > gigabit/second NIC cards coming out of China until they become a > commodity, nor the device drivers for them (the chips typically have > problems that require software 'work arounds', and you need a close > collaboration between hardware and software engineers to get > everything working). > > Various new CPUs are designed in the Bay Area and the software groups > that provide OS support. You can look at SUN's recent CPUs with > multiple cores and multiple threads per core as an example. In this > sort of work, you have to develop the hardware and software at the > same time as you need both for a finished product, so heavy use is > made of simulators that allow the software to be tested before the > hardware is ready, and these require an enormous amount of > computation. Nothing that appears to be a insurmountable obstacle. ;) >>> But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda. >>> As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans >>> design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than >>> HOV lanes. >>> >>>> Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus? >>> Maybe you can try to improve your grammar? >> That is an editing error, not a fundamental mistake in grammar. > > It's a grammar error (whether due to bad editing or not) that made the > sentence completely incomprehensible. Intended sentence: Maybe Zaumen doesn't [like] being asked to sit at the back of the bus? The omission of the word "like" was a case of the brain working faster than the fingers, and not a grammar error. Duh! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                             Date: 04 Aug 2007 06:43:32 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > Various new CPUs are designed in the Bay Area and the software groups > > that provide OS support. You can look at SUN's recent CPUs with > > multiple cores and multiple threads per core as an example. In this > > sort of work, you have to develop the hardware and software at the > > same time as you need both for a finished product, so heavy use is > > made of simulators that allow the software to be tested before the > > hardware is ready, and these require an enormous amount of > > computation. > > Nothing that appears to be a insurmountable obstacle. ;) Do you have any clue as to the capital investment needed to do this stuff? That investment is needed no matter where you do the work and pretty much puts the salary differences between here and India or China in the noise. > >>> But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda. > >>> As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans > >>> design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than > >>> HOV lanes. > >>> > >>>> Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus? > >>> Maybe you can try to improve your grammar? > >> That is an editing error, not a fundamental mistake in grammar. > > It's a grammar error (whether due to bad editing or not) that made > > the > > sentence completely incomprehensible. > > Intended sentence: Maybe Zaumen doesn't [like] being asked to sit at > the back of the bus? > > The omission of the word "like" was a case of the brain working faster > than the fingers, and not a grammar error. Duh! LOL. It took you several days to figure out that you should have posted a corection. > -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 01 Aug 2007 18:01:54 From: William Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower > > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, > > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless > > > preparing for a turn across that lane. > > > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even > > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD > > NOT be anywhere else. > > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane, > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning > cars can get by. > > > Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go > > when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001). > > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay > > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? > > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained. > > -- > My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB Your bike paths are swept? How often does someone on a bike A) have trash and B) Drop it on the bike path when you could just drop it in a trash can? And "Bike Path Sweeping" is not considred maintenence. The asphalt or concert can take a little,,,, a whatever gets on it. Not sure what though....         Date: 02 Aug 2007 01:33:59 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? William <willbecool10@gmail.com > writes: > On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and > > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably > > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained. > > Your bike paths are swept? How often does someone on a bike A) have > trash and B) Drop it on the bike path when you could just drop it > in a trash can? And "Bike Path Sweeping" is not considred maintenence. > The asphalt or concert can take a little,,,, a whatever gets on it. > Not sure what though.... I mentioned bike lanes, which are part of the roads. The bike paths (mostly by the bay) are clean as well, but I don't know the schedule, only the results. Road maintainence includes regular sweeping - once per week or so around here. The street outside of where I live is completely clean of debris. So are the bike lanes and the lanes next to them. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 25 Jul 2007 11:53:05 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:uuidnaw8Zr4WkTrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1185332808.134754.100470@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere >> peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though... >> >> RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS >> >> OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to >> listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the >> secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word >> of choice... >> >> "The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom' >> nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of >> participation" -A. d. Benoist >> >> Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young >> who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a >> waste of time --and money. >> >> "Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying) >> >> "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book) >> >> And this one... >> >> "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the >> government listens" -Alastair Farrugia >> >> Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future. > > Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is > because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor > do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. There are many sidewalks in the old part of my home town, in fact along every street, whereas there are not so many sidewalks in the newer parts of town. It is a measure of how far civilization has descended into the abbess to note the absences of sidewalks. Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of the hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too much democracy in action is a recipe for disaster. > I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot > cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is > the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish > the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic > greens spout off. We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) and we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need to get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota         Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:11:05 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:a6SdnWgikJ6cHTrbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@prairiewave.com... > Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of the > hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too much > democracy in action is a recipe for disaster. Hey, all I'm saying is that don't think it's a lack of democracy that is the reason there isn't bike lanes. >> I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot >> cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is >> the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish >> the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic >> greens spout off. > > We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) and > we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need to > get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle. Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles.           Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:43:05 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:Lc-dnWImw7SpDzrbnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:a6SdnWgikJ6cHTrbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of >> the hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too >> much democracy in action is a recipe for disaster. > > Hey, all I'm saying is that don't think it's a lack of democracy that is > the reason there isn't bike lanes. > >>> I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot >>> cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is >>> the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I >>> wish the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what >>> idiotic greens spout off. >> >> We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) and >> we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need >> to get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle. > > Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of > transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles. Joe, about once a year I visit a major metro and I am appalled by the traffic congestion that I see everywhere in those metros. It is simply insane how we keep piling up motor vehicles on top of motor vehicles. I believe there is a 12 lane highway going into Washington DC from Maryland and it is still not enough. God damn it - 12 lanes! Just how fucking stupid can we get? I would like to see all private motor vehicles banned forever from a civilized nation. They reek of the 20th century and we no longer need that kind of aggravation. Mass transit is the only solution. Europe had this figured out many years ago and now we will have to figure it out too. Personally, I have always liked trolley cars. I remember that the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St.Paul) had a fairly good system back in the 40's and 50's. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota             Date: 27 Jul 2007 10:06:10 From: Sancho Panza Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:CJSdncWuINxHOjrbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > about once a year I visit a major metro and I am appalled by the traffic > congestion that I see everywhere in those metros. Nothing like preaching from above to the great unwashed.             Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:08:37 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:CJSdncWuINxHOjrbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of >> transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles. > > Joe, about once a year I visit a major metro and I am appalled by the > traffic congestion that I see everywhere in those metros. It is simply > insane how we keep piling up motor vehicles on top of motor vehicles. It's how people want to live. > I believe there is a 12 lane highway going into Washington DC from > Maryland and it is still not enough. God damn it - 12 lanes! Just how > fucking stupid can we get? It's the 21st century. The government and the economy is set up to accomadate what people want realistically. To me a 12 lane highway is a great engineering achievement. If we ever get flying cars, we might look back at highway travel with the same silly nostaligia we look back on mass transit with. > I would like to see all private motor vehicles banned forever from a > civilized nation. They reek of the 20th century and we no longer need that > kind of aggravation. Well I'm sure you'd make a great and popular president. > Mass transit is the only solution. Europe had this figured out many years > ago and now we will have to figure it out too. Personally, I have always > liked trolley cars. I remember that the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and > St.Paul) had a fairly good system back in the 40's and 50's. Oh God here we go with Europe again. Europe does this, Europe does that. You're like someone's bitchy annoying relative ("Why don't you be more like your cousing Jeffy?"). I don't know how or why they do that in Europe, but our citizens enjoy living their life differently. A bunch of kooky, angry, impotent USENET posters isn't going to change that, or anything.               Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:34:24 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:FO2dnQoOX9R6vjXbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:CJSdncWuINxHOjrbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >>> Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of >>> transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles. >> >> Joe, about once a year I visit a major metro and I am appalled by the >> traffic congestion that I see everywhere in those metros. It is simply >> insane how we keep piling up motor vehicles on top of motor vehicles. > > It's how people want to live. Screw the people! I know better what is good for them than they do themselves. >> I believe there is a 12 lane highway going into Washington DC from >> Maryland and it is still not enough. God damn it - 12 lanes! Just how >> fucking stupid can we get? > > It's the 21st century. The government and the economy is set up to > accomadate what people want realistically. To me a 12 lane highway is a > great engineering achievement. If we ever get flying cars, we might look > back at highway travel with the same silly nostaligia we look back on mass > transit with. There are all kinds of wind power generators going up in the countryside around here (SW Minnesota) and I took note of more new high power utility lines going up along the interstate highway the other day. My God, the countryside is being totally ruined! Take your brave new world and shove it up your ass! >> I would like to see all private motor vehicles banned forever from a >> civilized nation. They reek of the 20th century and we no longer need >> that kind of aggravation. > > Well I'm sure you'd make a great and popular president. I just love to see grid lock in the Metros. I look at all the fools sitting in their cars and think ... what g.d. fools they are! >> Mass transit is the only solution. Europe had this figured out many years >> ago and now we will have to figure it out too. Personally, I have always >> liked trolley cars. I remember that the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and >> St.Paul) had a fairly good system back in the 40's and 50's. > > Oh God here we go with Europe again. Europe does this, Europe does that. > You're like someone's bitchy annoying relative ("Why don't you be more > like your cousing Jeffy?"). I don't know how or why they do that in > Europe, but our citizens enjoy living their life differently. A bunch of > kooky, angry, impotent USENET posters isn't going to change that, or > anything. It all has to do with population density. Hey, you want America to be like it was when we grew up? Then you have to get rid of 150 million people. But we are now at 300 million and we will soon be at 1 billion the way things are going. Europe is just ahead of us, that is all. We will have to play catch up since we cannot control our population. Demography is destiny. Anyone who does not believe this is a fool. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 26 Jul 2007 09:12:20 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? In article <FO2dnQoOX9R6vjXbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com >, "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:CJSdncWuINxHOjrbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > >> Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of > >> transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles. > > > > Joe, about once a year I visit a major metro and I am appalled by > > the traffic congestion that I see everywhere in those metros. It is > > simply insane how we keep piling up motor vehicles on top of motor > > vehicles. > > It's how people want to live. No, it's how people think they have to live because they've been on the receiving end of massive social engineering by the automotive and oil industries to benefit the automotive and oil industries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy If you ask people whether they *want* to spend the equivalent an a work week every year sitting in traffic, they'd tell you "no." Except for a few weirdos. I calculated once that if I didn't own a car and pay the associated costs, I could work four days a week and come out ahead. My compromise is to buy a good used car for cash and replace it every 10 years if needed, and to ride my bike for practical use (going to work, going to the store, going to visit friends, etc.) when I can. <snip > > Oh God here we go with Europe again. Europe does this, Europe does > that. You're like someone's bitchy annoying relative ("Why don't you > be more like your cousing Jeffy?"). I don't know how or why they do > that in Europe, but our citizens enjoy living their life differently. "Enjoy" is perhaps not the right word, given the endless bitching I hear from people about traffic. But they also don't want to pay the trillion dollars in taxes that it would take for our state to eliminate the road congestion caused by our one-car-per-person lifestyle. Americans do like the false sense of independence they get from using a car, I'll certainly agree with you there, but car dependence creates many problems.       Date: 25 Jul 2007 09:27:46 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > writes: > Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is > because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor > do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything that they think will reduce the chances of their children being injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane versus a striped shoulder is basically zero. In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really bicycle/pedestrian paths. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB         Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:40:03 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 1, 9:31 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>> Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower > >>> traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, > >>> then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless > >>> preparing for a turn across that lane. > >> Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even > >> worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD > >> NOT be anywhere else. > > > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane, > > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I > > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning > > cars can get by. > > I have had drivers pass me to the LEFT when I was at the left side of > the left lane signaling a left turn, oncoming traffic be dammed. > > I have also had several drivers point at the "bicycle lane" and yell at > me for riding in the street, despite the "bicycle lane" having a safe > design speed of less than 10 mph and requiring intersections be crossed > like a pedestrian. No thanks. > > >> Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go > >> when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001). > > >> Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay > >> attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? > > > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and > > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably > > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained. > > Is this town some upscale Silly Cone Valley community or similar? Where > I live, the potholes are big enough to rip a 185/60R14 tire off a rim - > think they have money for sweeping the "bicycle lane"? > > Also, where I live the bicycle lane is mostly used to pass other motor > vehicles on the right, while driving 20 to 40 mph over the speed limit. It sounds like Tijuana, Mexico. Viva la Raza!         Date: 26 Jul 2007 08:53:11 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being > injured. It doesn't surprise me at all, but all the same it would be much, much, much better if they supported things that *actually* reduce the chances, rather than things that they assume reduce them, but have no clear track record of actually doing so. > Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more > comfortable when there is one. For some values of "comfortable". I doubt that the several documented cases of commuters being crushed (fatally, in several cases) against roadside railings by left turning trucks (that'll be equivalent to right turn if you drive on the right where you're reading this) as they "comfortably" made their way up the inside on cycle lanes just as the lights turned green were too comfortable as they had the life squeezed out of them. > And our traffic engineers like them as > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes > double as breakdown lanes So when I'm cycling along there's asuddenly a broken down vehicle in my way, and now I have to go out into the main traffic flow /where nobody expects me because there is a bike lane/. That's not a Good Thing. They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no effort and they get to think they're doing something useful. The most common effect of these lanes is to force cyclists closer to the kerb than it's often wise to cycle, and allows drivers to think it's fine to overtake with minimal clearance just as long as there's a white line between them and the cyclist. Compare and contrast to how you should overtake on a road with no such lane: http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139 > In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road > and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely > separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really > bicycle/pedestrian paths. They are popular amongst people who /assume/ they are a safety benefit. They are less popular among cyclists who've read the record of what they actually achieve. See http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 02 Aug 2007 15:33:23 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 2, 2:37 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > I've been passed while driving by a speeding vehicle that decided to > use a bike lane to get by, even though there was no on-coming traffic > and the road was completely straight. You can always find some idiot > on the road who is competely irresponsible. What else is new? It > simply has nothing to do with bike lanes - they'll do something > incredibly stupid regardless. You don't seem to realize that the incident you describe argues against the common pro-bike lane idea - "If only I could be separated from cars by a white line, I'd be safe." In the real world, the white stripe does not protect you. It merely shows where the glass and gravel begin. - Frank Krygowski             Date: 03 Aug 2007 01:21:24 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 2, 2:37 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > > I've been passed while driving by a speeding vehicle that decided to > > use a bike lane to get by, even though there was no on-coming traffic > > and the road was completely straight. You can always find some idiot > > on the road who is competely irresponsible. What else is new? It > > simply has nothing to do with bike lanes - they'll do something > > incredibly stupid regardless. > > You don't seem to realize that the incident you describe argues > against the common pro-bike lane idea - "If only I could be separated > from cars by a white line, I'd be safe." You don't seem to understand that I never espoused your strawmen, or at least that is what you are pretending to do. > In the real world, the white stripe does not protect you. It merely > shows where the glass and gravel begin. Not true (the part about "glass and gravel"), but spinning is all you know how to do. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 01 Aug 2007 19:50:43 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 1, 9:33 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and > > > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably > > > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained. > > > Your bike paths are swept? How often does someone on a bike A) have > > trash and B) Drop it on the bike path when you could just drop it > > in a trash can? And "Bike Path Sweeping" is not considred maintenence. > > The asphalt or concert can take a little,,,, a whatever gets on it. > > Not sure what though.... > > I mentioned bike lanes, which are part of the roads. The bike paths > (mostly by the bay) are clean as well, but I don't know the schedule, > only the results. > > Road maintainence includes regular sweeping - once per week or so > around here. The street outside of where I live is completely clean of > debris. So are the bike lanes and the lanes next to them. My bet is that fewer than 1% of the bike lanes in the US are swept weekly. I just returned from a vacation in a city famous for lots of bike lanes. On one of my previous trips there, I had a conversation with one of the bike advocates that helped get them installed. When I mentioned the debris, he claimed it was no problem - that a wonderful system was in place to report debris and get almost immediate sweeping. Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble. My town has almost no bike lanes, thank goodness. But I know the street sweeping schedule. Streets are swept twice per year, if the budget allows. And I see no prospect of the budget getting much better. More bike lanes certainly will not have that effect. Zaumen, like other bike lane advocates, claims to live with ideal bike lanes: well designed, well maintained, and very beneficial. All I can say is that there are many, many bike lanes that do not meet the first two criteria; and even those that do generally seem useless to me. I won"t go so far as to say all bike lanes are evil. There may be isolated instances where that magic stripe does some good. But in all the situations I know, the total width of pavement is what makes the difference. Things are no better, and usually somewhat worse, if the extra width is separated by a white stripe. If bike lane advocates switched to advocating "sharrows," I could possibly accept more of their ideas. - Frank Krygowski             Date: 01 Aug 2007 23:48:58 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 1, 9:33 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> writes: > > I mentioned bike lanes, which are part of the roads. The bike paths > > (mostly by the bay) are clean as well, but I don't know the schedule, > > only the results. > > > > Road maintainence includes regular sweeping - once per week or so > > around here. The street outside of where I live is completely clean of > > debris. So are the bike lanes and the lanes next to them. > > My bet is that fewer than 1% of the bike lanes in the US are swept > weekly. Ours our clean of debris - almost: I about a mile along one today and spotted a solitary leaf that must have fallen since the last cleaning. > > I just returned from a vacation in a city famous for lots of bike > lanes. On one of my previous trips there, I had a conversation with > one of the bike advocates that helped get them installed. When I > mentioned the debris, he claimed it was no problem - that a wonderful > system was in place to report debris and get almost immediate > sweeping. > > Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass > and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in > the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble. Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged city he rode. > My town has almost no bike lanes, thank goodness. But I know the > street sweeping schedule. Streets are swept twice per year, if the > budget allows. And I see no prospect of the budget getting much > better. More bike lanes certainly will not have that effect. Move somewhere else. :-) > > Zaumen, like other bike lane advocates, claims to live with ideal bike > lanes: well designed, well maintained, and very beneficial. All I can > say is that there are many, many bike lanes that do not meet the first > two criteria; and even those that do generally seem useless to me. More lies from Krygowski (his speciality) - I don't go around asking for bike lanes (which is what a bike-lane advocate does). > If bike lane advocates switched to advocating "sharrows," I could > possibly accept more of their ideas. Nobody I know (nor I) have any objections to sharrows, but you can't put them on just any street - there are some Caltrans rules about what sort of street they can go on. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB               Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:32:40 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass >>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in >>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble. > > > Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins > everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide > any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged > city he rode. > Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake. Wayne                 Date: 03 Aug 2007 20:43:18 From: Patrick Lamb Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:32:40 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >Bill Z. wrote: >> frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >>>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass >>>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in >>>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble. >> >> Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins >> everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide >> any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged >> city he rode. > >Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking >about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for many >writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake. > >Wayne Seconded. Frank's experiences closely parallel mine. Pat Email address works as is.                   Date: 03 Aug 2007 23:05:36 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > writes: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:32:40 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> > wrote: > >Bill Z. wrote: > >> frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >>>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass > >>>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in > >>>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble. > >> > >> Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins > >> everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide > >> any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged > >> city he rode. > > > >Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking > >about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for many > >writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake. > > > >Wayne > > Seconded. Frank's experiences closely parallel mine. Then you must be as much of a nut case as he is - the lanes, when installed in accordance to the latest standards, are harmless. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                 Date: 02 Aug 2007 23:00:57 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > >>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass > >>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in > >>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble. > > Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins > > everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide > > any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged > > city he rode. > > > > Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking > about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for > many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake. Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he is one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few "discussions" with him. At one point, he accused me of not reading some unmentioned magazine with one of the widest circulations in the U.S. - turns out it was "Parade", which is a stuffer that many newspapers insert into Sunday edition, and mostly contains advertising with a little fluff so that people might actually thumb through it. He went on like this was some cardinal sin and then tried to pretend that "Parade" was some sort of required reading when I pointed out what "magazine" he was actually referring to. But of course, Krygowski never mentioned that magazine explicity in his original post because he spins like crazy, being a wannabe Karl Rove. Pein meanwhile is a wannabe Krygowski - about as dishonest but a bit more crude and obvious about it. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                   Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:40:40 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: >>Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking >>about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for >>many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake. > > > Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he is > one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few > "discussions" with him. Zauman, from my current "discussion" with you, I conclude that you are a moron. I've had numerous discussions with Frank, and he doesn't misinterpret me like you do, or distort what I say, or say anything dishonest. Over the years I've read hundreds of his posts on usenet and have never read anything dishonest. You are a fruit cake. You need professional help. Wayne                     Date: 03 Aug 2007 14:37:10 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >>Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking > >>about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for > >>many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake. > > Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he > > is > > one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few > > "discussions" with him. > > Zauman, from my current "discussion" with you, I conclude that you are > a moron. I've had numerous discussions with Frank, and he doesn't > misinterpret me like you do, or distort what I say, or say anything > dishonest. What a liar you are, Pein. You are the person who is distorting what you are replying to. If you have nice discussions with Krygowski, it is only because you two agree with each other. > Over the years I've read hundreds of his posts on usenet > and have never read anything dishonest. You are a fruit cake. You need > professional help. Krygowski is a bald-faced liar, and so are you. Of course, you probably never disagreed with him on any of his pet peeves. If you did, he'd lie about you just as he lies about anyone else he disagrees with. You can look at his dishonest comments about a former disccusion (I even produced the message ID a day or so ago showing that he dissembled). Rather than admit the truth, he then tried to accuse me of changing the subject - anything but admit the truth. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                       Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:06:16 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > What a liar you are, Pein. You are the person who is distorting > what you are replying to. If you have nice discussions with Krygowski, > it is only because you two agree with each other. Moron, I don't lie: ever. Conversing with you is the most painful experience I've had in a long time. Good bye. Wayne                         Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:58:18 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > What a liar you are, Pein. You are the person who is distorting > > what you are replying to. If you have nice discussions with Krygowski, > > it is only because you two agree with each other. > > Moron, > > I don't lie: ever. Conversing with you is the most painful experience > I've had in a long time. > > Good bye. > Wayne ROTFLMAO. You claimed the post you made 3 minutes before this one was your "last communication" and now you say you don't lie? :-) I really don't care whether you consider it lying, but you have been going around repeatedly misrepresenting what I said, replying to sensible comments with infantile name calling, and otherwise behaving like a child. If you find conversing with me to be a "painful experience", it is simply because you can't handle any statement about some topics that clashes with your preconceptions. You need some professional help. Maybe you and your friend Krygowski can go in together for group therapy. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:03:08 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:5gr278F3i3ogiU1@mid.individual.net... > Bill Z. wrote: [...] >> In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road >> and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely >> separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really >> bicycle/pedestrian paths. > > They are popular amongst people who /assume/ they are a safety benefit. > They are less popular among cyclists who've read the record of what they > actually achieve. Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland is one of the most stupid members ever to infect ARBR. You listen to anything he has to say at your peril. A bike path is completely safe provided you use the common sense you were born with. The highways and streets which you share with motor vehicles are anything but safe. Even a dumb child knows that much. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota\           Date: 26 Jul 2007 16:45:32 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes > > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, > > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything > > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being > > injured. > > It doesn't surprise me at all, but all the same it would be much, > much, much better if they supported things that *actually* reduce the > chances, rather than things that they assume reduce them, but have no > clear track record of actually doing so. > > > Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more > > comfortable when there is one. > > For some values of "comfortable". We have very wide roads around here by European standards. One effect the bike lanes have is to make inexperienced cyclists more comfortable riding further from the curb than they otherwise would, and that decreases the chance of being cut off by a turning vehicle, but doesn't reduce it to zero. For experts, the bike lanes make very little difference (as long as they follow current design standards). The additional cost of a bike lane in cases where you would otherwise put in a shoulder stripe is nearly zero. > > > And our traffic engineers like them as > > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes > > double as breakdown lanes > > So when I'm cycling along there's asuddenly a broken down vehicle in > my way, and now I have to go out into the main traffic flow /where > nobody expects me because there is a bike lane/. That's not a Good > Thing. They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no > effort and they get to think they're doing something useful. You mean you have to do a lane change just as you would if you were in a traffic lane and a vehicle broke down in front of you? Even California drivers aren't that stupid (and believe me, around here we really have our share of idiots). And keep in mind that if there wasn't a bike lane in this case, there would be a shoulder stripe anyway. You'd end up riding in just about the same place on the roadway. One thing that happens when they put in bike lanes (and when there is sufficient road width) is that they will put a "through" bike lane to the right of the right turn lane (change to left for the UK), and indicate a transition. Where the bike lanes tend to really help experienced cyclists is on heavily traveled commute routes in which cars back up at lights for very long distances. The bike lanes tend to "organize" the cars better so that you can jump to the head of the queue. I'd pass the stopped vehicles slowly and carefully anyway, but at least you don't have a slalom course to deal with. > > The most common effect of these lanes is to force cyclists closer to > the kerb than it's often wise to cycle, and allows drivers to think > it's fine to overtake with minimal clearance just as long as there's a > white line between them and the cyclist. That one is not true - it puts the cyclists further from the curb. Most people where I live stay way too close to the curb because they can't judge the distance from the lane divider well enough and are afraid they may be too close to a car. The bike lane stripe gives them something to guide on. The trick in making it work safely is to give the cars no more lane width than the drivers really need. Then, if you ride a couple of feet from the bike lane stripe, you'll be in just about the same position on the roadway that an experienced cyclist would be. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB             Date: 02 Aug 2007 19:53:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > > > ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore > > their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of > > the particular implementation. > > Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to > merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road). > I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal" > facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility). > > Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to > show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some > figment of your imagination. Besides, if "separate but equal" is the law of the land in many areas, particularly applied to those who live beyond walled communities, I don't see why it should apply to bikes and SUVs. They do NOT mix, just as lions and monkeys.               Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:34:06 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? donquijote1954 who? wrote: > On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: >> >> >> >>> ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore >>> their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of >>> the particular implementation. >> Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to >> merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road). >> I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal" >> facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility). >> >> Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to >> show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some >> figment of your imagination. > > Besides, if "separate but equal" is the law of the land in many areas, > particularly applied to those who live beyond walled communities, I > don't see why it should apply to bikes and SUVs. They do NOT mix, just > as lions and monkeys. Some of the monkeys (ok, apes) learned to walk upright and used their now free forelimbs to make and hold weapons. The lions learned to stay well away from these otherwise slow and weak creatures. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com             Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:15:15 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > We have very wide roads around here by European standards. But to what degree is "here" local? I've been places in the US and Canada where the roads were remarkably similar in most respects to many European ones. You need to realise that your solution doesn't necessarily scale too well to be a general solution. Would you happily fit an extra 12' of bike lane into a typical Boston street? > You mean you have to do a lane change just as you would if you were in > a traffic lane and a vehicle broke down in front of you? No, because in a normal lane change I'm sharing the road with drivers who are used to cyclists being on the road and consequently are more likely to notice me and know how to deal with a bike. > Where the bike lanes tend to really help experienced cyclists is on > heavily traveled commute routes in which cars back up at lights for > very long distances. The bike lanes tend to "organize" the cars > better so that you can jump to the head of the queue. I'd pass the > stopped vehicles slowly and carefully anyway, but at least you don't > have a slalom course to deal with. That's where they're often popular in the UK. Works very nicely until you get to /near/ the head of the queue and the lights change. At which point people turn without paying much attention or if you want to be in the lane to turn right (left in US) you're completely snookered, because there's a mile of traffic to go by before you can move across the road. They have some usefulness, yes. But they're not a full solution applicable everywhere. > That one is not true - it puts the cyclists further from the curb. Would depend on the lane. It certainly doesn't put *me* further from the kerb, because I typically ride slightly further out than UK lanes are wide (I ride about 4' out typically). Imagine 12' of lane to every road in the US for bikes, and we're in the realm of not too practical, I'd guess. Not to say it's a bad thing in all cases, but the advantages of segregation are often assumed rather than real AFAICT. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/               Date: 27 Jul 2007 15:14:09 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > We have very wide roads around here by European standards. > > But to what degree is "here" local? I've been places in the US and > Canada where the roads were remarkably similar in most respects to > many European ones. You need to realise that your solution doesn't > necessarily scale too well to be a general solution. Would you > happily fit an extra 12' of bike lane into a typical Boston street? 12'??? The minimum is more like 4 to 5 feet (with some dependency on how the gutter is treated). I said bike lanes aren't a problem when you follow design standards, and if they don't follow design standards, you can legally ignore a bike lane. Also, it is not my solution. A bike lane is simply one of any number of road facilities that traffic engineers can use, depending on the circumstances. Also, your use of the word "scale" is technically wrong. I'd suggest avoiding high-tech jargon if you don't know how to use it. > > You mean you have to do a lane change just as you would if you were in > > a traffic lane and a vehicle broke down in front of you? > > No, because in a normal lane change I'm sharing the road with drivers > who are used to cyclists being on the road and consequently are more > likely to notice me and know how to deal with a bike. This argument is pure nonsense. You brought up the case where a vehicle was stopped ahead of you and you had to go around it. That requires a lane change whether or not there is a bike lane. The drivers will notice you just as much if there is a bike lane than if there is not one - drivers de facto treat bike lanes like shoulder stripes. I've yet to see anyone claim that riding to the right (left in the U.K.) side of a shoulder stripe is dangerous. The anti-bike lane hysteria of many is just plain silly. All the things are is a special purpose lane. Drivers should be expected to understand what these are, and they are fundamentally no different that HOV lanes or bus lanes - lanes restricted to specific types of vehicles. To justify your claim you would have to show why a bus lane doesn't make drivers suddently incapable of noticing buses. In reality, drivers tend to notice things on the road that can cause some damage to their vehicles. Bicycles are no exception. If they cut you off or otherwise misbehave, it is because they think they can get away with it (you'll get out of their way) but they really don't want to have to take the vehicle to the shop to get a dent fixed. > > Where the bike lanes tend to really help experienced cyclists is on > > heavily traveled commute routes in which cars back up at lights for > > very long distances. The bike lanes tend to "organize" the cars > > better so that you can jump to the head of the queue. I'd pass the > > stopped vehicles slowly and carefully anyway, but at least you don't > > have a slalom course to deal with. > > That's where they're often popular in the UK. Works very nicely until > you get to /near/ the head of the queue and the lights change. At > which point people turn without paying much attention or if you want > to be in the lane to turn right (left in US) you're completely > snookered, because there's a mile of traffic to go by before you can > move across the road. Also not true. Under the CVC (California Vehicle Code), you are allowed to leave a bike lane at any point where a right turn (a turn across the bike lane) is permitted, and only have to use the bike lane otherwise when riding at less than the normal speed of traffic. We also have bike lanes to the left of right turn lanes, which reduces the chance of being cut off in such situations. Your U.S. left turn argument is really bogus. If you are a mile before your turn, you'd just use the bike lane to bypass most of the traffic, and then you simply change lanes and get in position for your left turn. If you can't manage that, you probably should not be riding a bike, at least not on that road. > They have some usefulness, yes. But they're not a full solution > applicable everywhere. Nobody claimed they were applicable everywhere - you made that one up. > > That one is not true - it puts the cyclists further from the curb. > > Would depend on the lane. It certainly doesn't put *me* further from > the kerb, because I typically ride slightly further out than UK lanes > are wide (I ride about 4' out typically). Imagine 12' of lane to > every road in the US for bikes, and we're in the realm of not too > practical, I'd guess. Not to say it's a bad thing in all cases, but > the advantages of segregation are often assumed rather than real > AFAICT. This is another bogus argument - most cyclists tend to stay way too close to the curb. If you ride 4' from the curb, in a typical bike lane in which parking is not allowed, that will put you about one foot inside the bike lane. If parking is allowed (and of course, I'm assuming that parking is needed and used), you should be alot further than 4 feet from the curb to avoid swerving around parked cars. We don't have 12' bike lanes in the U.S. unless cars are allowed to park inside the bike lane. We do have 12' traffic lanes in many places. If that is what you use, then when you are riding inside a bike lane, you are in the same position relative to the cars that pass you that you would be if you rode in traffic lane at about the same position that a motorcycle would use. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                 Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:54:12 From: Martin Dann Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > > This argument is pure nonsense. You brought up the case where a vehicle > was stopped ahead of you and you had to go around it. That requires a > lane change whether or not there is a bike lane. The drivers will > notice you just as much if there is a bike lane than if there is not > one If cyclist are put onto a different road network to cars, then car drivers will stop thinking that cyclist should be on the road. When a driver meets a cyclist on the road, (s)he will have less experience of how to deal with that cyclist. - drivers de facto treat bike lanes like shoulder stripes. I've > yet to see anyone claim that riding to the right (left in the U.K.) > side of a shoulder stripe is dangerous. I claim that (ICMTP) cycling to the right (US) of the white strip is dangerous. It means that you are cycling in the un-swept gutter full of broken glass, branches from trees and marbles. > Your U.S. left turn argument is really bogus. If you are a mile > before your turn, you'd just use the bike lane to bypass most of the > traffic, and then you simply change lanes and get in position for your > left turn. If you can't manage that, you probably should not be > riding a bike, at least not on that road. IF you argue that, then you really don't know what the traffic is like in the UK, even on minor roads. Sometimes I cycle three of more miles past almost stationary cars. It is dangerous to pass them kerbside, and idiotic to try and move across they non-existent flow.                   Date: 01 Aug 2007 16:47:05 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > This argument is pure nonsense. You brought up the case where a > > vehicle > > was stopped ahead of you and you had to go around it. That requires a > > lane change whether or not there is a bike lane. The drivers will > > notice you just as much if there is a bike lane than if there is not > > one > > If cyclist are put onto a different road network to cars, then car > drivers will stop thinking that cyclist should be on the road. > When a driver meets a cyclist on the road, (s)he will have less > experience of how to deal with that cyclist. You are confusing bike lanes with bike paths. The latter is a "separate road network", but the former is not, but rather simply a lane on the same road that drivers use. Bicyclists have to leave bike lanes every so often - e.g., to prepare for a left turn or when stopped at a light so that right-turning traffic can get by. At one spot a few miles from where I live, we have a bike lane a few hundred feet long at a freeway underpass, with the bike lane to the *left* of two lanes that lead onto the freeway (where bicycles are permitted). This area gets very heavy commute traffic. Given that the bike lane is placed between heavily used traffic lanes, it would hardly send a message that cyclist do not belong on the road. Also, the bike lane was really an improvement over the previous design: if you road in a safe spot (to the left of the right turn lanes), the optimal location in terms of not inconveniencing drivers was right over a lane line, which had "bots dots" (raised reflectors) on it. Now we can ride in basically the same spot but without having to dodge reflectors. The bike lane starts at the start of the dual turn lanes, so you only have to cross one lane of traffic from the shoulder to enter it. > - drivers de facto treat bike lanes like shoulder stripes. I've > > yet to see anyone claim that riding to the right (left in the U.K.) > > side of a shoulder stripe is dangerous. > > I claim that (ICMTP) > > cycling to the right (US) of the white strip is dangerous. It means > that you are cycling in the un-swept gutter full of broken glass, > branches from trees and marbles. It's simply not true on the road in the town I live in. The shoulders are kept free of debris, but by "dangerous" I was referring to collisions only - in a short usenet post, you simply can't cover every contingency, and this thread is not worth spending hours composing each post, in order to cover every special case no matter how obscure. > > Your U.S. left turn argument is really bogus. If you are a mile > > before your turn, you'd just use the bike lane to bypass most of the > > traffic, and then you simply change lanes and get in position for your > > left turn. If you can't manage that, you probably should not be > > riding a bike, at least not on that road. > > IF you argue that, then you really don't know what the traffic is like > in the UK, even on minor roads. I was describing conditions in Silicon Valley - this area has some of the worst congestion in the U.S., and we can get very long lines of cars that are at a dead stop due to traffic signals. > Sometimes I cycle three of more miles past almost stationary cars. It > is dangerous to pass them kerbside, and idiotic to try and move across > they non-existent flow. It is not dangerous to pass them on by the curb if you have adequate clearance from them and they are stopped, the usual situation around here for the case where a bike lane really helps you get somewhere faster. But whether they are stopped or not, if you are going at the normal speed of traffic or faster, you don't have to use a bike lane (at least you don't have to in California). Whether you can safely pass moving vehicles by riding near the curb depends on the situation. If you in an area with no driveways or intersections, it is reasonably safe given adequate clearance from the vehicles. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                 Date: 28 Jul 2007 11:01:12 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > 12'??? The minimum is more like 4 to 5 feet (with some dependency on > how the gutter is treated). Most roads have 2 way traffic. > This argument is pure nonsense. You brought up the case where a vehicle > was stopped ahead of you and you had to go around it. That requires a > lane change whether or not there is a bike lane. But if I have to go around from road to road, rather than bike lane to road, there *is* a difference. In one scenario I'm going out of where I belong to a place I'm thought of as not belonging, in the other I just change lanes on the same road. > The drivers will > notice you just as much if there is a bike lane than if there is not > one But that's the whole point you've just missed. Bikes should be in bike lanes if they're provided, so they're not expected on the road. If the driver isn't expecting you at all that reduces your chances of being really seen, in such a way that your presence is acted upon. > - drivers de facto treat bike lanes like shoulder stripes. I've > yet to see anyone claim that riding to the right (left in the U.K.) > side of a shoulder stripe is dangerous. But you're not doing that if you're changing out into the road to go around an obstacle, are you? > The anti-bike lane hysteria of many is just plain silly. It's not "hysteria", it's simply looking at their track record of making things safer, and seeing that they don't. However nice the theory, the result on the ground is they don't appear to help. > Also not true. Under the CVC (California Vehicle Code), you are > allowed to leave a bike lane at any point where a right turn (a > turn across the bike lane) is permitted, and only have to use the > bike lane otherwise when riding at less than the normal speed of > traffic. We also have bike lanes to the left of right turn lanes, > which reduces the chance of being cut off in such situations. You've missed the point again. It isn't whether you can /legally/ leave the lane, it's whether you can *practically* leave it. > Your U.S. left turn argument is really bogus. If you are a mile > before your turn, you'd just use the bike lane to bypass most of the > traffic, and then you simply change lanes and get in position for your > left turn. If you can't manage that, you probably should not be > riding a bike, at least not on that road. But it's not simple if the cars are not worried about the bikes because they're in the bike lane where they "belong". It isn't bogus, it's something that's seen all the time. > Nobody claimed they were applicable everywhere - you made that one > up. If you can come off point scoring for a moment you'll see that's a cautionary note, not an "everything you say is bunk because it isn't applicable everywhere" straw man. > We don't have 12' bike lanes in the U.S. unless cars are allowed to > park inside the bike lane. But you do have two way traffic AFAICT. That's one lane each side. