Can you make it to the market on a bike?



"Michael Warner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:14:44 -0700, Jack May wrote:
>
>> So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all
>> your arguments are worthless.
>
> I consider the average car driver to be a fat, lazy, overstressed,
> thoughtless slob, even if he gets there first. So much for /your/
> arguments.

Nobody cares what you think. Technology evolution providing what people
want or killing what they don't want is what decides success and failure.
Your bike is clearly not the winner
 
"Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Evolution seldom runs backwards, so present conditions give a good
indication of how things are evolving, Your (2) statement is false.
Evolution selects what will survive and flourish.
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
....
>
> Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what
> it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the
> better!

At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the
market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought.
 
On Jul 28, 6:05 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Michael Warner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:14:44 -0700, Jack May wrote:
>
> >> So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all
> >> your arguments are worthless.
>
> > I consider the average car driver to be a fat, lazy, overstressed,
> > thoughtless slob, even if he gets there first. So much for /your/
> > arguments.
>
> Nobody cares what you think. Technology evolution providing what people
> want or killing what they don't want is what decides success and failure.
> Your bike is clearly not the winner

I think you are killing the whole planet for that matter. The lazy and
stupid couldn't care less, or do they? Presidential candidates don't
talk about issues like bike lanes, but whether homosexuals could marry
or not, which, by the way, is a red herring.
 
On Jul 28, 6:09 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Evolution seldom runs backwards, so present conditions give a good
> indication of how things are evolving, Your (2) statement is false.
> Evolution selects what will survive and flourish.-

Evolution is on the side of the small and smart. That's why dinosaurs
went down the drain, and furry animals prospered, and thus we are
here.

Well, perhaps some of are not that smart.
 
On Jul 28, 6:14 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what
> > it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the
> > better!
>
> At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the
> market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought.

The lazy fat couch potatoes are really stubborn. The word "change"
terrifies them, and bicycles are really out of their mind. Nevermind
they will get in shape and lead a healthy life. They are idiots (to
borrow Ed's word), and how can we expect idiots to see the need for
change.

Well, at least alternative energy won't pollute as much.
 
On Jul 28, 6:14 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what
> > it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the
> > better!
>
> At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the
> market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought.

The lazy fat couch potatoes are really stubborn. The word "change"
terrifies them, and bicycles are really out of their mind. Nevermind
they will get in shape and lead a healthy life. They are idiots (to
borrow Ed's word), and how can we expect idiots to see the need for
change.

Well, at least alternative energy won't pollute as much.
 
On Jul 27, 10:16 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Jul 27, 6:24 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not
> > > become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are. :)
>
> > > They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed.
>
> > Hopefully they won't adopt the low-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet that
> > we did, then.
>
> The Scandinavian studied the American system a century ago, and
> learned what to do --and what to avoid.
>
> The car obsession is dismissed by every other civilized nation. It's
> "cuckoo," to use your own words.

What does that have to do with my post? And "dismissed" or not, people
still drive in large and increasing numbers in other countries.
 
On Jul 28, 7:08 pm, rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:16 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 6:24 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not
> > > > become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are. :)
>
> > > > They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed.
>
> > > Hopefully they won't adopt the low-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet that
> > > we did, then.
>
> > The Scandinavian studied the American system a century ago, and
> > learned what to do --and what to avoid.
>
> > The car obsession is dismissed by every other civilized nation. It's
> > "cuckoo," to use your own words.
>
> What does that have to do with my post? And "dismissed" or not, people
> still drive in large and increasing numbers in other countries.-

I guess it's not in disagreement with your statement, which is hard to
define as con or pre bikes. As for the last statements, few countries
are trying to emulate America's dependence on the car. The cukoo,
though not your words I guess, applies to a system that needs a car to
go to the market. Only in America.
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>
> Evolution seldom runs backwards, so present conditions give a good
> indication of how things are evolving, Your (2) statement is false.
> Evolution selects what will survive and flourish.

Maybe the sharks and alligators are just biding their time. Or the roaches
:)
 
On Jul 28, 10:32 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
for yourself.
>
> > Evolution seldom runs backwards, so present conditions give a good
> > indication of how things are evolving, Your (2) statement is false.
> > Evolution selects what will survive and flourish.
>
> Maybe the sharks and alligators are just biding their time. Or the roaches
> :)-

Maybe the best solution is to call the Orkin Man.
 
On Jul 29, 5:10 am, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Bill Z.
>
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >> > Oh, so you don't care about "most cylclists who are ingorant [sic] of
> >> > proper bicycling" and would favor natural selection to get rid of
> >> > them? Some of these cyclists who are "ignorant" are children who are
> >> > too young
> >> > to drive a motor vehicle. What do you propose to do with them? Do
> >> > you really have a problem with a bike lane along a two lane street
> >> > with a 25 mph speed limit and relatively little traffic, going past an
> >> > elementary school?
>
> >> Yes. What is the point of a bike lane on a low volume low speed street?
>
> > Keeping the parents of school kids happy for one.
>
> They'd be happier if their kids lived to be adults. Which means learning to
> use the road safely. Research in London (and Denmark and the Netherlands)
> shows that bike lanes contribute precisely nothing at all to cyclist
> safety. The same money which paints a bike lane buys a lot of quality
> training, which has a far greater effect on children's safety.
>
> Things may be different in the States, where streets are typically wider
> and the density of cyclists is so much lower. In Europe, cycle lanes are
> not a benefit.

In the States we would have to start by TRAINING THE DRIVERS and
banning some nasty behavior like cell phones. That's before they start
enough attention to the roads as to notice a bike.
 
