Can you make it to the market on a bike?



On Jul 27, 7:46 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> > ...
> > 'Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars
> > by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars
> > running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially
> > unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political
> > "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the
> > cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels,
> > vodka, used frymax™ oil, or cow ****). They are at the heart of the
> > problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by
> > shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much
> > worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We
> > have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common
> > activities of daily life.'
>
> A vehicle such as the go-one [1] with a small (less than 1 hp)
> electric motor could replace automobiles for urban driving. Longer
> distances could be handled by high speed rail (e.g. maglev) along
> existing freeway and expressway alignments. This would preserve
> individual mobility, but with vehicles 1/50 of the size of what is
> currently being used (with similar decreases in natural resources
> used). These vehicles would also be much less likely to kill or
> seriously injure pedestrians in a collision.
>
> Of course, they would not provide nearly the same degree of passive
> crash protection; however, some thinning of the herd might not be such
> a bad thing.
>
> [1] <http://www.go-one.us/>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Love it! I guess I can charge it with bananas. ;)

But it seems about the same as a good recumbent with a wind screen,
right? Perhaps this one will be too hot. Anyway good in windy, cold
conditions.
 
On Jul 27, 9:25 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" (who?) anonymously snipes:
>
> > ...
> > The US does have an inequality problem. But that doesn't make us
> > undemocratic by any means (except if you are a kook)....
>
> Male bovine excrement.
>
> The rich ruling class control who get nominated for the Republicrats
> by holding the purse strings and the people get to choose between the
> two candidates for who will be their overseer. The politicians depend
> on the legalized bribery of campaign donations to hold onto their
> positions, so they do nothing to threaten the dominance of the ruling
> class.

Big Oil and the Big Three bet on the two horses and wait to see who
wins. And that's how the big fat SUVs get perpetuated in America,
right?
 
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat
> people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if
> they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has
> failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing
> decisions.

The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free
market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
 
A Muzi wrote:
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> -snip the usual-
>
>> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies.

Typical polling does not correct for those without phones, it usually
just ignores them. They are a small sample, but a biased one in such a
pole, since they would tend to be otherwise marginalized, and might be
more disappointed than average in their nonexistent healthcare and so
much more likely to support universal health insurance.

But, they also don't tend to buy the products advertised on the programs
that discuss the poles, so no one cares. They probably also don't tend
to vote. Rich folks with a lot to lose (so they think) are the ones
pollsters and politicians care about.

Margins of error correct for random anomalies, not systematic ones.
Fundamental statistical assumptions include a random sample, and those
who do not have phones (and, more seriously, those who do not deal with
pollsters on the phone) are not random samples.

Polls are entertainment, not science.

--

David L. Johnson

Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality.
-- Michael Crichton
 
"donquijote1954: who? wrote:
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > "donquijote1954" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> > > ...
> > > 'Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars
> > > by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars
> > > running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially
> > > unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political
> > > "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the
> > > cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels,
> > > vodka, used frymax™ oil, or cow ****). They are at the heart of the
> > > problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by
> > > shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much
> > > worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We
> > > have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common
> > > activities of daily life.'
>
> > A vehicle such as the go-one [1] with a small (less than 1 hp)
> > electric motor could replace automobiles for urban driving. Longer
> > distances could be handled by high speed rail (e.g. maglev) along
> > existing freeway and expressway alignments. This would preserve
> > individual mobility, but with vehicles 1/50 of the size of what is
> > currently being used (with similar decreases in natural resources
> > used). These vehicles would also be much less likely to kill or
> > seriously injure pedestrians in a collision.
>
> > Of course, they would not provide nearly the same degree of passive
> > crash protection; however, some thinning of the herd might not be such
> > a bad thing.
>
> > [1] <http://www.go-one.us/>.
>
> Love it! I guess I can charge it with bananas. ;)
>
> But it seems about the same as a good recumbent with a wind screen,
> right? Perhaps this one will be too hot. Anyway good in windy, cold
> conditions.