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                 Date: 27 Jul 2007 12:48:34 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > The anti-bike lane hysteria of many is just plain silly. All the > things are is a special purpose lane. Drivers should be expected > to understand what these are, and they are fundamentally no different > that HOV lanes or bus lanes - lanes restricted to specific types > of vehicles. Huh? A 4' lane is not different than a HOV or bus lane? Last time I checked, these lanes were at least 12'. And you've already noted that bike lanes are like shoulders. Well, shoulders are not intended for vehicular use. They are for providing buffer from roadside elements and a vehicle recovery area. To justify your claim you would have to show why > a bus lane doesn't make drivers suddently incapable of noticing > buses. No he doesn't. A bike lane makes bicyclists less noticable to motorists because it creates an additional lane of traffic that bicyclists can be obscured by from turning motorists. > > This is another bogus argument - most cyclists tend to stay way too > close to the curb. Who cares about most cyclists who are ingorant of proper bicycling? Get education! Wayne                   Date: 27 Jul 2007 23:28:52 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > The anti-bike lane hysteria of many is just plain silly. All the > > things are is a special purpose lane. Drivers should be expected > > to understand what these are, and they are fundamentally no different > > that HOV lanes or bus lanes - lanes restricted to specific types > > of vehicles. > > Huh? A 4' lane is not different than a HOV or bus lane? Last time I > checked, these lanes were at least 12'. Huh? You think the lane width has *anything* to with one's understanding of right-of-way rules? > > And you've already noted that bike lanes are like shoulders. Well, > shoulders are not intended for vehicular use. They are for providing > buffer from roadside elements and a vehicle recovery area. Well, that's a distortion of what I said too. I pointed out that the cost of a bike lane stripe is about the same as a shoulder stripe. The bike lanes are treated differently than shoulders at key locations - intersections and places where the lanes terminate. A bike lane strip will be dropped (end when the lane ends), whereas a shoulder strip usually curves and runs to the curb. If you were guiding on a stripe in bad conditions (rain, at night), which would you prefer? > > > To justify your claim you would have to show why > > a bus lane doesn't make drivers suddently incapable of noticing > > buses. > > No he doesn't. A bike lane makes bicyclists less noticable to > motorists because it creates an additional lane of traffic that > bicyclists can be obscured by from turning motorists. Shear nonesense - when riding at less than the normal speed of traffic, a bicyclist would be in about the same position on the roadway regardless, and the stripe itself is not a sight-line obstruction. > > This is another bogus argument - most cyclists tend to stay way too > > close to the curb. > > Who cares about most cyclists who are ingorant of proper bicycling? > Get education! Oh, so you don't care about "most cylclists who are ingorant [sic] of proper bicycling" and would favor natural selection to get rid of them? Some of these cyclists who are "ignorant" are children who are too young to drive a motor vehicle. What do you propose to do with them? Do you really have a problem with a bike lane along a two lane street with a 25 mph speed limit and relatively little traffic, going past an elementary school? Do you have a problem with a bike lane being installed instead of a shoulder stripe on a 6 lane road, with the bike lane going to the left of right turn lanes? The alternative is a shoulder stripe with less lane area in the lane that bicyclist going straight would use. If you simply don't like the things just say you don't like them. It is pointless to come up with silly arguments to justify your preferences. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                     Date: 27 Jul 2007 22:31:05 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >>Bill Z. wrote: >> >> >> >>>The anti-bike lane hysteria of many is just plain silly. All the >>>things are is a special purpose lane. Drivers should be expected >>>to understand what these are, and they are fundamentally no different >>>that HOV lanes or bus lanes - lanes restricted to specific types >>>of vehicles. >> >>Huh? A 4' lane is not different than a HOV or bus lane? Last time I >>checked, these lanes were at least 12'. > > > Huh? You think the lane width has *anything* to with one's > understanding of right-of-way rules? There are *operational* differences between a 4' lane and a 12' lane. > >>And you've already noted that bike lanes are like shoulders. Well, >>shoulders are not intended for vehicular use. They are for providing >>buffer from roadside elements and a vehicle recovery area. > > > Well, that's a distortion of what I said too. I pointed out that > the cost of a bike lane stripe is about the same as a shoulder > stripe. The bike lanes are treated differently than shoulders > at key locations - intersections and places where the lanes > terminate. A bike lane strip will be dropped (end when the lane > ends), whereas a shoulder strip usually curves and runs to the > curb. If you were guiding on a stripe in bad conditions (rain, > at night), which would you prefer? The striping differences between bike lanes and shoulders are inconsequential. They are fundamentally alike. > >> >>To justify your claim you would have to show why >> >>>a bus lane doesn't make drivers suddently incapable of noticing >>>buses. >> >>No he doesn't. A bike lane makes bicyclists less noticable to >>motorists because it creates an additional lane of traffic that >>bicyclists can be obscured by from turning motorists. > > > Shear nonesense - when riding at less than the normal speed of > traffic, a bicyclist would be in about the same position on the > roadway regardless, and the stripe itself is not a sight-line > obstruction. Totally untrue. Imagine a 10' lane. Now imagine that 10' lane with a bike lane next to it. With the bike lane, there would be guaranteed motor vehicle obstructions adjacent to the bicyclist. > > >>>This is another bogus argument - most cyclists tend to stay way too >>>close to the curb. >> >>Who cares about most cyclists who are ingorant of proper bicycling? >>Get education! > > > Oh, so you don't care about "most cylclists who are ingorant [sic] of > proper bicycling" and would favor natural selection to get rid of them? > > Some of these cyclists who are "ignorant" are children who are too young > to drive a motor vehicle. What do you propose to do with them? Do you > really have a problem with a bike lane along a two lane street with a > 25 mph speed limit and relatively little traffic, going past an > elementary school? Yes. What is the point of a bike lane on a low volume low speed street? > > Do you have a problem with a bike lane being installed instead of a > shoulder stripe on a 6 lane road, with the bike lane going to the > left of right turn lanes? The alternative is a shoulder stripe > with less lane area in the lane that bicyclist going straight would > use. Yes. The alternative is a wide outside lane or a narrow outside lane. > > If you simply don't like the things just say you don't like them. It > is pointless to come up with silly arguments to justify your > preferences. Your arguments are silly. Wayne                       Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:08:07 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > >>Bill Z. wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>The anti-bike lane hysteria of many is just plain silly. All the > >>>things are is a special purpose lane. Drivers should be expected > >>>to understand what these are, and they are fundamentally no different > >>>that HOV lanes or bus lanes - lanes restricted to specific types > >>>of vehicles. > >> > >>Huh? A 4' lane is not different than a HOV or bus lane? Last time I > >>checked, these lanes were at least 12'. > > Huh? You think the lane width has *anything* to with one's > > understanding of right-of-way rules? > > There are *operational* differences between a 4' lane and a 12' lane. Given that a motor vehicle going straight is not allowed in a bike lane, and must merge into the bike lane before turning across it, starting the merge when no further than 200 feet from the turning point, and given that a vehicle changing lanes must not change lanes until reasonably safe, exacty what "operational" difference do you think might be of any consequence? > >>And you've already noted that bike lanes are like shoulders. Well, > >>shoulders are not intended for vehicular use. They are for providing > >>buffer from roadside elements and a vehicle recovery area. > > Well, that's a distortion of what I said too. I pointed out that > > the cost of a bike lane stripe is about the same as a shoulder > > stripe. The bike lanes are treated differently than shoulders > > at key locations - intersections and places where the lanes > > terminate. A bike lane strip will be dropped (end when the lane > > ends), whereas a shoulder strip usually curves and runs to the > > curb. If you were guiding on a stripe in bad conditions (rain, > > at night), which would you prefer? > > The striping differences between bike lanes and shoulders are > inconsequential. They are fundamentally alike. Not true at all - shoulders can have a surface that is not really suitable for travel, although OK for parking, and may vary in width arbitrarily, even disappearing without any warning. > >>To justify your claim you would have to show why > >> > >>>a bus lane doesn't make drivers suddently incapable of noticing > >>>buses. > >> > >>No he doesn't. A bike lane makes bicyclists less noticable to > >>motorists because it creates an additional lane of traffic that > >>bicyclists can be obscured by from turning motorists. > > Shear nonesense - when riding at less than the normal speed of > > traffic, a bicyclist would be in about the same position on the > > roadway regardless, and the stripe itself is not a sight-line > > obstruction. > > Totally untrue. Imagine a 10' lane. Now imagine that 10' lane with a > bike lane next to it. With the bike lane, there would be guaranteed > motor vehicle obstructions adjacent to the bicyclist. Wrong. If the road contained only a 10' lane, there would be no room for a bike lane, so the real comparison is more like an 18 foot lane versus a 12 foot traffic lane + a 6 foot bike lane. If you ride 2 feet within such a bike lane, you would be in the exact same position from a lane stripe that John Forester recommended in _Effective Cycling_ for wide traffic lanes - he mentions a typical distance of about 14 feet from the lane stripe when riding in a wide lane at less than the speed of traffic. > >>>This is another bogus argument - most cyclists tend to stay way too > >>>close to the curb. > >> > >>Who cares about most cyclists who are ingorant of proper bicycling? > >>Get education! > > Oh, so you don't care about "most cylclists who are ingorant [sic] of > > proper bicycling" and would favor natural selection to get rid of them? > > Some of these cyclists who are "ignorant" are children who are too > > young > > to drive a motor vehicle. What do you propose to do with them? Do you > > really have a problem with a bike lane along a two lane street with a > > 25 mph speed limit and relatively little traffic, going past an > > elementary school? > > Yes. What is the point of a bike lane on a low volume low speed street? Keeping the parents of school kids happy for one. > > Do you have a problem with a bike lane being installed instead of a > > shoulder stripe on a 6 lane road, with the bike lane going to the > > left of right turn lanes? The alternative is a shoulder stripe > > with less lane area in the lane that bicyclist going straight would > > use. > > Yes. The alternative is a wide outside lane or a narrow outside lane. ROTFLMAO! You are not getting an extra wide outside lane. You are going to get a bike lane or a shoulder, with the strip in basically the smae position. It's very easy to design - you run an expert cyclist along the road in heavy traffic but traffic moving faster than the expert, track where he rides, and put the lane stripe 2 feet to his left, but being sure to give the vehicles a normal width lane. Do that and the bike lane stripe will be about 12 feet from the outermost lane stripe, and the expert cyclist will be riding just where he would be riding without the bike lane. > > > If you simply don't like the things just say you don't like them. It > > is pointless to come up with silly arguments to justify your > > preferences. > > Your arguments are silly. To be blunt, Your arguments are idiotic. You are obviously ignoring reality due to some thing you have about bike lanes. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                         Date: 30 Jul 2007 12:45:42 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: >> >>There are *operational* differences between a 4' lane and a 12' lane. > > > Given that a motor vehicle going straight is not allowed in a bike > lane, and must merge into the bike lane before turning across it, > starting the merge when no further than 200 feet from the turning > point, and given that a vehicle changing lanes must not change > lanes until reasonably safe, exacty what "operational" difference > do you think might be of any consequence? > Ever ride a bike? It's telling how the most experienced of bicyclists argue against bike lanes, while the least experienced espouse them. Further, the primary argument for them is that they make inexperienced bicyclists "comfortable." Here's a hint for you. Experienced bicyclists know what is best for inexperienced bicyclists, having been one at one time. Only bikes can operate in 4' at the side of the road. That changes total roadway operations. At the side of the road, which bike lanes force, sight lines are restricted, which effects bike operation. A 4' lane does offer meaningful lateral leeway to manage one's space. A bike lane will collect debris, which affects bike operation. > To be blunt, Your arguments are idiotic. You are obviously ignoring > reality due to some thing you have about bike lanes. > > To be blunter you're a champion of the ignorant. Wayne                           Date: 30 Jul 2007 16:42:21 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >> > >>There are *operational* differences between a 4' lane and a 12' lane. > > Given that a motor vehicle going straight is not allowed in a bike > > lane, and must merge into the bike lane before turning across it, > > starting the merge when no further than 200 feet from the turning > > point, and given that a vehicle changing lanes must not change > > lanes until reasonably safe, exacty what "operational" difference > > do you think might be of any consequence? > > > > Ever ride a bike? Have you? If you can't handle a 4' to 5' bike lane (the minimum width depends on the location of the gutter pan) next to a standard sized traffic lane, I suggest you stay home and putter around the house. > It's telling how the most experienced of bicyclists argue against bike > lanes, while the least experienced espouse them. Further, the primary > argument for them is that they make inexperienced bicyclists > "comfortable." Most experienced bicylists can handle bike lanes just fine, and find that ones in compliance with the current standards are not a problem (ones that are substandard can be a problem). I know people who have ridden across the U.S. who have no objections to properly designed bike lanes. So, why don't you cut your infantile ad hominem arguments? You are just making yourself look like a fool. <rest of Pein's nonsense snipped > -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                             Date: 31 Jul 2007 16:46:02 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > > > Most experienced bicylists can handle bike lanes just fine, and > find that ones in compliance with the current standards are not > a problem (ones that are substandard can be a problem). I know > people who have ridden across the U.S. who have no objections to > properly designed bike lanes. > > So, why don't you cut your infantile ad hominem arguments? You > are just making yourself look like a fool. > Why should experienced bicyclists have to "handle" bike lanes when they can already handle normal non-bike lane roads. Why do we have to adjust our riding for cry babies like you? Wayne                               Date: 31 Jul 2007 14:04:42 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > Most experienced bicylists can handle bike lanes just fine, and > > find that ones in compliance with the current standards are not > > a problem (ones that are substandard can be a problem). I know > > people who have ridden across the U.S. who have no objections to > > properly designed bike lanes. > > So, why don't you cut your infantile ad hominem arguments? You > > are just making yourself look like a fool. > > > > Why should experienced bicyclists have to "handle" bike lanes when > they can already handle normal non-bike lane roads. Why do we have to > adjust our riding for cry babies like you? The "handling" is the same in each, bike lanes or not, and the only person crying about it is you, a classic case of projection as you try to pass your own infantile behavior off on me. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                 Date: 31 Jul 2007 18:47:15 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > > The "handling" is the same in each, bike lanes or not, and the only > person crying about it is you, a classic case of projection as you > try to pass your own infantile behavior off on me. > Sorry. But adding a bike lane changes the rules of the road and the way operating a bike or a motor vehicle is handled. But bike lane appologists don't recognize this. They just want to be comfortable. Wayne                                   Date: 01 Aug 2007 02:27:20 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > The "handling" is the same in each, bike lanes or not, and the only > > person crying about it is you, a classic case of projection as you > > try to pass your own infantile behavior off on me. > > > > Sorry. But adding a bike lane changes the rules of the road and the > way operating a bike or a motor vehicle is handled. But bike lane > appologists don't recognize this. They just want to be comfortable. Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road. In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left turn, or when approaching a place where a right turn is permitted. Drivers are required to stay out of bike lanes except when turning across one, in which case they must merge into the bike lane and may start merging when within 200 feet of a turn. Pretty simple, and there is nothing to get upset about. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                     Date: 01 Aug 2007 22:11:58 From: Martin Dann Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road. But it makes most cagers think that the rules have changed. It is like have seating for coloured people on buses, you think it helps, but it just causes antagonism between groups. > In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic > have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state > standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other > traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to > use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left > turn, So if I see bike lanes in your state as inherently dangerous, I can ignore them completely? If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have to give up their bus seats for the superior whites). From you arguments it sounds like you just want to keep normal traffic (cyclists) out of your way. [1] On my bike I am normal traffic.                                       Date: 01 Aug 2007 17:01:21 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road. > > But it makes most cagers think that the rules have changed. > It is like have seating for coloured people on buses, you think it > helps, but it just causes antagonism between groups. Not true at all. It's more like having an HOV lane. > > In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic > > have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state > > standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other > > traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to > > use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left > > turn, > > So if I see bike lanes in your state as inherently dangerous, I can > ignore them completely? Sure, and if ticketed, you can try to convince the judge that there was a real hazard. If the issue for you is traffic turning across your path, the California law allows you to leave a bike lane at when approaching a place where a right turn is permitted. If Caltrans standards were ignored when the lane was installed, you don't have to use it either. > If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get > out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have > to give up their bus seats for the superior whites). Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly modified the word "speed", not "traffic". > From you arguments it sounds like you just want to keep normal > traffic (cyclists) out of your way. The phrase I used, "normal speed of traffic", appears in the California Vehicle Code. What I posted was a factual statement about the laws in California. If you don't like what they are, I suggest you write to the state legislature. But don't blame me for merely telling you what the law actually states. > [1] On my bike I am normal traffic. The law refers to traffic, not vehicular traffic, and the phrase was "normal speed of traffic", not "normal traffic". Try thinking about it for a few hours until you understand it. Sorry for the repetition, by you really are being dense. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                         Date: 01 Aug 2007 20:48:30 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > Martin Dann writes: > ... >> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get >> out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have >> to give up their bus seats for the superior whites). > > Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity > to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal > speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly > modified the word "speed", not "traffic".... Whoosh! Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist, anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people of African origin and/or descent" is. Martin was making an analogy to the racist thought that "justified" legal race based segregation in the U.S. being similar to the promotion of second class facilities for cyclists, while reserving the first class facilities for motorists. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                           Date: 01 Aug 2007 23:58:33 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > Martin Dann writes: > > ... > >> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get > >> out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have > >> to give up their bus seats for the superior whites). > > Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity > > to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal > > speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly > > modified the word "speed", not "traffic".... > > Whoosh! > > Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist, > anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly > used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people > of African origin and/or descent" is. The fuck it isn't. The word is so offensive to some people that you simply should not use it. > Martin was making an analogy to the racist thought that "justified" > legal race based segregation in the U.S. being similar to the > promotion of second class facilities for cyclists, while reserving the > first class facilities for motorists. No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic", that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was similar to racism. I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage. It is completely dishonest. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                             Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:09:15 From: Martin Dann Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> Martin Dann writes: >>> ... >>>> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get >>>> out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have >>>> to give up their bus seats for the superior whites). >>> Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity >>> to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal >>> speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly >>> modified the word "speed", not "traffic".... >> Whoosh! >> >> Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist, >> anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly >> used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people >> of African origin and/or descent" is. > > The fuck it isn't. The word is so offensive to some people that you > simply should not use it. The word f*ck is also a very offensive word to some people. Have you ever seen the film "Blazing Saddles" >> Martin was making an analogy to the racist thought that "justified" >> legal race based segregation in the U.S. being similar to the >> promotion of second class facilities for cyclists, while reserving the >> first class facilities for motorists. > No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic", > that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and > pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles > from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was > similar to racism. As I don't live in the USA, I was unaware that such a legal phrase existed. However when motorised traffic moves slower than the "normal speed of traffic", does it have to get out of the way of bikes. Does a slow lorry have to pull over for cars to pass. If not then this phase translates directly into "normal" traffic hence the comparison to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott I also suggest you search the web for "Daniel Cadden" It is my opinion, and that of a great many cyclists that cycles should be on the main road, not segregated and pushed onto poor facilities. > I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage. > It is completely dishonest. What is dishonest is promoting second class cycling facilities as a good idea.                                               Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:49:30 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>> Martin Dann writes: > > > No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic", > > that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and > > pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles > > from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was > > similar to racism. > > As I don't live in the USA, I was unaware that such a legal phrase > existed. No excuse: in standard english, the word "normal" in the phrase "normal speed of traffic" obviously modifies "speed", not "traffic". You pretended that I had said "normal traffic", and you had a good day or more to say that you had made a mistake, but you didn't do that. > However when motorised traffic moves slower than the "normal > speed of traffic", does it have to get out of the way of bikes. Does a > slow lorry have to pull over for cars to pass. If not then this phase > translates directly into "normal" traffic hence the comparison to: In fact, a "slow lorry" operating on a California roadway has to be driven as far to the right as practicable. If on a two lane road (one lane for each direction), when passing is not otherwise possible, a slow moving vehicle (or bicycle) has to pull off the road at the first reasonable opporunity to let faster traffic pass once 5 or more vehicles are queued up behind. BTW, the laws are similar in most states (in the U.S., traffic laws are set by state governments, not the federal government). > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott > I also suggest you search the web for "Daniel Cadden" Not relevant. > It is my opinion, and that of a great many cyclists that cycles should > be on the main road, not segregated and pushed onto poor facilities. Bike lanes are part of a road, including "main roads": we have them on our expressways, at least some of them. > > > I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage. > > It is completely dishonest. > > What is dishonest is promoting second class cycling facilities as a > good idea. No, what is dishonest is lying about what people say, which is what you did. It is not "dishonest" to promote some type of facility as long as you describe it accurately, but your apparent implication that I'm promoting bike lanes is dishonest, as I'm not doing that. Show where I posted any statement that bike lanes in general should be installed. You won't find any. I merely stated that these facilities don't cause problems when properly maintained and designed according the latest standards (some very early bike lanes were poorly designed, but that was before the standards existed). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                                 Date: 03 Aug 2007 00:09:04 From: Martin Dann Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>>>> Martin Dann writes: >>> No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic", >>> that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and >>> pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles >>> from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was >>> similar to racism. It is segregation, not racism that I was comparing to. Read the reference I supplied. >> As I don't live in the USA, I was unaware that such a legal phrase >> existed. > > No excuse: in standard english, the word "normal" in the phrase > "normal speed of traffic" obviously modifies "speed", not "traffic". > You pretended that I had said "normal traffic", and you had a good day > or more to say that you had made a mistake, but you didn't do that. First you claim "normal speed of traffic" is a legal term, then you claim it is "standard english". Which is it? And what is "standard english". I could claim that the lack of an Upper case E on the name of my country is as insulting and racist as using the word nigger. Once you start saying some traffic moves at normal speed, and other traffic does not, you immediately get normal and non-normal traffic. >> However when motorised traffic moves slower than the "normal >> speed of traffic", does it have to get out of the way of bikes. Does a >> slow lorry have to pull over for cars to pass. If not then this phase >> translates directly into "normal" traffic hence the comparison to: > > In fact, a "slow lorry" operating on a California roadway has to be > driven as far to the right as practicable. If on a two lane road (one > lane for each direction), when passing is not otherwise possible, a > slow moving vehicle (or bicycle) has to pull off the road at the first > reasonable opporunity to let faster traffic pass once 5 or more > vehicles are queued up behind. So when a queue of cars are moving slower than the normal speed, do they have to pull in for cyclist to over take or not? (Third time I have asked). > No, what is dishonest is lying about what people say, which is what > you did. It is not "dishonest" to promote some type of facility as > long as you describe it accurately, but your apparent implication that > I'm promoting bike lanes is dishonest, as I'm not doing that. Show > where I posted any statement that bike lanes in general should be > installed. You won't find any. I merely stated that these facilities > don't cause problems when properly maintained and designed according > the latest standards (some very early bike lanes were poorly designed, > but that was before the standards existed). I have used many cycling lanes and routes in my country. I can honestly state that none of them are as safe as using the road, in my experience. Even properly designed facilities, swept and maintained regularly, increase the danger. If I keep just to these facilities I find them full of people and animals. If I have to go on the road in places where these facilities do not exist, then car drivers won't be expecting cyclists, and the danger goes up. Cycling on the road is the only answer.                                                   Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:43:35 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Martin Dann wrote: > ... > And what is "standard english". I could claim that the lack of an Upper > case E on the name of my country is as insulting and racist as using the > word nigger.... Henceforth, I will write "GrEat Britain" and "UnitEd Kingdom". ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                                   Date: 03 Aug 2007 01:37:59 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > > > >> Bill Z. wrote: > >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >>> > >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>>>> Martin Dann writes: > >>> No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic", > >>> that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and > >>> pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles > >>> from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was > >>> similar to racism. > > It is segregation, not racism that I was comparing to. Read the > reference I supplied. Segregation was caused by racism. > > >> As I don't live in the USA, I was unaware that such a legal phrase > >> existed. > > No excuse: in standard english, the word "normal" in the phrase > > "normal speed of traffic" obviously modifies "speed", not "traffic". > > You pretended that I had said "normal traffic", and you had a good day > > or more to say that you had made a mistake, but you didn't do that. > > First you claim "normal speed of traffic" is a legal term, then you > claim it is "standard english". Which is it? Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't understand the English language, nor with some character who misunderstands on purpose. The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term "traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars, bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly, "normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through your thick scull? > And what is "standard english". I could claim that the lack of an > Upper case E on the name of my country is as insulting and racist as > using the word nigger. ROTFLMAO! You can't be serious. People drop upper case letters every so often when typing usenet posts because most of us aren't professional typists and don't always proof read everthing we post. > Once you start saying some traffic moves at normal speed, and other > traffic does not, you immediately get normal and non-normal traffic. No you don't. You get slower and faster traffic, with the "normal speed" being an average. > > In fact, a "slow lorry" operating on a California roadway has to be > > driven as far to the right as practicable. If on a two lane road (one > > lane for each direction), when passing is not otherwise possible, a > > slow moving vehicle (or bicycle) has to pull off the road at the first > > reasonable opporunity to let faster traffic pass once 5 or more > > vehicles are queued up behind. > > So when a queue of cars are moving slower than the normal speed, do > they have to pull in for cyclist to over take or not? (Third time I > have asked). I gave you the answer, you moron - the slower traffic is expected to move as far to the right on the roadway as is practicable (typicaly that means moving into the rightmost lane), and if 5 or more vehicles are queued up behind on a two-lane road where passing is not possible (e.g., heavy traffic in the other direction or where passing is not safe), the slow vehicle has to pull off the road at the first reasonable opportunity. > > > No, what is dishonest is lying about what people say, which is what > > you did. It is not "dishonest" to promote some type of facility as > > long as you describe it accurately, but your apparent implication that > > I'm promoting bike lanes is dishonest, as I'm not doing that. Show > > where I posted any statement that bike lanes in general should be > > installed. You won't find any. I merely stated that these facilities > > don't cause problems when properly maintained and designed according > > the latest standards (some very early bike lanes were poorly designed, > > but that was before the standards existed). > > I have used many cycling lanes and routes in my country. I can > honestly state that none of them are as safe as using the road, in my > experience. What the hell are you talking about? A bike lane *is* a lane on a road. It is not a separate facility - those are called bike paths. > Even properly designed facilities, swept and maintained regularly, > increase the danger. If I keep just to these facilities I find them > full of people and animals. That sounds like a bike/pedestrian path, not a bike lane. We have some paths naer where I live that are reasonably clean, crowded with pedestrians on weekends, but more or less empty weekdays during commute hours. These are reasonably safe - they are along a bay so there are very few points where they intersect roads. Their main advantage (aside from the view) is that you can bypass quite a few traffic signals. > If I have to go on the road in places where these facilities do not > exist, then car drivers won't be expecting cyclists, and the danger > goes up. That one doesn't make sense at all. Are you saying that, if you use road X, drivers won't expect to see any cyclist on road Y? > > Cycling on the road is the only answer. How many times do I have to explain the difference between a bike lane and a bike path to get it through your thick scull - it's not like this is the first post where I've had to try to explain it. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                                     Date: 04 Aug 2007 22:19:42 From: Martin Dann Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't > understand the English language, nor with some character who > misunderstands on purpose. Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand my own first language. > The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California Vehicle > Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term "traffic" refers > to everything moving on the road - cars, bicycles, horses, > what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly, "normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through your thick scull? Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic. btw I don't own any boats.                                                       Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:12:59 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't > > understand the English language, nor with some character who > > misunderstands on purpose. > > > Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand > my own first language. Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until you are no longer a moron. :-) > > The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California > > Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term > > "traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars, > > bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly, > > "normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through > > your thick scull? > > > Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be > slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic. Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed (the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make slow vehicles "abnormal". > btw I don't own any boats. When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red herring or something? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                                         Date: 05 Aug 2007 00:39:34 From: Martin Dann Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >> >>> Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't >>> understand the English language, nor with some character who >>> misunderstands on purpose. >> >> Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand >> my own first language. > > Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until > you are no longer a moron. :-) Just checked the dictionary definition of the word moron, according to the IQ definition I am actually 3 morons, so I can post. >>> The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California >>> Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term >>> "traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars, >>> bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly, >>> "normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through >>> your thick scull? >> >> Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be >> slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic. > > Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed > (the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather > than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding > up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make > slow vehicles "abnormal". This is still a Californian Legal term, it does not apply to the rest of the world. As a legal term, is should not be vague, it should be defined as one of mode, median, mean, average, etc., not changing every time you try and define it here. btw The United Kingdom (including England) is not in California. >> btw I don't own any boats. > > When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red herring > or something? Sorry you mentioned them first, I don't know why as they don't normally travel on roads. (Or do they have a special road lane in California).                                                           Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:53:27 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > > > >> Bill Z. wrote: > >> > >>> Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't > >>> understand the English language, nor with some character who > >>> misunderstands on purpose. > >> > >> Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand > >> my own first language. > > Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until > > you are no longer a moron. :-) > > Just checked the dictionary definition of the word moron, according to > the IQ definition I am actually 3 morons, so I can post. Alas, the IQ's of morons are not additive. > >> Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be > >> slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic. > > Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed > > (the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather > > than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding > > up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make > > slow vehicles "abnormal". > > This is still a Californian Legal term, it does not apply to the rest > of the world. > As a legal term, is should not be vague, it should be defined as one > of mode, median, mean, average, etc., not changing every time you try > and define it here. Bring it up with the state legislature. That's who wrote it. If you get a ticket for crawling along in the left lane, however, feel free to use that argument of yours in court and see how far it gets you. I'm sure the judge will not be amused, other than by the expression on your face when he tells you the fine. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                                             Date: 05 Aug 2007 01:06:12 From: Martin Dann Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >>> Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: >>> >>>> Bill Z. wrote: >>>> >>>>> Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't >>>>> understand the English language, nor with some character who >>>>> misunderstands on purpose. >>>> Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand >>>> my own first language. >>> Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until >>> you are no longer a moron. :-) >> Just checked the dictionary definition of the word moron, according to >> the IQ definition I am actually 3 morons, so I can post. > > Alas, the IQ's of morons are not additive. Even if IQ's were additive, I doubt you would get to one. >>>> Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be >>>> slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic. >>> Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed >>> (the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather >>> than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding >>> up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make >>> slow vehicles "abnormal". >> This is still a Californian Legal term, it does not apply to the rest >> of the world. >> As a legal term, is should not be vague, it should be defined as one >> of mode, median, mean, average, etc., not changing every time you try >> and define it here. > > Bring it up with the state legislature. That's who wrote it. If you > get a ticket for crawling along in the left lane, however, feel free > to use that argument of yours in court and see how far it gets you. > I'm sure the judge will not be amused, other than by the expression > on your face when he tells you the fine. The UK is not in California. Your state legislature, much as it would like to, does not write laws for the rest of the world. So if I am in court, and the Judge tries to judge me by Californian law. My barrister would have the case thrown out before you could say "Moron".                                                               Date: 04 Aug 2007 23:12:32 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > > > >> Bill Z. wrote: > >>> Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > >>> > >>>> Bill Z. wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't > >>>>> understand the English language, nor with some character who > >>>>> misunderstands on purpose. > >>>> Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand > >>>> my own first language. > >>> Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until > >>> you are no longer a moron. :-) > >> Just checked the dictionary definition of the word moron, according to > >> the IQ definition I am actually 3 morons, so I can post. > > Alas, the IQ's of morons are not additive. > > Even if IQ's were additive, I doubt you would get to one. How lame, particularly since you are the one having persistent problems understanding simple phrases. > >>> slow vehicles "abnormal". > >> This is still a Californian Legal term, it does not apply to the rest > >> of the world. > >> As a legal term, is should not be vague, it should be defined as one > >> of mode, median, mean, average, etc., not changing every time you try > >> and define it here. > > Bring it up with the state legislature. That's who wrote it. If you > > get a ticket for crawling along in the left lane, however, feel free > > to use that argument of yours in court and see how far it gets you. > > I'm sure the judge will not be amused, other than by the expression > > on your face when he tells you the fine. > > The UK is not in California. Your state legislature, much as it would > like to, does not write laws for the rest of the world. Having trouble with context, I see. > So if I am in court, and the Judge tries to judge me by Californian > law. My barrister would have the case thrown out before you could say > "Moron". Your barrister would not be allowed to practice law here unless he was also a member of the California bar. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                                                 Date: 06 Aug 2007 00:28:24 From: Martin Dann Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >>> Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: >>> Bring it up with the state legislature. That's who wrote it. If you >>> get a ticket for crawling along in the left lane, however, feel free >>> to use that argument of yours in court and see how far it gets you. >>> I'm sure the judge will not be amused, other than by the expression >>> on your face when he tells you the fine. I crawled home tonight in the left lane, I was tired from a hard days work in the office. >> The UK is not in California. Your state legislature, much as it would >> like to, does not write laws for the rest of the world. > > Having trouble with context, I see. I think you are the one having trouble here. You are cross-posting to UK.rec.cycling. Your state legislature does not have powers to make laws here, or for 90+% of the readers of the groups you are posting to. >> So if I am in court, and the Judge tries to judge me by Californian >> law. My barrister would have the case thrown out before you could say >> "Moron". > > Your barrister would not be allowed to practice law here unless he was > also a member of the California bar. Why would my barrister be arguing in a Californian court, when I am never likely to visit your state. I don't think you understand that California does not equal The World.                                                                   Date: 06 Aug 2007 04:25:42 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > > > >> Bill Z. wrote: > >>> Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > > >>> Bring it up with the state legislature. That's who wrote it. If you > >>> get a ticket for crawling along in the left lane, however, feel free > >>> to use that argument of yours in court and see how far it gets you. > >>> I'm sure the judge will not be amused, other than by the expression > >>> on your face when he tells you the fine. > > I crawled home tonight in the left lane, I was tired from a hard days > work in the office. > > >> The UK is not in California. Your state legislature, much as it would > >> like to, does not write laws for the rest of the world. > > Having trouble with context, I see. > > I think you are the one having trouble here. You are cross-posting to > UK.rec.cycling. Your state legislature does not have powers to make > laws here, or for 90+% of the readers of the groups you are posting to. It is being cross-posted to rec.bicycles.soc and rec.bicycles.misc so your 90+% thing is pure speculation, but regardless, you were having trouble with context. > >> So if I am in court, and the Judge tries to judge me by Californian > >> law. My barrister would have the case thrown out before you could say > >> "Moron". > > Your barrister would not be allowed to practice law here unless he > > was > > also a member of the California bar. > > Why would my barrister be arguing in a Californian court, when I am > never likely to visit your state. > > I don't think you understand that California does not equal The World. I don't think you understand that you are posting to two non-UK newsgroups and one UK newsgroup, and the UK does not equal "The World". -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                                                     Date: 07 Aug 2007 02:06:30 From: Martin Dann Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: >> I think you are the one having trouble here. You are cross-posting to >> UK.rec.cycling. Your state legislature does not have powers to make >> laws here, or for 90+% of the readers of the groups you are posting to. > > It is being cross-posted to rec.bicycles.soc and rec.bicycles.misc so > your 90+% thing is pure speculation, but regardless, you were having > trouble with context. The 90+% is based on the population of California being 36M, with the combined population of the USA and UK being 365M. It ignores other countries whose first language is English like Canada, Australia, and parts of Africa and South America. It also excludes the 700M people who use English as a second language. I would say it is a fair estimate. The only context that I am having trouble with is your insistence that your local laws apply to every one reading your posts. >> I don't think you understand that California does not equal The World. > > I don't think you understand that you are posting to two non-UK > newsgroups and one UK newsgroup, and the UK does not equal "The World". I understand that I am posting to two global newsgroups, and one UK group. I understand the UK does not equal the world, hence my not insisting on applying English laws to other countries in the world, or other countries in the UK.                                                                       Date: 07 Aug 2007 04:32:05 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > > >> I think you are the one having trouble here. You are cross-posting to > >> UK.rec.cycling. Your state legislature does not have powers to make > >> laws here, or for 90+% of the readers of the groups you are posting to. > > It is being cross-posted to rec.bicycles.soc and rec.bicycles.misc so > > your 90+% thing is pure speculation, but regardless, you were having > > trouble with context. > > The 90+% is based on the population of California being 36M, with the > combined population of the USA and UK being 365M. It ignores other > countries whose first language is English like Canada, Australia, and > parts of Africa and South America. It also excludes the 700M people > who use English as a second language. I would say it is a fair > estimate. > > The only context that I am having trouble with is your insistence that > your local laws apply to every one reading your posts. Except I never said that: I merely suggested that people who don't care about the CVC refrain from driving or riding a bicycle in our state. > >> I don't think you understand that California does not equal The World. > > I don't think you understand that you are posting to two non-UK > > newsgroups and one UK newsgroup, and the UK does not equal "The > > World". > > I understand that I am posting to two global newsgroups, and one UK > group. > > I understand the UK does not equal the world, hence my not insisting > on applying English laws to other countries in the world, or other > countries in the UK. Do you understand that, in evaluating bike lanes, you should use the vehicle codes that treat them appropriately, since the others can be fixed? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                                         Date: 04 Aug 2007 19:16:29 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >> >>> Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't >>> understand the English language, nor with some character who >>> misunderstands on purpose. >> >> Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand >> my own first language. > > Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until > you are no longer a moron. :-) > >>> The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California >>> Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term >>> "traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars, >>> bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly, >>> "normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through >>> your thick scull? >> >> Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be >> slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic. > > Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed > (the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather > than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding > up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make > slow vehicles "abnormal". > >> btw I don't own any boats. > > When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red herring > or something? Hint: Zaumen wrote "Can you get that through your thick scull?", implying that Martin Dann owner a scull, which is a type of boat. One wonders if Zaumen really was referring to Martin Dann's "thick skull", which is the bone structure surrounding the brain. A grammatical error, perhaps? ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                                           Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:49:30 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes: > > > >> Bill Z. wrote: > >> > >>> Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't > >>> understand the English language, nor with some character who > >>> misunderstands on purpose. > >> > >> Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand > >> my own first language. > > Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until > > you are no longer a moron. :-) > > > >>> The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California > >>> Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term > >>> "traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars, > >>> bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly, > >>> "normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through > >>> your thick scull? > >> > >> Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be > >> slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic. > > Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed > > (the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather > > than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding > > up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make > > slow vehicles "abnormal". > > > >> btw I don't own any boats. > > When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red > > herring > > or something? > > Hint: Zaumen wrote "Can you get that through your thick scull?", > implying that Martin Dann owner a scull, which is a type of boat. Oh, you found another typo that my spelling corrector wouldn't find. Good boy. We'll give you a lollipop. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                                     Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:45:23 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > ... > ROTFLMAO! You can't be serious. People drop upper case letters every > so often when typing usenet posts because most of us aren't professional > typists and don't always proof read ever[y]thing we post.... Usenet should be capitalized. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                                       Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:42:41 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > ... > > ROTFLMAO! You can't be serious. People drop upper case letters every > > so often when typing usenet posts because most of us aren't professional > > typists and don't always proof read ever[y]thing we post.... > > Usenet should be capitalized. Acutally it should if anything be in all upper case although a variety of forms are used. <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt > has one example (all upper case) and <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg02039.html > has some in upper case and some in lower case. When used as an adjective, this RFC uses lower case for the word "usenet", although usage is not consistent. The IETF is the official standards organization for the Internet, in case you don't know. