| |
Main
Date: 04 Aug 2006 08:06:08
From: stratrider
Subject: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
Some years ago I tried to convince a friend that when gas hit
$3.00/gallon in the US, Americans would adjust their lifestyle
accordingly. Well, I am not seeing it. While SUV sales have dropped
sharply, commuting by bike to my office here in SE PA has not
increased. In an office complex of over 500 employees, you can find no
more than 3 bikes even on days with a perfect forecast! It's quite
amazing. I have access to a private locker and shower facilties. Yet
it doesn't matter. Most people would rather leave the office, drive to
a fitness center, ride a stationery bike indoors, and drive home before
simply riding a bike to and from work! I might also add that no less
than half of the employees in my building enjoy a commute that is
either the same distance or shorter than mine.
Jim Reilly
Reading, PA
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2006 10:05:31
From: stratrider
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> I charge our urban planners with nothing less than total dereliction of
> duty. They all ought to be taken out and executed forthwith. For Christ's
> sakes, our cities and suburban spaces are for people, nor for fucking motor
> vehicles.
Ed, I completely agree. I wish I could post a layout of this shopping
complex built near my home no more than 5 years ago. It's a freakin
zoo even in a car! Imagine this. There are a number of popular chain
restaraunts (Chils, Unos, ect) built around the perimeter of this mess.
Across a large dangerous parking light you will find Dick's sporting
goods, Barnes & Noble Books, Target, and other junk. As a customer, no
one dares to walk across the complex parking lot to the book store
while waiting for your table at the restaurant! It's too freaking
dangerous! The planners are just plain idiots!
Jim
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2006 14:52:55
From: sheila
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
Jeff Grippe wrote:
> The roads have to be safer for cyclists. My commuting by bike lasted 6
> months before it was ended by an automobile. Now I don't even get to cycle
> recreationally anymore. No matter how high gas prices go, and no matter how
> good you make the facilities, if it isn't safe then people shouldn't do it.
> The cost is simply too high. If I had it to do over again I would not
> commute by bike. Gas at $10 a gallon is cheap compared to the price I'm
> paying now.
>
> Jeff
Jeff you are right on the money there. The city planners do nothing for
cylists or pedestrians. I live in Jacksonville , Florida, You'd think
it would be a pretty nice place
to own a bicycle. Not if you want to ride it. Jacksonville has to be
one of the most
bike-unfriendly cities I have ever been in. No bike lanes anywhere or
room for cyclists on the roads. The safaests roads to ride on here are
the interstates. New roads are built all the time, none of them with
consideration to the cyclist. riding your bike here is taking your life
in your hands........pitiful
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2006 11:46:20
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
HHS wrote:
> ...As I said in my previous post the creation of
> safe bicycle lanes and bike paths would do more to increase bike commuting
> than the increasing price of gasoline. If urban bike commuting was safer
> I'm sure more people (non enthusiast types) would be inclined to give it a
> try....
What is a safe bicycle lane - one where there is no conflict with
turning motor vehicle traffic, I presume? The bicycle lanes do allow
space for people driving 20+ mph over the speed limit to pass on the
right, which is a great traffic safety feature.
Similarly, what is a safe bike path -one free of joggers, inline
skaters, children and dog walkers? Not to mention one with grade
separated crossings of all roadways used by motor vehicles.
--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2006 15:18:47
From: HHS
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1154803580.461205.154210@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> HHS wrote:
>> ...As I said in my previous post the creation of
>> safe bicycle lanes and bike paths would do more to increase bike
>> commuting
>> than the increasing price of gasoline. If urban bike commuting was safer
>> I'm sure more people (non enthusiast types) would be inclined to give it
>> a
>> try....
>
> What is a safe bicycle lane - one where there is no conflict with
> turning motor vehicle traffic, I presume? The bicycle lanes do allow
> space for people driving 20+ mph over the speed limit to pass on the
> right, which is a great traffic safety feature.
