Road Cycling · Public discussion

Re: Cyclists..NCG!

Started by Bill H. · · Last activity · 80 posts · 2,221 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
16 April 2007
Last activity
27 April 2007
Original author
Bill H.
Posts
80
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,221
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 41–60 of 80
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. nash said:

    "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    BigPurdueFan said:

    On Apr 21, 9:40 am, "Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    > "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > news:[email hidden]...
    >> On Apr 20, 3:05 am, Jym Dyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>> =v= Cars do so much harm to the environment that the cost of
    >>> running them, already high, must be propped up even further
    >>> with hidden subsidies. In fact, they are operated at such
    >>> a high cost that it is more accurate to say that those using
    >>> alternative transportation are subsidizing THEM. Bikes more
    >>> than anyone else, of course.
    >> Now that's funny.
    > Funny to you, maybe, but true. However, since I'm generally a generous
    > person, I don't mind supporting your motorist lifestyle. Just give me
    > smile,
    > and a wave -- with all five fingers -- when you pass.
    I'd love to know how your bicycle riding supports my "lifestyle".


    And that means using facts, instead of saying "hidden subsidies".
    Let's see some numbers.


    Do your own homework. Phone a bicycle advocate group. Google it.
    You obviously only see the driver's side of everything.
    Oh yeah, and ride a bike for 2 years no car. That hard facts enough for
    you.

    No, you did not present facts.

  2. "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    nash said:

    "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Apr 21, 11:58 am, BigPurdueFan <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > On Apr 21, 9:40 am, "Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]>
    > wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    > > "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    > >news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    > > > On Apr 20, 3:05 am, Jym Dyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > > >> =v= Cars do so much harm to the environment that the cost of
    > > >> running them, already high, must be propped up even further
    > > >> with hidden subsidies. In fact, they are operated at such
    > > >> a high cost that it is more accurate to say that those using
    > > >> alternative transportation are subsidizing THEM. Bikes more
    > > >> than anyone else, of course.
    > > > Now that's funny.

    Quoted message said:

    > > Funny to you, maybe, but true. However, since I'm generally a
    > > generous
    > > person, I don't mind supporting your motorist lifestyle. Just give
    > > me
    > > smile,
    > > and a wave -- with all five fingers -- when you pass.

    Quoted message said:

    > I'd love to know how your bicycle riding supports my "lifestyle".

    Quoted message said:

    And that means using facts, instead of saying "hidden subsidies".
    Let's see some numbers.

    Do your own homework. Phone a bicycle advocate group. Google it.
    You obviously only see the driver's side of everything.
    Oh yeah, and ride a bike for 2 years no car. That hard facts enough for
    you.-

    I'm not the one making the claim, so I'm certainly not going to do any
    "homework". This thread was started on a golf group (and it is where
    I'm responding to it), so don't blame me if one of your buddies is
    trying to fire things up.


    It is general knowledge here. I have answered that one at least 3 times
    myself and anyone can google the threads for answers like anyone else who is
    lacking info. The OP is from your group anyway I believe.

  3. "Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    nash said:

    "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Apr 21, 11:58 am, BigPurdueFan <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > On Apr 21, 9:40 am, "Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email hidden]...
    >>> On Apr 20, 3:05 am, Jym Dyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>> =v= Cars do so much harm to the environment that the cost of
    >>>> running them, already high, must be propped up even further
    >>>> with hidden subsidies. In fact, they are operated at such
    >>>> a high cost that it is more accurate to say that those using
    >>>> alternative transportation are subsidizing THEM. Bikes more
    >>>> than anyone else, of course.
    >>> Now that's funny.
    >> Funny to you, maybe, but true. However, since I'm generally a generous
    >> person, I don't mind supporting your motorist lifestyle. Just give me
    >> smile,
    >> and a wave -- with all five fingers -- when you pass.
    > I'd love to know how your bicycle riding supports my "lifestyle".
    And that means using facts, instead of saying "hidden subsidies".
    Let's see some numbers.


    Do your own homework. Phone a bicycle advocate group. Google it.
    You obviously only see the driver's side of everything.
    Oh yeah, and ride a bike for 2 years no car. That hard facts enough for
    you.


    Lets get a bit honest here folks, you can't turn back the clock. The
    national economies all depend on motorized transport. Cycling is at best
    a recreational activity and will remain so. The argument that you should
    bike to local shops for errands is specious at best. So what if I do that?
    The goods I am traveling to acquire HAD to be trucked to the shop over
    those roads.

    How do I carry a weeks groceries for a family of 3 or 4 on my bike? Do we
    all live in 19the century village? I looked at the numbers in one of the
    Victoria reports comparing a motorist driving 10K miles a year with a
    cyclist doing 3K. First off, I typically drive 28K miles a year to cover
    basic errand and work related travel. The 3K number is about 8 miles a
    day 365 days a year. Would I bike in all weather, wearing a suit to make
    a call on a business client. Not bloody likely. So the road is needed
    for the days that a car is required.

    In any event, the arguments are silly, the roads must exist for our
    culture to survive, unless you want to reduce population by 60% and return
    to 1830. Therefore by extension, cyclist should be tolerated or provided
    with little self-sustaining communes where they can grow it, mine it,
    manufacture it and generally fall off the grid and tax base. Probably
    won't have too many light bulbs or iPods though. Probably not many bikes
    ether after about 30 years.

    Joe

    You have no transit Joe? our buses all have bike carriers and Skytrains can
    carry 4 bikes per car in off rush hour. I have lived my whole life without
    a car.
    Just depends on how important the environment is to you and it obviously is
    not.
    As for no iPods. I would rather have some nature left before I would worry
    about iPods. Just be happy someone is doing the work for you for free. you
    owe us.

