bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 16 May 2007 11:16:44 From: donquijote1954 Subject: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment. And it can be combined with public transportation for greater flexibility. Well, Paris is just making that possible, but France is the site of the Tour de France. That surely is behind that overdue decision. But hey, we do have a champion or two to show. And we even have some politicians who are into bicycling and not SUVing. Reality check, it ain't happening here in your lifetime. Too many vested interests. That would take a revolution, but that's another subject... "Official Washington likes to think that it is bicycle-friendly. But we often hear a different story, involving dodging bricks, menacing drivers, annoying registrations, and brazen theives. For all but the most hardcore cyclists among us, the thought of negotiating D.C.'s streets on two wheels is harrowing, which is a shame. Washington is blessed with compact development, historic neighborhoods, and beautiful scenery which may be a bit spread out to enjoy on foot, but is easily covered by bike. Many who would love to tour the miles between Arlington Cemetary and the Capitol and beyond on two wheels are relegated to tour busses and Metro, which both limits their mobility and annoys the hell out of commuters. So, in the spirit of the upcoming Bike to Work Day on May 18, we pass on a solution from across the pond: municipal bikes. In Paris, city officials have long wrestled with similar issues: Thousands of sightseers filling the roads with cars (and the air with exhaust) while attempting to visit its many historic sites. In response, the Parisian goverment is launching an effort this summer to provide cheap rental bikes. Lots of them. >From WaPo: On July 15, the day after Bastille Day, Parisians will wake up to discover thousands of low-cost rental bikes at hundreds of high-tech bicycle stations scattered throughout the city, an ambitious program to cut traffic, reduce pollution, improve parking and enhance the city's image as a greener, quieter, more relaxed place. By the end of the year, organizers and city officials say, there should be 20,600 bikes at 1,450 stations -- or about one station every 250 yards across the entire city. Based on experience elsewhere -- particularly in Lyon, France's third-largest city, which launched a similar system two years ago -- regular users of the bikes will ride them almost for free. At first, we cringe at the thought of hundreds of street-clogging lost tourists and a cottage industry of bike thefts. With more examination, though, there's a lot to like. Providing bikes in those numbers creates a critical mass that changes the way the city deals with them -- pushing DDOT to crate a more continuous and extensive bike network in the city. Streets and paths appropriate for bikers would get even more so, which pulls bicycles off of streets that aren't, lessening the dangerous competition with autos. In Denmark, Copenhagen's City Bikes program has been established for years, resulting in huge shifts in transportation, pollution, and the city's image. As for theft, both Copenhagen and Helsinki's bicycle programs have actually reduced it. The free bike use provided by the program both eliminates the need for theft and removes a considerable market for resale. Now that we've got a triathlete Mayor, isn't it time to get Washington some bikes?" http://www.dcist.com/2007/05/02/what_were_missi.php WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote THE BANANA REVOLUTION http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 BIKE FOR PEACE http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace   Date: 12 Jun 2007 08:04:05 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On May 29, 3:24 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > > > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my > > > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive. > > > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess > > > only buses protect me from the big predators out there. > > > I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks, > > we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son > > was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid- > > gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling. > > Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to > > drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and > > the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe, > > but maybe not as safe as I had thought.- > > Though nothing is absolutely safe, they are the only ones that don't > bow to SUVs or at least the only ones where you don't feel like a > sitting duck... > > You know how I feel in any other vehicle out there??? > > http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg > > Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the > ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down > the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to > boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this > driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process > (something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in > the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows > the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead > and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped > some feet further to shout something at me. > > So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the jungle. > Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the hunting > season..." She probably thought you were, like most anti-car screamers, a deranged lunatic. I probably would have laughed at you, but obviously you scared the shit out of her.     Date: 12 Jun 2007 12:16:30 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks rotten wrote: > On May 29, 3:24 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >> >>>> I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my >>>> strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive. >>>> Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess >>>> only buses protect me from the big predators out there. >>> I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks, >>> we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son >>> was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid- >>> gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling. >>> Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to >>> drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and >>> the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe, >>> but maybe not as safe as I had thought.- >> Though nothing is absolutely safe, they are the only ones that don't >> bow to SUVs or at least the only ones where you don't feel like a >> sitting duck... >> >> You know how I feel in any other vehicle out there??? >> >> http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg >> >> Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the >> ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down >> the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to >> boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this >> driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process >> (something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in >> the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows >> the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead >> and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped >> some feet further to shout something at me. >> >> So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the jungle. >> Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the hunting >> season..." > > She probably thought you were, like most anti-car screamers, a > deranged lunatic. I probably would have laughed at you, but obviously > you scared the shit out of her. Eh, calling nearly running over a pedestrian on the sidewalk irresponsible is an understatement. That woman probably should have her license revoked.   Date: 07 Jun 2007 09:34:35 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Jun 5, 6:54 pm, "otterpo...@hotmail.com" <otterpo...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jun 5, 5:07 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 10:48 pm, Nobody <j...@soccer.com> wrote: > > > > On 29 May 2007 13:57:53 -0700, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody <j...@soccer.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >In article <qhjc53d5pjgnjlg3lqapqon1di33s9o...@4ax.com>, > > > >> > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > > > >> >>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > > > >> >>>> wish or function. > > > > >> >>>It is for me, and for many others. > > > > >> >> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't > > > >> >> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority. > > > > >> >We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics > > > >> >for numerous North American cities. > > > > >> >> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic > > > >> >> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump > > > >> >> in the closest pond. > > > > >> >10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider. > > > >> >But it doesn't take long to be able to easily > > > >> >and routinely ride that distance, and even further. > > > > >> >> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not > > > >> >> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.) > > > > >> >Who exactly /is/ "most of us"? > > > > >> >And why are you so vehement about discouraging people > > > >> >from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability? > > > > >> Bloody hell, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts" > > > >> dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing. > > > > >> I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything. > > > > >> So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride > > > >> a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a > > > >> time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather > > > >> unpleasant. > > > > >Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting > > > >distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that > > > >that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the > > > >distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4 > > > >km. > > > > >Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes > > > >how far > > > >http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of > > > >the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30 > > > >minute by bike) commute. > > > > >The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even > > > >GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult > > > >or completely impractical. > > > > >John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > > > And how far are YOU going to cycle in Kingston in > > > December/January/February/March? > > > Well I only do about 1.5 km since I live near work. When working in > > Ottawa my commute was 7.5 km and I did it all year round. Much > > healthier and more relaxing than driving though I do recommend studded > > tires for winter riding. > > > Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Next question? > > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > > > >1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001 > > > > Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or > > > >urban/rural split. > > > > >--clip --- > > Must have been fun with an average 80 inches and 121 days of snow > cover > > http://www.travelingo.org/north-america/canada/guide/72039/ I cannot get that link to show me the stats but they sound about right. What's so difficult about a little bit of snow? The plows remove it or it melts. After a big snowstorm the main streets are usually back to bare pavement within 24 hours, less in most cases. I was once stuck in Detroit for 3 days when it got hit by a 20 inch snowstorm. When I finally got out, I took the train back to Ottawa where they had had about 18 inches the night before. Except for the higher-than-usual snow banks you would not have known that there had been a storm. Detroit is, quite reasonably, not prepared for such storms, Ottawa, equally reasonably, is prepared. The only time I didn't ride to work because of weather was the day that the temperature was -59 C (with the wind chill, probably -45 without) and I found the bicycle was freezing up on me: The pawl was taking 10-15 seconds to fall if I back-pedalled. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 05 Jun 2007 15:54:07 From: otterpower@hotmail.com Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Jun 5, 5:07 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 29, 10:48 pm, Nobody <j...@soccer.com> wrote: > > > > > On 29 May 2007 13:57:53 -0700, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody <j...@soccer.com> wrote: > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > > >> wrote: > > > >> >In article <qhjc53d5pjgnjlg3lqapqon1di33s9o...@4ax.com>, > > >> > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > > >> >>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > > >> >>>> wish or function. > > > >> >>>It is for me, and for many others. > > > >> >> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't > > >> >> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority. > > > >> >We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics > > >> >for numerous North American cities. > > > >> >> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic > > >> >> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump > > >> >> in the closest pond. > > > >> >10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider. > > >> >But it doesn't take long to be able to easily > > >> >and routinely ride that distance, and even further. > > > >> >> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not > > >> >> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.) > > > >> >Who exactly /is/ "most of us"? > > > >> >And why are you so vehement about discouraging people > > >> >from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability? > > > >> Bloody hell, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts" > > >> dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing. > > > >> I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything. > > > >> So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride > > >> a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a > > >> time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather > > >> unpleasant. > > > >Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting > > >distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that > > >that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the > > >distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4 > > >km. > > > >Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes > > >how far > > >http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of > > >the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30 > > >minute by bike) commute. > > > >The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even > > >GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult > > >or completely impractical. > > > >John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > > And how far are YOU going to cycle in Kingston in > > December/January/February/March? > > Well I only do about 1.5 km since I live near work. When working in > Ottawa my commute was 7.5 km and I did it all year round. Much > healthier and more relaxing than driving though I do recommend studded > tires for winter riding. > > Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Next question? > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > > > > >1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001 > > > Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or > > >urban/rural split. > > > >--clip --- Must have been fun with an average 80 inches and 121 days of snow cover http://www.travelingo.org/north-america/canada/guide/72039/   Date: 05 Jun 2007 14:07:01 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 29, 10:48 pm, Nobody <j...@soccer.com > wrote: > On 29 May 2007 13:57:53 -0700, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody <j...@soccer.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > >> wrote: > > >> >In article <qhjc53d5pjgnjlg3lqapqon1di33s9o...@4ax.com>, > >> > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > >> >>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > >> >>>> wish or function. > > >> >>>It is for me, and for many others. > > >> >> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't > >> >> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority. > > >> >We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics > >> >for numerous North American cities. > > >> >> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic > >> >> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump > >> >> in the closest pond. > > >> >10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider. > >> >But it doesn't take long to be able to easily > >> >and routinely ride that distance, and even further. > > >> >> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not > >> >> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.) > > >> >Who exactly /is/ "most of us"? > > >> >And why are you so vehement about discouraging people > >> >from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability? > > >> Bloody hell, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts" > >> dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing. > > >> I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything. > > >> So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride > >> a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a > >> time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather > >> unpleasant. > > >Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting > >distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that > >that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the > >distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4 > >km. > > >Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes > >how far > >http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of > >the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30 > >minute by bike) commute. > > >The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even > >GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult > >or completely impractical. > > >John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > And how far are YOU going to cycle in Kingston in > December/January/February/March? Well I only do about 1.5 km since I live near work. When working in Ottawa my commute was 7.5 km and I did it all year round. Much healthier and more relaxing than driving though I do recommend studded tires for winter riding. Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Next question? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > >1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001 > > Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or > >urban/rural split. > > >--clip ---   Date: 02 Jun 2007 09:50:07 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 1, 2:38 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > > How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it a > > *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are going to > > STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or a Strawman? > > I didn't say people are going to starve. But there would be little > political support for making it more difficult to get a driver's license, > because people know that it simply isn't practical in most places not to be > able to drive. Therefore, making getting a license harder amounts to cruel > and unusual punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their > only crime is that they have not gotten their license yet. Which is > precisely why people are not going to starve, unless something goes wrong > with our ability to distribute fuel or the highway system. The real starvation will start when there's diruption of oil flow. Then America will be the less fit to survive. I can already picture those couch potatoes sweating and panting the first few weeks.     Date: 04 Jun 2007 12:37:12 From: Chris Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in news:1180803007.711106.172100@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > On Jun 1, 2:38 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > >> > How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it >> > a *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are >> > going to STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or >> > a Strawman? >> >> I didn't say people are going to starve. But there would be little >> political support for making it more difficult to get a driver's >> license, because people know that it simply isn't practical in most >> places not to be able to drive. Therefore, making getting a license >> harder amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for people who have >> not done anything wrong--their only crime is that they have not >> gotten their license yet. Which is precisely why people are not >> going to starve, unless something goes wrong with our ability to >> distribute fuel or the highway system. > > The real starvation will start when there's diruption of oil flow. > Then America will be the less fit to survive. I can already picture > those couch potatoes sweating and panting the first few weeks. > Plenty of reserve fat to live on for 6 - 8 months. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 02 Jun 2007 18:35:48 From: george conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1180803007.711106.172100@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 1, 2:38 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > >> > How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it a >> > *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are going to >> > STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or a Strawman? >> >> I didn't say people are going to starve. But there would be little >> political support for making it more difficult to get a driver's license, >> because people know that it simply isn't practical in most places not to >> be >> able to drive. Therefore, making getting a license harder amounts to >> cruel >> and unusual punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their >> only crime is that they have not gotten their license yet. Which is >> precisely why people are not going to starve, unless something goes wrong >> with our ability to distribute fuel or the highway system. > > The real starvation will start when there's diruption of oil flow. > Then America will be the less fit to survive. I can already picture > those couch potatoes sweating and panting the first few weeks. > Fuel-inefficient transit buses will get the first cut.   Date: 01 Jun 2007 12:12:33 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 1, 2:05 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 31, 11:27 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > > >news:2YE7i.9346$dy1.323@bigfe9... > > > > In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a > > > car. > > > It's feasible here too, it just makes you uncool. Personally, I love my car. > > Uncool and unsustainable, if you have to go out of the main routes. > It's OK though for when you retire and you have all the time in the > world. Oh it's unsustainable is it? Well, that would mean it cannot be sustained (ala the old economist quote). When that occurs I will give it up.   Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:12:30 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 1, 12:12 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > > news:1180668732.965037.210260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On May 31, 5:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > > >>news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > > >> > In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship > >> > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > >> >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part > >> >>>> is > >> >>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the > >> >>>> automobile. > > >> >>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > >> >>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > >> >>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > >> >>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > > >> >> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without > >> >> owning > >> >> a > >> >> car. > > >> > How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather > >> > think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more > >> > people arranging their lives to live without cars. > > >> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I > >> would > >> have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than > >> I > >> am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would > >> probably > >> starve if they did not have one. > > > Don't sweat it. All of the anti-car and ride-a-bike people live in > > cities where it might be feasible to like without a car. They are > > very ego-centric and forget that people live in rural areas. Live > > without a car? Not likely. It's 20 miles to the nearest Walmart. > > Oops, did I say Walmart. Sorry. Here, we have two small grocery > > stores that are on the Reservation, but no clothing stores or anything > > like that. Plus no public transporation except 1 inter-city bus per > > day and the Nation's bus service for the Elders. Someday they'll > > recognize that people still live in the boonies. > > There are plenty of urban and suburban areas where it is also not safe to > ride a bike.- Exactly. Where is feasible is dangerous, and where is unfeasable, well it's just unfeasable. You are F*** either way.l   Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:09:30 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On May 31, 11:32 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > On May 31, 5:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > > > > > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > > >news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > > > > In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> > > > wrote: > > >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > > >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is > > >>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the > > >>>> automobile. > > > >>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > > >>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > > >>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > > >>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > > > >> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning > > >> a > > >> car. > > > > How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather > > > think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more > > > people arranging their lives to live without cars. > > > I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I would > > have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than I > > am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would probably > > starve if they did not have one. > > Don't sweat it. All of the anti-car and ride-a-bike people live in > cities where it might be feasible to like without a car. They are > very ego-centric and forget that people live in rural areas. Live > without a car? You ever heard of live and let live? It means drive a car if you will, or drive a bike if you can. Well, must people just can't ride a bike without unnecessary risks and humiliations.   Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:05:54 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On May 31, 11:27 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > > news:2YE7i.9346$dy1.323@bigfe9... > > > In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a > > car. > > It's feasible here too, it just makes you uncool. Personally, I love my car. Uncool and unsustainable, if you have to go out of the main routes. It's OK though for when you retire and you have all the time in the world.   Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:02:57 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On May 31, 4:30 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > > "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > >> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is > >>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the > >>> automobile. > > >> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > >> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > >> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > >> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > > > In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a > > car. > > How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather > think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more > people arranging their lives to live without cars. > > Will it be a burden for some people to lose their licenses? Yes, > absolutely. On the other hand, boo-fucking-hoo. Lets talk about the > inconvenience of being dead from negligent drivers. > > We see lots of examples of people getting slaps of the wrist ($500 fines > for example) after they kill people with their car. > > Example - post #5 in this thread: When the reckless driver feeds the insurance companies, the car manufacturer, the oil industry, etc his privilege to drive is assured.   Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:54:49 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On May 31, 2:58 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > > news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > > > > > > > In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dane Buson wrote: > > >>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a > >>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. > > >>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with > >>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply > >>> weren't on the road? > > >> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is > >> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the > >> automobile. > > > In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > > difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > > they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > > being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > > In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a > car.- That's very suspicious too. Someone riding a bike to work may be put on a list of "ecoterrorists."   Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:53:40 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On May 31, 2:15 pm, "Stephen Sprunk" <step...@sprunk.org > wrote: > "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > > news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > > > In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > > difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > > they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > > being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > > Most, if not all, states have various laws that allow for revocation of a > license under various conditions. However, there is no periodic testing and > it's based on various crimes one commits, like reckless driving or DWI, and > typically one gets the license back automatically after a period of time. > In a sense, it's left to the insurance companies -- if someone will insure > you, after considering your driving record, you're assumed to be competent. > This could definitely be improved. > > Still, revoking licenses doesn't do much good. Something like 25% of > drivers here are unlicensed, and they're only caught if they happen to > commit some other crime like speeding. This is, unfortunately, the primary > way that illegal aliens are caught here: they get stopped for speeding (or > get in an accident and are too injured to run), arrested because they don't > have a license, and deported if INS can prove they aren't in the country > legally. OTOH, if someone is a decent driver, they can go for years without > a license and nobody will ever know. As a response, the cops now pull > people over who _aren't_ speeding, claiming that's a sign of DWI. The logic > of assuming people who _aren't_ committing a crime are criminals is amazing. Driving cautiously and respecfully is highly suspicious in America.   Date: 31 May 2007 20:32:12 From: Pat Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On May 31, 5:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > > news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > > > > > In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> > > wrote: > >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is > >>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the > >>>> automobile. > > >>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > >>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > >>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > >>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > > >> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning > >> a > >> car. > > > How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather > > think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more > > people arranging their lives to live without cars. > > I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I would > have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than I > am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would probably > starve if they did not have one. Don't sweat it. All of the anti-car and ride-a-bike people live in cities where it might be feasible to like without a car. They are very ego-centric and forget that people live in rural areas. Live without a car? Not likely. It's 20 miles to the nearest Walmart. Oops, did I say Walmart. Sorry. Here, we have two small grocery stores that are on the Reservation, but no clothing stores or anything like that. Plus no public transporation except 1 inter-city bus per day and the Nation's bus service for the Elders. Someday they'll recognize that people still live in the boonies.     Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:41:59 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > On May 31, 5:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship"> wrote: >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> >> > How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather >> > think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more >> > people arranging their lives to live without cars. >> >> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I would >> have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than I >> am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would probably >> starve if they did not have one. > > Don't sweat it. All of the anti-car and ride-a-bike people live in > cities where it might be feasible to like without a car. There is more than a grain of truth to that. I don't think you could accurately characterize me as anti-car, but rather someone for appropriate use. It's definitely easier to go without a car in the city when you talk about the US. However other regions have not subsidized the car to the exclusion of all else and actually have usable public transportation even in the rural areas. > They are very ego-centric and forget that people live in rural areas. Live > without a car? Not likely. It's 20 miles to the nearest Walmart. Egocentric? Because I call for people to take responsibility for their actions? Because I want people to have appropriate training when they're guiding a huge chunk of metal at speeds that can easily kill themselves and others? Forget people live in rural areas? Not at all. I grew up in a rural area and much of my family farms or lives in farm country. Anyway, I know you people love to prop up the strawman about how people like me want everyone to live without cars, but that's not what I was saying. > Oops, did I say Walmart. Sorry. Here, we have two small grocery > stores that are on the Reservation, but no clothing stores or anything > like that. Plus no public transporation except 1 inter-city bus per > day and the Nation's bus service for the Elders. Someday they'll > recognize that people still live in the boonies. Less and less of them do. http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9070726 -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. -- Henry Spencer     Date: 01 Jun 2007 12:48:24 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Pat wrote: > On May 31, 5:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> >> news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >> >> >> >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> >>> wrote: >>>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is >>>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>>>> automobile. >>>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >>>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >>>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >>>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning >>>> a >>>> car. >>> How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather >>> think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more >>> people arranging their lives to live without cars. >> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I would >> have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than I >> am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would probably >> starve if they did not have one. > > Don't sweat it. All of the anti-car and ride-a-bike people live in > cities where it might be feasible to like without a car. They are > very ego-centric and forget that people live in rural areas. Live > without a car? Not likely. It's 20 miles to the nearest Walmart. > Oops, did I say Walmart. Sorry. Here, we have two small grocery > stores that are on the Reservation, but no clothing stores or anything > like that. Plus no public transporation except 1 inter-city bus per > day and the Nation's bus service for the Elders. Someday they'll > recognize that people still live in the boonies. > Well said. City dwellers are a rather biased lot. Bill Baka       Date: 01 Jun 2007 13:20:26 From: george conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:sAU7i.31761$Um6.25706@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... > Pat wrote: >> On May 31, 5:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship" >> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>> >>> news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>> >>> >>> >>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship >>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>>>>> automobile. >>>>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>>>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >>>>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >>>>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >>>>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without >>>>> owning >>>>> a >>>>> car. >>>> How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather >>>> think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more >>>> people arranging their lives to live without cars. >>> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I >>> would >>> have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than >>> I >>> am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would >>> probably >>> starve if they did not have one. >> >> Don't sweat it. All of the anti-car and ride-a-bike people live in >> cities where it might be feasible to like without a car. They are >> very ego-centric and forget that people live in rural areas. Live >> without a car? Not likely. It's 20 miles to the nearest Walmart. >> Oops, did I say Walmart. Sorry. Here, we have two small grocery >> stores that are on the Reservation, but no clothing stores or anything >> like that. Plus no public transporation except 1 inter-city bus per >> day and the Nation's bus service for the Elders. Someday they'll >> recognize that people still live in the boonies. >> > Well said. City dwellers are a rather biased lot. > Bill Baka But then they would say, "Raise taxes and provide 'affordable' bus transit to the Reservation."     Date: 31 May 2007 23:12:25 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1180668732.965037.210260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On May 31, 5:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> >> news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >> >> >> >> > In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship >> > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> >> > wrote: >> >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part >> >>>> is >> >>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >> >>>> automobile. >> >> >>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >> >>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >> >>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >> >>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >> >> >> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without >> >> owning >> >> a >> >> car. >> >> > How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather >> > think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more >> > people arranging their lives to live without cars. >> >> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I >> would >> have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than >> I >> am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would >> probably >> starve if they did not have one. > > Don't sweat it. All of the anti-car and ride-a-bike people live in > cities where it might be feasible to like without a car. They are > very ego-centric and forget that people live in rural areas. Live > without a car? Not likely. It's 20 miles to the nearest Walmart. > Oops, did I say Walmart. Sorry. Here, we have two small grocery > stores that are on the Reservation, but no clothing stores or anything > like that. Plus no public transporation except 1 inter-city bus per > day and the Nation's bus service for the Elders. Someday they'll > recognize that people still live in the boonies. There are plenty of urban and suburban areas where it is also not safe to ride a bike.   Date: 31 May 2007 10:30:10 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: worse than Iraq On May 31, 11:48 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com > wrote: > Amy Blankenship wrote: > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1180456597.443989.177320@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >> If it is 16 times for an SUV vs. car, it must be like 160 times more > >> deadly in a semi vs. car. Imagine what it would be if semi drivers > >> were as poorly trained and as careless as SUV drivers. Probably worse > >> than Iraq. > > > Are there a lot of SUV drivers in Iraq? > > Hummers :-D You better not be seeing in one over there. They are the sitting ducks I hear.   Date: 31 May 2007 10:24:27 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Who can survive a collision with this On May 31, 2:16 am, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > >http://www.marketingshift.com/2004/9/biggest-suv-navistar-internation... > > Is that a truck or Supersized Hummer? The Hummer is for the lesser lions. This is the real King of the Road. Well, only after the semis... http://truckpol.republika.pl/pictures/cover/king_of_the_road_english_large_jowood_front.jpeg Thank God the soccer moms and the yuppies haven't realized their full potential. ;)   Date: 31 May 2007 10:15:57 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we may need to secure ONE WHOLE TRAFFIC LANE for bikers --What the hec are you doing in rush hour traffic??? No wonder your getting run over!!!-- I was just quoting someone else, who says he doesn't drive in rush hour. But if they can't bike in rush hour, what advantage can we sell to the sitting motorists when speedy, safe bikes are not an option? Well, for that to happen we need BIKE PATHS or BIKE LANES, away from traffic. Or we may need to secure ONE WHOLE TRAFFIC LANE for bikers. Otherwise, like you say, you are inviting getting run over. You know, when the bullets fly, don't be a sitting duck... http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/TEL/1182.jpg   Date: 30 May 2007 23:16:18 From: Red Cloud Subject: Re: Who can survive a collision with this On May 30, 10:31 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > --Why are all SUV drivers > lumped as one?-- > > No, I'm not. We are talking about SUPERSIZED UNNECESSARY VEHICLES > here. Obviously they are a bigger problem for the environment, and > even greater problem for other vehicles. Who can survive a collision > with this... > > "This is the biggest baddest suv I've ever seen. It takes away a > slight amount of the guilt I have from recently purchasing a Yukon > Denali but not much. Can you imagine taking the kids to a soccer game > with this thing?" > > http://www.marketingshift.com/2004/9/biggest-suv-navistar-internation... Is that a truck or Supersized Hummer?   Date: 30 May 2007 10:57:27 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: you pay for all this On May 29, 6:16 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > > So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the > > jungle. Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the > > hunting season..." > > Stop being such a self-victimizing drama queen. Jeez. The people > around you are oblivious of you, whether they are walking, driving, > eating dinner, riding their bikes, whatever. They are not going to > accommodate your presence. It's not a jungle, people are not out to get > you, it's just life going on. Stop personalizing it and acting like you > expect to be the center of the universe.- Life in the jungle perhaps. Well, things may be different down here... Driving in Miami: The Rules Are Different Down Here While every city loves to brag about their insane traffic and bad drivers, no city has quite the unique combination of residents that we do here in South Florida to make for unbearable motor transportation. As I have mentioned previously in this relocation guide, there may be one or two people in Miami who learned to drive in another country. This thrown in with transplants form such capitals of polite driving as New York, Boston and Philadelphia, and a complete lack of strategic planning on the part of the county make for one hell of a driving experience. WHEN YOUR PREMIUMS ARE MORE THAN YOUR PAYMENT If you are relocating here, you have no doubt looked into insuring your car in South Florida. Upon doing this, I'm sure your reaction was somewhere between "Did my computer mess up and misplace that decimal point?" and "Well, so much for retirement." Yes, folks, sadly Miami- Dade County has some of the highest insurance premiums in the nation. Aside from insurance companies' general love of raping the ever-loving soul from people who live down here, there are actually some fairly valid reasons for these exorbitant premiums. First, as stated above, drivers here pretty much do whatever they want and so accidents happen a lot. I see an average of four a day just driving around, and I don't even go out during Rush Hour. more... http://www.miamibeach411.com/news/index.php?/news/comments/driving-in-miami/ So pretty much you do what you want here: use your SUV to intimidate others, chat on your cell phone or simply pull a gun. And you pay for all this, whether with insurance premiums or... with your life.   Date: 30 May 2007 10:31:29 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Who can survive a collision with this --Why are all SUV drivers lumped as one?-- No, I'm not. We are talking about SUPERSIZED UNNECESSARY VEHICLES here. Obviously they are a bigger problem for the environment, and even greater problem for other vehicles. Who can survive a collision with this... "This is the biggest baddest suv I've ever seen. It takes away a slight amount of the guilt I have from recently purchasing a Yukon Denali but not much. Can you imagine taking the kids to a soccer game with this thing?" http://www.marketingshift.com/2004/9/biggest-suv-navistar-international.cfm --Do a Google search on Toyota Prius batteries and see how devastating they are to the environment.The Hummer has a better "carbon footprint",to use a cry-baby term.-- OK, perhaps hybrids are not such a good idea, perhaps they are used by Toyota as to do some good PR for the nasty SUVs it too puts out. Actually the lady trying to run me over was driving this type of vehicle... "The FJ Cruiser is the latest in a long line of celebrated off-road vehicles from Toyota. And in the tradition of the legendary Land Cruiser family, the FJ Cruiser is not only engineered to conquer anything Mother Nature has to offer, but to keep coming back for more. Find out what Rod and Ryan Millen did to prepare their FJ Cruiser TRD for the rough-and-tumble, metal-crunching experience of racing the length of the Mexican peninsula in the famous Baja 1000." http://www.toyota.com/fjcruiser/index.html?s_van=GM_TN_FJ_INDEX I guess that vehicle would not conquer Nature, but our Darwinian roads. I rest my case. A good common sense solution is to move into SMALL EFFICIENT CARS that don't need to conquer anything.   Date: 29 May 2007 13:57:53 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody <j...@soccer.com > wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > > > > >In article <qhjc53d5pjgnjlg3lqapqon1di33s9o...@4ax.com>, > > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > >>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > >>>> wish or function. > > >>>It is for me, and for many others. > > >> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't > >> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority. > > >We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics > >for numerous North American cities. > > >> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic > >> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump > >> in the closest pond. > > >10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider. > >But it doesn't take long to be able to easily > >and routinely ride that distance, and even further. > > >> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not > >> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.) > > >Who exactly /is/ "most of us"? > > >And why are you so vehement about discouraging people > >from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability? > > Bloody hell, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts" > dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing. > > I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything. > > So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride > a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a > time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather > unpleasant. Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4 km. Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes how far http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30 minute by bike) commute. The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult or completely impractical. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada 1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001 Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or urban/rural split. --clip ---     Date: 30 May 2007 02:48:34 From: Nobody Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On 29 May 2007 13:57:53 -0700, John Kane <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote: >On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody <j...@soccer.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <qhjc53d5pjgnjlg3lqapqon1di33s9o...@4ax.com>, >> > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: >> >> >>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by >> >>>> wish or function. >> >> >>>It is for me, and for many others. >> >> >> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't >> >> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority. >> >> >We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics >> >for numerous North American cities. >> >> >> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic >> >> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump >> >> in the closest pond. >> >> >10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider. >> >But it doesn't take long to be able to easily >> >and routinely ride that distance, and even further. >> >> >> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not >> >> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.) >> >> >Who exactly /is/ "most of us"? >> >> >And why are you so vehement about discouraging people >> >from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability? >> >> Bloody hell, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts" >> dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing. >> >> I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything. >> >> So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride >> a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a >> time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather >> unpleasant. > >Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting >distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that >that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the >distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4 >km. > >Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes >how far >http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of >the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30 >minute by bike) commute. > >The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even >GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult >or completely impractical. > >John Kane, Kingston ON Canada And how far are YOU going to cycle in Kingston in December/January/February/March? >1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001 > Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or >urban/rural split. > >--clip --- >   Date: 29 May 2007 13:00:02 From: Pat Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On May 29, 3:24 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > > > > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my > > > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive. > > > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess > > > only buses protect me from the big predators out there. > > > I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks, > > we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son > > was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid- > > gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling. > > Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to > > drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and > > the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe, > > but maybe not as safe as I had thought.- > > Though nothing is absolutely safe, they are the only ones that don't > bow to SUVs or at least the only ones where you don't feel like a > sitting duck... > > You know how I feel in any other vehicle out there??? > > http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg > > Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the > ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down > the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to > boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this > driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process > (something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in > the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows > the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead > and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped > some feet further to shout something at me. > > So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the jungle. > Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the hunting > season..." A guy I knw who rode a motorcycle always wore "gauntlet" gloves that covered the wrist. He grometed a spike on the outside of each glove. If someone got too close, he swung at them. It's hard to break a windshield but I guess side windows are pretty easy ;-) And scratching paint is easier. He said he took out a few windows in his day. Where I live, EVERYONE drives a SUV or a pickup. But we're pretty rural and very snowy. Hummers and Cadilac Espensades (or whatever they are called) are an obsession on the Rez. Most bicycles stay on the sidewalks around here. On my motorcycle, SUVs aren't as big of a concern as tractor trailers. Their wind blasts can move you quite a bit. I ride a heavy, touring bike for better visibility, use pre-emptive honking, and keep the CD on the trucker channel to talk to them. Rocks coming out of dump trucks is the worst. Take a #2 crushed stone to the body at 70mph and you feel it. Even sand stings a bit. BTW, school gets out 1/2 hour early tomorrow for the funeral of a 15- year-old who was killed in a single-car accident on Friday. A dog jumped from the back seat to the front seat and distracted the driver. She swerved, over-corrected and hit a bank. The girl who was killed was ejected from the car during the rollover. Too many people in the car and an inexperienced driver.   Date: 29 May 2007 12:24:02 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my > > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive. > > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess > > only buses protect me from the big predators out there. > > I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks, > we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son > was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid- > gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling. > Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to > drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and > the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe, > but maybe not as safe as I had thought.- Though nothing is absolutely safe, they are the only ones that don't bow to SUVs or at least the only ones where you don't feel like a sitting duck... You know how I feel in any other vehicle out there??? http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process (something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped some feet further to shout something at me. So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the jungle. Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the hunting season..."     Date: 29 May 2007 17:16:59 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In article <1180466642.410844.183100@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: > http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg > > Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the > ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down > the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to > boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this > driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process > (something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in > the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows > the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead > and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped > some feet further to shout something at me. > > So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the > jungle. Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the > hunting season..." Stop being such a self-victimizing drama queen. Jeez. The people around you are oblivious of you, whether they are walking, driving, eating dinner, riding their bikes, whatever. They are not going to accommodate your presence. It's not a jungle, people are not out to get you, it's just life going on. Stop personalizing it and acting like you expect to be the center of the universe.       Date: 31 May 2007 11:47:53 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <1180466642.410844.183100@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg >> >> Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the >> ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down >> the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to >> boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this >> driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process >> (something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in >> the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows >> the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead >> and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped >> some feet further to shout something at me. >> >> So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the >> jungle. Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the >> hunting season..." > > Stop being such a self-victimizing drama queen. Jeez. The people > around you are oblivious of you, whether they are walking, driving, > eating dinner, riding their bikes, whatever. They are not going to > accommodate your presence. It's not a jungle, people are not out to get > you, it's just life going on. Stop personalizing it and acting like you > expect to be the center of the universe. That sounds like grounds for a lot of revoked drivers' licenses to me.         Date: 06 Jun 2007 20:34:12 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com > wrote: > Pat wrote: > > On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > > >>news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > >>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > >>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >>>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in > >>>> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems > >>>>> simple enough to me. > >>>> Simple is as simple does ;-) > >>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a > >>> car" and "want a car". > >>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far > >>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world > >>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and > >>> cabs, etc. > >>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten > >>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and > >>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby > >>> (thankfully). So a car is needed. > >>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge > >>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, > >>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance > >>> scales are very different. > >>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car > >>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait > >>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. > >>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be > >>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. > >>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should > >>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to > >>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision. > >> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people > >> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there > >> are many who do. > > >> -Amy > > > I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that > > would be redundant. ;-) > > These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or > suburbanized rural areas anyway. > > Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas > would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would > be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants > also hurt the environment in rural areas. I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody else's transportation. As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.           Date: 07 Jun 2007 10:52:28 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks rotten wrote: > On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Pat wrote: >>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" >>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message >>>> news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" >>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems >>>>>>> simple enough to me. >>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-) >>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a >>>>> car" and "want a car". >>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far >>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world >>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and >>>>> cabs, etc. >>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten >>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and >>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby >>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed. >>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge >>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, >>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance >>>>> scales are very different. >>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car >>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait >>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. >>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be >>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. >>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should >>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to >>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision. >>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people >>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there >>>> are many who do. >>>> -Amy >>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that >>> would be redundant. ;-) >> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or >> suburbanized rural areas anyway. >> >> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas >> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would >> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants >> also hurt the environment in rural areas. > > I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody > else's transportation. I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal appropriations. Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk. > As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up > air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.           Date: 07 Jun 2007 05:51:35 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks rotten wrote: > On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas >> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would >> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants >> also hurt the environment in rural areas. > > I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody > else's transportation. > > As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up > air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. > So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution. Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in the dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to the city. Once there one can use the 'el and overground/underground subway system. You can get off of that close enough for a short bus hop and short walk to work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread the suburbs out to a 50 mile plus radius of the center of the city. To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly crowded situation. No easy fix in sight. I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as well as Chicago. Bill Baka             Date: 07 Jun 2007 19:03:10 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:H1N9i.13544$RX.13185@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the > city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution. > Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail > system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There are > plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in the dead > of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to the city. Once > there one can use the 'el and overground/underground subway system. You > can get off of that close enough for a short bus hop and short walk to > work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread the suburbs out to a 50 > mile plus radius of the center of the city. > To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly > crowded situation. > No easy fix in sight. > I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as well > as Chicago. > Bill Baka Um no, I expressly do not want anyone to have to move where they do not want to, provided they have the means.             Date: 07 Jun 2007 11:11:05 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Bill wrote: > rotten wrote: >> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas >>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would >>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants >>> also hurt the environment in rural areas. >> >> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody >> else's transportation. >> >> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up >> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. >> > > So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the > city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution. > Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail > system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There > are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in the > dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to the > city. Once there one can use the 'el and overground/underground subway > system. You can get off of that close enough for a short bus hop and > short walk to work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread the > suburbs out to a 50 mile plus radius of the center of the city. > To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly > crowded situation. I don't think it would be "absurdly" crowded. Say a half million of these office workers come in every day (probably an overblown estimate). Say they all moved to Chicago overnight. With just under 2.9 million people today, that would bring Chicago's population to around 3.4 million. That's less than the population of Chicago in 1950 (3.6 million), when it peaked. > No easy fix in sight. > I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as > well as Chicago. I think New York, a much bigger city, gets half a million a day, so Chicago probably gets less. I don't have Excel here to check, but if you're curious, urban daytime population increases are available at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/daytime/daytimepop.html New York also has a considerably higher number of rail commuters.               Date: 07 Jun 2007 15:54:24 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Bolwerk wrote: > Bill wrote: >> rotten wrote: >>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan >>>> areas >>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone >>>> would >>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but >>>> pollutants >>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas. >>> >>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody >>> else's transportation. >>> >>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up >>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. >>> >> >> So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the >> city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution. >> Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail >> system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There >> are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in >> the dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to >> the city. Once there one can use the 'el and overground/underground >> subway system. You can get off of that close enough for a short bus >> hop and short walk to work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread >> the suburbs out to a 50 mile plus radius of the center of the city. >> To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly >> crowded situation. > > I don't think it would be "absurdly" crowded. Say a half million of > these office workers come in every day (probably an overblown estimate). > Say they all moved to Chicago overnight. With just under 2.9 million > people today, that would bring Chicago's population to around 3.4 > million. That's less than the population of Chicago in 1950 (3.6 > million), when it peaked. > >> No easy fix in sight. >> I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as >> well as Chicago. > > I think New York, a much bigger city, gets half a million a day, so > Chicago probably gets less. I don't have Excel here to check, but if > you're curious, urban daytime population increases are available at: > http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/daytime/daytimepop.html > > New York also has a considerably higher number of rail commuters. I just pulled up that excel sheet and what a surprise, New York goes up and down by about 563,000 each day compared to Chicago's measly 142,000. Houston is third with 403,000 and L.A. with 128,000. I've been to L.A. and Chicago recently and somehow these numbers don't add up to the horrendous traffic jams that occur every day. It is quite possible that a majority of cars clogging the roads are short commuters that could use alternate transportation but choose not to. That might explain some of the lard ball office workers I have had to sit next to. L.A. might only have a population change of 128,000 but I have tried to drive through it, starting at about 5 A.M. down by Anaheim and not getting to the north of San Fernando valley until 10 A.M. and that was back in 1973. L.A. is now on my 'places to avoid' list. Bill Baka                 Date: 07 Jun 2007 12:17:43 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Bill wrote: > Bolwerk wrote: >> Bill wrote: >>> rotten wrote: >>>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan >>>>> areas >>>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone >>>>> would >>>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but >>>>> pollutants >>>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas. >>>> >>>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody >>>> else's transportation. >>>> >>>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up >>>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. >>>> >>> >>> So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into >>> the city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your >>> solution. >>> Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra >>> rail system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. >>> There are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, >>> even in the dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight >>> shot to the city. Once there one can use the 'el and >>> overground/underground subway system. You can get off of that close >>> enough for a short bus hop and short walk to work. It works for >>> Chicago but has merely spread the suburbs out to a 50 mile plus >>> radius of the center of the city. >>> To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly >>> crowded situation. >> >> I don't think it would be "absurdly" crowded. Say a half million of >> these office workers come in every day (probably an overblown >> estimate). Say they all moved to Chicago overnight. With just under >> 2.9 million people today, that would bring Chicago's population to >> around 3.4 million. That's less than the population of Chicago in >> 1950 (3.6 million), when it peaked. >> >>> No easy fix in sight. >>> I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as >>> well as Chicago. >> >> I think New York, a much bigger city, gets half a million a day, so >> Chicago probably gets less. I don't have Excel here to check, but if >> you're curious, urban daytime population increases are available at: >> http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/daytime/daytimepop.html >> >> New York also has a considerably higher number of rail commuters. > > > I just pulled up that excel sheet and what a surprise, New York goes up > and down by about 563,000 each day compared to Chicago's measly 142,000. > Houston is third with 403,000 and L.A. with 128,000. I've been to L.A. > and Chicago recently and somehow these numbers don't add up to the > horrendous traffic jams that occur every day. > It is quite possible that a majority of cars clogging the roads are > short commuters that could use alternate transportation but choose not > to. That might explain some of the lard ball office workers I have had > to sit next to. L.A. might only have a population change of 128,000 but > I have tried to drive through it, starting at about 5 A.M. down by > Anaheim and not getting to the north of San Fernando valley until 10 > A.M. and that was back in 1973. > L.A. is now on my 'places to avoid' list. Well, don't forget this is about the urban population as defined by what's contained within its political boundaries. Much of that traffic clogging L.A. probably originates within L.A. This isn't telling you how people utilize their automobiles within their respective cities. Most large cities have cabs, livery vehicles, commuters from periphery areas (effectively suburbanites, but legally live in the city), municipal vehicles, etc. In N.Y., a cab strike means smooth flowing traffic for a day or so. L.A. may only be worse off because automobiles are so integrated into life that there aren't many chores that could be achieved without them.                   Date: 07 Jun 2007 17:09:46 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Bolwerk wrote: > Bill wrote: >> L.A. is now on my 'places to avoid' list. > > Well, don't forget this is about the urban population as defined by > what's contained within its political boundaries. Much of that traffic > clogging L.A. probably originates within L.A. > > This isn't telling you how people utilize their automobiles within their > respective cities. Most large cities have cabs, livery vehicles, > commuters from periphery areas (effectively suburbanites, but legally > live in the city), municipal vehicles, etc. In N.Y., a cab strike means > smooth flowing traffic for a day or so. > > L.A. may only be worse off because automobiles are so integrated into > life that there aren't many chores that could be achieved without them. There is public transit but it is really sub-standard, so the poor planning is probably the root of the mess there. The last time I flew on a commercial flight down there the pilot just couldn't resist saying "That bowl of brown air is our destination.", meaning of course L.A. Once a flight I was on was 'smogged out' and had to land at the Hollywood-Burbank airport instead. Living there and breathing that mud has to be very bad for the health, which makes a good reason to live somewhere else. I think it is up to a critical mass thing where there are just plain too many people living in a natural smog bowl. Bill Baka         Date: 04 Jun 2007 10:30:42 From: Pat Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > > news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in > >> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... > > >> > Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems > >> > simple enough to me. > > >> Simple is as simple does ;-) > > > Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a > > car" and "want a car". > > > There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far > > from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world > > might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and > > cabs, etc. > > > Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten > > path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and > > not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby > > (thankfully). So a car is needed. > > > Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge > > distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, > > which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance > > scales are very different. > > > But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car > > but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait > > for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. > > > I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be > > if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. > > If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should > > do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to > > live without a car. But it's a person's decision. > > That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people > would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there > are many who do. > > -Amy I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that would be redundant. ;-)           Date: 06 Jun 2007 16:30:52 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Pat wrote: > On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message >> >> news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" >>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems >>>>> simple enough to me. >>>> Simple is as simple does ;-) >>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a >>> car" and "want a car". >>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far >>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world >>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and >>> cabs, etc. >>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten >>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and >>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby >>> (thankfully). So a car is needed. >>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge >>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, >>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance >>> scales are very different. >>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car >>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait >>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. >>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be >>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. >>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should >>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to >>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision. >> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people >> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there >> are many who do. >> >> -Amy > > I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that > would be redundant. ;-) These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or suburbanized rural areas anyway. Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants also hurt the environment in rural areas.         Date: 04 Jun 2007 08:38:47 From: Pat Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... > > > Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems > > simple enough to me. > > Simple is as simple does ;-) Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a car" and "want a car". There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and cabs, etc. Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby (thankfully). So a car is needed. Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance scales are very different. But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to live without a car. But it's a person's decision. Take me, for example, do I NEED a motorcycle. No. It's back-up transportation on a good day. It's less safe, has less pollution control, and carries less. OTOH, it's a lot of fun to ride. I don't NEED one, but I WANT one (okay, two or three depending on how you count them). Rather than fighting over a few cars that are in good shape. I think the government would do better targetting the few worst pollution cars out there -- the ones running too rich or burning oil. Getting the worse 10% off the road through some incentive package would probably do a lot to reduce air pollution.           Date: 04 Jun 2007 11:44:15 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in >> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> > Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems >> > simple enough to me. >> >> Simple is as simple does ;-) > > > Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a > car" and "want a car". > > There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far > from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world > might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and > cabs, etc. > > Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten > path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and > not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby > (thankfully). So a car is needed. > > Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge > distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, > which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance > scales are very different. > > But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car > but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait > for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. > > I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be > if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. > If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should > do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to > live without a car. But it's a person's decision. That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there are many who do. -Amy         Date: 01 Jun 2007 21:42:01 From: Pat Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 1, 9:57 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc george conklin <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > > >> But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where > >> living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some > >> exceptions). > > > The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have > > jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything > > involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that > > would mean more jobs would have to got to China. > > Of course, if you don't need multiple cars life becomes a lot easier [1]. Multiple cars? You forgot to throw in the motorcycles. Oh, and the snow mobiles and the 4-wheelers. 4-wheels are big around here for transporation. > It's perfectly feasible to have a single wage earner, have the other > parent stay home with the children and still sock away 25+% of ones > earnings into savings. LOL. Now THAT'S funny. Lots of people around here make $30,000 to $40,000 a year. You want them to drop their salaries to $20,000 per year, sell a car so that one of them is home with the kids but no transportation (not even to the store or to school), and put $5,000 per year into the back. You're a comic genius !!! > > I think next summer when my second daughter is older we might take a > trip to Spain for a few weeks. > > [1] Cars really are terribly expensive. [2] > [2] $500 for maintenance for ours just got paid to our mechanics. > Terrible. I could buy a nice bicycle for that, or two good used ones. Cool. Maybe you should buy a bike and bring it up here to help me with transporation tomorrow. Let's see, it's a slow day. I need to get my 2 kids plus two other kids, three lacrosse bags, about 8 lacrosse sticks, two coolers and a box of lunch-stuff off to the "home" lacrosse game that's 20 miles away because our local lacrosse box is temporarily out of commission. You could do this after you help one of the coaches haul the two steel lacrosse nets over to the temp box. Maybe you could rig up some wheels on it or something. Public transporation isn't going to help much. I don't think the 3:30 bus that runs that direction (one per day) is going to help me get there by noon. As I said before, neither trains, planes,nor automobiles; not even bicycles are a suitable mode of transporation for everyone. It depends on where your live and what you do. If you live in the city and stay at/near home a lot, bikes are fine. If you live where I live, they aren't much of an option. Heck, I don't even get to ride my motorcycles as much as I would like. > > -- > Dane Buson - sigd...@unixbigots.org > This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. If this had been an > actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell you?         Date: 31 May 2007 09:54:08 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: >> >> Stop being such a self-victimizing drama queen. Jeez. The people >> around you are oblivious of you, whether they are walking, driving, >> eating dinner, riding their bikes, whatever. They are not going to >> accommodate your presence. It's not a jungle, people are not out to get >> you, it's just life going on. Stop personalizing it and acting like you >> expect to be the center of the universe. > > That sounds like grounds for a lot of revoked drivers' licenses to me. You say that like it's a *bad* thing. ;-) Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply weren't on the road? -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org The little town that time forgot, Where all the women are strong, All the men are good-looking, And all the children above-average. -- Prairie Home Companion           Date: 31 May 2007 13:16:14 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Dane Buson wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> Stop being such a self-victimizing drama queen. Jeez. The people >>> around you are oblivious of you, whether they are walking, driving, >>> eating dinner, riding their bikes, whatever. They are not going to >>> accommodate your presence. It's not a jungle, people are not out to get >>> you, it's just life going on. Stop personalizing it and acting like you >>> expect to be the center of the universe. >> That sounds like grounds for a lot of revoked drivers' licenses to me. > > You say that like it's a *bad* thing. ;-) The *bad* thing is that moron drivers don't have their licenses revoked more easily. So, no, I don't think every-man-for-himself is an excuse for permitting stupidity with a potentially deadly vehicle. > Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a > mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. > > I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with > me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply > weren't on the road? It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the automobile.             Date: 08 Jun 2007 15:06:37 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com > wrote: > rotten wrote: > > On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Pat wrote: > >>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > >>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >>>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > >>>>news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > >>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > >>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in > >>>>>> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems > >>>>>>> simple enough to me. > >>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-) > >>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a > >>>>> car" and "want a car". > >>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far > >>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world > >>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and > >>>>> cabs, etc. > >>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten > >>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and > >>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby > >>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed. > >>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge > >>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, > >>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance > >>>>> scales are very different. > >>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car > >>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait > >>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. > >>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be > >>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. > >>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should > >>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to > >>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision. > >>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people > >>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there > >>>> are many who do. > >>>> -Amy > >>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that > >>> would be redundant. ;-) > >> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or > >> suburbanized rural areas anyway. > > >> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas > >> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would > >> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants > >> also hurt the environment in rural areas. > > > I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody > > else's transportation. > > I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's > transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your > transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, > and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal > appropriations. A gas tax makes a nice user fee. So do tolls. Gas taxes are just easier to administer. > Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk. The cost of a sidewalk in high traffic areas is minimal. I've never heard anyone complain about sidewalks. > > As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up > > air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. > > Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In > any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. > Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options. Air quality has risen since they were implemented, I'd call them effective. If people only have that option and want more they're going to have to move, or wait until their local density reaches a point at which mass transit becomes feasible.             Date: 08 Jun 2007 08:36:31 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com > wrote: > rotten wrote: > > On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Pat wrote: > >>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > >>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >>>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > >>>>news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > >>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > >>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in > >>>>>> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems > >>>>>>> simple enough to me. > >>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-) > >>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a > >>>>> car" and "want a car". > >>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far > >>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world > >>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and > >>>>> cabs, etc. > >>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten > >>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and > >>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby > >>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed. > >>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge > >>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, > >>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance > >>>>> scales are very different. > >>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car > >>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait > >>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. > >>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be > >>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. > >>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should > >>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to > >>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision. > >>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people > >>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there > >>>> are many who do. > >>>> -Amy > >>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that > >>> would be redundant. ;-) > >> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or > >> suburbanized rural areas anyway. > > >> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas > >> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would > >> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants > >> also hurt the environment in rural areas. > > > I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody > > else's transportation. > > I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's > transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your > transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, > and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal > appropriations. > > Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk. The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers? Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion. > > As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up > > air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. > > Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In > any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. > Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options. That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center where more transportation options are available.               Date: 08 Jun 2007 18:55:44 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks rotten wrote: > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up >>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. >> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In >> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. >> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options. > > That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to > somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center > where more transportation options are available. > Sanity check. Nobody in their right mind is going to give up a house in the burbs complete with a little patch of lawn to move into a shack of an apartment in the middle of the city. That would require selling the weekend boat, lawnmower, cars, and all the things people are now working to have the elusive "American Dream". Not going to happen. Bill Baka                 Date: 08 Jun 2007 19:37:35 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:QChai.25884$JZ3.12329@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > rotten wrote: > > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up > >>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. > >> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In > >> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. > >> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options. > > > > That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to > > somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center > > where more transportation options are available. > > > Sanity check. > Nobody in their right mind is going to give up a house in the burbs > complete with a little patch of lawn to move into a shack of an > apartment in the middle of the city. > That would require selling the weekend boat, lawnmower, cars, and all > the things people are now working to have the elusive "American Dream". > Not going to happen. > Bill Baka If you looked at the New York Times article on second home ownership, they were suggesting just that, giving the example of a woman who did not know how to change the battery in her second home's fire alarm because she did not have her superintendent to call!!! Yes, fear, fear fear of not having a superintendent to call!!!!!                   Date: 08 Jun 2007 20:00:56 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks George Conklin wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >> Sanity check. >> Nobody in their right mind is going to give up a house in the burbs >> complete with a little patch of lawn to move into a shack of an >> apartment in the middle of the city. >> That would require selling the weekend boat, lawnmower, cars, and all >> the things people are now working to have the elusive "American Dream". >> Not going to happen. >> Bill Baka > > If you looked at the New York Times article on second home ownership, > they were suggesting just that, giving the example of a woman who did not > know how to change the battery in her second home's fire alarm because she > did not have her superintendent to call!!! Yes, fear, fear fear of not > having a superintendent to call!!!!! > > > Yes, I saw that one and could only shake my head. How does someone that stupid even get the money for a second home? I wonder if she got a flat tire on her car would she wait for a tow truck to pass by if she was out of cell phone range????? Talk about "Dumbing down" America. Bill Baka               Date: 08 Jun 2007 14:30:16 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks rotten wrote: > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> rotten wrote: >>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Pat wrote: >>>>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" >>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message >>>>>> news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" >>>>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>>>> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems >>>>>>>>> simple enough to me. >>>>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-) >>>>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a >>>>>>> car" and "want a car". >>>>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far >>>>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world >>>>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and >>>>>>> cabs, etc. >>>>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten >>>>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and >>>>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby >>>>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed. >>>>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge >>>>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, >>>>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance >>>>>>> scales are very different. >>>>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car >>>>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait >>>>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. >>>>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be >>>>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. >>>>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should >>>>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to >>>>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision. >>>>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people >>>>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there >>>>>> are many who do. >>>>>> -Amy >>>>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that >>>>> would be redundant. ;-) >>>> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or >>>> suburbanized rural areas anyway. >>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas >>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would >>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants >>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas. >>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody >>> else's transportation. >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal >> appropriations. >> >> Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk. > > The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care > about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers? > Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion. I was just pointing out that it gets kind of hairy to make claims that something that governments have been doing throughout history should not be done (arguably, transportation might be the reason governments became as complex as they did). Not that I even entirely even disagree with you, but the impact of what you're proposing (direct user fees) could be extremely far-reaching, as I and others have mentioned before. Also, I would probably disagree that sidewalks are a small matter. It's like with roads: maintaining one may be a drop in a bucket, but you multiply them out across a large city or country and you see there's a massive budget(s?) for maintaining them. Of course, in some cases, individuals do maintain them, however. In any case, I expect you might be able to get a busy highway to pay for itself. I doubt you could get the whole road system to pay for itself, at least not directly. >>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up >>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. >> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In >> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. >> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options. > > That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to > somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center > where more transportation options are available. That sounds like giving up to me. On top of that, what you're proposing has the potential to drive up the transportation costs for suburbanites by leaps and bounds. It might force people of certain income levels into cities. They can move, or transit could be built in places where it would be effective.               Date: 08 Jun 2007 18:26:41 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1181316991.564360.204360@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > rotten wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Pat wrote: > > >>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > > >>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > >>>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > > >>>>news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > >>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > > >>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in > > >>>>>> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... > > >>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems > > >>>>>>> simple enough to me. > > >>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-) > > >>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a > > >>>>> car" and "want a car". > > >>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far > > >>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world > > >>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and > > >>>>> cabs, etc. > > >>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten > > >>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and > > >>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby > > >>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed. > > >>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge > > >>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, > > >>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance > > >>>>> scales are very different. > > >>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car > > >>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait > > >>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. > > >>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be > > >>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. > > >>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should > > >>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to > > >>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision. > > >>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people > > >>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there > > >>>> are many who do. > > >>>> -Amy > > >>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that > > >>> would be redundant. ;-) > > >> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or > > >> suburbanized rural areas anyway. > > > > >> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas > > >> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would > > >> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants > > >> also hurt the environment in rural areas. > > > > > I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody > > > else's transportation. > > > > I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's > > transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your > > transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, > > and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal > > appropriations. > > > > Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk. > > The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care > about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers? > Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion. > > > > As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up > > > air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. > > > > Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In > > any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. > > Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options. > > That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to > somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center > where more transportation options are available. > I am not sure that having only one option: the subway, is "choice." You can use a cab almost anywhere, so that does not count.             Date: 07 Jun 2007 08:12:12 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com > wrote: > I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's > transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your > transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, > and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal > appropriations. User fees as much as possible. > > As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up > > air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. > > Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In > any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. > Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options. No they don't. If you want transit, move to a city. We shouldn't have mass transit in areas with low population density, just to give people a choice. I'm pro-choice, but I'm also realistic. I'd like to live in the country, but I don't expect a city-like nightlife. People who live in the outskirts shouldn't expect transit.               Date: 07 Jun 2007 18:40:01 From: Jeremy Parker Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in [snip] > No they don't. If you want transit, move to a city. We shouldn't > have > mass transit in areas with low population density, just to give > people > a choice. [snip] There's a solution to that. It's generally reckoned that the catchment area for a transit station is a ten minute trip to get to the station. For a pedestrian that's about half a mile. However, for a cyclist, the distance is four times as much, about two miles. The population served goes up with area served, which goes up as the square of the distance to the station. Thus a transit station could serve sixteen times as many customers, if those customers were cyclists, as it could serve if the customers were pedestrians. There's more. With the two mile feeder, the stations can be further apart. Actually, the stations may well have been built far apart anyway. Many commuter rail lines were originally built to run steam trains. Because steam trains are slow at accelerating and decelerating, the stations were originally built a considerable distance apart, and so don't serve well even the population alongside the tracks, unless that population rides bikes. Stopping at stations wastes time, if those stations are not your station. Cut down on the station stops, and all trains become expresses Jeremy Parker               Date: 07 Jun 2007 10:25:47 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal >> appropriations. > > User fees as much as possible. So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on odometer readings when you register every year. [1] I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related goods. [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to register their car to avoid paying... -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org The world really isn't any worse. It's just that the news coverage is so much better.               Date: 07 Jun 2007 11:22:26 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks rotten wrote: > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal >> appropriations. > > User fees as much as possible. > >>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up >>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. >> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In >> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. >> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options. > > No they don't. If you want transit, move to a city. We shouldn't have > mass transit in areas with low population density, just to give people > a choice. I'm pro-choice, but I'm also realistic. I'd like to live in > the country, but I don't expect a city-like nightlife. People who live > in the outskirts shouldn't expect transit. Um, I live in a pretty large city as cities go, and I was talking about cities. And no, we shouldn't have mass transit in areas with low population density. Mass transit should absolutely be built where it will be most effective.             Date: 31 May 2007 10:35:49 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote: > Dane Buson wrote: > >> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a >> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. >> >> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with >> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply >> weren't on the road? > > It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is > that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the > automobile. In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org air, n.: A nutritious substance supplied by a bountiful Providence for the fattening of the poor. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"               Date: 31 May 2007 13:58:13 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >> Dane Buson wrote: >> >>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a >>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. >>> >>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with >>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply >>> weren't on the road? >> >> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is >> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >> automobile. > > In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a car.                 Date: 08 Jun 2007 15:04:10 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 8, 2:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com > wrote: > rotten wrote: > > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> rotten wrote: > >>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Pat wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > >>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >>>>>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > >>>>>>news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" > >>>>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in > >>>>>>>> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems > >>>>>>>>> simple enough to me. > >>>>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-) > >>>>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a > >>>>>>> car" and "want a car". > >>>>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far > >>>>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world > >>>>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and > >>>>>>> cabs, etc. > >>>>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten > >>>>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and > >>>>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby > >>>>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed. > >>>>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge > >>>>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, > >>>>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance > >>>>>>> scales are very different. > >>>>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car > >>>>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait > >>>>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. > >>>>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be > >>>>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. > >>>>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should > >>>>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to > >>>>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision. > >>>>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people > >>>>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there > >>>>>> are many who do. > >>>>>> -Amy > >>>>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that > >>>>> would be redundant. ;-) > >>>> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or > >>>> suburbanized rural areas anyway. > >>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas > >>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would > >>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants > >>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas. > >>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody > >>> else's transportation. > >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's > >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your > >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, > >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal > >> appropriations. > > >> Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk. > > > The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care > > about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers? > > Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion. > > I was just pointing out that it gets kind of hairy to make claims that > something that governments have been doing throughout history should not > be done (arguably, transportation might be the reason governments became > as complex as they did). Not that I even entirely even disagree with > you, but the impact of what you're proposing (direct user fees) could be > extremely far-reaching, as I and others have mentioned before. It's partially and mostly what we do now. > In any case, I expect you might be able to get a busy highway to pay for > itself. I doubt you could get the whole road system to pay for itself, > at least not directly. Why not? We pretty much do that now as it is. > >>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up > >>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. > >> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In > >> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. > >> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options. > > > That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to > > somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center > > where more transportation options are available. > > That sounds like giving up to me. On top of that, what you're proposing > has the potential to drive up the transportation costs for suburbanites > by leaps and bounds. It might force people of certain income levels > into cities. No, it's not giving up, it's letting people make their own choices about where and how they live. It won't drive up the transportation costs for suburbanites by leaps and bounds at all. It will barely raise them at all.                   Date: 09 Jun 2007 20:26:39 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks rotten wrote: > On Jun 8, 2:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> rotten wrote: >>> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> rotten wrote: >>>>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Pat wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" >>>>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:1180971527.635989.185750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" >>>>>>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>>>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems >>>>>>>>>>> simple enough to me. >>>>>>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-) >>>>>>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a >>>>>>>>> car" and "want a car". >>>>>>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far >>>>>>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world >>>>>>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and >>>>>>>>> cabs, etc. >>>>>>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten >>>>>>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and >>>>>>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby >>>>>>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed. >>>>>>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge >>>>>>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes, >>>>>>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance >>>>>>>>> scales are very different. >>>>>>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car >>>>>>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait >>>>>>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out. >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be >>>>>>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide. >>>>>>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should >>>>>>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to >>>>>>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision. >>>>>>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people >>>>>>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there >>>>>>>> are many who do. >>>>>>>> -Amy >>>>>>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that >>>>>>> would be redundant. ;-) >>>>>> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or >>>>>> suburbanized rural areas anyway. >>>>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas >>>>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would >>>>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants >>>>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas. >>>>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody >>>>> else's transportation. >>>> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's >>>> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your >>>> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, >>>> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal >>>> appropriations. >>>> Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk. >>> The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care >>> about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers? >>> Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion. >> I was just pointing out that it gets kind of hairy to make claims that >> something that governments have been doing throughout history should not >> be done (arguably, transportation might be the reason governments became >> as complex as they did). Not that I even entirely even disagree with >> you, but the impact of what you're proposing (direct user fees) could be >> extremely far-reaching, as I and others have mentioned before. > > It's partially and mostly what we do now. Partially, yeah. >> In any case, I expect you might be able to get a busy highway to pay for >> itself. I doubt you could get the whole road system to pay for itself, >> at least not directly. > > Why not? We pretty much do that now as it is. A well-maintained local road sometimes only gets a few cars a day. I rather doubt those could pay for themselves directly under any circumstances. >>>>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up >>>>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options. >>>> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In >>>> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles. >>>> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options. >>> That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to >>> somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center >>> where more transportation options are available. >> That sounds like giving up to me. On top of that, what you're proposing >> has the potential to drive up the transportation costs for suburbanites >> by leaps and bounds. It might force people of certain income levels >> into cities. > > No, it's not giving up, it's letting people make their own choices > about where and how they live. It won't drive up the transportation > costs for suburbanites by leaps and bounds at all. It will barely > raise them at all. Wait, so, let's say that that direct user fees covering the entire cost of a trip raises the price of gasoline by a dollar per gallon (probably a low estimate). That sounds like a pretty big hit, especially for the people most likely to drive needlessly large cars.                     Date: 09 Jun 2007 21:45:06 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:466b4566$0$8956$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... Do you understand what I'm talking about though? I'm just talking about a tax on gasoline to pay for roads. It doesn't pay "per road" or anything like that. It's just a big general fund to pay for roads. It's not a perfect "user fee" but it's better than a general fund IMO.                       Date: 09 Jun 2007 22:01:02 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Joe the Aroma wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:466b4566$0$8956$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > Do you understand what I'm talking about though? I'm just talking about a > tax on gasoline to pay for roads. It doesn't pay "per road" or anything like > that. It's just a big general fund to pay for roads. It's not a perfect > "user fee" but it's better than a general fund IMO. I know you're not talking about a "per road" user fee (which would be more like a toll, or graded toll anyway). I was under the impression that you thought that a user fee could pay for 100% of the system without shifting the financial burden so radically. It's just that the most optimistic estimates I've heard for the current user fee system is that they cover something like 60% of highway traffic (this isn't counting the huge part of the system that isn't highway traffic). In any case, I like your idea, I just don't really think it's feasible politically, much less practically.                 Date: 07 Jun 2007 13:54:54 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's > >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your > >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, > >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal > >> appropriations. > > > User fees as much as possible. > > So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will > become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax > you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on > odometer readings when you register every year. [1] > > I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be > built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like > Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related > goods. > > [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to > register their car to avoid paying... > > -- > Dane Buson - sigd...@unixbigots.org > The world really isn't any worse. > It's just that the news coverage is so much better. Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.                   Date: 07 Jun 2007 14:30:21 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: >> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's >> >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your >> >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, >> >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal >> >> appropriations. >> >> > User fees as much as possible. >> >> So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will >> become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax >> you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on >> odometer readings when you register every year. [1] >> >> I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be >> built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like >> Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related >> goods. >> >> [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to >> register their car to avoid paying... > > Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for > walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be > able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry. Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic, but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there. I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people to agree to cough up the money up front. When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You can see the same effect in many places in life. ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence. -- H. L. Mencken                 Date: 01 Jun 2007 08:11:01 From: Clark F Morris Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > >"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Dane Buson wrote: >>> >>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a >>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. >>>> >>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with >>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply >>>> weren't on the road? >>> >>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is >>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>> automobile. >> >> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > >In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a >car. Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new sprawled suburban areas. >                   Date: 01 Jun 2007 12:41:35 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Clark F Morris wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Dane Buson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a >>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. >>>>> >>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with >>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply >>>>> weren't on the road? >>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is >>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>> automobile. >>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a >> car. > Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new > sprawled suburban areas. I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one (Freeway and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small bicycle trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are beyond bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in my business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life works unless you are a city office drone. Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). Bill (realistic) Baka                     Date: 01 Jun 2007 13:21:36 From: george conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:3uU7i.31759$Um6.28136@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... > Clark F Morris wrote: >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" >> <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> >>> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>> news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Dane Buson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a >>>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with >>>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply >>>>>> weren't on the road? >>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part >>>>> is >>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>>> automobile. >>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning >>> a car. >> Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new >> sprawled suburban areas. > > I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 LBS > even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small town to > get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on a bike > unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the American way > of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. Cities have always "sprawled" Even Queen Elizabeth I was against London growing. The term itself shows a strong anti-urban bias.                 Date: 31 May 2007 23:27:58 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:2YE7i.9346$dy1.323@bigfe9... > In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a > car. It's feasible here too, it just makes you uncool. Personally, I love my car.                 Date: 31 May 2007 13:30:42 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is >>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>> automobile. >> >> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > > In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a > car. How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more people arranging their lives to live without cars. Will it be a burden for some people to lose their licenses? Yes, absolutely. On the other hand, boo-fucking-hoo. Lets talk about the inconvenience of being dead from negligent drivers. We see lots of examples of people getting slaps of the wrist ($500 fines for example) after they kill people with their car. Example - post #5 in this thread: http://tinyurl.com/3dz7g9 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/thread/ 2c2a923b6af6f6b9/64b1f912e25a5a4a?lnk=st&q=rec.bicycles.misc+mother+kill&rnum =46#64b1f912e25a5a4a -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org When the speaker and he to whom he is speaking do not understand, that is metaphysics. -- Voltaire                   Date: 31 May 2007 16:10:31 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> > wrote: >> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is >>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>> automobile. >>> >>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >> >> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning >> a >> car. > > How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather > think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more > people arranging their lives to live without cars. I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I would have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than I am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would probably starve if they did not have one.                     Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:31:30 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message > news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> >> wrote: >>> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is >>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>>> automobile. >>>> >>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, they >>>> shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone being >>>> dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >>> >>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a >>> car. >> >> How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather think >> that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more people >> arranging their lives to live without cars. > > I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I would > have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than I am > if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would probably > starve if they did not have one. How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it a *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are going to STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or a Strawman? As to living without a car, I suppose noone has ever heard of ride sharing, elder care, friends and neighbors or any other resource? Noone said losing your license would be easy for everyone, but it shouldn't be. It's a punishment. If it is a hardship, maybe you'll be more careful when you do get your license back. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't make eight cats pull a sled through the snow.                       Date: 01 Jun 2007 13:38:15 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:io16j4-9pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> > wrote: >> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> >>> wrote: >>>> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part >>>>>> is >>>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>>>> automobile. >>>>> >>>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >>>>> they >>>>> shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone being >>>>> dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >>>> >>>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without >>>> owning a >>>> car. >>> >>> How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather >>> think >>> that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more people >>> arranging their lives to live without cars. >> >> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I >> would >> have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than >> I am >> if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would probably >> starve if they did not have one. > > How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it a > *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are going to > STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or a Strawman? I didn't say people are going to starve. But there would be little political support for making it more difficult to get a driver's license, because people know that it simply isn't practical in most places not to be able to drive. Therefore, making getting a license harder amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime is that they have not gotten their license yet. Which is precisely why people are not going to starve, unless something goes wrong with our ability to distribute fuel or the highway system. -Amy                         Date: 01 Jun 2007 19:26:35 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship >> <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> >>> >>> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I >>> would have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious >>> about it than I am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many >>> people I know would probably starve if they did not have one. >> >> How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it a >> *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are going >> to STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or a >> Strawman? > > I didn't say people are going to starve. I apologize if I misconstrued your statement. But I have problems seeing how else I'm supposed to read this: "Many people I know would probably starve if they did not have one." > But there would be little political support for making it more > difficult to get a driver's license, because people know that it > simply isn't practical in most places not to be able to drive. I acknowledge the complete lack of political support. I do take issue with one word in the preceeding sentence. The phrase "because people know" would be more accurately rendered "because people think" in my judgement. Most people spend very little time really thinking about alternatives. Once the change is upon them, people tend to become much more creative. > Therefore, making getting a license harder amounts to cruel and > unusual punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their > only crime is that they have not gotten their license yet. "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at." I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here, aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie? > Which is precisely why people are not going to starve, unless > something goes wrong with our ability to distribute fuel or the > highway system. Well, also because I believe our social safety network is more robust than that. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is blissfully ignorant." -John Simon                           Date: 02 Jun 2007 08:28:26 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:r317j4-30e.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> > wrote: >> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship >>> <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> >>>> >>>> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I >>>> would have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious >>>> about it than I am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many >>>> people I know would probably starve if they did not have one. >>> >>> How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it a >>> *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are going >>> to STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or a >>> Strawman? >> >> I didn't say people are going to starve. > > I apologize if I misconstrued your statement. But I have problems > seeing how else I'm supposed to read this: > > "Many people I know would probably starve if they did not have one." > >> But there would be little political support for making it more >> difficult to get a driver's license, because people know that it >> simply isn't practical in most places not to be able to drive. > > I acknowledge the complete lack of political support. I do take issue > with one word in the preceeding sentence. The phrase "because people > know" would be more accurately rendered "because people think" in my > judgement. Most people spend very little time really thinking about > alternatives. Once the change is upon them, people tend to become much > more creative. > >> Therefore, making getting a license harder amounts to cruel and >> unusual punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their >> only crime is that they have not gotten their license yet. > > "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual > punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime > is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at." > > I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as > cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here, > aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie? You don't have to drink alcohol to live, but in most places you do have to buy food. I am neither liberal nor conservative. I call em as I see em, and I feel no need to be lock step with anyone's political agenda.                             Date: 03 Jun 2007 10:26:34 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Amy Blankenship wrote: > "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message > news:r317j4-30e.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual >> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime >> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at." >> >> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as >> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here, >> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie? > > You don't have to drink alcohol to live... It helps sometimes. ;) And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow! > I am neither liberal nor conservative. I call em as I see em, and I feel no > need to be lock step with anyone's political agenda. > >                               Date: 03 Jun 2007 09:48:32 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:4662cfa6$0$30685$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Amy Blankenship wrote: >> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> news:r317j4-30e.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual >>> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime >>> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at." >>> >>> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as >>> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here, >>> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie? >> >> You don't have to drink alcohol to live... > > It helps sometimes. ;) > > And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow! What? You have something against grapes??? Looks like the muscadines and eldeberries are planning a banner year here if we don't get another big one. -Amy                                 Date: 03 Jun 2007 10:57:12 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Amy Blankenship wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4662cfa6$0$30685$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Amy Blankenship wrote: >>> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>> news:r317j4-30e.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>>> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual >>>> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime >>>> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at." >>>> >>>> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as >>>> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here, >>>> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie? >>> You don't have to drink alcohol to live... >> It helps sometimes. ;) >> >> And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow! > > What? You have something against grapes??? I love grapes. I'm not a big fan of wine, however. > Looks like the muscadines and eldeberries are planning a banner year here if > we don't get another big one. I never thought of those as good candidates for fermentation.                     Date: 31 May 2007 23:25:25 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:sRG7i.8228$xu.2408@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message > news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> >> wrote: >>> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part >>>>> is >>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>>> automobile. >>>> >>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >>> >>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning >>> a >>> car. >> >> How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather >> think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more >> people arranging their lives to live without cars. > > I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I would > have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than I > am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would > probably starve if they did not have one. I live in Allston, MA. I could survive without a car if I wanted to, but I honestly like my car and I like driving.               Date: 31 May 2007 13:15:36 From: Stephen Sprunk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. Most, if not all, states have various laws that allow for revocation of a license under various conditions. However, there is no periodic testing and it's based on various crimes one commits, like reckless driving or DWI, and typically one gets the license back automatically after a period of time. In a sense, it's left to the insurance companies -- if someone will insure you, after considering your driving record, you're assumed to be competent. This could definitely be improved. Still, revoking licenses doesn't do much good. Something like 25% of drivers here are unlicensed, and they're only caught if they happen to commit some other crime like speeding. This is, unfortunately, the primary way that illegal aliens are caught here: they get stopped for speeding (or get in an accident and are too injured to run), arrested because they don't have a license, and deported if INS can prove they aren't in the country legally. OTOH, if someone is a decent driver, they can go for years without a license and nobody will ever know. As a response, the cops now pull people over who _aren't_ speeding, claiming that's a sign of DWI. The logic of assuming people who _aren't_ committing a crime are criminals is amazing. 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       Date: 30 May 2007 17:09:33 From: Clark F Morris Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:16:59 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <1180466642.410844.183100@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg >> >> Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the >> ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down >> the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to >> boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this >> driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process >> (something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in >> the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows >> the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead >> and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped >> some feet further to shout something at me. >> >> So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the >> jungle. Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the >> hunting season..." > >Stop being such a self-victimizing drama queen. Jeez. The people >around you are oblivious of you, whether they are walking, driving, >eating dinner, riding their bikes, whatever. They are not going to >accommodate your presence. It's not a jungle, people are not out to get >you, it's just life going on. Stop personalizing it and acting like you >expect to be the center of the universe. That's right Tim. When walking we have to look out for inattentive drivers like you who don't yield the right of way to pedestrians and probably don't even look for them.         Date: 31 May 2007 09:51:54 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:16:59 -0500, Tim McNamara >> >>Stop being such a self-victimizing drama queen. Jeez. The people >>around you are oblivious of you, whether they are walking, driving, >>eating dinner, riding their bikes, whatever. They are not going to >>accommodate your presence. It's not a jungle, people are not out to get >>you, it's just life going on. Stop personalizing it and acting like you >>expect to be the center of the universe. > > That's right Tim. When walking we have to look out for inattentive > drivers like you who don't yield the right of way to pedestrians and > probably don't even look for them. Err, unless I'm mistaken, Tim is an avid *cyclist*. He's not saying anyone should assault cyclists or pedestrians. Rather he's saying that rarely is anyone 'out to get you'. Sure there are oblivious drivers, sure there are *incompetent* drivers. In 99.9% of the cases, drivers are just people trying to get from point A to point B. They just want to get there with minimal trouble and interaction with anyone. Of course it's the 0.1% that are obstreperous children prone to traffic tantrums that we often remember best. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org Mind that child- they may be wiped out of existence   Date: 29 May 2007 09:36:37 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: worse than Iraq On May 25, 4:04 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net > wrote: > > > Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and > > > tandems.- > > > They know how to drive. The avarage semi driver is well above the > > average Joe SUV. > > When there is an accident with an 18-wheeler, the car driver is 9 times more > likely to be killed.- If it is 16 times for an SUV vs. car, it must be like 160 times more deadly in a semi vs. car. Imagine what it would be if semi drivers were as poorly trained and as careless as SUV drivers. Probably worse than Iraq.     Date: 29 May 2007 15:52:56 From: DI Subject: Re: worse than Iraq "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1180456597.443989.177320@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On May 25, 4:04 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> > wrote: >> >> When there is an accident with an 18-wheeler, the car driver is 9 times >> more >> likely to be killed.- > > If it is 16 times for an SUV vs. car, A good reason to drive one.     Date: 29 May 2007 12:29:57 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: worse than Iraq "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1180456597.443989.177320@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On May 25, 4:04 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >> > > Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and >> > > tandems.- >> >> > They know how to drive. The avarage semi driver is well above the >> > average Joe SUV. >> >> When there is an accident with an 18-wheeler, the car driver is 9 times >> more >> likely to be killed.- > > If it is 16 times for an SUV vs. car, it must be like 160 times more > deadly in a semi vs. car. Imagine what it would be if semi drivers > were as poorly trained and as careless as SUV drivers. Probably worse > than Iraq. Are there a lot of SUV drivers in Iraq?       Date: 31 May 2007 11:48:59 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: worse than Iraq Amy Blankenship wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1180456597.443989.177320@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> If it is 16 times for an SUV vs. car, it must be like 160 times more >> deadly in a semi vs. car. Imagine what it would be if semi drivers >> were as poorly trained and as careless as SUV drivers. Probably worse >> than Iraq. > > Are there a lot of SUV drivers in Iraq? Hummers :-D   Date: 28 May 2007 08:53:46 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 28, 11:18 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com > wrote: > George Conklin wrote: > > "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> Joe the Aroma wrote: > >>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > >>>news:Ry34i.9666$923.6763@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > >>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message > >>>>news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... > >>>>> "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote in message > >>>>>news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >>>>>> "John Mara" <johnm...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >>>>>>> george conklin wrote: > > >>>>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the > > New > >>>>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree > > to > >>>>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in > >>>>>>>> time. > >>>>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has > >>>>>>> enacted regulations for them. > > >>>>>>>http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story > > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> John Mara > > >>>>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > >>>>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past > > used > >>>>>> to be. > > >>>>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's > >>>>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. > >>>> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes > >>>> anyway... > >>> Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to > > encourage > >>> "things you like". > >> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted > >> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? > >> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. > > > Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price > > of food down, down, down. > > In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? > > > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you > > obviously do not. > > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: > > >http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. > > I don't see any reason to open that URL. Even if "poverty today is > concentrated in rural areas," you have to do better than call me stupid > if you want to find a way to blame it on cities. Yes, there's a lot of poverty in rural areas. And Yes, it is probably a disproportional amount. But I think there are reasons for it. Some are directly related to "the city" but some aren't. I'll give you a few examples that you can use are you would like. Say you have an anti-poverty program, such as a HUD Section 8 program. Say the program targets families at or below 50% of median income. What exactly is median income and how are income limited based on it? Some college professor, somewhere, is immediately going to try to give me a definition of median income being a number where half the families earn more and half earn less. Then, I would be forced to point out that that is wrong. Median income has nothing to do with what half or families earn. Wake up and smell the computer program. For a rural area, income limits based on "median income" use the HIGHER of the county's median income OR the statewide, non-metro median. So for very many rural counties, it's is the statewide median that is used. Therefore, a significantly larger group than "half" is below median income. In rich counties, like Westchester, a limit kicks in so that under half of families are below AMI. Another difference the gov't's "poverty" number is a national number. In rural areas, it is cheaper to live and companies pay less. So incomes are lower, even for the same lifestyle. So more people in the rural areas are below poverty. Saying all of that, I do agree that there's a LOT of poverty in rural America. There's way too much of it. Come out here and visit the Rez and see for yourself. Come here to Appalacia and take a look around.     Date: 28 May 2007 14:49:40 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Pat wrote: > On May 28, 11:18 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> George Conklin wrote: >>> "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>> Joe the Aroma wrote: >>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:Ry34i.9666$923.6763@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >>>>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message >>>>>> news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... >>>>>>> "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>>>> "John Mara" <johnm...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>>>>>> george conklin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the >>> New >>>>>>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree >>> to >>>>>>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in >>>>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has >>>>>>>>> enacted regulations for them. >>>>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> John Mara >>>>>>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of >>>>>>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past >>> used >>>>>>>> to be. >>>>>>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's >>>>>>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. >>>>>> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes >>>>>> anyway... >>>>> Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to >>> encourage >>>>> "things you like". >>>> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted >>>> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? >>>> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. >>> Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price >>> of food down, down, down. >> In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? >> >>> I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you >>> obviously do not. >>> Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: >>> http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm >>> Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. >> I don't see any reason to open that URL. Even if "poverty today is >> concentrated in rural areas," you have to do better than call me stupid >> if you want to find a way to blame it on cities. > > Yes, there's a lot of poverty in rural areas. And Yes, it is probably > a disproportional amount. But I think there are reasons for it. Some > are directly related to "the city" but some aren't. I'll give you a > few examples that you can use are you would like. That there's disproportionate poverty in rural areas is well known, and nobody is denying it, near as I can tell. The point was that George blames urban areas for failings of rural economies. Many of these failings go back generations.     Date: 28 May 2007 16:23:30 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1180367626.248972.320680@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On May 28, 11:18 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > George Conklin wrote: > > > "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > >> Joe the Aroma wrote: > > >>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:Ry34i.9666$923.6763@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > >>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message > > >>>>news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... > > >>>>> "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote in message > > >>>>>news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > >>>>>> "John Mara" <johnm...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message > > >>>>>>news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > >>>>>>> george conklin wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the > > > New > > >>>>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree > > > to > > >>>>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in > > >>>>>>>> time. > > >>>>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has > > >>>>>>> enacted regulations for them. > > > > >>>>>>>http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story > > > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> John Mara > > > > >>>>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > > >>>>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past > > > used > > >>>>>> to be. > > > > >>>>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's > > >>>>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. > > >>>> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes > > >>>> anyway... > > >>> Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to > > > encourage > > >>> "things you like". > > >> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted > > >> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? > > >> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. > > > > > Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price > > > of food down, down, down. > > > > In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? > > > > > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you > > > obviously do not. > > > > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: > > > > >http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > > > > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. > > > > I don't see any reason to open that URL. Even if "poverty today is > > concentrated in rural areas," you have to do better than call me stupid > > if you want to find a way to blame it on cities. > > Yes, there's a lot of poverty in rural areas. And Yes, it is probably > a disproportional amount. But I think there are reasons for it. Some > are directly related to "the city" but some aren't. I'll give you a > few examples that you can use are you would like. > Imagine someone in this day and age (see below) who does not know what a median is. Pitiful. > Say you have an anti-poverty program, such as a HUD Section 8 > program. Say the program targets families at or below 50% of median > income. What exactly is median income and how are income limited > based on it? Some college professor, somewhere, is immediately going > to try to give me a definition of median income being a number where > half the families earn more and half earn less. Then, I would be > forced to point out that that is wrong. Median income has nothing to > do with what half or families earn. Such confusion. It must be the pills.   Date: 27 May 2007 01:12:59 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <Zf56i.4470$C96.3487@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net >, "Bill" <you.gotta@be.kidding > writes: > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's >> healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment. > > On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any just > about any transportation method except walking. > >:-) The CO2 emitted by humans and other life forms comes from, and is recycled and reabsorbed by the current biosphere. The problematic CO2 comes from sources that have long been sequestered from the environment in mineralogical forms, and then re-released when burnt as fossil fuels, inflicting an accumulative effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 27 May 2007 09:30:26 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:bieb3f.2db1.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <Zf56i.4470$C96.3487@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > "Bill" <you.gotta@be.kidding> writes: >> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >>> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >>> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's >>> healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment. >> >> On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any >> just >> about any transportation method except walking. >> >>:-) > > The CO2 emitted by humans and other life forms > comes from, and is recycled and reabsorbed by > the current biosphere. > > The problematic CO2 comes from sources that have > long been sequestered from the environment in > mineralogical forms, and then re-released when > burnt as fossil fuels, inflicting an accumulative > effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. Eh? So the earth says to itself "uh oh, this CO2 molecule was generated by cars and not humans, therefor I should recycle and reabsorb it"?       Date: 27 May 2007 16:11:31 From: nash Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:Q-adne9NlI9tGsTbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:bieb3f.2db1.ln@bud.garden.local... >> In article <Zf56i.4470$C96.3487@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, >> "Bill" <you.gotta@be.kidding> writes: >>> >>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >>>> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >>>> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's >>>> healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment. >>> >>> On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any >>> just >>> about any transportation method except walking. >>> >>>:-) >> >> The CO2 emitted by humans and other life forms >> comes from, and is recycled and reabsorbed by >> the current biosphere. >> >> The problematic CO2 comes from sources that have >> long been sequestered from the environment in >> mineralogical forms, and then re-released when >> burnt as fossil fuels, inflicting an accumulative >> effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. > > Eh? So the earth says to itself "uh oh, this CO2 molecule was generated by > cars and not humans, therefor I should recycle and reabsorb it"? > Global dimming mostly comes from airplanes and it is carbon particles. Not exasperated by our lungs in other words. Global warming is the least of our problems as it is now because the dimming particles are keeping us from being burned up etc...   Date: 27 May 2007 00:58:41 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <Oj56i.4471$C96.2194@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net >, "Bill" <you.gotta@be.kidding > writes: >> >>> Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current >>> street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! >> >> Alternative transportation is not regressive. > > No, just not wanted by 95%+ of the population. Where do you get that 595%+ figure from? -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 26 May 2007 20:35:44 From: Bill Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of > cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's > healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment. On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any just about any transportation method except walking. :-) - B     Date: 26 May 2007 19:54:59 From: Bill Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Bill wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's >> healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment. > > On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any just > about any transportation method except walking. > > :-) > > - B > > > Yeah, Maybe, but what about that 3,000+ pounds of steel that is just being transferred from parking lot to garage and idling tons of CO2 into the air in a traffic jam? I had to back a trailer for a dump load (real junk junk) and felt guilty idling the pick me up truck, also full, while they were trying to clear trees out of my way. They get 2 full truck passes per year and somehow manage to collect that much. Many bicycle parts but all 20" or smaller Chinese Wal-mart kids bikes. On the upside, I was the only one who cycled the 3 miles each way to get there and was in better shape than the 3 guys who were younger than me in their early fifties. If I breath out too much CO2 and get healthy and don't pay nearly $3.75 in California that makes me feel good. Bill Baka   Date: 25 May 2007 13:16:20 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <qhjc53d5pjgnjlg3lqapqon1di33s9oors@4ax.com >, Nobody <jock@soccer.com > writes: >>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by >>> wish or function. >> >>It is for me, and for many others. > > > Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't > seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority. We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics for numerous North American cities. > I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic > transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump > in the closest pond. 10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider. But it doesn't take long to be able to easily and routinely ride that distance, and even further. > It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not > "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.) Who exactly /is/ "most of us"? And why are you so vehement about discouraging people from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability? -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 29 May 2007 02:06:33 From: Nobody Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <qhjc53d5pjgnjlg3lqapqon1di33s9oors@4ax.com>, > Nobody <jock@soccer.com> writes: > >>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by >>>> wish or function. >>> >>>It is for me, and for many others. >> >> >> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't >> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority. > >We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics >for numerous North American cities. > >> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic >> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump >> in the closest pond. > >10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider. >But it doesn't take long to be able to easily >and routinely ride that distance, and even further. > >> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not >> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.) > >Who exactly /is/ "most of us"? > >And why are you so vehement about discouraging people >from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability? Bloody hell, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts" dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing. I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything. So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather unpleasant. I, as a fine, upstanding citizen, might grind my butt away.. and be very happy with that. But a helluva lot of others won't be. YOU quantify that proportion, be it 95 or 75 or 50 or 25%! Given the paucity of two-wheelers versus even puiblic transit vehicles, I think you'll discover the percentage of negatives will be way closer to the High Mark than lower. Of course, your next suggestion might be that I move my home location to be closer to my ultimate destination. Sure... I move... and then I negotiate a more beneficial employment contract elsewhere. So I have to move? And probably have to SELL then re-buy? Simply to satisfy the quirks of the Huff-And-Puff crowd? Give us all a break   Date: 25 May 2007 12:39:39 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: I'd rather be biking! On May 24, 10:55 pm, Nobody <j...@soccer.com > wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:28:18 -0700, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > > > > > > >In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp...@4ax.com>, > > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > >>>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens > >>>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down > >>>with athsma is also good. > > >> Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect > >> two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those > >> weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. > > >I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related > >flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. > >And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be > >/made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is > >quite do-able right now. > > >> Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current > >> street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! > > >Alternative transportation is not regressive. > > >> Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and > >> hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler > >> across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and > >> snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. > > >What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km? > > >> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > >> wish or function. > > >It is for me, and for many others. > > Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't > seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority. > > I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic > transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump > in the closest pond. > > It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not > "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)- It makes sense FOR MANY, particularly for those sitting in traffic... http://atom.smasher.org/construction/?l1=I%27d+rather+&l2=be+biking%21&l3=&l4=   Date: 25 May 2007 12:36:07 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: only buses protect me from SUVs On May 24, 3:17 pm, "otterpo...@hotmail.com" <otterpo...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 11:28 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > > In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp...@4ax.com>, > > > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > > > >>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens > > > >>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down > > > >>with athsma is also good. > > > > > Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect > > > > two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those > > > > weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. > > > > I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related > > > flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. > > > And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be > > > /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is > > > quite do-able right now. > > > > > Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current > > > > street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! > > > > Alternative transportation is not regressive. > > > > > Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and > > > > hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler > > > > across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and > > > > snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. > > > > What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km? > > > > > It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > > > > wish or function. > > > > It is for me, and for many others. > > > And for many more who are hold back by the unnecessary danger present > > on our roads... > > > Are SUV drivers more reckless? > > > This is subjective, in other words what I see around with my own eyes, > > but it seems that size and recklessness go hand in hand, all the way > > up to the Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles... > > > So are they the new terrorists of the road, or just innocent suckers > > who fell for advertising? > > > Just wondering... > > > --Whatever keeps you from driving an older econo car or a newer > > microcar like a honda fit?-- > > > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my > > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive. > > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess > > only buses protect me from the big predators out there.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and > tandems.- They know how to drive. The avarage semi driver is well above the average Joe SUV.     Date: 25 May 2007 20:04:47 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: only buses protect me from SUVs "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1180121767.192149.67730@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On May 24, 3:17 pm, "otterpo...@hotmail.com" <otterpo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 23, 11:28 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > > > > In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp...@4ax.com>, > > > > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > > > > > >>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens > > > > >>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down > > > > >>with athsma is also good. > > > > > > > Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect > > > > > two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those > > > > > weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. > > > > > > I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related > > > > flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. > > > > And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be > > > > /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is > > > > quite do-able right now. > > > > > > > Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current > > > > > street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! > > > > > > Alternative transportation is not regressive. > > > > > > > Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and > > > > > hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler > > > > > across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and > > > > > snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. > > > > > > What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km? > > > > > > > It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > > > > > wish or function. > > > > > > It is for me, and for many others. > > > > > And for many more who are hold back by the unnecessary danger present > > > on our roads... > > > > > Are SUV drivers more reckless? > > > > > This is subjective, in other words what I see around with my own eyes, > > > but it seems that size and recklessness go hand in hand, all the way > > > up to the Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles... > > > > > So are they the new terrorists of the road, or just innocent suckers > > > who fell for advertising? > > > > > Just wondering... > > > > > --Whatever keeps you from driving an older econo car or a newer > > > microcar like a honda fit?-- > > > > > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my > > > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive. > > > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess > > > only buses protect me from the big predators out there.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and > > tandems.- > > They know how to drive. The avarage semi driver is well above the > average Joe SUV. > When there is an accident with an 18-wheeler, the car driver is 9 times more likely to be killed.   Date: 24 May 2007 14:32:05 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: only buses protect me from SUVs In article <4655ee7e$0$16409$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >, "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org > writes in part: > Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the > streets for the majority of their trip anyways. Not necessarily. Transportational cyclists need access to the same destinations as do car drivers. We have actual places to go, and actual reasons to go there, same as anyone else. We'd be better served by more people understanding that, and not impeding us. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 24 May 2007 14:26:17 From: John Kane Subject: Re: only buses protect me from SUVs On May 24, 4:24 pm, "Stephen Sprunk" <step...@sprunk.org > wrote: > <otterpo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1180034232.938434.261100@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > >> I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking > >> my strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to > >> drive. Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food > >> chain. I guess only buses protect me from the big predators > >> out there.- Hide quoted text - > > > Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and > > tandems. > > Many/most drivers of _any_ type of vehicle would be happy to see that, but > the teamsters will make sure it never happens. Instead, we're going the > other way, allowing doubles and now even triples. > > Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the > streets for the majority of their trip anyways. More linear parks would = be > a nice side benefit that any resident would support, and it's easy to > include bike trains in them at nearly no cost. Great idea. Once Broadway, Woodward, Yonge, The Strand and the Champs d'Elyss=E9e are turned into linear parks we should be a lot better off. > Even sidewalk maintenance > (where they exist) is widely supported by local voters. > > The key for "quality of life" stuff like this is getting local politicians > to change spending priorities and zoning rules, rather than trying to > influence corrupt state or national politicians who care only about getti= ng > campaign contributions from unions and other lobbies. > > 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 fromhttp://www.teranews.com   Date: 24 May 2007 12:17:12 From: otterpower@hotmail.com Subject: Re: only buses protect me from SUVs On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 23, 11:28 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp...@4ax.com>, > > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > > >>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens > > >>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down > > >>with athsma is also good. > > > > Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect > > > two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those > > > weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. > > > I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related > > flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. > > And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be > > /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is > > quite do-able right now. > > > > Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current > > > street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! > > > Alternative transportation is not regressive. > > > > Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and > > > hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler > > > across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and > > > snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. > > > What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km? > > > > It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > > > wish or function. > > > It is for me, and for many others. > > And for many more who are hold back by the unnecessary danger present > on our roads... > > Are SUV drivers more reckless? > > This is subjective, in other words what I see around with my own eyes, > but it seems that size and recklessness go hand in hand, all the way > up to the Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles... > > So are they the new terrorists of the road, or just innocent suckers > who fell for advertising? > > Just wondering... > > --Whatever keeps you from driving an older econo car or a newer > microcar like a honda fit?-- > > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive. > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess > only buses protect me from the big predators out there.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and tandems.     Date: 24 May 2007 15:24:13 From: Stephen Sprunk Subject: Re: only buses protect me from SUVs <otterpower@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1180034232.938434.261100@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking >> my strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to >> drive. Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food >> chain. I guess only buses protect me from the big predators >> out there.- Hide quoted text - > > Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and > tandems. Many/most drivers of _any_ type of vehicle would be happy to see that, but the teamsters will make sure it never happens. Instead, we're going the other way, allowing doubles and now even triples. Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the streets for the majority of their trip anyways. More linear parks would be a nice side benefit that any resident would support, and it's easy to include bike trains in them at nearly no cost. Even sidewalk maintenance (where they exist) is widely supported by local voters. The key for "quality of life" stuff like this is getting local politicians to change spending priorities and zoning rules, rather than trying to influence corrupt state or national politicians who care only about getting campaign contributions from unions and other lobbies. 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       Date: 24 May 2007 17:28:44 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: only buses protect me from SUVs Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the > streets for the majority of their trip anyways. Oh sure. You mean, "Motorists would be better served by bike trails that kept bicyclists off the streets..." Wayne   Date: 24 May 2007 12:15:24 From: Pat Subject: Re: only buses protect me from SUVs On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 23, 11:28 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > > > In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp...@4ax.com>, > > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > > >>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens > > >>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down > > >>with athsma is also good. > > > > Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect > > > two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those > > > weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. > > > I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related > > flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. > > And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be > > /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is > > quite do-able right now. > > > > Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current > > > street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! > > > Alternative transportation is not regressive. > > > > Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and > > > hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler > > > across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and > > > snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. > > > What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km? > > > > It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > > > wish or function. > > > It is for me, and for many others. > > And for many more who are hold back by the unnecessary danger present > on our roads... > > Are SUV drivers more reckless? > > This is subjective, in other words what I see around with my own eyes, > but it seems that size and recklessness go hand in hand, all the way > up to the Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles... > > So are they the new terrorists of the road, or just innocent suckers > who fell for advertising? > > Just wondering... > > --Whatever keeps you from driving an older econo car or a newer > microcar like a honda fit?-- > > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive. > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess > only buses protect me from the big predators out there. I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks, we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid- gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling. Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe, but maybe not as safe as I had thought.   Date: 24 May 2007 10:53:21 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: only buses protect me from SUVs On May 23, 11:28 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp...@4ax.com>, > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > >>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens > >>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down > >>with athsma is also good. > > > Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect > > two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those > > weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. > > I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related > flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. > And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be > /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is > quite do-able right now. > > > Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current > > street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! > > Alternative transportation is not regressive. > > > Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and > > hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler > > across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and > > snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. > > What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km? > > > It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > > wish or function. > > It is for me, and for many others. And for many more who are hold back by the unnecessary danger present on our roads... Are SUV drivers more reckless? This is subjective, in other words what I see around with my own eyes, but it seems that size and recklessness go hand in hand, all the way up to the Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles... So are they the new terrorists of the road, or just innocent suckers who fell for advertising? Just wondering... --Whatever keeps you from driving an older econo car or a newer microcar like a honda fit?-- I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive. Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess only buses protect me from the big predators out there.   Date: 24 May 2007 10:50:11 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <1180022727.612853.143050@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >, Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us > writes: > I'm glad you enjoy bicycling, but it's not for everyone. I realize that; that's why I'm not suggesting "everyone" should take up the avocation. My apologism for transportational cycling is not a call to "everyone" to convert their cars into potato planters, and to ride bikes exclusively to get around. My immediate concern is to rebut erroneous statements about transportational cycling necessarily being an impractical hassle. If some folks decide it might be nice to ride instead of drive for the occasional milk-&-bread run to the grocery store, or to get to the library, coffee shop or workplace, that'd be a pretty good fringe benefit, too. Save yer gas and money for the longer/heavier hauls. Use the vehicle that's proportionally appropriate for the task. > Nor is > public transportation. I live in the middle of nowhere, is it's not a > practical alternative for most people. Actually, most people in the US (and quite possibly in the whole North American continent) live in urban areas where transportational bicycling /is/ practical. > We have a few dedicated > bicyclists around here who bike in all weather, but they are mostly > alcoholics who have lost their licenses. I don't even have a license. I don't even know how to drive. Never needed to. But I realize I'm not "everyone." So while I do enjoy the conveniences of urban life and am well adapted to a carless lifestyle, I'm certainly not advocating that everyone should be like me. But if anyone wants to be less car-dependent, there are folks like me around who can offer some insight as to how to achieve that. > I don't know if they make rain gear for commuting or not, but if they > don't; go look at some of the motorcyle stuff. It's light, can > withstand buckets of water at high speed, and doesn't look too bad. Rain gear is in fact available. I generally use a traditional cycling rain cape over my street clothes. It's dry and cool at the same time. > Stay well. You too. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 24 May 2007 09:05:27 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 23, 11:28 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp...@4ax.com>, > Nobody <j...@soccer.com> writes: > > >>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens > >>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down > >>with athsma is also good. > > > Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect > > two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those > > weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. > > I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related > flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. > And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be > /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is > quite do-able right now. > > > Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current > > street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! > > Alternative transportation is not regressive. > > > Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and > > hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler > > across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and > > snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. > > What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km? > > > It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > > wish or function. > > It is for me, and for many others. > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > Above address is just a spam midden. > I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca I'm glad you enjoy bicycling, but it's not for everyone. Nor is public transportation. I live in the middle of nowhere, is it's not a practical alternative for most people. We have a few dedicated bicyclists around here who bike in all weather, but they are mostly alcoholics who have lost their licenses. I don't know if they make rain gear for commuting or not, but if they don't; go look at some of the motorcyle stuff. It's light, can withstand buckets of water at high speed, and doesn't look too bad. Stay well.     Date: 24 May 2007 16:16:32 From: nash Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands I'm glad you enjoy bicycling, but it's not for everyone. Nor is public transportation. I live in the middle of nowhere, is it's not a practical alternative for most people. We have a few dedicated bicyclists around here who bike in all weather, but they are mostly alcoholics who have lost their licenses. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Oh, say yee. What proof do you have foul mouth. I have only ridden a bike since 8 years old, 44 years. Cept had a motorcycle for 2 years till somebody trashed it. Anything below 5 miles is said to be more practical by bike and I agree. Plus you get fit and do not spend lota time at the doctors. For some it may not be practical but to say every one else is a drunk without a license is a troll stamp. cheers I bought another motorcycle this May. street legal dirt bike and you get even worse treatment than a cyclist. Must be the label thingy. I did it for another hobby and thought the gas would be excellent but the insurance is murder on these things.   Date: 24 May 2007 05:19:25 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 23, 8:33 am, Krzysztof Zietara <tarhim +news200...