Can you make it to the market on a bike?



"Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> More people live in cities than in
> rural areas, and the proportion is still shifting towards cities.


The last several Censuses demonstrate that you forgot the advent of the
suburbs.
 
In rec.bicycles.misc donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Preventing Motorcycle, Scooter Accidents a Matter of Awareness
> By Ryan Taylor - 17 Jul 2007


> In March a BYU student, driving a scooter died of injuries suffered in
> an accident with an SUV.


> Adam Cox was riding in the outside lane of University Parkway just
> behind a car that was driving in the inside lane when an SUV going the
> opposite direction, turned left and hit Cox, said Capt. Michael
> Harroun, of the BYU Police Department.


Part of this is simply because SUV drivers generally don't look where
the bleep they're going (I've nearly been killed by them twice in the last
seven days) but another part of the problem in this case is that this
accident happened in Provo, Utah, where drivers think I-15 is Taladega,
and the college requires its students to keep their bikes outdoors, even
in the dead of winter.
Human stupidity, the worst killer of all.

Bill

__o | Harry: How could a troll get in?
_`\(,_ | Ron: Not on its own. Trolls are really stupid.
(_)/ (_) |
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Sancho Panza <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message


>> More people live in cities than in rural areas, and the proportion is still
>> shifting towards cities.

>
> The last several Censuses demonstrate that you forgot the advent of the
> suburbs.


http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9070726

"Even in 1800 only 3% of the world's population lived in cities.
Sometime in the next few months, though, that proportion will pass the
50% mark, if it has not done so already. Wisely or not, **** sapiens has
become **** urbanus."

I was speaking of the world as a whole. But even confining ourselves to
the US, the mythos that everyone wants 2 acres and a riding lawn mower
is fading. There will always be people who want that, and people who
live in rural and remote areas. Naught is wrong with that.

But I don't want it for myself, and I know an awful lot of people who
don't either.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the show?"
 
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:21:46 -0400, "Sancho Panza"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> More people live in cities than in
>> rural areas, and the proportion is still shifting towards cities.

>
>The last several Censuses demonstrate that you forgot the advent of the
>suburbs.
>

Worldwide urbanisation is increasing while the rural populations are
decreasing.

Suburbs are usually lumped in with their greater metropolitan areas
when looking at urbanisation.

There is also a move back to the cities as previously depressed areas
are gentrified or redeveloped.

Cities are getting bigger by increasing density and suburbs are
spreading until they butt up against the next one. The whole eastern
seaboard is comprised of a few metropolitan regions spreading to
become one huge strip city from New York to Miami.
--
zk
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> >
>>> >> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen
>>> >> is
>>> >> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and
>>> >> therefor
>>> >> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.
>>> >
>>> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
>>> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
>>> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
>>> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
>>> > injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
>>> > comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as
>>> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
>>> > double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let
>>> > emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane
>>> > versus a striped shoulder is basically zero.
>>>
>>> Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic driver
>>> can
>>> easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw you.

>>
>> We weren't talking about how "safe" they were. The issue was whether
>> the government would install them given that most people don't ride
>> bicycles. I pointed out that most voters have children and those
>> children ride bicycles.

>
> No, you confounded idiot, it is all about safety. No one in their right
> mind gives a damn about anything else.


I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. For instance, we know that having
railroad tracks at grade with car and pedestrian traffic is less safe than
separating the two. However, often the unsafe situation is allowed to
remain for cost or other reasons (such as people don't want the disruption
of the construction involved). Another example is that the absolute safest
you can keep your child is if you lock him or her into a bubble made of
diamond. There are a lot of reasons why you might make choices to allow him
or her to be less safe than that. Hence children on bike trails ;-).
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar.
>>

>
> If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with their
> annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact that
> methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end up with
> about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is about 17 miles
> of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car like the Prius. And
> that allows nothing for the fossil fuel consumption of agriculture in farm
> vehicles, fertiliser, transport and distribution.