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                             Date: 02 Aug 2007 06:26:13 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> Martin Dann writes: >>> ... >>>> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get >>>> out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have >>>> to give up their bus seats for the superior whites). >>> >>> Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity >>> to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal >>> speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly >>> modified the word "speed", not "traffic".... >> Whoosh! >> >> Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist, >> anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly >> used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people >> of African origin and/or descent" is. > > The fuck it isn't. The word is so offensive to some people that you > simply should not use it. So the word "nigger" should not appear in a dictionary of "irregular" English? The fact is the word and its usage exist, and pretending otherwise will not make it go away. By the way in "the hood" I hear people who strongly appear to be of darker skinned African descent use the word "nigger" all the time when talking about each other. >> Martin was making an analogy to the racist thought that "justified" >> legal race based segregation in the U.S. being similar to the >> promotion of second class facilities for cyclists, while reserving the >> first class facilities for motorists. > > No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic", > that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and > pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles > from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was > similar to racism. > > I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage. > It is completely dishonest. I thought the politically correct did not use the term "you people"? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                               Date: 02 Aug 2007 18:25:24 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >> > >> Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist, > >> anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly > >> used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people > >> of African origin and/or descent" is. > > The fuck it isn't. The word is so offensive to some people that you > > simply should not use it. > > So the word "nigger" should not appear in a dictionary of "irregular" > English? The fact is the word and its usage exist, and pretending > otherwise will not make it go away. If you would actually *read* a dictionary you would know that it is considered completely inappropriate to use. > > No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic", > > that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and > > pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles > > from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was > > similar to racism. > > I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage. > > It is completely dishonest. > > I thought the politically correct did not use the term "you people"? I'm not "politically correct", just liberal. If you don't think that is possible, watch a San Francisco Mime Troupe production and you'll see some very liberal people skewering everything in sight (particularly Cheney and Condi). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                                 Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:38:43 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist, >>>> anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly >>>> used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people >>>> of African origin and/or descent" is. >>> The fuck it isn't. The word is so offensive to some people that you >>> simply should not use it. >> So the word "nigger" should not appear in a dictionary of "irregular" >> English? The fact is the word and its usage exist, and pretending >> otherwise will not make it go away. > > If you would actually *read* a dictionary you would know that it is > considered completely inappropriate to use. [Yawn] >>> No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic", >>> that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and >>> pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles >>> from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was >>> similar to racism. >>> I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage. >>> It is completely dishonest. >> I thought the politically correct did not use the term "you people"? > > I'm not "politically correct", just liberal. If you don't think that > is possible, watch a San Francisco Mime Troupe production and you'll > see some very liberal people skewering everything in sight > (particularly Cheney and Condi). [Yawn] -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                                   Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:32:14 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > [Yawn] > [Yawn] (i.e., he has no legitimate response) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                     Date: 01 Aug 2007 17:27:54 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > > Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road. Of course it does! There are mandatory bike lane laws. Two lanes become 4 lanes, the bike lane being a substandard width lane. > > In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic > have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state > standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other > traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to > use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left > turn, or when approaching a place where a right turn is permitted. > Drivers are required to stay out of bike lanes except when turning > across one, in which case they must merge into the bike lane and may > start merging when within 200 feet of a turn. Your description clearly indicates that the rules of the road change when a bike lane is added. > > Pretty simple, and there is nothing to get upset about. > Not for bike lane apologists. Wayne                                       Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:53:39 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road. > > > Of course it does! There are mandatory bike lane laws. Two lanes > become 4 lanes, the bike lane being a substandard width lane. A bike lane is not a substandard width lane, but in any case the rules of the road do not change. The legislature does not magically go into session and change the laws just because someone entered a bike lane while riding a bicycle, or even because someone put in a bike lane in their town. > > In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic > > have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state > > standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other > > traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to > > use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left > > turn, or when approaching a place where a right turn is permitted. > > Drivers are required to stay out of bike lanes except when turning > > across one, in which case they must merge into the bike lane and may > > start merging when within 200 feet of a turn. > > Your description clearly indicates that the rules of the road change > when a bike lane is added. No it doesn't. The rules are the same. If the rules of the road changed, you'd need a new edition of the CVC. > > > Pretty simple, and there is nothing to get upset about. > > Not for bike lane apologists. Not for anyone with an ounce of common sense. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                         Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:24:13 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >>Bill Z. wrote: >> >> >>>Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road. >> >> >>Of course it does! There are mandatory bike lane laws. Two lanes >>become 4 lanes, the bike lane being a substandard width lane. > > > A bike lane is not a substandard width lane, Yea, all lanes are 4' wide. Are you for real? but in any case the > rules of the road do not change. The legislature does not magically > go into session and change the laws just because someone entered a > bike lane while riding a bicycle, or even because someone put in a > bike lane in their town. More Fantasy Island Bike Lane lore. Wayne                                           Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:52:50 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > >>Bill Z. wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road. > >> > >> > >>Of course it does! There are mandatory bike lane laws. Two lanes > >>become 4 lanes, the bike lane being a substandard width lane. > > A bike lane is not a substandard width lane, > > Yea, all lanes are 4' wide. > > Are you for real? Are you able to read simple English? I never said they were all 4' wide, but rather that "a bike lane does not change the rules of the road". Do you think the existence of bike lanes makes it impossible to have a paper copy of the "rules of the road" because the rules somehow change from place to place within the same state? > > but in any case the > > rules of the road do not change. The legislature does not magically > > go into session and change the laws just because someone entered a > > bike lane while riding a bicycle, or even because someone put in a > > bike lane in their town. > > More Fantasy Island Bike Lane lore. Pein, you are an idiot. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                         Date: 29 Jul 2007 10:10:08 From: Simon Brooke Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? in message <877ioljhlk.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, Bill Z. ('nobody@nospam.pacbell.net') wrote: >> > Oh, so you don't care about "most cylclists who are ingorant [sic] of >> > proper bicycling" and would favor natural selection to get rid of >> > them? Some of these cyclists who are "ignorant" are children who are >> > too young >> > to drive a motor vehicle.  What do you propose to do with them?  Do >> > you really have a problem with a bike lane along a two lane street >> > with a 25 mph speed limit and relatively little traffic, going past an >> > elementary school? >> >> Yes. What is the point of a bike lane on a low volume low speed street? > > Keeping the parents of school kids happy for one. They'd be happier if their kids lived to be adults. Which means learning to use the road safely. Research in London (and Denmark and the Netherlands) shows that bike lanes contribute precisely nothing at all to cyclist safety. The same money which paints a bike lane buys a lot of quality training, which has a far greater effect on children's safety. Things may be different in the States, where streets are typically wider and the density of cyclists is so much lower. In Europe, cycle lanes are not a benefit. -- simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ <p >Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>                           Date: 29 Jul 2007 16:11:55 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk > writes: > in message <877ioljhlk.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z. > ('nobody@nospam.pacbell.net') wrote: > > >> > Oh, so you don't care about "most cylclists who are ingorant [sic] of > >> > proper bicycling" and would favor natural selection to get rid of > >> > them? Some of these cyclists who are "ignorant" are children who are > >> > too young > >> > to drive a motor vehicle.  What do you propose to do with them?  Do > >> > you really have a problem with a bike lane along a two lane street > >> > with a 25 mph speed limit and relatively little traffic, going past an > >> > elementary school? > >> > >> Yes. What is the point of a bike lane on a low volume low speed street? > > > > Keeping the parents of school kids happy for one. > > They'd be happier if their kids lived to be adults. Which means learning to > use the road safely. Research in London (and Denmark and the Netherlands) > shows that bike lanes contribute precisely nothing at all to cyclist > safety. The same money which paints a bike lane buys a lot of quality > training, which has a far greater effect on children's safety. They run bicycle education programs in the schools too, at least where I live. The two aren't mutually exclusive. > Things may be different in the States, where streets are typically wider > and the density of cyclists is so much lower. In Europe, cycle lanes are > not a benefit. You need to check Caltran bike lane standards. When they conform to those, the lanes are kind of neutral for experts (except for the case where there are long lines of cars at red lights and a bike lane makes it easier to get to the head of the queue), but do seem to make some people more comfortable. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB             Date: 26 Jul 2007 15:02:09 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:87r6mvw1pp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >> >> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes >> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, >> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything >> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being >> > injured. >> >> It doesn't surprise me at all, but all the same it would be much, >> much, much better if they supported things that *actually* reduce the >> chances, rather than things that they assume reduce them, but have no >> clear track record of actually doing so. >> >> > Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more >> > comfortable when there is one. >> >> For some values of "comfortable". > > We have very wide roads around here by European standards. One effect > the bike lanes have is to make inexperienced cyclists more comfortable > riding further from the curb than they otherwise would, and that > decreases the chance of being cut off by a turning vehicle, but > doesn't reduce it to zero. For experts, the bike lanes make very > little difference (as long as they follow current design standards). > > The additional cost of a bike lane in cases where you would otherwise > put in a shoulder stripe is nearly zero. > >> >> > And our traffic engineers like them as >> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes >> > double as breakdown lanes >> >> So when I'm cycling along there's asuddenly a broken down vehicle in >> my way, and now I have to go out into the main traffic flow /where >> nobody expects me because there is a bike lane/. That's not a Good >> Thing. They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no >> effort and they get to think they're doing something useful. > > You mean you have to do a lane change just as you would if you were in > a traffic lane and a vehicle broke down in front of you? Even > California drivers aren't that stupid (and believe me, around here we > really have our share of idiots). And keep in mind that if there > wasn't a bike lane in this case, there would be a shoulder stripe > anyway. You'd end up riding in just about the same place on the > roadway. One thing that happens when they put in bike lanes (and when > there is sufficient road width) is that they will put a "through" bike > lane to the right of the right turn lane (change to left for the UK), > and indicate a transition. > > Where the bike lanes tend to really help experienced cyclists is on > heavily traveled commute routes in which cars back up at lights for > very long distances. The bike lanes tend to "organize" the cars > better so that you can jump to the head of the queue. I'd pass the > stopped vehicles slowly and carefully anyway, but at least you don't > have a slalom course to deal with. > > >> >> The most common effect of these lanes is to force cyclists closer to >> the kerb than it's often wise to cycle, and allows drivers to think >> it's fine to overtake with minimal clearance just as long as there's a >> white line between them and the cyclist. > > That one is not true - it puts the cyclists further from the curb. > Most people where I live stay way too close to the curb because they > can't judge the distance from the lane divider well enough and are > afraid they may be too close to a car. The bike lane stripe gives > them something to guide on. The trick in making it work safely is > to give the cars no more lane width than the drivers really need. > Then, if you ride a couple of feet from the bike lane stripe, you'll > be in just about the same position on the roadway that an experienced > cyclist would be. Experienced cyclists are killed all the time because of incredibly stupid drivers. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:21:13 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > Experienced cyclists are killed all the time because of incredibly stupid > drivers. So are experienced drivers, so what is your point?             Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:11:25 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > We have very wide roads around here by European standards. One effect > the bike lanes have is to make inexperienced cyclists more comfortable > riding further from the curb than they otherwise would, and that > decreases the chance of being cut off by a turning vehicle, but > doesn't reduce it to zero. The increased distance inexperienced cyclists ride from the curb in a bike lane is insignificant and has no bearing on the occurance of a hook collision. For experts, the bike lanes make very > little difference (as long as they follow current design standards). Bike lanes reduce the ability of bicyclists to manage their lateral position, and their space is reduced. Wayne               Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:50:41 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 2, 2:48 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > > My bet is that fewer than 1% of the bike lanes in the US are swept > > weekly. > > Ours our clean of debris - almost: I about a mile along one today > and spotted a solitary leaf that must have fallen since the last > cleaning. I'm sure you do live in bike lane paradise, Bill. I'm describing what I've seen in the rest of the world, and it isn't like your paradise. > > I just returned from a vacation in a city famous for lots of bike > > lanes. On one of my previous trips there, I had a conversation with > > one of the bike advocates that helped get them installed. When I > > mentioned the debris, he claimed it was no problem - that a wonderful > > system was in place to report debris and get almost immediate > > sweeping. > > > Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass > > and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in > > the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble. > > Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins > everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide > any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged > city he rode. Portland, Oregon and its surrounding suburbs. The city itself wasn't bad for bike lane trash, but it was also perfectly fine riding where there were no bike lanes. The suburbs had plenty of trash in the bike lanes, including trash of the tire-slashing variety. Those bike lanes might not have trash if a street & lane sweeping had just occurred, but there is no question that they are glass storage lanes for more than a week at a time. The first time my family and I rode in from the east, a few years ago, the amount of glass in the bike lanes was astonishing. (Maybe some Portland residents can tell us the suburban street sweeping schedule.) > > Zaumen, like other bike lane advocates, claims to live with ideal bike > > lanes: well designed, well maintained, and very beneficial. All I can > > say is that there are many, many bike lanes that do not meet the first > > two criteria; and even those that do generally seem useless to me. > > More lies from Krygowski (his speciality) - I don't go around asking > for bike lanes (which is what a bike-lane advocate does). "Advocate (n.): a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea." If you haven't been doing that, you'd better keep an eye on your evil twin. He's got your computer password again. - Frank Krygowski                 Date: 02 Aug 2007 18:18:20 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 2, 2:48 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > My bet is that fewer than 1% of the bike lanes in the US are swept > > > weekly. > > > > Ours our clean of debris - almost: I about a mile along one today > > and spotted a solitary leaf that must have fallen since the last > > cleaning. > > I'm sure you do live in bike lane paradise, Bill. I'm describing what > I've seen in the rest of the world, and it isn't like your paradise. I've ridden a bicycle in San Francisco, including in bike lanes, and there was not the level of debris you reported, and the bike lanes I used were simply along the route I was taking (e.g. from the train station to somewhere near Fisherman's Wharf or the Civic Center. > > > > I just returned from a vacation in a city famous for lots of bike > > > lanes. On one of my previous trips there, I had a conversation with > > > one of the bike advocates that helped get them installed. When I > > > mentioned the debris, he claimed it was no problem - that a wonderful > > > system was in place to report debris and get almost immediate > > > sweeping. > > > > > Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass > > > and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in > > > the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble. > > > > Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins > > everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide > > any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged > > city he rode. > > Portland, Oregon and its surrounding suburbs. The city itself wasn't > bad for bike lane trash, but it was also perfectly fine riding where > there were no bike lanes. The suburbs had plenty of trash in the bike > lanes, including trash of the tire-slashing variety. Given that the U.S. norm is clean suburbs and neglected cities, I really have to wonder about your claim. My guess is that you went out of your way to find a poorly maintained bike lane - it would fit your past behavior. BTW, if there is trash in the bike lane, you aren't required to use it. > Those bike lanes might not have trash if a street & lane sweeping had > just occurred, but there is no question that they are glass storage > lanes for more than a week at a time. And you've never seen glass on a road? > The first time my family and I rode in from the east, a few years > ago, the amount of glass in the bike lanes was astonishing. (Maybe > some Portland residents can tell us the suburban street sweeping > schedule.) > > > > Zaumen, like other bike lane advocates, claims to live with ideal bike > > > lanes: well designed, well maintained, and very beneficial. All I can > > > say is that there are many, many bike lanes that do not meet the first > > > two criteria; and even those that do generally seem useless to me. > > > > More lies from Krygowski (his speciality) - I don't go around asking > > for bike lanes (which is what a bike-lane advocate does). > > "Advocate (n.): a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an > idea." Which I'm not doing. Stating that something is not a problem is not pleading a cause or propounding an idea (which does not mean in this context merely stating an opinion or a fact). The actual "advocate" of course is Krygowksi and a few others with a thing up their you know what about bike lanes. > If you haven't been doing that, you'd better keep an eye on your evil > twin. He's got your computer password again. Krygowski of course is lying as usual. It is at most once in a blue moon that he posts anything without enough spin to make Karl Rove spin in his future grave. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB               Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:16:55 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > We have very wide roads around here by European standards. One effect > > the bike lanes have is to make inexperienced cyclists more comfortable > > riding further from the curb than they otherwise would, and that > > decreases the chance of being cut off by a turning vehicle, but > > doesn't reduce it to zero. > > The increased distance inexperienced cyclists ride from the curb in a > bike lane is insignificant and has no bearing on the occurance of a > hook collision. Absolutely false. They'll ride anywhere inside a bike lane. Without one, they hug the curb regardless, except on next-to-zero-traffic residential streets. The further you are from the curb, the less chances you have of being cut off, and the more room you have to avoid an accident otherwise. > For experts, the bike lanes make very > > little difference (as long as they follow current design standards). > > Bike lanes reduce the ability of bicyclists to manage their lateral > position, and their space is reduced. Not true at all. Read the California Vehicle Code and compare where you can legally ride with and without bike lanes (and you can legally ignore any bike lane that was not installed in conformance with state design standards). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                 Date: 27 Jul 2007 12:33:03 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >> >>The increased distance inexperienced cyclists ride from the curb in a >>bike lane is insignificant and has no bearing on the occurance of a >>hook collision. > > > Absolutely false. They'll ride anywhere inside a bike lane. Without > one, they hug the curb regardless, except on next-to-zero-traffic > residential streets. > So what? They ride a very small amount futher left laterally. That does not discourage a hook incident. You've got to be further left than bike lanes afford. And really, who gives a hoot about ignorant bicyclists? They should learn how to ride. > The further you are from the curb, the less chances you have of being > cut off, and the more room you have to avoid an accident otherwise. Again, the small amount that a bike lane results in a left lateral shift for ignorant beginners is not enough to deter collisions. > > >>For experts, the bike lanes make very >> >>>little difference (as long as they follow current design standards). >> >>Bike lanes reduce the ability of bicyclists to manage their lateral >>position, and their space is reduced. > > > Not true at all. Read the California Vehicle Code and compare where > you can legally ride with and without bike lanes (and you can legally > ignore any bike lane that was not installed in conformance with > state design standards). > Who cares what the California Vehicle Code says? First, many places do have mandatory bike lane use. You've got to have a reason to leave it. Second, regardless of laws, motorists enforce bike lane use through coercion and intimidation. If the bike lane stripe wasn't there, there'd be a very wide space that the vehicle (ie bicyclist) in front would have right of way to. A bike lane is nanny state micromanagement of bicyclist's lateral position. Wayne                   Date: 02 Aug 2007 20:01:14 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 2, 7:00 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> writes: > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > >>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass > > >>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in > > >>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble. > > > Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins > > > everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide > > > any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged > > > city he rode. > > > Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking > > about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for > > many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake. > > Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he is > one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few > "discussions" with him. At one point, he accused me of not reading > some unmentioned magazine with one of the widest circulations in the > U.S. - turns out it was "Parade", which is a stuffer that many > newspapers insert into Sunday edition, and mostly contains advertising > with a little fluff so that people might actually thumb through it. > He went on like this was some cardinal sin and then tried to pretend > that "Parade" was some sort of required reading when I pointed out > what "magazine" he was actually referring to. But of course, > Krygowski never mentioned that magazine explicity in his original post > because he spins like crazy, being a wannabe Karl Rove. Is there an official vocabulary term for the act of describing a years- old discussion in a totally biased way, and using that description as a supposed "proof"? If not, I propose we coin the term "Zaumenism." > -- > My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB Or maybe we should call it a "msinemuaZ" ? ;-) - Frank Krygowski                     Date: 03 Aug 2007 03:37:11 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 2, 7:00 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > > > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > > > >>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass > > > >>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in > > > >>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble. > > > > Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins > > > > everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide > > > > any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged > > > > city he rode. > > > > > Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking > > > about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for > > > many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake. > > > > Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he is > > one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few > > "discussions" with him. At one point, he accused me of not reading > > some unmentioned magazine with one of the widest circulations in the > > U.S. - turns out it was "Parade", which is a stuffer that many > > newspapers insert into Sunday edition, and mostly contains advertising > > with a little fluff so that people might actually thumb through it. > > He went on like this was some cardinal sin and then tried to pretend > > that "Parade" was some sort of required reading when I pointed out > > what "magazine" he was actually referring to. But of course, > > Krygowski never mentioned that magazine explicity in his original post > > because he spins like crazy, being a wannabe Karl Rove. > > > Is there an official vocabulary term for the act of describing a years- > old discussion in a totally biased way, and using that description as > a supposed "proof"? The bias, alas, was all from you, but your penchant for re-writting history is well known. In Message-ID <374EC802.1B0F@cc.ysu.edu >#1/1, Krygowski wrote (quoting me): : > The only thing I told Frank I wouldn't bother reading was an : > article in Parade Magazine (or rather, I wouldn't bother : > taking the time to find a back issue). Frank claimed : > someone was promoting helmets, and I claimed that the : > example Frank gave of this "promotion" was so trivial as to : > not be worth bothering about. : : Yes, I claimed they were promoting ONLY helmets, and saying : nothing at all about proper, legal riding, or otherwise : avoiding accidents, despite the fact that about 85% of child : fatalities come from breaking simple traffic laws. In : response, you did say a front-page article saying that on one : of the largest circulation weekly magazines in the USA was : "trivial". You can find other examples where Krygowski used similar claims but where no reference to Parade appeared. Note, however, how he took this piece of advertising + fluff stuffed into Sunday newspapers and blew it up into "one of the largest circulation weekly magazines in the USA", which a reader not looking closely would confuse with _Time_ or _Newsweek_. So as I said, Krygowski spins like crazy, and then tries to re-write history as he just did. He's completely shameless about it, always resorting to the "big lie" technique. > If not, I propose we coin the term "Zaumenism." No need to coin a term - they already have one for what you produce and it is called "spin", which is a polite term for lies. <snip > My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                   Date: 27 Jul 2007 23:43:21 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >> > >>The increased distance inexperienced cyclists ride from the curb in a > >>bike lane is insignificant and has no bearing on the occurance of a > >>hook collision. > > Absolutely false. They'll ride anywhere inside a bike lane. Without > > one, they hug the curb regardless, except on next-to-zero-traffic > > residential streets. > > > > So what? They ride a very small amount futher left laterally. That > does not discourage a hook incident. You've got to be further left > than bike lanes afford. Not true at all. Your turning radius for a given sideways acceleration is proportional to the square of your velocity. If a driver would slow to 15 mph to make a turn with a 12 foot lane + 5 foot shoulder (using the full space), a bike lane that puts the cyclist 5 feet from the curb means that the driver now has to turn with a 12 foot radius, slowing the driver to 12.6 mph. Now suppose you are riding at 15 mph. What do you think happens? > > And really, who gives a hoot about ignorant bicyclists? They should > learn how to ride. Tell that to the parent of an 8 year old kid injured in a traffic accident. > > The further you are from the curb, the less chances you have of being > > cut off, and the more room you have to avoid an accident otherwise. > > Again, the small amount that a bike lane results in a left lateral > shift for ignorant beginners is not enough to deter collisions. It actually is enough to make a difference. > >>Bike lanes reduce the ability of bicyclists to manage their lateral > >>position, and their space is reduced. > > Not true at all. Read the California Vehicle Code and compare where > > you can legally ride with and without bike lanes (and you can legally > > ignore any bike lane that was not installed in conformance with > > state design standards). > > > > Who cares what the California Vehicle Code says? First, many places do > have mandatory bike lane use. You've got to have a reason to leave > it. Second, regardless of laws, motorists enforce bike lane use > through coercion and intimidation. I live in California and anyone who rides a bicycle in that state or drives a car in that state damn well should care about what the California Vehicle Code says. If it is better than what your state has, then get your state to make some changes. That would be far more productive than ranting on usenet. > If the bike lane stripe wasn't there, there'd be a very wide space > that the vehicle (ie bicyclist) in front would have right of way to. A > bike lane is nanny state micromanagement of bicyclist's lateral > position. The vehicle code in California and many other states contains a provision that bicyclists riding on the roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic must ride as far to the right as is practicable. That means on that very wide space of yours (i.e., a very wide lane), you have less freedom as to where to position your bicycle than when there is no bike lane (which you don't have to use if going at or above the normal speed of traffic). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                     Date: 03 Aug 2007 19:26:56 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > > > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in > safety is... the sidewalk. That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the opposite. "Donquijote," don't you think you should research some of these points before you make more mistaken posts? > And that's what they do all the time. They > are not that stupid to ride with the fish out there. Before you can make a judgement of who or what is stupid, you need to do the background reading. Try Google first. If you have trouble locating data, we can give citations. - Frank Krygowski                       Date: 03 Aug 2007 22:04:55 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in > > safety is... the sidewalk. > > That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that > conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous > than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the > opposite. <http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf > shows that sidewalk cycling *in the same direction as traffic* has nearly the same risk as riding on the roadway. See Table 5. For all bicyclists in the study, the risk riding with traffic on the sidewalk divided by the risk of riding on the roadway is 0.9 When you break it up by age, however, you find that both the 17 and under and the 18 and over catagories have a slightly increased risk when using the sidewalk and when riding in the same direction as vehicular traffic. The reason is that the 17 and under group has a significantly lower risk of an accident than the 18 and over group no matter where they rode, but the 17 and under group was more likely to use a sidwalk. The reduced risk for the 17 and under group is a bit counterintuitive, given that by appearances they would seem be less careful than the 18 and older group. In a discussion with one of the authors, I suggested a hypothesis that would explain the difference of about a factor of 2 (but it would take quite a bit of work to test it): the under 17 group consists of mostly children who ride back from school before the evening commute, but are in the morning commute, whereas the 18 and over group (with a large contingent of Stanford students) has to ride in both the morning and evening commutes. It is during commute hours that the risk of a collision with a motor vehicle is highest, primarly due to the larger number of vehicles on the road at that time. We can also add a tendency not to use lights at night. That accounts for the factor of two difference (and the large number of college students in the area biases the "18 and over" catagory towards people in the late teens and early 20s). Where the real risk of sidewalk cycling appears is when riding against the flow of traffic, and riding against the flow of traffic is far more prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent road. That's where you get an enhanced risk several times the risk of riding in the correct direction on the road. The bottom line is that riding on a sidewalk is not particularly risky if you go at a speed appropriate for the conditions and if you ride in the same direction as traffic. Obviously you need to be especially careful about entering intersections, but the data seems to suggest that most people who use sidewalks are doing that (the increased risk is nearly all due to going the wrong way). > "Donquijote," don't you think you should research some of these points > before you make more mistaken posts? Well, obviously Krygowski doesn't read the literature either as comprehensively as he'd like to pretend. :-) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                     Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:01:23 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 2, 11:20 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes: > > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman writes: > > >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>>>> ... > >>>>> When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure > >>>>> job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-)... > > >>>> I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and > >>>> hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high > >>>> four figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income. :) > >>> There are some things you can't outsource to India. Working on an OS > >>> is one of them, particularly when new hardware is involved (and India > >>> is mostly doing software, not hardware). > >> For now. > > > No, for a very long time to come, as long as the U.S. has a > > substantial technical edge, and if India and China catch up, their > > incomes will become comparable to ours. > > > Also, infrastructure is important - when you are running chip > > simulations that need the largest machines you can get your hands on > > and that have to run for a day or more (maybe a lot more), you can't > > get by in a place where there are regular power failures on a weekly > > or daily basis. > > >>> Some of the hardware design > >>> done in Silicon Valley requires a huge capital investment in server > >>> farms for chip verification. That is not available in India or China > >>> right now, > >> ^^^^^^^^^ > > >> Exactly. > > > except it is for as long as those countries are not at the top of the > > heap in the high-tech world. > > >>> which may be why we have so many people from India or > >>> China living here and getting U.S.-level salaries. > >> Expanded guest worker program, perhaps? > > > We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in > > the area to know why. > > But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to > know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities. > > Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus? > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in safety is... the sidewalk. And that's what they do all the time. They are not that stupid to ride with the fish out there.                       Date: 03 Aug 2007 22:02:49 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? donquijote1954 who? wrote: > ... > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in > safety is... the sidewalk. And that's what they do all the time. They > are not that stupid to ride with the fish out there. Riding the sidewalk is NOT safe if one has to cross intersecting roads and driveways. Then it is much more dangerous than vehicular cycling, since the drivers are paying attention to traffic on the streets (carriageway) and not the sidewalk (pavement). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                         Date: 04 Aug 2007 06:47:56 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > donquijote1954 who? wrote: > > ... > > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in > > safety is... the sidewalk. And that's what they do all the time. They > > are not that stupid to ride with the fish out there. > > Riding the sidewalk is NOT safe if one has to cross intersecting roads > and driveways. Then it is much more dangerous than vehicular cycling, > since the drivers are paying attention to traffic on the streets > (carriageway) and not the sidewalk (pavement). As was pointed out, the risk of sidewalk cycling is predominantly due to traveling in the opposite direction as traffic when you look at accident statistics. In the paper I quoted showing this, the use of the sidewalk was voluntary, and aside from the direction of travel, people were not making really bad decisions about which facility to use. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                     Date: 27 Jul 2007 22:42:01 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > >> >>So what? They ride a very small amount futher left laterally. That >>does not discourage a hook incident. You've got to be further left >>than bike lanes afford. > > > Not true at all. Your turning radius for a given sideways acceleration > is proportional to the square of your velocity. If a driver would slow > to 15 mph to make a turn with a 12 foot lane + 5 foot shoulder (using > the full space), a bike lane that puts the cyclist 5 feet from the curb > means that the driver now has to turn with a 12 foot radius, slowing > the driver to 12.6 mph. Now suppose you are riding at 15 mph. What > do you think happens? > Quit making up numbers. You have no idea what you are talking about. > >>And really, who gives a hoot about ignorant bicyclists? They should >>learn how to ride. > > > Tell that to the parent of an 8 year old kid injured in a traffic > accident. We shouldn't attempt to design for ignorance. > > >>>The further you are from the curb, the less chances you have of being >>>cut off, and the more room you have to avoid an accident otherwise. >> >>Again, the small amount that a bike lane results in a left lateral >>shift for ignorant beginners is not enough to deter collisions. > > > It actually is enough to make a difference. Sorry. Not. > >> >>Who cares what the California Vehicle Code says? First, many places do >>have mandatory bike lane use. You've got to have a reason to leave >>it. Second, regardless of laws, motorists enforce bike lane use >>through coercion and intimidation. > > > I live in California and anyone who rides a bicycle in that state or > drives a car in that state damn well should care about what the > California Vehicle Code says. > > If it is better than what your state has, then get your state to > make some changes. That would be far more productive than ranting > on usenet. Oh stop your jibberjabber. > > >>If the bike lane stripe wasn't there, there'd be a very wide space >>that the vehicle (ie bicyclist) in front would have right of way to. A >>bike lane is nanny state micromanagement of bicyclist's lateral >>position. > > > The vehicle code in California and many other states contains a > provision that bicyclists riding on the roadway at less than the > normal speed of traffic must ride as far to the right as is > practicable. That means on that very wide space of yours (i.e., > a very wide lane), you have less freedom as to where to position > your bicycle than when there is no bike lane (which you don't have > to use if going at or above the normal speed of traffic). Only to people like you who assume that laws like that are legitimate, or that they apply to roads with striping on them. Here's a hint: "as far right as practicable" laws were originally intended for roads without striping. That some people have bastardized them to attempt to micromanage bicyclists within-lane position is a tragedy. That bike reservation apologists want to be micromanaged is testimony to their ignorance. Wayne                       Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:02:07 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 2, 11:37 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > : > The only thing I told Frank I wouldn't bother reading was an > : > article in Parade Magazine (or rather, I wouldn't bother > : > taking the time to find a back issue). Frank claimed > : > someone was promoting helmets, and I claimed that the > : > example Frank gave of this "promotion" was so trivial as to > : > not be worth bothering about. > : > : [FK:] Yes, I claimed they were promoting ONLY helmets, and saying > : nothing at all about proper, legal riding, or otherwise > : avoiding accidents, despite the fact that about 85% of child > : fatalities come from breaking simple traffic laws. In > : response, you did say a front-page article saying that on one > : of the largest circulation weekly magazines in the USA was > : "trivial". > > You can find other examples where Krygowski used similar claims but > where no reference to Parade appeared. Note, however, how he took > this piece of advertising + fluff stuffed into Sunday newspapers and > blew it up into "one of the largest circulation weekly magazines in > the USA", which a reader not looking closely would confuse with _Time_ > or _Newsweek_. Ah! Lose one argument, so resurrect an old one to save face, eh? Problem is, you were wrong then, too, Bill. Approximate circulation figures: Bicycling magazine: 400,000 Popular Science: 1.5 million ESPN magazine: 1.9 million U.S. News : 2.0 million Newsweek: 3.1 million Sports Illustrated: 3.3 million Time: 4.0 million National Geographic: 5.4 million Reader's Digest: 10.0 million Parade magazine: 32 million Hmm. Looks like Parade actually does have one of the largest - if not _the_ largest - magazine circulation numbers in the country. Just like I said! Bill claims this doesn't count. I suppose that's because their distribution channel is different and unusually successful. "Nobody will look at a magazine with that much circulation!" Likewise, he claims bike lane experiences outside San Francisco don't count, because... um, well, I suppose because he says so! You're fun to watch, Bill. ;-) Now, can we get an explanation of why a white stripe on a roadway is better than a wide lane, despite the fact that trash accumulates to the right of the line? - Frank Krygowski                         Date: 02 Aug 2007 23:04:12 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 2, 11:37 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > > : > The only thing I told Frank I wouldn't bother reading was an > > : > article in Parade Magazine (or rather, I wouldn't bother > > : > taking the time to find a back issue). Frank claimed > > : > someone was promoting helmets, and I claimed that the > > : > example Frank gave of this "promotion" was so trivial as to > > : > not be worth bothering about. > > : > > : [FK:] Yes, I claimed they were promoting ONLY helmets, and saying > > : nothing at all about proper, legal riding, or otherwise > > : avoiding accidents, despite the fact that about 85% of child > > : fatalities come from breaking simple traffic laws. In > > : response, you did say a front-page article saying that on one > > : of the largest circulation weekly magazines in the USA was > > : "trivial". > > > > You can find other examples where Krygowski used similar claims but > > where no reference to Parade appeared. Note, however, how he took > > this piece of advertising + fluff stuffed into Sunday newspapers and > > blew it up into "one of the largest circulation weekly magazines in > > the USA", which a reader not looking closely would confuse with _Time_ > > or _Newsweek_. > > Ah! Lose one argument, so resurrect an old one to save face, eh? > Problem is, you were wrong then, too, Bill. More spin from Krygowski! He made a bogus claim, was called on it with documentation showing that he had been lying, so he then tries to blame the messenger for telling him what he actually had said. > > Approximate circulation figures: > > Bicycling magazine: 400,000 > Popular Science: 1.5 million > ESPN magazine: 1.9 million > U.S. News : 2.0 million > Newsweek: 3.1 million > Sports Illustrated: 3.3 million > Time: 4.0 million > National Geographic: 5.4 million > Reader's Digest: 10.0 million > Parade magazine: 32 million An example of how to lie with statistics. Parade is a filler that gets distributed with any number of newspapers. The others are magazines that people explicitly buy. Just because Parade may be distributed inside your favorite Sunday paper doesn't mean you want it or read it. At least with the others, we know that someone contributing to the magazine's circulation actually put down some hard cash for the purpose of obtaining it. > > Hmm. Looks like Parade actually does have one of the largest - if not > _the_ largest - magazine circulation numbers in the country. Just > like I said! Looks like Krygowski is once again showing his general inability to produce a single post where he didn't dissemble - a true Karl Rove wannabe. > Bill claims this doesn't count. I suppose that's because their > distribution channel is different and unusually successful. "Nobody > will look at a magazine with that much circulation!" More lies from Krygowski - he's assuming that Parade is actually read! It simply has been more successful than some other newspaper-insert magazines at getting itself inserted. > Likewise, he claims bike lane experiences outside San Francisco don't > count, because... um, well, I suppose because he says so! Frank is lying once again, since I obviously mentioned bike lanes outside of San Francisco (only mentioning San Francisco when Krygowski brought up his strawmen about ill-maintained bike lanes he saw while visiting some unspecified city, which he later claimed was Portland, but I had to mention a specific city to get him to own up to it). > You're fun to watch, Bill. ;-) That's nice ... too bad the way you continually make a fool of yourself isn't nice to watch. > Now, can we get an explanation of why a white stripe on a roadway is > better than a wide lane, despite the fact that trash accumulates to > the right of the line? Where's the trash? Certainly not around here. To be perfectly blunt, Krygowski is lying as usual because that is all he knows how to do. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                       Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:14:04 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > >> > >>So what? They ride a very small amount futher left laterally. That > >>does not discourage a hook incident. You've got to be further left > >>than bike lanes afford. > > Not true at all. Your turning radius for a given sideways > > acceleration > > is proportional to the square of your velocity. If a driver would slow > > to 15 mph to make a turn with a 12 foot lane + 5 foot shoulder (using > > the full space), a bike lane that puts the cyclist 5 feet from the curb > > means that the driver now has to turn with a 12 foot radius, slowing > > the driver to 12.6 mph. Now suppose you are riding at 15 mph. What > > do you think happens? > > > > Quit making up numbers. You have no idea what you are talking about. I know damn well what I'm talking about - the laws of physics. That's why your turning radius is proportional to the square of your acceleration (assuming constant speed). > > > > >>And really, who gives a hoot about ignorant bicyclists? They should > >>learn how to ride. > > Tell that to the parent of an 8 year old kid injured in a traffic > > accident. > > We shouldn't attempt to design for ignorance. Usually you design for safety. > >>>The further you are from the curb, the less chances you have of being > >>>cut off, and the more room you have to avoid an accident otherwise. > >> > >>Again, the small amount that a bike lane results in a left lateral > >>shift for ignorant beginners is not enough to deter collisions. > > It actually is enough to make a difference. > > Sorry. Not. Wrong. > Oh stop your jibberjabber. Why don't you stop posting bogus arguments in a futile attempt to justify your preconceptions. > >>If the bike lane stripe wasn't there, there'd be a very wide space > >>that the vehicle (ie bicyclist) in front would have right of way to. A > >>bike lane is nanny state micromanagement of bicyclist's lateral > >>position. > > The vehicle code in California and many other states contains a > > provision that bicyclists riding on the roadway at less than the > > normal speed of traffic must ride as far to the right as is > > practicable. That means on that very wide space of yours (i.e., > > a very wide lane), you have less freedom as to where to position > > your bicycle than when there is no bike lane (which you don't have > > to use if going at or above the normal speed of traffic). > > Only to people like you who assume that laws like that are legitimate, <snip > ROTFLMAO. Why don't you try to violate some in front of a police officer and run that argument by the judge? I'm snipping the rest of your post because you are quite frankly babbling, and I don't have the patience to bother with it. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                         Date: 30 Jul 2007 13:03:15 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > >>>>And really, who gives a hoot about ignorant bicyclists? They should >>>>learn how to ride. >>> >>>Tell that to the parent of an 8 year old kid injured in a traffic >>>accident. >> >>We shouldn't attempt to design for ignorance. > > > Usually you design for safety. So now bike lanes are going to protect 8 year old children from collisions! >>>The vehicle code in California and many other states contains a >>>provision that bicyclists riding on the roadway at less than the >>>normal speed of traffic must ride as far to the right as is >>>practicable. That means on that very wide space of yours (i.e., >>>a very wide lane), you have less freedom as to where to position >>>your bicycle than when there is no bike lane (which you don't have >>>to use if going at or above the normal speed of traffic). >> >>Only to people like you who assume that laws like that are legitimate, > > <snip> > > ROTFLMAO. There you go again rolling on the floor like a fool. Get up and pull yourself together! An illegitimate law like California's that micromanages bicyclists' lateral position is easily challenged by those who have the courage and wherewithall to know that "practicable" means that the bicyclist decides what that subjective definition means. On the other hand, nanny state bike lane stripes (espoused by cry baby sheep) are objective bicycle control devices with no interpretation possible. One is either in it, as required by law, or out of it, in which case one must have a reason to do so. Of course, some states like NC don't have nanny state laws. Wayne                           Date: 03 Aug 2007 19:52:47 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? In article <1186193212.808012.300730@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty. So why do you encourage him? Frank, you 'n Wayne are swinging punches at the Tar Baby, to show the rest of the world what a Tar Baby it is. But we already know it's a Tar Baby. You don't need to prove anything. Unless you're obsessed like Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, and need to prove some irrational idea to yourself by besting your chosen opponent. Captain Ahab could've won (or at least broke even) by just leaving the freaky whale alone to die a natural death. The whale got Ahab's leg in the beginning of the story, and got his life at the end of the story. But in between, the whale slowly nibbled & nibbled & nibbled him to death. And Ahab kept coming back for more nibbling. Just like you guys are doing. So, we all know Bill Zaumen is a Great White Tar Baby with a wrinkled brow & crooked jaw, and much stickiness. I am not only alone left to tell thee. And you can't effectively harpoon a Tar Baby. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca                             Date: 04 Aug 2007 06:40:37 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <1186193212.808012.300730@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your > > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty. > > So why do you encourage him? Krygowski has been on my case for decades for not agreeing with his idiotic position on bicycle helmets (he objects to my opinion that wearing one is a reaonable choice one might make). He's been on a vendetta ever since. Keats, of course, is another one of these nuts: see message ID <lv1qtc.s4b.ln@bud.garden.local > where he says: I'm more inclined to the opinion that the more vehement proponents of MHLs are car drivers who feel uncomfortable sharing the streets and roads with bicyclists, because they simply don't understand cycling, and nothing will un-convince them that riding bicycles in traffic is daredevilry. If they see us 'daredevil cyclists' (I say that with tongue in cheek) wearing helmets, those drivers' comfort levels are somewhat increased. So they want /all/ cyclists to wear helmets. In reality, if we use the California helmet law as an example, the push for it resulted from an unfortunately accident in which a little girl was riding against traffic at dusk without a light and wasn't visible until it was too late for the driver to stop in time (he wasn't speeding). The accident got a huge amount of publicity in the press. The public consensus was that a helmet might have helped, plus the traffic-law violations were not well publicized - it would have sounded too much like blaming a 9 year old child for not understanding things that 9 year olds aren't generally expected to understand. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                           Date: 03 Aug 2007 19:06:52 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 3, 6:04 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in > > > safety is... the sidewalk. > > > That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that > > conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous > > than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the > > opposite. > > <http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf> shows that > sidewalk cycling *in the same direction as traffic* has nearly the > same risk as riding on the roadway. See Table 5. For all bicyclists > in the study, the risk riding with traffic on the sidewalk divided by > the risk of riding on the roadway is 0.9 When you break it up by age, > however, you find that both the 17 and under and the 18 and over > catagories have a slightly increased risk when using the sidewalk and > when riding in the same direction as vehicular traffic. ... > > ...obviously Krygowski doesn't read the literature either as > comprehensively as he'd like to pretend. :-) Bill, you're amazing. Let's look at the conclusion of the paper: "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence of wrong-way travel." What you've done is cherry pick the data in order to make a silly argument. Even if sidewalk cycling is safe for, say, cyclists between 32 and 42 years of age, with red hair, riding slowly, in the direction of traffic, and stopping at all driveways, that's not representative of Donquijote's "street smart poor." Neither is your carefully chosen sub-group. Absent evidence of special characteristics, the best advice on riding should be based on the average data, not your sub-group. And you probably know about the Canadian study that found sidewalk cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away. Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty. - Frank Krygowski                             Date: 04 Aug 2007 06:26:31 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 3, 6:04 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in > > > > safety is... the sidewalk. > > > > > That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that > > > conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous > > > than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the > > > opposite. > > > > <http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf> shows that > > sidewalk cycling *in the same direction as traffic* has nearly the > > same risk as riding on the roadway. See Table 5. For all bicyclists > > in the study, the risk riding with traffic on the sidewalk divided by > > the risk of riding on the roadway is 0.9 When you break it up by age, > > however, you find that both the 17 and under and the 18 and over > > catagories have a slightly increased risk when using the sidewalk and > > when riding in the same direction as vehicular traffic. ... > > > > ...obviously Krygowski doesn't read the literature either as > > comprehensively as he'd like to pretend. :-) > > Bill, you're amazing. > > Let's look at the conclusion of the paper: > > "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur > greater risk than those on the roadway (on average > 1.8 times as great), most likely because of > blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way > sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and > sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence > of wrong-way travel." > Krygowski, you are an idiot - that factor of 1.8 includes cyclists riding in both directions and the ones going in the opposite direction as traffic have an elevated risk of significantly above 1.8. Furthermore, the factor of 1.8 understates the risk - it is actually over a factor of 2. The paper clearly states that wrong-way riding is far more prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent roadway, and that is where people are getting into trouble. > What you've done is cherry pick the data in order to make a silly > argument. Even if sidewalk cycling is safe for, say, cyclists between > 32 and 42 years of age, with red hair, riding slowly, in the direction > of traffic, and stopping at all driveways, that's not representative > of Donquijote's "street smart poor." Neither is your carefully chosen > sub-group. Your "cherry picking" is another of your bald-faced lies - if I were doing that, I wouldn't have spent the effort to point out that you get an unrealistically low number when you combine the 17 and under with the 18 and over populations - it is due to Simpson's Paradox (look it up if you are not familiar with the term). It is not a silly argument - the paper shows that riding in the same direction as traffic on a sidewalk, as normally practiced, is not inherently extremely danagerous, but riding in the opposing direction is. For everyone going in the same direction as traffic, the risk is increased by 1.2 to 1.3 (the total is 0.9, but that is due to the statistical anomoly I mentioned). If you were familiar with the area, you'd know that some sidewalk cyclists ride as fast as people riding on the road, and then run red lights besides. If you eliminate that obviously risky behavior, which is included in that ratio of 1.2 to 1.3, you'll get an even lower number. Also, your "carefully chosen sub-group" is another lie since I included both age groups and simply pointed out the difference the direction of travel makes. > > Absent evidence of special characteristics, the best advice on riding > should be based on the average data, not your sub-group. > > And you probably know about the Canadian study that found sidewalk > cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't > think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away. There was no "cherry picking" - that is simply one of your lies. If they got a factor of 13, you'll find that wrong-way riding was a significant contributing factor to it. > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty. What a hypocrite. Krygowski is one of the most intellectually dishonest scumbags on usenet. I've just about never seen a single post from him where he didn't lie about something and this one is no exception. And any rudeness directed towards him and his lying friends is more than deserved, particularly since far more is directed at me than I've been directing at them. And of course, riding on a sidewalk at an appropriate speed is not a "bad practice". What the in the paper I quoted clearly shows is that people who ride on sidewalks in the same direction as traffic are not taking particularly high risks (an increase of 1.2 to 1.3, which includes the "crazies", but also people who ride fairly slowly, with the "crazies" probably accounting for a significant share of the accidents). Those going in the opposite direction as traffic are taking a much more substantial risk, and the risk factor is probably not obvious to them. The conclusion should be obvious - if you want to ride on a sidewalk, go in the same direction as traffic and, aside from the direction of travel, people aren't making horrendously bad decisions. As is typical of Krygowski, he doesn't want to admit to what the data clearly shows. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                           Date: 30 Jul 2007 16:36:16 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > > >>>>And really, who gives a hoot about ignorant bicyclists? They should > >>>>learn how to ride. > >>> > >>>Tell that to the parent of an 8 year old kid injured in a traffic > >>>accident. > >> > >>We shouldn't attempt to design for ignorance. > > Usually you design for safety. > > So now bike lanes are going to protect 8 year old children from collisions! You were talkinga bout "ignorant bicyclists", whom you wanted to ignore, and "design for safety" does not mean "put in a bike lane", although if you have room for a bike lane, at least you'd avoid things that 8 year olds would not handle well, such as a road whose outside lane narrows at intersections to squeeze in a turn lane (experts know that this is when you should use the full lane, but that is beyond what most children would understand). > > > >>>The vehicle code in California and many other states contains a > >>>provision that bicyclists riding on the roadway at less than the > >>>normal speed of traffic must ride as far to the right as is > >>>practicable. That means on that very wide space of yours (i.e., > >>>a very wide lane), you have less freedom as to where to position > >>>your bicycle than when there is no bike lane (which you don't have > >>>to use if going at or above the normal speed of traffic). > >> > >>Only to people like you who assume that laws like that are legitimate, > > <snip> > > ROTFLMAO. > > There you go again rolling on the floor like a fool. Get up and pull > yourself together! You complained before. Maybe you shouldn't post idiotic statements more or less saying that you are above the law (the traffic laws in California *are* legimate, being in accordance with both the U.S. and California constitutions and having been passed by the state legislature (both houses) and signed by the governor). > > An illegitimate law like California's that micromanages bicyclists' > lateral position is easily challenged by those who have the courage > and wherewithall to know that "practicable" means that the bicyclist > decides what that subjective definition means. On the other hand, > nanny state bike lane stripes <snip> You can't be serious. This is one of the most idiotic things you've posted. I'm really not going to waste my time responding to some moron who whines about "nanny state" bike lane stripes that have basically no adverse impact on any of us. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                             Date: 31 Jul 2007 16:43:56 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: >>An illegitimate law like California's that micromanages bicyclists' >>lateral position is easily challenged by those who have the courage >>and wherewithall to know that "practicable" means that the bicyclist >>decides what that subjective definition means. On the other hand, >>nanny state bike lane stripes <snip> > > > You can't be serious. This is one of the most idiotic things you've > posted. > > I'm really not going to waste my time responding to some moron who > whines about "nanny state" bike lane stripes that have basically no > adverse impact on any of us. > Of course bike lane stripes have no adverse impact on anyone :-) Lots of bicyclists just love to complain about them because they like to complain. Can you say anything more assine? Wayne                               Date: 04 Aug 2007 12:21:05 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? In article <1186241009.783649.323880@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 3, 10:52 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >> In article <1186193212.808012.300...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> frkry...@gmail.com writes: >> >> > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your >> > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty. >> >> So why do you encourage him? > > In general, when I respond to certain trolls, I'm not hoping to change > the troll. I'm writing for others in the audience. In this case, the > "others" are those who may believe his implications that riding on a > sidewalk is just fine. > > That sort of thinking causes problems for both the novice cyclists who > try it, and for the rest of us, when public officials adopt Zaumen's > views and build sub-standard facilities like sidewalk bike paths. But the innocent bystanders already know what nemauZ is all about. People in general aren't stupid. I'm sure they know how non-seriously to take him. He's certainly no Pied Piper whom throngs would follow, even to their collective demise. Zaumen is no threat. He's just a weirdo who likes to exclaim (with much projectile spittle): "liar!" just for the Tourettes Syndrome heck of it. Everybody can see that for themselves. You don't need to provide the public service of revealing him. He already reveals himself. r.b.s people don't have anything worth saying about cycling anyways. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca                                 Date: 04 Aug 2007 15:34:15 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <1186241009.783649.323880@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > But the innocent bystanders already know what nemauZ > is all about. People in general aren't stupid. So they should know what you two are all about, and it isn't pretty. BTW, I still haven't seen your apology for your false statement alleging that I "futzed" with headers. If I were into conspiracy theories, I might suggest that you made it up so you could break any link to what you were replying to (otherwise people could easily find the original post). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                               Date: 04 Aug 2007 08:23:29 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 3, 10:52 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <1186193212.808012.300...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your > > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty. > > So why do you encourage him? In general, when I respond to certain trolls, I'm not hoping to change the troll. I'm writing for others in the audience. In this case, the "others" are those who may believe his implications that riding on a sidewalk is just fine. That sort of thinking causes problems for both the novice cyclists who try it, and for the rest of us, when public officials adopt Zaumen's views and build sub-standard facilities like sidewalk bike paths. - Frank Krygowski                               Date: 04 Aug 2007 08:16:29 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 4, 2:26 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > > > Let's look at the conclusion of the paper: > > > "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur > > greater risk than those on the roadway (on average > > 1.8 times as great), most likely because of > > blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way > > sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and > > sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence > > of wrong-way travel." > > Krygowski, you are an idiot - that factor of 1.8 includes cyclists > riding in both directions and the ones going in the opposite direction > as traffic have an elevated risk of significantly above 1.8. Furthermore, > the factor of 1.8 understates the risk - it is actually over a factor > of 2. The paper clearly states that wrong-way riding is far more > prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent roadway, and that is where > people are getting into trouble. As the paper says, "Table 5 demonstrates that sidewalks or paths adjacent to a roadway are ... much less safe." Yes, wrong-way riding is more likely on sidewalks. But that's not the only hazard. You seem to be pretending that other sidewalk-cycling hazards are negligible. They are not, and your misinformation endangers people who don't know better - people like "Donquijote," for example. > > > And you probably know about the Canadian study that found sidewalk > > cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't > > think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away. > > There was no "cherry picking" - that is simply one of your lies. If > they got a factor of 13, you'll find that wrong-way riding was a > significant contributing factor to it. But NOT the only contributing factor! Sidewalk cycling IS more dangerous than roadway cycling. Pretending that people will do it only in one direction is specious, and pretending they won't be at risk if they do is worse. Note, I'm not saying that nobody should ever ride on a sidewalk. There are times and places where it may make sense, and there are times and places where it can be done safely. But whitewashing the situation, pretending all the risk comes from riding the wrong-way, ignores the real dangers: cars cutting across sidewalks at driveways and parking lots, numerous blind spots, sidewalk edges that trap wheels, pedestrians & joggers & dogs with their random movements, sub- standard or dangerous pavement, interactions with surprised motorists when the cyclist crosses a road, etc. If a cyclist plans to use a sidewalk, even for fifty feet, they need to be aware of all of those things, and be on high alert. But the common thinking is "I'm just on the sidewalk; I'm safe." That's a delusion, and your posts purposely contribute toward that delusion. Fact is, you're so intent on gaining imaginary "arguing" points that you're willing to distort facts, spread misinformation, and endanger novices who read your posts. Those novices need to be warned against you. - Frank Krygowski                                 Date: 04 Aug 2007 15:30:23 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 4, 2:26 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > > > Let's look at the conclusion of the paper: > > > > > "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur > > > greater risk than those on the roadway (on average > > > 1.8 times as great), most likely because of > > > blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way > > > sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and > > > sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence > > > of wrong-way travel." > > > > Krygowski, you are an idiot - that factor of 1.8 includes cyclists > > riding in both directions and the ones going in the opposite direction > > as traffic have an elevated risk of significantly above 1.8. Furthermore, > > the factor of 1.8 understates the risk - it is actually over a factor > > of 2. The paper clearly states that wrong-way riding is far more > > prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent roadway, and that is where > > people are getting into trouble. > > As the paper says, "Table 5 demonstrates that sidewalks or paths > adjacent to a roadway are ... much less safe." Yes, wrong-way riding > is more likely on sidewalks. But that's not the only hazard. You > seem to be pretending that other sidewalk-cycling hazards are > negligible. They are not, and your misinformation endangers people > who don't know better - people like "Donquijote," for example. More lies and dissembling from Krygowski. What the paper actually says is, "Table 5 demonstrates that sidewalks or paths adjacent to a roadway are usually not, as non-cyclists expect, safer than the road, but much less safe," but that is completely consistent with what I posted because the risk factor is mostly due to riding against the flow of traffic, which is more prevalent on sidewalks and paths than on roadways. So, the problem is not the sidewalks per se but how bicyclists use them, and there is no good way of preventing wrong way riding on them. As the paper stated, "The paths are signed 'Bicycles May Use Sidewalk,' and their use is optional. In accordance with a local ordinance these sidewalks are further signed for one-way bicycle travel, although this prohibition is often ignored and rarely enforced." I clearly stated that the data indicated that the risk ratio for those riding on the sidewalk in the same direction as traffic versus those riding on the rroadway in the same direction as traffic is 1.2 to 1.3, far lower than the 1.8 number that Krygowski fixates on, which itself is significantly lower than the risk of riding the wrong way, which is over a factor of 2. BTW, the study I quoted measured accident rates, but did not control for cyclist skill levels. Since I live in the area, I can add a couple of personal observations - the really skilled people more or less stay on the road, not the sidewalk, so the sidewalk risk numbers are biased to some extent because of that - to the extent that higher skill levels lead to reduced accident rates. A few of the sidewalk cyclists obviously go way too fast for conditions (ignoring red lights as well). Aside from the wrong-way issue and a few adrenaline junkies, cyclists using the sidwalk seem to be mostly behaving sensibly - riding at speeds appropriate for the conditions - and the accident statistics bear that out. I once saw a car bike collision on one of these roads - the cyclist was riding the wrong way on the sidewalk fairly slowly. A driver had come to a complete stop at a stop sign and was looking left to creep forwards enough to get a view at traffic on the cross street. The intersection was not a right-angle one, and the cyclist was approaching slightly from the rear as a result. Just as the cyclist entered the crosswalk, the car crept forward and they hit at very slow speeds. The cyclist got a foot and hand down to break the fall, and the front wheel was badly damaged, but there were no injuries beyond perhaps a scraped palm. The accident was clearly the cyclists fault - the sidewalk the cyclist was using had signs on it at the time forbidding riding on the sidewalk in that direction. Had the cyclist been going in the same direction as traffic, the driver would at least have had a chance to spot the cyclist as the cyclist would not have been behind the driver's head. > > > cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't > > > think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away. > > > > There was no "cherry picking" - that is simply one of your lies. If > > they got a factor of 13, you'll find that wrong-way riding was a > > significant contributing factor to it. > > But NOT the only contributing factor! So you claim, but why should anyone believe you when you never bothered to provide a URL to the paper, if there even is one. The one I provided BTW was published in a peer-reviewed journal. > Sidewalk cycling IS more dangerous than roadway cycling. Pretending > that people will do it only in one direction is specious, and > pretending they won't be at risk if they do is worse. Another lie from Krygowski since I pretended no such thing - I stated quite clearly that the average factor of 1.8 was due to the large number of people who ride in the wrong direction, which is even more risky. > Note, I'm not saying that nobody should ever ride on a sidewalk. > There are times and places where it may make sense, and there are > times and places where it can be done safely. But whitewashing the > situation, pretending all the risk comes from riding the wrong-way, > ignores the real dangers: cars cutting across sidewalks at driveways > and parking lots, numerous blind spots, sidewalk edges that trap > wheels, pedestrians & joggers & dogs with their random movements, sub- > standard or dangerous pavement, interactions with surprised motorists > when the cyclist crosses a road, etc. ROTFLMAO - you wouldn't have a risk factor of 1.2 to 1.3 over riding in the correct direction on the roadway if it was as bad as you claim, and that number (from the paper) probably overstates the risk because it includes hormone-crazed teenagers who go way too fast for conditions and it includes people who most likely are significantly less skilled than those who ride on the roadway. The authors simply had no way from the accident-report data and observations they made of measuring skill level. Also, A driveway and parking-lot entrance is basically just another intersection, and those are included in the study. One of the streets, El Camino Real, is a 6 lane road with lots of businesse, driveways, and blind intersections. Yet cyclists are not dropping like flies because most on the sidwalk are going at a speed appropriate for the conditions. > If a cyclist plans to use a sidewalk, even for fifty feet, they need > to be aware of all of those things, and be on high alert. But the > common thinking is "I'm just on the sidewalk; I'm safe." That's a > delusion, and your posts purposely contribute toward that delusion. Liar. I gave a fair account of the data, providing the numbers that backed up everything I said, and that is hardly "purposely contribut[ing] to that delusion." As is typical of Krygowski, he is not satisfied with showing data fairly but has some deep seated need to lie about the data in a silly attempt to push whatever he is touting at the moment. > Fact is, you're so intent on gaining imaginary "arguing" points that > you're willing to distort facts, spread misinformation, and endanger > novices who read your posts. Those novices need to be warned against > you. Projection - all the distortion is coming from the general direction of Frank Krygoswki, one of the most persistent liars on usenet. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                               Date: 31 Jul 2007 14:02:57 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > Of course bike lane stripes have no adverse impact on anyone :-) Lots > of bicyclists just love to complain about them because they like to > complain. > > Can you say anything more assine? Rather, what is "assine [sic]" is Pein's whining and disembling - what you really have are a few very vocal bicyclists whining about bike lanes when the vast majority don't have any objections to properly designed lanes, regardless of whether they feel the lanes help them. Pein has yet to explain why a bike lane stripe is worse than a shoulder stripe place a foot or two to the right of where the bike lane stripe is. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                 Date: 04 Aug 2007 07:53:06 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 4, 2:40 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > In article <1186193212.808012.300...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your > > > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty. > > > So why do you encourage him? > > Krygowski has been on my case for decades for not agreeing with > his idiotic position on bicycle helmets (he objects to my opinion > that wearing one is a reaonable choice one might make). He's been > on a vendetta ever since. Hmm. Another case of dredging up a past argument, stating the opponent's viewpoint in a biased manner, and using that as a supposed "proof." That tactic is so common with Bill Zaumen, I propose we label it a "Zaumenism." - Frank Krygowski                                   Date: 04 Aug 2007 08:15:49 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 4, 2:40 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > In article <1186193212.808012.300...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your > > > > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty. > > > > > So why do you encourage him? > > > > Krygowski has been on my case for decades for not agreeing with > > his idiotic position on bicycle helmets (he objects to my opinion > > that wearing one is a reaonable choice one might make). He's been > > on a vendetta ever since. > > Hmm. Another case of dredging up a past argument, stating the > opponent's viewpoint in a biased manner, and using that as a supposed > "proof." No, simply that your history of a decades long grudge is highly relevant in evaluating what you posts, particularly given your Karl Rove wannabe behavior. Face is Krygowski, you are one of the most dishonest posters on this newsgroup. You have in fact had a decades long grudge and that is highly relevant to what you are posting now. Even in the current thread, what you had was a heap of abusive posts from Wayne Pein, with lots of name calling, and then Krygowski blames me when I called him on it. It's the same pattern as on other discussions - it is OK for Krygowski's "friends" to heap abuse on others, but not OK for the targets of their abuse to even peep in response. > That tactic is so common with Bill Zaumen, I propose we label it a <SNIP > the big lie technique - mindless repetition as an attempt at character assassination - is Krygwoski's normal modus operandi. As I recall, others have pointed that out as well. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                 Date: 31 Jul 2007 18:45:11 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > > Pein has yet to explain why a bike lane stripe is worse than a > shoulder stripe place a foot or two to the right of where the bike > lane stripe is. > Zauman, I have not idea what your garbled sentence means. Wayne                                   Date: 04 Aug 2007 13:09:42 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 4, 3:21 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <1186241009.783649.323...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:52 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > >> In article <1186193212.808012.300...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > >> frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > >> > Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your > >> > constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty. > > >> So why do you encourage him? > > > In general, when I respond to certain trolls, I'm not hoping to change > > the troll. I'm writing for others in the audience. In this case, the > > "others" are those who may believe his implications that riding on a > > sidewalk is just fine. > > > That sort of thinking causes problems for both the novice cyclists who > > try it, and for the rest of us, when public officials adopt Zaumen's > > views and build sub-standard facilities like sidewalk bike paths. > > But the innocent bystanders already know what nemauZ > is all about. People in general aren't stupid. I'm > sure they know how non-seriously to take him. He's > certainly no Pied Piper whom throngs would follow, > even to their collective demise. Zaumen is no threat. > He's just a weirdo who likes to exclaim (with much > projectile spittle): "liar!" just for the Tourettes > Syndrome heck of it. Everybody can see that for themselves. > You don't need to provide the public service of revealing him. > He already reveals himself. I agree that he rarely gets anyone agreeing with him, so perhaps you're right. But I do wonder about novice lurkers. And I think there's educational value in, for example, specifically listing the problems with sidewalk cycling when I disagree with Zaumen. However, I admit to taking perverse pleasure in calling a Zaumen a Zaumen, so to speak. I should try to reform. ;-) - Frank Krygowski                                     Date: 04 Aug 2007 15:35:36 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 4, 3:21 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > In article <1186241009.783649.323...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > I agree that he rarely gets anyone agreeing with him, so perhaps > you're right. But I do wonder about novice lurkers. I don't see a ground swell of support for what you post - my guess is that people are just staying out the discussion because your behavior is so well known. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                   Date: 01 Aug 2007 02:19:15 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Pein has yet to explain why a bike lane stripe is worse than a > > shoulder stripe place a foot or two to the right of where the bike > > lane stripe is. > > > > Zauman, > > I have not idea what your garbled sentence means. > > Wayne Playing dumb? Aside from a typo ("place" should have been "placed"), it should be clear enough for even you to understand. Here's a picture comparing the two: ------- bike lane stripe -------- *** cyclist **** ____________ shoulder stripe_____________ with a bike lane stripe, you'd nominally ride just inside the bike lane. With a shoulder stripe, you would normally ride as far the right on the roadway as is practicable (that's what the traffic laws say), which puts you just outside the shoulder. With a shoulder stripe placed a couple of feet to the right of where a bike lane stripe would go, the cyclist is in the same position on the roadway. So what's the problem? You'd ride in about the same position on the roadway regardless. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                     Date: 01 Aug 2007 17:23:49 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: Here's a picture comparing > the two: > > ------- bike lane stripe -------- > *** cyclist **** > ____________ shoulder stripe_____________ > > with a bike lane stripe, you'd nominally ride just inside the > bike lane. With a shoulder stripe, you would normally ride as > far the right on the roadway as is practicable (that's what the > traffic laws say), which puts you just outside the shoulder. > > With a shoulder stripe placed a couple of feet to the right of > where a bike lane stripe would go, the cyclist is in the same > position on the roadway. > > So what's the problem? You'd ride in about the same position on > the roadway regardless. > I'll assume your "shoulder stripe" is the edge of usable surface. I'll also put dimensions to it for clarity. The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane. 16' lane: - bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed. Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor vehicles. 12' and 4' bike lane. - bicyclist's lateral position is chosen for him to be 4' or less from edge. Bicyclist must have a reason for lateral position to be more than 4', and must yield to traffic in the "motor vehicle lane" before changing lanes. Stopped vehicles, like busses, fully block the bike lane. - bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion. - bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane" means that motorists need not be cautious. - presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether bicyclists are present or not. The bike lane acts as a paved shoulder and buffer from roadside elements, well channelizes vehicles, and places them in a favorable position for optimal lines of sight. - bike lane collects debris. Wayne                                       Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:50:40 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Here's a picture comparing > > the two: > > ------- bike lane stripe -------- > > *** cyclist **** > > ____________ shoulder stripe_____________ > > with a bike lane stripe, you'd nominally ride just inside the > > bike lane. With a shoulder stripe, you would normally ride as > > far the right on the roadway as is practicable (that's what the > > traffic laws say), which puts you just outside the shoulder. > > With a shoulder stripe placed a couple of feet to the right of > > where a bike lane stripe would go, the cyclist is in the same > > position on the roadway. > > So what's the problem? You'd ride in about the same position on > > the roadway regardless. > > > > I'll assume your "shoulder stripe" is the edge of usable surface. I'll > also put dimensions to it for clarity. > > The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane. > > 16' lane: > - bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other > operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge > under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as > a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed. .... which is just what you do in the bike lane case - when riding at less than the normal speed of traffic you will be nominally 14 feet from the adjacent traffic-lane's stripe, which puts you a couple of feet inside the bike lane. If you are less than 12 feet from that lane divider (which puts you just outside the bike lane) you should be going as fast as traffic unless avoiding some specific hazard (which the bike lane rules allow). > Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing > lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle > operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space > since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist > within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist > traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor > vehicles. The California Vehicle Code forbids lateral movement on a roadway unless such a movement can be made with reasonable safety. If you were going slower than traffic and then decide to move left, you do not have squatters rights, lane stripe or not. > - bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor > vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion. Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless preparing for a turn across that lane. > - bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane" > means that motorists need not be cautious. That is also wrong. A driver has a responsibility to operate a vehicle safely. Even drivers who don't care generally don't want their fenders dinged needlessly. > - presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether > bicyclists are present or not. Bike lanes actually have the opposite effect - motorist speed tends to increase the wider a lane is. > The bike lane acts as a paved shoulder and buffer from roadside > elements, well channelizes vehicles, and places them in a favorable > position for optimal lines of sight. - bike lane collects debris. Not true either, unless the adjacent traffic lane is very wide. Drivers nominally guide on the lane stripe, staying a couple of feet inside. Whether you have a bike lane stripe or not, the area 12 to 16 feet from the "traffic" lane stripe will be kept clean. However, as a bike lane, a local jurisdiction that installed the bike lane then has an obligation to keep it clean, but there is no such obligation for a shoulder (which is not intended for vehicular travel). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                         Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:22:21 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: >> >>The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane. >> >>16' lane: >>- bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other >>operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge >>under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as >>a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed. > > > .... which is just what you do in the bike lane case - when riding > at less than the normal speed of traffic you will be nominally > 14 feet from the adjacent traffic-lane's stripe, which puts you > a couple of feet inside the bike lane. YOU may ride 2' from edge of pavement, and others may ride 2' from edge of pavement, but it is not good practice. I don't ride 2' from edge of pavement. If you are less than 12 feet > from that lane divider (which puts you just outside the bike lane) > you should be going as fast as traffic unless avoiding some specific > hazard (which the bike lane rules allow). Not me. I typically ride 4' from edge of pavement no matter what my speed is. > > >>Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing >>lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle >>operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space >>since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist >>within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist >>traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor >>vehicles. > > > The California Vehicle Code forbids lateral movement on a roadway > unless such a movement can be made with reasonable safety. If you > were going slower than traffic and then decide to move left, you > do not have squatters rights, lane stripe or not. I don't care about the CVC. > > >>- bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor >>vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion. > > > Nonesense. Sorry. It's true. > >>- bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane" >>means that motorists need not be cautious. > > > That is also wrong. A driver has a responsibility to operate a > vehicle safely. Even drivers who don't care generally don't want > their fenders dinged needlessly. So? Motorists pass bicyclists faster and closer when a bike lane is present. They need not exhibit any caution when passing. > > >>- presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether >>bicyclists are present or not. > > > Bike lanes actually have the opposite effect - motorist speed tends > to increase the wider a lane is. Sorry. You are wrong again. > > >>The bike lane acts as a paved shoulder and buffer from roadside >>elements, well channelizes vehicles, and places them in a favorable >>position for optimal lines of sight. - bike lane collects debris. > > > Not true either, unless the adjacent traffic lane is very wide.> Drivers nominally guide on the lane stripe, staying a couple of > feet inside. Whether you have a bike lane stripe or not, the > area 12 to 16 feet from the "traffic" lane stripe will be kept > clean. However, as a bike lane, a local jurisdiction that installed > the bike lane then has an obligation to keep it clean, but there > is no such obligation for a shoulder (which is not intended for > vehicular travel). Yea, jurisdictions on Bike Lane Fantasy Island keep bike lanes as clean as the normal lane. Wayne > >                                           Date: 02 Aug 2007 15:40:47 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >> > >>The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane. > >> > >>16' lane: > >>- bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other > >>operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge > >>under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as > >> a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed. > > .... which is just what you do in the bike lane case - when riding > > at less than the normal speed of traffic you will be nominally > > 14 feet from the adjacent traffic-lane's stripe, which puts you > > a couple of feet inside the bike lane. > > YOU may ride 2' from edge of pavement, and others may ride 2' from > edge of pavement, but it is not good practice. I don't ride 2' from > edge of pavement. Wayne, stop lying (you misquote me so consistently that lying is the only explanation): I talked about riding 14' from the lane stripe (on the left) of the adjacent traffic lane, which puts you a couple of feet inside the bike lane. You know, two feet from the bike lane stripe, which can be quite far from the curb. > > If you are less than 12 feet > > from that lane divider (which puts you just outside the bike lane) > > you should be going as fast as traffic unless avoiding some specific > > hazard (which the bike lane rules allow). > > Not me. I typically ride 4' from edge of pavement no matter what my > speed is. More dishonesty from Pein - given the minimum bike lane width, 4' from the edge of the pavement is not outside of the bike lane. > >>Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing > >>lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle > >>operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space > >>since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist > >>within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist > >>traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor > >>vehicles. > > The California Vehicle Code forbids lateral movement on a roadway > > unless such a movement can be made with reasonable safety. If you > > were going slower than traffic and then decide to move left, you > > do not have squatters rights, lane stripe or not. > > I don't care about the CVC. If you don't care about traffic laws, or at least make a reasonable effort to obey them, then do all of us a favor by not riding a bike and not driving a car. > >>- bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor > >>vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion. > > Nonesense. > Sorry. It's true. You are delusional. > >>- bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane" > >>means that motorists need not be cautious. > > That is also wrong. A driver has a responsibility to operate a > > vehicle safely. Even drivers who don't care generally don't want > > their fenders dinged needlessly. > > So? Motorists pass bicyclists faster and closer when a bike lane is > present. They need not exhibit any caution when passing. Bike lanes do not make drivers speed up. What you will find, however, is that bicyclists ride a bit further from the curb when there is a bike lane. The drivers can probably judge their clearance from a bicycle easier if it is to right of a bike lane stripe. If conditions make it possible to pass as safely at a higher speed, so what? It is no different than with a shoulder stripe (so why don't you think that shoulder stripes are bad). > >>- presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether > >> bicyclists are present or not. > > Bike lanes actually have the opposite effect - motorist speed tends > > to increase the wider a lane is. > > Sorry. You are wrong again. You simply do not know what you are talking about. > Yea, jurisdictions on Bike Lane Fantasy Island keep bike lanes as > clean as the normal lane. Bike lanes are as clean as traffic lanes in the town I live in. While I haven't done an exhaustive survey, the bike lanes I've used in San Francisco were as clean as the rest of the street. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                             Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:33:57 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >>Bill Z. wrote: >> >> >>>Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: >> >>>>The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane. >>>> >>>>16' lane: >>>>- bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other >>>>operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge >>>>under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as >>>>a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed. >>> >>>.... which is just what you do in the bike lane case - when riding >>>at less than the normal speed of traffic you will be nominally >>>14 feet from the adjacent traffic-lane's stripe, which puts you >>>a couple of feet inside the bike lane. >> >>YOU may ride 2' from edge of pavement, and others may ride 2' from >>edge of pavement, but it is not good practice. I don't ride 2' from >>edge of pavement. > > > Wayne, stop lying (you misquote me so consistently that lying is the > only explanation): I talked about riding 14' from the lane stripe > (on the left) of the adjacent traffic lane, which puts you a couple > of feet inside the bike lane. You know, two feet from the bike lane > stripe, which can be quite far from the curb. Are you a moron? In a 16' lane, 14' from the lane stripe is 2' from the edge of pavement. > > >>If you are less than 12 feet >> >>>from that lane divider (which puts you just outside the bike lane) >>>you should be going as fast as traffic unless avoiding some specific >>>hazard (which the bike lane rules allow). >> >>Not me. I typically ride 4' from edge of pavement no matter what my >>speed is. > > > More dishonesty from Pein - given the minimum bike lane width, 4' > from the edge of the pavement is not outside of the bike lane. You are a moron. > > > >>>>Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing >>>>lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle >>>>operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space >>>>since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist >>>>within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist >>>>traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor >>>>vehicles. >>> >>>The California Vehicle Code forbids lateral movement on a roadway >>>unless such a movement can be made with reasonable safety. If you >>>were going slower than traffic and then decide to move left, you >>>do not have squatters rights, lane stripe or not. >> >>I don't care about the CVC. > > > If you don't care about traffic laws, or at least make a reasonable > effort to obey them, then do all of us a favor by not riding a bike > and not driving a car. Moron. I don't live in CA so I don't care about the CVC! Wayne                                               Date: 03 Aug 2007 22:06:38 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein wrote: > ...I don't live in CA so I don't care about the CVC! HOT DOG! WE HAVE A WEINER! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                               Date: 03 Aug 2007 14:32:06 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > >>Bill Z. wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > >> > >>YOU may ride 2' from edge of pavement, and others may ride 2' from > >>edge of pavement, but it is not good practice. I don't ride 2' from > >>edge of pavement. > > Wayne, stop lying (you misquote me so consistently that lying is the > > only explanation): I talked about riding 14' from the lane stripe > > (on the left) of the adjacent traffic lane, which puts you a couple > > of feet inside the bike lane. You know, two feet from the bike lane > > stripe, which can be quite far from the curb. > > Are you a moron? > In a 16' lane, 14' from the lane stripe is 2' from the edge of pavement. What you are is a liar. For some reason, you refuse to admit that lane stripe to the left of the rightmost vehicular lane can be far more than 16 feet from a curb. If parking is allowed, bike lanes are typically a minimum of 12 feet in width 5 feet for the vehicle, 3 feet to clear a door, and another 4 for the bike and to allow for people parking a maximum of 18 inches from a curb. If you then ride a foot or two inside the bike lane, you will have room to clear parked vehicles safely. Around here, we also have streets with 6 to 8 foot bike lanes and no parking allowed in them (e.g., Page Mill Road between El Camino Real and the Foothill Expressay). If there is a fire or other emergency during commute hours, when the lanes are filled to capacity and the streets gridlocked, you then have a chance to let an emergency vehicle get through. So, before calling people "morons", I suggest you at least get your facts straight, if only so you won't look like the fool that you are. > >>Not me. I typically ride 4' from edge of pavement no matter what my > >>speed is. > > More dishonesty from Pein - given the minimum bike lane width, 4' > > from the edge of the pavement is not outside of the bike lane. > > You are a moron. Reduced to name calling because you don't like the facts? > > If you don't care about traffic laws, or at least make a reasonable > > effort to obey them, then do all of us a favor by not riding a bike > > and not driving a car. > > > Moron. I don't live in CA so I don't care about the CVC! Make sure you don't visit California, at least not if you intend to ride a bike, drive a car, or even walk across a street. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                                 Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:03:34 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: >>In a 16' lane, 14' from the lane stripe is 2' from the edge of pavement. > > > What you are is a liar. Moron, This is my last communication with you because trying to converse with you is a constantly moving target. Wayne                                                   Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:57:52 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >>In a 16' lane, 14' from the lane stripe is 2' from the edge of pavement. > > What you are is a liar. > > Moron, > > This is my last communication with you because trying to converse with > you is a constantly moving target. Well, you just lied twice - your constantly moving target thing is a lie, as is your "last communication". The post I'm replying to, meesage ID <46b3a637$0$30647$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, was sent at Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:03:34 -0400, but you subsequently posted another reply with message ID <46b3a6d8$0$30647$4c368faf@roadrunner.com > at Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:06:16 -0400. Care to explain how that post followed your "last communication"? :-) Your problem otherwise is that I'm simply not letting you get away with misrepresenting what I actually said, and you are finding that very awkward. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                         Date: 30 Jul 2007 12:31:19 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > ROTFLMAO. If you could mangage to get your fool self off the floor rolling around laughing, maybe people could take you seriously? Wayne                           Date: 30 Jul 2007 16:29:12 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > ROTFLMAO. > > If you could mangage to get your fool self off the floor rolling > around laughing, maybe people could take you seriously? Here's what I thought was so funny (your statment about people who think that traffic laws are legitimate): : > Only to people like you who assume that laws like that are legitimate, : <snip > : : ROTFLMAO. Why don't you try to violate some in front of a police : officer and run that argument by the judge? I'm snipping the rest of : your post because you are quite frankly babbling, and I don't have : the patience to bother with it. You'd look a bit dishonest if you would at least quote what you were actually replying to, which really was an idiotic statement. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                             Date: 31 Jul 2007 16:40:42 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > : ROTFLMAO. Why don't you try to violate some in front of a police > : officer and run that argument by the judge? I'm snipping the rest of > : your post because you are quite frankly babbling, and I don't have > : the patience to bother with it. > Chapel Hill, NC has an illegitimate law which I've been pulled over 4 times by police officers for "violating." I had been fully using the right lane of a 4 lane road. Sec. 21-43.(c)When using a roadway, bicyclists shall ride as far to the right as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, and shall not pass standing or slower moving vehicles in their lane on the right except as permitted by G.S. 20-150.1. In each case I told them the law was illegitmate, and they left. So yea, some of us aren't sheep like you. We know and exercise our rights. Wayne                               Date: 31 Jul 2007 13:59:28 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > : ROTFLMAO. Why don't you try to violate some in front of a police > > : officer and run that argument by the judge? I'm snipping the rest of > > : your post because you are quite frankly babbling, and I don't have > > : the patience to bother with it. > > > > Chapel Hill, NC has an illegitimate law which I've been pulled over 4 > times by police officers for "violating." I had been fully using the > right lane of a 4 lane road. > > Sec. 21-43.(c)When using a roadway, bicyclists shall ride as far to > the right as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing > vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, and shall not pass > standing or slower moving vehicles in their lane on the right except > as permitted by G.S. 20-150.1. > > In each case I told them the law was illegitmate, and they left. > > So yea, some of us aren't sheep like you. We know and exercise our rights. So, the idiot Wayne Pein thinks people are "sheep" for pointing out that state laws that are (a) constitution, (b) passed by the legislature, and (c) signed by the governor are legitimate laws! Rather than admit the obvious, Pein goes for an infantile ad hominem argument. How childish can you get? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                 Date: 31 Jul 2007 18:55:28 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > So, the idiot Wayne Pein thinks people are "sheep" for pointing out > that state laws that are (a) constitution, (b) passed by the > legislature, and (c) signed by the governor are legitimate laws! > Rather than admit the obvious, Pein goes for an infantile ad hominem > argument. How childish can you get? > Zauman, You're a crybaby sheep bike lane apologist. You can't recognize an illegitimate law, or have the courage to stand up to it. For you, if it's written it must be legitimate. Signed by the Girlyman governor! Wayne                                   Date: 01 Aug 2007 02:31:28 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > So, the idiot Wayne Pein thinks people are "sheep" for pointing out > > that state laws that are (a) constitution, (b) passed by the > > legislature, and (c) signed by the governor are legitimate laws! > > Rather than admit the obvious, Pein goes for an infantile ad hominem > > argument. How childish can you get? > > > > Zauman, > > You're a crybaby sheep bike lane apologist. You can't recognize an > illegitimate law, or have the courage to stand up to it. For you, if > it's written it must be legitimate. Signed by the Girlyman governor! Did you pass your high school civics class? It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't given that you are acting like a child. How old are you, anyway? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB               Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:22:00 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein wrote: > > Bike lanes reduce the ability of bicyclists to manage their lateral > position, and their space is reduced. > And they encourage cars to pass closer. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf Tony                 Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:19:37 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Tony Raven <traven@gotadsl.co.uk > writes: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > Bike lanes reduce the ability of bicyclists to manage their lateral > > position, and their space is reduced. > > > > And they encourage cars to pass closer. > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf > > Tony You can't be serious - this is a web site put up by some guys with an agenda. There is no reason to take it seriously. Provide something respectable, like a journal article. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                   Date: 27 Jul 2007 12:34:36 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > > > You can't be serious - this is a web site put up by some guys with > an agenda. There is no reason to take it seriously. Provide something > respectable, like a journal article. > > > You can't be serious. Most peer reviewed journal articles with bicycling content are a methodological joke. Wayne                     Date: 27 Jul 2007 23:45:07 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > You can't be serious - this is a web site put up by some guys with > > an agenda. There is no reason to take it seriously. Provide something > > respectable, like a journal article. > > > You can't be serious. Most peer reviewed journal articles with > bicycling content are a methodological joke. The one I just quoted (from the ITE journal) is not a joke. But we can see where you are at - forget any decent research if it goes against your preconceptions. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                       Date: 27 Jul 2007 22:43:19 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >>Bill Z. wrote: >> >> >>>You can't be serious - this is a web site put up by some guys with >>>an agenda. There is no reason to take it seriously. Provide something >>>respectable, like a journal article. >>> >> >>You can't be serious. Most peer reviewed journal articles with >>bicycling content are a methodological joke. > > > The one I just quoted (from the ITE journal) is not a joke. But we can > see where you are at - forget any decent research if it goes against > your preconceptions. > I don't have preconceptions. Give me the citation. Wayne                         Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:15:31 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > >>Bill Z. wrote: > >> > >> > >>>You can't be serious - this is a web site put up by some guys with > >>>an agenda. There is no reason to take it seriously. Provide something > >>>respectable, like a journal article. > >>> > >> > >>You can't be serious. Most peer reviewed journal articles with > >>bicycling content are a methodological joke. > > The one I just quoted (from the ITE journal) is not a joke. But we > > can > > see where you are at - forget any decent research if it goes against > > your preconceptions. > > > > I don't have preconceptions. Give me the citation. I posted a citation a few days ago on this thread. Look the damn thing up yourself. I'm not going to post it twice just for you. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                           Date: 30 Jul 2007 13:12:34 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: >> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >>>Bill Z. wrote: >>> >>>The one I just quoted (from the ITE journal) is not a joke. But we >>>can >>>see where you are at - forget any decent research if it goes against >>>your preconceptions. >>> >> >>I don't have preconceptions. Give me the citation. > > > I posted a citation a few days ago on this thread. Look the damn thing > up yourself. I'm not going to post it twice just for you. > You'd rather spew venom than give me a citation. http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm What does that have to do with whether bike lanes are good? Wayne                             Date: 30 Jul 2007 16:44:24 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > >> > >>I don't have preconceptions. Give me the citation. > > I posted a citation a few days ago on this thread. Look the damn > > thing > > up yourself. I'm not going to post it twice just for you. > > > > You'd rather spew venom than give me a citation. Projection - you are the guy who's been spewing venom left and right. Given how rude you are, just why should I go around looking up a citation I posted a few days ago and that you ignored or didn't see, just to post it again. I've better things to do with my time. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                               Date: 31 Jul 2007 16:47:07 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >>Bill Z. wrote: >> >>>>I don't have preconceptions. Give me the citation. >>> >>>I posted a citation a few days ago on this thread. Look the damn >>>thing >>>up yourself. I'm not going to post it twice just for you. >>> >> >>You'd rather spew venom than give me a citation. > > > Projection - you are the guy who's been spewing venom left and right. > > Given how rude you are, just why should I go around looking up a citation > I posted a few days ago and that you ignored or didn't see, just to post > it again. I've better things to do with my time. > Yet you sit in your underware and type the above. Crybaby. Wayne                                 Date: 31 Jul 2007 14:07:56 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > >>Bill Z. wrote: > >>>>I don't have preconceptions. Give me the citation. > >>>I posted a citation a few days ago on this thread. Look the damn > >>>thing up yourself. I'm not going to post it twice just for you. > >>You'd rather spew venom than give me a citation. > > > Projection - you are the guy who's been spewing venom left and > > right. Given how rude you are, just why should I go around > > looking up a citation I posted a few days ago and that you ignored > > or didn't see, just to post it again. I've better things to do > > with my time. > > Yet you sit in your underware and type the above. > > Crybaby. ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                   Date: 31 Jul 2007 18:48:19 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > > ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy > spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little > boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up. > Damn, you are fool. Get off the floor Zauman! Wayne                                     Date: 01 Aug 2007 02:29:11 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy > > spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little > > boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up. > > > > Damn, you are fool. Get off the floor Zauman! (Of course, being embarassed by his behavior, Pein snipped his infantile insults before replying.) Pein, why don't you get some professional help for your problem? You might start with an anger-management class, although a psychiatrist might be able to give you a more apropos suggestion. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                                       Date: 01 Aug 2007 17:29:11 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >>Bill Z. wrote: >> >> >> >>>ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy >>>spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little >>>boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up. >>> >> >>Damn, you are fool. Get off the floor Zauman! > > > (Of course, being embarassed by his behavior, Pein snipped his > infantile insults before replying.) > > Pein, why don't you get some professional help for your problem? You > might start with an anger-management class, although a psychiatrist > might be able to give you a more apropos suggestion. > Zauman, Grow up. Wayne                                         Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:54:13 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > >>Bill Z. wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy > >>>spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little > >>>boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up. > >>> > >> > >>Damn, you are fool. Get off the floor Zauman! > > (Of course, being embarassed by his behavior, Pein snipped his > > infantile insults before replying.) > > Pein, why don't you get some professional help for your problem? You > > might start with an anger-management class, although a psychiatrist > > might be able to give you a more apropos suggestion. > > Zauman, > > Grow up. Pein, stop projecting and get some professional help for your emotional problems. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB         Date: 25 Jul 2007 13:45:26 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:877ioojvnh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com> writes: > >> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is >> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and >> therefor >> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. > > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being > injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more > comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes > double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let > emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane > versus a striped shoulder is basically zero. Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic driver can easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw you. > In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road > and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely > separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really > bicycle/pedestrian paths. Bike paths are the only way to go. They are extremely safe as long as you keep your speed down. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 25 Jul 2007 16:09:26 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:877ioojvnh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > > "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is > >> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and > >> therefor > >> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. > > > > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes > > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, > > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything > > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being > > injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more > > comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as > > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes > > double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let > > emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane > > versus a striped shoulder is basically zero. > > Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic driver can > easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw you. We weren't talking about how "safe" they were. The issue was whether the government would install them given that most people don't ride bicycles. I pointed out that most voters have children and those children ride bicycles. > > In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road > > and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely > > separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really > > bicycle/pedestrian paths. > > Bike paths are the only way to go. They are extremely safe as long as you > keep your speed down. Not true, unless the paths don't cross streets very often. A bi-directional path paralleling a street is dangerous at every intersection. It's been shown that riding the wrong way on a sidewalk is several times more dangerous than riding in the same direction as traffic on a roadway (with the accidents occuring at the intersections). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB             Date: 25 Jul 2007 18:21:17 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:87fy3crsgp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:877ioojvnh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> > "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> >> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen >> >> is >> >> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and >> >> therefor >> >> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. >> > >> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes >> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, >> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything >> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being >> > injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more >> > comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as >> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes >> > double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let >> > emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane >> > versus a striped shoulder is basically zero. >> >> Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic driver >> can >> easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw you. > > We weren't talking about how "safe" they were. The issue was whether > the government would install them given that most people don't ride > bicycles. I pointed out that most voters have children and those > children ride bicycles. No, you confounded idiot, it is all about safety. No one in their right mind gives a damn about anything else. >> > In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road >> > and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely >> > separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really >> > bicycle/pedestrian paths. >> >> Bike paths are the only way to go. They are extremely safe as long as you >> keep your speed down. > > Not true, unless the paths don't cross streets very often. A > bi-directional path paralleling a street is dangerous at every > intersection. It's been shown that riding the wrong way on a > sidewalk is several times more dangerous than riding in the > same direction as traffic on a roadway (with the accidents > occuring at the intersections). Idiots like Bill Z are driving me crazy. Cyclists on a bike path must stop, look and listen at every intersection with a street. Who would be so stupid as not to do this? Bill Z apparently. Regtards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 25 Jul 2007 22:46:37 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:VuGdnerdydRgRzrbnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:87fy3crsgp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >> >>> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >>> news:877ioojvnh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >>> > "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com> writes: >>> > >>> >> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen >>> >> is >>> >> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and >>> >> therefor >>> >> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. >>> > >>> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes >>> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, >>> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything >>> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being >>> > injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more >>> > comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as >>> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes >>> > double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let >>> > emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane >>> > versus a striped shoulder is basically zero. >>> >>> Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic driver >>> can >>> easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw you. >> >> We weren't talking about how "safe" they were. The issue was whether >> the government would install them given that most people don't ride >> bicycles. I pointed out that most voters have children and those >> children ride bicycles. > > No, you confounded idiot, it is all about safety. No one in their right > mind gives a damn about anything else. I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. For instance, we know that having railroad tracks at grade with car and pedestrian traffic is less safe than separating the two. However, often the unsafe situation is allowed to remain for cost or other reasons (such as people don't want the disruption of the construction involved). Another example is that the absolute safest you can keep your child is if you lock him or her into a bubble made of diamond. There are a lot of reasons why you might make choices to allow him or her to be less safe than that. Hence children on bike trails ;-).                 Date: 25 Jul 2007 21:55:36 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: >> No, you confounded idiot, it is all about safety. No one in their right >> mind gives a damn about anything else. > >I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. For instance, we know that having >railroad tracks at grade with car and pedestrian traffic is less safe than >separating the two. However, often the unsafe situation is allowed to >remain for cost or other reasons The "unsafe" conditions and/or situations are sought out and savoured by a significant portion of the population. There are whole industries devoted to "danger sports" for adrenalin junkies and weekend-warriors. Eddy, Donny and Walt Mitty will always be JAFO. Scraping their knees and claiming a hat saved their lives epitomises their feverish attraction to danger. They have the ability to fictionalise life in order to show how safety conscious they are. Or conversely, how "unsafe" you are. Living on the edge, or simply riding your unicycle across the bridge - on the handrail, is, well, just edgier than hiding under the bed. -- zk                   Date: 26 Jul 2007 11:55:18 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote in message news:lg8ga3tnanf5csnek8lijl66ah756bnitv@4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >>> No, you confounded idiot, it is all about safety. No one in their right >>> mind gives a damn about anything else. >> >>I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. For instance, we know that >>having >>railroad tracks at grade with car and pedestrian traffic is less safe than >>separating the two. However, often the unsafe situation is allowed to >>remain for cost or other reasons > > The "unsafe" conditions and/or situations are sought out and savoured > by a significant portion of the population. There are whole > industries devoted to "danger sports" for adrenalin junkies and > weekend-warriors. Eddy, Donny and Walt Mitty will always be JAFO. [???] > > Scraping their knees and claiming a hat saved their lives epitomises > their feverish attraction to danger. They have the ability to > fictionalise life in order to show how safety conscious they are. Or > conversely, how "unsafe" you are. > > Living on the edge, or simply riding your unicycle across the bridge > - on the handrail, is, well, just edgier than hiding under the bed. Always good to hear from the distaff, even if she is a dyke. But if you are dead from an unsafe practice, how much sense does it make to blather about your testosterone? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                 Date: 26 Jul 2007 00:52:43 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:DOUpi.4289$P32.3607@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. For instance, we know that > having railroad tracks at grade with car and pedestrian traffic is less > safe than separating the two. However, often the unsafe situation is > allowed to remain for cost or other reasons (such as people don't want the > disruption of the construction involved). Another example is that the > absolute safest you can keep your child is if you lock him or her into a > bubble made of diamond. There are a lot of reasons why you might make > choices to allow him or her to be less safe than that. Hence children on > bike trails ;-). I think it's generally nearly always your fault if you're a car or a pedestrian and you hit a train. If you're that stupid you deserve it.                   Date: 26 Jul 2007 10:45:02 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:P-GdnaUTCO8ItTXbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > news:DOUpi.4289$P32.3607@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > >> I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. For instance, we know that >> having railroad tracks at grade with car and pedestrian traffic is less >> safe than separating the two. However, often the unsafe situation is >> allowed to remain for cost or other reasons (such as people don't want >> the disruption of the construction involved). Another example is that >> the absolute safest you can keep your child is if you lock him or her >> into a bubble made of diamond. There are a lot of reasons why you might >> make choices to allow him or her to be less safe than that. Hence >> children on bike trails ;-). > > I think it's generally nearly always your fault if you're a car or a > pedestrian and you hit a train. If you're that stupid you deserve it. What if you're just waiting innocently in traffic an someone else gets hit by the train and goes flying into you or derails the train on top of you? Do you deserve that as well?               Date: 25 Jul 2007 17:30:03 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:87fy3crsgp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > > > >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> > > >> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes > >> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, > >> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything > >> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being > >> > injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more > >> > comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as > >> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes > >> > double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let > >> > emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane > >> > versus a striped shoulder is basically zero. > >> > >> Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic > >> driver can easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw > >> you. > > > > We weren't talking about how "safe" they were. The issue was > > whether the government would install them given that most people > > don't ride bicycles. I pointed out that most voters have children > > and those children ride bicycles. > > No, you confounded idiot, it is all about safety. No one in their > right mind gives a damn about anything else. You know, for a know-nothing moron, Dolan sure is arrogant. If you think public support for bike lanes is based on hard data about how safe they are, you are an idiot - public support is based purely on perceptions, and most people think bike lanes are safer. The reality is that bike lanes have little impact on actual safety, but do have a noticable impact on comfort level - many people simply feel safer when in a bike lane, and figure their kids will be safer too. That's as far as they go with it. Meanwhile, the school districts figure it is easy to teach younger children to stay on the right side of a bike-lane stripe rather than to try to teach these chlidren to behave like licensed drivers. So the schools push for bike lanes too, and the parents go along with it. > > Not true, unless the paths don't cross streets very often. A > > bi-directional path paralleling a street is dangerous at every > > intersection. It's been shown that riding the wrong way on a > > sidewalk is several times more dangerous than riding in the > > same direction as traffic on a roadway (with the accidents > > occuring at the intersections). > > Idiots like Bill Z are driving me crazy. Cyclists on a bike path must stop, > look and listen at every intersection with a street. Who would be so stupid > as not to do this? Bill Z apparently. If Dolan had bothered to read anything before shooting off his fat mouth, he would know about some of the literature. In particular, Wachtel and Lewiston (1994) Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections; ITE Journal, September, 1994. You can read a copy on-line at <http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm >. In particular you should read the following: "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the inci­dence of wrong-way travel." That's based on real-world measurements, not mindless speculation from some usenet kook like Dolan. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                 Date: 25 Jul 2007 20:02:27 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:87hcnsqa5w.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:87fy3crsgp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >> > >> >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> > >> >> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes >> >> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, >> >> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything >> >> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being >> >> > injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more >> >> > comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them >> >> > as >> >> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes >> >> > double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to >> >> > let >> >> > emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane >> >> > versus a striped shoulder is basically zero. >> >> >> >> Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic >> >> driver can easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw >> >> you. >> > >> > We weren't talking about how "safe" they were. The issue was >> > whether the government would install them given that most people >> > don't ride bicycles. I pointed out that most voters have children >> > and those children ride bicycles. >> >> No, you confounded idiot, it is all about safety. No one in their >> right mind gives a damn about anything else. > > You know, for a know-nothing moron, Dolan sure is arrogant. Well, I know what I know and I have no tolerance for idiots who essentially know nothing. > If you think public support for bike lanes is based on hard data about > how safe they are, you are an idiot - public support is based purely > on perceptions, and most people think bike lanes are safer. The > reality is that bike lanes have little impact on actual safety, but do > have a noticable impact on comfort level - many people simply feel > safer when in a bike lane, and figure their kids will be safer > too. That's as far as they go with it. Meanwhile, the school > districts figure it is easy to teach younger children to stay on the > right side of a bike-lane stripe rather than to try to teach these > chlidren to behave like licensed drivers. So the schools push for > bike lanes too, and the parents go along with it. > >> > Not true, unless the paths don't cross streets very often. A >> > bi-directional path paralleling a street is dangerous at every >> > intersection. It's been shown that riding the wrong way on a >> > sidewalk is several times more dangerous than riding in the >> > same direction as traffic on a roadway (with the accidents >> > occuring at the intersections). >> >> Idiots like Bill Z are driving me crazy. Cyclists on a bike path must >> stop, >> look and listen at every intersection with a street. Who would be so >> stupid >> as not to do this? Bill Z apparently. > > If Dolan had bothered to read anything before shooting off his fat > mouth, he would know about some of the literature. In particular, > Wachtel and Lewiston (1994) Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle > Collisions at Intersections; ITE Journal, September, 1994. You can > read a copy on-line at > <http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>. In particular > you should read the following: I will never read any of that shit because it is irrelevant. All that is required to know anything about cycling is an ounce of common sense, something that is very rare in cyclists as Bill Z proves every time he posts his stupid and misleading messages. > "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk > than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), > most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. > Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and > sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the inci­dence of > wrong-way travel." > > That's based on real-world measurements, not mindless speculation > from some usenet kook like Dolan. I am always assuming an intelligent cyclist in my speculations, not an idiot like Bill Z. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                   Date: 25 Jul 2007 18:50:06 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:87hcnsqa5w.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > > > >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> news:87fy3crsgp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > >> > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> > > >> >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> >> > > >> >> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes > >> >> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you, > >> >> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything > >> >> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being > >> >> > injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more > >> >> > comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them > >> >> > as > >> >> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes > >> >> > double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to > >> >> > let > >> >> > emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane > >> >> > versus a striped shoulder is basically zero. > >> >> > >> >> Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic > >> >> driver can easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw > >> >> you. > >> > > >> > We weren't talking about how "safe" they were. The issue was > >> > whether the government would install them given that most people > >> > don't ride bicycles. I pointed out that most voters have children > >> > and those children ride bicycles. > >> > >> No, you confounded idiot, it is all about safety. No one in their > >> right mind gives a damn about anything else. > > > > You know, for a know-nothing moron, Dolan sure is arrogant. > > Well, I know what I know and I have no tolerance for idiots who essentially > know nothing. Then you should have zero tolerance for yourself! <insults from Dolan snipped > > > > > If Dolan had bothered to read anything before shooting off his fat > > mouth, he would know about some of the literature. In particular, > > Wachtel and Lewiston (1994) Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle > > Collisions at Intersections; ITE Journal, September, 1994. You can > > read a copy on-line at > > <http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>. In particular > > you should read the following: > > I will never read any of that shit because it is irrelevant. All that is > required to know anything about cycling is an ounce of common sense, > something that is very rare in cyclists as Bill Z proves every time he posts > his stupid and misleading messages. Dolan is a bald-faced liar - I posted a citation and quote from an article that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. If he thinks these journals are "shit", he has simply proven himself to be a crackpot. > > "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk > > than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), > > most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. > > Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and > > sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence of > > wrong-way travel." > > > > That's based on real-world measurements, not mindless speculation > > from some usenet kook like Dolan. > > I am always assuming an intelligent cyclist in my speculations, not an idiot > like Bill Z. Dolan has proven himself to be a rude, idiotic usenet kook who ignores the facts. The article I quoted was published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, a peer reviewed publication. With no real argument, Dolan has no response other than childish personal insults about how I behave on a bicycle, none of which are true (which makes Dolan a liar in addition to his other personal problems.) The facts are that there are a very large number of bicyclists in the U.S. who are simply incompetent. It is no surprise - they never got any real training - but it is the current state of affairs. Dolan's speculations are just that - mindless thoughts with no data to back them up. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                     Date: 25 Jul 2007 21:22:36 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:878x94kk6p.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:87hcnsqa5w.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >> > >> >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> news:87fy3crsgp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> >> > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >> >> > >> >> >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> >> > >> >> >> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes >> >> >> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise >> >> >> > you, >> >> >> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support >> >> >> > anything >> >> >> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being >> >> >> > injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel >> >> >> > more >> >> >> > comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like >> >> >> > them >> >> >> > as >> >> >> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike >> >> >> > lanes >> >> >> > double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > let >> >> >> > emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike >> >> >> > lane >> >> >> > versus a striped shoulder is basically zero. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic >> >> >> driver can easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw >> >> >> you. >> >> > >> >> > We weren't talking about how "safe" they were. The issue was >> >> > whether the government would install them given that most people >> >> > don't ride bicycles. I pointed out that most voters have children >> >> > and those children ride bicycles. >> >> >> >> No, you confounded idiot, it is all about safety. No one in their >> >> right mind gives a damn about anything else. >> > >> > You know, for a know-nothing moron, Dolan sure is arrogant. >> >> Well, I know what I know and I have no tolerance for idiots who >> essentially >> know nothing. > > Then you should have zero tolerance for yourself! > > > <insults from Dolan snipped> >> > >> > If Dolan had bothered to read anything before shooting off his fat >> > mouth, he would know about some of the literature. In particular, >> > Wachtel and Lewiston (1994) Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle >> > Collisions at Intersections; ITE Journal, September, 1994. You can >> > read a copy on-line at >> > <http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>. In particular >> > you should read the following: >> >> I will never read any of that shit because it is irrelevant. All that is >> required to know anything about cycling is an ounce of common sense, >> something that is very rare in cyclists as Bill Z proves every time he >> posts >> his stupid and misleading messages. > > Dolan is a bald-faced liar - I posted a citation and quote from an > article that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. If he thinks these > journals are "shit", he has simply proven himself to be a crackpot. > >> > "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk >> > than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), >> > most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. >> > Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and >> > sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence of >> > wrong-way travel." >> > >> > That's based on real-world measurements, not mindless speculation >> > from some usenet kook like Dolan. >> >> I am always assuming an intelligent cyclist in my speculations, not an >> idiot >> like Bill Z. > > Dolan has proven himself to be a rude, idiotic usenet kook who ignores > the facts. The article I quoted was published in the Institute of > Transportation Engineers Journal, a peer reviewed publication. With > no real argument, Dolan has no response other than childish personal > insults about how I behave on a bicycle, none of which are true (which > makes Dolan a liar in addition to his other personal problems.) > > The facts are that there are a very large number of bicyclists in > the U.S. who are simply incompetent. It is no surprise - they never > got any real training - but it is the current state of affairs. Dolan's > speculations are just that - mindless thoughts with no data to back > them up. Anyone but me notice how others (scoundrels) are quick to call those with whom they disagree liars. Hellls Bells, I just assume that Bill Z is an ignorant cuss like all his tribe of so-called fact finders. It would never even occur to me to call him a liar since he is essentially such a numskull. By the way, I will never go to any links (citations). Either say it yourself or forget about it. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                       Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:56:29 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:878x94kk6p.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > Anyone but me notice how others (scoundrels) are quick to call those with > whom they disagree liars. Hellls Bells, I just assume that Bill Z is an > ignorant cuss like all his tribe of so-called fact finders. It would never > even occur to me to call him a liar since he is essentially such a numskull. Dolan, you proved yourself to be a liar by posting false accusations that suggested dangerous cycling on my part, and that was simply a lie that you repeated over and over. If you don't like being called a liar in public, then stop posting lies - the lie was obvious as we've never met so there is no way for you to have a clue about safe I am when riding a bicycle. Then you go around calling people "numskulls" after they back up what they say with citations to peer reviewed journals. That behavior really makes you look like a fool. > By the way, I will never go to any links (citations). Either say it yourself > or forget about it. I'm not going to cut and paste a 10 page article with various figures just for your benefit. If you are too ignorant to read a peer reviewed article, one 'click' away, then maybe you should stick to safe subjects: your health and the weather. At least that would spare us from listening to you croon like a bilious pidgeon. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                         Date: 26 Jul 2007 11:45:20 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:87k5sng9eq.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:878x94kk6p.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> Anyone but me notice how others (scoundrels) are quick to call those with >> whom they disagree liars. Hellls Bells, I just assume that Bill Z is an >> ignorant cuss like all his tribe of so-called fact finders. It would >> never >> even occur to me to call him a liar since he is essentially such a >> numskull. > > Dolan, you proved yourself to be a liar by posting false accusations > that suggested dangerous cycling on my part, and that was simply a lie > that you repeated over and over. If you don't like being called a liar > in public, then stop posting lies - the lie was obvious as we've never > met so there is no way for you to have a clue about safe I am when > riding a bicycle. Here is yet another poor earnest soul who thinks if he can dredge up a fact or two that he is therefore exonerated from being called an idiot. He apparently has no idea with what contempt I hold the so-called fact scrounchers (is this even a word?) like him. In any event, he will soon die like a dog on the road since he has no common sense whatsoever. > Then you go around calling people "numskulls" after they back up what > they say with citations to peer reviewed journals. That behavior really > makes you look like a fool. Peer reviewed journals are just chock full of numskulls like you. They are into nothing but stroking one another. As a former college librarian, I KNOW what scoundrels most academics are (besides being the world's greatest cowards of course). >> By the way, I will never go to any links (citations). Either say it >> yourself >> or forget about it. > > I'm not going to cut and paste a 10 page article with various figures > just for your benefit. If you are too ignorant to read a peer > reviewed article, one 'click' away, then maybe you should stick to > safe subjects: your health and the weather. At least that would spare > us from listening to you croon like a bilious pidgeon [pigeon]. Nope, either post whatever it is you want to say or forget about it. Going to a link is a good way to get a virus especially if it comes from a cretin like you. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                         Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:34:09 From: Tadej Brezina Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Z. wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > > >>"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >>news:878x94kk6p.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> >>>"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > > >>Anyone but me notice how others (scoundrels) are quick to call those with >>whom they disagree liars. Hellls Bells, I just assume that Bill Z is an >>ignorant cuss like all his tribe of so-called fact finders. It would never >>even occur to me to call him a liar since he is essentially such a numskull. > > > Dolan, you proved yourself to be a liar by posting false accusations > that suggested dangerous cycling on my part, and that was simply a lie > that you repeated over and over. If you don't like being called a liar > in public, then stop posting lies - the lie was obvious as we've never > met so there is no way for you to have a clue about safe I am when > riding a bicycle. > > Then you go around calling people "numskulls" after they back up what > they say with citations to peer reviewed journals. That behavior really > makes you look like a fool. > > >>By the way, I will never go to any links (citations). Either say it yourself >>or forget about it. > > > I'm not going to cut and paste a 10 page article with various figures > just for your benefit. If you are too ignorant to read a peer > reviewed article, one 'click' away, then maybe you should stick to > safe subjects: your health and the weather. At least that would spare > us from listening to you croon like a bilious pidgeon. Hey guys, having fun flaming away? :-) T. -- "Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat." <Martina Diel in d.t.r >                           Date: 26 Jul 2007 11:48:27 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at > wrote in message news:46a886b1$0$8024$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at... > Bill Z. wrote: > >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >> >> >>>"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>news:878x94kk6p.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >>> >>>>"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >> >> >>>Anyone but me notice how others (scoundrels) are quick to call those with >>>whom they disagree liars. Hellls Bells, I just assume that Bill Z is an >>>ignorant cuss like all his tribe of so-called fact finders. It would >>>never even occur to me to call him a liar since he is essentially such a >>>numskull. >> >> >> Dolan, you proved yourself to be a liar by posting false accusations >> that suggested dangerous cycling on my part, and that was simply a lie >> that you repeated over and over. If you don't like being called a liar >> in public, then stop posting lies - the lie was obvious as we've never >> met so there is no way for you to have a clue about safe I am when >> riding a bicycle. >> >> Then you go around calling people "numskulls" after they back up what >> they say with citations to peer reviewed journals. That behavior really >> makes you look like a fool. >> >> >>>By the way, I will never go to any links (citations). Either say it >>>yourself or forget about it. >> >> >> I'm not going to cut and paste a 10 page article with various figures >> just for your benefit. If you are too ignorant to read a peer >> reviewed article, one 'click' away, then maybe you should stick to >> safe subjects: your health and the weather. At least that would spare >> us from listening to you croon like a bilious pidgeon. > > Hey guys, having fun flaming away? :-) Hey, is that not what Usenet is all about? He who can call the best names wins. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 25 Jul 2007 09:22:46 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:uuidnaw8Zr4WkTrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com... > ... > Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is > because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor > do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. However, is the reason that the vast majority of people do not bike because they have grown up in a situation where it is inconceivable to do so? In other words, has the fact that our infrastructure is so car-centric become self-perpetuating because people have on some level given up any expectation that they could ever take any other form of transportation to their destination?         Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:31:12 From: Tadej Brezina Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Amy Blankenship wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:uuidnaw8Zr4WkTrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com... > ... >>Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is >>because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor >>do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. > > However, is the reason that the vast majority of people do not bike because > they have grown up in a situation where it is inconceivable to do so? In > other words, has the fact that our infrastructure is so car-centric If it where only the infrastructure ... it's all life, resulting from the infrastructure: advertising, laws, social behaviour and social status, education, lottery prizes, building codes, ... > become > self-perpetuating because people have on some level given up any expectation > that they could ever take any other form of transportation to their > destination? Definitely there is a huge amount of self perpetuation: the way you teach your children, that way they are going to act for themselves as adults. T. -- "Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat." <Martina Diel in d.t.r >       Date: 25 Jul 2007 10:09:08 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Joe the Aroma wrote: > Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is > because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor > do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads. The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure, vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem, and you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see that it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than being a pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging on the suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need bike paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 25 Jul 2007 11:55:45 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:5goi9kF3h93cpU1@mid.individual.net... > Joe the Aroma wrote: > >> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is >> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and >> therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. > > Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they > tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide > routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and > give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads. > > The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure, > vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem, and > you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see that it > isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than being a > pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging on the > suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need bike paths. > The reality is that it isn't, and we don't. What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth responding to. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:08:53 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:g4SdnVUGO448HTrbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:5goi9kF3h93cpU1@mid.individual.net... >> Joe the Aroma wrote: >> >>> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is >>> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and >>> therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. >> >> Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they >> tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide >> routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and >> give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads. >> >> The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure, >> vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem, and >> you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see that >> it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than being a >> pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging on the >> suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need bike >> paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't. > > What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth > responding to. You know I'm right, little man.             Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:24:23 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:F46dnRJUrcUtDDrbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:g4SdnVUGO448HTrbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> >> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message >> news:5goi9kF3h93cpU1@mid.individual.net... >>> Joe the Aroma wrote: >>> >>>> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen >>>> is because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and >>>> therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. >>> >>> Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they >>> tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide >>> routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and >>> give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads. >>> >>> The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure, >>> vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem, >>> and you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see >>> that it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than >>> being a pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging >>> on the suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need >>> bike paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't. >> >> What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth >> responding to. > > You know I'm right, little man. Examine Peter Clinch's self-serving signature and then examine mine. Now you know who is Great and who is a midget and a dwarf. Ah, for the good old days of Victorian and Edwardian England! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:03:39 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:osGdnShm0PvqPjrbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:F46dnRJUrcUtDDrbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:g4SdnVUGO448HTrbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >>> >>> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message >>> news:5goi9kF3h93cpU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> Joe the Aroma wrote: >>>> >>>>> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen >>>>> is because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and >>>>> therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. >>>> >>>> Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: >>>> they tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, >>>> provide routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and >>>> routing) and give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on >>>> the roads. >>>> >>>> The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm >>>> sure, vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a >>>> problem, and you look at the government's figures for accidents and you >>>> can see that it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous >>>> than being a pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's >>>> verging on the suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus >>>> we need bike paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't. >>> >>> What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth >>> responding to. >> >> You know I'm right, little man. > > Examine Peter Clinch's self-serving signature and then examine mine. Now > you know who is Great and who is a midget and a dwarf. Ah, for the good > old days of Victorian and Edwardian England! What? Who the fsck is Peter Clinch?                 Date: 26 Jul 2007 11:25:08 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:FO2dnQsOX9R6vjXbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:osGdnShm0PvqPjrbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> >> "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:F46dnRJUrcUtDDrbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>> news:g4SdnVUGO448HTrbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >>>> >>>> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:5goi9kF3h93cpU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> Joe the Aroma wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen >>>>>> is because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and >>>>>> therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action. >>>>> >>>>> Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: >>>>> they tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, >>>>> provide routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and >>>>> routing) and give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on >>>>> the roads. >>>>> >>>>> The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm >>>>> sure, vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a >>>>> problem, and you look at the government's figures for accidents and >>>>> you can see that it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less >>>>> dangerous than being a pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is >>>>> that it's verging on the suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic >>>>> and thus we need bike paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we >>>>> don't. >>>> >>>> What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth >>>> responding to. >>> >>> You know I'm right, little man. >> >> Examine Peter Clinch's self-serving signature and then examine mine. Now >> you know who is Great and who is a midget and a dwarf. Ah, for the good >> old days of Victorian and Edwardian England! > > What? Who the fsck is Peter Clinch? He is an Englishman living in Dundee, Scotland who has the worst signature in all of Usenet. Look it up! Furthermore, he is a Medical Physics IT Officer (whatever the hell that is) at some fucking hospital. You have been warned. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                   Date: 26 Jul 2007 17:30:32 From: Roger Thorpe Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Edward Dolan wrote: > > He is an Englishman living in Dundee, Scotland who has the worst signature > in all of Usenet. Look it up! Furthermore, he is a Medical Physics IT > Officer (whatever the hell that is) at some fucking hospital. You have been > warned. > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > > > Notice that he puts his phone number on the sig. Are you brave enough to do that and if not why not? Roger                     Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:17:59 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Roger Thorpe wrote: > Notice that he puts his phone number on the sig. Are you brave enough to > do that and if not why not? Because he's a pointless troll. Add to killfile, ignore, is my advice on Mr. Ed. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                       Date: 29 Jul 2007 19:20:09 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:5gto1nF3gcli0U4@mid.individual.net... > Roger Thorpe wrote: > >> Notice that he puts his phone number on the sig. Are you brave enough to >> do that and if not why not? > > Because he's a pointless troll. Add to killfile, ignore, is my advice on > Mr. Ed. Have a closer look at Peter Clinch's freaking signature below and you will immediately see what a fool he is. > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ But thanks to him I will post any freaking signature I want for myself since the rest of you are too stupid to object to his signature. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                     Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:58:40 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Roger Thorpe" <myinitial.mysurname@warwick.ac.uk > wrote in message news:f8ai8t$p6c$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk... > Edward Dolan wrote: > >> >> He is an Englishman living in Dundee, Scotland who has the worst >> signature in all of Usenet. Look it up! Furthermore, he is a Medical >> Physics IT Officer (whatever the hell that is) at some fucking hospital. >> You have been warned. >> > Notice that he puts his phone number on the sig. Are you brave enough to > do that and if not why not? Well, if I had a phone, which I do not, I would not want a lot of idiots calling me. But any idiot can call Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland because he is an idiot himself. Hey, idiots like to talk to other idiots. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 24 Jul 2007 19:53:41 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 24, 4:29 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net > wrote: > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > > news:5gmhgqF3godnqU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > Jack May wrote: > > >> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make > >> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes > >> perfect sense. > > > Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my > > freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of > > groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it is > > longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not spending > > so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere. > > >> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense. > > > There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that > > is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely > > work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the > > case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist. > > But very few of us live in a congested urban area. > > If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up > making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.- Simply try not to shop there --and let them know.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 19:49:55 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 24, 10:23 am, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net > wrote: > > I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other > > towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington, > > Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell > > would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And > > yet, EVERYONE does! > > The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make > multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes > perfect sense. > > If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense What you do with your time is a matter of preference. Some join the rat race, and some simply refuse. For the latter a bike makes sense.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 19:14:17 From: Brian Huntley Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 24, 8:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > news:87ejixcmam.