@chruptak.eu.org > wrote: > On 21 May 2007 16:06:10 -0700, John Kane wrote: > > > I take it you're quite young ? I seem to remember Solidarity. > > You may also remember how it ended up first time around, then. But the second time? Remember that trade unions in the UK , USA & IIRC Canada were considered a wild threat to the establishment in the 1800's. > > > However you have a good point. OTOH free or not Wal-Mart has a union > > in China. > > The question is, are those unions are just for show or do they really > protect rights of fhe worker. I don't know but my bet would be mainly just for show. However once you've got a union foot in the door.. :) > > Tarhimdugurth > -- > [S1 - za sygnaturk=EA]   Date: 23 May 2007 20:28:18 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp58n@4ax.com >, Nobody <jock@soccer.com > writes: >>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens >>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down >>with athsma is also good. > > Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect > two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those > weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is quite do-able right now. > Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current > street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! Alternative transportation is not regressive. > Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and > hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler > across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and > snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km? > It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by > wish or function. It is for me, and for many others. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:27:22 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 1, 11:32 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Clark F Morris wrote: > > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" > > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > > >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > > >>news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > > >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> Dane Buson wrote: > > > >>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a > > >>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. > > > >>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with > > >>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply > > >>>>> weren't on the road? > > >>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is > > >>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the > > >>>> automobile. > > >>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > > >>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > > >>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > > >>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > > >> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a > > >> car. > > > Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new > > > sprawled suburban areas. > > > I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 > > LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small > > town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on > > a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the > > American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The > > bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one (Freeway > > and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small bicycle > > trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big > > appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another > > big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way > > to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. > > We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. > > Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are beyond > > bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take > > someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in my > > business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life works > > unless you are a city office drone. > > Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. > > I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't > > spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). > > Bill (realistic) Baka > > One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here > to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to > drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. > After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my > mother's house for a few days. > > That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my > motorcycle.- Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike.       Date: 01 Jun 2007 17:55:02 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks donquijote1954 wrote: > On Jun 1, 11:32 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Clark F Morris wrote: >>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" >>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>>>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>>>> news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Dane Buson wrote: >>>>>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a >>>>>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. >>>>>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with >>>>>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply >>>>>>>> weren't on the road? >>>>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is >>>>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>>>>> automobile. >>>>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>>>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, >>>>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >>>>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >>>>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a >>>>> car. >>>> Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new >>>> sprawled suburban areas. >>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 >>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small >>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on >>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one (Freeway >>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small bicycle >>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another >>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way >>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are beyond >>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in my >>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life works >>> unless you are a city office drone. >>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't >>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >>> Bill (realistic) Baka >> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here >> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to >> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. >> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my >> mother's house for a few days. >> >> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >> motorcycle.- > > Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike. > There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work. Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get. Bill Baka         Date: 04 Jun 2007 12:13:11 From: Chris Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks >>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >>> motorcycle.- >> >> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike. >> > There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work. > Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get. > Bill Baka I ran into an interesting situation the other day. A collage student, going home for the summer was shipping all her belongings home, via the post office. She priced it out, and it only cost her $250. A rental truck and the gas were going to be over $500. How are we going to get by when gas, doubles and/or triples in price? Everyone blames those 'greedy' oil companies, but it is simply supply and demand. Demand is up 3% in last 6 months, and supply is only up 1%. With no new refineries being built in the US (I don't want that nasty thing in my back yard) the price will continue to rise. China is the main new demand. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com           Date: 06 Jun 2007 00:22:33 From: gl4316@yahoo.com Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In article <Xns9945482748C0Cchrisyahoocom@66.150.105.47 >, Chris <chris@yahoo.com > wrote: > I ran into an interesting situation the other day. A collage student, > going home for the summer was shipping all her belongings home, via the > post office. She priced it out, and it only cost her $250. A rental truck > and the gas were going to be over $500. > > How are we going to get by when gas, doubles and/or triples in price? As oil becomes more expensive, other production methods are more economical. Brazil recently became a net oil producer due to deep level sea drilling, but that is only economical if oil remains at a high price. One news article about a year ago indicated that Venezuela actually has larger proven oil reserves than the middle east does, but it is expensive to get them. With oil at higher prices, Chavez becomes a more important figure than he was previously. > Everyone blames those 'greedy' oil companies, but it is simply supply and > demand. Demand is up 3% in last 6 months, and supply is only up 1%. With > no new refineries being built in the US (I don't want that nasty thing in > my back yard) the price will continue to rise. > > China is the main new demand. There's also the issue of instability in oil producing countries. The last little spike happened due to Nigeria's turmoil. With the fairly significant number of deaths caused during that raid on the Chinese oil platform in Ethiopia, and various other troubles in oil-producing African nations, we can expect that to be an ongoing problem. Nigeria represents 8% of the world's oil production right now. With 1/3 of their production shut down due to turmoil and other troubles, things don't look good for oil or for Nigeria. On the other hand, if you were an oil company executive and needed to increase profits by increasing oil prices, it doesn't cost much to make trouble in Africa. I know it sounds too much like a goofball conspiracy theory, but if you could make $$billions from creating a little political turmoil in Africa, I think you would find there are a fair number of people that would accept whatever moral loss they might have. -- -Glennl The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too! e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.         Date: 02 Jun 2007 08:34:25 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:Dd38i.10000$4Y.203@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > donquijote1954 wrote: ... >> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike. >> > There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work. > Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get. I read a review of a recently published book (I'd have to look it up and I don't have time right now, but I will if anyone wants to know) that suggested that if stores ran delivery trucks instead of all the clients having to come to the store, it could cut fuel usage by a significant percentage.           Date: 02 Jun 2007 23:17:00 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Amy Blankenship wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:Dd38i.10000$4Y.203@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... >> donquijote1954 wrote: > ... >>> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike. >>> >> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work. >> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get. > > I read a review of a recently published book (I'd have to look it up and I > don't have time right now, but I will if anyone wants to know) that > suggested that if stores ran delivery trucks instead of all the clients > having to come to the store, it could cut fuel usage by a significant > percentage. > > That qualifies as a "Maybe". When I go for large items I try to make it one trip, and wandering through a home Depot or Sam's Club I almost always buy more than I intended. If I had to have delivery trucks come to me then I would feel a little too isolated, and I am not Amish. Bill Baka           Date: 02 Jun 2007 18:35:07 From: george conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:2me8i.17889$923.16453@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:Dd38i.10000$4Y.203@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... >> donquijote1954 wrote: > ... >>> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike. >>> >> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work. >> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get. > > I read a review of a recently published book (I'd have to look it up and I > don't have time right now, but I will if anyone wants to know) that > suggested that if stores ran delivery trucks instead of all the clients > having to come to the store, it could cut fuel usage by a significant > percentage. > You mean they would pick you up in the delivery truck and take you into the store first?         Date: 02 Jun 2007 01:38:29 From: george conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:Dd38i.10000$4Y.203@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > donquijote1954 wrote: >> On Jun 1, 11:32 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Clark F Morris wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" >>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>>>>> news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>>>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Dane Buson wrote: >>>>>>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. >>>>>>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers >>>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>>> weren't on the road? >>>>>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst >>>>>>>> part is >>>>>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>>>>>> automobile. >>>>>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>>>>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle >>>>>>> safely, >>>>>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >>>>>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >>>>>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without >>>>>> owning a >>>>>> car. >>>>> Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new >>>>> sprawled suburban areas. >>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 >>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small >>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on >>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one >>>> (Freeway >>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small >>>> bicycle >>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another >>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way >>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are >>>> beyond >>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in >>>> my >>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life >>>> works >>>> unless you are a city office drone. >>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't >>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >>>> Bill (realistic) Baka >>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here >>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to >>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. >>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my >>> mother's house for a few days. >>> >>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >>> motorcycle.- >> >> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike. >> > There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work. > Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get. > Bill Baka The New York Times had a strange article about the hazards of having a summer home. One woman whined that at her summer house the fire alarm was beeping because it needed a new battery. She said she did not know enough to change the battery, and needed a superintendent to do it for her!!! That is the New York City take on doing anything for yourself. So, naturally, planners don't care if you need lumber. That would be the superintendent's problem, not your problem.           Date: 03 Jun 2007 10:32:33 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks george conklin wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:Dd38i.10000$4Y.203@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... >> donquijote1954 wrote: >>> On Jun 1, 11:32 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Clark F Morris wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" >>>>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>>>>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dane Buson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. >>>>>>>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers >>>>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>>>> weren't on the road? >>>>>>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst >>>>>>>>> part is >>>>>>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the >>>>>>>>> automobile. >>>>>>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and >>>>>>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle >>>>>>>> safely, >>>>>>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone >>>>>>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. >>>>>>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without >>>>>>> owning a >>>>>>> car. >>>>>> Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new >>>>>> sprawled suburban areas. >>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 >>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small >>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on >>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one >>>>> (Freeway >>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small >>>>> bicycle >>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another >>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way >>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are >>>>> beyond >>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in >>>>> my >>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life >>>>> works >>>>> unless you are a city office drone. >>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't >>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka >>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here >>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to >>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. >>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my >>>> mother's house for a few days. >>>> >>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >>>> motorcycle.- >>> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike. >>> >> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work. >> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get. >> Bill Baka > > The New York Times had a strange article about the hazards of having a > summer home. One woman whined that at her summer house the fire alarm was > beeping because it needed a new battery. She said she did not know enough > to change the battery, and needed a superintendent to do it for her!!! That > is the New York City take on doing anything for yourself. So, naturally, > planners don't care if you need lumber. That would be the superintendent's > problem, not your problem. So? That woman could have easily lived a sheltered life anywhere. If anything, someone like that is rarer in NYC than most places - except maybe in some enclaves of extreme blue blood wealth.           Date: 02 Jun 2007 23:13:47 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks george conklin wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:Dd38i.10000$4Y.203@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... >> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work. >> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get. >> Bill Baka > > The New York Times had a strange article about the hazards of having a > summer home. One woman whined that at her summer house the fire alarm was > beeping because it needed a new battery. She said she did not know enough > to change the battery, and needed a superintendent to do it for her!!! That > is the New York City take on doing anything for yourself. So, naturally, > planners don't care if you need lumber. That would be the superintendent's > problem, not your problem. > That is why I will spend the money to buy the tools to learn how to fix my bike, car, house, or whatever. For what I could pay someone to do something I can buy the tools and learn how to do it. As for the woman who needed a superintendent to change a battery, well, she probably needs to be put in a padded room. People that stupid really are one of the problems with our society. Bill Baka     Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:25:28 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 1, 9:21 am, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote: > "Bill" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:3uU7i.31759$Um6.28136@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... > > > > > > > Clark F Morris wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" > >> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > >>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > >>>news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > >>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Dane Buson wrote: > > >>>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a > >>>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. > > >>>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with > >>>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply > >>>>>> weren't on the road? > >>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part > >>>>> is > >>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the > >>>>> automobile. > >>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > >>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > >>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > >>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > >>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning > >>> a car. > >> Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new > >> sprawled suburban areas. > > > I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 LBS > > even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small town to > > get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on a bike > > unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the American way > > of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. > > Cities have always "sprawled" Even Queen Elizabeth I was against London > growing. The term itself shows a strong anti-urban bias.- Not nearly on the scale America has sprawled. Our sprawl necessitates the automobile, or better yet, the SUV. The American dream... http://www.civicdesigncenter.org/images/Suburbia.jpg I hope the wake up time is coming soon. ;)     Date: 01 Jun 2007 08:32:51 From: Pat Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > Clark F Morris wrote: > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > >>news:lkd3j4-pb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > >>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Dane Buson wrote: > > >>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a > >>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license. > > >>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with > >>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply > >>>>> weren't on the road? > >>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is > >>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the > >>>> automobile. > >>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > >>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > >>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > >>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > >> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a > >> car. > > Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new > > sprawled suburban areas. > > I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 > LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small > town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on > a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the > American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The > bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one (Freeway > and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small bicycle > trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big > appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another > big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way > to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. > We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. > Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are beyond > bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take > someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in my > business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life works > unless you are a city office drone. > Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. > I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't > spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). > Bill (realistic) Baka One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my mother's house for a few days. That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my motorcycle.       Date: 01 Jun 2007 17:01:20 From: Bill Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks Pat wrote: > On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 >> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small >> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on >> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one (Freeway >> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small bicycle >> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another >> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way >> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are beyond >> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in my >> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life works >> unless you are a city office drone. >> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't >> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >> Bill (realistic) Baka > > > One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here > to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to > drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. > After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my > mother's house for a few days. > > That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my > motorcycle. > > Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of the time. Bill Baka         Date: 11 Jun 2007 13:44:34 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 8, 9:50 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com > wrote: > rotten wrote: > > On Jun 7, 5:30 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: > >> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: > >>>> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's > >>>>>> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your > >>>>>> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, > >>>>>> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal > >>>>>> appropriations. > >>>>> User fees as much as possible. > >>>> So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will > >>>> become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax > >>>> you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on > >>>> odometer readings when you register every year. [1] > >>>> I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be > >>>> built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like > >>>> Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related > >>>> goods. > >>>> [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to > >>>> register their car to avoid paying... > >>> Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for > >>> walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be > >>> able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry. > >> Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic, > >> but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there. > > >> I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads > >> which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and > >> general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people > >> to agree to cough up the money up front. > > >> When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You > >> can see the same effect in many places in life. > > >> ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of > >> coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week. > > >> -- > >> Dane Buson - sigd...@unixbigots.org > >> The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it > >> were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence. > >> -- H. L. Mencken > > > User fees for roads would not even be close to $7-$8 per gallon, I > > remember seeing that existing gas taxes already cover around 50% of > > the cost of roads, with tolls and excise taxes making up around half > > of the rest. > > What are you including in the "cost of roads"? Just maintenance? How > about emergency services? Patrol? Externalities? Only major highways? > What about ancillary routes? Local roads? New construction? > > If you pick all of the above, I doubt $7-8 would cover it really. You must be joking. The gas tax already covers the fees for like 50% of road expenditures. And tolls and excise taxes covers close to half the rest. There's a good website out there which provides total statistics on how roads are funded. Fully funding with user fees wouldn't be close to $7-8 dollars a gallon.         Date: 11 Jun 2007 09:51:09 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 9, 10:01 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com > wrote: > Joe the Aromawrote: > > "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:466b4566$0$8956$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > > Do you understand what I'm talking about though? I'm just talking about a > > tax on gasoline to pay for roads. It doesn't pay "per road" or anything like > > that. It's just a big general fund to pay for roads. It's not a perfect > > "user fee" but it's better than a general fund IMO. > > I know you're not talking about a "per road" user fee (which would be > more like a toll, or graded toll anyway). I was under the impression > that you thought that a user fee could pay for 100% of the system > without shifting the financial burden so radically. > > It's just that the most optimistic estimates I've heard for the current > user fee system is that they cover something like 60% of highway traffic > (this isn't counting the huge part of the system that isn't highway > traffic). > > In any case, I like your idea, I just don't really think it's feasible > politically, much less practically. The data I saw... was that gas taxes cover roughly 50-60% of fees for roads, while excise taxes and tolls cover another 20% or so.         Date: 07 Jun 2007 14:52:03 From: rotten Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 7, 5:30 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: > >> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's > >> >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your > >> >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, > >> >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal > >> >> appropriations. > > >> > User fees as much as possible. > > >> So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will > >> become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax > >> you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on > >> odometer readings when you register every year. [1] > > >> I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be > >> built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like > >> Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related > >> goods. > > >> [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to > >> register their car to avoid paying... > > > Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for > > walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be > > able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry. > > Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic, > but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there. > > I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads > which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and > general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people > to agree to cough up the money up front. > > When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You > can see the same effect in many places in life. > > ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of > coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week. > > -- > Dane Buson - sigd...@unixbigots.org > The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it > were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence. > -- H. L. Mencken User fees for roads would not even be close to $7-$8 per gallon, I remember seeing that existing gas taxes already cover around 50% of the cost of roads, with tolls and excise taxes making up around half of the rest.           Date: 08 Jun 2007 09:50:46 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks rotten wrote: > On Jun 7, 5:30 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: >> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: >>>> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's >>>>>> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your >>>>>> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places, >>>>>> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal >>>>>> appropriations. >>>>> User fees as much as possible. >>>> So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will >>>> become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax >>>> you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on >>>> odometer readings when you register every year. [1] >>>> I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be >>>> built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like >>>> Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related >>>> goods. >>>> [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to >>>> register their car to avoid paying... >>> Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for >>> walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be >>> able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry. >> Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic, >> but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there. >> >> I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads >> which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and >> general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people >> to agree to cough up the money up front. >> >> When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You >> can see the same effect in many places in life. >> >> ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of >> coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week. >> >> -- >> Dane Buson - sigd...@unixbigots.org >> The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it >> were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence. >> -- H. L. Mencken > > User fees for roads would not even be close to $7-$8 per gallon, I > remember seeing that existing gas taxes already cover around 50% of > the cost of roads, with tolls and excise taxes making up around half > of the rest. What are you including in the "cost of roads"? Just maintenance? How about emergency services? Patrol? Externalities? Only major highways? What about ancillary routes? Local roads? New construction? If you pick all of the above, I doubt $7-8 would cover it really.         Date: 01 Jun 2007 13:40:06 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:AhY7i.12194$rO7.11107@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > Pat wrote: >> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 >>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small >>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on >>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one (Freeway >>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small bicycle >>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another >>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way >>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are beyond >>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in my >>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life works >>> unless you are a city office drone. >>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't >>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >>> Bill (realistic) Baka >> >> >> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here >> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to >> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. >> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my >> mother's house for a few days. >> >> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >> motorcycle. >> >> > Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of > the time. Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be avoided.           Date: 01 Jun 2007 20:41:11 From: Clark F Morris Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > >"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >news:AhY7i.12194$rO7.11107@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >> Pat wrote: >>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 >>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small >>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on >>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one (Freeway >>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small bicycle >>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another >>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way >>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are beyond >>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in my >>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life works >>>> unless you are a city office drone. >>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't >>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >>>> Bill (realistic) Baka >>> >>> >>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here >>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to >>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. >>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my >>> mother's house for a few days. >>> >>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >>> motorcycle. >>> >>> >> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of >> the time. > >Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be avoided. > Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America and Europe.             Date: 02 Jun 2007 01:34:55 From: george conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote in message news:7gb1631rb3jitb71bseapnu2s7udpeabng@4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >> >>"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >>news:AhY7i.12194$rO7.11107@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>> Pat wrote: >>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 >>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small >>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done >>>>> on >>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one >>>>> (Freeway >>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small >>>>> bicycle >>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are >>>>> another >>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way >>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are >>>>> beyond >>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in >>>>> my >>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life >>>>> works >>>>> unless you are a city office drone. >>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but >>>>> won't >>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka >>>> >>>> >>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here >>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to >>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. >>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my >>>> mother's house for a few days. >>>> >>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >>>> motorcycle. >>>> >>>> >>> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of >>> the time. >> >>Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be avoided. >> > Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova > Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward > and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the > every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I > would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America > and Europe. One of the tragedies is that planning is for urban areas, and if you don't fit that model, planners could care less.               Date: 02 Jun 2007 08:32:12 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message news:3P38i.17169$j63.11480@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... ... >> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova >> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward >> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the >> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I >> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America >> and Europe. > > One of the tragedies is that planning is for urban areas, and if you don't > fit that model, planners could care less. I think the reality is that it is very hard to get support for planning in rural areas. That is not the fault of planners, but simply a political reality that exists. So, like everyone else, they do what can be done and let the rest go.                 Date: 02 Jun 2007 18:34:33 From: george conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:Zje8i.17888$923.4360@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message > news:3P38i.17169$j63.11480@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > ... >>> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova >>> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward >>> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the >>> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I >>> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America >>> and Europe. >> >> One of the tragedies is that planning is for urban areas, and if you >> don't fit that model, planners could care less. > > I think the reality is that it is very hard to get support for planning in > rural areas. That is not the fault of planners, but simply a political > reality that exists. So, like everyone else, they do what can be done and > let the rest go. > Planners, according to ACCESS this month, are heavily derived from architects who plan for elaborate and fancy buildings. This does not include rural, industrial and what most people want to live in. I have said all along we need to plan for what people want, not to preach to them that comfortable housing is bad. What is surprising is what architects in the past denounced (say in UK), the now praise. It is like painting. Things go in and out of fashion.                   Date: 03 Jun 2007 09:38:50 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message news:ZKi8i.17339$j63.16865@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > news:Zje8i.17888$923.4360@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> >> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message >> news:3P38i.17169$j63.11480@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> ... >>>> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova >>>> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward >>>> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the >>>> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I >>>> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America >>>> and Europe. >>> >>> One of the tragedies is that planning is for urban areas, and if you >>> don't fit that model, planners could care less. >> >> I think the reality is that it is very hard to get support for planning >> in rural areas. That is not the fault of planners, but simply a >> political reality that exists. So, like everyone else, they do what can >> be done and let the rest go. >> > > Planners, according to ACCESS this month, are heavily derived from > architects who plan for elaborate and fancy buildings. I would agree with you there. But that doesn't mean that the very idea of planning is bad. Just that we need to find a better way of educating planners. I think once the hidebound modern and postmodern trained faculty retires or dies, the situation will improve. > This does not include rural, industrial and what most people want to live > in. For many schools, that may be true. Not all http://www.cadc.auburn.edu/soa/rural%2Dstudio/projectstype.htm > I have said all along we need to plan for what people want, not to preach > to them that comfortable housing is bad. You're saying that people should always be given exactly what they want and no one should ever try to educate them on alternatives that might be better for them and the community long term? So in the paper you posted where people didn't want low income residents among them, essentially your position is that the government should have backed off and let them have what they wanted. One issue is that sometimes what a community says it wants for itself collectively is not compatible with every individual doing exactly what he or she wants. For instance, if a community were to set a goal for itself to reduce fuel consumption and the people there object to the initial cost of insulation, then someone should at least try to educate the people as to the value of insulation long term, if not mandate a certain minimum insulation value. I notice you also say comfortable, but not sturdy, low-maintenance, energy efficient, or anything else a less educated owner or renter might not think that he or she wants but might well be hurt by not having. > What is surprising is what architects in the past denounced (say in UK), > the now praise. It is like painting. Things go in and out of fashion. Yes, once it was unfashionable to assert that the earth goes around the sun rather than the reverse. As we learn things we adjust the conclusions we draw from the available information over time. Would you have us believe that in Sociology in the entire time you've been teaching none of the material has changed at all? You appear to have missed my point, though, which is that whether or not planners are interested in rural areas, political bodies that fund planning are emphatically not interested in planning there. A planner who concentrated on rural areas exclusively might well find it difficult to eat. So it's pretty natural for planning schools to prepare their students to be able to operate where funds are available. Funny you are so solicitous of Wal-mart's profit margin, but not of ordinary people trying to make a living. -Amy             Date: 01 Jun 2007 18:24:11 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote in message news:7gb1631rb3jitb71bseapnu2s7udpeabng@4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >> >>"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >>news:AhY7i.12194$rO7.11107@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>> Pat wrote: >>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2 >>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small >>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done >>>>> on >>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one >>>>> (Freeway >>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small >>>>> bicycle >>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are >>>>> another >>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way >>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are >>>>> beyond >>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in >>>>> my >>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life >>>>> works >>>>> unless you are a city office drone. >>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but >>>>> won't >>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka >>>> >>>> >>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here >>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to >>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. >>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my >>>> mother's house for a few days. >>>> >>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >>>> motorcycle. >>>> >>>> >>> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of >>> the time. >> >>Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be avoided. >> > Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova > Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward > and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the > every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I > would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America > and Europe. But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some exceptions).               Date: 04 Jun 2007 00:19:42 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:2V18i.8635$xu.3557@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:7gb1631rb3jitb71bseapnu2s7udpeabng@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" >> <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >>>news:AhY7i.12194$rO7.11107@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>>> Pat wrote: >>>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My >>>>>> 2 >>>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a >>>>>> small >>>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done >>>>>> on >>>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >>>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >>>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one >>>>>> (Freeway >>>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small >>>>>> bicycle >>>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >>>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are >>>>>> another >>>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each >>>>>> way >>>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >>>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >>>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are >>>>>> beyond >>>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >>>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in >>>>>> my >>>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life >>>>>> works >>>>>> unless you are a city office drone. >>>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >>>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but >>>>>> won't >>>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >>>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here >>>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to >>>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. >>>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my >>>>> mother's house for a few days. >>>>> >>>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >>>>> motorcycle. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of >>>> the time. >>> >>>Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be >>>avoided. >>> >> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova >> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward >> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the >> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I >> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America >> and Europe. > > But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where > living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some > exceptions). Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems simple enough to me.                 Date: 04 Jun 2007 08:49:29 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... > Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems > simple enough to me. Simple is as simple does ;-)               Date: 02 Jun 2007 01:36:26 From: george conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:2V18i.8635$xu.3557@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:7gb1631rb3jitb71bseapnu2s7udpeabng@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" >> <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >>>news:AhY7i.12194$rO7.11107@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>>> Pat wrote: >>>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My >>>>>> 2 >>>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a >>>>>> small >>>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done >>>>>> on >>>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >>>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >>>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one >>>>>> (Freeway >>>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small >>>>>> bicycle >>>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >>>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are >>>>>> another >>>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each >>>>>> way >>>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >>>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >>>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are >>>>>> beyond >>>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >>>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in >>>>>> my >>>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life >>>>>> works >>>>>> unless you are a city office drone. >>>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >>>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but >>>>>> won't >>>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >>>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here >>>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to >>>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. >>>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my >>>>> mother's house for a few days. >>>>> >>>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >>>>> motorcycle. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of >>>> the time. >>> >>>Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be >>>avoided. >>> >> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova >> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward >> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the >> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I >> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America >> and Europe. > > But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where > living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some > exceptions). > The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that would mean more jobs would have to got to China.                 Date: 03 Jun 2007 10:23:34 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks george conklin wrote: > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > news:2V18i.8635$xu.3557@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message >> news:7gb1631rb3jitb71bseapnu2s7udpeabng@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship" >>> <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> news:AhY7i.12194$rO7.11107@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>>>> Pat wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My >>>>>>> 2 >>>>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a >>>>>>> small >>>>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the >>>>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The >>>>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one >>>>>>> (Freeway >>>>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small >>>>>>> bicycle >>>>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big >>>>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are >>>>>>> another >>>>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each >>>>>>> way >>>>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection. >>>>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it. >>>>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are >>>>>>> beyond >>>>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take >>>>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in >>>>>>> my >>>>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life >>>>>>> works >>>>>>> unless you are a city office drone. >>>>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics. >>>>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but >>>>>>> won't >>>>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least). >>>>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka >>>>>> >>>>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here >>>>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to >>>>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game. >>>>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my >>>>>> mother's house for a few days. >>>>>> >>>>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my >>>>>> motorcycle. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of >>>>> the time. >>>> Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be >>>> avoided. >>>> >>> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova >>> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward >>> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the >>> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I >>> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America >>> and Europe. >> But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where >> living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some >> exceptions). >> > > The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have > jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything > involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that > would mean more jobs would have to got to China. Why does the czar presently make such illogical commuting environments? You don't need to live near your job in an urban area. It's nice, but you don't have to. Ever hear of mass transit? It allows people who don't live near their job to get to it quickly, cheaply, and in an energy-efficient manner. You know, when it's available.                 Date: 01 Jun 2007 18:57:52 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc george conklin <george@nxu.edu > wrote: > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message >> >> But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where >> living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some >> exceptions). > > The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have > jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything > involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that > would mean more jobs would have to got to China. Of course, if you don't need multiple cars life becomes a lot easier [1]. It's perfectly feasible to have a single wage earner, have the other parent stay home with the children and still sock away 25+% of ones earnings into savings. I think next summer when my second daughter is older we might take a trip to Spain for a few weeks. [1] Cars really are terribly expensive. [2] [2] $500 for maintenance for ours just got paid to our mechanics. Terrible. I could buy a nice bicycle for that, or two good used ones. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. If this had been an actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell you?                   Date: 02 Jun 2007 11:42:58 From: george conklin Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:0ev6j4-6ud.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > In rec.bicycles.misc george conklin <george@nxu.edu> wrote: >> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message >>> >>> But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where >>> living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some >>> exceptions). >> >> The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have >> jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything >> involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that >> would mean more jobs would have to got to China. > > Of course, if you don't need multiple cars life becomes a lot easier [1]. Yes, unemployment is easier than working. > It's perfectly feasible to have a single wage earner Not these days buddy boy. , have the other > parent stay home with the children and still sock away 25+% of ones > earnings into savings. > Only if your employer pays for your housing. > I think next summer when my second daughter is older we might take a > trip to Spain for a few weeks. Yes, your bicycle will be needed crossing the ocean.                     Date: 02 Jun 2007 06:09:12 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks In rec.bicycles.misc george conklin <george@nxu.edu > wrote: > "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> In rec.bicycles.misc george conklin <george@nxu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have >>> jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything >>> involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that >>> would mean more jobs would have to got to China. >> >> Of course, if you don't need multiple cars life becomes a lot easier [1]. > > Yes, unemployment is easier than working. Do you specialize in non-sequiturs, or do you outsource for those? >> It's perfectly feasible to have a single wage earner > > Not these days buddy boy. Funny, I must be living on a different planet than you. I'll have to go look for the RFC for inter-planet IP packet routing for NNTP. I don't think RFC 1149 will cut it. >> have the other parent stay home with the children and still sock >> away 25+% of ones earnings into savings. > > Only if your employer pays for your housing. Pffft, you really do enjoy proof by assertion don't you? >> I think next summer when my second daughter is older we might take a >> trip to Spain for a few weeks. > > Yes, your bicycle will be needed crossing the ocean. Where have I ever said that the bicycle should be the only form of travel? I've simply argued for the appropriate forms of travel. Let's see, that's Proof by Assertion, Red Herrings and Strawmen all in one post. Come on George, I'm sure you could have upped the score to four by throwing in an Ad Hominem. I have to admit to disappointment, you really must try harder. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "Are [Linux users] lemmings collectively jumping off of the cliff of reliable, well-engineered commercial software?" (By Matt Welsh)     Date: 26 May 2007 20:36:40 From: Bill Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:io033f.g321.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp58n@4ax.com>, > Nobody <jock@soccer.com> writes: > >>>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens >>>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down >>>with athsma is also good. >> >> Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect >> two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those >> weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. > > I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related > flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. > And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be > /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is > quite do-able right now. > >> Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current >> street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! > > Alternative transportation is not regressive. No, just not wanted by 95%+ of the population. - B     Date: 25 May 2007 02:55:59 From: Nobody Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:28:18 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp58n@4ax.com>, > Nobody <jock@soccer.com> writes: > >>>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens >>>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down >>>with athsma is also good. >> >> Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect >> two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those >> weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. > >I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related >flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. >And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be >/made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is >quite do-able right now. > >> Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current >> street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! > >Alternative transportation is not regressive. > >> Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and >> hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler >> across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and >> snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. > >What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km? > >> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by >> wish or function. > >It is for me, and for many others. Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority. I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump in the closest pond. It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)       Date: 25 May 2007 14:17:52 From: nash Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Nobody" <jock@soccer.com > wrote in message news:qhjc53d5pjgnjlg3lqapqon1di33s9oors@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:28:18 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > >>In article <94s953d19blr46ciffou9iolaiueisp58n@4ax.com>, >> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> writes: >> >>>>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens >>>>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down >>>>with athsma is also good. >>> >>> Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect >>> two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those >>> weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. >> >>I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related >>flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can. >>And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be >>/made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is >>quite do-able right now. >> >>> Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current >>> street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! >> >>Alternative transportation is not regressive. >> >>> Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and >>> hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler >>> across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and >>> snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. >> >>What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km? >> >>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by >>> wish or function. >> >>It is for me, and for many others. > > > Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't > seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority. > > I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic > transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump > in the closest pond. > > It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not > "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.) what is wrong with 5 miles then.   Date: 23 May 2007 15:52:36 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <uf35i.18405$3P3.16343@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Claire Petersky" <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > writes: > > "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:e6c23f.nc11.ln@bud.garden.local... > >> I don't generally go to Tim Horton's; the lineups >> are too long. > > Oh man. This was my great delight, the last time I was up in your fair > nation: to go to Tim Hortons, order a tea and a muffin, and only pay $2.38 > (CDN) - and I didn't have to tell them how to make tea. My attempts to go to TH have generally been during working day lunch breaks, when getting a prime spot in the lineup is practically an Ol*mp*c event. They should have hash marks leading from the doors of nearby businesses to the TH. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 23 May 2007 14:37:18 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <1179411385.388974.271330@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, neil0502@yahoo.com writes: > On May 16, 9:17 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > >> [*] Gas in Vancouver is $1.30+(Cdn)/litre > > Dear Tom, > > If I'd known there'd be math, I'd have studied ;-) > > Any way you can convert that into a more digestible unit of > measurement, like "Tim Horton's Jelly-filled's and a cup of coffee per > US Gallon" for me? > > Thanks, Last I heard, the Canadian dollar was at 0.92 US. Locally, gas is now between $1.18 and $1.27/litre. There's roughly 4 litres to the US gallon. A litre of Coke is about $2 Cdn here in Vancouver. I think a litre of bottled water costs somewhere between a litre of gas and a litre of Coke. A 10-pound sack of russet potatoes is $2.99 at my local green grocer. A 1 kilo sack of Quaker Oats (quick cooking) is $3.69 at the same store. I don't generally go to Tim Horton's; the lineups are too long. But a dozen day-olds/cripples Duffin's donuts is $3.oo. A medium sized cup of dark roast at Bean Around the World is $1.75. 75-cent refills. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 23 May 2007 22:29:46 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:e6c23f.nc11.ln@bud.garden.local... > I don't generally go to Tim Horton's; the lineups > are too long. Oh man. This was my great delight, the last time I was up in your fair nation: to go to Tim Hortons, order a tea and a muffin, and only pay $2.38 (CDN) - and I didn't have to tell them how to make tea. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky   Date: 22 May 2007 10:59:32 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 21, 7:19 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 21, 10:32 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 11:02 am, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > > > > "John Mara" <johnm...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message > > > >news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > > > > george conklin wrote: > > > > >> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New > > > >> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to > > > >> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in time. > > > > > Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has enacted > > > > regulations for them. > > > > >http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story > > > > > -- > > > > John Mara > > > > Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > > > workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used to > > > be.- > > > You know what you "oil addiction" is forcing the Nigereans into? > > Untold exploitation and misery. That's why they came up with a Niger > > Liberation Front, or something to the effect. > > I think you need to check the name. Niger and Nigeria are two > different countries. I cannot remember what the Nigerian group is > called but I am pretty sure that Niger LF would mess up the mailing > address something terrible. The name is not related to the country of Niger, but the Niger Delta. Anyway I made up the rest of the name, which truly is... "The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta"   Date: 22 May 2007 10:53:47 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 21, 7:06 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 21, 11:15 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > > > > <j...@phred.org> wrote in message > > > >news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... > > > > > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > > > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > > > >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > > > >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used > > > >> to > > > >> be. > > > > > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among other > > > > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. > > > > > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, and > > > > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could be > > > > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to eliminate > > > > a particular form of exploitation. > > > > > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab > > > > operator. > > > > In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We should > > > be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > > > bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- > > > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got > > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative > > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in > > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. > > I take it you're quite young ? I seem to remember Solidarity. > However you have a good point. OTOH free or not Wal-Mart has a union > in China. In communist countries EVERYBODY is unionized, just not free.   Date: 22 May 2007 10:52:07 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 21, 1:12 pm, <j...@phred.org > wrote: > > Pedicabs are not manual labor. > > It is considered to be abusive labor. > > By whom? > > When educated cyclists in developed economies work to develop modern > bicycle taxis and choose to operate those taxis rather than work in > offices, you'll have to come up with some pretty convincing evidence > that they are abusing themsevles. Something that will outweigh their > own enlightened self-interest and free will. > > Your mere assertion does not make it so. Of course, you don't need to go back into pedicab taxis to help the environment. Now New York City is moving into hybrid taxis. I guess pedicabs is more of tourist attraction than anything else in developed countries. No need for the Pedicab Liberation Army, we just need to make room for individuals who want to bike.   Date: 21 May 2007 16:19:03 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 21, 10:32 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 19, 11:02 am, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > > > > > "John Mara" <johnm...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message > > >news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > > > george conklin wrote: > > > >> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New > > >> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to > > >> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in time. > > > > Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has enacted > > > regulations for them. > > > >http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story > > > > -- > > > John Mara > > > Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > > workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used to > > be.- > > You know what you "oil addiction" is forcing the Nigereans into? > Untold exploitation and misery. That's why they came up with a Niger > Liberation Front, or something to the effect. I think you need to check the name. Niger and Nigeria are two different countries. I cannot remember what the Nigerian group is called but I am pretty sure that Niger LF would mess up the mailing address something terrible. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 21 May 2007 16:13:14 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 21, 1:25 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote: > On May 21, 11:46 am, "Amy Blankenship" > > > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1179760557.772713.67960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > > >> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message > > > >>news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... > > > >> > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > >> > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > > >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > > >> >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past > > >> >> used > > >> >> to > > >> >> be. > > > >> > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among other > > >> > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. > > > >> > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, and > > >> > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could be > > >> > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to eliminate > > >> > a particular form of exploitation. > > > >> > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab > > >> > operator. > > > >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We > > >> should > > >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > > >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- > > > > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got > > > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative > > > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in > > > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. > > > > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why > > > not labor?" > > > He loves Wal-Mart's low prices. Of _course_ no one is ever exploited so we > > can have those low prices ;-). > > But if I can get a $3.00 product for $2.00; then I have $1.00 to > invest or save or buy something else. Very true but from what I have been reading, I have not seen this in actual operation yet, Wal-Mart is a bit like a casino. It tends to suck money out of the local economy without putting much back into it. Mind you any large retailer is likely to do the same, Wal-Mart just has a more powerful vacuum. > > Besides, WM is going green and within 5 years they'll be the darlings > of the environmental movement. Pedicabs up and down the isles? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 21 May 2007 16:06:10 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 21, 11:15 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > > > > > <j...@phred.org> wrote in message > > >news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... > > > > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > > >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > > >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used > > >> to > > >> be. > > > > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among other > > > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. > > > > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, and > > > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could be > > > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to eliminate > > > a particular form of exploitation. > > > > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab > > > operator. > > > In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We should > > be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > > bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- > > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. I take it you're quite young ? I seem to remember Solidarity. However you have a good point. OTOH free or not Wal-Mart has a union in China. > > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why > not labor?" John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 23 May 2007 12:33:35 From: Krzysztof Zietara Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On 21 May 2007 16:06:10 -0700, John Kane wrote: > I take it you're quite young ? I seem to remember Solidarity. You may also remember how it ended up first time around, then. > However you have a good point. OTOH free or not Wal-Mart has a union > in China. The question is, are those unions are just for show or do they really protect rights of fhe worker. Tarhimdugurth -- [S1 - za sygnaturkê]   Date: 21 May 2007 10:25:44 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 21, 11:46 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1179760557.772713.67960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > >> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message > > >>news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... > > >> > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >> > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > >> >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past > >> >> used > >> >> to > >> >> be. > > >> > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among other > >> > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. > > >> > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, and > >> > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could be > >> > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to eliminate > >> > a particular form of exploitation. > > >> > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab > >> > operator. > > >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We > >> should > >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- > > > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got > > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative > > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in > > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. > > > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why > > not labor?" > > He loves Wal-Mart's low prices. Of _course_ no one is ever exploited so we > can have those low prices ;-). But if I can get a $3.00 product for $2.00; then I have $1.00 to invest or save or buy something else. Besides, WM is going green and within 5 years they'll be the darlings of the environmental movement.   Date: 21 May 2007 10:25:20 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <MPG.20bb72c0c3f42bcf9896dc@newsgroups.comcast.net >, <josh@phred.org > writes: > In article <h3f4i.11984$Ut6.7093@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > george@nxu.edu says... >> >> <josh@phred.org> wrote in message >> news:MPG.20ba8f62d24002269896db@newsgroups.comcast.net... >> > In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14831@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> > george@nxu.edu says... >> > >> >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We >> >> should >> >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally >> >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is. >> > >> > Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior >> >> Pedicabs are not manual labor. >> It is considered to be abusive labor. > > By whom? > > When educated cyclists in developed economies work to develop modern > bicycle taxis and choose to operate those taxis rather than work in > offices, you'll have to come up with some pretty convincing evidence > that they are abusing themsevles. Something that will outweigh their > own enlightened self-interest and free will. > > Your mere assertion does not make it so. George must've been recently "stuck" behind a pedicab while driving around ;-) -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 21 May 2007 09:56:32 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 21, 11:46 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1179760557.772713.67960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > >> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message > > >>news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... > > >> > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >> > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > >> >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past > >> >> used > >> >> to > >> >> be. > > >> > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among other > >> > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. > > >> > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, and > >> > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could be > >> > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to eliminate > >> > a particular form of exploitation. > > >> > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab > >> > operator. > > >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We > >> should > >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- > > > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got > > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative > > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in > > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. > > > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why > > not labor?" > > He loves Wal-Mart's low prices. Of _course_ no one is ever exploited so we > can have those low prices ;-). But if I can get a $3.00 product for $2.00; then I have $1.00 to invest or save or buy something else. Besides, WM is going green and within 5 years they'll be the darlings of the environmental movement.     Date: 21 May 2007 18:09:52 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1179765649.017172.68660@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On May 21, 11:46 am, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1179760557.772713.67960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: >> >> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message >> >> >>news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... >> >> >> > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> >> > geo...@nxu.edu says... >> >> >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation >> >> >> of >> >> >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past >> >> >> used >> >> >> to >> >> >> be. >> >> >> > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among >> >> > other >> >> > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. >> >> >> > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, >> >> > and >> >> > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could >> >> > be >> >> > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to >> >> > eliminate >> >> > a particular form of exploitation. >> >> >> > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab >> >> > operator. >> >> >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We >> >> should >> >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how >> >> morally >> >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- >> >> > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got >> > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative >> > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in >> > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. >> >> > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why >> > not labor?" >> >> He loves Wal-Mart's low prices. Of _course_ no one is ever exploited so >> we >> can have those low prices ;-). > > > But if I can get a $3.00 product for $2.00; then I have $1.00 to > invest or save or buy something else. Are you then going to use it to sponsor a Chinese child with World Vision? ;-)       Date: 22 May 2007 01:56:47 From: Sancho Panza Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:hFp4i.13231$KC4.2431@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > news:1179765649.017172.68660@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> On May 21, 11:46 am, "Amy Blankenship" >> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:1179760557.772713.67960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >>> >>> > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: >>> >> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message >>> >>> >>news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... >>> >>> >> > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>> >> > geo...@nxu.edu says... >>> >>> >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such >>> >> >> exploitation of >>> >> >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the >>> >> >> past >>> >> >> used >>> >> >> to >>> >> >> be. >>> >>> >> > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among >>> >> > other >>> >> > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. >>> >>> >> > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, >>> >> > and >>> >> > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it >>> >> > could be >>> >> > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to >>> >> > eliminate >>> >> > a particular form of exploitation. >>> >>> >> > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab >>> >> > operator. >>> >>> >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We >>> >> should >>> >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how >>> >> morally >>> >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- >>> >>> > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got >>> > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative >>> > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in >>> > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. >>> >>> > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why >>> > not labor?" >>> >>> He loves Wal-Mart's low prices. Of _course_ no one is ever exploited so >>> we >>> can have those low prices ;-). >> >> >> But if I can get a $3.00 product for $2.00; then I have $1.00 to >> invest or save or buy something else. > > Are you then going to use it to sponsor a Chinese child with World Vision? > ;-) Nope. I'm going to contribute it to Hillary Clinton's campaign funds. After all, she invented the whole legal justification for the Wal-Mart system.         Date: 27 May 2007 20:45:30 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Sancho Panza wrote: > Nope. I'm going to contribute it to Hillary Clinton's campaign funds. After > all, she invented the whole legal justification for the Wal-Mart system. Crikey , I never suspected you were *that* much of a Republican. :-D   Date: 21 May 2007 08:17:48 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 21, 7:06 am, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote: > <j...@phred.org> wrote in message > > news:MPG.20ba8f62d24002269896db@newsgroups.comcast.net... > > > In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We > >> should > >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is. > > > Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior > > Pedicabs are not manual labor. It is considered to be abusive labor. For whom, the operator or the horse???   Date: 21 May 2007 08:15:57 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote: > <j...@phred.org> wrote in message > > news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... > > > > > > > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used > >> to > >> be. > > > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among other > > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. > > > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, and > > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could be > > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to eliminate > > a particular form of exploitation. > > > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab > > operator. > > In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We should > be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in a communist country? I believe it when I see it. He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why not labor?"     Date: 21 May 2007 10:46:55 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1179760557.772713.67960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: >> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message >> >> news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> > geo...@nxu.edu says... >> >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of >> >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past >> >> used >> >> to >> >> be. >> >> > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among other >> > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. >> >> > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, and >> > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could be >> > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to eliminate >> > a particular form of exploitation. >> >> > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab >> > operator. >> >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We >> should >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- > > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. > > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why > not labor?" He loves Wal-Mart's low prices. Of _course_ no one is ever exploited so we can have those low prices ;-).   Date: 21 May 2007 08:11:02 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 20, 6:36 pm, <j...@phred.org > wrote: > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > > Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > > workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used to > > be. > > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among other > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. > > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, and > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could be > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to eliminate > a particular form of exploitation. > > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab > operator. I think George is all for the Pedicab Liberation Front!?   Date: 21 May 2007 07:34:21 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: governments are accountable On May 19, 11:04 am, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1179584621.190957.260150@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 19, 7:23 am, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > > >> > Get a trailer. A basic Google search will give you many brands and > >> > models. > > >> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New > >> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to > >> walk > >> next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in time. > > > Well, you seem to rejoice in going back in time, because as far as me > > goes SUVs are dinosaurs. Unwilling to evolve, unwilling to listen (due > > to their pea-sized brain) and causing a lot of trouble, like the war > > over oil we are currently fighting --and losing. > > Those of you who worship the past are in for a rude shock when the time > arrives when the human animal once again becomes a beast of burden. You are > betting that you will be able to hire someone else to do your work for you.- Have you heard about Sweatshops??? That's been happening for the longest time.   Date: 21 May 2007 07:32:36 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 19, 11:02 am, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote: > "John Mara" <johnm...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > > > > > > george conklin wrote: > > >> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New > >> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to > >> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in time. > > > Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has enacted > > regulations for them. > > >http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story > > > -- > > John Mara > > Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used to > be.- You know what you "oil addiction" is forcing the Nigereans into? Untold exploitation and misery. That's why they came up with a Niger Liberation Front, or something to the effect.   Date: 21 May 2007 07:15:10 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 20, 9:01 pm, <j...@phred.org > wrote: > In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > > In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We should > > be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > > bankrupt the New Urbanism is. > > Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior, or is there something > specific about bicycling that you dislike? I've seen this reaction before. It is okay to have a person (taxi driver) take you around town but is is somehow degrading if he or she has to put any real physical effort into it. However there is nothing wrong with structuring the taxi business that a driver needs to work 12 hour days 6-7 days a week to make living > > In India, the carpet-weaving industry is also often condemned, in this > case for exploiting child labor. That doesn't mean that we should also > condemn carpet manufacturing in countries that enforce reasonable labor > standards. We all should convert to hardwood flooring :) John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 19 May 2007 10:37:41 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <1uq17zhh5bloi$.1qs5fcchy7zgt$.dlg@40tude.net >, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > writes: > On 18 May 2007 19:23:08 -0700, donquijote1954 wrote: > >> Get a trailer. A basic Google search will give you many brands and >> models. > > I've been thinking about a trailer, since I shop by bike twice a week and > use a large backpack, which gets pretty heavy. But my shopping bike is > a cheap roadie, which has nothing but small luggage rack mounting holes, > and I'm also concerned about theft of the trailer. > > Can anyone comment on these points? The Leggero Shopper (I've got one) easily converts from bicycle trailer to shopping cart, so you can take it in the store with you. http://www.bikebox.ca/html/products_max.php For the most part though, the milk crate on my bike's rear rack is more than adequate. When the interior gets full I can still hang stuff on the outside. Rather than one-stop shopping, I prefer to stop at various specialty shops & green grocers, and organize my routes accordingly -- which often amounts to going straight down Main St several blocks, and shopping my way back home. And there's no rule that says everything has to be gotten in one trip. Most of everything I need is within a 2 km radius of home. But I'm not above doing a 20-something km round trip to The Cheese Place for some nice Jarlsberg or Provolone (plus the pleasure of the ride itself.) cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 20 May 2007 09:30:55 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Sat, 19 May 2007 10:37:41 -0700, Tom Keats wrote: > The Leggero Shopper (I've got one) easily converts > from bicycle trailer to shopping cart, so you can > take it in the store with you. That sounds like the idea way to go - thanks. -- Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw   Date: 19 May 2007 09:08:19 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 19, 3:45 am, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote: > On 18 May 2007 19:23:08 -0700, donquijote1954 wrote: > > > Get a trailer. A basic Google search will give you many brands and > > models. > > I've been thinking about a trailer, since I shop by bike twice a week and > use a large backpack, which gets pretty heavy. But my shopping bike is > a cheap roadie, which has nothing but small luggage rack mounting holes, > and I'm also concerned about theft of the trailer. > > Can anyone comment on these points? I have no experience with trailors but they do look handy. However just for shopping I've used high quality panniers for years and recommend them. If you can do all your shopping with a backpack then the panniers are more than sufficient. I have regularly cycled home from the grocery store with a 10 km (22 lb) bag of flour in one pannier and the rest of the shopping in the other one. However you do need to get good panniers. Cheap ones will not be large enough nr durable enough. I spent about CDN$ 210 for mine about 15 years ago and they're still in daily use. A cheap set of panniers usually lasted about 2 years if I was lucky. Have a look at http://www.arkel-od.com/panniers/utility/overview.asp?fl=0&site= . These are made by the successor company to the one that made mine. Not as fancy as mine since mine are more touring bags but I think they may be my next set of panniers since I use mine daily in town for the activities they are designed for and seldom tour. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 20 May 2007 09:33:37 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On 19 May 2007 09:08:19 -0700, John Kane wrote: > However just for shopping I've used high quality panniers for years > and recommend them. If you can do all your shopping with a backpack > then the panniers are more than sufficient. I have regularly cycled > home from the grocery store with a 10 km (22 lb) bag of flour in one > pannier and the rest of the shopping in the other one. Thanks, I hadn't thought of panniers. If they can fit my bike (which has short roadie chainstays) and be quickly put on and removed, they'd be quite good. -- Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw   Date: 19 May 2007 08:59:46 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 18, 8:09 pm, "otterpo...@hotmail.com" <otterpo...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 18, 6:49 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > On May 18, 2:09 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Most people would rather have both. > > > > Which is the problem with creating a car-free city. How do you get > > > 40,000 happily car-free individuals together and make it work somehow? > > > > BTW, how would goods get delivered in a car free city?- > > > Are you reading? I said most people would have cars and bikes, not one > > or the other. Most trips under 5 miles could be done by bike, and the > > rest by car, comprende? > > Especially when they're doing their week's shopping, no doubt. Why a week's shopping? Without the hassle of a car to park it is pretty easy to make a stop 2-3 times a week and get fresher foods. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 19 May 2007 12:05:11 From: Bonehenge (B A R R Y) Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On 19 May 2007 08:59:46 -0700, John Kane <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote: >Why a week's shopping? Without the hassle of a car to park it is >pretty easy to make a stop 2-3 times a week and get fresher foods. > Good point. WITH the hassle of a car to park, we shop 3 times a week because we like fresh fruit and vegetables. <G > In fact, we usually don't buy the fresh stuff from a supermarket, as we have local vendors with much better produce, meats, and fish. We actually only go to the supermarket once, or maybe twice a month, for paper goods, soda, etc...   Date: 19 May 2007 08:46:59 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 18, 8:07 pm, "otterpo...@hotmail.com" <otterpo...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 18, 12:22 pm, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote: > > > > > In article <eDj3i.16740$3P3.4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > cpeter...@mouse-potato.com says... > > > ... > > > > >> >> How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the > > > >> >> Twin > > > >> >> Cities? > > > > >> > About 11-1/2. > > > > >> And the average snowfall is _____? > > > > > Enough that you lose that 1/2 a month over the course of a winter. > > > > The ice bike site (http://www.icebike.com) is the go-to resource on > > > bicycling in the snow and on ice. > > > > I confess, I am happier to drown :-) :-) :-) here bicycling through the > > > winter in the Seattle area, instead. Yeah, it rains. You know what happens? > > > You get wet. Wet does not equal cold, or uncomfortable. Wet things and wet > > > people become dry after a while, too. It's not a big deal, unless you're a > > > total weanie. > > > For me, I'd rather ride in dry cold weather than cool wet weather. > > > -- > > Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the > > newsgroups if possible). > > If the 50 inches of the white stuff is so dry, that must mean it is > hanging around quite a long time. And not helping cyclists much. As long as the road is plowed how cares? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 19 May 2007 14:16:55 From: Sancho Panza Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1179589619.734110.279930@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On May 18, 8:07 pm, "otterpo...@hotmail.com" <otterpo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On May 18, 12:22 pm, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > In article <eDj3i.16740$3P3.4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> > cpeter...@mouse-potato.com says... >> >> > ... >> >> > > >> >> How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in >> > > >> >> the >> > > >> >> Twin >> > > >> >> Cities? >> >> > > >> > About 11-1/2. >> >> > > >> And the average snowfall is _____? >> >> > > > Enough that you lose that 1/2 a month over the course of a winter. >> >> > > The ice bike site (http://www.icebike.com) is the go-to resource on >> > > bicycling in the snow and on ice. >> >> > > I confess, I am happier to drown :-) :-) :-) here bicycling through >> > > the >> > > winter in the Seattle area, instead. Yeah, it rains. You know what >> > > happens? >> > > You get wet. Wet does not equal cold, or uncomfortable. Wet things >> > > and wet >> > > people become dry after a while, too. It's not a big deal, unless >> > > you're a >> > > total weanie. >> >> > For me, I'd rather ride in dry cold weather than cool wet weather. >> >> > -- >> > Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the >> > newsgroups if possible). >> >> If the 50 inches of the white stuff is so dry, that must mean it is >> hanging around quite a long time. And not helping cyclists much. > > As long as the road is plowed how cares? As fabled as the plowing is along the Northern Tier, it still cannot make bicycling after a storm anything but a royal pain. Can anyone spell s-l-u-s-h or are we still maintaining how dry my streets are?       Date: 19 May 2007 23:33:21 From: John Mara Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? Sancho Panza wrote: > As fabled as the plowing is along the Northern Tier, it still cannot make > bicycling after a storm anything but a royal pain. Can anyone spell > s-l-u-s-h or are we still maintaining how dry my streets are? Skidding cars are a hazard when riding a bike in snow. -- John Mara   Date: 19 May 2007 08:46:05 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 18, 12:22 pm, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net > wrote: > In article <eDj3i.16740$3P3.4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > cpeter...@mouse-potato.com says... > > ... > > > > > >> >> How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the > > >> >> Twin > > >> >> Cities? > > > >> > About 11-1/2. > > > >> And the average snowfall is _____? > > > > Enough that you lose that 1/2 a month over the course of a winter. > > > The ice bike site (http://www.icebike.com) is the go-to resource on > > bicycling in the snow and on ice. > > > I confess, I am happier to drown :-) :-) :-) here bicycling through the > > winter in the Seattle area, instead. Yeah, it rains. You know what happens? > > You get wet. Wet does not equal cold, or uncomfortable. Wet things and wet > > people become dry after a while, too. It's not a big deal, unless you're a > > total weanie. > > For me, I'd rather ride in dry cold weather than cool wet weather. I'm with you. Personally I prefer 30 C and sun but -10 and sun beats +5 and rain any day. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 19 May 2007 08:44:35 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 18, 10:27 am, "Sancho Panza" <otterpo...@xhotmail.com > wrote: > "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message > > news:MPG.20b76b8bc435f1a989b12@news.conversent.net... > > > In article <cua3i.169$S03....@newsfe12.lga>, otterpo...@xhotmail.com > > says... > > > ... > > >> How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the Twin > >> Cities? > > > About 11-1/2. > > And the average snowfall is _____? Probably no more than it is in Ottawa where quite a few people ride all winter. Snow is seldom a serious problem until it is bad enough to also force cars off the streets. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 19 May 2007 08:42:25 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 18, 8:52 am, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net > wrote: > In article <cua3i.169$S03....@newsfe12.lga>, otterpo...@xhotmail.com > says... > > ... > > > How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the Twin > > Cities? > > About 11-1/2. You only take 2 weeks holidays? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 19 May 2007 07:23:41 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: governments are accountable On May 19, 7:23 am, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote: > > Get a trailer. A basic Google search will give you many brands and > > models. > > As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New > Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to walk > next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in time. Well, you seem to rejoice in going back in time, because as far as me goes SUVs are dinosaurs. Unwilling to evolve, unwilling to listen (due to their pea-sized brain) and causing a lot of trouble, like the war over oil we are currently fighting --and losing. And the American government and any other government who doesn't guarantee a minimun safety for individuals who want NOT to contribute to Global Warming, are accountable for the environmental disaster looming upon us... "I personally believe that the planet would be a better place if everybody rode a bike instead of drive a car. However, until then I am a happier, healthier person simply because I choose to ride instead of fire up the car." Thanks again. michael http://commutebybike.com/2006/11/15/global-warming-do-bicycles-make-a-difference/ Now some ecologists, who probably out of desperation for this sad state of affairs, seeing no peaceful solution to it, took up violence are being branded as "terrorists." SUVs drivers though are our best patriots, particularly judging by the bumper stickers they proudly parade: "We support our troops" etc. George Orwell spoke about it with prophetic words... 'Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suited the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim was to make any alternative thinking ("thoughtcrime") or speech impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. The Newspeak term for the English language is Oldspeak. Oldspeak was intended to have been completely eclipsed by Newspeak before 2050. The genesis of Orwell's Newspeak can be seen in his earlier essay, "Politics and the English Language," in which he laments the quality of the English of his day, citing examples of dying metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and meaningless words - all of which contribute to fuzzy ideas and a lack of logical thinking. Towards the end of this essay, having argued his case, Orwell muses: " I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions. " Thus forcing the use of Newspeak, according to Orwell, describes a deliberate intent to exploit this degeneration with the aim of oppressing its speakers.'     Date: 19 May 2007 15:04:20 From: george conklin Subject: Re: governments are accountable "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1179584621.190957.260150@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On May 19, 7:23 am, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > >> > Get a trailer. A basic Google search will give you many brands and >> > models. >> >> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New >> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to >> walk >> next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in time. > > Well, you seem to rejoice in going back in time, because as far as me > goes SUVs are dinosaurs. Unwilling to evolve, unwilling to listen (due > to their pea-sized brain) and causing a lot of trouble, like the war > over oil we are currently fighting --and losing. > > Those of you who worship the past are in for a rude shock when the time arrives when the human animal once again becomes a beast of burden. You are betting that you will be able to hire someone else to do your work for you.       Date: 20 May 2007 22:10:14 From: gl4316@yahoo.com Subject: Re: governments are accountable In article <UlE3i.17039$3P3.7920@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote: > Those of you who worship the past are in for a rude shock when the time > arrives when the human animal once again becomes a beast of burden. You are > betting that you will be able to hire someone else to do your work for you. So, North Carolina still has Automat restaurants instead of hand-assembled fast food? -- -Glennl The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too! e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.   Date: 18 May 2007 19:23:08 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 18, 8:09 pm, "otterpo...@hotmail.com" <otterpo...@hotmail.com > wrote: > > Are you reading? I said most people would have cars and bikes, not one > > or the other. Most trips under 5 miles could be done by bike, and the > > rest by car, comprende? > > Especially when they're doing their week's shopping, no doubt. Get a trailer. A basic Google search will give you many brands and models.     Date: 19 May 2007 11:23:45 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1179541388.354958.58380@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On May 18, 8:09 pm, "otterpo...@hotmail.com" <otterpo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> > Are you reading? I said most people would have cars and bikes, not one >> > or the other. Most trips under 5 miles could be done by bike, and the >> > rest by car, comprende? >> >> Especially when they're doing their week's shopping, no doubt. > > Get a trailer. A basic Google search will give you many brands and > models. > > As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in time.       Date: 19 May 2007 10:01:39 From: John Mara Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands george conklin wrote: > > As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New > Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to walk > next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in time. > Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has enacted regulations for them. http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story -- John Mara         Date: 19 May 2007 15:02:44 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com > wrote in message news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > george conklin wrote: > >> >> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New >> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to >> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in time. > > > Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has enacted > regulations for them. > > http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story > > -- > John Mara > Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used to be.           Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:17:09 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Jun 1, 1:53 am, <j...@phred.org > wrote: > In article <32E7i.11971$296.5...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > > Pedicabs are being discouraged and banned because those who do that kind > > of work basically wear themselves out in about 5 years. > > Not true of any of the pedicab operators I've known, but for the sake of > argument, we can pretend they're all statistical outliers. > > > It is highly > > abusive. > > It's easier on the body than drywall installation, ditch digging, or > meat packing, judging by disability rates. It's regrettable that our friend George still sees pedicabs as something backward. Something fit for Roman times perhaps... http://www.flickr.com/photos/70626467@N00/249437991/           Date: 20 May 2007 15:36:20 From: Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >, george@nxu.edu says... > Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used to > be. Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among other cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, and even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could be that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to eliminate a particular form of exploitation. I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab operator. -- josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/ > Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >             Date: 21 May 2007 00:42:15 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands <josh@phred.org > wrote in message news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > george@nxu.edu says... > >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used >> to >> be. > > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among other > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. > > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, and > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could be > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to eliminate > a particular form of exploitation. > > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab > operator. > In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We should be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally bankrupt the New Urbanism is.               Date: 20 May 2007 18:01:56 From: Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14831@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >, george@nxu.edu says... > In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We should > be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > bankrupt the New Urbanism is. Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior, or is there something specific about bicycling that you dislike? In India, the carpet-weaving industry is also often condemned, in this case for exploiting child labor. That doesn't mean that we should also condemn carpet manufacturing in countries that enforce reasonable labor standards. -- josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/ > Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >                 Date: 04 Jun 2007 08:14:04 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Jun 3, 4:29 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu > wrote: > pigsty1...@yahoo.com wrote: > > I hate to say it but a lot of cops are liars, and they get away with > > it with impunity. Prove them wrong. And to add fuel to the fire, a > > prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted. It does not take much > > more to really screw you. > > > That is the reason I am supporting Barak Obama for Pres. I want to > > see the drug laws ELIMINATED, completely. > > Then you should support Ron Paul for president instead, because I'm > quite sure that Democrats, nor Barak Obama have any interest in > repealing drug laws. Some people say our presidents and politicians are just puppets of the corporations that finance their profession. If that were to be the case, you'd be wasting your time and it would be smart to vote for a real puppet... http://www.teddybearfriends.co.uk/images/teddy-bears/large/gund-teddy-bear-mambo-monkey.jpg with ther real platform... http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1 (if it sounds repetitious is because in politics you have to repeat things 1000 times to get your point across)                 Date: 21 May 2007 11:06:53 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands <josh@phred.org > wrote in message news:MPG.20ba8f62d24002269896db@newsgroups.comcast.net... > In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14831@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > george@nxu.edu says... > >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We >> should >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is. > > Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior Pedicabs are not manual labor. It is considered to be abusive labor.                   Date: 27 May 2007 20:49:59 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands george conklin wrote: > <josh@phred.org> wrote in message > news:MPG.20ba8f62d24002269896db@newsgroups.comcast.net... >> In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14831@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> george@nxu.edu says... >> >>> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We >>> should >>> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally >>> bankrupt the New Urbanism is. >> Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior > > Pedicabs are not manual labor. It is considered to be abusive labor. So if I go buy a pedicab and charge willing riders to be driven around in it, I'm abusing myself?                     Date: 05 Jun 2007 09:42:33 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Jun 5, 9:56 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net > wrote: > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > > news:SxC8i.14956$JQ3.3822@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > > > > > > "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > > gl4...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk > > >> <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most > > >>> other forms of exercise. > > > >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet > > >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks > > >> every day. > > > >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our > > >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or > > >> jog on? > > > > The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including > > > "self-abuse," should all be banned. > > > > George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch > > > digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a > mild > > > occupational hazard. > > > Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing... > > Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world > horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to do. Still waiting for my example, George.                     Date: 28 May 2007 12:15:35 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:465a2739$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > george conklin wrote: > > <josh@phred.org> wrote in message > > news:MPG.20ba8f62d24002269896db@newsgroups.comcast.net... > >> In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14831@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >> george@nxu.edu says... > >> > >>> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We > >>> should > >>> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > >>> bankrupt the New Urbanism is. > >> Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior > > > > Pedicabs are not manual labor. It is considered to be abusive labor. > > So if I go buy a pedicab and charge willing riders to be driven around > in it, I'm abusing myself? You are abusing the driver. But then you are an expert at self-abuse too.                       Date: 05 Jun 2007 09:47:45 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Jun 5, 12:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:XXd9i.1149$tb6.1075@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > >news:SxC8i.14956$JQ3.3822@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > >> "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> > gl4...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk > >> >> <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most > >> >>> other forms of exercise. > > >> >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on > >> >> feet > >> >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks > >> >> every day. > > >> >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our > >> >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk > >> >> or > >> >> jog on? > > >> > The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including > >> > "self-abuse," should all be banned. > > >> > George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, > >> > ditch > >> > digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a > > mild > >> > occupational hazard. > > >> Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing... > > > Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world > > horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to > > do. > > So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like > it. I think that pedicabs are like a lot of things. Yeah, they probably are abusive or whatever, but if you are poor and starving and living in a slum somewhere, is it better to have a pedicab and maybe make some money or is it better to starve. As for coming to America, who cares. We have lots of jobs, a minimum wage, a permitting system, and things like OSHA. If a person doesn't WANT to do it, then they don't HAVE to do it. It's a person's choice or employment. If they want to do it, great. Why not? It beats the heck out of a lot of other jobs out there. I guess I see things in shades of gray, not in absolutes.                         Date: 06 Jun 2007 16:03:56 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Pat wrote: > On Jun 5, 12:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> >> news:XXd9i.1149$tb6.1075@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> >> >> >> >>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message >>> news:SxC8i.14956$JQ3.3822@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >>>> "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>> gl4...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk >>>>>> <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >>>>>>> other forms of exercise. >>>>>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on >>>>>> feet >>>>>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks >>>>>> every day. >>>>>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our >>>>>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk >>>>>> or >>>>>> jog on? >>>>> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including >>>>> "self-abuse," should all be banned. >>>>> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, >>>>> ditch >>>>> digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a >>> mild >>>>> occupational hazard. >>>> Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing... >>> Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world >>> horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to >>> do. >> So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like >> it. > > I think that pedicabs are like a lot of things. Yeah, they probably > are abusive or whatever, but if you are poor and starving and living > in a slum somewhere, is it better to have a pedicab and maybe make > some money or is it better to starve. George really must have a funny definition of "abuse." Let's say a pedicab driver doesn't make too much. The typical pedicab driver is probably a temporary job someone takes on in the summer (probably a student) to make some cash. If they're making minimum wage plus tips, they maybe aren't doing so badly. Rather than being abusive, it's probably great exercise. > As for coming to America, who cares. We have lots of jobs, a minimum > wage, a permitting system, and things like OSHA. If a person doesn't > WANT to do it, then they don't HAVE to do it. It's a person's choice > or employment. If they want to do it, great. Why not? It beats the > heck out of a lot of other jobs out there. > > I guess I see things in shades of gray, not in absolutes. >                       Date: 28 May 2007 11:52:09 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands George Conklin wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:465a2739$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> george conklin wrote: >>> <josh@phred.org> wrote in message >>> news:MPG.20ba8f62d24002269896db@newsgroups.comcast.net... >>>> In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14831@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>>> george@nxu.edu says... >>>> >>>>> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We >>>>> should >>>>> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how > morally >>>>> bankrupt the New Urbanism is. >>>> Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior >>> Pedicabs are not manual labor. It is considered to be abusive > labor. >> So if I go buy a pedicab and charge willing riders to be driven around >> in it, I'm abusing myself? > > You are abusing the driver. But then you are an expert at self-abuse too. If the driver is making $20/hour, he's being abused? What if I drive it myself? BTW, that "you are an expert at self-abuse" quip almost amounted to "faggot!"                         Date: 28 May 2007 16:25:13 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:465afabe$0$8950$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > George Conklin wrote: > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:465a2739$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> george conklin wrote: > >>> <josh@phred.org> wrote in message > >>> news:MPG.20ba8f62d24002269896db@newsgroups.comcast.net... > >>>> In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14831@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >>>> george@nxu.edu says... > >>>> > >>>>> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We > >>>>> should > >>>>> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how > > morally > >>>>> bankrupt the New Urbanism is. > >>>> Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior > >>> Pedicabs are not manual labor. It is considered to be abusive > > labor. > >> So if I go buy a pedicab and charge willing riders to be driven around > >> in it, I'm abusing myself? > > > > You are abusing the driver. But then you are an expert at self-abuse too. > > If the driver is making $20/hour, he's being abused? What if I drive it > myself? > > BTW, that "you are an expert at self-abuse" quip almost amounted to > "faggot!" Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a viable goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, then you are abusing yourself.                           Date: 28 May 2007 12:56:27 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:JnD6i.15934$j63.1162@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a viable > goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, then > you > are abusing yourself. George believes that everyone in the US should be free... to do things George approves of.                             Date: 28 May 2007 14:52:55 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Amy Blankenship wrote: > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:JnD6i.15934$j63.1162@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a viable >> goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, then >> you >> are abusing yourself. I guess any work that involves physical exertion is "abusive." Like, say, construction, carpentry...um, farming? > George believes that everyone in the US should be free... > to do things George approves of. I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of.                               Date: 28 May 2007 22:31:56 From: Stephen Sprunk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:465b250a$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Amy Blankenship wrote: >> George believes that everyone in the US should be free... >> to do things George approves of. > > I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of. George approves of everyone owning at least one car per person and never walking, riding a bike, or using passenger rail. In fact, he wants everyone to drive their cars from their bedrooms to their cubicles, because even walking to and from their cars might threaten his car fetish. 