>
> Similarly, what is a safe bike path -one free of joggers, inline
> skaters, children and dog walkers? Not to mention one with grade
> separated crossings of all roadways used by motor vehicles.
>
> --
What is a safe urban bike lane? You're asking the wrong guy. I have only
rarely ridden on urban streets. But I did do a quick Google on 'safe bike
lanes' that resulted in a lot of information. After quickly scanning the
results my sense is that everyone is in favor of safe bicycle lanes, but
exactly how to accomplish it is another matter. The devil is always in the
details.
Interesting case in NYC where there are some bicycle lanes that were
designed to be safe, but many cyclist were being ticketed for riding outside
the lanes. The Critical Mass people proved to the Deputy Mayor's
satisfaction that the lanes were actually unsafe. As a result the police
are no longer authorized to ticket cyclist riding outside the bike lanes.
The original intent was that these lanes were to have enough space for the
cyclists to ride in the lane safely, not be run down by cars, and not be
hit by car doors swinging open in their face. These lanes were four feet
wide and this meant the cyclists had to be outside the lane in order to
avoid a swinging door.
I believe there was once an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of NYC who
proposed building elevated bike lanes for getting around in the city. I
think this could be the ultimate safe bicycle lane.
I have ridden on one multi use path and found it to be an un-rideable mess.
I think you have provided a good definition of a safe bike path. Why waste
money building something HPV's can't or won't use?
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2006 18:51:28
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
"HHS" <hhs@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:8vednVR_67qbYEnZnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1154803580.461205.154210@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> HHS wrote:
>>> ...As I said in my previous post the creation of
>>> safe bicycle lanes and bike paths would do more to increase bike
>>> commuting
>>> than the increasing price of gasoline. If urban bike commuting was
>>> safer
>>> I'm sure more people (non enthusiast types) would be inclined to give it
>>> a
>>> try....
>>
>> What is a safe bicycle lane - one where there is no conflict with
>> turning motor vehicle traffic, I presume? The bicycle lanes do allow
>> space for people driving 20+ mph over the speed limit to pass on the
>> right, which is a great traffic safety feature.
>>
>> Similarly, what is a safe bike path -one free of joggers, inline
>> skaters, children and dog walkers? Not to mention one with grade
>> separated crossings of all roadways used by motor vehicles.
>>
>> --
>
>
> What is a safe urban bike lane? You're asking the wrong guy. I have only
> rarely ridden on urban streets. But I did do a quick Google on 'safe bike
> lanes' that resulted in a lot of information. After quickly scanning the
> results my sense is that everyone is in favor of safe bicycle lanes, but
> exactly how to accomplish it is another matter. The devil is always in
> the details.
>
> Interesting case in NYC where there are some bicycle lanes that were
> designed to be safe, but many cyclist were being ticketed for riding
> outside the lanes. The Critical Mass people proved to the Deputy Mayor's
> satisfaction that the lanes were actually unsafe. As a result the police
> are no longer authorized to ticket cyclist riding outside the bike lanes.
> The original intent was that these lanes were to have enough space for the
> cyclists to ride in the lane safely, not be run down by cars, and not be
> hit by car doors swinging open in their face. These lanes were four feet
> wide and this meant the cyclists had to be outside the lane in order to
> avoid a swinging door.
>
> I believe there was once an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of NYC who
> proposed building elevated bike lanes for getting around in the city. I
> think this could be the ultimate safe bicycle lane.
>
> I have ridden on one multi use path and found it to be an un-rideable
> mess. I think you have provided a good definition of a safe bike path.
> Why waste money building something HPV's can't or won't use?
Bike paths are safe provided that no one is on them except other cyclists.
Same for bike lanes, they are safe too provided there is no traffic.
Sometimes it just makes sense to take the sidewalks. There is never anyone
walking anymore, so they are mostly deserted. You need softer tires and you
need to keep your speed down, but sometimes you can make pretty good forward
progress on a sidewalk and be safe at the same time.