  4. nash said:

    "Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    nash said:

    "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    > On Apr 21, 11:58 am, BigPurdueFan <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >> On Apr 21, 9:40 am, "Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email hidden]...
    >>>> On Apr 20, 3:05 am, Jym Dyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>>> =v= Cars do so much harm to the environment that the cost of
    >>>>> running them, already high, must be propped up even further
    >>>>> with hidden subsidies. In fact, they are operated at such
    >>>>> a high cost that it is more accurate to say that those using
    >>>>> alternative transportation are subsidizing THEM. Bikes more
    >>>>> than anyone else, of course.
    >>>> Now that's funny.
    >>> Funny to you, maybe, but true. However, since I'm generally a generous
    >>> person, I don't mind supporting your motorist lifestyle. Just give me
    >>> smile,
    >>> and a wave -- with all five fingers -- when you pass.
    >> I'd love to know how your bicycle riding supports my "lifestyle".
    > And that means using facts, instead of saying "hidden subsidies".
    > Let's see some numbers.
    >
    Do your own homework. Phone a bicycle advocate group. Google it.
    You obviously only see the driver's side of everything.
    Oh yeah, and ride a bike for 2 years no car. That hard facts enough for
    you.


    Lets get a bit honest here folks, you can't turn back the clock. The
    national economies all depend on motorized transport. Cycling is at best
    a recreational activity and will remain so. The argument that you should
    bike to local shops for errands is specious at best. So what if I do that?
    The goods I am traveling to acquire HAD to be trucked to the shop over
    those roads.

    How do I carry a weeks groceries for a family of 3 or 4 on my bike? Do we
    all live in 19the century village? I looked at the numbers in one of the
    Victoria reports comparing a motorist driving 10K miles a year with a
    cyclist doing 3K. First off, I typically drive 28K miles a year to cover
    basic errand and work related travel. The 3K number is about 8 miles a
    day 365 days a year. Would I bike in all weather, wearing a suit to make
    a call on a business client. Not bloody likely. So the road is needed
    for the days that a car is required.

    In any event, the arguments are silly, the roads must exist for our
    culture to survive, unless you want to reduce population by 60% and return
    to 1830. Therefore by extension, cyclist should be tolerated or provided
    with little self-sustaining communes where they can grow it, mine it,
    manufacture it and generally fall off the grid and tax base. Probably
    won't have too many light bulbs or iPods though. Probably not many bikes
    ether after about 30 years.

    Joe

    You have no transit Joe? our buses all have bike carriers and Skytrains can
    carry 4 bikes per car in off rush hour. I have lived my whole life without
    a car.
    Just depends on how important the environment is to you and it obviously is
    not.
    As for no iPods. I would rather have some nature left before I would worry
    about iPods. Just be happy someone is doing the work for you for free. you
    owe us.

    Sorry dude, no transit. 10 min auto drive to either of the nearest two
    towns, much like most of the US. When I lived in or worked in
    Manhattan, I used transit but out here it doesn't work that way.
    Just where to you happen to live?

    I owe you nothing. You want to ride a bike and live in the 19th
    century, have at it. Just don't play the religious card. I am so very
    happy for you that you never had a car. I know lots of people in NYC
    that don't have cars, so what? In a city they don't make a lot of
    sense. Try moving out of your little urban bubble and get back to me.

    I care for the environment but I exist in a real world where a modern
    lifestyle and concern for planet Earth are not incompatible.

  5. Joe said:
    nash said:

    "Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    nash wrote:
    > "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > news:[email hidden]...
    >> On Apr 21, 11:58 am, BigPurdueFan <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>> On Apr 21, 9:40 am, "Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >>>> news:[email hidden]...
    >>>>> On Apr 20, 3:05 am, Jym Dyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>>>> =v= Cars do so much harm to the environment that the cost of
    >>>>>> running them, already high, must be propped up even further
    >>>>>> with hidden subsidies. In fact, they are operated at such
    >>>>>> a high cost that it is more accurate to say that those using
    >>>>>> alternative transportation are subsidizing THEM. Bikes more
    >>>>>> than anyone else, of course.
    >>>>> Now that's funny.
    >>>> Funny to you, maybe, but true. However, since I'm generally a
    >>>> generous
    >>>> person, I don't mind supporting your motorist lifestyle. Just
    >>>> give me smile,
    >>>> and a wave -- with all five fingers -- when you pass.
    >>> I'd love to know how your bicycle riding supports my "lifestyle".
    >> And that means using facts, instead of saying "hidden subsidies".
    >> Let's see some numbers.
    >>
    > Do your own homework. Phone a bicycle advocate group. Google it.
    > You obviously only see the driver's side of everything.
    > Oh yeah, and ride a bike for 2 years no car. That hard facts enough
    > for you.
    Lets get a bit honest here folks, you can't turn back the clock. The
    national economies all depend on motorized transport. Cycling is at
    best a recreational activity and will remain so. The argument that
    you should bike to local shops for errands is specious at best. So
    what if I do that? The goods I am traveling to acquire HAD to be
    trucked to the shop over those roads.

    How do I carry a weeks groceries for a family of 3 or 4 on my bike?
    Do we all live in 19the century village? I looked at the numbers in
    one of the Victoria reports comparing a motorist driving 10K miles a
    year with a cyclist doing 3K. First off, I typically drive 28K miles
    a year to cover basic errand and work related travel. The 3K number
    is about 8 miles a day 365 days a year. Would I bike in all weather,
    wearing a suit to make a call on a business client. Not bloody
    likely. So the road is needed for the days that a car is required.

    In any event, the arguments are silly, the roads must exist for our
    culture to survive, unless you want to reduce population by 60% and
    return to 1830. Therefore by extension, cyclist should be tolerated
    or provided with little self-sustaining communes where they can grow
    it, mine it, manufacture it and generally fall off the grid and tax
    base. Probably won't have too many light bulbs or iPods though.
    Probably not many bikes ether after about 30 years.

    Joe

    You have no transit Joe? our buses all have bike carriers and
    Skytrains can carry 4 bikes per car in off rush hour. I have lived my
    whole life without a car.
    Just depends on how important the environment is to you and it
    obviously is not.
    As for no iPods. I would rather have some nature left before I would
    worry about iPods. Just be happy someone is doing the work for you
    for free. you owe us.

    Sorry dude, no transit. 10 min auto drive to either of the nearest two
    towns, much like most of the US. When I lived in or worked in
    Manhattan, I used transit but out here it doesn't work that way.
    Just where to you happen to live?