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                               Date: 28 May 2007 21:16:32 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:465b250a$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Amy Blankenship wrote: > > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:JnD6i.15934$j63.1162@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a viable > >> goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, then > >> you > >> are abusing yourself. > > I guess any work that involves physical exertion is "abusive." Like, > say, construction, carpentry...um, farming? > > > George believes that everyone in the US should be free... > > to do things George approves of. > > I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of. Pushing third world abuses into the USA is no victory for anyone but this fool.                                 Date: 31 May 2007 11:24:01 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands George Conklin wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:465b250a$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Amy Blankenship wrote: >>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:JnD6i.15934$j63.1162@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>> Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a > viable >>>> goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, then >>>> you >>>> are abusing yourself. >> I guess any work that involves physical exertion is "abusive." Like, >> say, construction, carpentry...um, farming? >> >>> George believes that everyone in the US should be free... >>> to do things George approves of. >> I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of. > > Pushing third world abuses into the USA is no victory for anyone but this > fool. You have a funny notion of what "third world abuse" is. I would think it amounts more to something like working your fingers raw in a sweat shop for 17 hours a day, seven days a week. I don't know for sure, but if I was to venture a guess, I'd say pedicab operation is probably better pay than burger flipping, and healthier.                                   Date: 31 May 2007 17:57:49 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:465ee89b$0$1338$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > George Conklin wrote: >> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:465b250a$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> Amy Blankenship wrote: >>>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> news:JnD6i.15934$j63.1162@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>>> Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a >> viable >>>>> goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, >>>>> then >>>>> you >>>>> are abusing yourself. >>> I guess any work that involves physical exertion is "abusive." Like, >>> say, construction, carpentry...um, farming? >>> >>>> George believes that everyone in the US should be free... >>>> to do things George approves of. >>> I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of. >> >> Pushing third world abuses into the USA is no victory for anyone but this >> fool. > > You have a funny notion of what "third world abuse" is. I would think it > amounts more to something like working your fingers raw in a sweat shop > for 17 hours a day, seven days a week. > > I don't know for sure, but if I was to venture a guess, I'd say pedicab > operation is probably better pay than burger flipping, and healthier. Except it is not healthy. It is abusive of the body. It wears out the body in about 5 years. That is why pedicabs are being banned by those who know what is going on in nations where they have them.                                     Date: 01 Jun 2007 14:29:29 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands george conklin wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:465ee89b$0$1338$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> George Conklin wrote: >>> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:465b250a$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>> Amy Blankenship wrote: >>>>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:JnD6i.15934$j63.1162@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>> Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a >>> viable >>>>>> goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, >>>>>> then >>>>>> you >>>>>> are abusing yourself. >>>> I guess any work that involves physical exertion is "abusive." Like, >>>> say, construction, carpentry...um, farming? >>>> >>>>> George believes that everyone in the US should be free... >>>>> to do things George approves of. >>>> I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of. >>> Pushing third world abuses into the USA is no victory for anyone but this >>> fool. >> You have a funny notion of what "third world abuse" is. I would think it >> amounts more to something like working your fingers raw in a sweat shop >> for 17 hours a day, seven days a week. >> >> I don't know for sure, but if I was to venture a guess, I'd say pedicab >> operation is probably better pay than burger flipping, and healthier. > > Except it is not healthy. It is abusive of the body. It wears out the > body in about 5 years. That is why pedicabs are being banned by those who > know what is going on in nations where they have them. Today, George made up a new reason to hate pedicabs: they wear out the body! Now, there doesn't appear to be any evidence to support that, but you know, everything George says is true! Like, yeah, I'm sure they're much worse for the body (and other bodies around them) than the pollutants that come out of your exhaust pipe. Oh, wait, is George advocating banning cars now?                                     Date: 31 May 2007 14:01:02 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message news:x0E7i.11970$296.9168@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:465ee89b$0$1338$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> George Conklin wrote: >>> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:465b250a$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>> Amy Blankenship wrote: >> I don't know for sure, but if I was to venture a guess, I'd say pedicab >> operation is probably better pay than burger flipping, and healthier. > > Except it is not healthy. It is abusive of the body. It wears out the > body in about 5 years. That is why pedicabs are being banned by those who > know what is going on in nations where they have them. Let's ban all professional sports, then, and anything else where anyone is doing anything strenuous. Let's let everyone die from heart disease instead.                                   Date: 31 May 2007 09:27:22 From: Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands I'm wondering at what point George thinks bicycling with cargo becomes abuse. When I go bicycle touring with 50 lbs of gear in panniers, is that "third world abuse"? When I go shopping with a trailer and ride home with 200 lbs of household supplies, is that "third world abuse"? When I load my kids up for a ride on our tandem/trailer combo, and lug around 100+ lbs of passengers for the fun of it, is that is that "third world abuse"? Or is it only "third world abuse" if I were to carry passengers for $10/hour plus tips, with benefits, subject to OSHA regulations, while covered by unemployment and workers' compensation insurance? -- 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 Jun 2007 12:39:43 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <MPG.20c89742e7b3dda39896f2@newsgroups.comcast.net >, <josh@phred.org > wrote: > I'm wondering at what point George thinks bicycling with cargo becomes > abuse. Why? That's like bothering to wonder about the point at which a filthy bum thinks they need a shower. What makes biking objectively less abusive than many physical jobs is that the gearing allows you to put no greater stress on your body when you're pushing 2 extra people (or whatever the cargo is) than when you're pushing just yourself. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org                                     Date: 31 May 2007 17:59:27 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands <josh@phred.org > wrote in message news:MPG.20c89742e7b3dda39896f2@newsgroups.comcast.net... > I'm wondering at what point George thinks bicycling with cargo becomes > abuse. > > When I go bicycle touring with 50 lbs of gear in panniers, is that > "third world abuse"? > > When I go shopping with a trailer and ride home with 200 lbs of > household supplies, is that "third world abuse"? > > When I load my kids up for a ride on our tandem/trailer combo, and lug > around 100+ lbs of passengers for the fun of it, is that is that "third > world abuse"? > > Or is it only "third world abuse" if I were to carry passengers for > $10/hour plus tips, with benefits, subject to OSHA regulations, while > covered by unemployment and workers' compensation insurance? Pedicabs are being discouraged and banned because those who do that kind of work basically wear themselves out in about 5 years. It is highly abusive. Going to the store every now and then is not the same thing, but as you know, exercise freaks end up with bad knees, bad feet, arthritis and artifical joints. You will too.                                       Date: 31 May 2007 22:53:18 From: Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <32E7i.11971$296.5502@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >, george@nxu.edu says... > Pedicabs are being discouraged and banned because those who do that kind > of work basically wear themselves out in about 5 years. Not true of any of the pedicab operators I've known, but for the sake of argument, we can pretend they're all statistical outliers. > It is highly > abusive. It's easier on the body than drywall installation, ditch digging, or meat packing, judging by disability rates. > Going to the store every now and then is not the same thing, but > as you know, exercise freaks end up with bad knees, bad feet, arthritis and > artifical joints. You will too. Could be. I've only been at it 30-some years, who knows what the future will bring. On the other hand, people around the world manage to cycle for work and pleasure well into their 70s and beyond. -- 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 Jun 2007 13:56:36 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands josh@phred.org wrote: > In article <32E7i.11971$296.5502@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > george@nxu.edu says... >> Going to the store every now and then is not the same thing, but >> as you know, exercise freaks end up with bad knees, bad feet, arthritis and >> artifical joints. You will too. > > Could be. I've only been at it 30-some years, who knows what the future > will bring. > > On the other hand, people around the world manage to cycle for work and > pleasure well into their 70s and beyond. From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most other forms of exercise.                                           Date: 01 Jun 2007 22:37:44 From: gl4316@yahoo.com Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote: > From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most > other forms of exercise. Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks every day. Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or jog on? -- -Glennl The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too! e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.                                             Date: 03 Jun 2007 10:59:33 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands gl4316@yahoo.com wrote: > In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk > <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >> other forms of exercise. > > > Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet > and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks > every day. > > Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our > sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or > jog on? The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including "self-abuse," should all be banned. George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a mild occupational hazard. The rest of us have varying degrees of anti-authoritarian sentiments still, and don't expect to see every single thing we don't like banned.                                               Date: 03 Jun 2007 20:21:45 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > gl4316@yahoo.com wrote: >> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk >> <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >>> other forms of exercise. >> >> >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks >> every day. >> >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or >> jog on? > > The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including > "self-abuse," should all be banned. > > George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch > digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a mild > occupational hazard. > You have just made all this up out of your hatred for real people. Why do you enjoy being so stupid?                                                 Date: 03 Jun 2007 16:51:03 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands george conklin wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> gl4316@yahoo.com wrote: >>> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk >>> <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >>>> other forms of exercise. >>> >>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet >>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks >>> every day. >>> >>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our >>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or >>> jog on? >> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including >> "self-abuse," should all be banned. >> >> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch >> digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a mild >> occupational hazard. >> > > You have just made all this up out of your hatred for real people. Why > do you enjoy being so stupid? I didn't make it up. You implied abusive stuff should be banned. I'm a fake person? Oh, I get it. I must be posting to Dan Quayle. "It's rural America. It's where I came from. We always refer to ourselves as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real, America."                                                   Date: 03 Jun 2007 20:54:29 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:466329c3$0$31279$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > george conklin wrote: >> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> gl4316@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk >>>> <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >>>>> other forms of exercise. >>>> >>>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet >>>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks >>>> every day. >>>> >>>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our >>>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or >>>> jog on? >>> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including >>> "self-abuse," should all be banned. >>> >>> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch >>> digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a >>> mild occupational hazard. >>> >> >> You have just made all this up out of your hatred for real people. >> Why do you enjoy being so stupid? > > I didn't make it up. You implied abusive stuff should be banned. I'm a > fake person? Oh, I get it. I must be posting to Dan Quayle. > > "It's rural America. It's where I came from. We always refer to ourselves > as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real, America." You are the only one who spoke of banning carpentry, mechanics and whatever else you rant about. Sad person, you are.                                                     Date: 03 Jun 2007 17:07:24 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands george conklin wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:466329c3$0$31279$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> george conklin wrote: >>> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>> gl4316@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk >>>>> <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >>>>>> other forms of exercise. >>>>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet >>>>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks >>>>> every day. >>>>> >>>>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our >>>>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or >>>>> jog on? >>>> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including >>>> "self-abuse," should all be banned. >>>> >>>> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch >>>> digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a >>>> mild occupational hazard. >>>> >>> You have just made all this up out of your hatred for real people. >>> Why do you enjoy being so stupid? >> I didn't make it up. You implied abusive stuff should be banned. I'm a >> fake person? Oh, I get it. I must be posting to Dan Quayle. >> >> "It's rural America. It's where I came from. We always refer to ourselves >> as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real, America." > > You are the only one who spoke of banning carpentry, mechanics and whatever > else you rant about. Sad person, you are. Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion.                                                       Date: 03 Jun 2007 23:52:22 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:46632d98$0$3184$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > george conklin wrote: >> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:466329c3$0$31279$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> george conklin wrote: >>>> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>> gl4316@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk >>>>>> <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >>>>>>> other forms of exercise. >>>>>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on >>>>>> feet >>>>>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks >>>>>> every day. >>>>>> >>>>>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our >>>>>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk >>>>>> or >>>>>> jog on? >>>>> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including >>>>> "self-abuse," should all be banned. >>>>> >>>>> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, >>>>> ditch digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might >>>>> have a mild occupational hazard. >>>>> >>>> You have just made all this up out of your hatred for real people. >>>> Why do you enjoy being so stupid? >>> I didn't make it up. You implied abusive stuff should be banned. I'm a >>> fake person? Oh, I get it. I must be posting to Dan Quayle. >>> >>> "It's rural America. It's where I came from. We always refer to >>> ourselves as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real, >>> America." >> >> You are the only one who spoke of banning carpentry, mechanics and >> whatever else you rant about. Sad person, you are. > > Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking about > over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking your > reasoning to its logical conclusion. Nonsense. Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the urban poor The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of the puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3), they are typically addicted to gutka (tobacco), alcohol and gambling. That is the culture of the profession. It is a tough and violent life. The puller's wife would typically be a maid-servant in a middle-class home, washing utensils and clothes, sweeping and mopping.                                                         Date: 03 Jun 2007 21:29:02 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message news:WuI8i.16336$Ut6.6308@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... ... >> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking >> about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking >> your reasoning to its logical conclusion. > > Nonsense. > > Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the urban > poor > The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of the > puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3), We're talking about New York! > they are typically addicted to gutka (tobacco), alcohol and gambling. That > is the culture of the profession. It is a tough and violent life. Not in New York. > The puller's wife would typically be a maid-servant in a middle-class > home, washing utensils and clothes, sweeping and mopping. How do you manage to tie your shoes? Really.                                                           Date: 04 Jun 2007 11:03:04 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:fOK8i.7449$YM5.3286@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > > "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message > news:WuI8i.16336$Ut6.6308@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > ... >>> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking >>> about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking >>> your reasoning to its logical conclusion. >> >> Nonsense. >> >> Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the urban >> poor >> The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of >> the puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3), > > We're talking about New York! > The physical abuse is the same.                                                             Date: 04 Jun 2007 09:00:45 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message news:IjS8i.16536$Ut6.692@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > news:fOK8i.7449$YM5.3286@bignews2.bellsouth.net... >> >> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message >> news:WuI8i.16336$Ut6.6308@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> ... >>>> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking >>>> about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just >>>> taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion. >>> >>> Nonsense. >>> >>> Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the >>> urban poor >>> The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of >>> the puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3), >> >> We're talking about New York! >> > > The physical abuse is the same. Let's see. First you objected to pedicabs in New York because they are abusive in India. Then it was pointed out to you that most pedicab operators in New York are actually entrepreneurs, doing it quite by their own choice. You then decided you were against it because a pedicab operator might wear out his knees. It was pointed out to you that many other professions in the US have a far greater potential for damage or injury to the person involved in them than pedicab driver. You stated as clearly as you ever state anything that you don't object to those other professions. So obviously you *do not* object to damaging professions per se. More recently, you're back to the argument that because the culture of India makes the lot of a pedicab driver less than optimal, we should not have pedicabs in New York. When I point out to you that the culture of India has no effect on the pedicab drivers in New York, you're back to claiming that the "physical abuse" is the basis of your objection. Since you've made it clear that physical abuse in one's vocation per se is not something you object to across the board, then what, specifically, is it about pedicab drivers that you *really* object to? -Amy                                                               Date: 06 Jun 2007 16:52:09 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Amy Blankenship wrote: > "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message > news:IjS8i.16536$Ut6.692@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message >> news:fOK8i.7449$YM5.3286@bignews2.bellsouth.net... >>> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message >>> news:WuI8i.16336$Ut6.6308@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> ... >>>>> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking >>>>> about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just >>>>> taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion. >>>> Nonsense. >>>> >>>> Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the >>>> urban poor >>>> The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of >>>> the puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3), >>> We're talking about New York! >>> >> The physical abuse is the same. > > Let's see. First you objected to pedicabs in New York because they are > abusive in India. Then it was pointed out to you that most pedicab > operators in New York are actually entrepreneurs, doing it quite by their > own choice. You then decided you were against it because a pedicab operator > might wear out his knees. It was pointed out to you that many other > professions in the US have a far greater potential for damage or injury to > the person involved in them than pedicab driver. You stated as clearly as > you ever state anything that you don't object to those other professions. > So obviously you *do not* object to damaging professions per se. > > More recently, you're back to the argument that because the culture of India > makes the lot of a pedicab driver less than optimal, we should not have > pedicabs in New York. When I point out to you that the culture of India has > no effect on the pedicab drivers in New York, you're back to claiming that > the "physical abuse" is the basis of your objection. Since you've made it > clear that physical abuse in one's vocation per se is not something you > object to across the board, then what, specifically, is it about pedicab > drivers that you *really* object to? Ha ha. Seriously, that's the tactic George *always* uses. For whatever reason, he decides he doesn't like something, makes up numerous reasons to object to it, and then dodges any opportunity to offer a rational explanation. He does it with transit too. He also did it with horse farms. He gets agitated when you ask him to support his positions, and then accuses you of hating "real people," the "rural," and apple pie.                                                               Date: 04 Jun 2007 14:28:25 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <nRU8i.18300$px2.9766@bignews4.bellsouth.net >, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > Since you've made it > clear that physical abuse in one's vocation per se is not something you > object to across the board, then what, specifically, is it about pedicab > drivers that you *really* object to? Based on his posting history, I'd wager that he's astroturfing for some segment of the automobile industry. He's such a moron, though, that it ends up doing more harm than good. I highly suggest a killfile entry. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org                                                       Date: 03 Jun 2007 18:19:30 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:46632d98$0$3184$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... ... >> You are the only one who spoke of banning carpentry, mechanics and >> whatever else you rant about. Sad person, you are. > > Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking about > over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking your > reasoning to its logical conclusion. I wouldn't expend a whole lot of effort on getting him to understand this point. Clearly he would not have many of the beliefs he espouses if he were able to carry them to their logical conclusion. Hence, you can logically conclude that the ability to analyze the validity of his beliefs by taking them to their logical conclusion is something George flat doesn't possess.                                                         Date: 03 Jun 2007 23:53:19 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:y0I8i.7385$YM5.5483@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:46632d98$0$3184$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > ... >>> You are the only one who spoke of banning carpentry, mechanics and >>> whatever else you rant about. Sad person, you are. >> >> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking >> about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking >> your reasoning to its logical conclusion. > > I wouldn't expend a whole lot of effort on getting him to understand this > point. Pedicabs exploit the workers, and there is no point in comparing them to carpenters or joggers.                                                         Date: 03 Jun 2007 19:32:33 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Amy Blankenship wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:46632d98$0$3184$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > ... >>> You are the only one who spoke of banning carpentry, mechanics and >>> whatever else you rant about. Sad person, you are. >> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking about >> over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking your >> reasoning to its logical conclusion. > > I wouldn't expend a whole lot of effort on getting him to understand this > point. Clearly he would not have many of the beliefs he espouses if he were > able to carry them to their logical conclusion. Hence, you can logically > conclude that the ability to analyze the validity of his beliefs by taking > them to their logical conclusion is something George flat doesn't possess. Oh, my dear, it didn't take much effort. Frankly, the only reason I brought it up is it's funny as hell. If you want me to be *charitable*, I can be: I really should just assume that George is a troll, but somehow I think he's actually serious. (It would be better for George's credibility if he was a troll.)                                               Date: 03 Jun 2007 12:05:26 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > gl4316@yahoo.com wrote: >> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk >> <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >>> other forms of exercise. >> >> >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks >> every day. >> >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or >> jog on? > > The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including > "self-abuse," should all be banned. > > George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch > digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a mild > occupational hazard. Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...                                                 Date: 05 Jun 2007 13:56:07 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:SxC8i.14956$JQ3.3822@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > gl4316@yahoo.com wrote: > >> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk > >> <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most > >>> other forms of exercise. > >> > >> > >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet > >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks > >> every day. > >> > >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our > >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or > >> jog on? > > > > The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including > > "self-abuse," should all be banned. > > > > George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch > > digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a mild > > occupational hazard. > > Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing... > > Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to do.                                                   Date: 05 Jun 2007 11:10:16 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:XXd9i.1149$tb6.1075@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > news:SxC8i.14956$JQ3.3822@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >> >> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4662d760$0$14949$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> > gl4316@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk >> >> <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >> >>> other forms of exercise. >> >> >> >> >> >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on >> >> feet >> >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks >> >> every day. >> >> >> >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our >> >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk >> >> or >> >> jog on? >> > >> > The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including >> > "self-abuse," should all be banned. >> > >> > George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, >> > ditch >> > digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a > mild >> > occupational hazard. >> >> Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing... >> >> > > Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world > horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to > do. So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like it.                                             Date: 02 Jun 2007 11:52:17 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands <gl4316@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:gl4316-0106072237440001@69-30-8-236.pxd.easystreet.com... > In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk > <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >> other forms of exercise. > > > Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet > and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks > every day. > > Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our > sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or > jog on? It will hardly matter. Joggers are going to end up with bad knees and feet no matter what the run on. As they get older, they will need those knee replacements. And that is super-painful surgery.                                               Date: 02 Jun 2007 16:08:53 From: Bill Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands george conklin wrote: > <gl4316@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:gl4316-0106072237440001@69-30-8-236.pxd.easystreet.com... >> In article <46605ddd$0$3173$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bolwerk >> <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most >>> other forms of exercise. >> >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks >> every day. >> >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or >> jog on? > > It will hardly matter. Joggers are going to end up with bad knees and > feet no matter what the run on. As they get older, they will need those > knee replacements. And that is super-painful surgery. > > > My reply to that is merely that joggers are idiots. Running on your heels and crash landing every step is not even natural running. When I decide not to ride my bike I run, faster than jogging but slower than a full sprint. This works out to running about a block, walking and catching me breath, then running another block, repeat until done. No bad knees here at 58, actually no bad anything, since I have never jogged. People wonder what's up to see someone my age actually running past them, but it works. Bill Baka                                     Date: 31 May 2007 13:16:50 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands josh@phred.org wrote: > Or is it only "third world abuse" if I were to carry passengers for > $10/hour plus tips, with benefits, subject to OSHA regulations, while > covered by unemployment and workers' compensation insurance? We can debate it all day, but it probably comes down to a case of George not liking it, and therefore rationalizing ways to ban it. It seems to be his MO here.                                 Date: 28 May 2007 17:43:26 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:QEH6i.20155$3P3.17763@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:465b250a$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Amy Blankenship wrote: >> > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> > news:JnD6i.15934$j63.1162@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a > viable >> >> goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, >> >> then >> >> you >> >> are abusing yourself. >> >> I guess any work that involves physical exertion is "abusive." Like, >> say, construction, carpentry...um, farming? >> >> > George believes that everyone in the US should be free... >> > to do things George approves of. >> >> I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of. > > Pushing third world abuses into the USA is no victory for anyone but this > fool. You have failed to convince anyone (except maybe your alter ego, Scott) that bicycle taxis are abusive as practiced in the US. Your line of logic seems to be something like this: Rhubarb leaves are often red, and can be poisonous. Tomatoes are often red, and are always poisonous. Do you not see the flaw in this kind of "logic"? -Amy                   Date: 21 May 2007 10:12:04 From: Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <h3f4i.11984$Ut6.7093@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >, george@nxu.edu says... > > <josh@phred.org> wrote in message > news:MPG.20ba8f62d24002269896db@newsgroups.comcast.net... > > In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14831@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > george@nxu.edu says... > > > >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We > >> should > >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally > >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is. > > > > Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior > > Pedicabs are not manual labor. > It is considered to be abusive labor. By whom? When educated cyclists in developed economies work to develop modern bicycle taxis and choose to operate those taxis rather than work in offices, you'll have to come up with some pretty convincing evidence that they are abusing themsevles. Something that will outweigh their own enlightened self-interest and free will. Your mere assertion does not make it so. -- josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/ > Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >                   Date: 21 May 2007 13:38:10 From: Krzysztof Zietara Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:06:53 GMT, george conklin wrote: > >>> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We >>> should >>> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally >>> bankrupt the New Urbanism is. >> >> Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior > > Pedicabs are not manual labor. That would be news to pedicab drivers, I think. > It is considered to be abusive labor. Any kind of labor can be abused, from road building through ship scrapping to MMORPG gold farming. Your point is? Tarhimdugurth -- [S1 - za sygnaturkê]                 Date: 20 May 2007 21:46:01 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands <josh@phred.org > wrote in message news:MPG.20ba8f62d24002269896db@newsgroups.comcast.net... > In article <HV54i.17407$3P3.14831@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > george@nxu.edu says... > >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We >> should >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is. > > Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior, or is there something > specific about bicycling that you dislike? > > In India, the carpet-weaving industry is also often condemned, in this > case for exploiting child labor. That doesn't mean that we should also > condemn carpet manufacturing in countries that enforce reasonable labor > standards. Just wait till he gets rolling. He also things all farms should be big agribusiness because his wife processed poultry to help support her family as a child on her family's small farm. He may also obscurely fear that pedicabs may lead to more horse drawn carriages. He has a phobia about horses... -Amy           Date: 20 May 2007 13:59:56 From: Anymouse Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> george conklin wrote: >> >>> >>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New >>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to >>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in >>> time. >> >> >> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has enacted >> regulations for them. >> >> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story >> >> -- >> John Mara >> > > Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used > to be. > > "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time.             Date: 20 May 2007 17:01:07 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Anymouse" <none > wrote in message news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... > > "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message > news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> george conklin wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New >>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to >>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in >>>> time. >>> >>> >>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has >>> enacted regulations for them. >>> >>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story >>> >>> -- >>> John Mara >>> >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used >> to be. >> >> > "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's not > exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes anyway...               Date: 20 May 2007 20:35:39 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:Ry34i.9666$923.6763@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message > news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message >> news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> >>> "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>> george conklin wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New >>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to >>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in >>>>> time. >>>> >>>> >>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has >>>> enacted regulations for them. >>>> >>>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story >>>> >>>> -- >>>> John Mara >>>> >>> >>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of >>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used >>> to be. >>> >>> >> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's >> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. > > George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes > anyway... Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to encourage "things you like".                 Date: 27 May 2007 20:48:52 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Joe the Aroma wrote: > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > news:Ry34i.9666$923.6763@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message >> news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... >>> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message >>> news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>> "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message >>>> news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>> george conklin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New >>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to >>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in >>>>>> time. >>>>> >>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has >>>>> enacted regulations for them. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> John Mara >>>>> >>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of >>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used >>>> to be. >>>> >>>> >>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's >>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. >> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes >> anyway... > > Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to encourage > "things you like". Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow.                   Date: 28 May 2007 12:15:00 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Joe the Aroma wrote: > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > > news:Ry34i.9666$923.6763@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > >> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message > >> news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... > >>> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message > >>> news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >>>> "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >>>>> george conklin wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New > >>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to > >>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in > >>>>>> time. > >>>>> > >>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has > >>>>> enacted regulations for them. > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> John Mara > >>>>> > >>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > >>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used > >>>> to be. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's > >>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. > >> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes > >> anyway... > > > > Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to encourage > > "things you like". > > Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted > endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? > They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price of food down, down, down. I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you obviously do not. Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.                     Date: 28 May 2007 11:18:36 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands George Conklin wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Joe the Aroma wrote: >>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message >>> news:Ry34i.9666$923.6763@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message >>>> news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... >>>>> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message >>>>> news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>> "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>>>> george conklin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the > New >>>>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree > to >>>>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in >>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has >>>>>>> enacted regulations for them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> John Mara >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of >>>>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past > used >>>>>> to be. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's >>>>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. >>>> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes >>>> anyway... >>> Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to > encourage >>> "things you like". >> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted >> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? >> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. > > Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price > of food down, down, down. In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you > obviously do not. > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: > > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. I don't see any reason to open that URL. Even if "poverty today is concentrated in rural areas," you have to do better than call me stupid if you want to find a way to blame it on cities.                       Date: 28 May 2007 15:26:09 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:465af2cf$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? Do they? Don't mistake dysfunction for poverty.                         Date: 28 May 2007 16:27:25 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Joe the Aroma wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:465af2cf$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? > > Do they? Don't mistake dysfunction for poverty. Rural poverty doesn't include "dysfunction"?                       Date: 28 May 2007 15:45:19 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:465af2cf$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > George Conklin wrote: > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> Joe the Aroma wrote: > >>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > >>> news:Ry34i.9666$923.6763@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > >>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message > >>>> news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... > >>>>> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message > >>>>> news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >>>>>> "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message > >>>>>> news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >>>>>>> george conklin wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the > > New > >>>>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree > > to > >>>>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in > >>>>>>>> time. > >>>>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has > >>>>>>> enacted regulations for them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> John Mara > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > >>>>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past > > used > >>>>>> to be. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's > >>>>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. > >>>> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes > >>>> anyway... > >>> Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to > > encourage > >>> "things you like". > >> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted > >> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? > >> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. > > > > Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price > > of food down, down, down. > > In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? > > > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you > > obviously do not. > > > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: > > > > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > > > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. > > I don't see any reason to open that URL. Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity.                         Date: 28 May 2007 11:47:55 From: Scott M. Kozel Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote: > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote > > George Conklin wrote: > > > > > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you > > > obviously do not. > > > > > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: > > > > > > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > > > > > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. > > > > I don't see any reason to open that URL. > > Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity. He can't help it... it's chronic.                           Date: 28 May 2007 16:21:38 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net > wrote in message news:465AF9AB.F6FBA54@comcast.net... > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote > > > George Conklin wrote: > > > > > > > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you > > > > obviously do not. > > > > > > > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: > > > > > > > > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > > > > > > > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. > > > > > > I don't see any reason to open that URL. > > > > Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity. > > He can't help it... it's chronic. Agreed. He should open the URL and look at the real facts. Ron gave a presentation of several hours with even more current data in April in Atlanta. He had cartograms of USA counties which were amazing. They will be in Social Forces in a few months.                             Date: 28 May 2007 15:43:00 From: Scott M. Kozel Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote: > > "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote > > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote > > > > George Conklin wrote: > > > > > > > > > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you > > > > > obviously do not. > > > > > > > > > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > > > > > > > > > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. > > > > > > > > I don't see any reason to open that URL. > > > > > > Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity. > > > > He can't help it... it's chronic. > > Agreed. He should open the URL and look at the real facts. Ron gave a > presentation of several hours with even more current data in April in > Atlanta. He had cartograms of USA counties which were amazing. They will > be in Social Forces in a few months. Bolshevik is not interested in facts... he wants to maintain his preconceived notions.                               Date: 28 May 2007 21:03:49 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net > wrote in message news:465B30C4.FF8A27B0@comcast.net... > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote > > > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote > > > > > George Conklin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you > > > > > > obviously do not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. > > > > > > > > > > I don't see any reason to open that URL. > > > > > > > > Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity. > > > > > > He can't help it... it's chronic. > > > > Agreed. He should open the URL and look at the real facts. Ron gave a > > presentation of several hours with even more current data in April in > > Atlanta. He had cartograms of USA counties which were amazing. They will > > be in Social Forces in a few months. > > Bolshevik is not interested in facts... > he wants to maintain his preconceived notions. He finds ignorance comforting.                             Date: 28 May 2007 14:56:02 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands George Conklin wrote: > "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:465AF9AB.F6FBA54@comcast.net... >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote >>>> George Conklin wrote: >>>> >>>>> I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which > you >>>>> obviously do not. >>>>> >>>>> Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological > Society: >>>>> http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm >>>>> >>>>> Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. >>>> I don't see any reason to open that URL. >>> Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity. >> He can't help it... it's chronic. Failing to follow your red herring isn't "ignorance and stupidity." Maybe I have better ways to spend my time. > Agreed. He should open the URL and look at the real facts. Ron gave a > presentation of several hours with even more current data in April in > Atlanta. He had cartograms of USA counties which were amazing. They will > be in Social Forces in a few months. Oh, so now I'm supposed to prove your point for you? You're not even addressing the initial point.                               Date: 28 May 2007 21:03:16 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in message news:465b25c6$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > George Conklin wrote: > > "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:465AF9AB.F6FBA54@comcast.net... > >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote > >>>> George Conklin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which > > you > >>>>> obviously do not. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological > > Society: > >>>>> http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > >>>>> > >>>>> Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. > >>>> I don't see any reason to open that URL. > >>> Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity. > >> He can't help it... it's chronic. > > Failing to follow your red herring isn't "ignorance and stupidity." > Maybe I have better ways to spend my time. > You always find ignorance a good way to spend you time.                                 Date: 31 May 2007 12:16:43 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands George Conklin wrote: > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:465b25c6$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> George Conklin wrote: >>> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:465AF9AB.F6FBA54@comcast.net... >>>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>> George Conklin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which >>> you >>>>>>> obviously do not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological >>> Society: >>>>>>> http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. >>>>>> I don't see any reason to open that URL. >>>>> Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity. >>>> He can't help it... it's chronic. >> Failing to follow your red herring isn't "ignorance and stupidity." >> Maybe I have better ways to spend my time. >> > > You always find ignorance a good way to spend you time. Is that the best you can do? Next, are you going to accuse me of having a small pee-pee? All because you don't have a leg to stand on?                       Date: 28 May 2007 10:28:34 From: Free Lunch Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com > wrote in <465af2cf$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >: >George Conklin wrote: >> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> Joe the Aroma wrote: >>>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Ry34i.9666$923.6763@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >>>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message >>>>> news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... >>>>>> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message >>>>>> news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>>> "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>>>>> george conklin wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the >> New >>>>>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree >> to >>>>>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in >>>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has >>>>>>>> enacted regulations for them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> John Mara >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of >>>>>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past >> used >>>>>>> to be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's >>>>>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. >>>>> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes >>>>> anyway... >>>> Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to >> encourage >>>> "things you like". >>> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted >>> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? >>> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. >> >> Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price >> of food down, down, down. > >In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can. >> I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you >> obviously do not. >> >> Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: >> >> http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm >> >> Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. > >I don't see any reason to open that URL. Even if "poverty today is >concentrated in rural areas," you have to do better than call me stupid >if you want to find a way to blame it on cities.                         Date: 28 May 2007 15:45:56 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us > wrote in message news:d8tl53h0iu0k22bn493mlh6219a2qnmta7@4ax.com... > On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit > Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in > <465af2cf$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: > >George Conklin wrote: > >> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >>> Joe the Aroma wrote: > >>>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:Ry34i.9666$923.6763@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > >>>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message > >>>>> news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... > >>>>>> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message > >>>>>> news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >>>>>>> "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>> news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >>>>>>>> george conklin wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the > >> New > >>>>>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree > >> to > >>>>>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in > >>>>>>>>> time. > >>>>>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has > >>>>>>>> enacted regulations for them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> John Mara > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of > >>>>>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past > >> used > >>>>>>> to be. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's > >>>>>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. > >>>>> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes > >>>>> anyway... > >>>> Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to > >> encourage > >>>> "things you like". > >>> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted > >>> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? > >>> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. > >> > >> Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price > >> of food down, down, down. > > > >In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? > > George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can. > I just know demographic facts, unlike the ignorant like you. >                           Date: 28 May 2007 12:53:17 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:UOC6i.14291$Ut6.10338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... ... >> George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can. >> > > I just know demographic facts, unlike the ignorant like you. Too bad you're unable to draw conclusions from your precious FActs...                           Date: 28 May 2007 10:51:32 From: Free Lunch Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:45:56 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in <UOC6i.14291$Ut6.10338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >: > >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:d8tl53h0iu0k22bn493mlh6219a2qnmta7@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit >> Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in >> <465af2cf$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: >> >George Conklin wrote: ... >> >> Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price >> >> of food down, down, down. >> > >> >In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? >> >> George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can. > > I just know demographic facts, unlike the ignorant like you. And you selectively simplify them to the point that they are no longer accurate.                             Date: 28 May 2007 16:20:05 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us > wrote in message news:thul53l46a0c616e9017p71jskqaubrn5e@4ax.com... > On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:45:56 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in > <UOC6i.14291$Ut6.10338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>: > > > >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >news:d8tl53h0iu0k22bn493mlh6219a2qnmta7@4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit > >> Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in > >> <465af2cf$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: > >> >George Conklin wrote: > ... > >> >> Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price > >> >> of food down, down, down. > >> > > >> >In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx? > >> > >> George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can. > > > > I just know demographic facts, unlike the ignorant like you. > > And you selectively simplify them to the point that they are no longer > accurate. You are wrong again. You need to use some of the international data sources which are out there. But, for the United States, poverty is now concentrated in rural areas, and there are more poor people in the suburbs than in the city. You are the one with old data.                               Date: 28 May 2007 11:25:56 From: Free Lunch Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:20:05 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in <ViD6i.15929$j63.8875@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >: > >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:thul53l46a0c616e9017p71jskqaubrn5e@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:45:56 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in >> <UOC6i.14291$Ut6.10338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>: >> > >> >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >> >news:d8tl53h0iu0k22bn493mlh6219a2qnmta7@4ax.com... >> >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit >> >> Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in >> >> <465af2cf$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: >> >> >George Conklin wrote: >> ... >> >> >> Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven >the price >> >> >> of food down, down, down. >> >> > >> >> >In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The >Bronx? >> >> >> >> George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can. >> > >> > I just know demographic facts, unlike the ignorant like you. >> >> And you selectively simplify them to the point that they are no longer >> accurate. > >You are wrong again. You need to use some of the international data sources >which are out there. But, for the United States, poverty is now concentrated >in rural areas, and there are more poor people in the suburbs than in the >city. You are the one with old data. Since when do you get to redefine suburban as rural?                                 