Can you make it to the market on a bike?



On Jul 26, 3:53 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
> > injured.
>
> It doesn't surprise me at all, but all the same it would be much, much,
> much better if they supported things that *actually* reduce the chances,
> rather than things that they assume reduce them, but have no clear track
> record of actually doing so.
>
> > Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
> > comfortable when there is one.
>
> For some values of "comfortable". I doubt that the several documented
> cases of commuters being crushed (fatally, in several cases) against
> roadside railings by left turning trucks (that'll be equivalent to right
> turn if you drive on the right where you're reading this) as they
> "comfortably" made their way up the inside on cycle lanes just as the
> lights turned green were too comfortable as they had the life squeezed
> out of them.
>
> > And our traffic engineers like them as
> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
> > double as breakdown lanes
>
> So when I'm cycling along there's asuddenly a broken down vehicle in my
> way, and now I have to go out into the main traffic flow /where nobody
> expects me because there is a bike lane/. That's not a Good Thing.
> They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no effort and
> they get to think they're doing something useful.
>
> The most common effect of these lanes is to force cyclists closer to the
> kerb than it's often wise to cycle, and allows drivers to think it's
> fine to overtake with minimal clearance just as long as there's a white
> line between them and the cyclist. Compare and contrast to how you
> should overtake on a road with no such lane:http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139
>
> > In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road
> > and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely
> > separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really
> > bicycle/pedestrian paths.
>
> They are popular amongst people who /assume/ they are a safety benefit.
> They are less popular among cyclists who've read the record of what
> they actually achieve.
> Seehttp://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html

I'm still waiting for YOUR solution. Bike Lanes don't work, the Status
Quo is even worse, so what's f*** solution? I got one: LET THE RIGHT
LANE BE A BIKE LANE. Any objections?
 
On Jul 26, 4:19 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Your lack of common sense shows that America doesn't have a monopoly
on stupidity. Actually your are the only civilized country that went
along in this predatory war over oil.

Have you been reading this thread? Did you hear about SPEED
DIFFERENTIAL? Do you know why scooters are not allowed on highways?
Right, SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. If you ride a bike on a major road, you'll
be a sitting duck because the driver behind you --who otherwise is
engaged on the phone-- won't expect a vehicle to be travelling 10MPH.
And you only got one life, you know. Just like many that went into
that predatory war well know.
 
On Jul 26, 7:21 am, Tadej Brezina <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

We may as well use this quotation: "It is not the strongest of the
species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most
responsive to change." -Charles Darwin
 
donquijote1954 wrote:

> Your lack of common sense shows that America doesn't have a monopoly
> on stupidity. Actually your are the only civilized country that went
> along in this predatory war over oil.
>
> Have you been reading this thread? Did you hear about SPEED
> DIFFERENTIAL? Do you know why scooters are not allowed on highways?
> Right, SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. If you ride a bike on a major road, you'll
> be a sitting duck because the driver behind you --who otherwise is
> engaged on the phone-- won't expect a vehicle to be travelling 10MPH.

Yet despite all these things you say /will/ be the case, the actual
accident figures tell a different story, and the story they tell is what
*actually happens*.

"Common sense" isn't either common or necessarily sensible. For a
better idea of what happens, look at what happens, rather than theorise
what you think ought to.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Clearly we need to ban "automobile drawings".
 
donquijote1954 wrote:

>
> Have you been reading this thread? Did you hear about SPEED
> DIFFERENTIAL? Do you know why scooters are not allowed on highways?
> Right, SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. If you ride a bike on a major road, you'll
> be a sitting duck because the driver behind you --who otherwise is
> engaged on the phone-- won't expect a vehicle to be travelling 10MPH.
> And you only got one life, you know. Just like many that went into
> that predatory war well know.
>

Have you been reading the data. Being hit from behind is a very rare
accident on the roads. The vast majority of accidents are conflicts at
junctions. In the UK riding on the road is safer than walking on the
sidewalk as far as being killed by a motor vehicle is concerned. In
fact it is estimated that if you cycled at 15mph for 8 hours a day 365
days a year the mean time to a fatal accident would be 8,600 years. I
think I have more important threats to my life to worry about. The risk
for experienced cyclists is 5-8 times lower still while the health
benefits give regular cyclists a two year increased life expectancy.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good scare story.

Tony
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

The fact that you threw health care in there is pretty kooky. People may not
like the health care system as a whole, but they are generally happy with
their own care. Hence polls as well as the referendums on single payer care.

>> > OK, and where are they coexisting? Perhaps in small places like Key
>> > West? No wonder people feel so free down there.
>>
>> Well... not in a lot of places. We need to change some policies changed
>> in
>> this country, along with some fundamental assumptions. I won't get into
>> them, other than to say that the one that comes to mind is that driving
>> is a
>> "right" and not a "priveledge".-
>
> That's a good one, but also need to change what we look in a candidate
> --not soundbites but ISSUES.
>
> Just look at OUR MAN TO THE WHITE HOUSE...

You're a kook. This has nothing to do with Bush, these policies were in
place before Bush, kook.

<snip looniness>
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> it's not shouting out that the solution is more
> bike lanes/paths.
>

Which is I believe known as policy based evidence making.