One of the reasons mountain biking is as popular as it is is because they
can get away from road traffic. But no matter where bikes are ridden, they
essentially need their own paths.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2006 05:22:08
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
The roads have to be safer for cyclists. My commuting by bike lasted 6
months before it was ended by an automobile. Now I don't even get to cycle
recreationally anymore. No matter how high gas prices go, and no matter how
good you make the facilities, if it isn't safe then people shouldn't do it.
The cost is simply too high. If I had it to do over again I would not
commute by bike. Gas at $10 a gallon is cheap compared to the price I'm
paying now.
Jeff
|
| | |
Date: 07 Aug 2006 13:06:01
From: Jon Meinecke
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote
>
> The roads have to be safer for cyclists. My commuting by
> bike lasted 6 months before it was ended by an automobile.
> Now I don't even get to cycle recreationally anymore.
Condolences again on your injuries. Hope your recovery
will be better, fuller, soon. Hang in there.
> [...] if it isn't safe then people shouldn't do it.
Yes, roads are not as safe as they could be. I'm all for
cities taking cyclists into account in their road and
transportation plans. I don't know what the answer is,
but drivers who "own" the road are a problem for more
than just bicyclists! I've had closer calls driving than
riding. Better driver education would be a start, and
better enforcement against unsafe driving...
We kill 3000+ *per month* on roads in the US. Mostly
not cyclists, of course. Fatality risk assessment statistics
show bicycling is safer than passenger cars per hour of
exposure.
http://frank.harvard.edu/~howard/risk.html#hours
Fatalities per million hours:
Fatalities
Activity per million hrs
-------- ---------------
Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 15.58
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Passenger cars .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
Hunting .08
Cosmic Radiation transcontinental flights .035
Home Living (active) .027
Traveling in a School Bus .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003
Compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (Design News, 10-4-93)
Jon Meinecke
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2006 10:51:54
From: HHS
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:12d8oq0lhthui0f@news.supernews.com...
> The roads have to be safer for cyclists. My commuting by bike lasted 6
> months before it was ended by an automobile. Now I don't even get to cycle
> recreationally anymore. No matter how high gas prices go, and no matter
> how good you make the facilities, if it isn't safe then people shouldn't
> do it. The cost is simply too high. If I had it to do over again I would
> not commute by bike. Gas at $10 a gallon is cheap compared to the price
> I'm paying now.
>
> Jeff
>
You are absolutely correct. As I said in my previous post the creation of
safe bicycle lanes and bike paths would do more to increase bike commuting
than the increasing price of gasoline. If urban bike commuting was safer
I'm sure more people (non enthusiast types) would be inclined to give it a
try.
I hope you are well on your way to a full recovery.
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 12:01:38
From: stratrider
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
HHS wrote:
> The creation of safe bike lanes and paths in urban locations would most
> likely do more to increase bike commuting than the rising price of gasoline.
> In the US gasoline prices aren't that far out of line considering inflation
> and the world wide increasing demand.
You may be right. The Schuylkill River Trail in suburburan Philly and
the Washington and Old Dominion Trail in suburban DC are excellent bike
trails. I would love to have convenient access to trails like these in
my area.
Jim
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 13:48:41
From: HHS
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
"stratrider" <jreilly@enter.net > wrote in message
news:1154703968.506196.8740@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Some years ago I tried to convince a friend that when gas hit
> $3.00/gallon in the US, Americans would adjust their lifestyle
> accordingly. Well, I am not seeing it. While SUV sales have dropped
> sharply, commuting by bike to my office here in SE PA has not
> increased. In an office complex of over 500 employees, you can find no
> more than 3 bikes even on days with a perfect forecast! It's quite
> amazing. I have access to a private locker and shower facilties. Yet
> it doesn't matter. Most people would rather leave the office, drive to
> a fitness center, ride a stationery bike indoors, and drive home before
> simply riding a bike to and from work! I might also add that no less
> than half of the employees in my building enjoy a commute that is
> either the same distance or shorter than mine.