Wouldn't that methane be produced anyway, though, by the natural breakdown
of the vegetable matter that they eat?
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar.
>>

>
> If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with their
> annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact that
> methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end up with
> about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is about 17 miles
> of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car like the Prius. And
> that allows nothing for the fossil fuel consumption of agriculture in farm
> vehicles, fertiliser, transport and distribution.


http://www.newrules.org/agri/netenergyresponse.pdf
http://www.newrules.org/de/archives/000172.html
 
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]...

> I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. For instance, we know that
> having railroad tracks at grade with car and pedestrian traffic is less
> safe than separating the two. However, often the unsafe situation is
> allowed to remain for cost or other reasons (such as people don't want the
> disruption of the construction involved). Another example is that the
> absolute safest you can keep your child is if you lock him or her into a
> bubble made of diamond. There are a lot of reasons why you might make
> choices to allow him or her to be less safe than that. Hence children on
> bike trails ;-).


I think it's generally nearly always your fault if you're a car or a
pedestrian and you hit a train. If you're that stupid you deserve it.
 
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> No, you confounded idiot, it is all about safety. No one in their right
>> mind gives a damn about anything else.

>
>I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. For instance, we know that having
>railroad tracks at grade with car and pedestrian traffic is less safe than
>separating the two. However, often the unsafe situation is allowed to
>remain for cost or other reasons


The "unsafe" conditions and/or situations are sought out and savoured
by a significant portion of the population. There are whole
industries devoted to "danger sports" for adrenalin junkies and
weekend-warriors. Eddy, Donny and Walt Mitty will always be JAFO.

Scraping their knees and claiming a hat saved their lives epitomises
their feverish attraction to danger. They have the ability to
fictionalise life in order to show how safety conscious they are. Or
conversely, how "unsafe" you are.

Living on the edge, or simply riding your unicycle across the bridge
- on the handrail, is, well, just edgier than hiding under the bed.
--
zk
 
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:33:28 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote:

> They get invitations to coffee klatch, wine & cheese parties, buffets
> and barbecues from the local automobile dealerships where they're
> customers.


Really? People used to go to church halls and pubs for social
intercourse and a sense of community. How times have changed.
 
Amy Blankenship wrote:

>
> Wouldn't that methane be produced anyway, though, by the natural breakdown
> of the vegetable matter that they eat?
>
>


Not methane, CO2 which is approx 30 times less potent as a greenhouse gas.

Tony
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
> children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
> but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
> that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
> injured.


It doesn't surprise me at all, but all the same it would be much, much,
much better if they supported things that *actually* reduce the chances,
rather than things that they assume reduce them, but have no clear track
record of actually doing so.

> Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
> comfortable when there is one.


For some values of "comfortable". I doubt that the several documented
cases of commuters being crushed (fatally, in several cases) against
roadside railings by left turning trucks (that'll be equivalent to right
turn if you drive on the right where you're reading this) as they
"comfortably" made their way up the inside on cycle lanes just as the
lights turned green were too comfortable as they had the life squeezed
out of them.

> And our traffic engineers like them as
> well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
> double as breakdown lanes


So when I'm cycling along there's asuddenly a broken down vehicle in my
way, and now I have to go out into the main traffic flow /where nobody
expects me because there is a bike lane/. That's not a Good Thing.
They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no effort and
they get to think they're doing something useful.

The most common effect of these lanes is to force cyclists closer to the
kerb than it's often wise to cycle, and allows drivers to think it's
fine to overtake with minimal clearance just as long as there's a white
line between them and the cyclist. Compare and contrast to how you
should overtake on a road with no such lane:
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139

> In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road
> and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely
> separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really
> bicycle/pedestrian paths.


They are popular amongst people who /assume/ they are a safety benefit.
They are less popular among cyclists who've read the record of what
they actually achieve.
See http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Jeff Grippe wrote:

> No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become
> zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars.