Some velomobiles [1] are basically recumbent trikes with fairings,
while others use the fairing as a monocoque structural member.

[1] The generic class the go-one fits into.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
"Joe the Aroma" (who?) anonymously snipes:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> > With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat
> > people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if
> > they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has
> > failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing
> > decisions.
>
> The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free
> market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from
> the truth.

Yes, and the US will never have a free-market health care system,
since there are members of the wealthy elite (health care providers
and insurers) who benefit from gaming the current system.

However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.

Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago when
health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now, I think
it's hasty to make that conclusion.
 
donquijote1954 wrote:

>
> But you don't even need an statistic for that. Just drive for 5
> minutes among cars zigzaging around you, and you will know inmediately
> you need some armor. You will go to the nearest SUV dealer and get one
> --just to be safe.
>

You are either extremely paranoid or a troll. Either way <plonk>

Tony
 
donquijote1954 wrote:

> Your facts are very relative. Relative to wheter you drive or ride a
> bike. That's the Theory of Relativity applied to bikes on the road.

If you ride a bike, bike facilities don't typically make you safer.
If you drive a car, bike facilities don't typically make cyclists
any safer.

I suppose there is some difference between those two (true)
statements in a relative sort of sense, but not a difference that
makes me want bike lanes. FWIW, I drive cars and ride bikes on the
same roads.

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

> 12'??? The minimum is more like 4 to 5 feet (with some dependency on
> how the gutter is treated).

Most roads have 2 way traffic.

> This argument is pure nonsense. You brought up the case where a vehicle
> was stopped ahead of you and you had to go around it. That requires a
> lane change whether or not there is a bike lane.

But if I have to go around from road to road, rather than bike lane
to road, there *is* a difference. In one scenario I'm going out of
where I belong to a place I'm thought of as not belonging, in the
other I just change lanes on the same road.

> The drivers will
> notice you just as much if there is a bike lane than if there is not
> one

But that's the whole point you've just missed. Bikes should be in
bike lanes if they're provided, so they're not expected on the
road. If the driver isn't expecting you at all that reduces your
chances of being really seen, in such a way that your presence is
acted upon.

> - drivers de facto treat bike lanes like shoulder stripes. I've
> yet to see anyone claim that riding to the right (left in the U.K.)
> side of a shoulder stripe is dangerous.

But you're not doing that if you're changing out into the road to
go around an obstacle, are you?

> The anti-bike lane hysteria of many is just plain silly.

It's not "hysteria", it's simply looking at their track record of
making things safer, and seeing that they don't. However nice the
theory, the result on the ground is they don't appear to help.

> Also not true. Under the CVC (California Vehicle Code), you are
> allowed to leave a bike lane at any point where a right turn (a
> turn across the bike lane) is permitted, and only have to use the
> bike lane otherwise when riding at less than the normal speed of
> traffic. We also have bike lanes to the left of right turn lanes,
> which reduces the chance of being cut off in such situations.

You've missed the point again. It isn't whether you can /legally/
leave the lane, it's whether you can *practically* leave it.

> Your U.S. left turn argument is really bogus. If you are a mile
> before your turn, you'd just use the bike lane to bypass most of the
> traffic, and then you simply change lanes and get in position for your
> left turn. If you can't manage that, you probably should not be
> riding a bike, at least not on that road.

But it's not simple if the cars are not worried about the bikes
because they're in the bike lane where they "belong". It isn't
bogus, it's something that's seen all the time.

> Nobody claimed they were applicable everywhere - you made that one
> up.

If you can come off point scoring for a moment you'll see that's a
cautionary note, not an "everything you say is bunk because it
isn't applicable everywhere" straw man.

> We don't have 12' bike lanes in the U.S. unless cars are allowed to
> park inside the bike lane.

But you do have two way traffic AFAICT. That's one lane each side.