    I owe you nothing. You want to ride a bike and live in the 19th
    century, have at it. Just don't play the religious card. I am so very
    happy for you that you never had a car. I know lots of people in NYC
    that don't have cars, so what? In a city they don't make a lot of
    sense. Try moving out of your little urban bubble and get back to me.

    I don't think the folks in the cities are the ones living in "bubbles."
    Suburbs are away from the city and don't connect via mass transit to
    keep out the so-called riff raff. Wouldn't want your darling little
    children to be exposed to real life, now would you?

    Quoted message said:

    I care for the environment but I exist in a real world where a modern
    lifestyle and concern for planet Earth are not incompatible.

    We'll see.

    \\paul

  6. On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:29:57 -0400, Joe <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    nash wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You have no transit Joe? our buses all have bike carriers and Skytrains can
    carry 4 bikes per car in off rush hour. I have lived my whole life without
    a car.
    Just depends on how important the environment is to you and it obviously is
    not.
    As for no iPods. I would rather have some nature left before I would worry
    about iPods. Just be happy someone is doing the work for you for free. you
    owe us.

    Sorry dude, no transit. 10 min auto drive to either of the nearest two
    towns, much like most of the US. When I lived in or worked in
    Manhattan, I used transit but out here it doesn't work that way.
    Just where to you happen to live?

    I owe you nothing. You want to ride a bike and live in the 19th
    century, have at it. Just don't play the religious card. I am so very
    happy for you that you never had a car. I know lots of people in NYC
    that don't have cars, so what? In a city they don't make a lot of
    sense. Try moving out of your little urban bubble and get back to me.

    I care for the environment but I exist in a real world where a modern
    lifestyle and concern for planet Earth are not incompatible.

    Maybe not 100% compatible, but I hope you're not ignoring this concern
    completely.
    bk

  7. Paul Myron Hobson said:

    Joe wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Sorry dude, no transit. 10 min auto drive to either of the nearest two
    towns, much like most of the US. When I lived in or worked in
    Manhattan, I used transit but out here it doesn't work that way.
    Just where to you happen to live?

    I owe you nothing. You want to ride a bike and live in the 19th
    century, have at it. Just don't play the religious card. I am so very
    happy for you that you never had a car. I know lots of people in NYC
    that don't have cars, so what? In a city they don't make a lot of
    sense. Try moving out of your little urban bubble and get back to me.

    I don't think the folks in the cities are the ones living in "bubbles."
    Suburbs are away from the city and don't connect via mass transit to
    keep out the so-called riff raff. Wouldn't want your darling little
    children to be exposed to real life, now would you?


    Now that's horseshit. People generally live in suburbs because the
    realty in the cities have been taken, and is more expensive.

    There's plenty of real life out in the burbs too. What there really
    is, is a ton of generalities in this thread on both sides.

    There is no reason that cyclists and motorists can't coexist, except
    for the lunatic fringe of both groups.
    bk

  8. Paul Myron Hobson said:
    Joe said:
    nash said:

    "Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    > nash wrote:
    >> "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email hidden]...
    >>> On Apr 21, 11:58 am, BigPurdueFan <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>> On Apr 21, 9:40 am, "Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:[email hidden]...
    >>>>>> On Apr 20, 3:05 am, Jym Dyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>>>>> =v= Cars do so much harm to the environment that the cost of
    >>>>>>> running them, already high, must be propped up even further
    >>>>>>> with hidden subsidies. In fact, they are operated at such
    >>>>>>> a high cost that it is more accurate to say that those using
    >>>>>>> alternative transportation are subsidizing THEM. Bikes more
    >>>>>>> than anyone else, of course.
    >>>>>> Now that's funny.
    >>>>> Funny to you, maybe, but true. However, since I'm generally a
    >>>>> generous
    >>>>> person, I don't mind supporting your motorist lifestyle. Just
    >>>>> give me smile,
    >>>>> and a wave -- with all five fingers -- when you pass.
    >>>> I'd love to know how your bicycle riding supports my "lifestyle".
    >>> And that means using facts, instead of saying "hidden subsidies".
    >>> Let's see some numbers.
    >>>
    >> Do your own homework. Phone a bicycle advocate group. Google it.
    >> You obviously only see the driver's side of everything.
    >> Oh yeah, and ride a bike for 2 years no car. That hard facts
    >> enough for you.
    > Lets get a bit honest here folks, you can't turn back the clock. The
    > national economies all depend on motorized transport. Cycling is at
    > best a recreational activity and will remain so. The argument that
    > you should bike to local shops for errands is specious at best. So
    > what if I do that? The goods I am traveling to acquire HAD to be
    > trucked to the shop over those roads.
    >
    > How do I carry a weeks groceries for a family of 3 or 4 on my bike?
    > Do we all live in 19the century village? I looked at the numbers in
    > one of the Victoria reports comparing a motorist driving 10K miles a
    > year with a cyclist doing 3K. First off, I typically drive 28K
    > miles a year to cover basic errand and work related travel. The 3K
    > number is about 8 miles a day 365 days a year. Would I bike in all
    > weather, wearing a suit to make a call on a business client. Not
    > bloody likely. So the road is needed for the days that a car is
    > required.
    >
    > In any event, the arguments are silly, the roads must exist for our
    > culture to survive, unless you want to reduce population by 60% and
    > return to 1830. Therefore by extension, cyclist should be tolerated
    > or provided with little self-sustaining communes where they can grow
    > it, mine it, manufacture it and generally fall off the grid and tax
    > base. Probably won't have too many light bulbs or iPods though.
    > Probably not many bikes ether after about 30 years.
    >
    > Joe

    You have no transit Joe? our buses all have bike carriers and
    Skytrains can carry 4 bikes per car in off rush hour. I have lived
    my whole life without a car.
    Just depends on how important the environment is to you and it
    obviously is not.
    As for no iPods. I would rather have some nature left before I would
    worry about iPods. Just be happy someone is doing the work for you
    for free. you owe us.

