 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / March 2008Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists
I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those near me. Anyway, the first "accident" (see book "It's No Accident") happened to a neighbor of mine who, like me, rides a scooter. Well, she started from the green light when a car ran the light and... smashed leg and who knows what else. Beautiful lady, beautiful no more. And she was lucky it wasn't an SUV with their raised "macho" bumpers... Well, the guy did stop (wasn't she lucky?) and was very sorry. But chances are he was speeding, or on the cell phone or trying to beat the light or everything at once. Everybody does it, right? Well the second incident was really minor compared to this one, but happened to my girlfriend with whom I was riding bike on the road... First thing a car comes real close to her and cuts her off while turning. I guess people riding bikes are not worth losing a few seconds, and they are simply ignored. Well sometimes they get noticed... Second thing she gets yelled at from an SUV, "a.shole!"... and my girlfriend gives her the finger (yes, she does it too) before doing the smart move (?) and taking the sidewalk. It would be so easy to put speed cameras on traffic lights and catch all those terrorists with a License to Kill. And that would take some politicians who make an issue out of traffic safety... or a revolution (see below), but that's another issue. In the meantime here's a debate from the past about terrorists and speed cameras in civilized places like Germany... "Red light camera solution?" "Big Boy" <bigboy6...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message news:20021106022800.05358.00002719@mb-fw.aol.com... : These systems intrigue (and disgust) me. : : I was doing a deja.com search and noticed : that they have them in Arizona. I am : in Idaho where fortunately we don't have : **** taking away even more of our : freedom. Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the law" that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security cameras in your place of business to protect you and your property? Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill anyone else I haven't really violated the law"? The real solution is very simple - obey the law. Then you can drive with a clear conscience and not have to worry about getting your picture taken. You can even save the cost of the hair spray... --- jb3 http://groups.google.com/group/az.general/browse_thread/thread/8efbe0e5a32de216/ 342f792fe8027559?hl=en&lnk=st&q=%22car+ran+the+light%22#342f792fe8027559 *** http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revoluti on%21&l4= WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION? http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution (other people say) > > > I've been saying for years that criminal drivers are the real > > > terrorists. Your chances of being killed or maimed by a speeder or > > > DUI are a thousand times greater than by some mad bomber. Americans > > > are such idiots for buying into this arab terrorism crap. > > My family have been a victim of both. I had a cousin killed on 9/11, and his > > father was killed by a mindless driver who ran a red-light. I only have to > > know that the first one exists. The second, I have to worry about, and watch > > for on a daily basis. Especially when I'm traveling on 2 wheels. > That's my point. Most of us have never been endangered by a terrorist > but we are endangered by by criminal drivers every day. And yet which > is the idiot american most concerned with.? Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden. Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's like they don't care... > Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one > time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's > like they don't care... You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is extremely unlikely. So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths. What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years is car to car digital communications. The communications between cars will be used to prevent accidents and deaths. Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive action an what action should be taken. In extreme cases the electronics in the cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the accidents. Instead of "Its like they don't care..." we have exactly the opposite where people care a lot and are putting a lot of money into developing solutions industry wide to make driving potentially very safe. In your ignorance of present activities, you have done nothing while the world has many people actually solving the problems. >> Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one >> time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the > accidents.[...] How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.  SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and > animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses. > If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will > make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians. We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road. That should not be hard once transponders become common. Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. Zero death is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large passenger jets. >> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and >> animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large > passenger jets. All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians >>> and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating > behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors. Scheiss, imagine Jack's tv shouting out, "Mr May, stop that or you will go blind!" SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, >>>> pedestrians and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Scheiss, imagine Jack's tv shouting out, "Mr May, stop that or you will > go blind!" That would only happen during a GM commercial. WTF is this thread doing in a transit group anyway? Jack's a troll. > >>>> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, > >>>> pedestrians and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the road... Driving tests and real-life driving (...) Politically, it is unpopular to suggest somebody who is physically impaired, who is emotionally unbalanced, or who is just plain stupid should not drive. But the fact is; bad driving causes lethal accidents and huge traffic jams every day, all across America. Bad driving wastes millions of gallons of fuel and adds tons of pollutants to our air. America's urban freeways are no place for the incompetent, and it is thousands of times less expensive and more effective to get lousy drivers off the road than it is to build ever-wider freeways and more elaborate junctions. A more difficult driving test will accomplish this. Driving tests can also reinforce common sense, patience, and respect for others... things which are increasingly rare on American roads. Current driving tests measure rudimentary knowledge of the rules of the road. At some point in a driver's life-usually very early- you must prove your ability to operate a vehicle under minimally difficult circumstances. Once licensed, many Americans are not road tested again for dozens of years. Adding cellular phones, babies, fast food, gigantic Sport Utility Vehicles, and other distractions on top of a general increase in traffic and average speeds-only brews more gridlock and carnage. (...) America must not shrink from hard decisions about where, when and who is fit to drive. We must get the incompetent, the angry, the thoughtless and the decrepit off the road. At the same time, we must provide the opportunity to learn driving skills for people who need to drive and are able to do it well, regardless of income level. Giving people options Increased transportation options for people who cannot drive must coincide with efforts to weed out lousy drivers. Forcing people out of their cars, with no way to get to work, breeds outlaws and joblessness. Some ways include: electric scooter and bicycle programs bike-trains high-speed rail By eliminating the small percentage of drivers who, for whatever reason, simply cannot cope with modern driving, we can reduce the estimated 6.6 billion gallons of gasoline wasted by Americans who were waiting in traffic in 1997, reduce the air pollution associated with that colossal waste, and reduce the amount of frustration on our roads in general. more... http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote44 On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Martin Edwards wrote: > > Tom Sherman wrote: > >> Jack May wrote: > >>>> Jack May wrote: >Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the >road... Wow what are really stupid goal. The public wants nothing to do with using bikes, public transportation, or any other alternative. All of those alternative are total failures with zero chance of replacing cars. Cars will be here long after you are dead. They will just being using alternative fuels instead of oil. The sophomoric crap at the end has been deleted... > On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The sophomoric crap at the end has been deleted... Yeah sure, just because fat lazy drivers are too stupid to consider other options, it doesn't mean they wouldn't change if traffic safety were to become a presidential issue or revolution whatever. "You can't fool all the people all the time" On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > >>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:fpiv5h$g12$5@registered.motzarella.org... >Yeah sure, just because fat lazy drivers are too stupid to consider >other options, it doesn't mean they wouldn't change if traffic safety >were to become a presidential issue or revolution whatever. Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of significance in life . As I said to you previously there is a lot of money and work going into developing cars that radically drop the death and accident rates. You have presented nothing that will be anywhere near as effective as what is now being developed. > On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of > significance in life . That's a reality they can see in the mirror. But they can always reverse it by riding a bike, walking whatever. Besides, some humor doesn't hurt. > As I said to you previously there is a lot of money and work going into > developing cars that radically drop the death and accident rates. You have > presented nothing that will be anywhere near as effective as what is now > being developed.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, the Germans and Nordics seem to emphasize *safety now*, not in some distant future. People are needless dying now as we speak. AND WE EVEN HAVE SOME HIGH TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE *NOT* PUT TO USE. Case in point is the steering wheel immobilizer that senses the alcohol in your breath. That would be a nice way to prevent DUIs, but like the book "It's No Accident" states, the government turns a blind eye to it. Too much money --and too many lawyers and MADD-- involved in that business. >> On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > reverse it by riding a bike, walking whatever. Besides, some humor > doesn't hurt. No, but where Jack is concerned, it is entirely superfluous. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just > call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > presented nothing that will be anywhere near as effective as what is now > being developed. Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. In the rest of the world, transit systems have been developed that are competitive with driving, and therefore render these expensive highway systems unnecessary in the first place. Signature-Glennl e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317. > > Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just > > call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. Another bald-faced lie. > In the rest of the world, transit systems have been developed that are > competitive with driving, and therefore render these expensive highway > systems unnecessary in the first place. And a second bald-faced lie. > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. > > In the rest of the world, transit systems have been developed that are > competitive with driving, and therefore render these expensive highway > systems unnecessary in the first place. What the hell are you talking about. In Europe cars are almost 90% of the travel and transit is only a little over 10%. What you are saying is totally nuts. As you look at poorer countries, the amount of transit or motorcycles goes up, but car usage goes up as individual income goes up. In the very poorest countries they can't even afford transit and people walk for most things which of course keeps them poor. Even in extremely dense Asian countries, the percent of travel using transit continues to drop. As I have said before, transit market share all over the world is dropping 10% to 15% per decade. No where , except in isolated cases, is transit seen as superior to roads and a replacement for roads. > > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > world is dropping 10% to 15% per decade. No where , except in isolated > cases, is transit seen as superior to roads and a replacement for roads. The comments are absurd and I think the poster knows it. However, he remains compulsively addicted to wishes not facts. >> > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are >> > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The comments are absurd and I think the poster knows it. However, he > remains compulsively addicted to wishes not facts. You're right. Jack's comments are wishful thinking. >> The comments are absurd and I think the poster knows it. However, he >> remains compulsively addicted to wishes not facts. > > You're right. Jack's comments are wishful thinking. Very childish cheap shot. What I presented are facts not the lies crap that you spew with absolutely no basis for what you say. >>> The comments are absurd and I think the poster knows it. However, he >>> remains compulsively addicted to wishes not facts. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Very childish cheap shot. What I presented are facts not the lies crap > that you spew with absolutely no basis for what you say. Cheap shot or not, it happens to be quite true. http://tinyurl.com/yvnacq >> Very childish cheap shot. What I presented are facts not >> the lies crap that you spew ... > Cheap shot or not, it happens to be quite true. =v= Jack is apparently unaware that, by definition, part of what makes a "cheap shot" so cheap is that it's not only quite true, but *obviously* quite true. (So obviously true, in fact, that it's considered unfair to bring up that truth.) <_Jym_> >>> Very childish cheap shot. What I presented are facts not >>> the lies crap that you spew ... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that it's considered unfair to bring up that truth.) > <_Jym_> Sorry <hanging head> > The comments are absurd and I think the poster knows it. However, he > remains compulsively addicted to wishes not facts. That's true. Jack is quite full of sh.t. But do you think he has you beat? You're a veteran! In Europe cars are almost 90% of the > travel Prove it. >> In Europe cars are almost 90% of the travel > Prove it. =v= Oooh, this is gonna be good. Remember the last time Jack May cited a source? It said the exact opposite of what he was arguing. (He was arguing against induced traffic/traffic evaporation.) <_Jym_> P.S.: Note that I've removed rec.bicycles.rides from the Newsgroups: header, as this is totally off-topic for that newsgroup. > In Europe cars are almost 90% of the > > travel > > Prove it. Data sources going back 20 years show the same intercity patterns. >> In Europe cars are almost 90% of the >>> travel >> Prove it. > > Data sources going back 20 years show the same intercity patterns. Intercity. What about intracity? Since most people in Western Europe don't like to commute from city to city, intracity is much more important to them. >>> In Europe cars are almost 90% of the >>>> travel [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like to commute from city to city, intracity is much more important to > them. You missed the important question: What data? > >> In Europe cars are almost 90% of the > >>> travel [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > don't like to commute from city to city, intracity is much more > important to them. Travel patterns in the USA and Europe show differences only on long-distance train travel vs. airline travel, with about less than 10% difference even there. Of course, if you can hide passenger travel by loading costs onto money-losing freight service (like used to be done in the USA too), you can start to "prove" all kinds of things. >>>> In Europe cars are almost 90% of the >>>>> travel [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > loading costs onto money-losing freight service (like used to be done in the > USA too), you can start to "prove" all kinds of things. So what you are saying is that people in Western Europe, have 2-3 SUV's in the driveway. Routinely drive 25 or more miles to work and on the weekends drive 100 miles to visit Grandma? > Travel patterns in the USA and Europe show differences only on > long-distance train travel vs. airline travel, with about less than 10% > difference even there. Of course, if you can hide passenger travel by > loading costs onto money-losing freight service (like used to be done in the > USA too), you can start to "prove" all kinds of things. This statement is ridiculous: you can't hide "passenger travel" by "loading costs", least of all onto alleged "money-losing" services. Would you care to restate it, assuming you meant something else? SignatureMy real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB > Of course, if you can hide passenger travel by loading costs > onto money-losing freight service (like used to be done in > the USA too), you can start to "prove" all kinds of things. =v= The _Wall_Street_Journal_ just had an article about rail freight and how it takes a third as much oil as using trucks, and how that makes it economical. But hey, what does the _WSJ_ know about economics, anyway? =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with rail in the first place, but rising oil costs are starting to make some things undeniable. <_Jym_> > =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that > wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with > rail in the first place, but rising oil costs are starting to > make some things undeniable. There's also the massive subsidies to maintain the highway system in the first place -- you constantly see complaints that trucking is responsible for 90% of road wear, but pays very little of thath cost. -Miles SignatureAlliance, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third. >> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >first place -- you constantly see complaints that trucking is >responsible for 90% of road wear, but pays very little of thath cost. Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want to share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own dedicated routes. Tough for them. We would be much better off if rail had competitive carriers on all trackage and the tracks were run by a utility. >>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do > have to share with others.[...] Does a 5-axle truck with a gross weight of 80,000 pounds pay 5000 to 10,000 times as much as a sedan in taxes and tolls? If not, the truck is getting subsidized on how much fatigue damage it causes to the pavement. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >10,000 times as much as a sedan in taxes and tolls? If not, the truck is >getting subsidized on how much fatigue damage it causes to the pavement. As I understand it, that particular claim has not been shown to be true. If the tax needs to be changed, by all means lets make it fair to everyone, but that does not excuse the foolishness of our legislatures in letting taxes fall so much that we cannot take care of our roads. >>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > As I understand it, that particular claim has not been shown to be true. Really? So all the pavement design methods used by engineers in the US are wrong to a gross extent? That I refuse to believe. > If the tax needs to be changed, by all means lets make it fair to > everyone, but that does not excuse the foolishness of our legislatures > in letting taxes fall so much that we cannot take care of our roads. Well, in terms of geometric design and traffic through-put, the truck is only the equal to a few cars which makes the equivalent cost harder to calculate, but in terms of pavement damage we are talking fact, not made up numbers. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Really? So all the pavement design methods used by engineers in the US >are wrong to a gross extent? That I refuse to believe. No, the cost of trucks on roads is not 5,000 greater than autos because the cost of better pavement is not that much compared with the entire cost of the highway. Adding a few extra inches of higher quality pavement can easily be charged to trucks alone, but for pennies per gallon, not dollars. >> If the tax needs to be changed, by all means lets make it fair to >> everyone, but that does not excuse the foolishness of our legislatures [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >calculate, but in terms of pavement damage we are talking fact, not made >up numbers. but not thousandfold costs. > >> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that > >> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > had competitive carriers on all trackage and the tracks were run by a > utility. It would raise costs. >> >> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >> >> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >It would raise costs. I wouldn't have expected any other response from you. Please explain how it is cheaper to have one monopoly carrier or two competing carriers with separate tracks. Show your work. > Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do > have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want to > share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own > dedicated routes. What a completely bizarre way to think of it... It's not like the trucking companies actually _built_ anything, the _government_ built, and maintains, the highways, the trucks just take advantage of them. The common complaint (I have no idea whether it's true) is that the trucking companies in fact _don't_ "pay their share" -- though they pay various taxes and fees, those are nowhere near enough to compensate for the wear caused by trucks, so in effect, government highway subsidies also (and particularly) subsidize trucking companies. Rail shipping companies, to the best of my knowledge, receive no subsidy at all from the government, and of course pay taxes on their huge infrastructure. -Miles Signature"Most attacks seem to take place at night, during a rainstorm, uphill, where four map sheets join." -- Anon. British Officer in WW I >>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > had competitive carriers on all trackage and the tracks were run by a > utility. The system that has failed so spectacularly in the British privatisation. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >The system that has failed so spectacularly in the British privatisation. Why did it fail in the UK? Did the regulators let the utility ignore its duty to maintain the tracks? Did it charge too much? >>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Why did it fail in the UK? Did the regulators let the utility ignore its > duty to maintain the tracks? Did it charge too much? Last time I was in the UK, the rail system looked to be working just fine... >>>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Last time I was in the UK, the rail system looked to be working just fine... There are some very good train operators, notably Chiltern Trains, but see the reply which should come in above. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Why did it fail in the UK? Did the regulators let the utility ignore its > duty to maintain the tracks? Did it charge too much? Both. Despite that the corporation called Railtrack went bust, and a lot of stock market virgins who had not been warned that share capital is risk capital got burned. In the great tradition of Friedmanism many of these were seniors who lost their life savings. In the few examples of train operators running competitive services, the cheaper ones were removed to make more slots for the big companies, notably the egregious Virgin Trains, not a corporation but a partnership of five people led by the notorious Richard Branson. The trackage was renationalized in all but name, while the routes were recently refranchised. The architect of this fiasco was the last Tory Prime Minister, John Major: it was actually a privatisation too far for Margaret Thatcher. The network of Womens' Institutes, well known for their cultural if not overt political conservatism, were investigated for Communist influences when they asked soem awkward questions about it. Mr Major still sits for the safest Tory seat in Parliament. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > Virgin Trains, not a corporation but a partnership of five people led by > the notorious Richard Branson. Is Richard Branson notorious? I thought he was rather admired in general... > The architect of this fiasco was the last Tory Prime Minister, John > Major: it was actually a privatisation too far for Margaret Thatcher. I never quite figured out why John Major was ever prime minister in the first place -- nobody seemed to like him, he didn't appear to be very smart, and he wasn't even charismatic or stylish (those huge glasses of his...)! He was just sort of .... there. -Miles SignatureP.S. All information contained in the above letter is false, for reasons of military security. >> Virgin Trains, not a corporation but a partnership of five people led by >> the notorious Richard Branson. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -Miles That's about it. Having the fewest discernible characteristics, he was the least hated. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, > but they do have to share with others. =v= Without any numbers (accurate ones), this is a completely meaningless observation. The standard design manual calculates road damage as proportional to the fourth power of the weight on the axle, and this is thought to be a low estimate (by an order of magnitude, even). =v= As for sharing with others, it's not the trucker suffering the most damage when that sharing doesn't work out -- and that damage additionally inflicts higher costs than those inflicted by other road users. <_Jym_> > Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do > have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want to > share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own > dedicated routes. Tough for them. Railroads are common carriers, and have to accept any cargo offered. They were set up that way to they have one operating/financial entity, and can avoid the chaos of multiple operators, which would reduce productivity. The competitors are the truckers. > We would be much better off if rail had competitive carriers on all > trackage and the tracks were run by a utility. No we wouldn't. >> Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do >> have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want to >> share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own >> dedicated routes. Tough for them. > >Railroads are common carriers, and have to accept any cargo offered. But they are not regulated as common carriers as they were. >They were set up that way to they have one operating/financial entity, >and can avoid the chaos of multiple operators, which would reduce >productivity. The competitors are the truckers. Now we have the chaos of poor handoffs from one carrier to another. >> We would be much better off if rail had competitive carriers on all >> trackage and the tracks were run by a utility. > >No we wouldn't. >>> Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they >>> do have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But they are not regulated as common carriers as they were. They are still common carriers, even if the economic regulation has been reduced from the time they were monopolies. With truck competition, such regulation is no longer necessary for the most part, and hadn't been necessary for 50 years prior to deregulation in the 1970s. >> They were set up that way to they have one operating/financial entity, >> and can avoid the chaos of multiple operators, which would reduce >> productivity. The competitors are the truckers. > > Now we have the chaos of poor handoffs from one carrier to another. So by adding more carriers, you feel that the additional handoffs would somehow be improved? I can just imagine the chaos of several operators trying to work in the same marshalling yard at the same time. > > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > travel and transit is only a little over 10%. What you are saying is > totally nuts. You have made this comment many times before and have been proven wrong. For the most part, this is because the numbers you choose to look at include eastern Europe, which is still in transition to a more wealthy society. Also, you are looking at statistics for entire countries, whereas when I say "successful transit systems" it means systems that operate in specific areas. Let's take the Stassbourg, France streetcar line: average speed 14 mph when operating in downtown streets. This is over twice as fast as the similar lines that have opened here in the northwest (Portland, Tacoma and Seattle all operate about 6 mph), mostly due to better route planning. For downtown street traffic, that 14 mph average speed is reasonably competitive with driving. Strassbourg's streetcar line gets about 10 times the ridership that our line here in Portland does. > As you look at poorer countries, the amount of transit or motorcycles goes > up, but car usage goes up as individual income goes up. In the very > poorest countries they can't even afford transit and people walk for most > things which of course keeps them poor. I'll bet I've spent far more time in such places than you ever will. > Even in extremely dense Asian countries, the percent of travel using transit > continues to drop. As I have said before, transit market share all over the > world is dropping 10% to 15% per decade. No where , except in isolated > cases, is transit seen as superior to roads and a replacement for roads. Naturally, in places where people are starting to own cars for the first time, their use is increasing. Looking at the entire continent of Asia (much of which is still developing) obscures the statistics of what has been done in places that actually have money (Japan, for example), and have developed good alternatives to driving. Signature-Glennl e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317. > > > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > > > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You have made this comment many times before and have been proven wrong. Now you are back to your "I've proven you wrong" rant, when your only evidence is your pathetic comments you know are fake from the start. Then you state everyone but you misquotes sources and so forth and so on. > > > > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > > > > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > evidence is your pathetic comments you know are fake from the start. Then > you state everyone but you misquotes sources and so forth and so on. Neither you nor Jack has quoted any sources, so I have not made any such claims about misquoted sources. One can't argue with statistics that appear out of nowhere. I am only providing a blanket statement as to why such a figure that covers "Europe" (which, by the geographical definition, nearly 50% of which is made of Russian farmland) which Jack provided isn't particularly relevant to urban areas of western Europe. OK, so maybe the correct way of phrasing what I wrote shouldn't be "You have made this statement before many times and been proven wrong." This is considerable oversimplification, but it is also in response to a statistic that is irrelevant to the statement I typed. What I should have said was "You have made this statement before many times, which has been proven irrelevant." The statement that Jack May has made before and has been proven incorrect has been the statements that "Transit use is declining all over Europe." He was able to prove that market share in all of Europe (including areas that are still transitioning out of communism) is decreasing, which is to be expected. However, what was shown to be true is that in many areas of western Europe (that is, locations where efforts are being made to improve the quality of transit and auto ownership is well established) that transit market share is actually increasing. So, the statement of cars being 90% of the travel in Europe isn't necessarily incorrect, but it is a completely inaccurate picture that is presented in response to my statements of what is really going on. Signature-Glennl e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317. On Feb 27, 12:44 pm, "Jeremy Parker" <JeremyPar...@compuserve.com> wrote: > How old is that movie? I thought that the Dutch had given up bicycle > master plans fourteen years ago. I didn't see any statistics later [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Jeremy Parker > London UK The goals at the end of the film are set for 2010... I reproduce here an article on what it would take for North America (or the UK) to become bicycle friendly. Short of a major overhaul of our roads (which would take nothing less than a revolution) I propose that cars are subject to a 20mph limit on the right (left) lane -- enforced by speed cameras. But that would take another revolution in priorities, wouldn't it? What "Bike Friendly" Looks Like (Bicycle Neglect #4) Posted by Alan Durning on 05/17/2007 at 06:30 PM What if cities had no sidewalks and everyone walked on the road? Or, for urban recreation, they walked on a few scenic trails? What if the occasional street had a three-foot-wide "walking lane" painted on the asphalt, between the moving cars and the parked ones? Well, for starters, no one would walk much. A hardy few might brave the streets, but most would stop at "walk?! in traffic?!" Fortunately, this car-head vision is fiction for pedestrians in most of Cascadia, but it's not far from nonfiction for bicyclists. Regular bikers are those too brave or foolish to be dissuaded by the prospect of playing chicken with two-ton behemoths. Other, less-ardent cyclists stick to bike paths; they ride for exercise, not transportation. Bike lanes, in communities where they exist, are simply painted beside the horsepower lanes. Cascadians react reasonably: "bike?! in traffic?!" And they don't. "It's not safe" is what the overwhelming majority of northwesterners say when asked why they bike so little. (As it turns out, it's safer than most assume--on which, more another day.) So what would Cascadia's cities look like if we provided the infrastructure for safe cycling? What does "bike friendly" actually look like? Good bicycling infrastructure is something few on this continent have seen. It doesn't mean a "bike route" sign and a white stripe along the arterial. It doesn't mean a meandering trail shared with joggers, strollers, and skaters. Bike friendly means a complete, continuous, interconnected network of named bicycle roads or "tracks," each marked and lit, each governed by traffic signs and signals of its own. It means a parallel network interlaced with the other urban grids: the transit grid on road or rail; the street grid for cars, trucks, and taxis; and the sidewalk grid for pedestrians. It means separation from those grids: to be useful for everyone from eight year olds to eighty year olds, bikeways on large roads must be physically curbed, fenced, or graded away from both traffic and walkers. (On smaller, neighborhood streets, where bikes and cars do mingle, bike friendly means calming traffic with speed humps, circles, and curb bubbles.) Picture a street more than half of which is reserved for people on foot, bikes, buses, or rail; on which traffic signals and signs, street design, and landscaping all conspire to treat bicycles as the equals of automobiles. This is what bike friendly--what Bicycle Respect-- looks like. Such "complete streets" are common in Denmark, the Netherlands, and other northern European countries. This photo is from Copenhagen, which has more than 200 miles of "bicycle tracks" and another 40 miles planned or under construction. (Photo courtesy of Jayson Antonoff, International Sustainable Solutions. See more photos here.) These tracks, which are typically above street grade and below sidewalk grade, can move six times more people per meter of lane width than motorized lanes of Copenhagen traffic. That's right: because cyclists can travel close together, bike tracks have higher traffic "throughput" than do car lanes. Copenhagen has even synchronized its traffic signals--for bikers. An average-speed bike commuter going downtown will rarely see a red light. more (pictures and comments)... http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/05/17/what-201cbike-friendly20 1d-looks-like-bicycle-neglect-4 On Feb 29, 11:22 pm, "David White" <wlightn...@att.net> wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > grocery store because we don't have any farms growing product to put in the > stores....... What we really need is OPTIONS... It's such a wonderful word, even more democratic than electing some president every 4 years, who, more often than not, ignores most of his electoral promises. In this case, it would mean a motorized vehicle for you, and a bicycle for me. But it can even mean some bicycling for you and some motoring for me. Also you must realize that most people who live in the boondocks don't farm anything nor have any other need for it. It's commonly known as the sprawl. It's a big problem in America as much as the car monopoly. > <gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > poorest countries they can't even afford transit and people walk for most > things which of course keeps them poor. If you were right, Miami (or any major American city) would be a car paradise, and Curitiba, Brazil, would be a total failure. Well, I got news for you: Miami is a traffic jungle and Curitiba is a model city. I guess you were joking, right? Sustainability in the Big City: What Chicago can learn from Curitiba Carmen Vidal-Hallett and Mark Hallett What would a city planned by architects look like? Imagine a city where plum public projects go to leading architects, resulting in stunning modern work. Where older buildings are protected by law but incentives are also in place to encourage development too. Old theatres, factories and even old train stations are renovated to become popular shopping malls. Municipal buildings such as public schools and even luxury hotels optimize the use of natural resources by maximizing natural light and utilizing all kinds of simple methods of energy conservation. Sound nice? But there's more: Imagine a public transit system so efficient that when you go to work in the morning you can jump on modern buses that go by every 30 seconds, speeding along commercial, high density streets in exclusive central lanes, stopping at futuristic tubular mini-stations. Imagine a city where you can ride your bike for over 100 km of routes through native forests. Through dedicated parks with cultural elements from both native and European immigrant cultures, past restored waterways, listening to birds along the way. Imagine that nearly everyone is careful about separating their trash into different recycling bins. Children learn about the environment in school and become enforcers on the domestic front. And the poor can can exchange recyclable garbage for organic produce from local farms. Well, the city exists. And it has done all of the above, largely turning around an unremarkable urban history to become a leading innovator in planning over the past 35 years. And it has done so while facing astronomical population growth, primarily an influx of rural poor. The city is Curitiba, Brazil. And architects have played a significant role there since the late 1960's: recent Mayors include several architects, and the city's department of planning employs hundreds of architects. In fact, when you talk with planners in Curitiba, more often than not they'll pull out pad and paper and begin to sketch what they're discussing. http://www.aia.org/nacq_a_051013_outside_vidalhallet > On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Martin Edwards wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > will be here long after you are dead. They will just being using > alternative fuels instead of oil.[...] Too bad we are stuck with inferior people that prefer motor vehicles to bicycles. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >> On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Martin Edwards wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Too bad we are stuck with inferior people that prefer motor vehicles to > bicycles. Heh. Tom Sherman = Bizzaro Jack May? >>> On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Martin Edwards wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Heh. Tom Sherman = Bizzaro Jack May? I Ride Bike, Therefore I Am. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > [...] > Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public > transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the > road[...] Superior people prefer to ride a bicycle. I am counting down the days to a move that will allow to commute by bicycle! SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > That would only happen during a GM commercial. WTF is this thread doing > in a transit group anyway? Jack's a troll. Because "donquijote1954" likes to link to a large number of newsgroups. > All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders - > then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating > behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors. You mean like with present cell phones and WiFi which is much more powerful than is being planned for car to car communication over a short range of hundreds of feet. You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do. >> All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders - >> then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too > ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do. Despite the continued use of the word "democracy" SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>> All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the >>> transponders - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Despite the continued use of the word "democracy" Watch it. Subtlety flies over his amazing genius head too. OK, since the subject here is ROAD TERRORISM, it may be useful to know what the color code on our roads is... (quoted from 'It's No Accident') Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, officials in the Bush Administration have been issuing routine reminders about the threads posed by terrorists and urging us to be on the lookout for suspicious activity. In March 2002 the Department of Homeland Security introduced a color-coded terror system to alert law enforcement officials and the general public to increases in the level of "chatter" the goverment intercepts from suspected terror cells. We are urged to take extra precautions when the threat level is elevated. (...) Such efforts to alert the public to the potential for future attacks and encourage us to be prepared may indeed save some lives. On a day- to-day basis, however, the greatest threat to our individual safety is the same as it was before September 11th: DANGEROUS DRIVERS. If a color-coded system were adopted today to warn Americans of the risk of impending death or injury while traveling the nation's roads, we would have to be on CODE RED alert every single day. In spite of this reality, the government makes little effort to inform the public about the high crash rate on our roads, remind motorists of the rules of the road, warn them of the risks inherent in all forms of dangerous driving, encourage safe driving, or condemn dangerous driving. [Warning: These terrorists are on the loose] > >> All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders - > >> then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Despite the continued use of the word "democracy" This is the best definition I've found... "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens" -Alastair Farrugia >> All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders - >> then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too > ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do. The fundies are drooling over a chance to enforce their sexual mores on everyone else. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and >> animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to > be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses. In my 'umble station in life I carry a phone which is only a phone. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and > >> animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management > decisions. -From "Rollerball" Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. In the future people will travel through the telephone lines!!! Imagine all the space left open on our congested roads. And, of course, then bicycles and scooters will not only be safe, they'll also be redundant. Did you see "The Matrix," how the lady disappears right on time to escape the bad guys through the telephone lines? And all that technology is being developed at this very minute by a Republican Administration that knows the future is up in the air. ;) > Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. In the future people will travel > through the telephone lines!!! Imagine all the space left open on our > congested roads. And, of course, then bicycles and scooters will not > only be safe, they'll also be redundant. Transporters have been built and are working. They work through tens of miles of fiber optics, not wires. Of course they only transport the states of atoms now using particle entanglement. Transporting people is way beyond what can be done now. > > How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and > > animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road. > That should not be hard once transponders become common. Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes. Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car. Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!! Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want. Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you. Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red- light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you get on to the nightly news. Transponders. Yeah, great idea. > Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road > that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. Zero death > is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large > passenger jets. On Feb 21, 12:03 am, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: > "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > road. > That should not be hard once transponders become common. Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes. Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car. Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!! Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want. Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you. Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red- light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you get on to the nightly news. Transponders. Yeah, great idea. ---------------------------------------- Scenario 6: You're cruising along at 90 and hit a deer that didn't get the memo about needing a transponder. Scenario 7: The government has some illicit activity going on somewhere (who knows what _already_ get up to, much less what they _would_ get up to if no one could get there) and they set up a set of transponders preventing anyone who might call it to the public's awareness from getting there. OK, as part of our presidential campaign (it's not for me: htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%... Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party... Banana Revolution. Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing accidents. I hope he's reading... ;) A drive toward fewer cars There are other ways to get from A to B By JANE HADLEY P-I REPORTER Steep gas prices. Flabby bodies cruising for diabetes and heart trouble. Global warming. Air pollution. If the pitfalls of automobiles aren't already enough to make you think about chucking your car for other ways of getting around, consider the growth that is in store for Seattle. In the next 19 years, the city expects 22,000 new housing units and 50,000 new jobs. Assuming the same percentage of people continued driving alone to work, the city estimates it would have to build 20 city blocks of 10- story parking garages downtown. "Nobody wants to do that," says Patrice Gillespie-Smith, chief of staff of the city's Department of Transportation. "We are very motivated to offer incentives to get people out of their cars." In 2000, 61 percent of all Seattle work trips were by someone driving alone. By 2020, the city's transportation strategic plan wants to knock that down to 55 percent. People tend to become more interested in shifting out of their cars if gas or parking prices escalate, and if alternatives to the car are reliable, affordable and convenient, experts say. But it often takes something unusual to inspire or shake people into the awareness of those alternatives, said David Allen, senior transportation planner for the city. A city program called "One Less Car Challenge" aims to do just that, Allen said. The program encourages people to give up use of one car for one month, offering commuters tips on getting around by bus, bike or foot and also providing the free use of a Flexcar when needed. Of the 86 people who signed up initially in the fall of 2003, 20 percent decided to give up a car and the rest have vowed to drive less, Allen said. "It proved people could do it," he said. And the city is hoping to encourage people to use cars less by making it more difficult to find places to park. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/258737_nocar08.html On Feb 21, 1:16 pm, "Christopher von Volborth" <cavolbo...@cinci.rr.com> wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So who is the ultimate judge of who is and who isn't capable of dealing with > the challenge of American motorized traffic? The jugde is common sense. Just get in line with what's being done in Western European countries. The Germans had a great idea > for dispensing with analogous social issues...they were called > concentration camps. So you think the SUV drivers are the poor victims of discrimination? The Germans also felt they were a superior race that was entitled to special rights --just like American consumers do. The soviets under Stalin were no less ambitious in > formulating the perfect society. You don't have to be ambitious, just practice the democratic principle that everyone is entitled to reasonable safety when doing the right thing. Not only they stay away from moral judgement, they make it impossible for those who want to do something (eg. ride a bike) for the environment. They Soviets are also spoke about a future that never came, just like Bush and his future "development of alternative energies," whatever that means. If he were a real leader he would encourage the people to SAVE and GET IN SHAPE. Why not? It's simply better to invade Iraq. No, the answer must be that everyone gets > the same opportunity to benefit from all that our culture has to offer. For > that reason we live in a society ruled by laws to ensure that we don't > descend into anarchy. The laws in my state says that bicycles are vehicles, which conflicts with the reality of unreasonable fear imposed on those who dare challenge our lawless roads. Those who break the law risk getting caught and > paying the consequences. When the possibilities are only 1 in 1000, people take chances. However if you were to put speed cameras, then would see real change. Some may not get caught, causing damage to others; > that is the inherent risk in humans being social animals. Some animals have much greater armor (SUVs) than others. Then you have to protect the little animals with special laws, not the big ones. They do it in Holland, for example. Therefore > intellectually motivated social engineering has, as far as I can glean from > my reading of human history, been a major repeated disaster. Are you talking about nation building in Iraq? By contrast, > Homo sapiens, like any other species, evolves by natural selection as it > strives to meet the challenges of environmental pressure, and that includes > the pressures of motorized traffic. Evolution is denied. New challenges have risen... only to be ignored by the powers that be. Case in point, CLIMATE CHANGE. The dinosaurs are ignoring this important law proposed by Darwin himself... "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." The call for "...eliminating the small > percentage of drivers...who cannot cope with driving," must also be mindful > of potential broader consequences that are as yet unforseeable. Sure, a total catastrophe where the whole country could look like Key West at worst and Holland at best. For the > present, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen...if you're > afraid of traffic stay off the road. Me? I've got my stationary bike. The bikes are gathering rust. But still ride my scooter. Too much fun. Have you noticed how the lion has a set of priorities different from the little animals --even when it means life or death to them? "United States - The death toll on our highways makes driving the number one cause of death and injury for young people ages 5 to 27. Highway crashes cause 94 percent of all transportation fatalities and 99 percent of all transportation injuries, yet *traffic safety programs receive only one percent of the funding of the U.S. DOT budget*. The staggering loss of life and the incidence of life- threatening injuries occurring each year is best described as a public health crisis." http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm Here's the story of the lion... ;) HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite words... Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would have had to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more importantly, the little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as the quick way out of poverty..." And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle -- to the effect of exploring life in other planets... > OK, as part of our presidential campaign (it's not for me: > htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > A drive toward fewer cars > There are other ways to get from A to B Wow you really insist on showing the world how you are unable to comprehend anything about society and the real world. > > OK, as part of our presidential campaign (it's not for me: > > htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Wow you really insist on showing the world how you are unable to comprehend > anything about society and the real world. Why don't you take a vacation in Europe? They are also part of the real world. Actually, America is the only one that is different among developed nations. I wonder why. On Feb 22, 9:13 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I guess I just don't understand the whole concept of debating whether cars are good or bad. They are what they are: good for some and useless for others. And while I don't try to impose my view on you (speaking broadly here), I don't understand what right you have to impose your view on me. I like Rocky Road ice cream. That doesn't mean that you should too. It's personal preference and affordability and need and a phethora of other things. The gov't can clearly set some type of emissions standards for cars and can enforce them, although it is tougher to impose them retroactively on older cars. The government can control useage through tax policy. The government can also subsidize alternatives and promote research into alternatives. But when all is said and done, it is the individual consumer who decides what to buy and where to drive and how to use their vehicles. Market forces are incredibly hard to overcome. Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve. Whoever it is who keeps saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such. It's a real problem to consider yourself as riding a scooter. You're riding a motorcycle. Get it, a motorcycle. It's legal no different than a Harley or crotch-rocket (at least in the state's I am familiar with). If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then it's a motorcycle. If it doesn't have a plate, then it can't be on the road. If it's a motorcycle, then ride it like one. Get out in the lane. Maintain road speed. Use your lane to your advantage. Don't hug the shoulder. Otherwise, get off the road -- you're too dangerous. I have a fairly big bike but ride on expressways quite a lot and have to deal with tractor trailers and cars all the time. I've had very little trouble. In fact, I'd say that trucks are particularly careful around a bike. Thinks like overside loads with escort vehicles pay particular attention to bikes to make sure they don't hit the wind-blast wrong. But by the same token, when a truck doesn't have a covered load and has gravel coming off, I get on my CB and tell them. They normally apologize and don't realize what they are doing. Most promise they will rectify the problem and I believe them. For all the worrying about inattentive SUV drivers, I wonder if you aren't part of the problem. I've never found that to be an issue. Anyway, whoever it is. Stay safe and have fun. 2 months or so until I can get back on the bike. Too much snow right now. So my nice warm van is a comfort. > On Feb 22, 9:13 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > mean that you should too. It's personal preference and affordability > and need and a phethora of other things. Pat, I'm sure I told you before that I don't question the fact you drive a vehicle, not even the fact that you live in the boondocks (remember the word?), just that I assert my right to travel on two wheels in relative safety. And what I see out there is intimidating, intimidating enough to make my girlfriend take the sidewalk, and me give up the bicycle sport as an intolerable blood sport... > The gov't can clearly set some type of emissions standards for cars > and can enforce them, although it is tougher to impose them > retroactively on older cars. The government can control useage > through tax policy. Exactly. You got enough money to waste on gas, then pay a hefty price for SUVs. Call it "Global Warming tax" if you will. > The government can also subsidize alternatives and promote research > into alternatives. Sure. That tax above would pay for the subsidies. > But when all is said and done, it is the individual consumer who > decides what to buy and where to drive and how to use their vehicles. > Market forces are incredibly hard to overcome. Market forces are business forces manipulated from above. Nothing democratic about it. Other peoples drive smaller cars following "market forces," or better said, following higher gas prices. > Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve. Whoever it is who keeps > saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such. It's a real [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > are doing. Most promise they will rectify the problem and I believe > them. Truck drivers are real drivers. The best drivers in America. They have special license and training. > For all the worrying about inattentive SUV drivers, I wonder if you > aren't part of the problem. I've never found that to be an issue. I guess you don't know because you don't live in an urban environment. They are threat to others, just by being oversized. But the solution is NOT to ban them, but to have them get a truck license like above. Aren't SUVs trucks? (Quoted from 'It's No Accident." The items I disagree with, I put a question mark. Consider it a rough draft for the revolution's traffic safey policy, or simply an impossible dream for America) As to what should constitute gross negligence on the part of motorists, this is obviously the stikiest part of the equation. Some of what I believe constitutes gross negligence is perfectly legal right now. Other such behaviors net little more than a slap on the wrist. However, if our society is ever to get truly serious about elimination avoidable crashes on our roads, it is essential that we begin to distinguish between crashes that result from honest mistakes and those that result from INTENTIONAL DISREGARD FOR SAFETY. [my emphasis] Accordingly, any definition of gross negligence would, at minimum, include crashes that involve the following: - talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!] - driving more than 14mph over the speed limit - driving more than 9mph over the speed limit AND engaging in anyone of the following behaviors: taigating, attempting to pass another vehicle that is already traveling at the speed limit [?]*, running a solid red light, or running a stop sign - hit and run, etc... * I don't think anyone should play vigilante. Besides we can put speed cameras that do the job better, with less road rage. I'd add my own: - zigzagging around cars - driving too slow (15mph under the limit) - installing equipment that imperil other people, such as macho bumpers On Feb 22, 11:32 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > (Quoted from 'It's No Accident." The items I disagree with, I put a > question mark. Consider it a rough draft for the revolution's traffic [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > - talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a > newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!] Cell phones often make it safer to drive. Except for hands-free cell phones, all of the list is currently illegal. So what's you point. > - driving more than 14mph over the speed limit > > - driving more than 9mph over the speed limit AND engaging in anyone > of the following behaviors: taigating, attempting to pass another > vehicle that is already traveling at the speed limit [?]*, running a > solid red light, or running a stop sign I have no problem with enforcement. However, you're going to have to get the troopers to stop passing people. Have fun with that one. > - hit and run, etc... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - zigzagging around cars currently illegal. As is lane-sharing in all states except CA. > - driving too slow (15mph under the limit) min speed on an expressway is 45mph in most states. Besides, a law like that is unenforceable: bad weather, turning, stopping, agricultural, spec-com, scooters, bicycles and others often mean slower speeds. "Oh, I can't stop for the bus with the red lights on because I have to slow down for that". > - installing equipment that imperil other people, such as macho > bumpers illegal. Here's the problem that will haunt you and give you ulcers forever. All of the things you dislike are already illegal. So you're problem isn't with the law, its with the cops. So how is changing the law going to do anything? > > - talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a > > newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!] > > Cell phones often make it safer to drive. Except for hands-free cell > phones, all of the list is currently illegal. So what's you point. It's not illegal in most of the country. Again, you generalize by where you live. > > - driving more than 14mph over the speed limit > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have no problem with enforcement. However, you're going to have to > get the troopers to stop passing people. Have fun with that one. Everybody runs red lights where I live, except in the boondocks, of course, where's no red lights. In the Florida Keys they don't have much of a problem either. That's also the boondocks. > > - hit and run, etc... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > currently illegal. As is lane-sharing in all states except CA. They always zigzag where I live. And I guess it's the same for most of the country. I read So. Carolina is the worst. > > - driving too slow (15mph under the limit) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mean slower speeds. "Oh, I can't stop for the bus with the red lights > on because I have to slow down for that". When you see that happening all the time. You can predict with 90% accuracy they are on the phone. Or sometimes elder people. Time to retire, you know. > > - installing equipment that imperil other people, such as macho > > bumpers [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - 50% is changing the law, and 50% is enforcing it. But if you put cameras around, the cops (and lawyers) may become redundant. On Feb 22, 5:51 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > - talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a > > > newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!] [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > 50% is changing the law, and 50% is enforcing it. But if you put > cameras around, the cops (and lawyers) may become redundant. I think a better solution is to just move to the boondocks. We ain't got those problems. We once had a school bus drive complain that someone went past the bus' red lights 2 days in a row. On the third day, and unmarked cop car tailed the bus. No problems since then. That's about our level of excitement around here. You should try it some time. Wonderful way to live. No crowds. No conjestion. Low prices. Everything I want is nearby. You can't beat that. Oh, and my son's school has about 640 kids in it. No, not the grade. No, not the building. That's for the entire school district -- grades K to 12. > On Feb 22, 5:51 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If everybody moved to the boondocks, however, it would become just another suburban sprawl, which is the cause of our dependency on cars. Oh, for sure you will get those trying to beat the ligth everyday on their way to work. On Feb 22, 11:04 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 22, 9:13 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > is NOT to ban them, but to have them get a truck license like above. > Aren't SUVs trucks?- Hide quoted text - Yes, SUVs are trucks. So are minivans. So are Subarus. There is no real distinction except maybe bumper height. But you can go get a 20' Uhaul and drive it, too: You are the U in U-Haul. It's not someone- else-haul. Don't get intimindated on the road. That's probably 90% of your trouble. That, and acting unpredictably. As for boondocks. Yeah, great to live here. But I spend way too much time traveling to cities and suburbs. It's not the size of the cars that bother me, it's all of the people. The cars are fine. > On Feb 22, 11:04 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > Uhaul and drive it, too: You are the U in U-Haul. It's not someone- > else-haul. No, miss. SUVs are trucks and minivans are cars by the definition that makes SUVs get away with substandard safety, both to them and to others. They were too above the CAFE standards for the same reason. And you can also write them as work vehicles for similar reason, however twisted those definitions may be. > Don't get intimindated on the road. That's probably 90% of your > trouble. That, and acting unpredictably. Why don't you buy the book I've been using? That the roads are so dangerous is probably one good reason for some people to move to the boondocks. > As for boondocks. Yeah, great to live here. But I spend way too much > time traveling to cities and suburbs. It's not the size of the cars > that bother me, it's all of the people. The cars are fine.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If you only go to town occasionally, you may not notice the magnitude of the problem... (coment from 'It's No Accident') Lisa Lewis's total command of the issues surrounding traffic safety makes this a most credible book. She is at her best when she takes unconventional stances on matters that have long been somewhat sacrosanct in this country, such as pointing out the complicity of the insurance industry in undermining traffic safety, or the federal government's role in refusing to address traffic safety issues aside from seat belts and alcohol. Likewise, she points out any number of life-saving technologies already available that the powers-that-be refuse to even consider requiring on vehicles. *** I'm sure the bears where you live are not as dangerous as the dangerous drivers out there. You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the real subjects.... Cell phone driving = drunk driving... If one of your pet peeves is people driving and talking on the phone, now you have even more reason to be madd (sic). According to a study by University of Utah psychologists, people are actually more prone to creating an auto accident while talking on the phone than drunk drivers are. "Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive," writes David Strayer, a psychology professor and the study's lead author. "The level of impairment is very similar." The study, published in The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that drivers talking on cell phones, either handheld or hands-free, are more likely to crash because they are distracted by conversation. Using a driving simulator under four different conditions: 1) with no distractions, 2) using a handheld cell phone, 3) talking on a hands-free cell phone, and 4) while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level, 40 participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently. Researchers found that the drivers on cell phones drove more slowly, braked more slowly and were more likely to crash. In fact, the three participants who collided into the pace car were chatting away. None of the drunken drivers crashed. http://vibrantlivingnewsletter.blogspot.com/2006/07/cell-phone-driving-drunk-dri ving.html > You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk > drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the > latter may be just as dangerous as the former. I suspect this is true. For many years, when you saw a car acting "strangely" and it is 3 a.m., you could assume the driver was drunk. But these days, when it is 10 a.m. and a car is acting just as "strangely" when you ride alongside and peer in, the driver is talking on a cell phone. This has been my experience. I have no statistics to prove it. > > You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk > > drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > This has been my experience. I have no statistics to prove it. You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no relationship between cell phone use and driving. If anything, if you start to get tired, its better to call someone and have a chat and wake back up than to no do so. Besides, if you took all the phones away from people who use then while driving, how would the cops talk to each people? > You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no > relationship between cell phone use and driving. You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give up their guns before they gave up their cell phones. > > You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no > > relationship between cell phone use and driving. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give > up their guns before they gave up their cell phones. A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them. On Feb 23, 7:56 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote: > In article <ah5qpf.743...@vcn.bc.ca>, > > You can go ahead and thank your blessings for > > being able to get around in your car. Don't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In fact, due to the fact that public transit is subsidized and private > automobile use far overtaxed, my driving makes public transit possible. You also make safe bicycling impossible. A bicycle revolution is waiting to have some room to grow and prosper. This is the end of a great story, where the cyclists finally prevail, only to be the object of a counter-revolution lead by the polluting predators... 'Somewhere in a cave in some future time, when, I hope, earth above is full of flowers and trees and birds and bees and is not a desert, a group of clandestine worshipers will gather around the last, long- hidden gas guzzler to dream about tooling down the road and running cyclists off of the road. They will drink the ritualistic cans of beer and puff the ritualistic cigarettes and morn the days when men were men and the law of the jungle gave the right of way to the strong and the powerful. And they will swear a violent oath: "When I grow up, I'm never going to let anyone tell me what to do!" Then they will hurry home before their mothers notice that they still haven't done their homework.' http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/humor/planet.htm >>> You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no >>> relationship between cell phone use and driving. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them. NY does not allow HAND HELD use. They allow using a microphone. http://www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/phon-ndx.htm Hey, anonymous drivers with an addiction to gas, your vehicle causes death and mayhem. Just like if you drink and drive, when you talk on the cell phone, or any kind of reckless behavior, you carry a license to kill... Nikolas Barkelay Montreal, d. 22.September.2002, hit in traffic I wrote this on this night, Thursday September 26 2002, in honour of Nikolas Barkelay, following an over-hundred-strong bicycle courier critical mass here in Montreal, in memory of our fallen courier comrade... I am still moved tonight by the events that have transpired in the last week following Nikolas Barkelay's accident and death...an almost unknown bike messenger who died so sadly and so violently on his bike after barely 3 months in this noble trade...a young 22 year old who had a dream, which ended so suddenly, like shattered glass. A brave warrior for whom over 100 of us rode for, in his memory, on this evening tainted by sadness and recognition of the dangers we all face every day as bicycle messengers in this urban jungle we call home...over a hundred of us all upon our steel horses through the streets of downtown Montreal, escorted by Nikolas's grieving parents, no driver daring to honk at us as we are so used to during the day...a strangely respectful procession through town, on our bicycles, in memory of a fallen messenger who no one ever really got to know... ... "The number-one danger is people on cell phones," says Joe Hendry, the Toronto-based media spokesman for the International Federation of Bike Messengers' Associations, a five-year-old international advocacy organization that also puts on world championship races for couriers. "That and door prizes. I've heard about people getting into altercations, and I know one guy who had a cabbie throw a tire iron at him. But [careless car drivers] are the biggest causes of accidents for bike messengers." But not of fatalities. Hendry says that, "90 per cent of deaths are caused by a truck, a bus, a van or an SUV." http://www.ahalenia.com/memorial/nbarkelay.html "it is not uncommon to hear cyclists being told by cops that the 'law of the jungle' exists on the road." http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/1735 I just want drivers and authorities to acknowledge that there's such law at work on our roads and that we cyclists (and everything on two wheels or legs) are at the bottom of the food chain, and that we need special laws that protect us. By the way, the dangerous drivers are the predators of this jungle. On Feb 24, 1:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no > > > relationship between cell phone use and driving. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them. Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. What does it do? It makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law. So when our kids see it, they see us breaking the law. It teaches them that adults sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. It's an incredibly bad thing for the kids to see. But it's just a stupid, stupid law. > On Feb 24, 1:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. It's an incredibly > bad thing for the kids to see. But it's just a stupid, stupid law. I don't know of any state that has outlawed cell phones while driving. But you ought to know that yours is a pretty poor argument. Some people use that same argument when talking about the outlawing of crack. Do you think crack should be legalized because of that argument? > > On Feb 24, 1:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But the cops are going down the road blatantly using crack, like they are cell phones. Once. they argued the same things about car radios. >Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. Especially when distracted driving is already illegal, and rarely enforced. Cell phones aren't the problem, drivers with poor attention division skills and no situational awareness are. Those folks are just as distracted by passenger conversation, other cars, scenery, the radio, etc... While flying an airplane, I fly the airplane, navigate, and talk to controllers, in that order. Driving is the same. I can talk on the phone, but my conversation is less important than the operation of the vehicle. Specific road and traffic conditions dictate if a call is safe to carry on at all. If I need to have serious, in-depth conversation, I need to pull off the road. If driving attention warrants, the call needs to go on hold or end. If the laws on the books are actually enforced, another is not needed. On Feb 24, 5:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchr...@DunderMifflin.com> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:36:01 -0800 (PST), Pat > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > If the laws on the books are actually enforced, another is not needed. I said before we need better laws and better enforcement, which is the way to stop the road terrorists... Would you allow known terrorists to run around with bombs? Well, cell phones are such a thing in the hands of dangerous drivers. On Feb 24, 6:46 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 5:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Get off your high horse. You're being ridiculus. > On Feb 24, 6:46 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Not so, a life is a life. And those dying in our roads because of dangerous drivers are no less heroes than those dying in Iraq. Actually more so... On Feb 24, 5:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchr...@DunderMifflin.com> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:36:01 -0800 (PST), Pat > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > If the laws on the books are actually enforced, another is not needed. Yeah, a voice of reason. > On Feb 24, 1:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. It's an incredibly > bad thing for the kids to see. But it's just a stupid, stupid law. I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned in other countries? Cell phone policies in different countries and states... http://www.cell-block-r.com/BannedPhones.htm > I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned > in other countries? > > Cell phone policies in different countries and states... > > http://www.cell-block-r.com/BannedPhones.htm "This page lists those countries that have banned the use of a cell phone when driving unless used with some form of hands-free kit." So that's a pretty useless page. It's the conversation and the dialing that is the distraction, not driving with one hand. In the US, I think only California will have a law totally banning them while driving. Watching TV while driving has been illegal forever (the TV was legal, but it had to be placed so that the driver couldn't watch), but I've noticed a few drivers have installed TV's where they can see them anyway. >> I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned >> in other countries? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It's the conversation and the dialing that is the distraction, not driving > with one hand. In the UK it is illegal to dial a cell phone while driving. > > I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned > > in other countries? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > watch), but I've noticed a few drivers have installed TV's where they > can see them anyway. A lot of good things happening in California ever since Conan is the boss. I'm sure it's not because of his party affiliation, but because his place of birth. >>> I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned >>> in other countries? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > boss. I'm sure it's not because of his party affiliation, but because > his place of birth. Austria has produced a lot of egregious loons, notably Hitler and a disproportionate number of his myrmidons. I do agree that Arnie is a pretty good governor and a truly strange Republican though. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>> I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned >>>> in other countries? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> boss. I'm sure it's not because of his party affiliation, but because >> his place of birth. It's probably because it doesn't take a genius to see that much of California was/is an environmental disaster. It's not as bad as it was, but that many cars just isn't environmentally friendly. (Interestingly, California is on the lower end of the scale when it comes to greenhouse gases per person.) Besides that, most of the population lives on the coast and will be feeling the effects of global warming this century - including some very, very, very wealthy voters (with political connections and checks to sign) who no doubt want to keep their gorgeous views. Anyway, it'd be more impressive if Ah-nold were doing this type of stuff in Texas or Arizona, where there's limited political will for it. > Austria has produced a lot of egregious loons, notably Hitler and a > disproportionate number of his myrmidons. I do agree that Arnie is a > pretty good governor and a truly strange Republican though. I have to question the integrity of anybody who acknowledges problems like gun violence, human-caused environmental crises, and lack of fiscal restraint, yet remains a Republican. Must be the Kool-Aid. >>>>> I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned >>>>> in other countries? [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > like gun violence, human-caused environmental crises, and lack of fiscal > restraint, yet remains a Republican. Must be the Kool-Aid. I wonder how he'd do in an acid test. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> I have to question the integrity of anybody who acknowledges problems >> like gun violence, human-caused environmental crises, and lack of fiscal >> restraint, yet remains a Republican. Must be the Kool-Aid. > > I wonder how he'd do in an acid test. Anyone else thinking of that scene in "Untraceable"? > >>>> I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned > >>>> in other countries? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > California is on the lower end of the scale when it comes to greenhouse > gases per person.) I bet our president wouldn't notice such a catastrophe until the temperature is 95 degrees in the shade in the White House (and the a/c broke). > Besides that, most of the population lives on the coast and will be > feeling the effects of global warming this century - including some > very, very, very wealthy voters (with political connections and checks > to sign) who no doubt want to keep their gorgeous views. So it is in Florida. I guess Californians have a higer IQ. > Anyway, it'd be more impressive if Ah-nold were doing this type of stuff > in Texas or Arizona, where there's limited political will for it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Or playing the good guy in the movies. > It's probably because it doesn't take a genius to see that much of > California was/is an environmental disaster. It's not as bad as it was, > but that many cars just isn't environmentally friendly. (Interestingly, > California is on the lower end of the scale when it comes to greenhouse > gases per person.) More of your retarded nutcase crap. Cars have become extremely clean, even cleaner than required by law. The problem now in California is transit which is extremely dirty with diesel particulates degrading health. That is why California is mandating testing hydrogen busses to try and solve the transit pollution problem. NYC of course has a bunch of diesel hybrid busses which are cleaner than normal but far too dirty to be approved for use in California. BTW, according to Top Gear on BBC America Porsche and maybe some other brands sell some car models that have negative pollution. In places like LA, the air coming out of the tail pipe has less pollution than the air going into the engine. None of your filthy transit can come anywhere near that performance. >> It's probably because it doesn't take a genius to see that much of >> California was/is an environmental disaster. It's not as bad as it was, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > going into the engine. None of your filthy transit can come anywhere near > that performance. No CO2 emissions? SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > More of your retarded nutcase crap. Cars have become extremely clean, even > cleaner than required by law. What law? Why would we need such "stupid, stupid laws" if the market "cleaned up" things on it's own? Oh, yeah. Car manufacturers took it upon themselves to clean up the the environment. They didn't need the government to push them, did they? > What law? Why would we need such "stupid, stupid laws" if the market > "cleaned up" things on it's own? I said absolutely nothing like that. > Oh, yeah. Car manufacturers took it upon themselves to clean up the > environment. They didn't need the government to push them, did they? That is exactly what the data shows. Probably what happened is that with present design software it is cost effective to design for low pollution. With good software, maybe there is no payoff to design for higher pollution. You are a total loser wanting to claim conspiracy everywhere, but there is some data at: http://www.highways.org/Mar06-speaker-slideshows/Schwartz.ppt#15 It is well known that the cheapest way to reduce pollution is to get people to replace their cars with newer cars. > > Oh, yeah. Car manufacturers took it upon themselves to clean up the > > environment. They didn't need the government to push them, did they? > > That is exactly what the data shows. Probably what happened is that with > present design software it is cost effective to design for low pollution. > With good software, maybe there is no payoff to design for higher pollution. Proably what happened is that, in order to sell cars in areas with strict environmental laws, the manufacturers had to improve their designs as they were dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. > You are a total loser wanting to claim conspiracy everywhere, but there is > some data at: > > http://www.highways.org/Mar06-speaker-slideshows/Schwartz.ppt#15 This power point presentation is from some character visiting the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative "think tank", but more of a propaganda organ. It claims that driving costs around 20 cents per mile - way too low if you include capital costs, maintenance, etc. Even the IRS admits the cost per mile is way higher than that. I wouldn't trust this source at all. SignatureMy real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB >>> Oh, yeah. Car manufacturers took it upon themselves to clean up the >>> environment. They didn't need the government to push them, did they? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I wouldn't trust this source at all. As with many similar outfits, it rather depends what you mean by "think". SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> What law? Why would we need such "stupid, stupid laws" if the market >> "cleaned up" things on it's own? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It is well known that the cheapest way to reduce pollution is to get people > to replace their cars with newer cars. WoW!! You sure have read some bad history as to what happened back in 1970-1975 when it came to pollution control. The Clean Air Act of 1963 and it's amendments in 1967 and 1970 was the "stupid, stupid law" that forced the auto companies to install the catalytic converter. The auto companies and lots of people complained bitterly about how it would kill horsepower (causes exhaust pipe back pressure) and that it wouldn't do anything. People in Iowa were saying "What air pollution problem?" while pictures of LA socked in with smog were on TV. Looking in the rear view mirror, were the skeptics right? Was it one of those "stupid, stupid laws" that should never had been passed? >> What law? Why would we need such "stupid, stupid laws" if the market >> "cleaned up" things on it's own? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It is well known that the cheapest way to reduce pollution is to get > people to replace their cars with newer cars. That may be true from government's perspective. But then that's why private cars are attractive to governments anyway...they shift the investment from the public sector to the private sector. If every individual has to buy a car rather than pooling their money to buy a bus, then no money comes out of the pool to buy vehicles, but the total cost to everyone is higher. >> It's probably because it doesn't take a genius to see that much of >> California was/is an environmental disaster. It's not as bad as it was, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > why California is mandating testing hydrogen busses to try and solve the > transit pollution problem. Transit is really dirty? Can I have some of what you've been smoking? > NYC of course has a bunch of diesel hybrid busses which are cleaner than > normal but far too dirty to be approved for use in California. Even if that is true (and knowing you, it most likely isn't), per capita, a New Yorker also produces far less pollution than a typical Californian. > BTW, according to Top Gear on BBC America Porsche and maybe some other > brands sell some car models that have negative pollution. In places like > LA, the air coming out of the tail pipe has less pollution than the air > going into the engine. None of your filthy transit can come anywhere near > that performance. Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, so what? They're still going to add particles to the air, cleaner than LA in general or not. Anyway, electric rail transit can use energy sources with zero emissions. So it can hardly be called filthy. Only the energy source can be filthy, and that can be anything. Jack May purports: > NYC of course has a bunch of diesel hybrid busses which are > cleaner than normal but far too dirty to be approved for use > in California. =v= This is absolutely 100% true. Or would be, that is, if Yosemite National Park and the cities of Pasadena, Visalia, San Francisco, and San Joaquin weren't in California. <_Jym_> P.S.: Note that I've removed rec.bicycles.rides from the Newsgroups: header, as this is totally off-topic for that newsgroup. Jack May purports: > NYC of course has a bunch of diesel hybrid busses which are > cleaner than normal but far too dirty to be approved for use > in California. =v= This is absolutely 100% true. Or would be, that is, if Yosemite National Park and the cities of Pasadena, Visalia, San Francisco, and San Joaquin weren't in California. <_Jym_> P.S.: Note that I've removed rec.bicycles.rides from the Newsgroups: header, as this is totally off-topic for that newsgroup. On Feb 24, 6:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 24, 1:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Before the "hands free law", you had the choice of eating OR talking on the phone while driving. Now, due to hands free equipment, you can do both !!! On Feb 24, 1:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, Eric Vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them. Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. What does it do? It makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law. So when our kids see it, they see us breaking the law. It teaches them that adults sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. It's an incredibly bad thing for the kids to see. But it's just a stupid, stupid law. -------------------- I think it's amazing what a low opinion you have of Americans that you think they cannot obey safety laws people in other countries somehow manage to obey. On Feb 24, 7:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 1:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > they cannot obey safety laws people in other countries somehow manage to > obey. I don't have a low opinion of Americans. I have a low opinion of that law ... as do the VAST majority of people. On Feb 24, 7:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > -------------------- > > I think it's amazing what a low opinion you have of Americans that you > think > they cannot obey safety laws people in other countries somehow manage to > obey. I don't have a low opinion of Americans. I have a low opinion of that law ... as do the VAST majority of people. ------------------------ Precisely. You believe the vast majority of Americans are no better able than you to exhibit common sense or concern for the safety of others they might encounter. > On Feb 24, 7:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > than you to exhibit common sense or concern for the safety of others they > might encounter. I suspect that Pat isn't young enough to remember when no one had cell phones. He has grown up in a world where chatting on a cell phone is as normal as listening to the radio when driving. So when confronted by people that want to stop this "normal" behavior, he objects. So how dangerous is cell phone usage? Transportation Institute releases findings on driver behavior and crash factors http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2006&itemno=237 [big snip] • Drowsiness is a significant problem that increases a driver’s risk of a crash or near-crash by at least a factor of four. But drowsy driving may be significantly under-reported in police crash investigations. • The most common distraction for drivers is the use of cell phones. However, the number of crashes and near-crashes attributable to dialing is nearly identical to the number associated with talking or listening. Dialing is more dangerous but occurs less often than talking or listening. • Reaching for a moving object increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by 9 times; looking at an external object by 3.7 times; reading by 3 times; applying makeup by 3 times; dialing a hand-held device (typically a cell phone) by almost 3 times; and talking or listening on a hand-held device by 1.3 times. • Drivers who engage frequently in distracting activities are more likely to be involved in an inattention-related crash or near-crash. However, drivers are often unable to predict when it is safe to look away from the road to multi-task because the situation can change abruptly leaving the driver no time to react even when looking away from the forward roadway for only a brief time. [more snipped] > I suspect that Pat isn't young enough to remember when no one had cell > phones. Did you mean he isn't old enough? >> I suspect that Pat isn't young enough to remember when no one had cell >> phones. > > Did you mean he isn't old enough? Yes, you are right. I'm old and am easily confused now. Better watch out out for me when I am driving ;) > > On Feb 24, 7:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship" > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > normal as listening to the radio when driving. So when confronted by > people that want to stop this "normal" behavior, he objects. Gee, I wish. I remembe when it wasn't legal to have an answering machine or fax on a land line. Those things, too, were illegal. Stupid, stupid laws. > So how dangerous is cell phone usage? > Transportation Institute releases findings on driver behavior and crash [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > device (typically a cell phone) by almost 3 times; and talking or > listening on a hand-held device by 1.3 times. Let's see, between the last three cars I've had I've driven about 525,000 miles. Throw in motorcycles and other peoples' cars and figure since 1987 (yes, I've only owned three cars since 1987) plus milage before that and figure I've driven 700,000 miles. In that entire time, I've had 1 fender-bender which was when I hit a deer that jumped in front of me. It was sort of unavoidable. So my chance of having an accident (if history is a predictor) is 1:700,000 per mile or 1:10,950 per day. Given those odds, I accept the added risk of 1.3X of talking on the phone, even though I think the number is probably too high. Oh, by the way, last month in a wind storm; the wind go under my canoe and lift it up and blew it across the yard and it hit my car -- leaving a dent. Statistically, I have an equal chance of having a car accident as I do of being hit by a flying canoe. > * Drivers who engage frequently in distracting activities are more > likely to be involved in an inattention-related crash or near-crash. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Gee, I wish. I remembe when it wasn't legal to have an answering > machine or fax on a land line. Those things, too, were illegal. > Stupid, stupid laws. Gee, Pat, then you would remember other "stupid, stupid laws" transportation that I remember. Such as, the requirement that all lead in gas be removed. Remember that one, Pat? Some people declared it a "stupid, stupid law" and put in "test pipes" to replace the catalytic convertor in their cars. Then there was the "stupid, stupid law" that required -- required, mind you -- seatbelts be put in all cars manufactured in the US after 1967. Remember that Pat? I do. People weren't being to required to wear them, just that they were there and that was a "stupid, stupid law" or so said many people. Do you drive around without wearing your seatbelt, Pat? Then good for you. One-third of the drivers are with you and don't. Personally, I don't care if you ever wear a seatbelt -- people reading of your demise will say things like "gee, if he had only been wearing his seatbelt . . ." even though your spleen was busted by the collision and wearing a seatbelt wouldn't have meant beans. Here is one for you, another "stupid, stupid law." The open container law. back when I was a kid, it was common for people to buy a six-pack and not wait until they got home to start in on it. They weren't drunk after the one or two they had on the way home, but that didn't matter under the open container law. I always thought that OSHA was a waste of time. Another "stupid, stupid law." After all, if someone worked in a dangerous job, they could quit it. And the EPA was another "stupid, stupid law." If your next door neighbor polluted your well, who were you to complain? These are just a few of the "stupid, stupid laws" others before you have found fault with. I'm sure I can think of others, but I am getting old and just can't remember everything the way I am sure you can. > [...] > Gee, I wish. I remembe when it wasn't legal to have an answering > machine or fax on a land line. Those things, too, were illegal. > Stupid, stupid laws. Illegal, or just that Ma Bell would not allow it on their lines? > [...] > Let's see, between the last three cars I've had I've driven about [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Statistically, I have an equal chance of having a car accident as I do > of being hit by a flying canoe.[...] No it is not, because your sample size is too small for a valid analysis. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them. CT has a similar ban. In my experience, the cell phone ban in CT and NY is about as effective as the laws requiring a stop before a right run on red, those restricting loud exhausts and opaque dark window tint, and those requiring a front license plate. We should make more motor vehicle laws to not enforce. <G> > You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk > drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Cell phone driving = drunk driving... <snip> Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which is just at the lower limit for drunk driving. It's set low enough that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the level may differ from state to state). Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and you can, of course, do that while stopped at a red light as the call is very short). The article also doesn't say anything about the amount of time spent on the phone. Spending one minute per hour on the phone while driving is far safer (acording to the results cited) than spending the same hour driving with a blood alchohol level of 0.79, (ever so slightly below the legal limit). It also ignores the fact that the call may reduce the amount of driving by more than enough to make up for whatever increased risk there is. E.g., you get a call to please stop by a store on the way home to pick something up. The call takes 30 seconds. By accepting the call, you end up reducing the amount of driving by 10 minutes. > > You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk > > drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the > level may differ from state to state). The article closes saying... "This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co- author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society." I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy, before saying "no" to both alchohol and cell phones. > Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a > quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and > you can, of course, do that while stopped at a red light as > the call is very short). Hey, pull over and make the call from the shoulder or gas station. On Feb 24, 1:14 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk > > > drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy, > before saying "no" to both alchohol and cell phones. Just exactly who is "society"? If "society" is all of you city-slickers who are pissed off at the world, then what do you know anyway.... > On Feb 24, 1:14 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It's the sheep, the people who condemn the drunk driver, but tolerate the phone. But I'm not pissed off at the world just at its hypocrisy. > > > You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk > > > drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is > completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society." Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off instantly. > I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The > point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy, > before saying "no" to both alchohol and cell phones. What hypocrisy? They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at or just under the legal limit for DUI. It's hardly compabable with driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to do. Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be considered. If you spend 1 percent of your time calling, you've your risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by driving at just under the legal limit for DUI. > > Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a > > quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and > > you can, of course, do that while stopped at a red light as > > the call is very short). > > Hey, pull over and make the call from the shoulder or gas station. I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe. It's an ideal time to call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15 minutes late". I've yet to see someone cause an accident while legally stopped on the road. So let's keep a sense of reality here. SignatureMy real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB > > > > You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk > > > > drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off > instantly. But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so it's a greater risk. > > I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The > > point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by > driving at just under the legal limit for DUI. A country that's tolerant of cell phones has hypocrisy written all over it, particularly when it's so strict about DUIs and speed limits, both of wich represent a milking cow for the system. > > > Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a > > > quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If you ain't moving, and then the light goes green, chances are they'll have to blow the horn at you. Do you want that? > > > "This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co- > > > author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so > it's a greater risk. The author was clearly talking about the risk per individual. > > What hypocrisy? They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone > > was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > over it, particularly when it's so strict about DUIs and speed limits, > both of wich represent a milking cow for the system. YOU can't be serious. The U.S. is not "so strict" about DUI compared to several European countries, which have far stricter standards. > > I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling > > while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe. It's an ideal time to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you ain't moving, and then the light goes green, chances are > they'll have to blow the horn at you. Do you want that? Around here, when you get have bad enough traffic to delay you 15 minutes and you are stuck at a red light, chances are you won't get through the light on one cycle, and chances are you won't be in the first car in a very long queue. There's plenty of time to make a quick call before there's even a slight chance that you might get to start moving again. SignatureMy real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB > > > > "This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co- > > > > author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > to make a quick call before there's even a slight chance that you > might get to start moving again. Around here, we don't have traffic lights. (Actually we have three, but if people can't get through in a single 40 second light, they complain to the mayor). > -- > My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > > > "This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co- > > > > author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - A phone is a bad idea on any moving vehicle and my girlfriend recently had a noisy fall from her bicycle because of it. And I'm sure braking with hand had to do with it. On Feb 24, 6:41 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk > > > > > drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so > it's a greater risk. But more drivers yet are breathing air ... and too much of that will make you lightheaded. Maybe you should ban breathing. > > > I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The > > > point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > over it, particularly when it's so strict about DUIs and speed limits, > both of wich represent a milking cow for the system. Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary hypocritical. > > > > Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a > > > > quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Feb 24, 6:41 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > But more drivers yet are breathing air ... and too much of that will > make you lightheaded. Maybe you should ban breathing. Well, it happens they punish drunk drivers and not cell phone users, which means they are either stupid or biased against drunks, which makes them selective in the application of the law. It's like you punish someone for killing another, but he gets off the hook if he was sober. Hey, this is a new website about velorution, t-shirt and all... http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote91 > [...] > Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary > hypocritical.[...] That statement makes no sense at all. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >> hypocritical.