Not really: look at the traffic accident figures and you'll see nasty
injuries occur to road users where there are motor vehicles, not just
where there's a mix of motors and bikes. In other words, if you want to
avoid serious road accidents you need to give up driving as well as
cycling. You might have a steel box around you, but you're a bigger
target, moving faster with more energy less effective reaction time.

Give up a large proportion of cycling and your general health will
probably lower. The resulting death may not be as dramatic, but it will
quite possibly happen several years earlier.

Would you have given up driving amongst cars and trucks if you'd had a
similarly nasty accident while driving? Would you have given up being a
pedestrian along streets if a similarly nasty accident had happened to
you while being a pedestrian? If you don't want to cycle with traffic
any more then it's your life and I'm not trying to force you, but I
don't see it pays you to treat cycling differently to walking or
driving, which can get you killed similarly easily.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Jack May wrote:
> "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May"
>><[email protected]> missed it when he wrote:
>>Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with
>>their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing
>>non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car.

> Oh here we go again with somebody throwing everything they can think of into
> a cost number to pump it up as high as possible. Useless approach.


Similarly useless as all those approaches externalising many of those
costs produced by cars.

>>Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's
>>destination is well within bicycling range.

>
> So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all
> your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an
> evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game.


Hey Jack, if you would have a clue about evolution, not just using it as
a fancy pseudo argument, then two basic evolutionary principles would
come to your mind, that directly contradict your repeating claims:

1. Evolution aint over, till it's over. Mamals once were also only a
rather small portion of life, and the dinosaurs, if they were able to
with their tiny brains, probably also thought "Mamals have lost the
evolution game, he he he".

2. Evolution always goes the maximum efficiency / minimum energy
expenditure per purpose way in the long run.
That modern/western world's fossile fuel consumming and polluting
transport system does not fit nature's principles is figured out by
every elementary school pupil.
So go figure it out for yourself.

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>
 
Amy Blankenship wrote:

> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> ...
>>Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
>>because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
>>do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

>
> However, is the reason that the vast majority of people do not bike because
> they have grown up in a situation where it is inconceivable to do so? In
> other words, has the fact that our infrastructure is so car-centric


If it where only the infrastructure ... it's all life, resulting from
the infrastructure: advertising, laws, social behaviour and social
status, education, lottery prizes, building codes, ...

> become
> self-perpetuating because people have on some level given up any expectation
> that they could ever take any other form of transportation to their
> destination?


Definitely there is a huge amount of self perpetuation: the way you
teach your children, that way they are going to act for themselves as
adults.

T.
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:

>
>
>>Anyone but me notice how others (scoundrels) are quick to call those with
>>whom they disagree liars. Hellls Bells, I just assume that Bill Z is an
>>ignorant cuss like all his tribe of so-called fact finders. It would never
>>even occur to me to call him a liar since he is essentially such a numskull.

>
>
> Dolan, you proved yourself to be a liar by posting false accusations
> that suggested dangerous cycling on my part, and that was simply a lie
> that you repeated over and over. If you don't like being called a liar
> in public, then stop posting lies - the lie was obvious as we've never
> met so there is no way for you to have a clue about safe I am when
> riding a bicycle.
>
> Then you go around calling people "numskulls" after they back up what
> they say with citations to peer reviewed journals. That behavior really
> makes you look like a fool.
>
>
>>By the way, I will never go to any links (citations). Either say it yourself
>>or forget about it.

>
>
> I'm not going to cut and paste a 10 page article with various figures
> just for your benefit. If you are too ignorant to read a peer
> reviewed article, one 'click' away, then maybe you should stick to
> safe subjects: your health and the weather. At least that would spare
> us from listening to you croon like a bilious pidgeon.


Hey guys, having fun flaming away? :)
T.
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>
 
On Jul 25, 8:01 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:46:49 +0930, Michael Warner
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:50:23 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote:

>
> >> garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending
> >> consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy.

>
> >Americans go to meetings to learn how to buy cars? Wow.

>
> They attend automobile trade shows in droves.