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

> New Hampshire, for example, is the only state with no seat belt law
> for adults, and in May its state Senate rejected a bill that would
> have mandated the use of belts.
>
> "The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by anyone else
> what to do," said State Senator Robert E. Clegg Jr.

"Live free and die"
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
>> New Hampshire, for example, is the only state with no seat belt law
>> for adults, and in May its state Senate rejected a bill that would
>> have mandated the use of belts.
>>
>> "The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by anyone else
>> what to do," said State Senator Robert E. Clegg Jr.
>
> "Live free and die"

You've never heard of the Isles Report then? When seat belts were made
mandatory in the UK two things happened. Car occupant deaths did not
change while pedestrian and cyclist deaths increased significantly. It
and similar studies from other countries are one of the central pieces
of evidence for the risk homeostasis theory. The counter side is the
observation that if every steering wheel was fitted with a sharp steel
spike in the centre, drivers would be much more careful.

Tony
 
On Jul 27, 10:38 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> > With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat
> > people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if
> > they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has
> > failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing
> > decisions.
>
> The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free
> market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from
> the truth.

There's nothing like a free market healthcare system, or
transportation. MONOPOLY is the law of the land. Remember, "The
greatest sin is competition"
-John D. Rockefeller

There's this person --wealthy person*, military leader, bureaucrat,
whatever-- that sees the need for change. He realizes that the chaos
and insecurity in society, not to mention the lies and the prevailing
injustice, can only bring an end to all... This is NOT a lion, as he
becomes one of us.

However, there's this other person WHO OPPOSES ANY CHANGE FOR THE
BETTER, and WHO WON'T ACCEPT COMPETITION. This is the MONOPOLISTIC or
HUNGRY LION, Satan himself indeed...

* There's people with money --and influence-- who use it for a good
cause. Just an example among the rich and famous: Paul Newman...

"I was campaigning at the University of Cincinnati and they admitted
with a certain amount of shame that only 19% of the eligible students
had voted in the 2004 election. But they had taken polls, the polls
had looked good but the kids were on cell phones and they weren't
being polled and the figures were going to be staggering because the
kids were engaged. Figures came out, 19%. So if people who have the
privilege of voting don't vote, then you have to ask if they're really
getting what they deserve. We have less of a percentage of eligible
voters voting than voted in Iraq which I think is shameful. So if
people get engaged, they can make the changes, but if they don't, then
we just have a chauffer up there motoring us wherever he wants to go
instead of us giving the directions."

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/cars4.php
 
On Jul 27, 10:49 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > -snip the usual-
>
> >> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
> >>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
> >>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
> >>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> > Amy Blankenship wrote:
> >> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> > Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
> > margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies.
>
> Typical polling does not correct for those without phones, it usually
> just ignores them. They are a small sample, but a biased one in such a
> pole, since they would tend to be otherwise marginalized, and might be
> more disappointed than average in their nonexistent healthcare and so
> much more likely to support universal health insurance.
>
> But, they also don't tend to buy the products advertised on the programs
> that discuss the poles, so no one cares. They probably also don't tend
> to vote. Rich folks with a lot to lose (so they think) are the ones
> pollsters and politicians care about.
>
> Margins of error correct for random anomalies, not systematic ones.
> Fundamental statistical assumptions include a random sample, and those
> who do not have phones (and, more seriously, those who do not deal with
> pollsters on the phone) are not random samples.
>
> Polls are entertainment, not science.

And when they are not useful to the system, they are simply ignored.
Case in point...

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling
the situation with Iraq?"

Approve 25

Disapprove 69

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
 
On Jul 27, 11:28 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> > However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
> > since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.
>
> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago when
> health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now, I think
> it's hasty to make that conclusion.

Lets's not say is bad. Actually it's real good for those who profit
from it.

You know, it all depends who you ask.
 