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > > > "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> writes: > > >> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make > >> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes > >> perfect sense. > > > Multiple trips (e.g., on separate days) to "bring back a small amount of > > food" means the food you eat is fresher. It's a "quality of life" thing. > > Plus, you get some exercise, and most people don't get enough. > > Not to mention, if you buy a week's worth of groceries or more at a time, > the chances go up that something will happen that you didn't plan on that > will mean that you don't use one or more days' allocation of groceries. If > you count the money wasted and the environmental cost of buying food you are > not going to eat, buying 1-2 days' perishables makes sense. If you have to > work an extra hour a week due to buying food you're not eating, then you > could have spent the time shopping and have fresher food to boot. Excellent points, Bill and Amy. I've become so accustomed to shopping this way I didn't even list those benefits. Another bonus for meat eaters is if you're in your local butcher shop every couple of days, they remember you and will do extra cuts for you without a hassle.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 17:48:57 From: Brian Huntley Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 24, 9:23 am, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net > wrote: > The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make > multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes > perfect sense. > > If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense. I live downtown, and can't realistically drive to work - it would cost me about $150 a week to park at my office. So if I take transit, I'd have to come home, get a vehicle, hen go shopping. With the bike, I shop on my way home. No extra trips required, really. I usually avoid the mega stores, as you waste too much time standing in line. When I do use the supermarket, I either bring my bike buckets or take a free cardboard box (which I recycle later.) With the buckets and the top of the rack, my bike has about the same grocery capacity as a Suzuki Swift (my last car.) It just takes some thought.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 11:22:13 From: SlowRider Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On my old commute, ~4 miles each way, my commute time by car was anywhere from 12 minutes to 25 minutes, depending on traffic, lights, etc. If I really lucked out (hit green for all 7 lights) I could drive it in 10. In rush hour, I'd have to sit through 2-3 cycles at some lights. 20 minutes was the norm. By bike, I'd do the same distance in ~15 minutes. During the rush- hour peak I was almost guaranteed to make better time by bike since I never had to sit at a light for more than one cycle. Another time-saving benefit to using a bike is no parking hassles. Most stores in our area now have bike racks. Most of those are right near the front door: easy-peasy. I really appreciate this during the holiday shopping season(!) - JR   Date: 23 Jul 2007 19:29:21 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 23, 7:12 pm, Jens M=FCller <usenet-01-2...@tessarakt.de > wrote: > Edward Dolan wrote: > > "Jens M=FCller" <usenet-01-2...@tessarakt.de> wrote in message > >news:5gj2eoF3gb531U1@mid.individual.net... > >> Edward Dolan wrote: > >>> Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasa= nt > >>> than using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized > >>> vehicles. > >> Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer = that > >> way. > > > Admittedly a bike path that gets too crowded can be somewhat dangerous,= yet > > you are not going to get killed on it unless you do something really st= upid. > > On the other hand, it is easy to get killed on the street when you mixi= ng > > with motor vehicles. They are all going fast and you are going slow, a > > recipe for disaster. > > How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me? > > They can overtake, but then they are on another lane. Well, they can make a mistake when they are on the phone or something and you get run over. And you'll be lucky if they stop. Hit-and-runs are way too common. > > How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here > in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting > killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path. Not many people dare to face fast traffic. People here not just fail to see bikers, they fail to see cars and other major obstacles when they are distracted.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 15:34:09 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SUV vs. Scooter On Jul 23, 5:15 pm, "Michael Plog" <mbp...@insightbb.com > wrote: > I also bought a scooter (moped) as a toy, but I take it for errands as often > as possible. I do ride it to work, and do not end up sweaty. My wife and I > still ride our recumbents for entertainment and exercise (especially > cardiac), but the moped is good for other things. I get close to 150mpg, so > I feel pretty good buying one gallon of gas at a time. Wow, that mileage sure sounds high. Are you sure? > > A word about traffic. I take side streets on both the bicycle and moped. > Sometimes that is impossible, but generally there will be streets with very > little traffic yet getting where you need to be. You are being smart. The big predators are out there... SUV vs. Scooter "Dedicated to all those injured, mutilated or killed by the Hen and her SUV." I've always wondered what would happen in an accident between SUV an Scooter. It's not so simple. The SUV being so high could totally miss the scooter. Well, I guess this SUV wasn't high enough... Preventing Motorcycle, Scooter Accidents a Matter of Awareness By Ryan Taylor - 17 Jul 2007 In March a BYU student, driving a scooter died of injuries suffered in an accident with an SUV. Adam Cox was riding in the outside lane of University Parkway just behind a car that was driving in the inside lane when an SUV going the opposite direction, turned left and hit Cox, said Capt. Michael Harroun, of the BYU Police Department. Just like Cox's case, most motorcyclists are not at fault when accidents happened, Harroun said. "But they will get the worst of it," he said. Even though Cox was wearing a helmet, he suffered severe head trauma and died after being taken to Utah Valley Regional Medical Center. http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/64865 And remember, you SUV drivers, your distraction can spoil someone's life. Well, I don't mean to offend you, just try not to talk so much on the phone, and if you do, do like the Hen... http://www.thehenshouse.com/index.html DON QUIXOTES OF THE ENVIRONMENT http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote6     Date: 26 Jul 2007 03:34:10 From: Subject: Re: SUV vs. Scooter In rec.bicycles.misc donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: > Preventing Motorcycle, Scooter Accidents a Matter of Awareness > By Ryan Taylor - 17 Jul 2007 > In March a BYU student, driving a scooter died of injuries suffered in > an accident with an SUV. > Adam Cox was riding in the outside lane of University Parkway just > behind a car that was driving in the inside lane when an SUV going the > opposite direction, turned left and hit Cox, said Capt. Michael > Harroun, of the BYU Police Department. Part of this is simply because SUV drivers generally don't look where the bleep they're going (I've nearly been killed by them twice in the last seven days) but another part of the problem in this case is that this accident happened in Provo, Utah, where drivers think I-15 is Taladega, and the college requires its students to keep their bikes outdoors, even in the dead of winter. Human stupidity, the worst killer of all. Bill __o   Date: 23 Jul 2007 15:28:27 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 23, 3:58 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > > The word "idiots" explains everything. Thanks! > > One of my very favorite words that I use all the time in referring to my > contemporaries, but not necessarily to their faces. After all, a broken nose > is no fun. > > By the way, I love your user name and I thought at one time of using it > myself as I am sort of a Don Quixote character who is always tilting at > windmills (to no avail). Maybe we can attack the stupid windmills on two fronts and... Speaking of stupid people out there. My girlfriend just reports to me via telephone that a man who was cut off by a car threw the bike and started pounding the hood of the car. Didn't see the end of it. Probably the cyclist went to jail.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 16:15:29 From: Michael Plog Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? I also bought a scooter (moped) as a toy, but I take it for errands as often as possible. I do ride it to work, and do not end up sweaty. My wife and I still ride our recumbents for entertainment and exercise (especially cardiac), but the moped is good for other things. I get close to 150mpg, so I feel pretty good buying one gallon of gas at a time. A word about traffic. I take side streets on both the bicycle and moped. Sometimes that is impossible, but generally there will be streets with very little traffic yet getting where you need to be. Happy trails! "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185146504.198253.88250@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in > America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great > (and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that > uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes. > Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by > chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the > supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet > most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle > use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the > percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right? > > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And > that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of > fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out > there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food > chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic, > if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good > 80MPG. > > So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live > long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off > I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the > market for the hell of it)... > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > BIKE FOR PEACE > http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace >   Date: 23 Jul 2007 12:38:41 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 23, 2:33 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "archierob" <archie...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:Ay%oi.505$h11.285@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net... > > > Well done! > > > One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to > > realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get > > anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road > > from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with > > laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his > > neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive, > > turned left and then drove up his drive. > > The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone > drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all > turning into fat slobs. > > I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other > towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington, > Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell > would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And > yet, EVERYONE does! > [...] The word "idiots" explains everything. Thanks!     Date: 23 Jul 2007 14:58:18 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185219521.003577.172530@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 23, 2:33 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> "archierob" <archie...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Ay%oi.505$h11.285@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net... >> >> > Well done! >> >> > One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to >> > realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get >> > anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road >> > from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with >> > laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his >> > neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive, >> > turned left and then drove up his drive. >> >> The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone >> drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all >> turning into fat slobs. >> >> I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other >> towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington, >> Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the >> hell >> would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. >> And >> yet, EVERYONE does! >> [...] > > The word "idiots" explains everything. Thanks! One of my very favorite words that I use all the time in referring to my contemporaries, but not necessarily to their faces. After all, a broken nose is no fun. By the way, I love your user name and I thought at one time of using it myself as I am sort of a Don Quixote character who is always tilting at windmills (to no avail). Best Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 23 Jul 2007 12:36:07 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: It's the speed differential On Jul 23, 1:04 pm, Martin Dann <martin.d...@virgin.net > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > On Jul 23, 12:29 pm, Jens M=FCller <usenet-01-2...@tessarakt.de> wrote: > >> donquijote1954 wrote: > >>>> Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And= why > >>>> do you think the carriageway isn't safe? > >>> Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great... > >>> Why is speed differential important? > >>> A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety > >>> concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per > >>> hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through > >>> vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly. > >> At that speed, you don't have turning vehicles, only vehicles changing > >> lanes. > > > You are going 12mph on the bike, and a car is coming behind you at > > 50mph. Would that be safe? > > It is as safe as the person driving the car, and the way > they overtake you. If the driver is unsafe overtaking a > 12mph bike, then that driver will also be unsafe in a lot > of other places, and should not be driving. > > Remember that car drivers should be able to stop in the > distance that they can see.- That's the problem here, many people shouldn't be driving. It should be the opposite: EVERYBODY SHOULD RIDE A BIKE and not a car.     Date: 23 Jul 2007 19:53:49 From: george conklin Subject: Re: It's the speed differential "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185219367.523744.317630@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... On Jul 23, 1:04 pm, Martin Dann <martin.d...@virgin.net > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > On Jul 23, 12:29 pm, Jens Müller <usenet-01-2...@tessarakt.de> wrote: > >> donquijote1954 wrote: > >>>> Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And > >>>> why > >>>> do you think the carriageway isn't safe? > >>> Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great... > >>> Why is speed differential important? > >>> A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety > >>> concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per > >>> hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through > >>> vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly. > >> At that speed, you don't have turning vehicles, only vehicles changing > >> lanes. > > > You are going 12mph on the bike, and a car is coming behind you at > > 50mph. Would that be safe? > > It is as safe as the person driving the car, and the way > they overtake you. If the driver is unsafe overtaking a > 12mph bike, then that driver will also be unsafe in a lot > of other places, and should not be driving. > > Remember that car drivers should be able to stop in the > distance that they can see.- That's the problem here, many people shouldn't be driving. It should be the opposite: EVERYBODY SHOULD RIDE A BIKE and not a car. That is like saying everyone should take a steamship to Europe, and not fly because you think they should.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 17:32:27 From: Subject: Re: It's the speed differential On Jul 23, 5:50 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 23, 12:28 am, Jens M=FCller <usenet-01-2...@tessarakt.de> wrote: > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > > > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And > > > that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking > > > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > > > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. > > > Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why > > do you think the carriageway isn't safe? > > Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great... Bike lanes don't change the speed differential! Bike lanes also don't add any pavement width. The only thing they add is a white stripe - and more trash at the right hand (in the US) side of the roadway, because cars no longer sweep it clean. Oh, and they add dangerous complication at intersections. Generally, if there's enough width for a MV lane and a bike lane, there's enough width to safely share without a white stripe. As to the original post: IME, it's not uncommon for people to think "I can't get there by bike," when they've simply not explored alternative routes well enough. When I've moved to a new area or spent extensive time visiting a new area, I've always gotten a detailed street map. Often, I'll tape it to the wall. That allows me to see alternative routes I might otherwise miss. If you're afraid of the busy arterials, you could mark them red. Then look for alternative parallel routes on smaller streets. Mark those green, if you like. Also, find out what the local 14-year-olds use for shortcuts. Those kids explore everything, like ants. They know about the secret little dirt path that connects the park to the parking lot, etc. Admittedly, the modern fashion of transforming corn fields into isolated cul-de-sac developments makes this difficult in many areas. But older areas of town can often be peacefully accessed, once you stop thinking like a car driver. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 23 Jul 2007 09:55:38 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: It's the speed differential On Jul 23, 12:29 pm, Jens M=FCller <usenet-01-2...@tessarakt.de > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > >> Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And w= hy > >> do you think the carriageway isn't safe? > > > Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great... > > > Why is speed differential important? > > A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety > > concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per > > hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through > > vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly. > > At that speed, you don't have turning vehicles, only vehicles changing > lanes. You are going 12mph on the bike, and a car is coming behind you at 50mph. Would that be safe?     Date: 23 Jul 2007 17:04:48 From: Martin Dann Subject: Re: It's the speed differential donquijote1954 wrote: > On Jul 23, 12:29 pm, Jens M=FCller <usenet-01-2...@tessarakt.de> wrote:= >> donquijote1954 wrote: >>>> Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And= why >>>> do you think the carriageway isn't safe? >>> Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great... >>> Why is speed differential important? >>> A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety= >>> concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per >>> hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through >>> vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly. >> At that speed, you don't have turning vehicles, only vehicles changing= >> lanes. >=20 > You are going 12mph on the bike, and a car is coming behind you at > 50mph. Would that be safe? It is as safe as the person driving the car, and the way=20 they overtake you. If the driver is unsafe overtaking a=20 12mph bike, then that driver will also be unsafe in a lot=20 of other places, and should not be driving. Remember that car drivers should be able to stop in the=20 distance that they can see.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 05:54:14 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 23, 3:07 am, Jens M=FCller <usenet-01-2...@tessarakt.de > wrote: > Edward Dolan wrote: > > > Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant= than > > using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized vehicle= s=2E > > Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer > that way. Facing the mean streets is much safer. Just raise a white flag and play dead!   Date: 23 Jul 2007 05:50:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: It's the speed differential On Jul 23, 12:28 am, Jens M=FCller <usenet-01-2...@tessarakt.de > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And > > that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking > > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. > > Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why > do you think the carriageway isn't safe? Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great... Why is speed differential important? A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly. Rear-end collisions are very common on roads and streets with large driveway speed differentials and a high density of commercial driveways. When the speed differential is high, it is also more likely that crashes will be more severe, cause greater property damage, and result in more injuries and fatalities. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=3Dcache:mTtgrijG9oAJ:www.ctre.iastate.edu/re= search/access/toolkit/7.pdf+SPEED+DIFFERENTIAL&hl=3Den&ct=3Dclnk&cd=3D10&gl= =3Dus     Date: 23 Jul 2007 18:29:07 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= Subject: Re: It's the speed differential donquijote1954 wrote: >> Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why >> do you think the carriageway isn't safe? > > Because the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is too great... > > Why is speed differential important? > A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety > concerns. When the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per > hour, the likelihood of a collision between fast-moving through > vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly. At that speed, you don't have turning vehicles, only vehicles changing lanes. > Rear-end > collisions are very common on roads In the US? Don't know about that. Here in Germany they occur mostly at the end of traffic jams.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 05:36:27 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 23, 12:25 am, m...@drumbent.com wrote: > I'm car-free, and I can haul a LOT of groceries with my cargo trike: > > http://drumbent.com/trike.html > > Also, since it's big and takes up a whole lane I don't get hassled at > all in terms of asserting my right to be on the road (having lights > and turn signals helps). ;) > > And not only can I get groceries with it, I just moved house with it > too: > > http://drumbent.blogspot.com/2007/07/even-more-moving-photos.html Congratulations, Mark. That's the way too go. Actually I think it takes more courage to do what you do than to fight in Iraq. And at least you do it for a good cause. But around here I'd have to engage in many hand-to-hand combats with enraged drivers.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 05:28:14 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 22, 10:51 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote: > "William" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185158111.712779.107660@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >I recently purchased a brand new Road Bike that is really nice. I > > figured I didn't need anything more rugged since I do most of my > > biking in the city. I can bike theoreticly anywhere in the city, but > > there are a few neighborhoods I like to avoid, but not many and I have > > experience biking through them anyways. In Minneapolis, there are a > > lot of designated bike paths, such as the Greenway ( > >http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/images/greenway.jpg) which makes it > > much easier to get around. > > Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant than > using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized vehicles. > > I believe Minneapolis to have one of the finer bike path systems in the > country. Not to use them would mean that you are an idiot, yet there are > some who would advise that since they believe that a bike path will slow you > down. Hey, better to slow down and live than hurry to your death on those > mean streets. > Nice advice. Regrettably, there are still too many idiots out there -- and they have a loud voice.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 05:26:03 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 22, 10:35 pm, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com > wrote: > I recently purchased a brand new Road Bike that is really nice. I > figured I didn't need anything more rugged since I do most of my > biking in the city. I can bike theoreticly anywhere in the city, but > there are a few neighborhoods I like to avoid, but not many and I have > experience biking through them anyways. In Minneapolis, there are a > lot of designated bike paths, such as the Greenway (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/images/greenway.jpg) which makes it > much easier to get around. Lovely. It's coming my way too. The question is WHEN. I hope to be alive anyway.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 10:38:24 From: archierob Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Well done! One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive, turned left and then drove up his drive. My weekly shop at Lidls is via my 'shopping bike' front rack, rear rack, panniers, plastic box on rear rack, big solid mountain back carrying all. Though I say it myself I have it down to a fine art now - much to the amusement of my 4 x 4 'Chelsea tractor' owning neighbours.     Date: 30 Jul 2007 14:59:19 From: John Kane Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On Jul 27, 10:52 am, leand...@googlemail.com wrote: > On 27 Jul, 15:06, leand...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > (I can't get at the original at the moment, so here's the digest which I > > trust is accurate). > > Can now get at the original - the final paragraph comes down in favour > of increasing cycle facilities: > > "Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been > constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and > feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on > road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the > construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in > health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much > greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in > road safety." > > I'm personally reconsidering my view as a result of reading this > paper. Before, I would have said that most urban cycle facilities are > positively harmful and should be scrapped tomorrow (I'd make an > exception for various routes such as those on former railway lines > which can be worthwhile). However, having seen the impact on cycling > levels and road traffic of the Copenhagen scheme, I'm starting to > wonder. I guess there's scope for safety to increase as people get > more used to them, and maybe designs can be improved. > > I think the key thing is the quality of the facilities. The pictures > in the report suggest that Copenhagen has the space and inclination to > do things properly. Many British urban areas simply don't have the > space. If a city has room to do things properly - which means a > comprehensive network, not scraps of route where there happens to be > space that end suddenly just where you actually need them - then great > go ahead. Otherwise, forget it, and consider other measures. > > Rob Can you supply a reference for that study. I'd like to get my hands on it for a current discussion that we're having here. Thanks John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:01:28 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On Jul 27, 11:44 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > leand...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > "Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been > > constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and > > feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on > > road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the > > construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in > > health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much > > greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in > > road safety." > > Looks like a post hoc rationalisation for cycle facilities - nowhere in > the report have the health benefits been assessed so it can only be an > attempt at policy based evidence making. > > When your client, The Municipality of Copenhagen, has spent lots of > money on these facilities you can hardly tell them they make life more > dangerous and should be removed. That would be repeat business suicide > so you tell them the facts and then sugar them with a reason to say "But > its all right really" > > Tony When you show me London has similar bike riding rates to that of Copenhagen, I will start listening to you.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:47:29 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? donquijote1954 wrote: >> >> When your client, The Municipality of Copenhagen, has spent lots of >> money on these facilities you can hardly tell them they make life more >> dangerous and should be removed. That would be repeat business suicide >> so you tell them the facts and then sugar them with a reason to say "But >> its all right really" >> >> Tony > > When you show me London has similar bike riding rates to that of > Copenhagen, I will start listening to you. > It doesn't but Cambridge does and I ride there a lot. It doesn't have much in the way of cycle facilities and what there is is pretty poor and traffic is not good but lots of people cycle there. But did you note that the facilities in Copenhagen make cycling more dangerous overall? Tony     Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:08:11 From: Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On 27 Jul, 16:44, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > leand...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > "Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been > > constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and > > feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on > > road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the > > construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in > > health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much > > greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in > > road safety." > > Looks like a post hoc rationalisation for cycle facilities - nowhere in > the report have the health benefits been assessed so it can only be an > attempt at policy based evidence making. Basically true, but rather harsh? Compared to the detailed safety assessment, it does rather stick out like a sore thumb for want of supporting data. But the the +20% cycling / -10% driving indicates a substantial increase in the number of active (i.e. several times a week rather than weekend potterers) cyclists, and there is plenty of evidence elsewhere that active cyclists live longer. I think I could defend "result in gains in health from increased physical activity" but I agree the "much, much greater" is not supported by the report, particularly as (disappointingly) they make no mention of severity of injuries. Rob     Date: 27 Jul 2007 07:52:11 From: Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On 27 Jul, 15:06, leand...@googlemail.com wrote: > (I can't get at the original at the moment, so here's the digest which I > trust is accurate). Can now get at the original - the final paragraph comes down in favour of increasing cycle facilities: "Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in road safety." I'm personally reconsidering my view as a result of reading this paper. Before, I would have said that most urban cycle facilities are positively harmful and should be scrapped tomorrow (I'd make an exception for various routes such as those on former railway lines which can be worthwhile). However, having seen the impact on cycling levels and road traffic of the Copenhagen scheme, I'm starting to wonder. I guess there's scope for safety to increase as people get more used to them, and maybe designs can be improved. I think the key thing is the quality of the facilities. The pictures in the report suggest that Copenhagen has the space and inclination to do things properly. Many British urban areas simply don't have the space. If a city has room to do things properly - which means a comprehensive network, not scraps of route where there happens to be space that end suddenly just where you actually need them - then great go ahead. Otherwise, forget it, and consider other measures. Rob       Date: 27 Jul 2007 16:44:36 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? leandr42@googlemail.com wrote: > > "Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been > constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and > feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on > road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the > construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in > health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much > greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in > road safety." > Looks like a post hoc rationalisation for cycle facilities - nowhere in the report have the health benefits been assessed so it can only be an attempt at policy based evidence making. When your client, The Municipality of Copenhagen, has spent lots of money on these facilities you can hardly tell them they make life more dangerous and should be removed. That would be repeat business suicide so you tell them the facts and then sugar them with a reason to say "But its all right really" Tony       Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:57:51 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? <leandr42@googlemail.com > wrote in message news:1185547931.105577.152090@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On 27 Jul, 15:06, leand...@googlemail.com wrote: >> (I can't get at the original at the moment, so here's the digest which I >> trust is accurate). > > Can now get at the original - the final paragraph comes down in favour > of increasing cycle facilities: > > "Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been > constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and > feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on > road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the > construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in > health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much > greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in > road safety." > > I'm personally reconsidering my view as a result of reading this > paper. Before, I would have said that most urban cycle facilities are > positively harmful and should be scrapped tomorrow (I'd make an > exception for various routes such as those on former railway lines > which can be worthwhile). However, having seen the impact on cycling > levels and road traffic of the Copenhagen scheme, I'm starting to > wonder. I guess there's scope for safety to increase as people get > more used to them, and maybe designs can be improved. > > I think the key thing is the quality of the facilities. The pictures > in the report suggest that Copenhagen has the space and inclination to > do things properly. Many British urban areas simply don't have the > space. If a city has room to do things properly - which means a > comprehensive network, not scraps of route where there happens to be > space that end suddenly just where you actually need them - then great > go ahead. Otherwise, forget it, and consider other measures. It looks like in Copenhagen that they've turned their narrower streets into a pedestrian shopping district.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 07:43:54 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 27, 3:33 am, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:11:20 -0700, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman > > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Edward Dolan wrote: > > >> I have been quite impressed lately by the posts of Zoot Katz. Even though > >> she is a dyke, she is nonetheless very intelligent and, unlike the rest of > >> you, seldom says anything really stupid. I will have to start paying more > >> attention to her posts in the future. > > >When did Zoot have a sex change operation? > > Since she started getting whooped by girls on mountain bikes. That's an advantage in mountain biking, right? Less bulk to be compressed against the seat.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 07:06:10 From: Subject: Re: what's f*** solution? On 27 Jul, 14:12, dgk <d...@somewhere.com > wrote: > >You /assume/ it's worse, but if you look at some actual figures, rather > >than what you assume they probably might be, you'll find that cycling on > >the roads is not actually worse (and is indeed typically better) than > >cycling on bike lanes and bike paths. There will be exceptions to that, > >but they're the exceptions, not the rules. > > >> so what's f*** solution? > > Cycling needs to be fun or folks won't do it. The parts of my ride > where I am on major streets (like 2nd ave heading south in Manhattan) > are not fun. Riding on a path where I don't need to worry about cars, > buses, trucks, and taxis, is fun. Most people do not enjoy riding > bikes in car traffic. Interesting dilemna - cycling facilities definitely increase the risk for cyclists; but some people like them, will use them (not sure if they know they are more dangerous) and will only cycle significantly when they are provided. Is more cyclists cycling more dangerously good or bad.? Just found this, which I don't think has been referenced before (I can't get at the original at the moment, so here's the digest which I trust is accurate). "Safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities This study, based in Copenhagen, is claimed to be the largest so far world-wide to examine the effects cycle facilities have on road safety, traffic volumes and perceived risk. The facilities investigated were one-way cycle tracks and lanes, 'blue crossings' (through junctions) and raised thresholds at side roads. The amount of data collated was considerable, with more than 8,500 crashes, 1,500 traffic counts and 1,000 interviews. Many of the results are therefore statistically significant. The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an increase in cycle traffic of 18-20% and a decline in car traffic of 9-10%. The new tracks have resulted in a slight drop in crashes and injuries between junctions (10% and 4% respectively), but a much greater increase of 18% in injuries at junctions. Not only have cyclists suffered more casualties - injuries to pedestrians at junctions increased by 28%. Among cyclists, women were much more vulnerable to injury increase than men. Although the type and distribution of crashes was changed by the new cycle tracks, overall there was a 9- 10% increase in injuries. At signalised junctions, shortened or advanced cycle tracks increased injuries by 9-67% depending upon de- sign. In some cases there was a safety benefit for car drivers at the expense of worse safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Cycle lanes have resulted in an increase of cycle traffic of 5-7% with no change in car traffic. Crashes and injuries increased by 5% and 15% respectively on the recon- structed roads. Again, women fared worse than men although children experienced a small fall in casualties. Safety declined both between and at junctions. Blue crossings led to a 13% decrease in crashes where only one was present at a junction, but substantial increases of 23-61% in the more complex situation where two or more were provided. Junction size and other factors were influential. Raised thresholds at side roads resulted in a non-signifi- cant 5% decline in crashes. Pedestrians were the main beneficiaries. At more complex junctions with raised thresholds, the results proved better. Despite the actual risk of injury, Copenhagen cyclists say they feel most secure on cycle tracks and most at risk in mixed traffic. Cycle lanes come in between. This may explain the increases in cycle traffic, although the shift from car to bike use was apparent during the construction of the facilities and before they were ready to use. Jensen SO, Rosenkilde C, Jensen N. Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen. Trafitec. http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf " [above extract online at http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/news/ccn89.pdf] Difficult to argue that cycling facilties increase safety with that evidence. Its also curiously at odds with the view that more cyclists lead to reduced risk. And this in a country where I understand drivers are relatively friendly to cyclists. It poses lots of questions - e.g. presumably the increase in numbers comes from relatively inexperienced cyclists who are more likely to have accidents. Maybe the numbers will improve after a while when they become more experienced. Maybe with increased confidence, they'll take to the roads and become safer that way. Rob     Date: 23 Jul 2007 13:33:53 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "archierob" <archierob@NOSPAMhotmail.com > wrote in message news:Ay%oi.505$h11.285@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net... > Well done! > > One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to > realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get > anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road > from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with > laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his > neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive, > turned left and then drove up his drive. The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all turning into fat slobs. I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington, Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And yet, EVERYONE does! [...] Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 31 Jul 2007 20:10:18 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > ... > > > Pein has yet to explain why a bike lane stripe is worse than a > > > shoulder stripe place a foot or two to the right of where the bike > > > lane stripe is. > > > The bicycle lane leads motor vehicles operators (who are not cyclists) > > to believe that cyclists should be confined to bike lanes, bike paths, > > etc. This creates an especial difficulty when needing to make a left > > turn [1], since the cagers wonder "what the hell is the cyclist doing > > out of the bike lane?" > > Except it is not true - that is simply a bogus argument some people > have put out. Look up the California Driver's Handbook > <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm> and > specifically <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike>: > > "Bicyclists on public streets have the same rights and > responsibilities as automobile drivers. Respect the > right-of-way of bicyclists because they are entitled to share > the road with other drivers." > > Also <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln>: > > "A bicycle lane is shown by a solid white line along either > side of the street, four or more feet from the curb. The white > line will usually be broken near the corner and the words > "BIKE LANE" will be painted in the lane. When you are making a > right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other > driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for the > turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time." > > You have to read this handbook to pass the California driver's test. > Drivers know what the rules are. If they harrass you anyway, it is > not because they weren't taught the rules. It's because they don't > care. Bah. I don't believe it for a second. Most drivers learn enough of the rules to pass the written test ONCE while in their teens. The average driver has likely not been forced to learn the rules of the road in 25 years. Furthermore, most driver education classes do not even mention bicycles (mine didn't). If it were up to me, those without a basic understanding of kinematics, dynamics, theoretical vehicle handling and a comprehensive grasp of not only the traffic law but the fundamental principles and historical basis of right-of-way would not be allow to operate motor vehicles. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful         Date: 31 Jul 2007 21:42:12 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: > > > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > ... > > > > You have to read this handbook to pass the California driver's test. > > Drivers know what the rules are. If they harrass you anyway, it is > > not because they weren't taught the rules. It's because they don't > > care. > > Bah. I don't believe it for a second. Most drivers learn enough of the > rules to pass the written test ONCE while in their teens. The average > driver has likely not been forced to learn the rules of the road in 25 > years. Furthermore, most driver education classes do not even mention > bicycles (mine didn't). You have to take a written test more frequently than that in California. <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#RENEW > mentions that if you are renewing, you may have to take a written exam. They don't require it every time, but even with an excellent driving record, you may still have to take it every so often. The California DMV includes bicycle-related questions on all written tests, so you better know the material. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 28 Jul 2007 15:56:39 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: egalitarian transportation or the need for the revolution On Jul 28, 6:14 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net > wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message > > news:vOadnY1OD7awWzrbnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > > > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > ... > > > Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what > > it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the > > better! > > At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the > market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought. The lazy fat couch potatoes are really stubborn. The word "change" terrifies them, and bicycles are really out of their mind. Nevermind they will get in shape and lead a healthy life. They are idiots (to borrow Ed's word), and how can we expect idiots to see the need for change. Well, at least alternative energy won't pollute as much.       Date: 28 Jul 2007 10:09:11 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths On Jul 28, 6:53 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > New Hampshire, for example, is the only state with no seat belt law > > for adults, and in May its state Senate rejected a bill that would > > have mandated the use of belts. > > > "The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by anyone else > > what to do," said State Senator Robert E. Clegg Jr. > > "Live free and die" "Ride and Die" Once you are dead, you'll be free.       Date: 28 Jul 2007 09:42:47 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 10:38 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1185586771.535672.55960@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat > > people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if > > they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has > > failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing > > decisions. > > The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free > market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from > the truth. There's nothing like a free market healthcare system, or transportation. MONOPOLY is the law of the land. Remember, "The greatest sin is competition" -John D. Rockefeller There's this person --wealthy person*, military leader, bureaucrat, whatever-- that sees the need for change. He realizes that the chaos and insecurity in society, not to mention the lies and the prevailing injustice, can only bring an end to all... This is NOT a lion, as he becomes one of us. However, there's this other person WHO OPPOSES ANY CHANGE FOR THE BETTER, and WHO WON'T ACCEPT COMPETITION. This is the MONOPOLISTIC or HUNGRY LION, Satan himself indeed... * There's people with money --and influence-- who use it for a good cause. Just an example among the rich and famous: Paul Newman... "I was campaigning at the University of Cincinnati and they admitted with a certain amount of shame that only 19% of the eligible students had voted in the 2004 election. But they had taken polls, the polls had looked good but the kids were on cell phones and they weren't being polled and the figures were going to be staggering because the kids were engaged. Figures came out, 19%. So if people who have the privilege of voting don't vote, then you have to ask if they're really getting what they deserve. We have less of a percentage of eligible voters voting than voted in Iraq which I think is shameful. So if people get engaged, they can make the changes, but if they don't, then we just have a chauffer up there motoring us wherever he wants to go instead of us giving the directions." http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/cars4.php       Date: 27 Jul 2007 20:06:42 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Joe the Aroma" (who?) anonymously snipes: > "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: > > > With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat > > people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if > > they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has > > failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing > > decisions. > > The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free > market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from > the truth. Yes, and the US will never have a free-market health care system, since there are members of the wealthy elite (health care providers and insurers) who benefit from gaming the current system. However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed, since there is no real free-market health care system in the US. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful         Date: 27 Jul 2007 23:28:11 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1185592002.792281.190620@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed, > since there is no real free-market health care system in the US. Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now, I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.           Date: 02 Aug 2007 20:32:48 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote: > "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1185592002.792281.190620@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed, >> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US. > > Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago when > health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now, I think > it's hasty to make that conclusion. My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market health care in the U.S. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 27 Jul 2007 20:01:40 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: egalitarian transportation or the need for the revolution "donquijote1954: who? wrote: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: > > "donquijote1954" (who?) anonymously wrote: > > > ... > > > 'Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars > > > by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars > > > running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially > > > unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political > > > "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the > > > cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels, > > > vodka, used frymax=99 oil, or cow shit). They are at the heart of the > > > problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by > > > shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much > > > worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We > > > have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common > > > activities of daily life.' > > > A vehicle such as the go-one [1] with a small (less than 1 hp) > > electric motor could replace automobiles for urban driving. Longer > > distances could be handled by high speed rail (e.g. maglev) along > > existing freeway and expressway alignments. This would preserve > > individual mobility, but with vehicles 1/50 of the size of what is > > currently being used (with similar decreases in natural resources > > used). These vehicles would also be much less likely to kill or > > seriously injure pedestrians in a collision. > > > Of course, they would not provide nearly the same degree of passive > > crash protection; however, some thinning of the herd might not be such > > a bad thing. > > > [1] <http://www.go-one.us/>. > > Love it! I guess I can charge it with bananas. ;) > > But it seems about the same as a good recumbent with a wind screen, > right? Perhaps this one will be too hot. Anyway good in windy, cold > conditions. Some velomobiles [1] are basically recumbent trikes with fairings, while others use the fairing as a monocoque structural member. [1] The generic class the go-one fits into. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful       Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:27:07 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: egalitarian transportation or the need for the revolution On Jul 27, 7:46 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" (who?) anonymously wrote: > > ... > > 'Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars > > by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars > > running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially > > unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political > > "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the > > cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels, > > vodka, used frymax=99 oil, or cow shit). They are at the heart of the > > problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by > > shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much > > worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We > > have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common > > activities of daily life.' > > A vehicle such as the go-one [1] with a small (less than 1 hp) > electric motor could replace automobiles for urban driving. Longer > distances could be handled by high speed rail (e.g. maglev) along > existing freeway and expressway alignments. This would preserve > individual mobility, but with vehicles 1/50 of the size of what is > currently being used (with similar decreases in natural resources > used). These vehicles would also be much less likely to kill or > seriously injure pedestrians in a collision. > > Of course, they would not provide nearly the same degree of passive > crash protection; however, some thinning of the herd might not be such > a bad thing. > > [1] <http://www.go-one.us/>. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful Love it! I guess I can charge it with bananas. ;) But it seems about the same as a good recumbent with a wind screen, right? Perhaps this one will be too hot. Anyway good in windy, cold conditions.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:19:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 7:09 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:EeKdnQikFOIc7TfbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > >news:16uqi.7957$ae7.4302@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > >> That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not > >> become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are. :-) > > > They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed. > > > Hopefully they won't adopt the low-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet > > that we did, then. > > The main thing you have to watch out for there is the rich desserts! But if people rode bikes to go places, then they could eat the rich dessert without much worry. I love them too much for one.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:16:55 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 6:24 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > > news:16uqi.7957$ae7.4302@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > > That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not > > become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are. :-) > > > They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed. > > Hopefully they won't adopt the low-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet that > we did, then. The Scandinavian studied the American system a century ago, and learned what to do --and what to avoid. The car obsession is dismissed by every other civilized nation. It's "cuckoo," to use your own words.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:11:24 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 6:17 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185570716.501288.278180@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > A cycle oriented society would signal a more egalitarian society. A > > society where SUVs are the symbol of power and status though signals a > > Darwinist view of the world... > > If you say so, I'd say it signals a society where SUV's are symbols of power > and status... nothing more. > > > Quality of Life, Income, Education and Life Expectancy > > > If we would only focus on per capita income statistics, we would > > perhaps be surprised to hear that the inhabitants of the small central > > European nation of Luxembourg are the wealthiest in the world, with an > > average salary of $53,780. The average salary in Norway is $45,000 but > > the Nordic countries are above all known for being an egalitarian > > society; of the seventeen richest countries in the world, Sweden ranks > > first as having the fewest people living in poverty and the fewest > > illiterate people, while other rich countries such us the United > > States have the the most, showing that stark inequality persists even > > in middle or high-income countries. > > Luxemburg is a teeny tiny country compared to the US which clocks in at > 300,000,000. We're mammoth even compared to Scandanavia. > > The US does have an inequality problem. But that doesn't make us > undemocratic by any means (except if you are a kook). I don't think cars > have anything to do with it, cars are democratic, they give to the masses > what was at one time only available to the wealthy. You think only the > wealthy should have access to large houses and generous expanses of land? Cars may be democratic, but also they an instrument of enslavement toward the working classes. Some worker riding a bike to work would be better off, save a lot of money and be healthy --as well as work fewer hours to stay afloat economically.