    Sorry dude, no transit. 10 min auto drive to either of the nearest
    two towns, much like most of the US. When I lived in or worked in
    Manhattan, I used transit but out here it doesn't work that way.
    Just where to you happen to live?

    I owe you nothing. You want to ride a bike and live in the 19th
    century, have at it. Just don't play the religious card. I am so very
    happy for you that you never had a car. I know lots of people in NYC
    that don't have cars, so what? In a city they don't make a lot of
    sense. Try moving out of your little urban bubble and get back to me.

    I don't think the folks in the cities are the ones living in "bubbles."
    Suburbs are away from the city and don't connect via mass transit to
    keep out the so-called riff raff. Wouldn't want your darling little
    children to be exposed to real life, now would you?

    I lived there and worked in Manhattan for over 30 years, all four my
    kids grew up in NYC one is a member of NYFD. Get off your f-ing horse
    clown. Unlike you and people like you, I do understand the real world.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I care for the environment but I exist in a real world where a modern
    lifestyle and concern for planet Earth are not incompatible.

    We'll see.

    \\paul

    Paulie, it isn't either - or as you and the rest of the goreistas would
    proclaim. Ride your bike, proclaim your religion from the minarets, the
    net effect that you will have over the next 50 years will amount to
    nada! Rational thought will prevail and a workable compromise will
    balance things out.

    But in the meantime, enjoy your fairytale life.

    Joe

  9. Bobby Knight said:
    Paul Myron Hobson said:

    Joe wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Sorry dude, no transit. 10 min auto drive to either of the nearest two
    towns, much like most of the US. When I lived in or worked in
    Manhattan, I used transit but out here it doesn't work that way.
    Just where to you happen to live?

    I owe you nothing. You want to ride a bike and live in the 19th
    century, have at it. Just don't play the religious card. I am so very
    happy for you that you never had a car. I know lots of people in NYC
    that don't have cars, so what? In a city they don't make a lot of
    sense. Try moving out of your little urban bubble and get back to me.


    I don't think the folks in the cities are the ones living in "bubbles."
    Suburbs are away from the city and don't connect via mass transit to
    keep out the so-called riff raff. Wouldn't want your darling little
    children to be exposed to real life, now would you?


    Now that's horseshit. People generally live in suburbs because the
    realty in the cities have been taken, and is more expensive.

    There's plenty of real life out in the burbs too. What there really
    is, is a ton of generalities in this thread on both sides.

    There is no reason that cyclists and motorists can't coexist, except
    for the lunatic fringe of both groups.
    bk

    Exactly right Bobby.

    I just wish people would use their mind, do a little research and not
    just trot out the BS sound bytes from the favorite religious base.

    Joe

  10. Bobby Knight said:

    On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:29:57 -0400, Joe <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    nash said:

    You have no transit Joe? our buses all have bike carriers and Skytrains can
    carry 4 bikes per car in off rush hour. I have lived my whole life without
    a car.
    Just depends on how important the environment is to you and it obviously is
    not.
    As for no iPods. I would rather have some nature left before I would worry
    about iPods. Just be happy someone is doing the work for you for free. you
    owe us.

    Quoted message said:

    Sorry dude, no transit. 10 min auto drive to either of the nearest two
    towns, much like most of the US. When I lived in or worked in
    Manhattan, I used transit but out here it doesn't work that way.
    Just where to you happen to live?

    Quoted message said:

    I owe you nothing. You want to ride a bike and live in the 19th
    century, have at it. Just don't play the religious card. I am so very
    happy for you that you never had a car. I know lots of people in NYC
    that don't have cars, so what? In a city they don't make a lot of
    sense. Try moving out of your little urban bubble and get back to me.

    Quoted message said:

    I care for the environment but I exist in a real world where a modern
    lifestyle and concern for planet Earth are not incompatible.

    Maybe not 100% compatible, but I hope you're not ignoring this concern
    completely.
    bk-

    I doubt that that is, nor am I. I make all of my decisions with the
    big picture in mind. Unfortunately I cannot support my family without
    a vehicle and until we can convince idiots like George W Bush to care
    for the environment, then we won't ever be able to do much about it
    (especially people like me in the US).

  11. Joe said:
    Paul Myron Hobson said:
    Joe said:

    nash wrote:
    > "Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > news:[email hidden]...
    >> nash wrote:
    >>> "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email hidden]...
    >>>> On Apr 21, 11:58 am, BigPurdueFan <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>>> On Apr 21, 9:40 am, "Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:[email hidden]...
    >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 3:05 am, Jym Dyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> =v= Cars do so much harm to the environment that the cost of
    >>>>>>>> running them, already high, must be propped up even further
    >>>>>>>> with hidden subsidies. In fact, they are operated at such
    >>>>>>>> a high cost that it is more accurate to say that those using
    >>>>>>>> alternative transportation are subsidizing THEM. Bikes more
    >>>>>>>> than anyone else, of course.
    >>>>>>> Now that's funny.
    >>>>>> Funny to you, maybe, but true. However, since I'm generally a
    >>>>>> generous
    >>>>>> person, I don't mind supporting your motorist lifestyle. Just
    >>>>>> give me smile,
    >>>>>> and a wave -- with all five fingers -- when you pass.
    >>>>> I'd love to know how your bicycle riding supports my "lifestyle".
    >>>> And that means using facts, instead of saying "hidden subsidies".
    >>>> Let's see some numbers.
    >>>>
    >>> Do your own homework. Phone a bicycle advocate group. Google it.
    >>> You obviously only see the driver's side of everything.
    >>> Oh yeah, and ride a bike for 2 years no car. That hard facts
    >>> enough for you.
    >> Lets get a bit honest here folks, you can't turn back the clock.
    >> The national economies all depend on motorized transport. Cycling
    >> is at best a recreational activity and will remain so. The
    >> argument that you should bike to local shops for errands is
    >> specious at best. So what if I do that? The goods I am traveling to
    >> acquire HAD to be trucked to the shop over those roads.
    >>
    >> How do I carry a weeks groceries for a family of 3 or 4 on my
    >> bike? Do we all live in 19the century village? I looked at the
    >> numbers in one of the Victoria reports comparing a motorist driving
    >> 10K miles a year with a cyclist doing 3K. First off, I typically
    >> drive 28K miles a year to cover basic errand and work related
    >> travel. The 3K number is about 8 miles a day 365 days a year.
    >> Would I bike in all weather, wearing a suit to make a call on a
    >> business client. Not bloody likely. So the road is needed for the
    >> days that a car is required.
    >>
    >> In any event, the arguments are silly, the roads must exist for our
    >> culture to survive, unless you want to reduce population by 60% and
    >> return to 1830. Therefore by extension, cyclist should be
    >> tolerated or provided with little self-sustaining communes where
    >> they can grow it, mine it, manufacture it and generally fall off
    >> the grid and tax base. Probably won't have too many light bulbs or
    >> iPods though. Probably not many bikes ether after about 30 years.
    >>
    >> Joe
    >
    > You have no transit Joe? our buses all have bike carriers and
    > Skytrains can carry 4 bikes per car in off rush hour. I have lived
    > my whole life without a car.
    > Just depends on how important the environment is to you and it
    > obviously is not.
    > As for no iPods. I would rather have some nature left before I
    > would worry about iPods. Just be happy someone is doing the work
    > for you for free. you owe us.