And the "free" automobile drawing sure has to do with it. Bicycles
used to be that important in the late 1800's, before "bigger is
better" was the slogan.

People go to see all kinds of shows though.
 
On Jul 25, 6:57 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Oh yes. Democratic societies would build BIKE LANES and have HEALTH
> > INSURANCE, though I don't know how the last one applies here. ;)

>
> Errr, no they wouldn't. The last might be true if most people didn't have
> health insurance.


You think the only democratic activity is voting a president every
four year, who's really no different from the opposition?

Democratic endeavors would make people participate --demand--
healthcare and bike lanes by those who most need it. That's a wrong
concept of "democracy" you have.


> > OK, and where are they coexisting? Perhaps in small places like Key
> > West? No wonder people feel so free down there.

>
> Well... not in a lot of places. We need to change some policies changed in
> this country, along with some fundamental assumptions. I won't get into
> them, other than to say that the one that comes to mind is that driving is a
> "right" and not a "priveledge".-


That's a good one, but also need to change what we look in a candidate
--not soundbites but ISSUES.

Just look at OUR MAN TO THE WHITE HOUSE...

"History has tried hard to teach us that we can't have good government
under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of the
government couldn't be wise." -Mark Twain

Yes, we, the Banana Revolution, has decided to join the race to the
White House with a unique specimen that will not lie, launch
territorial wars, or oppose environmental commitments. Well, he's not
given to many words, but he's a real doer. A "man of action" so to
speak. And he doesn't even eat large salaries and kickbacks, just
peanuts. Oh, and he's all for EVOLUTION (revolution where it is
denied), since he realizes the need for change. He will indeed
challenge laws long established in the jungle like THE LION'S SHARE (a
few keep the best part of the pie), MONOPOLY (like that held by the
automobile), THE BIG FISH EATS THE LITTLE FISH (try riding a bike out
there), EVERYONE TO HIMSELF (too bad you don't have medical
insurance), etc. Without further ado...

http://www.teddybearfriends.co.uk/images/teddy-bears/large/gund-teddy-bear-mambo-monkey.jpg

Isn't he loveable?* Well, we won't send him up there without proper
tools because we plan to arm him with something his predecessors
lacked: A POLITICAL PLATFORM, in writing, so anyone --WE THE PEOPLE--
can follow it, and there's no forgetting of electoral promises. Anyway
here's our Platform:

COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

There are additional advantages to having a puppet up there:

1- No need for expensive campaigns which are financed by the
corporations

2- Some say presidents are puppets to the same corporations, so having
a real puppet is a very attractive proposition

3- They are cute, unlike some of our presidents who scare people.
Well, just kidding...

And, if you think it would be selfish for us to submit our own
Platform exclusively, we may as well consider similar proposals going
for meaningful necessary change. Case in point is this outside
platform...

"When you hold views which are radical from the perspective of the
status quo, it's hard to write a political platform, because it's hard
to know exactly where to stop. If I were going to write a platform
giving full voice to my values, it would include measures such as
putting a cap of $10 million on the total of tangible and liquid
assents which any individual is permitted to own, above which there is
a 100% tax, and a substantial penalty for attempted evasion, with the
proceeds going to assorted social programs. What I've written below is
much more modest; it is a move in a particular direction, but not
nearly so fundamental a departure from the status quo."

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/platform.html


* As you may have noticed, the "UK" on the stuffed monkey seems to
indicate he's got a British pedigree. And we don't want that since we
fought a King George so we could have our own President George. Anyway
as soon as we find an American puppet we'll put it up there. Not easy
though when most products are "Made in China." Or perhaps it just
doesn't matter in the era of globalization.
 
On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) and
> I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car people
> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you
> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or whatever,
> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good.


America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no
harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path --
Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike
lanes.
 
Joe the Aroma wrote:
>
> No wonder you anti-car people
> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you
> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or whatever,
> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good.
>


Oh I don't know. If it keeps them from building more cycle farcilities
many cyclists would see that as a good thing.



Tony