On Jul 28, 3:52 am, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > But you don't even need an statistic for that. Just drive for 5
> > minutes among cars zigzaging around you, and you will know inmediately
> > you need some armor. You will go to the nearest SUV dealer and get one
> > --just to be safe.
>
> You are either extremely paranoid or a troll. Either way <plonk>
>
> Tony

Sure, and happy SUVing!
 
On Jul 28, 5:50 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > Your facts are very relative. Relative to wheter you drive or ride a
> > bike. That's the Theory of Relativity applied to bikes on the road.
>
> If you ride a bike, bike facilities don't typically make you safer.
> If you drive a car, bike facilities don't typically make cyclists
> any safer.
>
> I suppose there is some difference between those two (true)
> statements in a relative sort of sense, but not a difference that
> makes me want bike lanes. FWIW, I drive cars and ride bikes on the
> same roads.

OK, let's put aside for a moment the argument of what makes me safe,
and allow me to ask you, "WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING OUT HORDES OF
PEOPLE TO ENJOY BIKING?" 10 bucks a gallon? A revolution? I think
so. ;)
 
On Jul 28, 6:53 am, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > New Hampshire, for example, is the only state with no seat belt law
> > for adults, and in May its state Senate rejected a bill that would
> > have mandated the use of belts.
>
> > "The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by anyone else
> > what to do," said State Senator Robert E. Clegg Jr.
>
> "Live free and die"

"Ride and Die"

Once you are dead, you'll be free.
 
David L. Johnson wrote:
> Typical polling does not correct for those without phones, it usually
> just ignores them. They are a small sample, but a biased one in such a
> pole, since they would tend to be otherwise marginalized, and might be
> more disappointed than average in their nonexistent healthcare and so
> much more likely to support universal health insurance.

Increasing numbers of young (and presumably non-poor, non-marginalized)
US residents have no /land-line/ phone (cell only), and I believe phone
polls exclude cellphones as well, since (I believe) it is prohibited to
random-digit dial cellphone prefixes. This tends to reverse the
economic bias in polls caused by missing the phoneless. In the short
term, the two may cancel out, but I suspect the new phenomenon's
influence will overwhelm the older one's within a few years.

[...]

> Margins of error correct for random anomalies, not systematic ones.
> Fundamental statistical assumptions include a random sample, and those
> who do not have phones (and, more seriously, those who do not deal with
> pollsters on the phone) are not random samples.

Agreed absolutely, though I tend to think the professional pollsters
would try a few heuristic corrections to deal with their sample
selection problems - I have seen a good paper on dealing with
non-response - but of course there is no way to estimate the resulting
error except for further heuristics. IOW, if non-response isn't ignored
entirely, then there's more art than science in the way it's dealt with.
>
> Polls are entertainment, not science.

Don't tell Roper/Gallup/Zogby.

Mark J.
 
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:56:18 -0700, donquijote1954
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jul 28, 3:52 am, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>> > But you don't even need an statistic for that. Just drive for 5
>> > minutes among cars zigzaging around you, and you will know inmediately
>> > you need some armor. You will go to the nearest SUV dealer and get one
>> > --just to be safe.
>>
>> You are either extremely paranoid or a troll. Either way <plonk>
>>
>> Tony
>
>Sure, and happy SUVing!

Oil is $78.40 per barrel today. What'll it be next year? Happy SUV
drivers may be wanting to sell their rides, but who'd want 'em?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Bike Dealer mag cover bent market health?
Replies
31
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
Jeff Potter
J
G
A Dragonflyer on the market
Replies
0
Views
483
Recumbent bicycles
gotbent
G
S
RANS should look to Low End Market
Replies
2
Views
598
Recumbent bicycles
dlhii
D
T
Market research, responses needed please!!
Replies
0
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
trike2005
T
C
  • Locked
Wireless Computers for recumbents Revisited or a new look at some GPS on the market
Replies
4
Views
847
Recumbent bicycles
John Riley
J
Top Bottom Back