    Sorry dude, no transit. 10 min auto drive to either of the nearest
    two towns, much like most of the US. When I lived in or worked in
    Manhattan, I used transit but out here it doesn't work that way.
    Just where to you happen to live?

    I owe you nothing. You want to ride a bike and live in the 19th
    century, have at it. Just don't play the religious card. I am so
    very happy for you that you never had a car. I know lots of people
    in NYC that don't have cars, so what? In a city they don't make a
    lot of sense. Try moving out of your little urban bubble and get
    back to me.

    I don't think the folks in the cities are the ones living in
    "bubbles." Suburbs are away from the city and don't connect via mass
    transit to keep out the so-called riff raff. Wouldn't want your
    darling little children to be exposed to real life, now would you?

    Quoted message said:

    I lived there and worked in Manhattan for over 30 years, all four my
    kids grew up in NYC one is a member of NYFD. Get off your f-ing horse
    clown.

    What do your kids that have to do with the complete lack of planning of
    suburban developments around the country? Are they going to rebuild the
    connected neighborhoods and poor infrastructure?

    Quoted message said:

    Unlike you and people like you, I do understand the real world.

    You think riding a bike is regressing to the 19th century, while
    needlessly driving is perfectly ethical? Oh yeah...that's "real."

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I care for the environment but I exist in a real world where a modern
    lifestyle and concern for planet Earth are not incompatible.

    We'll see.

    Quoted message said:

    Paulie, it isn't either -

    Huh? Either what?

    Quoted message said:

    or as you and the rest of the goreistas would
    proclaim. Ride your bike, proclaim your religion from the minarets, the
    net effect that you will have over the next 50 years will amount to
    nada!

    Goreistas? wft are you talking about? How is this a response to "we'll
    see [if "modern lifestyles and concern for planet Earth are not
    incompatible"]? Chillax, psycho.

    Quoted message said:

    Rational thought

    Something you seem to have momentarily left somewhere.

    Quoted message said:

    will prevail and a workable compromise will
    balance things out.

    Of course it will, so long as someone is working towards that end. Tell
    me, are you?

    Quoted message said:

    But in the meantime, enjoy your [hyperbole ommitted] life.

    And you do the same.

  12. Paul Myron Hobson said:
    Joe said:
    Paul Myron Hobson said:

    Joe wrote:
    >
    > Sorry dude, no transit. 10 min auto drive to either of the nearest
    > two towns, much like most of the US. When I lived in or worked in
    > Manhattan, I used transit but out here it doesn't work that way.
    > Just where to you happen to live?
    >
    > I owe you nothing. You want to ride a bike and live in the 19th
    > century, have at it. Just don't play the religious card. I am so
    > very happy for you that you never had a car. I know lots of people
    > in NYC that don't have cars, so what? In a city they don't make a
    > lot of sense. Try moving out of your little urban bubble and get
    > back to me.

    I don't think the folks in the cities are the ones living in
    "bubbles." Suburbs are away from the city and don't connect via mass
    transit to keep out the so-called riff raff. Wouldn't want your
    darling little children to be exposed to real life, now would you?

    Quoted message said:

    I lived there and worked in Manhattan for over 30 years, all four my
    kids grew up in NYC one is a member of NYFD. Get off your f-ing horse
    clown.

    What do your kids that have to do with the complete lack of planning of
    suburban developments around the country? Are they going to rebuild the
    connected neighborhoods and poor infrastructure?

    Hey mindless one! You brought up the kids and the city dipstick. Are
    you unable to keep your thoughts straight?

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Unlike you and people like you, I do understand the real world.

    You think riding a bike is regressing to the 19th century, while
    needlessly driving is perfectly ethical? Oh yeah...that's "real."

    For those that proclaim that "bike riding" is the only way, yes I do
    consider that regressing to the 19th Century. The modern world simply
    can't exist that way with the population levels and demand for food, and
    the new necessities of life. What did you eat for dinner the past three
    or four days? Did it come by bike? Did you grow it in your urban back
    yard.?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > I care for the environment but I exist in a real world where a
    > modern lifestyle and concern for planet Earth are not incompatible.

    We'll see.

    Quoted message said:

    Paulie, it isn't either -

    Huh? Either what?

    Reading problem? "either - or" was the statement

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    or as you and the rest of the goreistas would proclaim. Ride your
    bike, proclaim your religion from the minarets, the net effect that
    you will have over the next 50 years will amount to nada!

    Goreistas? wft are you talking about?

    You know, chicken little syndrome!

    How is this a response to "we'll

    Quoted message said:

    see [if "modern lifestyles and concern for planet Earth are not
    incompatible"]? Chillax, psycho.

    I don't have to explain that, you understood exactly what I said.
    Further, since you seem to be the delusional one, the psycho is
    mis-directed.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Rational thought

    Something you seem to have momentarily left somewhere.

    Not me little boy.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    will prevail and a workable compromise will balance things out.