>
From what I can tell the price of gasoline isn't going to change the numbers
of U.S. bike commuters appreciably. Where I live bike commuters can, for
the most part, be placed in one of two groups. Those for whom driving an
automobile isn't an option (too poor, privilege revoked,etc.) and those who
commute for the enjoyment of it.
The first group has a choice between walking, obtaining a bike (dumpster,
garage sale, thrift store, etc), or spending money on mass transportation.
Their bicycles usually cost under $100.00. As soon as these folk can
afford a automobile, have their privilege restored, or make other
arrangements they will forgo bike commuting.
The second group of bike commuters own automobiles, but bike commute for
their personal enjoyment, the exercise, doing the green thing, or general
fun of it. Their numbers are small since they typically tend to be dyed in
the wool cycling enthusiasts. Their bikes are relatively expensive costing
from $1,000- $5,000 thousand dollars. Many of them own multiple bikes for
different riding purposes and experiences.
The creation of safe bike lanes and paths in urban locations would most
likely do more to increase bike commuting than the rising price of gasoline.
In the US gasoline prices aren't that far out of line considering inflation
and the world wide increasing demand.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2006 10:21:42
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
HHS wrote:
> In the US gasoline prices aren't that far out of line considering inflation
> and the world wide increasing demand.
For comparison, in the UK it's now nudging £1/litre, which would
come out at slightly over £3.50/US gallon which is a bit over
$6.50/US gallon.
And people are /still/ taking their cars by default for mindlessly
dumb journeys better suited to other transport. The cars are more
expensive too.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2006 10:42:09
From: HHS
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:4jj68qF88pf0U1@individual.net...
> HHS wrote:
>
>> In the US gasoline prices aren't that far out of line considering
>> inflation and the world wide increasing demand.
>
> For comparison, in the UK it's now nudging £1/litre, which would come out
> at slightly over £3.50/US gallon which is a bit over $6.50/US gallon.
>
> And people are /still/ taking their cars by default for mindlessly dumb
> journeys better suited to other transport. The cars are more expensive
> too.
>
> Pete.
> --
/
$6.50 a US gallon! Wow man, that is out of line. It would be hard for us
to even imagine paying that much. The price in my area is about $2.85 a
gallon (and we howl and blame Bush and his greedy Oil Barron buddies for
that). I'm reasonably sure if the government were to raise the gasoline tax
gradually to the $6.50 per gallon level we would still use our automobiles
in much the same way as we do now. We would, however, demand (and I mean
Demand) fuel efficient cars. And we don't want to be forced to drive those
tinny econo mini box things either. We have enough Hummers here to turn
those econo boxes into sudden death vehicles.
The bottom line is that nothing must be allowed to take away the God given
freedom of US citizens to drive their automobiles as they see fit.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2006 08:54:20
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
HHS wrote:
> $6.50 a US gallon! Wow man, that is out of line.
Actually, it isn't...
> in much the same way as we do now. We would, however, demand (and I mean
> Demand) fuel efficient cars.
Despite the prices we pay, SUV's have never been more popular. Go, as
they say, (a) do the math and then (b) figure...
> And we don't want to be forced to drive those
> tinny econo mini box things either.
With advances in crash protection technology (especially planned
deformation), "econo mini boxes" of today are probably considerably
safer in serious impacts than just about anything that was built up to
(at least) 1980...
> The bottom line is that nothing must be allowed to take away the God given
> freedom of US citizens to drive their automobiles as they see fit.
Not /quite/ the same in the UK. Here, "everyone" is in favour of curbs
of unnecessary driving. Though of course the caveat is that
"unnecessary" really means "everyone else who is getting in *my* way, of
/course/ *my* car trip is necessary! (reasoning related to "of course I
have to drop the kids off at school by car! the traffic is far too dense
and dangerous to let them walk or cycle!")