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 18:25:55 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "Joe the Aroma" (who?) anonymously snipes: > ... > The US does have an inequality problem. But that doesn't make us > undemocratic by any means (except if you are a kook).... Male bovine excrement. The rich ruling class control who get nominated for the Republicrats by holding the purse strings and the people get to choose between the two candidates for who will be their overseer. The politicians depend on the legalized bribery of campaign donations to hold onto their positions, so they do nothing to threaten the dominance of the ruling class. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful       Date: 27 Jul 2007 16:46:25 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: egalitarian transportation or the need for the revolution "donquijote1954" (who?) anonymously wrote: > ... > 'Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars > by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars > running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially > unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political > "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the > cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels, > vodka, used frymax=99 oil, or cow shit). They are at the heart of the > problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by > shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much > worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We > have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common > activities of daily life.' A vehicle such as the go-one [1] with a small (less than 1 hp) electric motor could replace automobiles for urban driving. Longer distances could be handled by high speed rail (e.g. maglev) along existing freeway and expressway alignments. This would preserve individual mobility, but with vehicles 1/50 of the size of what is currently being used (with similar decreases in natural resources used). These vehicles would also be much less likely to kill or seriously injure pedestrians in a collision. Of course, they would not provide nearly the same degree of passive crash protection; however, some thinning of the herd might not be such a bad thing. [1] <http://www.go-one.us/ >. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful       Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:56:03 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths On Jul 27, 4:09 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185566251.302317.180820@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > > You obviously do not have the brains to realize that the per capita > statistic is completely meaningless. Oh sure. Perhaps it's true in the case of income but not in the sense of accidents. But you don't even need an statistic for that. Just drive for 5 minutes among cars zigzaging around you, and you will know inmediately you need some armor. You will go to the nearest SUV dealer and get one --just to be safe.         Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:26:59 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths donquijote1954 wrote: > But you don't even need an statistic for that. Just drive for 5 > minutes among cars zigzaging around you, and you will know inmediately > you need some armor. That's odd, rather than 5 minutes I've been doing it for > 30 years, and I'm still doing it on a regular basis without armour. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 28 Jul 2007 08:52:54 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths donquijote1954 wrote: > > But you don't even need an statistic for that. Just drive for 5 > minutes among cars zigzaging around you, and you will know inmediately > you need some armor. You will go to the nearest SUV dealer and get one > --just to be safe. > You are either extremely paranoid or a troll. Either way <plonk > Tony       Date: 27 Jul 2007 13:40:17 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: egalitarian transportation or the need for the revolution On Jul 27, 3:47 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185549297.006632.306930@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > What you say makes so much sense that overrides any theoretical > > opinions so called "experts" may have. Democracy has to listen to real > > people in real situations, otherwise it's just technocracy. > > Do you enjoy your angry, ineffectual rantings? What purpose does it give > you? I enjoy blowing your democratic camouflage. You are the wolf in sheep's clothing. It all boils down to a fake democracy that ignores the real needs of the people. You want to parade your hierarchical system in an SUV. And you hate people in bikes and anything that means egalitarian transportation... 'Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels, vodka, used frymax=99 oil, or cow shit). They are at the heart of the problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common activities of daily life.' Which draws this response (rather from a lion)... 'The freedom of movement provided by private transportation over public mass transportation would seem to be a leftist goal. Yes. Leftists have contradictory goals. No way the elite will ever give up private transportation. Not gonna ever happen. So... its elites with freedoms beyond the masses versus To demonize the leftist goal of egalitarian transportation and glorifying a luddite leftism -- communism reborn as anarchism -- is to be assinine.' http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=3Dshow_topic&forum=3D2&topic= _id=3D408107 I guess the elites don't like egalitarian transportation or nothing democratic. But then WE ARE TALKING REVOLUTION BEYOND BIKES AND BIKE LANES. We can almost bring back George Orwell from the grave... Forget about Marx, Lenin, Che or Mao. The next Revolution will be led by the sardines with no complicated theories and without any need for big fishes who betray the revolution. "If there was hope, it must lie in the SARDINES, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five per cent of the population... could the force to destroy the SHARK ever be generated. ...the SARDINES, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the SHARK to pieces tomorrow morning." -George Orwell, "1984" Well, it's not literally what Orwell said (put the words PROLES and PARTY in it), but you get the point: THE SARDINES SURE CAN CHALLENGE THE SHARK! "The hope lies in the proles," he said in the same book. *** OK, just having fun. ;)         Date: 27 Jul 2007 16:47:36 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: egalitarian transportation or the need for the revolution "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185568817.642584.219720@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > OK, just having fun. ;) Ok, well at least you admitted it.       Date: 27 Jul 2007 08:14:57 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 9:08 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com > wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:39:54 +0100, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > > > >Joe the Aroma wrote: > >> "Tony Raven" <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message > >>news:Oradnf3FmYBCEDXbnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net... > >>> Joe the Aroma wrote: > >>>> No wonder you anti-car people are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're > >>>> LOONY, and if you weren't you could actually convince people to create > >>>> bike lanes or trails or whatever, and it would be a good thing. Posting > >>>> loony article does you no good. > > >>> Oh I don't know. If it keeps them from building more cycle farcilities > >>> many cyclists would see that as a good thing. > > >> What? > > >What I said. Psychle Farcilities are a thoroughly bad idea. They are > >more dangerous, slower and more inconvenient than using the roads. The > >less we have of them the better. Practice Vehicular Cycling on the road. > > >Tony > > Nonsense. I use a bike/pedestrian way down the east side of Manhattan > on my daily commute. It adds about a half mile, making it an even 15 > in each direction, but it speeds up the commute because I don't have > to deal with lights or cars. I can simply pedal along without looking > in my mirror all the time. > > I AM NOT A CAR. Repeat I AM NOT A CAR. I can't go as fast. Bottom > line. I do not expect folks in cars to go 12 mph to accomodate me. > That would be obnoxious. > > There are places that I share the road, and cars have to also. But > there are places that I don't need to share the road, and I appreciate > them.- What you say makes so much sense that overrides any theoretical opinions so called "experts" may have. Democracy has to listen to real people in real situations, otherwise it's just technocracy.         Date: 27 Jul 2007 15:47:48 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1185549297.006632.306930@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > What you say makes so much sense that overrides any theoretical > opinions so called "experts" may have. Democracy has to listen to real > people in real situations, otherwise it's just technocracy. Do you enjoy your angry, ineffectual rantings? What purpose does it give you?       Date: 24 Jul 2007 07:23:50 From: Jack May Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:vqudnVAxToMCaTnbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > "archierob" <archierob@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Ay%oi.505$h11.285@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net... >> Well done! >> >> One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to >> realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get >> anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road >> from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with >> laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his >> neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive, >> turned left and then drove up his drive. > > The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone > drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all > turning into fat slobs. > > I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other > towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington, > Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell > would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And > yet, EVERYONE does! The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes perfect sense. If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.         Date: 25 Jul 2007 01:16:45 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > writes: > The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make > multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes > perfect sense. Multiple trips (e.g., on separate days) to "bring back a small amount of food" means the food you eat is fresher. It's a "quality of life" thing. Plus, you get some exercise, and most people don't get enough. You don't really "minimize time" by increasing your chance of spending weeks in intensive care recovering from a heart attack caused by a poor diet and lack of exercise. > If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense. "One size fits all" thinking. :-) A bike makes perfect sense if you end up taking the time you "save" by using a car and spending that time on an exercise bike in your garage or basement. And for some (e.g., in very congested areas) a bicycle is faster than a car because on a bicyle, you only wait at a light for one cycle of it at most. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 24 Jul 2007 20:25:21 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:87ejixcmam.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes: > >> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make >> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes >> perfect sense. > > Multiple trips (e.g., on separate days) to "bring back a small amount of > food" means the food you eat is fresher. It's a "quality of life" thing. > Plus, you get some exercise, and most people don't get enough. Not to mention, if you buy a week's worth of groceries or more at a time, the chances go up that something will happen that you didn't plan on that will mean that you don't use one or more days' allocation of groceries. If you count the money wasted and the environmental cost of buying food you are not going to eat, buying 1-2 days' perishables makes sense. If you have to work an extra hour a week due to buying food you're not eating, then you could have spent the time shopping and have fresher food to boot.         Date: 24 Jul 2007 15:48:21 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote in message news:oZWdnSvsRpryljvbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:vqudnVAxToMCaTnbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> >> "archierob" <archierob@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:Ay%oi.505$h11.285@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net... >>> Well done! >>> >>> One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to >>> realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get >>> anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road >>> from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with >>> laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his >>> neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive, >>> turned left and then drove up his drive. >> >> The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone >> drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all >> turning into fat slobs. >> >> I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other >> towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington, >> Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the >> hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small >> distances. And yet, EVERYONE does! > > The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make > multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes > perfect sense. I use an upright trike with a big basket in the rear to carry things, including as many groceries as I want. > If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense. I am not into rushing about like a mad fool like most Americans. However, I still consider my time valuable, even if I am only using it to contemplate my navel. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota         Date: 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 From: Subject: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? In rec.bicycles.misc Jack May <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote: > > > > I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other > > towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington, > > Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell > > would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And > > yet, EVERYONE does! > The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make > multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes > perfect sense. > If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense. There's a cycling web page out there (someone here will have heard of it, or you could Google it) that recounts the experience of a guy who put a Hobbes meter in his car. A Hobbes meter looks like an odometer, but measures time. After about four years owning the car he read the two meters, did the math, and discovered that he and his car had been averaging 17 mph. People think of their cars move them along at 40 mph or whatever because that's what the speed limits signs say, but they forget that they spend a lot of time at red lights, stuck in traffic jams, etc. My 6 mile commute to work only takes me five or ten minutes longer than driving does. And this person's calculations didn't take into account the fact that he was also spending part of every work day earning the money to pay for his car. Figure that in and that average mph number might easily go below 10 mph, slower than a lot of bikes. I got thinking of all this last Saturday, when I spent $500 on car repairs and then tried to get to a wedding and got stuck for 45 minutes on I-15 because of a horrible accident that brought no less than four ground ambulances and a helicopter to the scene where the SUV had crashed and burned. Bill __o           Date: 24 Jul 2007 20:52:18 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch wrote: > >> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense. > > There's a cycling web page out there (someone here will have heard of > it, or you could Google it) that recounts the experience of a guy who put > a Hobbes meter in his car. A Hobbes meter looks like an odometer, but > measures time. After about four years owning the car he read the two > meters, did the math, and discovered that he and his car had been > averaging 17 mph. People think of their cars move them along at 40 mph or > whatever because that's what the speed limits signs say, Hah, speed limits! Doesn't your highway require the driver (in addition to obeying speed limits) to adjust his speed to the road, traffic, weather, sight and other conditions, the properties of his vehicle and the cargo and his personal abilities? That's the important speed limit.             Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:33:30 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? Jens Müller wrote: > Hah, speed limits! Doesn't your highway require the driver (in addition ^ Should have been "highway code" ... > to obeying speed limits) to adjust his speed to the road, traffic, > weather, sight and other conditions, the properties of his vehicle and > the cargo and his personal abilities? That's the important speed limit.           Date: 24 Jul 2007 11:50:23 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC), D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch wrote, in part:: \ > People think of their cars move them along at 40 mph or >whatever because that's what the speed limits signs say, but they forget >that they spend a lot of time at red lights, stuck in traffic jams, etc. >My 6 mile commute to work only takes me five or ten minutes longer than >driving does. > And this person's calculations didn't take into account the fact that >he was also spending part of every work day earning the money to pay for >his car. Figure that in and that average mph number might easily go below >10 mph, slower than a lot of bikes. "The typical American male devotes more than 1,600 hours a year to his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it and to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for petrol, tolls, insurance, taxes and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen waking hours on the road or gathering resources for it. And this figure does not take account of the time consumed by other activities dictated by transport: time spent in hospitals, traffic courts and garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy. The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: less than five miles an hour." - Ivan Illich -- zk             Date: 26 Jul 2007 08:46:49 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:50:23 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote: > garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending > consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy. Americans go to meetings to learn how to buy cars? Wow.               Date: 29 Jul 2007 19:32:56 From: Scott en Aztlán Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > said in alt.planning.urban: >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:50:23 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote: > >> garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending >> consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy. > >Americans go to meetings to learn how to buy cars? They do if they don't want to get taken. -- I hated Bush before it was cool.                 Date: 30 Jul 2007 12:58:34 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:32:56 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote: > They do if they don't want to get taken. Here, you either learn about cars as you grow up, by fixing up and maintaining a few old bombs until you start earning decent money, or you pay the RAA to come around and inspect it for you.               Date: 25 Jul 2007 18:33:28 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:46:49 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote: >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:50:23 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote: > >> garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending >> consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy. > >Americans go to meetings to learn how to buy cars? Wow. They attend automobile trade shows in droves. They get invitations to coffee klatch, wine & cheese parties, buffets and barbecues from the local automobile dealerships where they're customers. And to clarify, Zoot Katz did not_write what has drawn these idiotic responses form from the unwashed, it was written by IVAN ILLICH. Zoot Katz posted a quote - in quotation marks with the attribution. Get it? Here's a few more of his quotes to twist your knickers. "The bicycle is the perfect transducer to match man's metabolic energy to the impedance of locomotion. Equipped with this tool, man outstrips the efficiency of not only all machines but all other animals as well. Bicycles let people move with greater speed without taking up significant amounts of scarce space, energy, or time. They can spend fewer hours on each mile and still travel more miles in a year. They can get the benefit of technological breakthroughs without putting undue claims on the schedules, energy, or space of others. They become masters of their own movements without blocking those of their fellows. Their new tool creates only those demands which it can also satisfy. Every increase in motorized speed creates new demands on space and time. The use of the bicycle is self-limiting. It allows people to create a new relationship between their life-space and their life-time, between their territory and the pulse of their being, without destroying their inherited balance. The advantages of modern self-powered traffic are obvious, and ignored. That better traffic runs faster is asserted, but never proved. Before they ask people to pay for it, those who propose acceleration should try to display the evidence for their claim." --- "The bicycle also uses little space. Eighteen bikes can be parked in the place of one car, thirty of them can move along in the space devoured by a single automobile. It takes three lanes of a given size to move 40,000 people across a bridge in one hour by using automated trains, four to move them on buses, twelve to move them in their cars, and only two lanes for them to pedal across on bicycles." -- Ivan Illich, Energy and Equity, Toward a History of Needs, 1978. http://ranprieur.com/readings/illichcars.html --- "The compulsion to do good is an innate American trait. Only North Americans seem to believe that they always should, may, and actually can choose somebody with whom to share their blessings. Ultimately this attitude leads to bombing people into the acceptance of gifts." -- zk                 Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:46:57 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:33:28 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote: > They get invitations to coffee klatch, wine & cheese parties, buffets > and barbecues from the local automobile dealerships where they're > customers. Really? People used to go to church halls and pubs for social intercourse and a sense of community. How times have changed.               Date: 25 Jul 2007 17:01:11 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:46:49 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote: >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:50:23 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote: > >> garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending >> consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy. > >Americans go to meetings to learn how to buy cars? Wow. They attend automobile trade shows in droves. -- zk             Date: 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 From: Jack May Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote in message news:jbica352hftp3c3jrr0lgphoric4454tqk@4ax.com... > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC), D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch > > The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: > less than five miles an hour." The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5 minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt occasionally to tell truth? http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/commuting.pdf (page 4)               Date: 24 Jul 2007 15:18:24 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > missed it when he wrote: >> The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: >> less than five miles an hour." > >The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5 >minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt >occasionally to tell truth? Car addicts never do the full accounting. 1600 hours includes time spent to earn the money to pay for your driving habit. It didn't include the time you spend in hospitals, courts and garages. Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car. Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's destination is well within bicycling range. Consider too that there are fewer variables to delay a bicycle so that commuters can be pretty sure that they're going to arrive on time regardless of traffic situations. -- zk                 Date: 25 Jul 2007 10:14:44 From: Jack May Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote in message news:iqtca3pkrnssqctmv3mc9m00lt6rukpao1@4ax.com... > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May" > <jack.may@comcast.net> missed it when he wrote: > > > Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with > their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing > non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car. Oh here we go again with somebody throwing everything they can think of into a cost number to pump it up as high as possible. Useless approach. > > Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's > destination is well within bicycling range. So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game.                   Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:21:46 From: Tadej Brezina Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? Jack May wrote: > "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message > news:iqtca3pkrnssqctmv3mc9m00lt6rukpao1@4ax.com... >>On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May" >><jack.may@comcast.net> missed it when he wrote: >>Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with >>their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing >>non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car. > Oh here we go again with somebody throwing everything they can think of into > a cost number to pump it up as high as possible. Useless approach. Similarly useless as all those approaches externalising many of those costs produced by cars. >>Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's >>destination is well within bicycling range. > > So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all > your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an > evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game. Hey Jack, if you would have a clue about evolution, not just using it as a fancy pseudo argument, then two basic evolutionary principles would come to your mind, that directly contradict your repeating claims: 1. Evolution aint over, till it's over. Mamals once were also only a rather small portion of life, and the dinosaurs, if they were able to with their tiny brains, probably also thought "Mamals have lost the evolution game, he he he". 2. Evolution always goes the maximum efficiency / minimum energy expenditure per purpose way in the long run. That modern/western world's fossile fuel consumming and polluting transport system does not fit nature's principles is figured out by every elementary school pupil. So go figure it out for yourself. Tadej -- "Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat." <Martina Diel in d.t.r >                     Date: 28 Jul 2007 15:09:45 From: Jack May Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at > wrote in message news:46a883ca$0$11610$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at... > Jack May wrote: >> "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message >> news:iqtca3pkrnssqctmv3mc9m00lt6rukpao1@4ax.com... >>>On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May" >>><jack.may@comcast.net> missed it when he wrote: >>>Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with >>>their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing >>>non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car. >> Oh here we go again with somebody throwing everything they can think of >> into a cost number to pump it up as high as possible. Useless approach. > > Similarly useless as all those approaches externalising many of those > costs produced by cars. > >>>Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's >>>destination is well within bicycling range. >> >> So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all >> your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an >> evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game. > > Hey Jack, if you would have a clue about evolution, not just using it as a > fancy pseudo argument, then two basic evolutionary principles would come > to your mind, that directly contradict your repeating claims: > > 1. Evolution aint over, till it's over. Mamals once were also only a > rather small portion of life, and the dinosaurs, if they were able to with > their tiny brains, probably also thought "Mamals have lost the evolution > game, he he he". > > 2. Evolution always goes the maximum efficiency / minimum energy > expenditure per purpose way in the long run. > That modern/western world's fossile fuel consumming and polluting > transport system does not fit nature's principles is figured out by every > elementary school pupil. > So go figure it out for yourself. Evolution seldom runs backwards, so present conditions give a good indication of how things are evolving, Your (2) statement is false. Evolution selects what will survive and flourish.                       Date: 28 Jul 2007 21:32:43 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote in message news:a9KdnV3y5r86IzbbnZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message > news:46a883ca$0$11610$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at... >> Jack May wrote: >>> "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message >>> news:iqtca3pkrnssqctmv3mc9m00lt6rukpao1@4ax.com... >>>>On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May" >>>><jack.may@comcast.net> missed it when he wrote: >>>>Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with >>>>their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing >>>>non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car. >>> Oh here we go again with somebody throwing everything they can think of >>> into a cost number to pump it up as high as possible. Useless approach. >> >> Similarly useless as all those approaches externalising many of those >> costs produced by cars. >> >>>>Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's >>>>destination is well within bicycling range. >>> >>> So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all >>> your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an >>> evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game. >> >> Hey Jack, if you would have a clue about evolution, not just using it as >> a fancy pseudo argument, then two basic evolutionary principles would >> come to your mind, that directly contradict your repeating claims: >> >> 1. Evolution aint over, till it's over. Mamals once were also only a >> rather small portion of life, and the dinosaurs, if they were able to >> with their tiny brains, probably also thought "Mamals have lost the >> evolution game, he he he". >> >> 2. Evolution always goes the maximum efficiency / minimum energy >> expenditure per purpose way in the long run. >> That modern/western world's fossile fuel consumming and polluting >> transport system does not fit nature's principles is figured out by every >> elementary school pupil. >> So go figure it out for yourself. > > Evolution seldom runs backwards, so present conditions give a good > indication of how things are evolving, Your (2) statement is false. > Evolution selects what will survive and flourish. Maybe the sharks and alligators are just biding their time. Or the roaches :)                   Date: 26 Jul 2007 08:49:10 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:14:44 -0700, Jack May wrote: > So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all > your arguments are worthless. I consider the average car driver to be a fat, lazy, overstressed, thoughtless slob, even if he gets there first. So much for /your/ arguments.                     Date: 28 Jul 2007 15:05:49 From: Jack May Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? "Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message news:ngyz2lm24s7o.1k7utc9rtd4n1.dlg@40tude.net... > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:14:44 -0700, Jack May wrote: > >> So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all >> your arguments are worthless. > > I consider the average car driver to be a fat, lazy, overstressed, > thoughtless slob, even if he gets there first. So much for /your/ > arguments. Nobody cares what you think. Technology evolution providing what people want or killing what they don't want is what decides success and failure. Your bike is clearly not the winner                   Date: 25 Jul 2007 18:18:11 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? Jack May wrote: > > So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all > your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an > evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game. > Not lost. The environment is changing back towards conditions that favour the bike. The dominance of cars may well prove to be a short lived interlude. Tony               Date: 24 Jul 2007 21:30:15 From: Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? In rec.bicycles.misc Jack May <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote: > The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5 > minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt > occasionally to tell truth? This is an average figure, which means there are longer and shorter commutes. I know a man, for instance, who used to drive 80 miles each way to and from work, 800 miles per week, +/- 40,000 miles per year. For such people bicycling does not make sense. Moving closer to the office (as he eventually did) does. Shorter commutes, particularly those made in urban areas and at rush hours, are on the other side of the curve. A couple of months back I was in a hurry to get to another wedding and took what I thought would be a shorter, quicker route. I ended up taking thirty minutes to cover the last mile of the trip. I literally could have gotten to my destination faster by walking, and I found myself wishing with all my heart for my bike, even though I don't like to show up at weddings bathed in sweat. Here's another car-related figure. The American Automobile Association (they of the famous AAA bumper stickers) says that the average car costs its owner $650 per month by the time all costs are factored in. The Census figure takes only driving time into account. This one counts money, from which we can draw conclusions about the time spent earning that money. Add that into the commuter's road time and then figure out his average MPH, and you're down there where a bike becomes a smart alternative. Bill __o               Date: 24 Jul 2007 16:23:48 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Do Cars REALLY Save Time?? "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote in message news:udydnW92ptQU_jvbnZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message > news:jbica352hftp3c3jrr0lgphoric4454tqk@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC), D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch >> >> The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: >> less than five miles an hour." > > The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5 > minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt > occasionally to tell truth? Anyone who can't do a 12 mile commute on a bicycle should get himself to the undertaker and arrange with the monument works for a headstone. Of course, I am assuming bikeable streets and roads. The fact is that 12 miles is nothing! Even a wimp like me could do it (except in the winter). Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota         Date: 24 Jul 2007 15:43:33 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Jack May wrote: > The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make > multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes > perfect sense. Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it is longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not spending so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere. > If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense. There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 24 Jul 2007 13:29:46 From: Jack May Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:5gmhgqF3godnqU1@mid.individual.net... > Jack May wrote: > >> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make >> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes >> perfect sense. > > Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my > freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of > groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it is > longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not spending > so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere. > >> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense. > > There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that > is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely > work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the > case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist. But very few of us live in a congested urban area. If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.             Date: 25 Jul 2007 08:08:32 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Jack May wrote: > But very few of us live in a congested urban area. For some values of "us". Actually, millions live in such areas, it's entirely normal for a large slice of the population. > If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up > making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip. For some values of "usually". I can't think of any stores round here where I can't lock my bike. Do the stores round your way have no signposts, lampposts, fenceposts? At the main grocery store I can lock my bike right by the door: can't park anywhere near that close unless you're disabled, so I'll be on my way while most people are wheeling their trolleys over the parking lot. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/             Date: 25 Jul 2007 06:46:52 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote in message news:8MydnS_0aq6v_DvbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com... > > If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up > making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip. That would be terrible. I ride my bike on errands, to sporting events, to the market, and to lunch or dinner in our local entertainment districts. In every area I've found places to park my bike. And in all those areas it is closer than where I would have parked my car. You should complain to your city transportation committee.             Date: 24 Jul 2007 22:01:32 From: Clive George Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote in message news:8MydnS_0aq6v_DvbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com... >> There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if >> that is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes >> routinely work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that >> weren't the case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist. > > But very few of us live in a congested urban area. > > If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up > making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip. Having no place to lock it up is normally merely a failure to apply imagination. I can nearly always find such a place. FWIW we don't live in a congested urban area, yet we use bikes for most shopping. Things like being able to bring the shopping into the house without having the tedium of car-unloading trips make the bike more convenient, any time benefit the car may have for the journey is miniscule (of the order of 5 minutes), and avoiding the use of the car for trips that short means it actually lasts rather than wearing out. cheers, clive             Date: 24 Jul 2007 13:41:02 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? In rec.bicycles.misc Jack May <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote: > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message >> Jack May wrote: >> >>> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make >>> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes >>> perfect sense. >> >> Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my >> freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of >> groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it is >> longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not spending >> so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere. >> >>> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense. >> >> There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that >> is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely >> work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the >> case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist. > > But very few of us live in a congested urban area. I don't know about that assertion. More people live in cities than in rural areas, and the proportion is still shifting towards cities. Surely someone must live in these huge bustling metropolises. Or are they perhaps populated by ghosts? > > If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up > making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip. I have trouble believing there are no sign posts, newspaper boxes, light poles, telephone poles, pipes, or anything else you can lock to everywhere you go. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm simply saying that I've never been somewhere I couldn't lock up if I was willing to walk one hundred foot. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org I don't know everything, but I know a Matrix who does               Date: 25 Jul 2007 23:21:46 From: Sancho Panza Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:un4in4-npf.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > More people live in cities than in > rural areas, and the proportion is still shifting towards cities. The last several Censuses demonstrate that you forgot the advent of the suburbs.                 Date: 25 Jul 2007 20:45:38 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:21:46 -0400, "Sancho Panza" <otterpower@xhotmail.com > wrote: > >"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >news:un4in4-npf.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >> More people live in cities than in >> rural areas, and the proportion is still shifting towards cities. > >The last several Censuses demonstrate that you forgot the advent of the >suburbs. > Worldwide urbanisation is increasing while the rural populations are decreasing. Suburbs are usually lumped in with their greater metropolitan areas when looking at urbanisation. There is also a move back to the cities as previously depressed areas are gentrified or redeveloped. Cities are getting bigger by increasing density and suburbs are spreading until they butt up against the next one. The whole eastern seaboard is comprised of a few metropolitan regions spreading to become one huge strip city from New York to Miami. -- zk                   Date: 26 Jul 2007 16:05:38 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote in message news:jn5ga3l9v15vasst3smlva0d6rac52rts1@4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:21:46 -0400, "Sancho Panza" > <otterpower@xhotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>news:un4in4-npf.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>> More people live in cities than in >>> rural areas, and the proportion is still shifting towards cities. >> >>The last several Censuses demonstrate that you forgot the advent of the >>suburbs. >> > Worldwide urbanisation is increasing while the rural populations are > decreasing. > > Suburbs are usually lumped in with their greater metropolitan areas > when looking at urbanisation. > > There is also a move back to the cities as previously depressed areas > are gentrified or redeveloped. > > Cities are getting bigger by increasing density and suburbs are > spreading until they butt up against the next one. The whole eastern > seaboard is comprised of a few metropolitan regions spreading to > become one huge strip city from New York to Miami. Alas, all of the above is only too true I have been quite impressed lately by the posts of Zoot Katz. Even though she is a dyke, she is nonetheless very intelligent and, unlike the rest of you, seldom says anything really stupid. I will have to start paying more attention to her posts in the future. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                 Date: 25 Jul 2007 20:40:01 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? In rec.bicycles.misc Sancho Panza <otterpower@xhotmail.com > wrote: > "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> More people live in cities than in rural areas, and the proportion is still >> shifting towards cities. > > The last several Censuses demonstrate that you forgot the advent of the > suburbs. http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9070726 "Even in 1800 only 3% of the world's population lived in cities. Sometime in the next few months, though, that proportion will pass the 50% mark, if it has not done so already. Wisely or not, Homo sapiens has become Homo urbanus." I was speaking of the world as a whole. But even confining ourselves to the US, the mythos that everyone wants 2 acres and a riding lawn mower is fading. There will always be people who want that, and people who live in rural and remote areas. Naught is wrong with that. But I don't want it for myself, and I know an awful lot of people who don't either. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the show?"       Date: 24 Jul 2007 05:52:16 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:vqudnVAxToMCaTnbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small > distances? Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike.         Date: 01 Aug 2007 16:54:38 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Here's a picture comparing > > > > > the two: > > > ------- bike lane stripe -------- > > *** cyclist **** > > ____________ shoulder stripe_____________ > > > with a bike lane stripe, you'd nominally ride just inside the > > bike lane. With a shoulder stripe, you would normally ride as > > far the right on the roadway as is practicable (that's what the > > traffic laws say), which puts you just outside the shoulder. > > > With a shoulder stripe placed a couple of feet to the right of > > where a bike lane stripe would go, the cyclist is in the same > > position on the roadway. > > > So what's the problem? You'd ride in about the same position on > > the roadway regardless. > > I'll assume your "shoulder stripe" is the edge of usable surface. I'll > also put dimensions to it for clarity. > > The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane. > > 16' lane: > - bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other > operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge > under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as a > stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed. Bicyclist can > pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing lanes. > - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle operators. Bicyclist has > superior right to occupy that lane space since he was there prior to > overtaking motorists. > - bicyclist within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. > - bicyclist traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from > motor vehicles. > > 12' and 4' bike lane. > - bicyclist's lateral position is chosen for him to be 4' or less from > edge. Bicyclist must have a reason for lateral position to be more than > 4', and must yield to traffic in the "motor vehicle lane" before > changing lanes. Stopped vehicles, like busses, fully block the bike lane. > - bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor > vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion. > - bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane" > means that motorists need not be cautious. > - presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether > bicyclists are present or not. The bike lane acts as a paved shoulder > and buffer from roadside elements, well channelizes vehicles, and places > them in a favorable position for optimal lines of sight. > - bike lane collects debris. HOT DOG! WE HAVE A WEINER! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful         Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:58:44 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 1, 5:34 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > > Drivers know what the rules are. If they harrass you anyway, it is > > not because they weren't taught the rules. It's because they don't > > care. > > Zauman lives on Bike Lane Fantasy Island. None of those words above > address the real world where the presence of a bike lane creates "motor > vehicle lanes" that motorists then vigorously defend. > > Wayne- Show me a picture of a significant number of bikers mingling with drivers along a busy street. Where's the beef? Maybe you do, but you are quite insignificant.         Date: 24 Jul 2007 16:08:20 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message news:13abivvf0a8s401@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:vqudnVAxToMCaTnbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > >> Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small >> distances? > > Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I > believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an exceptionally > low number of people that are involved in bike/car accidents but trust me, > You don't want to be the person on the bike. Jeff, you are living in a very intense motor vehicle environment. The entire country is not like White Plains, New York. Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken driver. Small town streets can also be quite safe provided you stay out of lanes which motor vehicles are using. I always ride pretty far to the right near the curb so that motor vehicles can easily go around me. The main thing is never to impede the flow of motor vehicle traffic. All that does is piss off drivers and make them want to kill you. But you are not far from wrong. Essentially, it is NEVER 100% safe to be on the road with motor vehicles. That is why I am such a proponent of bike paths. Why there are not more of them is one of the eternal mysteries of life. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 01 Aug 2007 17:12:11 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: > > > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > You have to read this handbook to pass the California driver's test. > > > Drivers know what the rules are. If they harrass you anyway, it is > > > not because they weren't taught the rules. It's because they don't > > > care. > > > Bah. I don't believe it for a second. Most drivers learn enough of the > > rules to pass the written test ONCE while in their teens. The average > > driver has likely not been forced to learn the rules of the road in 25 > > years. Furthermore, most driver education classes do not even mention > > bicycles (mine didn't). > > You have to take a written test more frequently than that in California. > <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#RENEW> mentions that if you are > renewing, you may have to take a written exam. They don't require it > every time, but even with an excellent driving record, you may still > have to take it every so often. > > The California DMV includes bicycle-related questions on all written > tests, so you better know the material. Dude, You may not believe this, but not everyone lives in California. Where I live, it is theoretically possible to not have to take the written driving test for more than half a century. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful             Date: 02 Aug 2007 00:50:43 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: > > > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: > > > > > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > > > ... <References to the California DMV driver handbook snipped > > > > > The California DMV includes bicycle-related questions on all written > > tests, so you better know the material. > > Dude, > > You may not believe this, but not everyone lives in California. > > Where I live, it is theoretically possible to not have to take the > written driving test for more than half a century. Then you should follow our example and get your laws and regulations changed so you can join the 21st century. :-) Seriously though, if you want to talk about bike lanes, it kind of makes sense to talk about how they work when things are sort of done right. Otherwise you are simply complaining about inept government. And what do you expect to have when you go around electing members of a political party (whose name starts with "R") whose official position is that government can't work? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB               Date: 01 Aug 2007 20:40:04 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: >>> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: >>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>>>>>> ... > <References to the California DMV driver handbook snipped> >>> The California DMV includes bicycle-related questions on all written >>> tests, so you better know the material. >> Dude, >> >> You may not believe this, but not everyone lives in California. >> >> Where I live, it is theoretically possible to not have to take the >> written driving test for more than half a century. > > Then you should follow our example and get your laws and regulations > changed so you can join the 21st century. :-) Seriously though, if > you want to talk about bike lanes, it kind of makes sense to talk > about how they work when things are sort of done right. Otherwise > you are simply complaining about inept government.... "Bicycle lanes" are not "doing things right". Stringent licensing standards for motor vehicle operation, aggressive prosecution of improper driving [1], vehicle and fuel taxes that cover the real cost of motor vehicle operation and rewarding businesses for providing facilities (showers and bike lockers) for cyclists is what is needed. More cyclists [2] and less motor vehicles on the road will do the most to improve cycling safety and enjoyment. > And what do you > expect to have when you go around electing members of a political > party (whose name starts with "R") whose official position is that > government can't work? We have been making progress on that front in recent years. [1] This, in many cases DOES not including exceeding the speed limit, which is about the only thing that ever seems to be enforced. [2] To a point. Obviously, in a country with a ridiculous level of overpopulation such as China, cycling in urban areas is not enjoyable unless one likes being part of a slow moving congested mass of people on bicycles. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 01 Aug 2007 23:52:24 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: > >>> > >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: > >>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>>>>>> ... > > <References to the California DMV driver handbook snipped> > >>> The California DMV includes bicycle-related questions on all written > >>> tests, so you better know the material. > >> Dude, > >> > >> You may not believe this, but not everyone lives in California. > >> > >> Where I live, it is theoretically possible to not have to take the > >> written driving test for more than half a century. > > Then you should follow our example and get your laws and regulations > > changed so you can join the 21st century. :-) Seriously though, if > > you want to talk about bike lanes, it kind of makes sense to talk > > about how they work when things are sort of done right. Otherwise > > you are simply complaining about inept government.... > > "Bicycle lanes" are not "doing things right". You'd look a bit less dishonest if you replied to what I actually said instead of making things up. The phrase "sort of done right" obviously meant that you should base an evaluation on bike lanes that conform to current design standards, and not select ones that simply ignored those standards. That is not the same as "doing things right" in general. <snip > -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                   Date: 02 Aug 2007 06:19:26 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>>>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes: >>>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>>>>>>>> ... >>> <References to the California DMV driver handbook snipped> >>>>> The California DMV includes bicycle-related questions on all written >>>>> tests, so you better know the material. >>>> Dude, >>>> >>>> You may not believe this, but not everyone lives in California. >>>> >>>> Where I live, it is theoretically possible to not have to take the >>>> written driving test for more than half a century. >>> Then you should follow our example and get your laws and regulations >>> changed so you can join the 21st century. :-) Seriously though, if >>> you want to talk about bike lanes, it kind of makes sense to talk >>> about how they work when things are sort of done right. Otherwise >>> you are simply complaining about inept government.... >> "Bicycle lanes" are not "doing things right". > > You'd look a bit less dishonest if you replied to what I actually said > instead of making things up. The phrase "sort of done right" obviously > meant that you should base an evaluation on bike lanes that conform to > current design standards, and not select ones that simply ignored those > standards. That is not the same as "doing things right" in general. ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of the particular implementation. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                     Date: 02 Aug 2007 18:21:59 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > > ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore > their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of > the particular implementation. Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road). I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal" facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility). Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some figment of your imagination. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                       Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:31:28 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore >> their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of >> the particular implementation. > > Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to > merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road). > I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal" > facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility). > > Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to > show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some > figment of your imagination. Yo Billy - Not all of us live in Silly Cone Valley, much less California. The CVC (not any other legislation) is NOT the arbiter of right-of-way, which has developed over many centuries. Until I ride or drive in California, I could care less about the CVC and Caltrans design standards. "Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are "special" bicycle farcilities (sic). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                         Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:31:10 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >> ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore > >> their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of > >> the particular implementation. > > Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to > > merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road). > > I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal" > > facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility). > > Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to > > show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some > > figment of your imagination. > > Yo Billy - Not all of us live in Silly Cone Valley, much less > California. The CVC (not any other legislation) is NOT the arbiter of > right-of-way, which has developed over many centuries. Tell that to a California judge if you get a ticket for a moving violation while visiting. He may laugh at your silly name for the region, but that won't get you out of a ticket, and he won't be amused at your attitude regarding the CVC. > Until I ride or drive in California, I could care less about the CVC > and Caltrans design standards. If you expect anyone living in California to agree with you, you should show what in the CVC and Caltrans design standards you object to: we are not required to use any bike lane that was not installed in conformance to state standards. > > "Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are > the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous > for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are > "special" bicycle farcilities (sic). Mindless Propaganda. Come back when you have something serious to say. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                           Date: 03 Aug 2007 06:39:10 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore >>>> their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of >>>> the particular implementation. >>> Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to >>> merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road). >>> I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal" >>> facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility). >>> Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to >>> show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some >>> figment of your imagination. >> Yo Billy - Not all of us live in Silly Cone Valley, much less >> California. The CVC (not any other legislation) is NOT the arbiter of >> right-of-way, which has developed over many centuries. > > Tell that to a California judge if you get a ticket for a moving > violation while visiting. He may laugh at your silly name for the > region, but that won't get you out of a ticket, and he won't be amused > at your attitude regarding the CVC. > >> Until I ride or drive in California, I could care less about the CVC >> and Caltrans design standards. > > If you expect anyone living in California to agree with you, you should > show what in the CVC and Caltrans design standards you object to: we are > not required to use any bike lane that was not installed in conformance > to state standards. > >> "Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are >> the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous >> for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are >> "special" bicycle farcilities (sic). > > Mindless Propaganda. Come back when you have something serious to say. Whoosh! Zaumen does not seem to realize that the CVC is nothing more than regulations developed by California bureaucrats, and does not establish the fundamental principles of right-of-way or how "bicycle lanes" affect the attitudes of motorists. His citing the CVC, the way fundamentalists cite the religious tract of their preference, as being some infallible word from on high that is universally applicable is humorous, however. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                             Date: 03 Aug 2007 17:13:59 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >> "Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are > >> the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous > >> for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are > >> "special" bicycle farcilities (sic). > > Mindless Propaganda. Come back when you have something serious to > > say. > > Whoosh! > > Zaumen does not seem to realize that the CVC is nothing more than > regulations developed by California bureaucrats, and does not > establish the fundamental principles of right-of-way or how "bicycle > lanes" affect the attitudes of motorists. His citing the CVC, the way > fundamentalists cite the religious tract of their preference, as being > some infallible word from on high that is universally applicable is > humorous, however. You do't seem to realize that the CVC is similar to the vehicle code in most states, and that it contains the rules that all road users (drivers and bicyclists) should follow.                               Date: 03 Aug 2007 22:11:46 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> "Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are >>>> the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous >>>> for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are >>>> "special" bicycle farcilities (sic). >>> Mindless Propaganda. Come back when you have something serious to >>> say. >> Whoosh! >> >> Zaumen does not seem to realize that the CVC is nothing more than >> regulations developed by California bureaucrats, and does not >> establish the fundamental principles of right-of-way or how "bicycle >> lanes" affect the attitudes of motorists. His citing the CVC, the way >> fundamentalists cite the religious tract of their preference, as being >> some infallible word from on high that is universally applicable is >> humorous, however. > > You do't Look here - a grammatical error by Zaumen! ;) > seem to realize that the CVC is similar to the vehicle code > in most states, and that it contains the rules that all road users > (drivers and bicyclists) should follow. I don't live in California, and I am unlikely to visit there in the near future. Until I plan to travel to California, I don't give a rat's ass about the CVC. HINT: The world is not centered around California and Silly Cone Valley, no matter what the residents think. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                 Date: 04 Aug 2007 06:53:29 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: > I don't live in California, and I am unlikely to visit there in the > near future. Until I plan to travel to California, I don't give a > rat's ass about the CVC. > > HINT: The world is not centered around California and Silly Cone > Valley, no matter what the residents think. If bike lanes work adequately in parts of California, the California design standards and the California Vehicle Code are highly relevant because they show what works. There is no requirement to use a bike lane unless riding at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place. Also there are a number of exceptions that allow one to leave or not use a bike lane even when riding slower than the normal speed of traffic: 1. Lanes not established in conformace to state standards. 2. When preparing for a left turn. 3. To pass a slower vehicle or bicycle 4. To avoid road hazards 5. When approaching a place where a right turn is permitted. If your state doesn't do this, you should ask for some legislation to fix the problem. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 01 Aug 2007 17:04:59 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > Wayne Pein writes: > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > Here's a picture comparing > > > the two: > > > ------- bike lane stripe -------- > > > *** cyclist **** > > > ____________ shoulder stripe_____________ > > > with a bike lane stripe, you'd nominally ride just inside the > > > bike lane. With a shoulder stripe, you would normally ride as > > > far the right on the roadway as is practicable (that's what the > > > traffic laws say), which puts you just outside the shoulder. > > > With a shoulder stripe placed a couple of feet to the right of > > > where a bike lane stripe would go, the cyclist is in the same > > > position on the roadway. > > > So what's the problem? You'd ride in about the same position on > > > the roadway regardless. > > > I'll assume your "shoulder stripe" is the edge of usable surface. I'll > > also put dimensions to it for clarity. > > > The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane. > > > 16' lane: > > - bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other > > operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge > > under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as > > a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed. > > .... which is just what you do in the bike lane case - when riding > at less than the normal speed of traffic you will be nominally > 14 feet from the adjacent traffic-lane's stripe, which puts you > a couple of feet inside the bike lane. If you are less than 12 feet > from that lane divider (which puts you just outside the bike lane) > you should be going as fast as traffic unless avoiding some specific > hazard (which the bike lane rules allow). > > > Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing > > lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle > > operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space > > since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist > > within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist > > traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor > > vehicles. > > The California Vehicle Code forbids lateral movement on a roadway > unless such a movement can be made with reasonable safety. If you > were going slower than traffic and then decide to move left, you > do not have squatters rights, lane stripe or not. > > > - bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor > > vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion. > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless > preparing for a turn across that lane. Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD NOT be anywhere else. > > - bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane" > > means that motorists need not be cautious. > > That is also wrong. A driver has a responsibility to operate a > vehicle safely. Even drivers who don't care generally don't want > their fenders dinged needlessly. > > > - presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether > > bicyclists are present or not. > > Bike lanes actually have the opposite effect - motorist speed tends > to increase the wider a lane is. > > > The bike lane acts as a paved shoulder and buffer from roadside > > elements, well channelizes vehicles, and places them in a favorable > > position for optimal lines of sight. - bike lane collects debris. > > Not true either, unless the adjacent traffic lane is very wide. > Drivers nominally guide on the lane stripe, staying a couple of > feet inside. Whether you have a bike lane stripe or not, the > area 12 to 16 feet from the "traffic" lane stripe will be kept > clean. However, as a bike lane, a local jurisdiction that installed > the bike lane then has an obligation to keep it clean, but there > is no such obligation for a shoulder (which is not intended for > vehicular travel). Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001). Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful             Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:27:11 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? > He rides on bike lanes on Fantasy Island. Wayne               Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:53:19 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: > > > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay > > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? > > > > He rides on bike lanes on Fantasy Island. Pein, why don't you start acting like an adult for a change. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB             Date: 02 Aug 2007 00:44:23 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless > > preparing for a turn across that lane. > > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD > NOT be anywhere else. Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane, whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning cars can get by. > Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go > when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001). > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB               Date: 01 Aug 2007 20:31:31 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Bill Zaumen wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower >>> traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane, >>> then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless >>> preparing for a turn across that lane. >> Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even >> worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD >> NOT be anywhere else. > > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane, > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning > cars can get by. I have had drivers pass me to the LEFT when I was at the left side of the left lane signaling a left turn, oncoming traffic be dammed. I have also had several drivers point at the "bicycle lane" and yell at me for riding in the street, despite the "bicycle lane" having a safe design speed of less than 10 mph and requiring intersections be crossed like a pedestrian. No thanks. >> Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go >> when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001). > >> Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay >> attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? > > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained. Is this town some upscale Silly Cone Valley community or similar? Where I live, the potholes are big enough to rip a 185/60R14 tire off a rim - think they have money for sweeping the "bicycle lane"? Also, where I live the bicycle lane is mostly used to pass other motor vehicles on the right, while driving 20 to 40 mph over the speed limit. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 02 Aug 2007 18:37:57 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > >> Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay > >> attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet? > > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and > > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably > > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained. > > Is this town some upscale Silly Cone Valley community or similar? > Where I live, the potholes are big enough to rip a 185/60R14 tire > off a rim - think they have money for sweeping the "bicycle lane"? I posted a URL for one of our movie theaters in town. Take a look at it and figure it out for yourself. > Also, where I live the bicycle lane is mostly used to pass other motor > vehicles on the right, while driving 20 to 40 mph over the speed limit. I've been passed while driving by a speeding vehicle that decided to use a bike lane to get by, even though there was no on-coming traffic and the road was completely straight. You can always find some idiot on the road who is competely irresponsible. What else is new? It simply has nothing to do with bike lanes - they'll do something incredibly stupid regardless. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 01 Aug 2007 22:10:23 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Aug 1, 5:54 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> writes: > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > >>Bill Z. wrote: > > > >>>ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy > > >>>spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little > > >>>boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up. > > > >>Damn, you are fool. Get off the floor Zauman! > > > (Of course, being embarassed by his behavior, Pein snipped his > > > infantile insults before replying.) > > > Pein, why don't you get some professional help for your problem? You > > > might start with an anger-management class, although a psychiatrist > > > might be able to give you a more apropos suggestion. > > > Zauman, > > > Grow up. > > Pein, stop projecting and get some professional help for your emotional > problems. Pein, stop being a pain in the ass.           Date: 01 Aug 2007 07:23:04 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 31, 11:10 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > If it were up to me, those without a basic understanding of > kinematics, dynamics, theoretical vehicle handling and a comprehensive > grasp of not only the traffic law but the fundamental principles and > historical basis of right-of-way would not be allow to operate motor > vehicles. Yeah, but that would require taking away the Driver's License from 50% of American drivers. Such a loss to the economy is not warranted so there can be some rules of the road. It's better to put everybody behind the wheel for the sake of profits.             Date: 01 Aug 2007 19:37:03 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "donquijote1954" who? wrote: > On Jul 31, 11:10 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> If it were up to me, those without a basic understanding of >> kinematics, dynamics, theoretical vehicle handling and a comprehensive >> grasp of not only the traffic law but the fundamental principles and >> historical basis of right-of-way would not be allow to operate motor >> vehicles. > > Yeah, but that would require taking away the Driver's License from 50% > of American drivers.... 50%??? More like 99%, I would think. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com           Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:02:22 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths On Jul 30, 3:26 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > But you don't even need an statistic for that. Just drive for 5 > > minutes among cars zigzaging around you, and you will know inmediately > > you need some armor. > > That's odd, rather than 5 minutes I've been doing it for > 30 years, and > I'm still doing it on a regular basis without armour. > Well, luck goes a long way sometimes. But armor is the reason many people buy SUVs... "Infected individuals mistakenly reason that the sheer size of the vehicle suddenly makes them supreme road worriers." http://phaster.com/road_trips/suv_review_why_they_suck.html Analyze how many ways you got to survive in the jungle, and you'll see ARMOR is a strategy for some --and so being SMART is for others.             Date: 30 Jul 2007 16:08:56 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths donquijote1954 wrote: > Well, luck goes a long way sometimes. But armor is the reason many > people buy SUVs... > > "Infected individuals mistakenly reason that the sheer size of the > vehicle suddenly makes them supreme road worriers." (Is that a Freudian slip for "warriors"? ;-/) Or rather, perception of armour. What a lot of them fail to note is that performance in a crash test is only part of the story. Easier to hit, less manoeuvrable, less responsive and more liable to roll take away the advantages, but as usual it's *perception* that people take more notice of than reality. What they do achieve is making it more dangerous for everyone else, of course, the usual outcome of an arms race. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 28 Jul 2007 18:59:24 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 28, 7:08 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 27, 10:16 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 6:24 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > > > >news:16uqi.7957$ae7.4302@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > > > > That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not > > > > become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are. :-) > > > > > They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed. > > > > Hopefully they won't adopt the low-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet that > > > we did, then. > > > The Scandinavian studied the American system a century ago, and > > learned what to do --and what to avoid. > > > The car obsession is dismissed by every other civilized nation. It's > > "cuckoo," to use your own words. > > What does that have to do with my post? And "dismissed" or not, people > still drive in large and increasing numbers in other countries.- I guess it's not in disagreement with your statement, which is hard to define as con or pre bikes. As for the last statements, few countries are trying to emulate America's dependence on the car. The cukoo, though not your words I guess, applies to a system that needs a car to go to the market. Only in America.           Date: 28 Jul 2007 16:08:35 From: rotten Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 10:16 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 27, 6:24 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > > >news:16uqi.7957$ae7.4302@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > > > That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not > > > become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are. :-) > > > > They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed. > > > Hopefully they won't adopt the low-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet that > > we did, then. > > The Scandinavian studied the American system a century ago, and > learned what to do --and what to avoid. > > The car obsession is dismissed by every other civilized nation. It's > "cuckoo," to use your own words. What does that have to do with my post? And "dismissed" or not, people still drive in large and increasing numbers in other countries.           Date: 28 Jul 2007 09:56:18 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths On Jul 28, 3:52 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > But you don't even need an statistic for that. Just drive for 5 > > minutes among cars zigzaging around you, and you will know inmediately > > you need some armor. You will go to the nearest SUV dealer and get one > > --just to be safe. > > You are either extremely paranoid or a troll. Either way <plonk> > > Tony Sure, and happy SUVing!             Date: 28 Jul 2007 19:08:24 From: Marc Brett Subject: Re: U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:56:18 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Jul 28, 3:52 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: >> donquijote1954 wrote: >> >> > But you don't even need an statistic for that. Just drive for 5 >> > minutes among cars zigzaging around you, and you will know inmediately >> > you need some armor. You will go to the nearest SUV dealer and get one >> > --just to be safe. >> >> You are either extremely paranoid or a troll. Either way <plonk> >> >> Tony > >Sure, and happy SUVing! Oil is $78.40 per barrel today. What'll it be next year? Happy SUV drivers may be wanting to sell their rides, but who'd want 'em?           Date: 28 Jul 2007 09:53:25 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 11:28 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1185592002.792281.190620@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed, > > since there is no real free-market health care system in the US. > > Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago when > health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now, I think > it's hasty to make that conclusion. Lets's not say is bad. Actually it's real good for those who profit from it. You know, it all depends who you ask.           Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:30:19 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized On Jul 27, 9:25 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" (who?) anonymously snipes: > > > ... > > The US does have an inequality problem. But that doesn't make us > > undemocratic by any means (except if you are a kook).... > > Male bovine excrement. > > The rich ruling class control who get nominated for the Republicrats > by holding the purse strings and the people get to choose between the > two candidates for who will be their overseer. The politicians depend > on the legalized bribery of campaign donations to hold onto their > positions, so they do nothing to threaten the dominance of the ruling > class. Big Oil and the Big Three bet on the two horses and wait to see who wins. And that's how the big fat SUVs get perpetuated in America, right?           Date: 25 Jul 2007 11:57:45 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:mLqdnftZlNjO9zvbnZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message > news:13abivvf0a8s401@news.supernews.com... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:vqudnVAxToMCaTnbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> > Jeff, you are living in a very intense motor vehicle environment. The > entire country is not like White Plains, New York. > > Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken > driver. Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver. No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but its not the only thing that I enjoy doing. Jeff             Date: 26 Jul 2007 09:19:51 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Jeff Grippe wrote: > No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become > zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. Not really: look at the traffic accident figures and you'll see nasty injuries occur to road users where there are motor vehicles, not just where there's a mix of motors and bikes. In other words, if you want to avoid serious road accidents you need to give up driving as well as cycling. You might have a steel box around you, but you're a bigger target, moving faster with more energy less effective reaction time. Give up a large proportion of cycling and your general health will probably lower. The resulting death may not be as dramatic, but it will quite possibly happen several years earlier. Would you have given up driving amongst cars and trucks if you'd had a similarly nasty accident while driving? Would you have given up being a pedestrian along streets if a similarly nasty accident had happened to you while being a pedestrian? If you don't want to cycle with traffic any more then it's your life and I'm not trying to force you, but I don't see it pays you to treat cycling differently to walking or driving, which can get you killed similarly easily. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/             Date: 25 Jul 2007 11:59:08 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message news:13aeslc32q49a8d@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:mLqdnftZlNjO9zvbnZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> >> "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message >> news:13abivvf0a8s401@news.supernews.com... >>> >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>> news:vqudnVAxToMCaTnbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >>> >> Jeff, you are living in a very intense motor vehicle environment. The >> entire country is not like White Plains, New York. >> >> Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken >> driver. > > Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quiet > country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver. > > No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they > become zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to > cycle but its not the only thing that I enjoy doing. > > Jeff Good thinking Jeff. I am with you! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota         Date: 24 Jul 2007 11:11:12 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Jeff Grippe wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:vqudnVAxToMCaTnbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > >> Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small >> distances? > > Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I believe > that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an exceptionally low > number of people that are involved in bike/car accidents but trust me, You > don't want to be the person on the bike. Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding in cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by trucks...). While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big impact on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the odds for any subsequent events. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 25 Jul 2007 11:53:27 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to the rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably incorrect. Jeff "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:5gm1i1F3g7u1uU1@mid.individual.net... > Jeff Grippe wrote: >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:vqudnVAxToMCaTnbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> >>> Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small >>> distances? >> >> Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I >> believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an >> exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car >> accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike. > > Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding in > cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by trucks...). > > While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big impact > on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the > odds for any subsequent events. > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/             Date: 25 Jul 2007 11:30:32 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message news:13aesd9p750fu3c@news.supernews.com... ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS! > I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to > play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to > the rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably > incorrect. > > Jeff Jeff is quite right to want to be cautious. I have been telling the members of these freaking cycling newsgroups for year to be careful when mixing with motor vehicles. When you are experiencing pain and misery every day of your life as a result of an accident with a motor vehicle you will just naturally want to avoid a repeat of that experience. Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is that none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the lane with motor vehicles. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:5gm1i1F3g7u1uU1@mid.individual.net... >> Jeff Grippe wrote: >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>> news:vqudnVAxToMCaTnbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >>> >>>> Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very >>>> small distances? >>> >>> Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I >>> believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an >>> exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car >>> accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike. >> >> Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding in >> cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by >> trucks...). >> >> While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big impact >> on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the >> odds for any subsequent events.             Date: 25 Jul 2007 09:23:21 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? In rec.bicycles.misc Jeff Grippe <jeff@door7.com > wrote: > Jeff "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message >> Jeff Grippe wrote: >>> >>> Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I >>> believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an >>> exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car >>> accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike. >> >> Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding in >> cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by trucks...). >> >> While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big impact >> on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the >> odds for any subsequent events. >> > I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to > play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to the > rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably incorrect. Thinking back on it, both of my most injurious bike accidents took place on bike trails and involved no cars. Considering that bike trails are widely acknowledged to be more dangerous than road cycling, I shouldn't be really surprised by that I suppose. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org Work to Eat Eat to Live Live to Ride Ride to Work.               Date: 25 Jul 2007 13:38:45 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:p0akn4-e03.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > In rec.bicycles.misc Jeff Grippe <jeff@door7.com> wrote: >> Jeff "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message >>> Jeff Grippe wrote: >>>> >>>> Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I >>>> believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an >>>> exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car >>>> accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike. >>> >>> Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding >>> in >>> cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by >>> trucks...). >>> >>> While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big >>> impact >>> on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the >>> odds for any subsequent events. >>> >> I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to >> play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to >> the >> rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably >> incorrect. > > Thinking back on it, both of my most injurious bike accidents took place > on bike trails and involved no cars. Considering that bike trails are > widely acknowledged to be more dangerous than road cycling, I shouldn't > be really surprised by that I suppose. Bike trails are only dangerous if you are an idiot. Congratulations! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 23 Jul 2007 06:28:13 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? donquijote1954 wrote: > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And > that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. Why do you think that bike lanes are safer than the carriageway? And why do you think the carriageway isn't safe?   Date: 22 Jul 2007 21:25:57 From: Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 22, 7:21 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in > America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great > (and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that > uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes. > Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by > chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the > supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet > most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle > use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the > percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right? > > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And > that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of > fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out > there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food > chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic, > if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good > 80MPG. > > So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live > long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off > I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the > market for the hell of it)... > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > BIKE FOR PEACEhttp://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace I'm car-free, and I can haul a LOT of groceries with my cargo trike: http://drumbent.com/trike.html Also, since it's big and takes up a whole lane I don't get hassled at all in terms of asserting my right to be on the road (having lights and turn signals helps). ;) And not only can I get groceries with it, I just moved house with it too: http://drumbent.blogspot.com/2007/07/even-more-moving-photos.html Mark   Date: 22 Jul 2007 20:41:37 From: Brian Huntley Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? On Jul 22, 6:21 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in > America. It can be pleasant, eh? I use a mix of bucket panniers, a backpack-on- a-rack, or the backpack and a cardboard box from the store on the rack. We live in one of those Toronto neighborhoods that's like a village, so a lot is possible. This weekend, I rode a couple kms to Kensington Market. One in the market proper (Baldwin and Augusta), travel by anything but bike or foot would have been impossible. I went to the butcher, the greengrocer, the cheese shop, and the nuts and spice and tea store. All shops were active, but I never had to stand in line long enough to even *look* for an Enquirer. Zoom zoom.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 02:37:05 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Yes, I go to the market on the bike all the time. Actually, there are several different markets I bike to. Not all marketing routes have bike paths, but most are either not all that busy, or have shoulders, so I'm fine with that.     Date: 24 Jul 2007 13:34:44 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Cathy Kearns <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote: > Yes, I go to the market on the bike all the time. Actually, there are > several different markets I bike to. Not all marketing routes have bike > paths, but most are either not all that busy, or have shoulders, so I'm fine > with that. There are multiple places I shop that are difficult or very inconvenient to park at with a car. It's much easier to shop by bike. The time difference to get there by car versus bike is pretty minimal. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "High explosives are often applicable where truth and logic fail."       Date: 24 Jul 2007 23:47:53 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:4c4in4-npf.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > > There are multiple places I shop that are difficult or very inconvenient > to park at with a car. It's much easier to shop by bike. > > The time difference to get there by car versus bike is pretty minimal. This made me laugh. I'm getting ready to head off to a WTA tennis tourney in town this week. Parking is on the Stanford campus, and is attrocious. On the roads it would take me 20 minutes to get there, and another 20 to walk in from the dirt parking lots. (Where you pay $6 for the privilege of getting your car dusty.) I'm taking my bike. Maybe 45 minutes, and I can park right outside the stadium. Big bonus, the starlit ride home along the empty MUPS that run along creeks, through parks, and even along side a cemetary. I don't know what I'm looking forward to more, watching tennis, or the bike ride home.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 19:35:11 From: William Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? I recently purchased a brand new Road Bike that is really nice. I figured I didn't need anything more rugged since I do most of my biking in the city. I can bike theoreticly anywhere in the city, but there are a few neighborhoods I like to avoid, but not many and I have experience biking through them anyways. In Minneapolis, there are a lot of designated bike paths, such as the Greenway ( http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/images/greenway.jpg ) which makes it much easier to get around.     Date: 22 Jul 2007 21:51:46 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "William" <willbecool10@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1185158111.712779.107660@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >I recently purchased a brand new Road Bike that is really nice. I > figured I didn't need anything more rugged since I do most of my > biking in the city. I can bike theoreticly anywhere in the city, but > there are a few neighborhoods I like to avoid, but not many and I have > experience biking through them anyways. In Minneapolis, there are a > lot of designated bike paths, such as the Greenway ( > http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/images/greenway.jpg ) which makes it > much easier to get around. Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant than using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized vehicles. I believe Minneapolis to have one of the finer bike path systems in the country. Not to use them would mean that you are an idiot, yet there are some who would advise that since they believe that a bike path will slow you down. Hey, better to slow down and live than hurry to your death on those mean streets. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 23 Jul 2007 09:07:25 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Edward Dolan wrote: > > Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant than > using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized vehicles. Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer that way.         Date: 23 Jul 2007 15:13:57 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jens Müller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de > wrote in message news:5gj2eoF3gb531U1@mid.individual.net... > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant >> than using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized >> vehicles. > > Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer that > way. Admittedly a bike path that gets too crowded can be somewhat dangerous, yet you are not going to get killed on it unless you do something really stupid. On the other hand, it is easy to get killed on the street when you mixing with motor vehicles. They are all going fast and you are going slow, a recipe for disaster. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 24 Jul 2007 01:12:32 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Edward Dolan wrote: > "Jens Müller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de> wrote in message > news:5gj2eoF3gb531U1@mid.individual.net... >> Edward Dolan wrote: >>> Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant >>> than using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized >>> vehicles. >> Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer that >> way. > > Admittedly a bike path that gets too crowded can be somewhat dangerous, yet > you are not going to get killed on it unless you do something really stupid. > On the other hand, it is easy to get killed on the street when you mixing > with motor vehicles. They are all going fast and you are going slow, a > recipe for disaster. > How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me? They can overtake, but then they are on another lane. How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path. Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?             Date: 24 Jul 2007 15:38:25 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jens Müller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de > wrote in message news:5gkr0aF3hac8rU1@mid.individual.net... > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "Jens Müller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de> wrote in message >> news:5gj2eoF3gb531U1@mid.individual.net... >>> Edward Dolan wrote: >>>> Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant >>>> than using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized >>>> vehicles. >>> Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer >>> that >>> way. >> >> Admittedly a bike path that gets too crowded can be somewhat dangerous, >> yet >> you are not going to get killed on it unless you do something really >> stupid. >> On the other hand, it is easy to get killed on the street when you mixing >> with motor vehicles. They are all going fast and you are going slow, a >> recipe for disaster. >> > > How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me? They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If you really piss them off, they will do it on purpose. > They can overtake, but then they are on another lane. Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist. > How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here > in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting > killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path. That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up to the cyclist to stop, look and listen. By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them. > Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence? I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:40:00 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Edward Dolan wrote: >> How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me? > > They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If > you really piss them off, they will do it on purpose. Data, please. How often does that happen? >> They can overtake, but then they are on another lane. > > Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be > bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist. You're driving too far on the right. >> How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here >> in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting >> killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path. > > That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up > to the cyclist to stop, look and listen. No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code. > By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them. > >> Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence? > > I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any! "Common sense" ... Common sense might say cycle paths are safer. Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12 times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the exact situation. Surveys from Sweden show similiar results. These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical information from it.                 Date: 25 Jul 2007 11:16:14 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jens Müller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de > wrote in message news:5goumeF3hb55fU1@mid.individual.net... > Edward Dolan wrote: > >>> How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me? >> >> They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If >> you really piss them off, they will do it on purpose. > > Data, please. How often does that happen? This is ever the complaint of those who do not possess a lick of common sense. >>> They can overtake, but then they are on another lane. >> >> Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be >> bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist. > > You're driving [riding] too far on the right. ??? >>> How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here >>> in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting >>> killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path. >> >> That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is >> up >> to the cyclist to stop, look and listen. > > No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code. NEVER! Whenever a bike path crosses a road or street on which there are motor vehicles, the cyclist must stop, look and listen. If you don't do this, you will die like the dog that you are. >> By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them. >> >>> Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence? >> >> I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any! > > "Common sense" ... > > Common sense might say cycle paths are safer. > > Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway > Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12 > times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the > exact situation. For Christ's sakes, when you are on a bike path crossing a road, you must stop, look and listen. What is there about this that you do not understand? Note well that I am talking about bike paths, not g.d. bike LANES on the streets. > Surveys from Sweden show similiar results. > > These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part > of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly > because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical > information from it. You only need to die once in order to be quite dead. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                   Date: 25 Jul 2007 19:35:37 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Edward Dolan wrote: > "Jens Müller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de> wrote in message > news:5goumeF3hb55fU1@mid.individual.net... >> Edward Dolan wrote: >> >>>> How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me? >>> They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If >>> you really piss them off, they will do it on purpose. >> Data, please. How often does that happen? > > This is ever the complaint of those who do not possess a lick of common > sense. This is ever the complaint of those trying to defend a statement they have no evidence for whatsoever. >>>> They can overtake, but then they are on another lane. >>> Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be >>> bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist. >> You're driving [riding] too far on the right. > ??? The more right you drive, the less the distance motor-vehicle drivers will keep when overtaking. >>>> How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here >>>> in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting >>>> killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path. >>> That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is >>> up >>> to the cyclist to stop, look and listen. >> No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code. > > NEVER! Whenever a bike path crosses a road or street on which there are > motor vehicles, the cyclist must stop, look and listen. If you don't do > this, you will die like the dog that you are. > >>> By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them. >>> >>>> Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence? >>> I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any! >> "Common sense" ... >> >> Common sense might say cycle paths are safer. >> >> Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway >> Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12 >> times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the >> exact situation. > > For Christ's sakes, when you are on a bike path crossing a road, you must > stop, look and listen. What is there about this that you do not understand? > Note well that I am talking about bike paths, not g.d. bike LANES on the > streets. > Bike paths next to the carriageway, yes. They are part of the street and thus subject to the same Vorfahrt rules. Is your "must" a factual or a legal one?                     Date: 25 Jul 2007 13:36:19 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jens Müller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de > wrote in message news:5gpg0nF3gf691U1@mid.individual.net... > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "Jens Müller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de> wrote in message >> news:5goumeF3hb55fU1@mid.individual.net... >>> Edward Dolan wrote: >>> >>>>> How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me? >>>> They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. >>>> If >>>> you really piss them off, they will do it on purpose. >>> Data, please. How often does that happen? >> >> This is ever the complaint of those who do not possess a lick of common >> sense. > > This is ever the complaint of those trying to defend a statement they > have no evidence for whatsoever. It is the difference between those who have very big brains like Ed Dolan the Great and those who have very little brains like Jens Muller. >>>>> They can overtake, but then they are on another lane. >>>> Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be >>>> bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist. >>> You're driving [riding] too far on the right. > >> ??? > > The more right you drive [ride] , the less the distance motor-vehicle > drivers > will keep when overtaking. No, they will go around you regardless with less chance of hitting you. This business about keeping to your lane is for fools and idiots. They do not live long as a result of that philosophy. >>>>> How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? >>>>> Here >>>>> in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens >>>>> getting >>>>> killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path. >>>> That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is >>>> up >>>> to the cyclist to stop, look and listen. >>> No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway >>> code. >> >> NEVER! Whenever a bike path crosses a road or street on which there are >> motor vehicles, the cyclist must stop, look and listen. If you don't do >> this, you will die like the dog that you are. >> >>>> By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them. >>>> >>>>> Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence? >>>> I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any! >>> "Common sense" ... >>> >>> Common sense might say cycle paths are safer. >>> >>> Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway >>> Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12 >>> times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the >>> exact situation. >> >> For Christ's sakes, when you are on a bike path crossing a road, you must >> stop, look and listen. What is there about this that you do not >> understand? >> Note well that I am talking about bike paths, not g.d. bike LANES on the >> streets. >> > Bike paths next to the carriageway, yes. They are part of the street and > thus subject to the same Vorfahrt rules. > > Is your "must" a factual or a legal one? It is a common sense one which will save your life. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                 Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:44:13 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? Jens Müller wrote: >>> How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here >>> in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting >>> killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path. >> That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up >> to the cyclist to stop, look and listen. > > No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code. > That was a bit too short: a) The cyclist has right of way ("Vorfahrt") with respect to vehicles on the crossing street exactly when vehicles on the carriageway would have - the cycle path is a part of the street, and Vorfahrt rules apply to streets as a whole, not part of the street like carriageway or cycle path. b) The cyclist driving straight ahead right of a turn-right lane (that's where the bike path often is) has right of way (Vorrang) with respect to any vehicle turning right. The same applies when the cyclist has to drive on the left side on a cycle path wrt vehicles turning left.             Date: 23 Jul 2007 18:23:26 From: Jack May Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jens Müller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de > wrote in message news:5gkr0aF3hac8rU1@mid.individual.net... > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "Jens Müller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de> wrote in message >> news:5gj2eoF3gb531U1@mid.individual.net... >>> Edward Dolan wrote: > How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here > in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting > killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path. In the US bikes and pedestrians have the highest death rates of all forms of transportation except motorcycles. I think the rate is two and times higher than cars according to a recent news report. I have not tried to find the statistics.               Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:00:09 From: Stephen Sprunk Subject: Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike? "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote in message news:wKqdndkpjr8VyTjbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > "Jens Mller" <usenet-01-2006@tessarakt.de> wrote in message > news:5gkr0aF3hac8rU1@mid.individual.net... >> How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here >> in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting >> killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path. > > In the US bikes and pedestrians have the highest death rates of all forms > of transportation except motorcycles. I think the rate is two and times > higher than cars according to a recent news report. I have not tried to > find the statistics. And, of course, the leading cause of death for bicyclists and pedestrians is getting hit by a car -- not that it's included in car fatalities, like it would be if they were hit by a train. For motorcycles, it's probably a toss-up between rider stupidity and car drivers. S -- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com