    Of course it will, so long as someone is working towards that end. Tell
    me, are you?


    Since long before your were born in all likelihood.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But in the meantime, enjoy your [hyperbole ommitted] life.

    And you do the same.

    Whatever floats your fantasy.

    Joe

  13. BigPurdueFan said:
    Bill said:
    BigPurdueFan said:

    On Apr 21, 9:40 am, "Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]>
    wrote:
    > "BigPurdueFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > news:[email hidden]...
    >> On Apr 20, 3:05 am, Jym Dyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>> =v= Cars do so much harm to the environment that the cost of
    >>> running them, already high, must be propped up even further
    >>> with hidden subsidies. In fact, they are operated at such
    >>> a high cost that it is more accurate to say that those using
    >>> alternative transportation are subsidizing THEM. Bikes more
    >>> than anyone else, of course.
    >> Now that's funny.
    > Funny to you, maybe, but true. However, since I'm generally a generous
    > person, I don't mind supporting your motorist lifestyle. Just give me smile,
    > and a wave -- with all five fingers -- when you pass.
    I'd love to know how your bicycle riding supports my "lifestyle".


    We all pay taxes, don't we? Sales tax, gasoline tax, any tax usually
    goes to the general fund and gets spent by the parties in power.
    If you work, you pay taxes, no matter how you get there.
    Bill Baka

    Yes, and your taxes (why would you buy gasoline tax?) go to support
    the infrastructure of the country, among other things.

    Do you own a car?


    3 cars right now and only one running.
    1999 Mitsubishi, runs but has too many gimmicks/toys.
    1988 Mazda 323, needs an alternator (when it warms up a bit).
    1966 Chrysler, 440 engine being rebuilt (slowly).
    5 bikes, 2 ridable right now, 3 others being rebuilt.
    I live in the country, so I have parking space.
    My next project wants to be a 1964 (+/-) Ford Falcon that I can turn
    into a 40 MPG+ highway car, with no fancy electronics to give me
    trouble. Even a radio might be more than I want to deal with.
    I have the Mitsubishi for business trips where I want to look semi
    professional, the Mazda because the 5 speed stick is fun, and the
    Chrysler because it is just plain FAAAST. And 8 MPG around town.
    Bill Baka

  14. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Joe said:

    How do I carry a weeks groceries for a family of 3 or 4 on my bike?

    Heh. I come from a family of five. Being the youngest of
    two cycling and mechanically adept brothers, I guess I was
    blessed. My first bikes came with the proviso that I use
    them to contribute to the family; that included doing
    occasional grocery runs. I didn't mind. I also got to
    help out my brothers on their newspaper routes. Sometimes
    I'd be commissioned to ride down to the nearby Bader's Dutch
    Butter Cookies factory, or the Rotary Pie Factory or the
    Honey Cream Do-nut Factory to bring back a bunch of treats
    (the cheaper day-olds or cripples) for the family. And
    sometimes I'd be sent out to get a (late '50s/early '60s)
    $3 pot roast for the white tablecloth weekend dinner. Many
    times I wassent out to get spuds, eggs, or Bisto[tm] for those
    times when the gravy wouldn't aesthetically darken enough.

    I intuitively "get" that you'd like to ride a bike again.
    I encourage you to do so. You don't need any more
    justification than your desire. Feel free to give it a go,
    and just feel free. You don't have to become something other
    than what you already are. But your might become more of what
    you are, is. That can't be bad, eh? You don't have to be
    religious or political about it. At least, not until people
    start telling you why you shouldn't ride.

    cheers,
    Tom

    --
    Nothing is safe from me.
    Above address is just a spam midden.
    I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

  15. (Tom Keats) said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Joe said:

    How do I carry a weeks groceries for a family of 3 or 4 on my bike?

    Heh. I come from a family of five. Being the youngest of
    two cycling and mechanically adept brothers, I guess I was
    blessed. My first bikes came with the proviso that I use
    them to contribute to the family; that included doing
    occasional grocery runs. I didn't mind. I also got to
    help out my brothers on their newspaper routes. Sometimes
    I'd be commissioned to ride down to the nearby Bader's Dutch
    Butter Cookies factory, or the Rotary Pie Factory or the
    Honey Cream Do-nut Factory to bring back a bunch of treats
    (the cheaper day-olds or cripples) for the family. And
    sometimes I'd be sent out to get a (late '50s/early '60s)
    $3 pot roast for the white tablecloth weekend dinner. Many
    times I wassent out to get spuds, eggs, or Bisto[tm] for those
    times when the gravy wouldn't aesthetically darken enough.

    All of that is a far cry from carrying a week's worth of groceries for
    five or more on a bike.

  16. BigPurdueFan said:
    (Tom Keats) said:


    Heh. I come from a family of five. Being the youngest of
    two cycling and mechanically adept brothers, I guess I was
    blessed. My first bikes came with the proviso that I use
    them to contribute to the family; that included doing
    occasional grocery runs. I didn't mind. I also got to
    help out my brothers on their newspaper routes. Sometimes
    I'd be commissioned to ride down to the nearby Bader's Dutch
    Butter Cookies factory, or the Rotary Pie Factory or the
    Honey Cream Do-nut Factory to bring back a bunch of treats
    (the cheaper day-olds or cripples) for the family. And
    sometimes I'd be sent out to get a (late '50s/early '60s)
    $3 pot roast for the white tablecloth weekend dinner. Many
    times I wassent out to get spuds, eggs, or Bisto[tm] for those
    times when the gravy wouldn't aesthetically darken enough.

    All of that is a far cry from carrying a week's worth of groceries for
    five or more on a bike.

    Oh, is that all? I generally do that while carrying my two daughters
    with me. I don't have an up to date picture with the front child seat
    mounted, so you'll have to take my word for that part.

    http://members.arstechnica.com/x/zuvembi/Xtracycle_and_Aixi.jpg

    I can carry six full paper bags of groceries in the bags on the back
    (and have). If I was really pressed for space, I suppose I could add
    some wide loader racks (sold at Xtracycle.com), or put a box on the top
    of the snapdeck to carry more. Of course you can always use a trailer,
    but I prefer the singletrack ease of use of the Xtracycle.