Michael Warner <[email protected]> said in alt.planning.urban:

>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?

They do if they don't want to get taken.
--
I hated Bush before it was cool.
 
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:32:56 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> They do if they don't want to get taken.

Here, you either learn about cars as you grow up, by fixing up and
maintaining a few old bombs until you start earning decent money, or
you pay the RAA to come around and inspect it for you.
 
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.

That's odd, rather than 5 minutes I've been doing it for > 30 years, and
I'm still doing it on a regular basis without armour.

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:

> 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. ;)

US$10 per gallon isn't far off what fuel costs here (part of that is the
current weak dollar, which doesn't really affect those not changing
money, but even so...), and it's *not* driving people away from cars.
On the other hand, one revolutionary thing that did work was the Mayor
of London introducing the "congestion charge": ~$10 to drive into the
centre of London. Congestion went down, cycling went up. Sadly it only
worked because the mayor had the power to do it without a vote. Similar
problems in Edinburgh, but it had to go to democratic public vote, and
the turkeys voted for Christmas... Democracy ain't always what it's
cracked up to be :-(

The revolution is realising that cycling isn't necessarily hard and
horrible work, and is often quicker and more pleasant than sitting in a
traffic jam. Some places have never forgotten that, NL and Denmark, for
example, and hordes of people get around by bike. Not necessarily
/enjoying/ it, it's just a form of transport, but using it as the best
tool for the job in hand.

What do you have in NL and Denmark that you don't get elsewhere? While
there are a lot of cycle facilities they're not actually as universal as
folk often assume, and in a lot of places you have to use the roads. In
my experience of riding in NL (not huge, but a couple of weeks' worth so
not inconsequential either) the real difference is drivers who
understand, account for and defer to cycles sharing the roads with them.
They have to, because there are so many bikes. What you need is a
critical mass of cyclists. In the US and UK that's an incremental
thing, but at least in the UK cycling is on the up.

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:
>
> In
> my experience of riding in NL (not huge, but a couple of weeks' worth so
> not inconsequential either) the real difference is drivers who
> understand, account for and defer to cycles sharing the roads with them.
> They have to, because there are so many bikes.

Don't forget that with large numbers cycling, the majority of the
drivers are also cyclists which helps enormously IMO.

Tony
 
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:50:19 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>> In
>> my experience of riding in NL (not huge, but a couple of weeks' worth so
>> not inconsequential either) the real difference is drivers who
>> understand, account for and defer to cycles sharing the roads with them.
>> They have to, because there are so many bikes.
>
>Don't forget that with large numbers cycling, the majority of the
>drivers are also cyclists which helps enormously IMO.

Absolutely. This is also very apparent in Basel city and in the
general countryside around where I live in France. If kids are
introduced early to the flexibility and independence of 2-wheeled
transport and are not able to always get mummy or daddy to drive them
around, they'll grow up to be much more cycle-aware drivers.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom
 
On Jul 30, 9:36 am, William <[email protected]> wrote:

> Aspects of the cycling infrastructure may be viewed as either cyclist-
> hostile or as cyclist-friendly. In general, roads infrastructure based
> on prioritising motoring and attempting to create a state of constant
> "flow" for cars will tend to be hostile to non-car users. In 1996, the
> British Cyclists Touring Club (CTC) and the Institute for Highways and
> Transportation jointly produced the document "Cycle-friendly
> infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design". This defined a
> hierarchy of measures for cycling promotion in which the goal is to
> convert a more or less cyclist-hostile roads infrastructure into one
> which encourages and facilitates cycling.-

Thank you for your valuable info. However I don't think much will be
accomplished when there's no political will.

Our approach should be to work on the political will by having actual
campaigns of civil disobedience (not budging from center of lane).
RIDING THE LANE is a good way to claim our place under the sun, and
not always be on the lookout for the dinosaurs.

A good identifying T-shirt should help to create the strength given by
numbers...

http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories
 
On Jul 30, 3:39 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > 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. ;)
>
> US$10 per gallon isn't far off what fuel costs here (part of that is the
> current weak dollar, which doesn't really affect those not changing
> money, but even so...), and it's *not* driving people away from cars.
> On the other hand, one revolutionary thing that did work was the Mayor
> of London introducing the "congestion charge": ~$10 to drive into the
> centre of London. Congestion went down, cycling went up. Sadly it only
> worked because the mayor had the power to do it without a vote. Similar
> problems in Edinburgh, but it had to go to democratic public vote, and
> the turkeys voted for Christmas... Democracy ain't always what it's
> cracked up to be :-(
>
> The revolution is realising that cycling isn't necessarily hard and
> horrible work, and is often quicker and more pleasant than sitting in a
> traffic jam. Some places have never forgotten that, NL and Denmark, for
> example, and hordes of people get around by bike. Not necessarily
> /enjoying/ it, it's just a form of transport, but using it as the best
> tool for the job in hand.
>
> What do you have in NL and Denmark that you don't get elsewhere? While
> there are a lot of cycle facilities they're not actually as universal as
> folk often assume, and in a lot of places you have to use the roads. In
> my experience of riding in NL (not huge, but a couple of weeks' worth so
> not inconsequential either) the real difference is drivers who
> understand, account for and defer to cycles sharing the roads with them.
> They have to, because there are so many bikes. What you need is a
> critical mass of cyclists. In the US and UK that's an incremental
> thing, but at least in the UK cycling is on the up.

Unbelievable.,.. A smart comment from you? Well, you been absorbing
some of the good stuff from others here, right?
 
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