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 06:59:31
From: HHS
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:4jo9tdF8tba7U1@individual.net...
> HHS wrote:
>
>> $6.50 a US gallon! Wow man, that is out of line.
>
> Actually, it isn't...
>
Perhaps it isn't for you and your countrymen, but I think most Americans
would consider $6.50 a gallon for gasoline a bit out of line inasmuch as
that is twice the price are currently paying.
>> in much the same way as we do now. We would, however, demand (and I mean
>> Demand) fuel efficient cars.
>
The USA is a big country - we have states that are larger than your country.
This coming October I'm planning a 140 gallon three week photography,
biking, kayaking, and hiking car camping trip for two persons. Our budget
for gasoline is $420. I'm thankful it's not the the $910 you would pay for
the same 140 gallons.
> Despite the prices we pay, SUV's have never been more popular. Go, as
> they say, (a) do the math and then (b) figure...
>
You folks live on an island so maybe your average annual auto milage is much
less than ours. The amount of roadways we build annually would probably
amaze you.
>> And we don't want to be forced to drive those tinny econo mini box things
>> either.
>
> With advances in crash protection technology (especially planned
> deformation), "econo mini boxes" of today are probably considerably safer
> in serious impacts than just about anything that was built up to (at
> least) 1980...
>
Planned deformation is well and good, but even so I don't want to be in
aToyoto Echo while it's being deformed by a Toyoto Land Cruiser.
>> The bottom line is that nothing must be allowed to take away the God
>> given freedom of US citizens to drive their automobiles as they see fit.
>
> Not /quite/ the same in the UK. Here, "everyone" is in favour of curbs of
> unnecessary driving. Though of course the caveat is that "unnecessary"
> really means "everyone else who is getting in *my* way, of /course/ *my*
> car trip is necessary! (reasoning related to "of course I have to drop the
> kids off at school by car! the traffic is far too dense and dangerous to
> let them walk or cycle!")
>
It's the same all over I suppose. Human nature.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 20:47:18
From: Dave Larrington
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
In article <kJ-dnQCgr8nm4UXZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com >,
hhs@spammenot.com says...
>
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:4jo9tdF8tba7U1@individual.net...
>> With advances in crash protection technology (especially
>> planned deformation), "econo mini boxes" of today are probably
>> considerably safer in serious impacts than just about anything
>> that was built up to (at least) 1980...
> Planned deformation is well and good, but even so I don't want to be in
> aToyoto Echo while it's being deformed by a Toyoto Land Cruiser.
A few months ago, one of the motoring shows on TV did a crash test.
In the red corner: A Lard-Rover Discovery.
In the blue corner: A Renault Espace[1]
Offset (driver's side to driver's side) impact, each vehicle doing 40
mph.
The Expert opined that the Espace driver would have probably walked away
with scarcely a scratch, while the Disco driver would almost certainly
have been killed.
1 - plastic-bodied minivan about the size of the SWB version of the
Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth/whateverthehellthey'rebrandedthisweek vehicle
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ >
Murdock's Gardening Law: If it's green, the paving isn't finished yet.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 17:57:12
From: HHS
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
"Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:MPG.1f42fa30af260615989731@news.individual.net...
>> A few months ago, one of the motoring shows on TV did a crash test.
>
> In the red corner: A Lard-Rover Discovery.
> In the blue corner: A Renault Espace[1]
>
> Offset (driver's side to driver's side) impact, each vehicle doing 40
> mph.
>
> The Expert opined that the Espace driver would have probably walked away
> with scarcely a scratch, while the Disco driver would almost certainly
> have been killed.