    With the wheels I've built for it, I figure I can carry two or three
    hundred pounds over and above rider weight. Of course for really heavy
    loads, you'd probably want a StokeMonkey.

    http://cleverchimp.com/products/stokemonkey/

    --
    Dane Buson - [email hidden]
    Remember that whatever misfortune may be your lot, it could only be
    worse in Cleveland.
    -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

  17. Dane Buson said:
    BigPurdueFan said:
    (Tom Keats) said:

    Heh. I come from a family of five. Being the youngest of
    two cycling and mechanically adept brothers, I guess I was
    blessed. My first bikes came with the proviso that I use
    them to contribute to the family; that included doing
    occasional grocery runs. I didn't mind. I also got to
    help out my brothers on their newspaper routes. Sometimes
    I'd be commissioned to ride down to the nearby Bader's Dutch
    Butter Cookies factory, or the Rotary Pie Factory or the
    Honey Cream Do-nut Factory to bring back a bunch of treats
    (the cheaper day-olds or cripples) for the family. And
    sometimes I'd be sent out to get a (late '50s/early '60s)
    $3 pot roast for the white tablecloth weekend dinner. Many
    times I wassent out to get spuds, eggs, or Bisto[tm] for those
    times when the gravy wouldn't aesthetically darken enough.


    All of that is a far cry from carrying a week's worth of groceries for
    five or more on a bike.

    Oh, is that all? I generally do that while carrying my two daughters
    with me. I don't have an up to date picture with the front child seat
    mounted, so you'll have to take my word for that part.

    http://members.arstechnica.com/x/zuvembi/Xtracycle_and_Aixi.jpg

    I can carry six full paper bags of groceries in the bags on the back
    (and have). If I was really pressed for space, I suppose I could add
    some wide loader racks (sold at Xtracycle.com), or put a box on the top
    of the snapdeck to carry more. Of course you can always use a trailer,
    but I prefer the singletrack ease of use of the Xtracycle.

    With the wheels I've built for it, I figure I can carry two or three
    hundred pounds over and above rider weight. Of course for really heavy
    loads, you'd probably want a StokeMonkey.

    http://cleverchimp.com/products/stokemonkey/

    What is possible and what is reasonable are very different things.
    First off, unless I was on a very empty road, would I have two little
    kids on the bike like that. Hell, out here in a car with a steel shell
    around them, I need them in a safety seat, belted and if the Dems get
    elected, helmets.

    Man the tool maker, for a couple of million years. The tools get better
    and better, faster and faster. Why do you want to regress for the sake
    of regressing. Lets plow the fields by harnessing your wife to the
    plow, or a horse if you can afford it.

    I really do appreciate your desire to make a statement about
    conservation, greenness and over use of technology but keep things
    reasonable.

    Joe

  18. Dane Buson said:
    BigPurdueFan said:

    On Apr 23, 3:09 am, [email hidden] (Tom Keats) wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Heh. I come from a family of five. Being the youngest of
    two cycling and mechanically adept brothers, I guess I was
    blessed. My first bikes came with the proviso that I use
    them to contribute to the family; that included doing
    occasional grocery runs. I didn't mind. I also got to
    help out my brothers on their newspaper routes. Sometimes
    I'd be commissioned to ride down to the nearby Bader's Dutch
    Butter Cookies factory, or the Rotary Pie Factory or the
    Honey Cream Do-nut Factory to bring back a bunch of treats
    (the cheaper day-olds or cripples) for the family. And
    sometimes I'd be sent out to get a (late '50s/early '60s)
    $3 pot roast for the white tablecloth weekend dinner. Many
    times I wassent out to get spuds, eggs, or Bisto[tm] for those
    times when the gravy wouldn't aesthetically darken enough.

    Quoted message said:

    All of that is a far cry from carrying a week's worth of groceries for
    five or more on a bike.

    Oh, is that all? I generally do that while carrying my two daughters
    with me. I don't have an up to date picture with the front child seat
    mounted, so you'll have to take my word for that part.

    http://members.arstechnica.com/x/zuvembi/Xtracycle_and_Aixi.jpg

    I can carry six full paper bags of groceries in the bags on the back
    (and have). If I was really pressed for space, I suppose I could add
    some wide loader racks (sold at Xtracycle.com), or put a box on the top
    of the snapdeck to carry more. Of course you can always use a trailer,
    but I prefer the singletrack ease of use of the Xtracycle.

    With the wheels I've built for it, I figure I can carry two or three
    hundred pounds over and above rider weight. Of course for really heavy
    loads, you'd probably want a StokeMonkey.

    http://cleverchimp.com/products/stokemonkey/

    --
    Dane Buson - [email hidden]
    Remember that whatever misfortune may be your lot, it could only be
    worse in Cleveland.
    -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -

    Six bags aren't going to be close enough, and if you try to add more
    space, then you're slowing down traffic even more. Now you're just
    getting ridiculous.

  19. "Dane Buson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    BigPurdueFan said:
    (Tom Keats) said:


    Heh. I come from a family of five. Being the youngest of
    two cycling and mechanically adept brothers, I guess I was
    blessed. My first bikes came with the proviso that I use
    them to contribute to the family; that included doing
    occasional grocery runs. I didn't mind. I also got to
    help out my brothers on their newspaper routes. Sometimes
    I'd be commissioned to ride down to the nearby Bader's Dutch
    Butter Cookies factory, or the Rotary Pie Factory or the
    Honey Cream Do-nut Factory to bring back a bunch of treats
    (the cheaper day-olds or cripples) for the family. And
    sometimes I'd be sent out to get a (late '50s/early '60s)
    $3 pot roast for the white tablecloth weekend dinner. Many
    times I wassent out to get spuds, eggs, or Bisto[tm] for those
    times when the gravy wouldn't aesthetically darken enough.

    All of that is a far cry from carrying a week's worth of groceries for
    five or more on a bike.