Date: 28 May 2007 21:02:40 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us > wrote in message news:6k0m53duusk2ieim8fbrmja7gev0r34876@4ax.com... > On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:20:05 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in > <ViD6i.15929$j63.8875@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>: > > > >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >news:thul53l46a0c616e9017p71jskqaubrn5e@4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:45:56 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit > >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in > >> <UOC6i.14291$Ut6.10338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>: > >> > > >> >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >> >news:d8tl53h0iu0k22bn493mlh6219a2qnmta7@4ax.com... > >> >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit > >> >> Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in > >> >> <465af2cf$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: > >> >> >George Conklin wrote: > >> ... > >> >> >> Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven > >the price > >> >> >> of food down, down, down. > >> >> > > >> >> >In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The > >Bronx? > >> >> > >> >> George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can. > >> > > >> > I just know demographic facts, unlike the ignorant like you. > >> > >> And you selectively simplify them to the point that they are no longer > >> accurate. > > > >You are wrong again. You need to use some of the international data sources > >which are out there. But, for the United States, poverty is now concentrated > >in rural areas, and there are more poor people in the suburbs than in the > >city. You are the one with old data. > > Since when do you get to redefine suburban as rural? Only you do that.                     Date: 28 May 2007 09:00:12 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:8Jz6i.15883$j63.5684@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... ... >> >>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and >> >>> it's >> >>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this >> >>> time. >> >> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes >> >> anyway... >> > >> > Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to > encourage >> > "things you like". >> >> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted >> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? >> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. > > Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the > price > of food down, down, down. > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you > obviously do not. The US government and chains like Wal-Mart drive the food prices down. > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: > > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. I think it's really funny that the implications of the paper are that people should do the very things you're against--that cities should become more sustainable by encouraging urban farming, that people should buy local and pay the true price of things rather than an artificially low price caused by subsidies and other policies.                       Date: 28 May 2007 14:23:27 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:ZfB6i.4864$FN5.72@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:8Jz6i.15883$j63.5684@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > ... > >> >>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and > >> >>> it's > >> >>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this > >> >>> time. > >> >> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes > >> >> anyway... > >> > > >> > Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to > > encourage > >> > "things you like". > >> > >> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted > >> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? > >> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. > > > > Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the > > price > > of food down, down, down. > > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you > > obviously do not. > > The US government and chains like Wal-Mart drive the food prices down. > The price paid to the farmer is down in all nations, and they don't have Wal-Mart to blame. Cities are the problem. Politicians are afraid of urban riots in the third world, and as a result poverty ends up being in rural areas. > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society: > > > > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm > > > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. > > I think it's really funny that the implications of the paper are that people > should do the very things you're against--that cities should become more > sustainable by encouraging urban farming, that people should buy local and > pay the true price of things rather than an artificially low price caused by > subsidies and other policies. > > Wimberley is not in favor of urban gardens and the other such silly proposals.                         Date: 31 May 2007 13:19:45 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands George Conklin wrote: > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > news:ZfB6i.4864$FN5.72@bignews7.bellsouth.net... >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:8Jz6i.15883$j63.5684@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> ... >>>>>>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and >>>>>>> it's >>>>>>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this >>>>>>> time. >>>>>> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes >>>>>> anyway... >>>>> Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to >>> encourage >>>>> "things you like". >>>> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted >>>> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? >>>> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. >>> Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the >>> price >>> of food down, down, down. >>> I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you >>> obviously do not. >> The US government and chains like Wal-Mart drive the food prices down. >> > > The price paid to the farmer is down in all nations, and they don't have > Wal-Mart to blame. Cities are the problem. Politicians are afraid of urban > riots in the third world, and as a result poverty ends up being in rural > areas. No, national governments are probably to blame. Cities generally don't farm themselves, and therefore rarely have authority to control such matters. Maybe there's a rare case of urban areas outvoting rural ones, but urban areas aren't even the plurality in the United States, much less the majority. As for third world cities, they probably often have considerably more poverty than rural areas.                         Date: 28 May 2007 12:52:10 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:zBB6i.14262$Ut6.4817@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > news:ZfB6i.4864$FN5.72@bignews7.bellsouth.net... >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:8Jz6i.15883$j63.5684@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> > >> > "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:465a26f6$0$3187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> ... >> >> >>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and >> >> >>> it's >> >> >>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this >> >> >>> time. >> >> >> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes >> >> >> anyway... >> >> > >> >> > Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to >> > encourage >> >> > "things you like". >> >> >> >> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted >> >> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification? >> >> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow. >> > >> > Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the >> > price >> > of food down, down, down. >> > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which >> > you >> > obviously do not. >> >> The US government and chains like Wal-Mart drive the food prices down. >> > > The price paid to the farmer is down in all nations, and they don't > have > Wal-Mart to blame. Cities are the problem. Politicians are afraid of > urban > riots in the third world, and as a result poverty ends up being in rural > areas. > > >> > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological > Society: >> > >> > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm >> > >> > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity. >> >> I think it's really funny that the implications of the paper are that > people >> should do the very things you're against--that cities should become more >> sustainable by encouraging urban farming, that people should buy local >> and >> pay the true price of things rather than an artificially low price caused > by >> subsidies and other policies. >> >> > Wimberley is not in favor of urban gardens and the other such silly > proposals. Regardless, such "silly proposals" are the logical conclusion to be drawn from the work. If one shies away from drawing the conclusions that follow from such findings, one would do better to avoid publishing them. -Amy             Date: 20 May 2007 21:55:10 From: george conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Anymouse" <none > wrote in message news:13516lq2levd3a0@corp.supernews.com... > > "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message > news:okE3i.17036$3P3.6506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> "John Mara" <johnmara@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:464f02c6$0$16664$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> george conklin wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New >>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to >>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in >>>> time. >>> >>> >>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has >>> enacted regulations for them. >>> >>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story >>> >>> -- >>> John Mara >>> >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used >> to be. >> >> > "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's not > exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time. > But the reason I posted is why major cities in the third world are getting rid of pedicabs. That is the reason given there. I think it applies here too.       Date: 19 May 2007 08:55:35 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message news:57B3i.8073$296.4393@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1179541388.354958.58380@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> On May 18, 8:09 pm, "otterpo...@hotmail.com" <otterpo...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> > Are you reading? I said most people would have cars and bikes, not one >>> > or the other. Most trips under 5 miles could be done by bike, and the >>> > rest by car, comprende? >>> >>> Especially when they're doing their week's shopping, no doubt. >> >> Get a trailer. A basic Google search will give you many brands and >> models. >> >> > > As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New > Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to walk > next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in time. Ack. Not walking, anything but walking. We're melting, melting I say! And what's up with all the winged monkeys??? -Amy     Date: 19 May 2007 17:15:40 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On 18 May 2007 19:23:08 -0700, donquijote1954 wrote: > Get a trailer. A basic Google search will give you many brands and > models. I've been thinking about a trailer, since I shop by bike twice a week and use a large backpack, which gets pretty heavy. But my shopping bike is a cheap roadie, which has nothing but small luggage rack mounting holes, and I'm also concerned about theft of the trailer. Can anyone comment on these points? -- Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw   Date: 18 May 2007 17:09:19 From: otterpower@hotmail.com Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 18, 6:49 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 18, 2:09 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Most people would rather have both. > > > Which is the problem with creating a car-free city. How do you get > > 40,000 happily car-free individuals together and make it work somehow? > > > BTW, how would goods get delivered in a car free city?- > > Are you reading? I said most people would have cars and bikes, not one > or the other. Most trips under 5 miles could be done by bike, and the > rest by car, comprende? Especially when they're doing their week's shopping, no doubt.     Date: 19 May 2007 14:27:28 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands <otterpower@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1179533359.882978.245990@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> I said most people would have cars and bikes, not one >> or the other. Most trips under 5 miles could be done by bike, and the >> rest by car, > > Especially when they're doing their week's shopping, no doubt. When folks are not being so absolutist about everything... Here's how I work it: if I have a big load (like the week's grocery shopping), I'm in the car with other people, or the distance is too far, I drive. If it's just me, I walk, bike, take the bus, or carpool. So, next week I'm going to Olympia for work, that's 50 miles, and there' s no decent public transport from here to there, so I'll be driving down the 5. But as it has been pointed out repeatedly, most people aren't going 50 miles, they're going 5. "Too far" is defined as a half mile, not five. The five mile or less trips: - to the park and ride when I was too lazy to ride my bike the whole way in to work, to the post office, to the drug store, to religious services - I did these by bike or on foot. This works pretty well for me. It could work well for a lot of people, if they were just willing to try it. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky       Date: 20 May 2007 22:07:10 From: gl4316@yahoo.com Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <kPD3i.11323$Ut6.3421@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Claire Petersky" <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > So, next week I'm going to Olympia for work, that's 50 miles, and there' s > no decent public transport from here to there, so I'll be driving down the > 5. But as it has been pointed out repeatedly, most people aren't going 50 > miles, they're going 5. "Too far" is defined as a half mile, not five. The > five mile or less trips: - to the park and ride when I was too lazy to ride > my bike the whole way in to work, to the post office, to the drug store, to > religious services - I did these by bike or on foot. It's interesting that I have never heard I-5 referred to as "the 5" until the past 2-3 years or so. And I was born in Portland. Is this the way people in the Seattle area refer to the interstate highways? Or just I-5? While there is probably no decent public transportation for what you want to do, at least Metro does operate the express bus service that operates on I-5 between most of the major metropolitan centers in the Seattle area. Here in Portland such bus lines do not exist, even though a Portland-Salem service would probably be quite full in both directions. The current Salem-Wilsonville service seems to be quite full, but considering it doesn't serve Portland a major piece of the puzzle is missing, but Seattle seems to have that much together at least. -- -Glennl The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too! e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.   Date: 18 May 2007 17:07:32 From: otterpower@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 18, 12:22 pm, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net > wrote: > In article <eDj3i.16740$3P3.4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > cpeter...@mouse-potato.com says... > > ... > > > > > >> >> How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the > > >> >> Twin > > >> >> Cities? > > > >> > About 11-1/2. > > > >> And the average snowfall is _____? > > > > Enough that you lose that 1/2 a month over the course of a winter. > > > The ice bike site (http://www.icebike.com) is the go-to resource on > > bicycling in the snow and on ice. > > > I confess, I am happier to drown :-) :-) :-) here bicycling through the > > winter in the Seattle area, instead. Yeah, it rains. You know what happens? > > You get wet. Wet does not equal cold, or uncomfortable. Wet things and wet > > people become dry after a while, too. It's not a big deal, unless you're a > > total weanie. > > For me, I'd rather ride in dry cold weather than cool wet weather. > > -- > Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the > newsgroups if possible). If the 50 inches of the white stuff is so dry, that must mean it is hanging around quite a long time. And not helping cyclists much.   Date: 18 May 2007 15:49:20 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 18, 2:09 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Most people would rather have both. > > Which is the problem with creating a car-free city. How do you get > 40,000 happily car-free individuals together and make it work somehow? > > BTW, how would goods get delivered in a car free city?- Are you reading? I said most people would have cars and bikes, not one or the other. Most trips under 5 miles could be done by bike, and the rest by car, comprende?     Date: 29 May 2007 11:43:31 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 29, 1:41 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > > news:1180458784.693345.237830@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 29, 10:17 am, "Amy Blankenship" > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote in message > >> Tsk, tsk. You are totally not paying attention to what George says. He > >> is > >> completely ok with people who have more money than the rural people > >> buying > >> up the property so that they can build subdivisions and the area is no > >> longer rural. So then the _rest_ of the rural area is poor, and he still > >> has something to complain about. I think if George got everything he > >> advocates (impossible, since he's so logically inconsistent), he' do a > >> complete 180 so he'd have more to complain about. > > > Why don't you-all go back to the city, ride your transit, live in your > > towers, walk your busy sidewalks, eat at your funky cafe's, make your > > big paychecks, ride your bikes, and leave me (and maybe Amy) alone in > > the rural areas. I live in the middle of nowhere because I want to > > live in the middle of nowhere. When you discover it and make it > > "somewhere", I'll have to move again. > > > I want my swimming pool in my yard next to my BBQ. I want my minivan > > in my driveway next to my wife's car. I want to look out my back door > > and see trees (a.k.a. indefensible space) and mountains. > > > I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want > > culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and > > concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth" > > because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth. > > > I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind > > police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon > > Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the > > Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the > > names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another > > Reservation. > > > I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't. > > > I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and > > snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much > > as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll > > all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my > > tomato plants. > > What you don't get, though, is that New Urbanism is probably our greatest > hope in rural areas. Because it is very much about containing growth and > trying to encourage that if there *is* growth in area A that that growth > will house more people than would otherwise happen under conventional > suburban sprawl. If area A has twice as many residents that wanted to move > into the locality than otherwise would, then Area B does not have to absorb > such a large population influx, and can remain more rural than it otherwise > would have. If Area B *does* have to grow, if it encourages that most of > that growth is concentrated in a relatively small area and applies zoning > and other controls to discourage growth in areas that the community has > decided should be protected, then Area B may be able to somewhat maintain > its character. My problem is that almost all zoning is fundimentally flawed. Instead of being a blueprint for the future, it is a compilation of past mistakes in the community. Instead of being fair and open, it is rife with politics and intrigue. There is no zoning that money cannot change. > > What New Urbanism is about is for a community to be able to decide what > future it wants for itself and take some steps to try to encourage that > future to come about, while at the same time realizing that in some areas > you can't stick your fingers in the dike to prevent a flood of new > residents. Sometimes those steps do not have the desired results. > Sometimes things get derailed by other political and economic realities. > Sometimes the results turn out to be the opposite of what you intended. But > then sometimes bugs eat your tomatoes. One thing's for sure. You seldom > get tomatoes if you don't plant any in the first place. True, but the same cannot be said for zucchini. > > -Amy       Date: 29 May 2007 15:28:31 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1180464211.185855.99570@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... .. >> > I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want >> > culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and >> > concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth" >> > because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth. >> >> > I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind >> > police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon >> > Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the >> > Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the >> > names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another >> > Reservation. >> >> > I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't. >> >> > I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and >> > snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much >> > as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll >> > all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my >> > tomato plants. >> >> What you don't get, though, is that New Urbanism is probably our greatest >> hope in rural areas. Because it is very much about containing growth and >> trying to encourage that if there *is* growth in area A that that growth >> will house more people than would otherwise happen under conventional >> suburban sprawl. If area A has twice as many residents that wanted to >> move >> into the locality than otherwise would, then Area B does not have to >> absorb >> such a large population influx, and can remain more rural than it >> otherwise >> would have. If Area B *does* have to grow, if it encourages that most of >> that growth is concentrated in a relatively small area and applies zoning >> and other controls to discourage growth in areas that the community has >> decided should be protected, then Area B may be able to somewhat maintain >> its character. > > My problem is that almost all zoning is fundimentally flawed. Instead > of being a blueprint for the future, it is a compilation of past > mistakes in the community. Instead of being fair and open, it is rife > with politics and intrigue. There is no zoning that money cannot > change. This is true. My problem sith tomatoes is that they get fusarium wilt and tobacco mosaic. >> What New Urbanism is about is for a community to be able to decide what >> future it wants for itself and take some steps to try to encourage that >> future to come about, while at the same time realizing that in some areas >> you can't stick your fingers in the dike to prevent a flood of new >> residents. Sometimes those steps do not have the desired results. >> Sometimes things get derailed by other political and economic realities. >> Sometimes the results turn out to be the opposite of what you intended. >> But >> then sometimes bugs eat your tomatoes. One thing's for sure. You seldom >> get tomatoes if you don't plant any in the first place. > > True, but the same cannot be said for zucchini. I didn't plant any zucchini this year, yet surprisingly I don't have any either :-). However, there is a tomato I didn't plant behind the chicken coop. Just goes to show...     Date: 29 May 2007 10:13:04 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 29, 10:17 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote in message > > news:135n7ai9v04q9e6@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > - > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:465b244b$0$12478$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > >> That there's disproportionate poverty in rural areas is well known, and > >> nobody is denying it, near as I can tell. The point was that George > >> blames urban areas for failings of rural economies. Many of these > >> failings go back generations. > > > And then when richer people move to the rural area and buy up the > > property, George complains again - railing about "horse farms". In short, > > all George has to offer is jealousy and NO solutions. > > Tsk, tsk. You are totally not paying attention to what George says. He is > completely ok with people who have more money than the rural people buying > up the property so that they can build subdivisions and the area is no > longer rural. So then the _rest_ of the rural area is poor, and he still > has something to complain about. I think if George got everything he > advocates (impossible, since he's so logically inconsistent), he' do a > complete 180 so he'd have more to complain about. Why don't you-all go back to the city, ride your transit, live in your towers, walk your busy sidewalks, eat at your funky cafe's, make your big paychecks, ride your bikes, and leave me (and maybe Amy) alone in the rural areas. I live in the middle of nowhere because I want to live in the middle of nowhere. When you discover it and make it "somewhere", I'll have to move again. I want my swimming pool in my yard next to my BBQ. I want my minivan in my driveway next to my wife's car. I want to look out my back door and see trees (a.k.a. indefensible space) and mountains. I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth" because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth. I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another Reservation. I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't. I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my tomato plants.       Date: 29 May 2007 12:41:04 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1180458784.693345.237830@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On May 29, 10:17 am, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote in message >> Tsk, tsk. You are totally not paying attention to what George says. He >> is >> completely ok with people who have more money than the rural people >> buying >> up the property so that they can build subdivisions and the area is no >> longer rural. So then the _rest_ of the rural area is poor, and he still >> has something to complain about. I think if George got everything he >> advocates (impossible, since he's so logically inconsistent), he' do a >> complete 180 so he'd have more to complain about. > > Why don't you-all go back to the city, ride your transit, live in your > towers, walk your busy sidewalks, eat at your funky cafe's, make your > big paychecks, ride your bikes, and leave me (and maybe Amy) alone in > the rural areas. I live in the middle of nowhere because I want to > live in the middle of nowhere. When you discover it and make it > "somewhere", I'll have to move again. > > I want my swimming pool in my yard next to my BBQ. I want my minivan > in my driveway next to my wife's car. I want to look out my back door > and see trees (a.k.a. indefensible space) and mountains. > > I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want > culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and > concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth" > because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth. > > I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind > police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon > Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the > Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the > names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another > Reservation. > > I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't. > > I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and > snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much > as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll > all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my > tomato plants. What you don't get, though, is that New Urbanism is probably our greatest hope in rural areas. Because it is very much about containing growth and trying to encourage that if there *is* growth in area A that that growth will house more people than would otherwise happen under conventional suburban sprawl. If area A has twice as many residents that wanted to move into the locality than otherwise would, then Area B does not have to absorb such a large population influx, and can remain more rural than it otherwise would have. If Area B *does* have to grow, if it encourages that most of that growth is concentrated in a relatively small area and applies zoning and other controls to discourage growth in areas that the community has decided should be protected, then Area B may be able to somewhat maintain its character. What New Urbanism is about is for a community to be able to decide what future it wants for itself and take some steps to try to encourage that future to come about, while at the same time realizing that in some areas you can't stick your fingers in the dike to prevent a flood of new residents. Sometimes those steps do not have the desired results. Sometimes things get derailed by other political and economic realities. Sometimes the results turn out to be the opposite of what you intended. But then sometimes bugs eat your tomatoes. One thing's for sure. You seldom get tomatoes if you don't plant any in the first place. -Amy   Date: 18 May 2007 14:04:12 From: Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities] Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? > Outhouses are the latest environmental craze buddy. Just read the > newspapers. They are still legal in NC, but new ones are not. There are a > whole lot of them still around. Great when the power goes off. Yes because we all know that Tolits are powered by electricty.   Date: 18 May 2007 11:09:00 From: rotten Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 18, 1:54 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 18, 12:19 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 17, 2:03 am, oilfreeandhappy <oil_free_and_ha...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > > > > Don't hold your breath for America. With our obesity rates, lack of > > > adequate cycling facilities, along with our worship of the automobile, > > > there may not be much happening in the near future. I think what > > > America needs is a totally CAR-FREE city. If an investor decided to > > > take this on, he would have instant advertising, merely from the > > > publicity. > > > The closest they could come to at this point is Portland, Oregan and > > from what I've heard even people there don't want to ban cars. The > > reason there are no car-free cities is that people... believe it or > > not... would rather drive cars than use other forms of transportation. > > True, but not ALL people. The smarter ones don't. They want to ride > bikes, or a combination of the two. > > Most people would rather have both. Which is the problem with creating a car-free city. How do you get 40,000 happily car-free individuals together and make it work somehow? BTW, how would goods get delivered in a car free city?     Date: 24 May 2007 09:16:57 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 24, 12:27 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <4cSdnQtaRp70WMnbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjn...@comcast.com>, > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> I have no problem with exported labor. Better to have them working > >> than wanting to fight us. But I also have no problem with leveling > >> the playing field. If the US, for example, said that all labor on > >> goods imported into the US had to pay the equivelent of US minimum > >> wage, I would have a problem with that. It wouldn't bring too many > >> jobs back here because few people will work for minimum wage, but it > >> would level the playing field quite a bit. But until that happens, > >> the world is what the world is. > > > Welp, you better hope they don't want to fight us after we've exported all > > our technology and wealth to them. > > They won't have to fight you. They'll just buy you. Yes, that will be the case if we stagnate. But if we continue to innovate and stay the world leaders in the things that we want to be the world leaders in, then it's NBD. As it is, we don't have enough labor for everything that we need, so why not export low paying, low skill jobs -- especially ones using low tech. As for them buying us, that's another issue altogether. The biggest thing we could do for our future is to get gov't spending under control and to eliminate our debt. > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > Above address is just a spam midden. > I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 18 May 2007 11:06:28 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 18, 1:02 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 17, 2:03 am, oilfreeandhappy <oil_free_and_ha...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > >> Don't hold your breath for America. With our obesity rates, lack of > >> adequate cycling facilities, along with our worship of the automobile, > >> there may not be much happening in the near future. I think what > >> America needs is a totally CAR-FREE city. If an investor decided to > >> take this on, he would have instant advertising, merely from the > >> publicity. > > > The closest they could come to at this point is Portland, Oregan and > > from what I've heard even people there don't want to ban cars. The > > reason there are no car-free cities is that people... believe it or > > not... would rather drive cars than use other forms of transportation. > > Point of fact: While there are not (yet) car free cities. There are > car free neighborhoods. In fact, they're rather a trend over in Germany > at the moment. > > http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1220/p01s03-woeu.html > > http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=378 > > http://www.autofrei-wohnen.de/panke0summary.html "FREIBURG, GERMANY - It's pickup time at the Vauban kindergarten here at the edge of the Black Forest, but there's not a single minivan waiting for the kids. Instead, a convoy of helmet-donning moms - bicycle trailers in tow - pedal up to the entrance." If you do that here the SUV-driving soccer moms will scream and shout. They want their babies to be safe while they drive erratically, you know.   Date: 18 May 2007 11:00:34 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 18, 12:21 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 17, 1:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > > newsgroups?) > > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good > > though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this > > country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, > > which regrettably mobilize the sheep... > > > --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for > > small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- > > > It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates > > talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at > > hand turn me off... > > > Hillary: gender > > > Obama: race > > > and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but > > are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? > > Why is it a president's responsibility to push bikes and small cars? > How about state and local government? And what about freedom of > choice? Not a big fan, eh?- What "freedom of choice" when you got to put your life on the line to go to the market? Our president though took us to a war to keep the status quo. Can we only get leadership to lead us into war? Now big money is going into tanks and planes, not EVs and bike lanes.   Date: 18 May 2007 10:54:56 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 18, 12:19 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 17, 2:03 am, oilfreeandhappy <oil_free_and_ha...@comcast.net> > wrote: > > > Don't hold your breath for America. With our obesity rates, lack of > > adequate cycling facilities, along with our worship of the automobile, > > there may not be much happening in the near future. I think what > > America needs is a totally CAR-FREE city. If an investor decided to > > take this on, he would have instant advertising, merely from the > > publicity. > > The closest they could come to at this point is Portland, Oregan and > from what I've heard even people there don't want to ban cars. The > reason there are no car-free cities is that people... believe it or > not... would rather drive cars than use other forms of transportation. True, but not ALL people. The smarter ones don't. They want to ride bikes, or a combination of the two. Most people would rather have both.   Date: 18 May 2007 10:50:04 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 18, 12:16 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com > wrote: > > I have absolutely no problem with bikes. Hell, paint lines on the road > for them, that's what they did here in Cambridge. What I dislike is > paying for transit that nobody uses or is so inefficiently run that it > has to be subsidized by the taxpayers. And no, we shouldn't subsidize > cars either.- It makes so much sense that the experts in the field should study it. Remember though this classic quote... "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair in The Jungle   Date: 18 May 2007 10:33:04 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 18, 2:09 am, gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote: > In article <xEI2i.16169$3P3.7...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of > > > cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? > > > Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock > > your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day for > > a few cents. > > http://media.wweek.com/attach/2007/04/17/21_LedeChart.pdf > While not a huge percentage, the number of people who commute by bike in > Portland and Seattle (compiled from census data) are large enough to show > up in the data. > > And considering what I know of the way people drive in India, I'm not sure > that his request for "unnecessary risks" are met there either. > > Cars running stop signs and running over bicyclists seems to be a > particular problem in Portland these days. There was a time not too long > ago when people actually paid attention to their driving here. That isn't > the case any more. > > At least here you can put your bike in a covered bike locker (for > considerably more than a few cents a day). I guess then I'm going to have to go to Holland or something. Or simply load my bike on a car or bus and go some place where neither I run unnecessary risks nor I do something practical with it. Forget Global Warming, survival takes priority, right?   Date: 18 May 2007 10:27:39 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 17, 10:33 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote: > On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > > newsgroups?) > > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. > > "We" are discriminated against? You said you were quitting riding so > you are no longer part of the "we" here- unless your "we" is > restricted to spammers in which case you *are* discriminated against > and rightly so. Well, I've effectively been intimidated by the reckless drivers out there. You want me to be a martyr of the revolution? I think I rather follow my own advice of "the big fish eats the little fish, unless the little fish get organized." So, I'll do it in a group.   Date: 18 May 2007 09:39:26 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: agree to the Unknown Fallen Cyclist monument? On May 17, 10:19 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > On May 16, 10:17 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <464bd02b$0$8959$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, > > "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> writes: > > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > > newsgroups?) > > > That was Bill B. I picture him tearfully hugging > > the hood of his 440 Charger[*] and proclaiming: "I'll > > never leave you! 'Til the end of time! You 'n me!" > > > DonQui just said he was quitting riding his > > bike 'cuz he couldn't hack it. But apparently > > he still fancies himself as some sort of lyric, > > all-talk/no-walk revolutionary/shit-disturber > > who wants other people to do his "revolution" > > for him. > > Heeyargg!!!! > > If I had a Charger I would probably hug it though. > > The Revolution will in fact be televised. So Mr. Donk > can watch it from the comfort of his living room.- You calling me a couch potato? No, I want to be in the Bicycle Victory Parade to end at the Unknown Fallen Cyclist, a monument to all those who have fallen for the cause of the environment and fun transportation. Do you agree with it?   Date: 18 May 2007 09:21:23 From: rotten Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 17, 1:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > newsgroups?) > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good > though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this > country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, > which regrettably mobilize the sheep... > > --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for > small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- > > It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates > talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at > hand turn me off... > > Hillary: gender > > Obama: race > > and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but > are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? Why is it a president's responsibility to push bikes and small cars? How about state and local government? And what about freedom of choice? Not a big fan, eh?   Date: 18 May 2007 09:19:41 From: rotten Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 17, 2:03 am, oilfreeandhappy <oil_free_and_ha...@comcast.net > wrote: > Don't hold your breath for America. With our obesity rates, lack of > adequate cycling facilities, along with our worship of the automobile, > there may not be much happening in the near future. I think what > America needs is a totally CAR-FREE city. If an investor decided to > take this on, he would have instant advertising, merely from the > publicity. The closest they could come to at this point is Portland, Oregan and from what I've heard even people there don't want to ban cars. The reason there are no car-free cities is that people... believe it or not... would rather drive cars than use other forms of transportation.     Date: 23 May 2007 21:27:07 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <4cSdnQtaRp70WMnbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com >, "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > writes: >> I have no problem with exported labor. Better to have them working >> than wanting to fight us. But I also have no problem with leveling >> the playing field. If the US, for example, said that all labor on >> goods imported into the US had to pay the equivelent of US minimum >> wage, I would have a problem with that. It wouldn't bring too many >> jobs back here because few people will work for minimum wage, but it >> would level the playing field quite a bit. But until that happens, >> the world is what the world is. > > Welp, you better hope they don't want to fight us after we've exported all > our technology and wealth to them. They won't have to fight you. They'll just buy you. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 22 May 2007 08:52:50 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 22, 1:56 am, "Sancho Panza" <otterpo...@xhotmail.com > wrote: > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > > news:hFp4i.13231$KC4.2431@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > > > > > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > >news:1179765649.017172.68660@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > >> On May 21, 11:46 am, "Amy Blankenship" > >> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:1179760557.772713.67960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > >>> > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > >>> >> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message > > >>> >>news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... > > >>> >> > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >>> >> > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > >>> >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such > >>> >> >> exploitation of > >>> >> >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the > >>> >> >> past > >>> >> >> used > >>> >> >> to > >>> >> >> be. > > >>> >> > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among > >>> >> > other > >>> >> > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. > > >>> >> > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, > >>> >> > and > >>> >> > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it > >>> >> > could be > >>> >> > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to > >>> >> > eliminate > >>> >> > a particular form of exploitation. > > >>> >> > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab > >>> >> > operator. > > >>> >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We > >>> >> should > >>> >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how > >>> >> morally > >>> >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- > > >>> > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got > >>> > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative > >>> > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in > >>> > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. > > >>> > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why > >>> > not labor?" > > >>> He loves Wal-Mart's low prices. Of _course_ no one is ever exploited so > >>> we > >>> can have those low prices ;-). > > >> But if I can get a $3.00 product for $2.00; then I have $1.00 to > >> invest or save or buy something else. > > > Are you then going to use it to sponsor a Chinese child with World Vision? > > ;-) > > Nope. I'm going to contribute it to Hillary Clinton's campaign funds. After > all, she invented the whole legal justification for the Wal-Mart system. I was at a political even and someone said "this year, you might have Clinton v. Guilliani v. Bloomburg" (all are from NY). Then the person said "... and you thought the rest of the country hated New York before ...."       Date: 22 May 2007 10:59:21 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1179849170.192753.21890@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On May 22, 1:56 am, "Sancho Panza" <otterpo...@xhotmail.com> wrote: >> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message >> Nope. I'm going to contribute it to Hillary Clinton's campaign funds. >> After >> all, she invented the whole legal justification for the Wal-Mart system. > > > I was at a political even and someone said "this year, you might have > Clinton v. Guilliani v. Bloomburg" (all are from NY). Then the person > said "... and you thought the rest of the country hated New York > before ...." Man, she's really got you guys snowed. I didn't realize that it was so bad you actually _believe_ she's from New York. No wonder she found it so easy to waltz in from Arkansas and get elected. -Amy         Date: 22 May 2007 12:54:09 From: Sancho Panza Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:GrE4i.7328$JQ3.3021@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > news:1179849170.192753.21890@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> On May 22, 1:56 am, "Sancho Panza" <otterpo...@xhotmail.com> wrote: >>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message >>> Nope. I'm going to contribute it to Hillary Clinton's campaign funds. >>> After >>> all, she invented the whole legal justification for the Wal-Mart system. >> >> >> I was at a political even and someone said "this year, you might have >> Clinton v. Guilliani v. Bloomburg" (all are from NY). Then the person >> said "... and you thought the rest of the country hated New York >> before ...." > > Man, she's really got you guys snowed. I didn't realize that it was so > bad you actually _believe_ she's from New York. No wonder she found it so > easy to waltz in from Arkansas and get elected. Nah. She's a copycat of Robert Kennedy.     Date: 22 May 2007 08:50:43 From: Pat Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 21, 7:09 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > > news:1179765649.017172.68660@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 21, 11:46 am, "Amy Blankenship" > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1179760557.772713.67960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: > >> >> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message > > >> >>news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... > > >> >> > In article <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >> >> > geo...@nxu.edu says... > > >> >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past > >> >> >> used > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> be. > > >> >> > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among > >> >> > other > >> >> > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. > > >> >> > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's rights, > >> >> > and > >> >> > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it could > >> >> > be > >> >> > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to > >> >> > eliminate > >> >> > a particular form of exploitation. > > >> >> > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab > >> >> > operator. > > >> >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We > >> >> should > >> >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how > >> >> morally > >> >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- > > >> > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we got > >> > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative > >> > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions in > >> > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. > > >> > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why > >> > not labor?" > > >> He loves Wal-Mart's low prices. Of _course_ no one is ever exploited so > >> we > >> can have those low prices ;-). > > > But if I can get a $3.00 product for $2.00; then I have $1.00 to > > invest or save or buy something else. > > Are you then going to use it to sponsor a Chinese child with World Vision? > ;-) I have no problem with exported labor. Better to have them working than wanting to fight us. But I also have no problem with leveling the playing field. If the US, for example, said that all labor on goods imported into the US had to pay the equivelent of US minimum wage, I would have a problem with that. It wouldn't bring too many jobs back here because few people will work for minimum wage, but it would level the playing field quite a bit. But until that happens, the world is what the world is.       Date: 23 May 2007 18:51:22 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1179849043.422939.251720@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On May 21, 7:09 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message >> >> news:1179765649.017172.68660@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 21, 11:46 am, "Amy Blankenship" >> > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1179760557.772713.67960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: >> >> >> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... >> >> >> >> > In article >> >> >> > <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> >> >> > geo...@nxu.edu says... >> >> >> >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such >> >> >> >> exploitation >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the >> >> >> >> past >> >> >> >> used >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> be. >> >> >> >> > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., among >> >> >> > other >> >> >> > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. >> >> >> >> > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's >> >> >> > rights, >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it >> >> >> > could >> >> >> > be >> >> >> > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to >> >> >> > eliminate >> >> >> > a particular form of exploitation. >> >> >> >> > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab >> >> >> > operator. >> >> >> >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. >> >> >> We >> >> >> should >> >> >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how >> >> >> morally >> >> >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- >> >> >> > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we >> >> > got >> >> > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union representative >> >> > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions >> >> > in >> >> > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. >> >> >> > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, why >> >> > not labor?" >> >> >> He loves Wal-Mart's low prices. Of _course_ no one is ever exploited >> >> so >> >> we >> >> can have those low prices ;-). >> >> > But if I can get a $3.00 product for $2.00; then I have $1.00 to >> > invest or save or buy something else. >> >> Are you then going to use it to sponsor a Chinese child with World >> Vision? >> ;-) > > I have no problem with exported labor. Better to have them working > than wanting to fight us. But I also have no problem with leveling > the playing field. If the US, for example, said that all labor on > goods imported into the US had to pay the equivelent of US minimum > wage, I would have a problem with that. It wouldn't bring too many > jobs back here because few people will work for minimum wage, but it > would level the playing field quite a bit. But until that happens, > the world is what the world is. Welp, you better hope they don't want to fight us after we've exported all our technology and wealth to them.         Date: 23 May 2007 23:09:45 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:4cSdnQtaRp70WMnbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > news:1179849043.422939.251720@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> On May 21, 7:09 pm, "Amy Blankenship" >> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message >>> >>> news:1179765649.017172.68660@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >>> >>> > On May 21, 11:46 am, "Amy Blankenship" >>> > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >>> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>> >>news:1179760557.772713.67960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >> > On May 20, 8:42 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote: >>> >> >> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message >>> >>> >> >>news:MPG.20ba6d307a58c3ee9896da@newsgroups.comcast.net... >>> >>> >> >> > In article >>> >> >> > <okE3i.17036$3P3.6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>> >> >> > geo...@nxu.edu says... >>> >>> >> >> >> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such >>> >> >> >> exploitation >>> >> >> >> of >>> >> >> >> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the >>> >> >> >> past >>> >> >> >> used >>> >> >> >> to >>> >> >> >> be. >>> >>> >> >> > Having ridden pedicabs in New Delhi and in Vancouver, B.C., >>> >> >> > among >>> >> >> > other >>> >> >> > cities, I wouldn't compare the two labor environments. >>> >>> >> >> > If a country doesn't have effective enforcement of worker's >>> >> >> > rights, >>> >> >> > and >>> >> >> > even still has pockets of indentured servitude and slavery, it >>> >> >> > could >>> >> >> > be >>> >> >> > that banning a particular occupation might be the only way to >>> >> >> > eliminate >>> >> >> > a particular form of exploitation. >>> >>> >> >> > I'd have no qualms about "exploiting" a U.S. or Canadian pedicab >>> >> >> > operator. >>> >>> >> >> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. >>> >> >> We >>> >> >> should >>> >> >> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how >>> >> >> morally >>> >> >> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.- >>> >>> >> > Are you also concerned about the "Made in China" label? I guess we >>> >> > got >>> >> > to drop the dollar store then. By the way, some union >>> >> > representative >>> >> > was in Asia recently trying to organize labor in China. Free unions >>> >> > in >>> >> > a communist country? I believe it when I see it. >>> >>> >> > He said something that makes sense: "If capitals are globalized, >>> >> > why >>> >> > not labor?" >>> >>> >> He loves Wal-Mart's low prices. Of _course_ no one is ever exploited >>> >> so >>> >> we >>> >> can have those low prices ;-). >>> >>> > But if I can get a $3.00 product for $2.00; then I have $1.00 to >>> > invest or save or buy something else. >>> >>> Are you then going to use it to sponsor a Chinese child with World >>> Vision? >>> ;-) >> >> I have no problem with exported labor. Better to have them working >> than wanting to fight us. But I also have no problem with leveling >> the playing field. If the US, for example, said that all labor on >> goods imported into the US had to pay the equivelent of US minimum >> wage, I would have a problem with that. It wouldn't bring too many >> jobs back here because few people will work for minimum wage, but it >> would level the playing field quite a bit. But until that happens, >> the world is what the world is. > > Welp, you better hope they don't want to fight us after we've exported all > our technology and wealth to them. Not to mention pollution...           Date: 24 May 2007 00:19:28 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:re85i.558$YM5.482@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > Not to mention pollution... They've exported plenty to us as well. See the "Asian brown cloud".             Date: 23 May 2007 23:49:15 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote in message news:4L-dnZZIrtDSj8jbnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message > news:re85i.558$YM5.482@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > >> Not to mention pollution... > > They've exported plenty to us as well. See the "Asian brown cloud". You don't think any of that is because we've outsourced the production of some of our dirtier industrial processes? They produce a lot of coke (coal product, not beverage or drug) used in our electric plants, for instance...               Date: 24 May 2007 05:59:19 From: Joe the Aroma Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message news:sP85i.14121$KC4.6716@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > "Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4L-dnZZIrtDSj8jbnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message >> news:re85i.558$YM5.482@bignews2.bellsouth.net... >> >>> Not to mention pollution... >> >> They've exported plenty to us as well. See the "Asian brown cloud". > > You don't think any of that is because we've outsourced the production of > some of our dirtier industrial processes? They produce a lot of coke > (coal product, not beverage or drug) used in our electric plants, for > instance... I absolutely *DO* think and know that. Apparently our polluting industries are "burdened" by environmental regulations. Free trade necessitates an international regulatory body which would add another layer of bureaucracy and is the first step on the road to world government. No thanks.     Date: 18 May 2007 10:02:13 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <bdjr76@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 17, 2:03 am, oilfreeandhappy <oil_free_and_ha...@comcast.net> > wrote: >> Don't hold your breath for America. With our obesity rates, lack of >> adequate cycling facilities, along with our worship of the automobile, >> there may not be much happening in the near future. I think what >> America needs is a totally CAR-FREE city. If an investor decided to >> take this on, he would have instant advertising, merely from the >> publicity. > > The closest they could come to at this point is Portland, Oregan and > from what I've heard even people there don't want to ban cars. The > reason there are no car-free cities is that people... believe it or > not... would rather drive cars than use other forms of transportation. Point of fact: While there are not (yet) car free cities. There are car free neighborhoods. In fact, they're rather a trend over in Germany at the moment. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1220/p01s03-woeu.html http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=378 http://www.autofrei-wohnen.de/panke0summary.html -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "No job too big; no fee too big!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"   Date: 18 May 2007 09:16:20 From: rotten Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 16, 2:16 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of > cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's > healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment. > And it can be combined with public transportation for greater > flexibility. > > Well, Paris is just making that possible, but France is the site of > the Tour de France. That surely is behind that overdue decision. But > hey, we do have a champion or two to show. And we even have some > politicians who are into bicycling and not SUVing. > > Reality check, it ain't happening here in your lifetime. Too many > vested interests. > > That would take a revolution, but that's another subject... > > "Official Washington likes to think that it is bicycle-friendly. But > we often hear a different story, involving dodging bricks, menacing > drivers, annoying registrations, and brazen theives. For all but the > most hardcore cyclists among us, the thought of negotiating D.C.'s > streets on two wheels is harrowing, which is a shame. Washington is > blessed with compact development, historic neighborhoods, and > beautiful scenery which may be a bit spread out to enjoy on foot, but > is easily covered by bike. Many who would love to tour the miles > between Arlington Cemetary and the Capitol and beyond on two wheels > are relegated to tour busses and Metro, which both limits their > mobility and annoys the hell out of commuters. So, in the spirit of > the upcoming Bike to Work Day on May 18, we pass on a solution from > across the pond: municipal bikes. > > In Paris, city officials have long wrestled with similar issues: > Thousands of sightseers filling the roads with cars (and the air with > exhaust) while attempting to visit its many historic sites. In > response, the Parisian goverment is launching an effort this summer to > provide cheap rental bikes. Lots of them. > > >From WaPo: > > On July 15, the day after Bastille Day, Parisians will wake up to > discover thousands of low-cost rental bikes at hundreds of high-tech > bicycle stations scattered throughout the city, an ambitious program > to cut traffic, reduce pollution, improve parking and enhance the > city's image as a greener, quieter, more relaxed place. > > By the end of the year, organizers and city officials say, there > should be 20,600 bikes at 1,450 stations -- or about one station every > 250 yards across the entire city. Based on experience elsewhere -- > particularly in Lyon, France's third-largest city, which launched a > similar system two years ago -- regular users of the bikes will ride > them almost for free. > > At first, we cringe at the thought of hundreds of street-clogging lost > tourists and a cottage industry of bike thefts. With more examination, > though, there's a lot to like. Providing bikes in those numbers > creates a critical mass that changes the way the city deals with them > -- pushing DDOT to crate a more continuous and extensive bike network > in the city. Streets and paths appropriate for bikers would get even > more so, which pulls bicycles off of streets that aren't, lessening > the dangerous competition with autos. > > In Denmark, Copenhagen's City Bikes program has been established for > years, resulting in huge shifts in transportation, pollution, and the > city's image. As for theft, both Copenhagen and Helsinki's bicycle > programs have actually reduced it. The free bike use provided by the > program both eliminates the need for theft and removes a considerable > market for resale. > > Now that we've got a triathlete Mayor, isn't it time to get Washington > some bikes?" > > http://www.dcist.com/2007/05/02/what_were_missi.php > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > THE BANANA REVOLUTIONhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 > > BIKE FOR PEACEhttp://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace I have absolutely no problem with bikes. Hell, paint lines on the road for them, that's what they did here in Cambridge. What I dislike is paying for transit that nobody uses or is so inefficiently run that it has to be subsidized by the taxpayers. And no, we shouldn't subsidize cars either.   