Tony
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You wanted
a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to do with
the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes and most
people are happy with their own personal health care. Period.
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>>
>> No wonder you anti-car people are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're
>> LOONY, and if you weren't you could actually convince people to create
>> bike lanes or trails or whatever, and it would be a good thing. Posting
>> loony article does you no good.
>>
>
> Oh I don't know. If it keeps them from building more cycle farcilities
> many cyclists would see that as a good thing.

What?
 
Joe the Aroma wrote:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>>> No wonder you anti-car people are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're
>>> LOONY, and if you weren't you could actually convince people to create
>>> bike lanes or trails or whatever, and it would be a good thing. Posting
>>> loony article does you no good.
>>>
>> Oh I don't know. If it keeps them from building more cycle farcilities
>> many cyclists would see that as a good thing.
>
> What?
>

What I said. Psychle Farcilities are a thoroughly bad idea. They are
more dangerous, slower and more inconvenient than using the roads. The
less we have of them the better. Practice Vehicular Cycling on the road.

Tony
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> Which is I believe known as policy based evidence making.

Indeed.

Start with the "common sense" conclusion, rather than end with it, and
then design all your so-called research so that it shows what you've
decided is the answer. It's so much easier than doing actual proper
science because the world is so much more predictable when you ignore
what it really does!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> Which is I believe known as policy based evidence making.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Start with the "common sense" conclusion, rather than end with it, and
> then design all your so-called research so that it shows what you've
> decided is the answer. It's so much easier than doing actual proper
> science because the world is so much more predictable when you ignore
> what it really does!
>

As a Prof A Einstein once said "If the facts don't fit the theory,
change the facts."

Tony
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of
> >> transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles.
> >
> > Joe, about once a year I visit a major metro and I am appalled by
> > the traffic congestion that I see everywhere in those metros. It is
> > simply insane how we keep piling up motor vehicles on top of motor
> > vehicles.
>
> It's how people want to live.

No, it's how people think they have to live because they've been on the
receiving end of massive social engineering by the automotive and oil
industries to benefit the automotive and oil industries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

If you ask people whether they *want* to spend the equivalent an a work
week every year sitting in traffic, they'd tell you "no." Except for a
few weirdos. I calculated once that if I didn't own a car and pay the
associated costs, I could work four days a week and come out ahead. My
compromise is to buy a good used car for cash and replace it every 10
years if needed, and to ride my bike for practical use (going to work,
going to the store, going to visit friends, etc.) when I can.

<snip>

> Oh God here we go with Europe again. Europe does this, Europe does
> that. You're like someone's *****y annoying relative ("Why don't you
> be more like your cousing Jeffy?"). I don't know how or why they do
> that in Europe, but our citizens enjoy living their life differently.

"Enjoy" is perhaps not the right word, given the endless *****ing I hear
from people about traffic. But they also don't want to pay the trillion
dollars in taxes that it would take for our state to eliminate the road
congestion caused by our one-car-per-person lifestyle. Americans do
like the false sense of independence they get from using a car, I'll
certainly agree with you there, but car dependence creates many problems.
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> As a Prof A Einstein once said "If the facts don't fit the theory,
> change the facts."

I didn't realise that was Einstein. I'd seen one in the Murphy's Law book:

"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.

Corollary: if no more than 50% of the data has to be thrown away, the
theory can be considered a success."

Still don't think that lets in cycle infrastructure as a success,
mind... ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Jul 26, 7:21 am, Tadej Brezina <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> We may as well use this quotation: "It is not the strongest of the
> species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most
> responsive to change." -Charles Darwin

Although trait number 2 may specifically be of help for trait number 3!

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>
 
"Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
>
> "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.

What if you're just waiting innocently in traffic an someone else gets hit
by the train and goes flying into you or derails the train on top of you?
Do you deserve that as well?
 
"Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>
> You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You
> wanted a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to
> do with the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes
> and most people are happy with their own personal health care. Period.

I think if you visit Scandinavian countries, you will find that the issue of
bike-friendly infrastructure and healthcare are intimately connected in ways
that are difficult to explain to people who are not open to making such
connections easily.
 
Amy Blankenship wrote:

>
> Sure. Plants don't produce methane, while growing or breaking down ;-)
>
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/methane_pain.html


If you create special anaerobic conditions by sealing them in a tank or
submerging them in deep low oxygen reservoirs then you will get methane
from anoxic decomposition. But I don't think the cows would survive
grazing in those environments.

> http://tinyurl.com/3bxd9m
>
>

There has been a lot of debate about that particular paper - see for
example Dueck T A et al, No evidence for substantial aerobic methane
emission by terrestrial plants: a 13C-labelling approach, New
Phytologist, 175 (1), pp. 29-35, July 2007 and
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/5867/2006/acpd-6-5867-2006.pdf
http://www.cosis.net/copernicus/EGU/acpd/6/S927/acpd-6-S927.pdf


Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nsanelizardking
What are the most effective ways to market and promote bike races to a wider audience?
Replies
18
Views
312
Road Cycling
nsanelizardking
nsanelizardking
T
Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike?
Replies
66
Views
2K
Road Cycling
Dane Buson
D
C
  • Locked
Newbie Question about Mongoose bikes- Mass market vs. bike shop models
Replies
4
Views
2K
Road Cycling
Grl
G
L
High School Engineering Project. Need Help With Market Research
Replies
2
Views
1K
Road Cycling
An old Guy
A
T
News article: More people making money through the stock market
Replies
0
Views
432
Road Cycling
[email protected]
T
Top Bottom Back