>
> 1 - plastic-bodied minivan about the size of the SWB version of the
> Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth/whateverthehellthey'rebrandedthisweek vehicle
>
> --
Cool. Maybe the French need to send us a few of these Renault Land Rover
killers for testing to see how they can stand up to an IED.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 13:37:59
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
HHS wrote:
> Perhaps it isn't for you and your countrymen, but I think most Americans
> would consider $6.50 a gallon for gasoline a bit out of line inasmuch as
> that is twice the price are currently paying.
However, that doesn't of itself make it unreasonable.
>> Despite the prices we pay, SUV's have never been more popular. Go, as
>> they say, (a) do the math and then (b) figure...
> You folks live on an island so maybe your average annual auto milage is much
> less than ours. The amount of roadways we build annually would probably
> amaze you.
I don't really see why you made that point in what appears to be
response to the paragraph I wrote above, which demonstrates that where
cars are concerned people are quite prepared to be Really Dumb in the UK
and I doubt the US is different in that regard...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 03:21:51
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:4jret7F98uurU1@individual.net...
> HHS wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it isn't for you and your countrymen, but I think most Americans
>> would consider $6.50 a gallon for gasoline a bit out of line inasmuch as
>> that is twice the price are currently paying.
>
> However, that doesn't of itself make it unreasonable.
Yes, it does you g.d. stupid asshole! We should have taken over those Arab
oil fields way back when, but instead we elected to pay them for it.
Freaking Brits will pay anything because they are wimps and have no guts for
standing up to anyone anymore.
>>> Despite the prices we pay, SUV's have never been more popular. Go, as
>>> they say, (a) do the math and then (b) figure...
>
>> You folks live on an island so maybe your average annual auto milage is
>> much less than ours. The amount of roadways we build annually would
>> probably amaze you.
>
> I don't really see why you made that point in what appears to be response
> to the paragraph I wrote above, which demonstrates that where cars are
> concerned people are quite prepared to be Really Dumb in the UK and I
> doubt the US is different in that regard...
You live on a very tiny island and do not know what a continent is. There
are COUNTIES in the U.S. that are almost as large as your freaking England.
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Screw you and your freaking signature, you dumb jackass!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 11:14:28
From: stratrider
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
> It isn't
> that they've thought about it, considered the alternatives and chosen
> the car, they've just taken the default without thinking about it.
> It'll need to /really/ hurt to take the car before that changes.
>
> I guess it's the same, or perhaps even more so, in the US.
>
Pete, what you described is very much the case in the US. Other than
those who reside/work in major cities (ie Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, Washington DC), folks at least in the Northeast US rely
on their cars. Period. Truth is that there is no reliable public
transit outside of the cities I mentioned. Further, retail
developments (ie shopping centers and restaurants) almost never include
accomodation for customers that arrive via bike or on foot. Rarely are
there sidewalks that would allow a customer to safely cross an
expansive parking lot on foot. Never have I seen an area designed for
cyclists to park and lock their bikes. I guess in that regard, we
learn from our surroundings to take the car by default.
Jim
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 19:38:02
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
"stratrider" <jreilly@enter.net > wrote in message
news:1154715267.948209.121390@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> It isn't
>> that they've thought about it, considered the alternatives and chosen
>> the car, they've just taken the default without thinking about it.
>> It'll need to /really/ hurt to take the car before that changes.
>>
>> I guess it's the same, or perhaps even more so, in the US.
>>
>
> Pete, what you described is very much the case in the US. Other than
> those who reside/work in major cities (ie Boston, New York,
> Philadelphia, Washington DC), folks at least in the Northeast US rely
> on their cars. Period. Truth is that there is no reliable public
> transit outside of the cities I mentioned. Further, retail
> developments (ie shopping centers and restaurants) almost never include
> accomodation for customers that arrive via bike or on foot. Rarely are
> there sidewalks that would allow a customer to safely cross an
> expansive parking lot on foot. Never have I seen an area designed for
> cyclists to park and lock their bikes. I guess in that regard, we
> learn from our surroundings to take the car by default.