Date: 18 May 2007 08:54:58 From: Pat Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 18, 10:53 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > > news:1179498099.764634.153340@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 18, 10:10 am, "Amy Blankenship" > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >> "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in > >> messagenews:1179456685.193575.290060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> Outhouses are also great for the environment. > > >> > George you are a dick by nature. > > >> The grammar and spelling are perfect. Now, if we can expand your > >> vocabulary > >> and hone your with where you don't need to use profanity to express this > >> ort > >> of sentiment, you'll be a respectable debater... > > > You are right, but Mr. Cool is getting better. To be correct, he > > should have said: > > > "George. By nature, you are a dick." > > Actually, I think his big issue was a missing piece of punctuation. > > George, you are a dick by nature. > > or > > George: you are a dick by nature. > > And of course my own spell checker missed that I meant "hone your wit", > rather than "hone your with." You are forgiven. Only George would care. Within reason, I think spelling, grammatical errors, and typo are acceptable. But as I said, within reason. Last time I wrote columns for the local paper, the editor gave he huge leaway for grammer once he realized that I write in the style that I speak, so it is much less formal, less accurate, and less grammatical. It is interesting how much differently we speak from how we write. > > -Amy     Date: 18 May 2007 12:09:24 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1179503698.546881.39650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On May 18, 10:53 am, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message ... >> George: you are a dick by nature. >> >> And of course my own spell checker missed that I meant "hone your wit", >> rather than "hone your with." > > You are forgiven. Only George would care. Within reason, I think > spelling, grammatical errors, and typo are acceptable. But as I said, > within reason. > > Last time I wrote columns for the local paper, the editor gave he huge > leaway for grammer once he realized that I write in the style that I > speak, so it is much less formal, less accurate, and less > grammatical. It is interesting how much differently we speak from how > we write. With me, it depends. With my mother or my sister and often with my husband, I speak as I write. With anyone else, I tend to drop into how they speak as much as is possible, as it makes for easier communication. Being raised by an English teacher means that my natural speech is probably more "correct" than many. -Amy   Date: 18 May 2007 07:21:39 From: Pat Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 18, 10:10 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179456685.193575.290060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> Outhouses are also great for the environment. > > > George you are a dick by nature. > > The grammar and spelling are perfect. Now, if we can expand your vocabulary > and hone your with where you don't need to use profanity to express this ort > of sentiment, you'll be a respectable debater... You are right, but Mr. Cool is getting better. To be correct, he should have said: "George. By nature, you are a dick."     Date: 18 May 2007 09:53:25 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message news:1179498099.764634.153340@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On May 18, 10:10 am, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: >> "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in >> messagenews:1179456685.193575.290060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> Outhouses are also great for the environment. >> >> > George you are a dick by nature. >> >> The grammar and spelling are perfect. Now, if we can expand your >> vocabulary >> and hone your with where you don't need to use profanity to express this >> ort >> of sentiment, you'll be a respectable debater... > > > You are right, but Mr. Cool is getting better. To be correct, he > should have said: > > "George. By nature, you are a dick." Actually, I think his big issue was a missing piece of punctuation. George, you are a dick by nature. or George: you are a dick by nature. And of course my own spell checker missed that I meant "hone your wit", rather than "hone your with." -Amy   Date: 18 May 2007 03:48:30 From: John Kane Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 17, 3:10 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1179423450.645367.87110@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 17, 12:17 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > > DonQui just said he was quitting riding his > > > bike 'cuz he couldn't hack it. But apparently > > > he still fancies himself as some sort of lyric, > > > all-talk/no-walk revolutionary/shit-disturber > > > who wants other people to do his "revolution" > > > for him. > > > For the cyclists the choice is clear: Revolution or die! Well, there's > > another solution: get a stationary bike and work out from the comfort > > and safety of your home. > > > Remember Orwell: "At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is > > a revolutionary act!" > > At least you can't fall off the bike at home and get hurt. Since falls in the home are a major cause of injury, I would not take that as sure. If you can fall off a chair or fall out of bed there is no reason to assume that falling off an exercise bicycle is impossible.     Date: 18 May 2007 09:07:54 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1179485310.663657.73320@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On May 17, 3:10 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> > wrote: >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1179423450.645367.87110@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 17, 12:17 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >> >> > > DonQui just said he was quitting riding his >> > > bike 'cuz he couldn't hack it. But apparently >> > > he still fancies himself as some sort of lyric, >> > > all-talk/no-walk revolutionary/shit-disturber >> > > who wants other people to do his "revolution" >> > > for him. >> >> > For the cyclists the choice is clear: Revolution or die! Well, there's >> > another solution: get a stationary bike and work out from the comfort >> > and safety of your home. >> >> > Remember Orwell: "At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is >> > a revolutionary act!" >> >> At least you can't fall off the bike at home and get hurt. > > Since falls in the home are a major cause of injury, I would not take > that as sure. If you can fall off a chair or fall out of bed there is > no reason to assume that falling off an exercise bicycle is > impossible. Also, a spin bicycle can break your leg and I've injured my tailbone on one as well. -Amy   Date: 17 May 2007 20:06:06 From: Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities] Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 17, 7:08 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net > wrote: > "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179438300.337663.13240@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > > > newsgroups?) > > > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > > > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good > > > though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this > > > country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, > > > which regrettably mobilize the sheep... > > > > --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for > > > small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- > > > > It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates > > > talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at > > > hand turn me off... > > > > Hillary: gender > > > > Obama: race > > > > and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but > > > are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? > > > Biking is good all around. It saves you money with the lack of gas > > needed to ride a bike, > > it gets you in better shape and benifits your health, and a bike is > > just more fun to ride > > then a car. Even if you are a hard core conservative you still can > > agree that not using > > gas is good for the environment. > > Outhouses are also great for the environment. O good one George! Great show!   Date: 17 May 2007 19:55:45 From: Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities] Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 17, 7:08 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net > wrote: > "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179438300.337663.13240@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > > > newsgroups?) > > > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > > > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good > > > though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this > > > country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, > > > which regrettably mobilize the sheep... > > > > --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for > > > small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- > > > > It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates > > > talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at > > > hand turn me off... > > > > Hillary: gender > > > > Obama: race > > > > and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but > > > are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? > > > Biking is good all around. It saves you money with the lack of gas > > needed to ride a bike, > > it gets you in better shape and benifits your health, and a bike is > > just more fun to ride > > then a car. Even if you are a hard core conservative you still can > > agree that not using > > gas is good for the environment. > > Outhouses are also great for the environment. George Conklin City The Big Asshole     Date: 18 May 2007 11:41:14 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecool10@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1179456945.235745.4370@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On May 17, 7:08 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179438300.337663.13240@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > > > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > > > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > > > > newsgroups?) > > > > > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > > > > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good > > > > though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this > > > > country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, > > > > which regrettably mobilize the sheep... > > > > > > --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for > > > > small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- > > > > > > It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates > > > > talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at > > > > hand turn me off... > > > > > > Hillary: gender > > > > > > Obama: race > > > > > > and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but > > > > are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? > > > > > Biking is good all around. It saves you money with the lack of gas > > > needed to ride a bike, > > > it gets you in better shape and benifits your health, and a bike is > > > just more fun to ride > > > then a car. Even if you are a hard core conservative you still can > > > agree that not using > > > gas is good for the environment. > > > > Outhouses are also great for the environment. > > George Conklin City > The Big Asshole > Outhouses are the latest environmental craze buddy. Just read the newspapers. They are still legal in NC, but new ones are not. There are a whole lot of them still around. Great when the power goes off.   Date: 17 May 2007 19:51:25 From: Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities] Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 17, 7:08 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net > wrote: > "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179438300.337663.13240@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > > > newsgroups?) > > > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > > > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good > > > though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this > > > country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, > > > which regrettably mobilize the sheep... > > > > --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for > > > small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- > > > > It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates > > > talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at > > > hand turn me off... > > > > Hillary: gender > > > > Obama: race > > > > and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but > > > are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? > > > Biking is good all around. It saves you money with the lack of gas > > needed to ride a bike, > > it gets you in better shape and benifits your health, and a bike is > > just more fun to ride > > then a car. Even if you are a hard core conservative you still can > > agree that not using > > gas is good for the environment. > > Outhouses are also great for the environment. George you are a dick by nature.     Date: 18 May 2007 09:10:27 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecool10@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1179456685.193575.290060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> Outhouses are also great for the environment. > > > George you are a dick by nature. The grammar and spelling are perfect. Now, if we can expand your vocabulary and hone your with where you don't need to use profanity to express this ort of sentiment, you'll be a respectable debater...     Date: 18 May 2007 11:39:10 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecool10@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1179456685.193575.290060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On May 17, 7:08 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179438300.337663.13240@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > > > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > > > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > > > > newsgroups?) > > > > > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > > > > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good > > > > though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this > > > > country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, > > > > which regrettably mobilize the sheep... > > > > > > --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for > > > > small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- > > > > > > It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates > > > > talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at > > > > hand turn me off... > > > > > > Hillary: gender > > > > > > Obama: race > > > > > > and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but > > > > are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? > > > > > Biking is good all around. It saves you money with the lack of gas > > > needed to ride a bike, > > > it gets you in better shape and benifits your health, and a bike is > > > just more fun to ride > > > then a car. Even if you are a hard core conservative you still can > > > agree that not using > > > gas is good for the environment. > > > > Outhouses are also great for the environment. > > > George you are a dick by nature. > Oh come on. Did you not read that national story about people who wanted to save energy and thus gave up on toilet paper? And my chemical toilet for my travel trailer, one from UK, said, "Dilute 3 to 1 and place in the garden." It did not use poison as do the Monomatics in the USA. I am also restoring the outhouse on the farm.       Date: 18 May 2007 09:11:39 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:yfg3i.11016$Ut6.484@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecool10@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1179456685.193575.290060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> On May 17, 7:08 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> > "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in > messagenews:1179438300.337663.13240@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > >> > >> > > On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: >> > >> > > > > donquijote1954 wrote: >> > >> > > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling >> > > > > newsgroups?) >> > >> > > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm >> > > > not >> > > > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good >> > > > though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this >> > > > country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, >> > > > which regrettably mobilize the sheep... >> > >> > > > --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for >> > > > small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- >> > >> > > > It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates >> > > > talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at >> > > > hand turn me off... >> > >> > > > Hillary: gender >> > >> > > > Obama: race >> > >> > > > and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but >> > > > are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? >> > >> > > Biking is good all around. It saves you money with the lack of gas >> > > needed to ride a bike, >> > > it gets you in better shape and benifits your health, and a bike is >> > > just more fun to ride >> > > then a car. Even if you are a hard core conservative you still can >> > > agree that not using >> > > gas is good for the environment. >> > >> > Outhouses are also great for the environment. >> >> >> George you are a dick by nature. >> > > Oh come on. Did you not read that national story about people who wanted > to > save energy and thus gave up on toilet paper? And my chemical toilet for > my travel trailer, one from UK, said, "Dilute 3 to 1 and place in the > garden." It did not use poison as do the Monomatics in the USA. I am > also > restoring the outhouse on the farm. Outhouses are old technology. Look at composting toilets :-)   Date: 17 May 2007 19:35:37 From: Bob Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 16, 11:17 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > DonQui just said he was quitting riding his > bike 'cuz he couldn't hack it. But apparently > he still fancies himself as some sort of lyric, > all-talk/no-walk revolutionary/shit-disturber > who wants other people to do his "revolution" > for him. > > cheers, > Tom > Well put. Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 17 May 2007 19:33:16 From: Bob Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > newsgroups?) > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. "We" are discriminated against? You said you were quitting riding so you are no longer part of the "we" here- unless your "we" is restricted to spammers in which case you *are* discriminated against and rightly so. Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 17 May 2007 19:19:09 From: Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 16, 10:17 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <464bd02b$0$8959$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, > "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> writes: > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > newsgroups?) > > That was Bill B. I picture him tearfully hugging > the hood of his 440 Charger[*] and proclaiming: "I'll > never leave you! 'Til the end of time! You 'n me!" > > DonQui just said he was quitting riding his > bike 'cuz he couldn't hack it. But apparently > he still fancies himself as some sort of lyric, > all-talk/no-walk revolutionary/shit-disturber > who wants other people to do his "revolution" > for him. Heeyargg!!!! If I had a Charger I would probably hug it though. The Revolution will in fact be televised. So Mr. Donk can watch it from the comfort of his living room.   Date: 17 May 2007 14:45:00 From: Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities] Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > newsgroups?) > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good > though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this > country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, > which regrettably mobilize the sheep... > > --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for > small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- > > It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates > talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at > hand turn me off... > > Hillary: gender > > Obama: race > > and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but > are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? Biking is good all around. It saves you money with the lack of gas needed to ride a bike, it gets you in better shape and benifits your health, and a bike is just more fun to ride then a car. Even if you are a hard core conservative you still can agree that not using gas is good for the environment.     Date: 18 May 2007 01:05:09 From: Sancho Panza Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecool10@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1179438300.337663.13240@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: >> >> > donquijote1954 wrote: >> >> > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling >> > newsgroups?) >> >> I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not >> alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good >> though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this >> country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, >> which regrettably mobilize the sheep... >> >> --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for >> small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- >> >> It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates >> talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at >> hand turn me off... >> >> Hillary: gender >> >> Obama: race >> >> and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but >> are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? > > > Biking is good all around. It saves you money with the lack of gas > needed to ride a bike, > it gets you in better shape and benifits your health, and a bike is > just more fun to ride > then a car. Even if you are a hard core conservative you still can > agree that not using > gas is good for the environment. How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the Twin Cities?       Date: 18 May 2007 08:52:14 From: David Kerber Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? In article <cua3i.169$S03.153@newsfe12.lga >, otterpower@xhotmail.com says... ... > How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the Twin > Cities? About 11-1/2. -- Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible).         Date: 18 May 2007 10:27:13 From: Sancho Panza Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net > wrote in message news:MPG.20b76b8bc435f1a989b12@news.conversent.net... > In article <cua3i.169$S03.153@newsfe12.lga>, otterpower@xhotmail.com > says... > > ... > >> How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the Twin >> Cities? > > About 11-1/2. And the average snowfall is _____?           Date: 18 May 2007 10:57:50 From: David Kerber Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? In article <9Ji3i.5$z64.2@newsfe12.lga >, otterpower@xhotmail.com says... > > "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message > news:MPG.20b76b8bc435f1a989b12@news.conversent.net... > > In article <cua3i.169$S03.153@newsfe12.lga>, otterpower@xhotmail.com > > says... > > > > ... > > > >> How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the Twin > >> Cities? > > > > About 11-1/2. > > And the average snowfall is _____? Enough that you lose that 1/2 a month over the course of a winter. -- Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible).             Date: 18 May 2007 15:29:14 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net > wrote in message news:MPG.20b788f728aea3b9989b13@news.conversent.net... > In article <9Ji3i.5$z64.2@newsfe12.lga>, otterpower@xhotmail.com says... >> >> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message >> news:MPG.20b76b8bc435f1a989b12@news.conversent.net... >> > In article <cua3i.169$S03.153@newsfe12.lga>, otterpower@xhotmail.com >> > says... >> >> How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the >> >> Twin >> >> Cities? >> > >> > About 11-1/2. >> >> And the average snowfall is _____? > > Enough that you lose that 1/2 a month over the course of a winter. The ice bike site (http://www.icebike.com) is the go-to resource on bicycling in the snow and on ice. I confess, I am happier to drown :-) :-) :-) here bicycling through the winter in the Seattle area, instead. Yeah, it rains. You know what happens? You get wet. Wet does not equal cold, or uncomfortable. Wet things and wet people become dry after a while, too. It's not a big deal, unless you're a total weanie. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky               Date: 18 May 2007 12:22:27 From: David Kerber Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? In article <eDj3i.16740$3P3.4940@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >, cpetersky@mouse-potato.com says... ... > >> >> How many months a year can one ride a bike to and from work in the > >> >> Twin > >> >> Cities? > >> > > >> > About 11-1/2. > >> > >> And the average snowfall is _____? > > > > Enough that you lose that 1/2 a month over the course of a winter. > > The ice bike site (http://www.icebike.com) is the go-to resource on > bicycling in the snow and on ice. > > I confess, I am happier to drown :-) :-) :-) here bicycling through the > winter in the Seattle area, instead. Yeah, it rains. You know what happens? > You get wet. Wet does not equal cold, or uncomfortable. Wet things and wet > people become dry after a while, too. It's not a big deal, unless you're a > total weanie. For me, I'd rather ride in dry cold weather than cool wet weather. -- Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible).     Date: 18 May 2007 00:08:10 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]" <willbecool10@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1179438300.337663.13240@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On May 17, 12:34 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > > > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > > > newsgroups?) > > > > I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not > > alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good > > though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this > > country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, > > which regrettably mobilize the sheep... > > > > --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for > > small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- > > > > It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates > > talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at > > hand turn me off... > > > > Hillary: gender > > > > Obama: race > > > > and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but > > are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars? > > > Biking is good all around. It saves you money with the lack of gas > needed to ride a bike, > it gets you in better shape and benifits your health, and a bike is > just more fun to ride > then a car. Even if you are a hard core conservative you still can > agree that not using > gas is good for the environment. > Outhouses are also great for the environment.   Date: 17 May 2007 10:55:39 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 17, 2:03 am, oilfreeandhappy <oil_free_and_ha...@comcast.net > wrote: > Don't hold your breath for America. With our obesity rates, lack of > adequate cycling facilities, along with our worship of the automobile, > there may not be much happening in the near future. I think what > America needs is a totally CAR-FREE city. If an investor decided to > take this on, he would have instant advertising, merely from the > publicity. > ---- > Jim Gagnepainwww.OilFreeandHappy.com No I won't. It's the tyranny of the inefficient over the efficient, the obese over the fit and the stupid over the smart... (dialog between the couch potato and his wife) "Honey, hand me the TV dinner and the beer, 'cause I'm too tired after working so many hours, and I wanna watch the news. You know it's a dangerous world out there. One cyclist killed by a hit and run, and two more dead soldiers in Iraq. And the elections... Sweety, have you decided who to vote for in the next elections?"   Date: 17 May 2007 10:37:30 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 17, 12:17 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > DonQui just said he was quitting riding his > bike 'cuz he couldn't hack it. But apparently > he still fancies himself as some sort of lyric, > all-talk/no-walk revolutionary/shit-disturber > who wants other people to do his "revolution" > for him. For the cyclists the choice is clear: Revolution or die! Well, there's another solution: get a stationary bike and work out from the comfort and safety of your home. Remember Orwell: "At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!"     Date: 17 May 2007 19:10:32 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1179423450.645367.87110@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On May 17, 12:17 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > DonQui just said he was quitting riding his > > bike 'cuz he couldn't hack it. But apparently > > he still fancies himself as some sort of lyric, > > all-talk/no-walk revolutionary/shit-disturber > > who wants other people to do his "revolution" > > for him. > > > For the cyclists the choice is clear: Revolution or die! Well, there's > another solution: get a stationary bike and work out from the comfort > and safety of your home. > > Remember Orwell: "At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is > a revolutionary act!" > At least you can't fall off the bike at home and get hurt.   Date: 17 May 2007 10:34:29 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Anyone for bikes and small cars? On May 16, 11:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > newsgroups?) I said "stop biking" as a way of getting around, but I guess I'm not alone in screaming that we are discriminated against. Things good though are happening in Paris that I doubt wil ever happen in this country. I guess our politicians are looking for the wrong issues, which regrettably mobilize the sheep... --How about a Congress and President with guts enough to push for small, economical cars, and penalizing the whoppers?-- It makes sense but I don't see even the most liberal candidates talking about real solutions for the real world. The issues are at hand turn me off... Hillary: gender Obama: race and the rest are for those who don't have real solutions either but are against gays, abortion, etc. Anyone for bikes and small cars?   Date: 17 May 2007 10:19:08 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 16, 8:56 pm, drydem <walter_...@my-deja.com > wrote: > One of the obstacles with regard to using a bicycle in my town is > that the local shopping centers forbid them. When I asked one of > the shopping center's management for the reason they're ban > bicycles from their property, they told me that their insurance > requires it. They figure that cyclists would only spend peanuts, so they are not their priority. I'd try though not to feed them in any way. Just go with the ones that take you into account. Boycott is a great thing!   Date: 17 May 2007 07:16:25 From: Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 16, 9:17 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > [*] Gas in Vancouver is $1.30+(Cdn)/litre Dear Tom, If I'd known there'd be math, I'd have studied ;-) Any way you can convert that into a more digestible unit of measurement, like "Tim Horton's Jelly-filled's and a cup of coffee per US Gallon" for me? Thanks, Neil   Date: 17 May 2007 00:02:09 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <464be638$0$19469$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <464bd02b$0$8959$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes: >>> donquijote1954 wrote: >>> >>> Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling >>> newsgroups?) >> >> That was Bill B. I picture him tearfully hugging >> the hood of his 440 Charger[*] and proclaiming: "I'll >> never leave you! 'Til the end of time! You 'n me!" > > Hey, my very first car was a (used) 1968 Dodge Charger with a 440. > (Fire-engine red, black vinyl top.) I'm truly lucky to have survived > teenage stupidity and that much power. (Especially with relatively skinny > 14" wheels/tires.) Bill still Peter Pan'dly lingers there. My very first car would have been a '48 Canadian Willys jeep with a real Jeep engine c/w armoured oil pan. Handed down from father to son to son. I would have been the next son, but my mom gave the ol' death trap away to some "friends" she didn't really like, before I could get my hands on it. It was a hardtop faux woody. One of its characteristics was that it could run on three wheels should one fall off -- which sometimes happened. Another other was, you could flick a cigarette toward the windshield and it would instantly get sucked out the no-draft. >> DonQui just said he was quitting riding his >> bike 'cuz he couldn't hack it. But apparently >> he still fancies himself as some sort of lyric, >> all-talk/no-walk revolutionary/shit-disturber >> who wants other people to do his "revolution" >> for him. > > Ah, I thought he included a promise to take his stylings elsewhere as part > of the parting. My bad. He was asked to, but his reply was typically wishy-washy. > Bill "anyone taking bets on when Mensa Baka will be backa?" S. Mention of Dodge 440s will be irresistable to him, that ol' fat-ass SUV NASCAR Lance Armstrong. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 16 May 2007 23:03:46 From: oilfreeandhappy Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Don't hold your breath for America. With our obesity rates, lack of adequate cycling facilities, along with our worship of the automobile, there may not be much happening in the near future. I think what America needs is a totally CAR-FREE city. If an investor decided to take this on, he would have instant advertising, merely from the publicity. ---- Jim Gagnepain www.OilFreeandHappy.com On May 16, 12:16 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of > cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's > healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment. > And it can be combined with public transportation for greater > flexibility.   Date: 16 May 2007 21:17:30 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <464bd02b$0$8959$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > writes: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling > newsgroups?) That was Bill B. I picture him tearfully hugging the hood of his 440 Charger[*] and proclaiming: "I'll never leave you! 'Til the end of time! You 'n me!" DonQui just said he was quitting riding his bike 'cuz he couldn't hack it. But apparently he still fancies himself as some sort of lyric, all-talk/no-walk revolutionary/shit-disturber who wants other people to do his "revolution" for him. cheers, Tom [*] Gas in Vancouver is $1.30+(Cdn)/litre -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 16 May 2007 22:20:52 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands Tom Keats wrote: > In article <464bd02b$0$8959$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes: >> donquijote1954 wrote: >> >> Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling >> newsgroups?) > > That was Bill B. I picture him tearfully hugging > the hood of his 440 Charger[*] and proclaiming: "I'll > never leave you! 'Til the end of time! You 'n me!" Hey, my very first car was a (used) 1968 Dodge Charger with a 440. (Fire-engine red, black vinyl top.) I'm truly lucky to have survived teenage stupidity and that much power. (Especially with relatively skinny 14" wheels/tires.) > DonQui just said he was quitting riding his > bike 'cuz he couldn't hack it. But apparently > he still fancies himself as some sort of lyric, > all-talk/no-walk revolutionary/shit-disturber > who wants other people to do his "revolution" > for him. Ah, I thought he included a promise to take his stylings elsewhere as part of the parting. My bad. Bill "anyone taking bets on when Mensa Baka will be backa?" S.   Date: 16 May 2007 20:46:31 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands donquijote1954 wrote: Didn't you say you were leaving Usenet? (Or at least the cycling newsgroups?)   Date: 16 May 2007 20:40:23 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <p9nsh4-m2c.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org >, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > writes: > In rec.bicycles.misc Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:08:13 GMT, "George Conklin" >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >>>> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >>>> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? >>> >>>Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock >>>your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day for >>>a few cents. >> >> And for the obverse: come visit cities of the like of Vancouver BC, >> Seattle WA, and Portland OR in the fall, winter, and spring. > > Oh, you mean like where I commute by bike year round? And where I see > people also commuting year round by bike? If you live in Seattle, you > don't let little things like rain stop you from doing things. > >> Why the Bloody Hell would anyone ride a bicycle, and risk getting >> drowned in any month from October to April? > > -- copied from a previous post of mine -- I hardly ever get drowned between October and April :-) cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 16 May 2007 19:23:50 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <eh8n43t8cd8jvij37cfei13008tc863jul@4ax.com >, Nobody <jock@soccer.com > writes: > On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:08:13 GMT, "George Conklin" > <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >>> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >>> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? >> >>Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock >>your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day for >>a few cents. >> > > And for the obverse: come visit cities of the like of Vancouver BC, > Seattle WA, and Portland OR in the fall, winter, and spring. > > Why the Bloody Hell would anyone ride a bicycle, and risk getting > drowned in any month from October to April? As a lifelong cycling car-free Vancouverite, I avow bicycling is my best option in wet weather. My inexpensive but effective rain gear keeps me nice & dry -- drier than if I hoof it. Fenders, and turning the bike lights on (even in the gloomy/ overcast/stormy/rainy daytime) complete my wet weather defense system. And cycling in the rain is much more pleasant than riding on some steamy, crowded, jerky, disease-ridden, slow public transit bus. Vancouver drivers and cyclists are becoming quite well habituated to the presence of each other. From what I've read and heard, the same seems to be in effect in Seattle and Portland (OR). I do know for sure that each of these cities enjoy thriving bicycling cultures. > The Bicycle Lobby lives in a Dream World. I note many drivers experience a false sense of privacy as they sit in their cars, whistfully picking their noses. Dream world indeed! Anyways, we're not big enough to have a "Lobby" (despite the grandiose affectations of such as the League of American Bicyclists.) At best we have a bunch of hat-in-hand advocates who can't even agree on what's best for the bicycling community. I think it's because there are at least /two/ major bicycling communities (probably more,) each with their respective needs & wants, and the advocates unsuccessfully try to generalize what's best for all, and end up competing against each other. So we're also too fragmented to have a Lobby. I used to have inclinations toward cycling advocacy. Now I have inclinations toward what's good for the City in which I live -- and citizens' mobility within the City is a big part of "what's good". It doesn't matter to the property-tax-paying businesses in the City how their clienteles get there, as long as they and their money get there. I guess this is where some driver might pipe up and say: "I can't get there soon enough with all these bikes in my way!" And some cycling advocate might say: "I can't get there at all with all these cars in my way!" And then there'll be those who hold their peace, and quietly, safely get to where they want to be, regardless of their transport of choice. No fuss, no muss, in all kinds of weather. A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down with athsma is also good. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 24 May 2007 02:13:14 From: Nobody Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:23:50 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <eh8n43t8cd8jvij37cfei13008tc863jul@4ax.com>, > Nobody <jock@soccer.com> writes: >> On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:08:13 GMT, "George Conklin" >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >>>> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >>>> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? >>> >>>Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock >>>your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day for >>>a few cents. >>> >> >> And for the obverse: come visit cities of the like of Vancouver BC, >> Seattle WA, and Portland OR in the fall, winter, and spring. >> >> Why the Bloody Hell would anyone ride a bicycle, and risk getting >> drowned in any month from October to April? > >As a lifelong cycling car-free Vancouverite, I avow bicycling >is my best option in wet weather. My inexpensive but effective >rain gear keeps me nice & dry -- drier than if I hoof it. >Fenders, and turning the bike lights on (even in the gloomy/ >overcast/stormy/rainy daytime) complete my wet weather >defense system. > >And cycling in the rain is much more pleasant than riding on >some steamy, crowded, jerky, disease-ridden, slow public >transit bus. > >Vancouver drivers and cyclists are becoming quite well >habituated to the presence of each other. From what >I've read and heard, the same seems to be in effect in >Seattle and Portland (OR). I do know for sure that >each of these cities enjoy thriving bicycling cultures. > >> The Bicycle Lobby lives in a Dream World. > >I note many drivers experience a false sense of privacy >as they sit in their cars, whistfully picking their noses. >Dream world indeed! > >Anyways, we're not big enough to have a "Lobby" (despite >the grandiose affectations of such as the League of >American Bicyclists.) At best we have a bunch of >hat-in-hand advocates who can't even agree on what's >best for the bicycling community. > >I think it's because there are at least /two/ major >bicycling communities (probably more,) each with >their respective needs & wants, and the advocates >unsuccessfully try to generalize what's best for all, >and end up competing against each other. So we're >also too fragmented to have a Lobby. > >I used to have inclinations toward cycling advocacy. >Now I have inclinations toward what's good for the >City in which I live -- and citizens' mobility within >the City is a big part of "what's good". It doesn't >matter to the property-tax-paying businesses in the >City how their clienteles get there, as long as they >and their money get there. > >I guess this is where some driver might pipe up and >say: "I can't get there soon enough with all these >bikes in my way!" > >And some cycling advocate might say: "I can't get there >at all with all these cars in my way!" > >And then there'll be those who hold their peace, and >quietly, safely get to where they want to be, regardless >of their transport of choice. No fuss, no muss, in all >kinds of weather. > >A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens >anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down >with athsma is also good. Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best. Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah! Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message. It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by wish or function.       Date: 04 Jun 2007 07:57:59 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: If MADD catches you On Jun 3, 10:26 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com > wrote: > Amy Blankenship wrote: > > "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > >news:r317j4-30e.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > >> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual > >> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime > >> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at." > > >> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as > >> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here, > >> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie? > > > You don't have to drink alcohol to live... > > It helps sometimes. ;) > > And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow! If MADD catches you saying that you'd be in deep shit. They seem to have a way with the HP (via lawyers, who also get a cut in it), and politicians (who can catch on the photo op) who otherwise look the other way to no less dangerous driving like DUCP (driving under cell phone influence) and DUSUV (driving under supersized unnecessary vehicle influence).         Date: 06 Jun 2007 16:17:15 From: Bolwerk Subject: Re: If MADD catches you donquijote1954 wrote: > On Jun 3, 10:26 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Amy Blankenship wrote: >>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message >>> news:r317j4-30e.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >>>> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual >>>> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime >>>> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at." >>>> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as >>>> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here, >>>> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie? >>> You don't have to drink alcohol to live... >> It helps sometimes. ;) >> >> And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow! > > > If MADD catches you saying that you'd be in deep shit. They seem to > have a way with the HP (via lawyers, who also get a cut in it), and > politicians (who can catch on the photo op) who otherwise look the > other way to no less dangerous driving like DUCP (driving under cell > phone influence) and DUSUV (driving under supersized unnecessary > vehicle influence). Well, screw MADD. Seriously, kudos to them for bringing attention to the drunk driving issue back in the 1970s. "OMG, officer, I'm so sorry! I was drunk!" "Okay, I understand, get home safe." However, since then they've done nothing but damage to this country. They've produced an entire generation of now young adults who have no idea how to handle a drink properly - these young adults make the news sometimes when one of them manages to poison himself by downing his first bottle of vodka on his 21st birthday. By making it illegal to teach children how to drink moderately while still living with their parents, they've gone so far as to make it illegal to be a responsible parent in many places in America. (I know, I know. There are cultural problems with how Americans handle alcohol. I get annoyed when I go to bars and get made fun of for drinking club soda - college professors have actually done this to me. I drink alcohol if I feel like it, but there shouldn't be pressure to drink or get drunk.)       Date: 04 Jun 2007 07:38:39 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: our Presidential Candidate On Jun 2, 2:57 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > 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. > >http://www.teddybearfriends.co.uk/images/teddy-bears/large/gund-teddy... > > Chris Dodd? Who's that, another puppet? ;)   Date: 16 May 2007 19:41:59 From: Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities] Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On May 16, 2:08 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of > > cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? > > Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock > your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day for > a few cents. Wow George your a dick not going to lie.     Date: 16 May 2007 20:12:01 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In rec.bicycles.misc Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities] <willbecool10@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 16, 2:08 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> > wrote: >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >> > cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? >> >> Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock >> your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day for >> a few cents. > > Wow George your a dick not going to lie. That should be "Wow George, you're a dick. I'm not going to lie." See how much more erudite you sound now? [1] It's "your", as in "your crack pipe". It's "you're", as in "you're dumb as a bag of hammers". [1] I'm not a member of the George Conklin Fan Club, but don't mangle the language for Jehu's sake. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "A University without students is like an ointment without a fly." -- Ed Nather, professor of astronomy at UT Austin       Date: 17 May 2007 09:31:06 From: Amy Blankenship Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:1ptsh4-l0i.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > In rec.bicycles.misc Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities] <willbecool10@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On May 16, 2:08 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> > Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >>> > cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? >>> >>> Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock >>> your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day >>> for >>> a few cents. >> >> Wow George your a dick not going to lie. > > That should be "Wow George, you're a dick. I'm not going to lie." > > See how much more erudite you sound now? [1] > > It's "your", as in "your crack pipe". > > It's "you're", as in "you're dumb as a bag of hammers". Grammar and spelling lessons are like water off a duck's back with this guy...   Date: 16 May 2007 17:56:11 From: drydem Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands One of the obstacles with regard to using a bicycle in my town is that the local shopping centers forbid them. When I asked one of the shopping center's management for the reason they're ban bicycles from their property, they told me that their insurance requires it. On May 16, 11:16 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of > cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's > healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment. > And it can be combined with public transportation for greater > flexibility.     Date: 16 May 2007 20:51:15 From: Free Lunch Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On 16 May 2007 17:56:11 -0700, in misc.transport.urban-transit drydem <walter_lee@my-deja.com > wrote in <1179363371.669176.313640@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >: >One of the obstacles with regard to using a bicycle in my town is >that the local shopping centers forbid them. When I asked one of >the shopping center's management for the reason they're ban >bicycles from their property, they told me that their insurance >requires it. Ask them for the evidence. Tell them you want to see the insurance policy that says that. If the policy actually says that, then start screaming to your state's insurance commissioner's office. There is no reason to allow such a limitation -- still my guess is that he made it up to deflect responsibility. >On May 16, 11:16 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> >wrote: >> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's >> healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment. >> And it can be combined with public transportation for greater >> flexibility.   Date: 16 May 2007 19:08:13 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of > cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day for a few cents.     Date: 17 May 2007 23:09:46 From: gl4316@yahoo.com Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In article <xEI2i.16169$3P3.7128@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of > > cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? > > Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock > your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day for > a few cents. http://media.wweek.com/attach/2007/04/17/21_LedeChart.pdf While not a huge percentage, the number of people who commute by bike in Portland and Seattle (compiled from census data) are large enough to show up in the data. And considering what I know of the way people drive in India, I'm not sure that his request for "unnecessary risks" are met there either. Cars running stop signs and running over bicyclists seems to be a particular problem in Portland these days. There was a time not too long ago when people actually paid attention to their driving here. That isn't the case any more. At least here you can put your bike in a covered bike locker (for considerably more than a few cents a day). -- -Glennl The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too! e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.     Date: 17 May 2007 00:36:40 From: Nobody Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:08:13 GMT, "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote: > >"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? > >Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock >your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day for >a few cents. > And for the obverse: come visit cities of the like of Vancouver BC, Seattle WA, and Portland OR in the fall, winter, and spring. Why the Bloody Hell would anyone ride a bicycle, and risk getting drowned in any month from October to April? The Bicycle Lobby lives in a Dream World.       Date: 04 Jun 2007 07:37:28 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 2, 2:35 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote: > > The real starvation will start when there's diruption of oil flow. > > Then America will be the less fit to survive. I can already picture > > those couch potatoes sweating and panting the first few weeks. > > Fuel-inefficient transit buses will get the first cut.- And who will inherit the roads, the bikes? Well, I don't have a problem with that. It will be even be good for the couch potatos, in the long run.       Date: 02 Jun 2007 10:10:35 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: our Presidential Candidate On Jun 2, 9:28 am, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote: > > I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as > > cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here, > > aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie? > > You don't have to drink alcohol to live, but in most places you do have to > buy food. > > I am neither liberal nor conservative. I call em as I see em, and I feel no > need to be lock step with anyone's political agenda.- I may as well use the opportunity to launch our Presidential Candidate... (notice our issues are not related to private people's lives, like abortion or gay rights, but to real issues like bike facilities) 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 or kickbacks, just peanuts. Oh, and he's all for EVOLUTION (revolution if need be), since he realizes the need to get rid of a jungle that doesn't work. And last but not least, he will challenge the "lion's share" that currently the self-proclaimed "King of the Jungle" keeps. 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 with basic reading skills can follow and there's no forgetting of electoral promises. Anyway here's our Platform: COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1 WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote         Date: 02 Jun 2007 16:40:06 From: DI Subject: Re: our Presidential Candidate "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1180804235.006597.211890@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 9:28 am, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > > 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 with basic reading > skills can follow and there's no forgetting of electoral promises. > Anyway here's our Platform: Don gets goofier every day.         Date: 02 Jun 2007 11:57:24 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: our Presidential Candidate donquijote1954 wrote: > 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. > http://www.teddybearfriends.co.uk/images/teddy-bears/large/gund-teddy-bear-mambo-monkey.jpg Chris Dodd?       Date: 01 Jun 2007 08:25:45 From: Pat Subject: Re: we are sitting ducks On Jun 1, 9:20 am, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote: > "Bill" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:sAU7i.31761$Um6.25706@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... > > > > > Pat wrote: > >> On May 31, 5:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > >> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > >>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > > >>>news:isn3j4-i34.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > > >>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship > >>>> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message > >>>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the > >>>>>>> automobile. > >>>>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and > >>>>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely, > >>>>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone > >>>>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly. > >>>>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without > >>>>> owning > >>>>> a > >>>>> car. > >>>> How much of that is cause and how much of that is effect? I rather > >>>> think that if people find it harder to have a license, we'll see more > >>>> people arranging their lives to live without cars. > >>> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I > >>> would > >>> have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious about it than > >>> I > >>> am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many people I know would > >>> probably > >>> starve if they did not have one. > > >> Don't sweat it. All of the anti-car and ride-a-bike people live in > >> cities where it might be feasible to like without a car. They are > >> very ego-centric and forget that people live in rural areas. Live > >> without a car? Not likely. It's 20 miles to the nearest Walmart. > >> Oops, did I say Walmart. Sorry. Here, we have two small grocery > >> stores that are on the Reservation, but no clothing stores or anything > >> like that. Plus no public transporation except 1 inter-city bus per > >> day and the Nation's bus service for the Elders. Someday they'll > >> recognize that people still live in the boonies. > > > Well said. City dwellers are a rather biased lot. > > Bill Baka > > But then they would say, "Raise taxes and provide 'affordable' bus > transit to the Reservation." George, run for it!!! You used "taxes" and "Reservation" in the same sentence. Eeeks. That's a no-no around here. Heck, you can't even say they are tax _exempt_. They are _immune_. http://www.sni.org/indiantreaties.html       Date: 16 May 2007 18:21:29 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands In rec.bicycles.misc Nobody <jock@soccer.com > wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:08:13 GMT, "George Conklin" > <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:1179339403.964499.244570@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >>> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of >>> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? >> >>Go to India to fulfill your dream. They do that now. You can even lock >>your bicycle up at the train station and let it sit in the rain all day for >>a few cents. > > And for the obverse: come visit cities of the like of Vancouver BC, > Seattle WA, and Portland OR in the fall, winter, and spring. Oh, you mean like where I commute by bike year round? And where I see people also commuting year round by bike? If you live in Seattle, you don't let little things like rain stop you from doing things. > Why the Bloody Hell would anyone ride a bicycle, and risk getting > drowned in any month from October to April? -- copied from a previous post of mine -- My reasons look more like this: 1. Enjoyment 2. Exercise as part of everyday life [1] 3. Money saving - I save a shedload of money by not having a second car. 4. Ease of parking [3] 5. I enjoy working on my bikes - I'm mechanically inclined 6. The social aspect - I see and talk to people on my bike I would never get a chance to see in a car.[4] 7. It is often faster. In many cases [5] I get home faster from work than the people driving.[6] 8. Pastry - I eat pastry instead of filling my car with gasoline. 9. Engineering reasons [7] 10. I don't like driving. [8] 11. Greeny-weeny reasons. 12. By riding my bike I build up self-righteousness points that i can spend on making my friends feel bad about themselves for driving. [9] > The Bicycle Lobby lives in a Dream World. I would say in a better world, but you're allowed your opinion. And god, can't you people stop replying to DQ's trolls? Killfile the idiot already. [1] I used to weigh 280 lbs, I weigh about 200 now. My father and brother are both type II diabetics. [2] [2] Additionally I'm a computer programmer, so my everyday job is very sedentary. [3] No joke this. You try and fight for parking at my favorite Asian grocer with the little old Chinese ladies. F$#% that noise. I roll up and park right at the front of the store. Parking at Pike Place market is a dream on the bicycle. [4] Footnote elided [5] Baseball games, snow, heavy rains, wind storms. This last winter many of my coworkers were trapped for many hours on roads completely jammed with traffic caused by downed trees and powerlines. One poor guy spent most of the night in his car. I rolled up to the downed sections picked up my bike, walked around, and was home about 15 minutes later than usual. [6] The best case - where the highway was completely empty - it used to take me 25 minutes to get to work. It takes 40 minutes by bike. 30 minutes extra a day. In return I get 80 minuts of quality exercise I enjoy. And of course on the many days where traffic was not so good it could take much much longer in the car. [7] Using a 3000 lb car to move a single 200 lb person from point to point is just an inefficient solution. It's always grated at my engineering sensibilities. Not to mention the huge amount of infrastructure needed. [8] I'm far too concious of just how much damage you can do with a car to yourself of other people. Driving is fine at 2am when I'm the only idiot on the road, but how often does that happen? [9] That's a joke people. God, don't you people have any sense of humour at all? -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org Everybody is somebody else's weirdo. -- Dykstra