    Oh, is that all? I generally do that while carrying my two daughters
    with me. I don't have an up to date picture with the front child seat
    mounted, so you'll have to take my word for that part.

    http://members.arstechnica.com/x/zuvembi/Xtracycle_and_Aixi.jpg

    That looks terribly unsafe to be on unprotected and in the street with 3000
    lb cars.

    How safe can it be with an overloaded bicycle and two kids?

    Christ, Britanny Spears was vilified and threatened to have her kids taken
    way for having them on her lap in a car.

    You have a choice to be on it. Do your kids have a choice? Do they
    understand the ramifications of getting hit by a 3000 lb car?

    Quoted message said:

    I can carry six full paper bags of groceries in the bags on the back
    (and have). If I was really pressed for space, I suppose I could add
    some wide loader racks (sold at Xtracycle.com), or put a box on the top
    of the snapdeck to carry more. Of course you can always use a trailer,
    but I prefer the singletrack ease of use of the Xtracycle.

    With the wheels I've built for it, I figure I can carry two or three
    hundred pounds over and above rider weight. Of course for really heavy
    loads, you'd probably want a StokeMonkey.

    http://cleverchimp.com/products/stokemonkey/

    --
    Dane Buson - [email hidden]
    Remember that whatever misfortune may be your lot, it could only be
    worse in Cleveland.
    -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

  20. Joe said:
    Dane Buson said:

    BigPurdueFan <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    All of that is a far cry from carrying a week's worth of groceries for
    five or more on a bike.

    Oh, is that all? I generally do that while carrying my two daughters
    with me. I don't have an up to date picture with the front child seat
    mounted, so you'll have to take my word for that part.

    http://members.arstechnica.com/x/zuvembi/Xtracycle_and_Aixi.jpg

    I can carry six full paper bags of groceries in the bags on the back
    (and have). If I was really pressed for space, I suppose I could add
    some wide loader racks (sold at Xtracycle.com), or put a box on the top
    of the snapdeck to carry more. Of course you can always use a trailer,
    but I prefer the singletrack ease of use of the Xtracycle.

    With the wheels I've built for it, I figure I can carry two or three
    hundred pounds over and above rider weight. Of course for really heavy
    loads, you'd probably want a StokeMonkey.

    http://cleverchimp.com/products/stokemonkey/

    What is possible and what is reasonable are very different things.
    First off, unless I was on a very empty road, would I have two little
    kids on the bike like that.

    An empty road is the worst place. Empty roads have cars going too fast
    and no witnesses. I ride in the city with lots of cars around with very
    little problems. Speeds are generally fairly low and people are used to
    watching out for other road users.

    Quoted message said:

    Hell, out here in a car with a steel shell around them, I need them in a
    safety seat, belted and if the Dems get elected, helmets.

    The statistics for bicycling fatalities are almost the exact same as for
    motor vehicle operators. You're more vulnerable, but your speeds are
    also much lower. I realize you're not familiar with the accident rates
    for cycling, noone would expect you to be.

    The end result is: Bicycling is not dangerous, and there is no reason to
    act like it is.

    Quoted message said:

    Man the tool maker, for a couple of million years. The tools get better and
    better, faster and faster. Why do you want to regress for the sake of
    regressing. Lets plow the fields by harnessing your wife to the plow, or a
    horse if you can afford it.

    Regress? I call it progress. I enjoy cycling and I don't enjoy
    driving. Your mileage may or may not vary of course. Why would I spend
    a huge amount of money every year upkeeping a car when I can do most
    things by bicycle with very little extra bother?

    Quoted message said:

    I really do appreciate your desire to make a statement about conservation,
    greenness and over use of technology but keep things reasonable.

    Statement?!? Greenness?!? Hogwash! That's about tenth on my list of
    reasons to cycle. I certainly didn't start cycling for that reason, and
    it's not the reason I continue.

    My reasons look more like this:
    1. Enjoyment
    2. Exercise as part of everyday life [1]
    3. Money saving - I save a shedload of money by not having a second car.
    4. Ease of parking [3]
    5. I enjoy working on my bikes - I'm mechanically inclined
    6. The social aspect - I see and talk to people on my bike I would
    *never* get a chance to see in a car.[4]
    7. It is often faster. In many cases [5] I get home faster from work
    than the people driving.[6]
    8. Pastry - I eat pastry instead of filling my car with gasoline.
    9. Engineering reasons [7]
    10. I don't like driving. [8]
    11. Greeny-weeny reasons.

    Okay I lied, it's number eleven.

    [1] I used to weigh 280 lbs, I weigh about 200 now. My father and
    brother are both type II diabetics. [2]
    [2] Additionally I'm a computer programmer, so my everyday job is very
    sedentary.
    [3] No joke this. You try and fight for parking at my favorite Asian
    grocer with the little old Chinese ladies. F$#% that noise. I roll
    up and park right at the front of the store. Parking at Pike Place
    market is a dream on the bicycle.
    [4] Hi Claire!
    [5] Baseball games, snow, heavy rains, wind storms. This last winter
    many of my coworkers were trapped for many hours on roads completely
    jammed with traffic caused by downed trees and powerlines. One poor
    guy spent most of the night in his car. I rolled up to the downed
    sections picked up my bike, walked around, and was home about 15
    minutes later than usual.
    [6] The best case - where the highway was completely empty - it used to
    take me 25 minutes to get to work. It takes 40 minutes by bike. 30
    minutes extra a day. In return I get 80 minuts of quality exercise
    I enjoy. And of course on the many days where traffic was not so
    good it could take much much longer in the car.
    [7] Using a 3000 lb car to move a single 200 lb person from point to
    point is just an inefficient solution. It's always grated at my
    engineering sensibilities. Not to mention the huge amount of
    infrastructure needed.
    [8] I'm far too concious of just how much damage you can do with a car
    to yourself of other people. Driving is fine at 2am when I'm the
    only idiot on the road, but how often does that happen?

    --
    Dane Buson - [email hidden]
    "My country, right or wrong" is a thing that no patriot would think
    of saying, except in a desperate case. It is like saying "My mother,
    drunk or sober." - G.K. Chesterton, "The Defendant"

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.