I once got stranded in the outer suburbs of the Twin Cities and had to walk
to my destination. My God, it was nothing but a horror. No sidewalks of
course and crossing any road was like playing Russian roulette with your
life. No one, but no one, walks anywhere in the outer suburbs. Yet there are
stores and businesses all over the place.
I charge our urban planners with nothing less than total dereliction of
duty. They all ought to be taken out and executed forthwith. For Christ's
sakes, our cities and suburban spaces are for people, nor for fucking motor
vehicles. If I were younger I would get the hell out of this crazy country
and go to a place where the landscape has been designed with humans in mind,
not g.d. motor vehicles. Just thinking about it makes me so mad I could
spit.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 12:24:39
From: JW
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:06:08 -0700, stratrider wrote:
> Some years ago I tried to convince a friend that when gas hit $3.00/gallon
> in the US, Americans would adjust their lifestyle accordingly. Well, I am
> not seeing it.
I'm afraid that it may be the first derivative of gasoline price that
mostly affects behavior. The price itself has little effect unless it is
changing.
Jim Wilson
Gainesville, FL
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 18:00:43
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: NGM: Perspective ARBR
|
"... Tom" <briggum@cox.net > wrote in message
news:1154708963.321848.117780@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[Edward Dolan wrote:]
>> I notice most of my debates sooner or later become quite mean and nasty
>> and
>> probably not very pleasant to read. Why this should be so I do not know.
>
> Perhaps it's because you often come across as haughty and arrogant. Or
> maybe not. I'm sure you're a lovely person IRL.
>
> ... Tom
Well, I think it is because I feel I am the only one on this group capable
of taking on really mean and nasty folks. That is because I do not give a
good g.d. about my name or much of anything else if truth be told. I will
shortly be departing this vale of woe and I am sick and tired of always
being the good guy. It never got me anywhere in life. Besides, it is just so
much more fun to be a kind of bad guy (but not really bad - as you correctly
surmised).
"Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again."
- Epitaph found on tombstone in Ohio graveyard
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 16:13:38
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
stratrider wrote:
> Some years ago I tried to convince a friend that when gas hit
> $3.00/gallon in the US, Americans would adjust their lifestyle
> accordingly. Well, I am not seeing it.
<snip >
In the UK it's simply the case that people tend to have a default
mindset of "going somewhere, therefore take the car". This extends to
ridiculously short distances of a few hundred meters or journeys where
congestion and parking nightes can be entirely expected. It isn't
that they've thought about it, considered the alternatives and chosen
the car, they've just taken the default without thinking about it.
It'll need to /really/ hurt to take the car before that changes.
I guess it's the same, or perhaps even more so, in the US.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 17:57:44
From: Dave Larrington
Subject: Re: Commuting by Bike - Still not Catching On Here
|
In article <4jh6h2F7l9bkU1@individual.net >, p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk
says...
> stratrider wrote:
> > Some years ago I tried to convince a friend that when gas hit
> > $3.00/gallon in the US, Americans would adjust their lifestyle
> > accordingly. Well, I am not seeing it.
>
> <snip>
>
> In the UK it's simply the case that people tend to have a default
> mindset of "going somewhere, therefore take the car". This extends to
> ridiculously short distances of a few hundred meters or journeys where
> congestion and parking nightes can be entirely expected. It isn't
> that they've thought about it, considered the alternatives and chosen
> the car, they've just taken the default without thinking about it.
> It'll need to /really/ hurt to take the car before that changes.
Ar. The New! IMPROVED!! Nut Mine is in Harlow, a New Town with pretty
good provision for cyclists. However, the bike shed rarely contains
more than half a dozen bikes while the car park always has several
hundred cars. And out of all the bikes, I reckon mine are the only ones
which show signs of belonging to an enthusiast - the rest are low-end
mountain bikes.
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ >
A *National* Socialist Government did you say, Mr. Chaplin?
|
|