[...] > > That statement makes no sense at all. Very little of what Pat has said on this thread has made any sense... -Miles Signature"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." Mahatma Gandhi > >> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary > >> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that > you do it." Mahatma Gandhi Not even where she lives. (DON'T TELL HER) >>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >>> hypocritical.[...] >> That statement makes no sense at all. > > Very little of what Pat has said on this thread has made any sense... Pat is Conklin Lite. More intellectually honest perhaps, but still has a kneejerk dislike for cities. Which makes you wonder why he trolls transit and urban planning groups. >>>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >>>> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > kneejerk dislike for cities. Which makes you wonder why he trolls transit > and urban planning groups. Gee since most people now live in the suburbs, I guess most people don't like large cities either. >>>>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >>>>> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Gee since most people now live in the suburbs, I guess most people don't > like large cities either. Yes, I think you are right, except the bad things they flee the cities for, now follow them out to the suburbs. They can pretend that it isn't true, but they can't resist reading the newspaper. I don't know who Pat is, nor do I much care. He seems to be a troll. He claims to have much experience, but shows none of it. >>>>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >>>>> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Gee since most people now live in the suburbs, I guess most people don't > like large cities either. So what? I don't really care what most people like. I just find it odd that trolls feel the need to come in here and berate people who aren't even harming anyone. >>>>>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >>>>>> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that trolls feel the need to come in here and berate people who aren't > even harming anyone. As I have asked before, why are they here? There are plenty of carhead groups. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>>>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >>>>>>> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > As I have asked before, why are they here? There are plenty of carhead > groups. I understand the carhead thing. They're probably just brainwashed by advertising or ideology. Jack is a particularly extreme example of both, probably. But why are the anti-city trolls here? This is being posted to an URBAN planning group and to an URBAN transit group. I see no reason for Pat and Conklin to even take an interest. >>>>>>>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >>>>>>>> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > advertising or ideology. Jack is a particularly extreme example of both, > probably. We are here to keep liars like you from constantly trying to reinforce your lies with constant repetition. Brainwashed!! More of your totally ignorant crap. The vast majority of cars is a result of technology evolution with people selecting transportation that meets their need (cars) and rejecting transportation (transit) that does not meet their. It is ignorant nonsense like what you just put out that we are here to correct. Look at the results of technology evolution in figures 2 and 3 of: http://phe.rockefeller.edu/TIP_transport/transport.pdf It is obvious from history that technology evolution is what created the present structure of society with the car being dominant. Present society IS NOT the result of brainwashing or any other conspiracy that incredibly ignorant people like you believe in. >>>>>>>>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >>>>>>>>> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Present society IS NOT the result of brainwashing or any other conspiracy > that incredibly ignorant people like you believe in. So, apart from that, how did you enjoy Manchuria? SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>>>>>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >>>>>>>>> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > selecting transportation that meets their need (cars) and rejecting > transportation (transit) that does not meet their. Clear evidence of Stockholm syndrome. Sad really. > Clear evidence of Stockholm syndrome. Sad really. and just look at the poor quality of Jack's reponse -- it's all stock phrases of his, poorly cut-and-pasted. More evidence that he's a paid shill I suppose; they tend to slack off after a while. -Miles SignatureAny man who is a triangle, has thee right, when in Cartesian Space, to have angles, which when summed, come to know more, nor no less, than nine score degrees, should he so wish. [TEMPLE OV THEE LEMUR] > >>>>>>>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary > >>>>>>>> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What we've got in America is not a product of superior technology, but the product of MONOPOLY. Other modes of transportation are the Cinderella of the budget, or are intimadated out of the roads, such as the bicycles. Europe, on the other hand, can claim better public transportation, more bike facilities and technologically superior cars, particularly when it comes to efficiency. >>>>>>>>> Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary >>>>>>>>> hypocritical.[...] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > We are here to keep liars like you from constantly trying to reinforce your > lies with constant repetition. Liars? *You* are the liar, and you're also an a.shole of accusing me of being one. While you have never caught me lying, you just like claiming I'm lying because it gives you a feeling of moral superiority, which compensates for your complete failure to reason or offer even a remotely plausible alternative to whatever claims you object to. As a matter of fact, your rhetorical strategy has also been that *constant repetition* of accusations that your opponents are lying, stupid, laggard, inferior, or whatever else (at a risk of instantiating Godwin's Law, I won't mention who else used that strategy). > Brainwashed!! More of your totally ignorant crap. What totally ignorant crap? That I don't buy into your retro-futurist myths about transportation? Or your authoritarian tracking device fantasy? Or that I simply DON'T CARE that you don't like transit? > The vast majority of cars is a result of technology evolution with people > selecting transportation that meets their need (cars) and rejecting > transportation (transit) that does not meet their. Not that you'd listen to the million reasons I can offer you why that narrative about technological evolution is specious at best, but who even cares? Why are any of the transit lines I take on a daily basis devalued by the fact that a majority of people use a car? > It is ignorant nonsense like what you just put out that we are here to > correct. Look at the results of technology evolution in figures 2 and 3 > of: I've never seen you correct anything. You certainly never corrected yourself when you've been wrong. Ignorant nonsense like what? Do you even know what "ignorant" means? What about figure 2? What does figure 2 do to make you look less idiotic? Figure 3? And why even use the U.S. as an example? The U.S. transportation infrastructure is hardly the most sophisticated. > http://phe.rockefeller.edu/TIP_transport/transport.pdf That URL didn't prove your point the last times you you posted it either. > It is obvious from history that technology evolution is what created the > present structure of society with the car being dominant. No, it is not obvious, nor is it even meaningful. Automobile dominance is a matter of carefully crafted policy. That may or may not be a good thing, but evolution hardly plays into it. Of course, I don't know why you care, since it doesn't even help your argument. The dominance of product A doesn't mean product B is useless. From the sounds of it, you're taking a few axioms in that article and treating them as canon. So much for being "scientific." > Present society IS NOT the result of brainwashing or any other conspiracy > that incredibly ignorant people like you believe in. First of all, before accusing anyone of lying again, I suggest you stop making up strawmen to attack. I didn't say "present society" is "the result of brainwashing." I said your fanaticism is the product of brainwashing. My claim had nothing to do with the idiocy of society as a whole, and only to do with the idiocy of Jack May. So, please stop lying about what I said, okay? Thanks! What conspiracy? Commercials are designed to alter people's opinions. A combination of I guess that and ideology has completely blinded you to reason, and made you a bitter, angry little usenet troll like Marcie Kortlander, Conklin, and Pat. On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > I think he forgot the horseshit. But such Utopia already exists among > > the Amish. Do we have to worship the same? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > nate The ones that must die, most likely won't accept it. ;) Holland though has a very high population density, and does great with bikes. We can't say the same about cars when the competition for roads and parking spaces becomes acute. High population density is good for bikes. The wave of the future in an increasingly overcrowded world. Netherlands Population density: 1,272 persons per sq mi > On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Netherlands Population density: 1,272 persons per sq mi Woohoo. Where I live, the population density is 64 per sq. mi. which is, coincidently, 1 person per 10 acres of land. Bike on !!! Have fun with the inch of freezing rain that we are supposed to get tonight. > Woohoo. Where I live You don't count, Pat. -Miles SignatureEgotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me. >> Woohoo. Where I live > > You don't count, Pat. > > -Miles One would think that Pat and Jack would want the city slickers to use less gas. That way the demand would go down and thus the price for them. So I really don't understand their whole line of reasoning. >>> Woohoo. Where I live >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > less gas. That way the demand would go down and thus the price for them. > So I really don't understand their whole line of reasoning. Pat just seems to like to whine, but Jack apparently thinks transit systems should be shut down and everybody should be forced to drive. Therefore, "city slickers" would be using more gas and wasting more energy. Then, no one ever accused Jack of making sense. > >>> Woohoo. Where I live > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Therefore, "city slickers" would be using more gas and wasting more > energy. Then, no one ever accused Jack of making sense. Transit systems don't save fuel so your comments, as usual, are mean just for the sake of being mean. >> > One would think that Pat and Jack would want the city slickers to >> > use less gas. That way the demand would go down and thus the price [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Transit systems don't save fuel so your comments, as usual, are mean > just for the sake of being mean. Transit systems save energy in comparison to comparable trips by auto/SUV, and your comments, as usual, are plain wrong. > >> > One would think that Pat and Jack would want the city slickers to > >> > use less gas. That way the demand would go down and thus the price [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Transit systems save energy in comparison to comparable trips by auto/SUV, > and your comments, as usual, are plain wrong. Which as you know is incorrect, but you keep posting the lies. >> >> > One would think that Pat and Jack would want the city slickers >> >> > to use less gas. That way the demand would go down and thus the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Which as you know is incorrect, but you keep posting the lies. Nope. I keep posting the data over and over again, and you keep ignoring it, clinging to a discredited article printed in Access sometime ago in ancient history. >>>>> One would think that Pat and Jack would want the city slickers to >>>>> use less gas. That way the demand would go down and thus the price [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Which as you know is incorrect, but you keep posting the lies. Great is.......damn! I forgot. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>> Woohoo. Where I live >>>> You don't count, Pat. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Transit systems don't save fuel so your comments, as usual, are mean just > for the sake of being mean. Yeah, you keep saying that, despite all evidence to the contrary. If Jack, and you for that matter, would at least be polite, I'm sure you guys would get treated better. >>>>>> Woohoo. Where I live >>>>> You don't count, Pat. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If Jack, and you for that matter, would at least be polite, I'm sure you > guys would get treated better. I'd send them a Cadbury's a month by airmail. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >>> Woohoo. Where I live > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Therefore, "city slickers" would be using more gas and wasting more > energy. Then, no one ever accused Jack of making sense. It's not that I just want to whine, it is that I think that many of the posts are extraordinarily ego-centric and arogant. You want to live in some manner and think that everyone else should live in that manner too. There is a feeling of moral snugness and superiority that is appalling. But you think that your position somehow gives you the ability/desire to regulate/legislate the actions of others -- ban this, outlaw that, do away with that thing over there. Go live your lives and enjoy them, but don't get snobbish and think that just because you want to ride a bike and live in a high density environment and eat bean sprouts and sing coombyya that everyone else wants to. Go sell your car. Go buy a parking ramp and tear it down so you can build an empire on organic gardening. Fool yourself into thinking electricity is clean. Go ahead and do it. Just stop the foolishness of thinking that what you like is what everyone likes. > It's not that I just want to whine, it is that I think that many of > the posts are extraordinarily ego-centric and arogant. You want to > live in some manner and think that everyone else should live in that > manner too. There is a feeling of moral snugness and superiority that > is appalling. You have just described your own posts, to a "t". This is why we mock you. -Miles Signature"1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns" > > It's not that I just want to whine, it is that I think that many of > > the posts are extraordinarily ego-centric and arogant. You want to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > "1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns" If you read what I say, not what you think I say, you will know that I advocate letting people live the way they want. Not trying to force people to some "norm". Frankly, I don't give a darn how someone else lives. I just wish others were the same and didn't discuss "banning cars" and such. Live and let live. >>> It's not that I just want to whine, it is that I think that many of >>> the posts are extraordinarily ego-centric and arogant. You want to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > lives. I just wish others were the same and didn't discuss "banning > cars" and such. Live and let live. Not that there's anything wrong with a locality banning cars if it wants to, but who here is talking about banning cars? The only people who ever bring it up are falsely attributing it to others to make them look bad, as far as I can tell. Naturally, talking about reducing the subsidy that goes to cars, or making them meet more stringent emissions standards, are not the same thing as "banning" them. As for "live and let live," I'm all for that, but unfortunately the cost of maintaining automobile (or other transportation, for that matter) infrastructure comes out of everyone's pockets. So it's not that simple, sadly. > >>> It's not that I just want to whine, it is that I think that many of > >>> the posts are extraordinarily ego-centric and arogant. You want to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ever bring it up are falsely attributing it to others to make them look > bad, as far as I can tell. Well, to start, the easier post I saw was from Donquijote who proposed banning drivers (which is, in effect, banning cars because you can't have one without the other). He said, " we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the road... " > Naturally, talking about reducing the subsidy that goes to cars, or > making them meet more stringent emissions standards, are not the same > thing as "banning" them. He wasn't worried about subsidies as much as he just didn't like the way that they drove. > As for "live and let live," I'm all for that, but unfortunately the cost > of maintaining automobile (or other transportation, for that matter) > infrastructure comes out of everyone's pockets. So it's not that > simple, sadly.- Hide quoted text - Well, until they make a bicycle that can pull a 40' trailor, you need the trucks. Until they put convenient transportation everywhere, we'll need our cars. But I don't think that public transport is coming soon to most of the country. It will remain just for those who choose to live an urban lifestyle. Meanwhile, everyone is supporting everyone else. So accept it and get used to it. > - Show quoted text - >>>>> It's not that I just want to whine, it is that I think that many of >>>>> the posts are extraordinarily ego-centric and arogant. You want to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > alternatives (bikes, public transportation) for the moment when 70% of > drivers are banned from the road... " For some reason, I can't see his messages, but it sounds to me like that applies to where he lives. What happened to "live and let live"? >> Naturally, talking about reducing the subsidy that goes to cars, or >> making them meet more stringent emissions standards, are not the same >> thing as "banning" them. > > He wasn't worried about subsidies as much as he just didn't like the > way that they drove. People do drive pretty badly sometimes too. I see no reason not to restrict automobile usage in some places/circumstances (such as when congestion is a major problem), though I don't go so far as to say they should be banned. >> As for "live and let live," I'm all for that, but unfortunately the cost >> of maintaining automobile (or other transportation, for that matter) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >> - Show quoted text - Pat pooped: >>>>> Woohoo. Where I live >>>> You don't count, Pat. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's not that I just want to whine, it is that I think that many of > the posts are extraordinarily ego-centric and arogant. You want to Yours, for instance? > live in some manner and think that everyone else should live in that > manner too. There is a feeling of moral snugness and superiority that > is appalling. But you think that your position somehow gives you the > ability/desire to regulate/legislate the actions of others -- ban > this, outlaw that, do away with that thing over there. That doesn't describe me or most of the people in the transit forums I frequent, other than perhaps a few ideologues (mainly Jack May and George Conklin). > Go live your lives and enjoy them, but don't get snobbish and think > that just because you want to ride a bike and live in a high density [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > electricity is clean. Go ahead and do it. Just stop the foolishness > of thinking that what you like is what everyone likes. You aren't even referring to anybody. You're just conjuring up a stereotyped caricature and attacking it. > You aren't even referring to anybody. You're just conjuring up a > stereotyped caricature and attacking it. Otherwise known as "the straw man." > > You aren't even referring to anybody. You're just conjuring up a >> stereotyped caricature and attacking it. > > Otherwise known as "the straw man." Most people who use them don't know what that means. :-p >> > You aren't even referring to anybody. You're just conjuring up a >>> stereotyped caricature and attacking it. >> >> Otherwise known as "the straw man." > > Most people who use them don't know what that means. :-p How many do use them, would you say? SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>> > You aren't even referring to anybody. You're just conjuring up a >>>> stereotyped caricature and attacking it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How many do use them, would you say? Most. >>>>> Woohoo. Where I live >>>> You don't count, Pat. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > electricity is clean. Go ahead and do it. Just stop the foolishness > of thinking that what you like is what everyone likes. I do not have a bike, and, living among Jamaicans, I pronounce "Com by eya" properly. I am not a vegetarian or a teetotaller, though I must confess to a lack of interest in sport. I do not want cars abolished, even in cities. I do not propose a light rail line for Ellsworth, Kansas. I am a public transport supporter. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>>> Woohoo. Where I live >>>>> You don't count, Pat. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > even in cities. I do not propose a light rail line for Ellsworth, > Kansas. I am a public transport supporter. Now you've done it. You are not allowed to challenge the stereotypes. If you do, they will just call you a loon and pretend you didn't say anything of importance. These guys know it all and they certainly have their stereotypes down. >>>>>>> Woohoo. Where I live >>>>>> You don't count, Pat. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > anything of importance. These guys know it all and they certainly have > their stereotypes down. Heh. Last time I saw Pat troll here (misc.transport.urban-tranist), he was on about how city folk aren't "real people." > >>>>>>> Woohoo. Where I live > >>>>>> You don't count, Pat. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'm reading this through alt.planning.urban If you don't want my responses, simply don't cross-post to here. >>>> Woohoo. Where I live >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Therefore, "city slickers" would be using more gas and wasting more > energy. Then, no one ever accused Jack of making sense. If a humble clerk in Montauk had to get a car and drive to Manhattan every day, would his salary cover it? SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>> Woohoo. Where I live >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If a humble clerk in Montauk had to get a car and drive to Manhattan > every day, would his salary cover it? I rather doubt it. But, again, no reason to let facts get in the way of [Jack's] ideology. > > Netherlands Population density: 1,272 persons per sq mi > > Woohoo. Where I live, the population density is 64 per sq. mi. which > is, coincidently, 1 person per 10 acres of land. Bike on !!! Have > fun with the inch of freezing rain that we are supposed to get tonight.- Hide quoted text - Hey Pat, now you may chip in your road toward this list... On Mar 4, 5:23 pm, "Jeremy Parker" <JeremyPar...@compuserve.com> wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > I reproduce here an article on what it would take for North America > > (or the UK) to become bicycle friendly. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Here in London UK it's bike friendly now. We have 8500 miles of bike > routes - we call them "streets". But aren't you expose to the law of the jungle, like the article on London states? > It doesn't surprise me that the Dutch would have a goal set way in > the future. Britain did exactly the same thing when its goal of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > goal, to increase cycling by 30%, actually resulted in its going down > by 15%. We too have great plans for the future. Why real good things only happen in the future? Something for philosophers... But I think the important thing is the total ridership. If America double its ridership, it would go up to a whopping 0.8%! > Britain actually has "bike friendly", by your standard, towns. The > nearest, Stevenage, is about 25 miles from me. No doubt you have > heard of it. We have a town, Cambridge, with more cycling than > Amsterdam. We have a town, London, which actually has managed to > double its cycling. Here it's not friendly, but is not like they eat the cyclists alive either. I don't think there's even intention to crush cyclists; it just happens when drivers are on the phone or eating a burger. > Its beginning to be slightly clearer what works and what doesn't, > which is why a book has come out recently "Crap Cycle Lanes, 50 worst [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'm gonna write my own book: "Worst Streets to Cycle in America." And I just have to step out my door... >On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: >> donquijote1954 wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Netherlands Population density: 1,272 persons per sq mi <giggle> And all we hafta to is convince people to move to The Wide Open Spaces of Wherever, create the density to make it "easy" to ride a bike, then suddenly discover the temperature eight months of the year is low enuf to crystallize a guy's gonads. Then how many people are gonna be riding bikes? This is the rather challenging logic being used in places like "Greater Vancouver"... oops, sorry, we must now refer to the region as "Metro Vancouver"... which has this gradiose scheme of designated cycle routes. They look pretty on maps, but your average office boffin is not going to jump on a bicycle in the dark of 7 a.m. November when it's chundering down with the Pac. Northwest's onshore onslaught and slog through x-number of km's in the pissy murk. > On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:06:12 -0800 (PST), donquijote1954 > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Believe me, the ride bicycles in the winter in Norway, and Denmark and Holland too! But again (am I repeating myself?) the name of the game is OPTIONS: bicycles, scooters, public transportation, fast trains, and even skates (ice skates for northern latitudes). > ... > Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve. Whoever it is who keeps [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then > it's a motorcycle.... In Wisconsin, a motorcycle endorsement is not needed for scooters with less than 50cc displacement and a top speed of less than 30 mph. In Illinois, there is a Class L endorsement for "Motor Driven Cycles" of less than 150cc displacement, and Class M for "Motorcycles" with a 150cc or more displacement. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful On Feb 22, 11:29 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote: > > ... > > Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve. Whoever it is who keeps [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful If you're under 50cc and under 30mph, that would explain why you feel unsafe. You are. You don't have enough weight for stability. You don't have enough engine for safety. You don't have enough motor to accelerate with the traffic (although there are some 2-strokes that are pretty torquee). For under 150cc, you're right. That's basically a bicycle with a motor on the road. Still probably not safe on a road. That's why they are used mostly for MX and such. Go get a little 250cc. They are pretty nice little things. Plus they have enough motor to get you out of trouble. At about 25 mph and above, if you get into turning trouble, you have to accelerate to get yourself out of trouble -- so you need to have enough engine to do that or you will high-bar. That's not a lot of fun. Better yet, go get yourself a 600cc crotch rocket and have some fun !!! Sounds to me like a lot of guys in this NG need to let down their hair and relax every once in a while. For the record, I have a 50cc Honda that I don't ride, a 550 Honda that I don't ride too much, and a 1300 Yamaha that's a nice ride. > On Feb 22, 11:29 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > accelerate with the traffic (although there are some 2-strokes that > are pretty torquee). If one is riding only in downtown areas with 20 to 30 mph speed limits, or low traffic residential areas, the 50cc scooters are fine. However, I would not want to ride on higher speed urban arterials or rural highways on one, unless there was a paved shoulder to "bail out" on when faster traffic was coming from behind. > For under 150cc, you're right. That's basically a bicycle with a > motor on the road. Still probably not safe on a road. That's why [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > For the record, I have a 50cc Honda that I don't ride, a 550 Honda > that I don't ride too much, and a 1300 Yamaha that's a nice ride. I used a have a Honda CB400 that weighed about 390 pounds and had about 43 horsepower, and it was fine to ride on the freeway. It would out accelerate most cars up to about 70 mph, and fuel mileage would generally be 50-55 mpg. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful On Feb 23, 11:50 am, DennisTheBald <DennisTheB...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 10:52 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > repair their broken sense of self worth - I know, buy a really > expensive car! that'll fix everything. This sounds to me like trying to convince a dinosaur to evolve... Here's an actual interview with one: Q: What's up. How does it feel to be on the verge of extinction? A: Nah, there will never be one. Q: All the reports point to a mass extinction. A: Don't pay attention to that. Those are rumors spread by those little furry mammals... Q: But your behavior is obviously stupid. All that voracity and violence... A: Only necessary to keep the size that I've got. Q: And why do you need that size? A: Because I rule the jungle. Q: And why do you need to rule the jungle? A: You ask too many questions... Remember I've got a pea-sized brain. (And here the interview was terminated. Then the dinosaur killed a few more mammals, and went to sleep --65 million years ago) > On Feb 21, 12:03 am, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: >> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:fpiv5h$g12$5@registered.motzarella.org... >> >> > Jack May wrote: > Scenario 6: You're cruising along at 90 and hit a deer that didn't get > the memo about needing a transponder. Again, the goal is not perfection, but a large improvement over the present system. > Scenario 7: The government has some illicit activity going on somewhere > (who knows what _already_ get up to, much less what they _would_ get up to > if no one could get there) and they set up a set of transponders > preventing anyone who might call it to the public's awareness from getting > there. Well that would be a big indicator to a lot of people, including the bad guys, that an undercover operation is happening. On Feb 21, 12:03 am, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: > "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > road. > That should not be hard once transponders become common. >Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes. >Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car. Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!! The standard use very short pulses which can measure position to inches or less. Your strawman is false. >Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want. That transponder will identify its owner which will be recorded the blackbox of many cars. The police will show up at the kid's house and arrest the kid. Kids will quickly learn not to play with transponders,. >Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you. What do you not understand about increasing safety. We don't have to make it perfect, just much better than the present system >Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red- light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you get on to the nightly news. >Another foolish strawman >Transponders. Yeah, great idea. Yes they are, too bad you can't understand even their basics > Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people > carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the > law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to > be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses. Not a likely scenario. - Objects in the road that weren't expected to end up in the road won't have transponders. Wild animals. Debris blown into the road by storms. Things that fall off vehicles. (semi retreads!) - Who pays for the transponders? Required in every vehicle, every person, and every domestic animal? - As Amy suggests, it sure sounds like a golden opportunity for a massive Denial of Service attack. - Motorists won't accept it. Police can use the transponders to track your location. Some don't want the police to know where you are at any given second - others would simply be unhappy that it would make enforcement of the speed limit much easier. (they also won't accept it because it will make it impossible to pull off stupid, dangerous moves in a bullheaded attempt to continue speeding when traffic conditions don't permit it...) (indeed, I think the latter condition will prevent the widespread adoption of *any* type of autonomous collision avoidance system. A system that *enforces* minimum safe following and passing distances will make it impossible for the everyday 80mph speed bully to continue speeding. He'll never accept it.) > How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians > and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with > transponders? I think in Jack's ideal world, everybody's body is grafted onto an automobile from birth... -Miles SignatureVirtues, n. pl. Certain abstentions. > > How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians > > and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Virtues, n. pl. Certain abstentions. In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams and dreary reality. On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: >In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't >kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams >and dreary reality. Your stupidity is running rampant again. The alternative transportation modes also pollute and kill people. > On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Your stupidity is running rampant again. The alternative transportation > modes also pollute and kill people. Yeah, but so much less. You pollute needlessly. Just for the hell of it, so you can show who's the boss. > On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Your stupidity is running rampant again. The alternative transportation > modes also pollute and kill people. Yep, cyclists kill a lot of innocent people. Sheesh! SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yep, cyclists kill a lot of innocent people. Sheesh! You mean when cyclist continually run red lights and ignore most of the traffic laws. That leads to accidents with drivers trying to avoid law breaking bicycle riders. Of course the death rate for bicycle riders is also very high. Since you are playing ignorant again, riding a bike require eating more food. Food takes a lot of energy in the entire cycle to grow, transport, clean up that does that does pollute. >>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > food. Food takes a lot of energy in the entire cycle to grow, transport, > clean up that does that does pollute. When they ride in cars, they take less fuel to transport than fat people who don't exercise. >>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: > > When they ride in cars, they take less fuel to transport than fat people > who don't exercise. It takes a combination of exersize and learning to live while controlling eating. I have exersized for a long time and it is not enough. With a scale that weighs to the nearest tenth of a pound and spreadsheet graphing my weight in tenths of pounds everyday, I can essentially get to and sustain any weight I want to be. I also continue to exersize. The tenth of a pound tells me when my eating for the previous day is OK or if I need a correction. In other words an engineer's view of weight control using a tight feedback loop. BTW with cars that way 4000 pounds, the weight of the person probably does not have much effect on MPG. >>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > BTW with cars that way 4000 pounds, the weight of the person probably does > not have much effect on MPG. OK, Rainman. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > graphing my weight in tenths of pounds everyday, I can essentially get to > and sustain any weight I want to be. I also continue to exersize. And how do you exercise? Does _it_ consume additional energy (such as a stair stepper or treadmill, or even going to a gym, which then has light/heat/cooling considerations)? If so, you've just blown your don't exercise by biking idea completely out of the water, assuming it had any merit to begin with, which it didn't. If you _really_ believed it, you would studiously avoid getting _any_ exercise outside the bare minimum you need to live, to avoid needing additional calories trucked in to feed your exercise habit. > BTW with cars that way 4000 pounds, the weight of the person probably does > not have much effect on MPG. A 300-500 lb person is a significant fraction of 4000 lbs., and most vehicles do not weigh 2 tons. If you're driving a vehicle that big, you're certainly using way more energy to move it than could _ever_ be consumed additionally by a cyclist. >>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: > And how do you exercise? Does _it_ consume additional energy (such as a > stair stepper or treadmill, or even going to a gym, which then has > light/heat/cooling considerations)? I exercise on my large trampoline in my back yard. At one time I did a lot of bike riding on the "Pedway" along the SF Bay shoreline across the street from where I live. In fact I plan to buy a recumbent bike this spring to get back on the pedway out among people as well as continue on my trampoline. If so, you've just blown your don't > exercise by biking idea completely out of the water, assuming it had any > merit to begin with, which it didn't. If you _really_ believed it, you > would studiously avoid getting _any_ exercise outside the bare minimum you > need to live, to avoid needing additional calories trucked in to feed your > exercise habit. Since my bike riding would be on a path along the SF Bay shore line that does not cross any roads, it should also be safe. So it is worth the oil energy consumed to stay healthy. Last year Kaiser ran their entire set of tests on me and they found that I am the only persons they had ever tested that had no detectable medical problems. The real problem was that I had a rare disease that could not be detected by any of their tests. But I lucked out and one Doctor figured out what I had from one symptom (a drooping eyelid before going into the hospital). So being a perfect health example (almost), I think it is worth keeping up my exercise to stay healthy. My family genetics has people that live beyond a hundred. >> BTW with cars that way 4000 pounds, the weight of the person probably >> does not have much effect on MPG. With all the safety built into cars these days, they have grow in weight considerably, even sports cars are now approaching 2 tons. >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > does not cross any roads, it should also be safe. So it is worth the oil > energy consumed to stay healthy. I don't know what that even means relative to your objection to cycling as a mode of transport because it "increases the energy used to bring cyclists their food." It seems you want to be healthy, but you object to feeding other healthy people (but not feeding and transporting obese people). You're a strange man. >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > other healthy people (but not feeding and transporting obese people). > You're a strange man. Now that's what I call a masterful understatement. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > am the only persons they had ever tested that had no detectable medical > problems. The bad news? He's a droid. > The real problem was that I had a rare disease that could not be detected by > any of their tests. But I lucked out and one Doctor figured out what I had [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > With all the safety built into cars these days, they have grow in weight > considerably, even sports cars are now approaching 2 tons. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It takes a combination of exersize and learning to live while controlling > eating. I have exersized for a long time and it is not enough. You could be putting that energy expenditure toward transportation by riding a bicycle. That would be more efficient than non-transportation exercise combined with motorized transportation. > With a scale that weighs to the nearest tenth of a pound and spreadsheet > graphing my weight in tenths of pounds everyday, I can essentially get to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > BTW with cars that way 4000 pounds, the weight of the person probably does > not have much effect on MPG. A 4000 pound car is an abomination. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: > You could be putting that energy expenditure toward transportation by > riding a bicycle. That would be more efficient than non-transportation > exercise combined with motorized transportation. Riding a bike for transportation is a good way to die young. The death rate per passenger mile for bikes is far higher than cars. I plan on buying a recumbent bike this spring to use on the path along the SF Bay shoreline this spring. In the past I have used a regular bike on that path. The path is very safe but using a bike in traffic is far too scary for me to do. > A 4000 pound car is an abomination. Compared to a 500,000 pound light rail carrying two people? Transit in the real world tends to make SUV's look like economy cars. The cars has have gotten much heavier with all the safety that has been added to them. >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In the past I have used a regular bike on that path. The path is very safe > but using a bike in traffic is far too scary for me to do. Multi-use paths are more dangerous to cyclists than riding on the street. Unless of course, you prefer faith based answers to properly collected data and statistics. >> A 4000 pound car is an abomination. > > Compared to a 500,000 pound light rail carrying two people? Transit in the > real world tends to make SUV's look like economy cars. The cars has have > gotten much heavier with all the safety that has been added to them. In a civilized country, the ridership on rail is much higher. My 2005 Honda Civic is much less than 2 tons in weight. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful Jack May pulls the following out of his a.s: > Riding a bike for transportation is a good way to die young. =v= Interesting claim, given that cars are the #1 cause of death for the young. > The death rate per passenger mile for bikes is far higher than > cars. =v= An irrelevant comparison, since bikes travel fewer passenger miles than bikes. In terms of real live actual real-world real use, biking is safer than walking or driving. <_Jym_> P.S.: Note that I've removed rec.bicycles.rides from the Newsgroups: header, as this is totally off-topic for that newsgroup. > > Yep, cyclists kill a lot of innocent people. Sheesh! > > You mean when cyclist continually run red lights and ignore most of the > traffic laws. That leads to accidents with drivers trying to avoid law > breaking bicycle riders. Of course the death rate for bicycle riders is > also very high. Actually, the death rate per mile for bicyclists is not particularly high compared to driving. > Since you are playing ignorant again, riding a bike require eating more > food. Food takes a lot of energy in the entire cycle to grow, transport, > clean up that does that does pollute. Another misconception: most people in the U.S. don't get enough exercise, so you might as well get the exercise while making necessary trips. Also, there are some non-linear effects regarding food consumption when people don't get enough exercise. SignatureMy real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB It's no secret that the motive of this revolution is "the Law of the Jungle," which appropriately was born out of the discrimination against bicycles... Well, this article reflects that reality, not in the jungle per se, but in an otherwise civilized place (the driving laws are first worldly) where cyclist too are at the bottom of the food chain. VELORUTION! *** And in reference to the above article about London, this reader states that cyclists should not have equal rights as automobiles, but actually MORE rights. Again, before there's war, it's better to separate. Velorution in the mind The Financial Times has a worthy but dull article on the resurgence of urban cycling in the UK, with a focus on London. It cannot escape from the cliche' of the number of people riding through red lights; it is like if every article about digital photography mentioned people taking illegal pictures at museums. Of course figures of injuries caused by riding through red lights are never offered. The torpor in the journalist's mind is evident in the last few paragraphs: There's no doubt that car drivers need to clean up their act. Taking speed limits down to 20mph in built-up areas will make the roads safer for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Enforcing the ban on mobile phone use will help drivers become more attentive. And applying the Highway Code more strictly will make many people think twice about engaging in the current bully-boy hierarchy of bigger is better. ... Now, saying that motor vehicles should have the same rights as pedestrians or cyclists is like saying that water skiers should be allowed on all waters in front of a popular beach. The Highway Code by instigating this non-sensical equality status, that inevitably leads to the law of the jungle, is bunk. It has the same moral standing as the South African Pbutt Law. It is not abiding to rules that we should exhort, but consideration to all other people and especially to those who are more vulnerable than ourselves. Yes there are definitely inconsiderate bicycle riders in London, and it is absolutely no excuse to say, 'It is a jungle out there, I need to defend my self'. We need to raise the level of social responsibility, starting by ourselves. The roads are a commons to be enjoyed by everyone, starting by people on foot. Then the greater or more dangerous the vehicle one chooses to use, the fewer rights one has and the more consideration one needs to give to more vulnerable people. http://www.ugroups.com/driver/Cyclists-are-Victims-of-the-Law-of-the-Jungle-4890.html Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> Yep, cyclists kill a lot of innocent people. Sheesh! >> You mean when cyclist continually run red lights and ignore most of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > trips. Also, there are some non-linear effects regarding food > consumption when people don't get enough exercise. Hey, Zaumen is correct. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > food. Food takes a lot of energy in the entire cycle to grow, transport, > clean up that does that does pollute. Unlike driving a car, especially the kind of module favoured by wingnuts, which, er.................. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > breaking bicycle riders. Of course the death rate for bicycle riders is > also very high. Nonsense. Now Jack May is just making things up. > Since you are playing ignorant again, riding a bike require eating more > food. Food takes a lot of energy in the entire cycle to grow, transport, > clean up that does that does pollute. The amount of extra food consumed by a cyclist contributes relatively little to pollution compared to operating a 2 ton SUV. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The amount of extra food consumed by a cyclist contributes relatively > little to pollution compared to operating a 2 ton SUV. Heh, well, not to say Jack's comment isn't stupid, but if you want to eat more, you're probably just eating what otherwise would go to waste. Something like 30% of is lost at the retail level. God knows WTF happens once it reaches the fridges and cupboards of overweight suburbanites. >> You mean when cyclist continually run red lights and ignore most of >> the traffic laws. That leads to accidents with drivers trying to >> avoid law breaking bicycle riders. Of course the death rate for >> bicycle riders is also very high. >> > Nonsense. Now Jack May is just making things up. I was thinking about it and I have never seen a bicyclist blow through a red light. I've been driving for almost 40 years, so the opportunity certainly should have presented itself by now. I have heard about it on the 'net, but like a lot of "common" dangers I have no direct knowledge of it. Nor have I seen a bicycle cause a car accident. I haven't even read about one of those and I think that "man bites dog" story would have made the newspapers. On the other hand, I saw five cars run red lights yesterday. One didn't even slow down and blew right past me in the other lane while I had been waiting for the light to change for at least 45 seconds. Narrowly missed a crossing car. I had to work at several places 45 miles out of town, so I drove quite a bit yesterday, maybe 125-150 miles. Somehow, my experience with "continually" doesn't square with Jack's. > >> You mean when cyclist continually run red lights and ignore most of > >> the traffic laws. That leads to accidents with drivers trying to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > red light. I've been driving for almost 40 years, so the opportunity > certainly should have presented itself by now. OK, let's assume the revolution (by and for cyclists) gets voted into office (or gains rights by other means), WHAT WOULD THE ROAD BE LIKE FOR CYCLISTS? Like the article VELORUTION says, not all vehicles are equal... The smaller, the more protection they need; the bigger, the more responsibility. On urban multi-lane roads, the right lane has a set speed of 20mph, monitored by speed cameras. Bikes ride the lane. Do they get tickets for running red lights? Nah, they hurt no one but themselves. In other words, predators will be in the cage, and prey will be free once again. While America doesn't have an energy policy other than invading oil- rich countries, Holland exhibits a Master Plan for bicycles, which is sure to help the environment and the health of its inhabitants. We propose a "Dutch Package" though that includes bicycles and other issues (like marihuana) peculiar to the Dutch (Unpaid Political Advertisement)... (get some popcorn --and perhaps weed-- for the ride) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExnRr9VAJw 'Actually, I propose a "Dutch Package," where issues normal to the Dutch --gay rights, bike facilities, prostitution and marihuana-- are discussed in less open societies.' WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION? http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution >>> You mean when cyclist continually run red lights and ignore most of the >>> traffic laws. That leads to accidents with drivers trying to avoid law [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > red light. I've been driving for almost 40 years, so the opportunity > certainly should have presented itself by now. Are you totally blind ???? Bikes run red lights and stop signs so often that it is the number one complaint of drivers when the subject comes up >>>> You mean when cyclist continually run red lights and ignore most of the >>>> traffic laws. That leads to accidents with drivers trying to avoid law [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Are you totally blind ???? Bikes run red lights and stop signs so often > that it is the number one complaint of drivers when the subject comes up I must be blind. I've never seen even one. I have heard the complaints, too, but I have never seen one. > > Are you totally blind ???? Bikes run red lights and stop signs so > > often that it is the number one complaint of drivers when the > > subject comes up > > > I must be blind. I've never seen even one. I have heard the > complaints, too, but I have never seen one. You can't be serious. Try visiting the Bay Area, particular San Francisco or any place with a large university. You'll see bicyclists running stop signs and red lights all the time. Of course, you'll see drivers doing the same thing. SignatureMy real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB >>> Are you totally blind ???? Bikes run red lights and stop signs so >>> often that it is the number one complaint of drivers when the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > running stop signs and red lights all the time. Of course, you'll see > drivers doing the same thing. No, I am serious. We don't have bicycle couriers here and I have never seen a Critical Mass except on You-Tube. I sometimes visit a town that has a large university (40,000 students), and while I see cyclists treat all those pesky 4-way stop signs on residential streets like yield signs, just blowing through lights isn't done there, either. I've only seen cars blow through lights. I personally know two people that were driving and were "T-boned" by a red light running cars. One died. I don't know any bicycle rider that was killed running a light. I suppose if I surfed the 'net long enough, I could find one, but most people on bicycles get killed here while riding the wrong way on the sidewalk on their way to or from work. This is why I keep telling you not to extend your view of NoCal to the rest of the country. The laws are different and people are different. > >>> Are you totally blind ???? Bikes run red lights and stop signs so > >>> often that it is the number one complaint of drivers when the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No, I am serious. We don't have bicycle couriers here and I have never > seen a Critical Mass except on You-Tube. You must not have universities either. While walking across the street today, some college age guy on a bike cut me off as he ran a stop sign. I had the right of way as a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Once, while about to cross an arterial after the light had changed, some teenager riding a bike too fast for conditions shot off the sidewalk, running a red light, and I had to try a maximum performance stop to avoid a collision even though I was barely moving. > I personally know two people that were driving and were "T-boned" by a > red light running cars. One died. I don't know any bicycle rider that > was killed running a light. I suppose if I surfed the 'net long > enough, I could find one, but most people on bicycles get killed here > while riding the wrong way on the sidewalk on their way to or from > work. Oh, it happens. > This is why I keep telling you not to extend your view of NoCal to the > rest of the country. The laws are different and people are different. Rather, you are simply a loon. I might add that, being near a major uiversity (Stanford) with students from all over the U.S., the sample of college-age bicyclists (ones using bicycles for transportation) are pretty much representative of the U.S. as a whole. Trying to pass it of as "NoCal" is incredibly stupid of you. SignatureMy real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB >>>>> Are you totally blind ???? Bikes run red lights and stop signs so >>>>> often that it is the number one complaint of drivers when the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > pretty much representative of the U.S. as a whole. Trying to pass it > of as "NoCal" is incredibly stupid of you. I'm trying to figure out which is more offensive: 1. That you relate problems you have living near a major university, a problem that is easy solved; or 2. That you look into the telescope backwards, and then, when people don't see the world the way you do, you call them names. I may be "a loon", but I know when I am arguing with a contrarian and I know that is a fool's game. > I'm trying to figure out which is more offensive: > 1. That you relate problems you have living near a major university, a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I may be "a loon", but I know when I am arguing with a contrarian and > I know that is a fool's game. First, being near a major university was mentioned as an indication that our college-age bicyclist population comes from all over the U.S., so the typical behavior we see here is pretty much representative of elsewhere. And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who denies that lots of people in the U.S. who ride bicycles run stop signs and red lights really must be a loon or otherwise completely out of touch with reality. > First, being near a major university was mentioned as an > indication that our college-age bicyclist population comes > from all over the U.S., so the typical behavior we see here > is pretty much representative of elsewhere. =v= I don't think that's quite true. The college-age population is often made up of people who abandoned the bike at age 16 to move "up" to the car. Many college towns (as opposed to, say, a commuter campus) have local density, with amenities for the college-aged within walking distance. Having a car in this sort of environment could be expensive. =v= So what you get is a population that's resuming use of what they may see as a toy they'd abandoned. They're going to ride differently from, say, working-class kids and adults who've always used bikes for utility, middle-class city bike commuters or weekend warriors, etc. While they may represent geographical diversity, they're not a representative sample. > And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who denies that lots of > people in the U.S. who ride bicycles run stop signs and red > lights really must be a loon or otherwise completely out of > touch with reality. =v= Agreed. However, anyone who thinks motorists as a group behave better is also completely out of touch with reality. <_Jym_> > > First, being near a major university was mentioned as an > > indication that our college-age bicyclist population comes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > college-aged within walking distance. Having a car in this sort > of environment could be expensive. The guy I was replying to was claiming that the behavior of bicyclists we see around here (near Stanford University) is somehow atypical of the rest of the U.S., and it isn't. Lots of people run red lights and stop signs when using bicycles. They'll look both ways or listen for traffic, out of self preservation. Their behavior was no doubt the same before they showed up at Stanford, and for the reasons you mentioned, so they were running stop signs and red lights with abandon earlier in their lives as well. Since Stanford students come from all over the U.S., what I see here is a pretty good sample of what people in that age group do elsewhere. Keep in mind that the claim I was responding to was one by some guy who claimed to never see bicyclists run stop signs. We both know that claim is absurd to the point of being loony. > =v= So what you get is a population that's resuming use of what > they may see as a toy they'd abandoned. They're going to ride [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > =v= Agreed. However, anyone who thinks motorists as a group > behave better is also completely out of touch with reality. Yes, we know. :-( Yesterday or the day before, while trying to get into a left turn lane, some idiot driver passed me on my left, crossing a double yellow line to do it, and I was in a car. He was in a hurry to get to the red light ahead and probably objected to my habit of slowing down using 'engine breaking' when approaching red lights with lines of stopped cars. Doing that saves gas, reduces wear and tear on the brakes, and is safer (less risk of being tail ended by someone powdering his or her nose or being otherwise distracted.) :-) SignatureMy real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB >> First, being near a major university was mentioned as an >> indication that our college-age bicyclist population comes [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > behave better is also completely out of touch with reality. > <_Jym_> BZ is playing games by putting his post to follow up to "a" so I will post here: Then I must be the one living in an unusual place. I talked to a man once who saw a cyclist blow through a red light. He gave the cyclist a ticket. But it was only once and he has been a cop here for over 15 years. I guess people here don't ride their bicycles like NoCal college students. I know that when I when to college, I saw kids routinely walk out in front a cars, but they don't do that here. >>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: >>>>> In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't > Nonsense. Now Jack May is just making things up. I gave the statistics URL only a few weeks ago but since you only want to lie, you are not worth my time to find it again. >> Since you are playing ignorant again, riding a bike require eating more >> food. Food takes a lot of energy in the entire cycle to grow, >> transport, clean up that does that does pollute. > The amount of extra food consumed by a cyclist contributes relatively > little to pollution compared to operating a 2 ton SUV. A bike gets about 650 MPG in calorie equivalents. Food takes on average about 8 times it caloric energy in oil to grow, transport, etc. For some food flown in as is often done these days, the factor is tens of times more. Again I gave URLs only a few weeks ago. Since your only goal in life seems to be to lie about everything, it is not worth my time to keep correcting you. >>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to be to lie about everything, it is not worth my time to keep correcting > you. Bloody delusional. How much freaking oil does it take to build a car, extract and refine the additional oil to fuel it, transport the fuel to the station, etc. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: >>>>>>> In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't > Bloody delusional. How much freaking oil does it take to build a car, > extract and refine the additional oil to fuel it, transport the fuel to > the station, etc. The advantage of energy density fuel like oil and gas is that it is energy efficient to transport. Food is not high density energy and is not energy efficient to transport. Cars BTW are at least 90% recycled. Lots of energy saved. >>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I gave the statistics URL only a few weeks ago but since you only want to > lie, you are not worth my time to find it again. You did, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten how thoroughly you were debunked by the other participants in the thread. >>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You did, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten how thoroughly you > were debunked by the other participants in the thread. I did not have time to deal with the thread but when I checked I saw the exact same stupidity that is always apparent from bike and transit fanatics. Its the usual the transit and bike fanatics are the bottom of society and are incapable of figuring out anything or even using Google. The data I use is from research experts that do know how to think and figure out the truth. >>> I gave the statistics URL only a few weeks ago but since >>> you only want to lie, you are not worth my time to find it >>> again. And then: >> You did, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten how >> thoroughly you were debunked by the other participants in the >> thread. To which Jack May responds: > I did not have time to deal with the thread but when I checked > I saw the exact same stupidity that is always apparent from > bike and transit fanatics. =v= Yeah, "stupidity" in the form of real live actual data adding up to real live actual statistics. Jack May can't abide that sort of fanaticism. <_Jym_> P.S.: Note that I've removed rec.bicycles.rides from the Newsgroups: header, as this is totally off-topic for that newsgroup. >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > exact same stupidity that is always apparent from bike and transit > fanatics. Yeah, like logic ;-) >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yeah, like logic ;-) Stop distracting Jack with facts. >>>>>>>On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The data I use is from research experts that do know how to think and figure > out the truth. Jack congrats! You must be somehere on the speerhead of absolute ignorance. That's a hard piece of success to achieve. Your absoluteley fuzzy claims about cycle rides being almost as en-intensive as car rides the last time were repulsed by simple estimations of plausibility of these statements. Energy for production and operation of bike is way lower than for cars. The probably little more (I guess it's hardly more than 10%+, if at all more is being consumed by cyclist) food (including production and distribution) doesn't close the gap of an order of magnitude. Tadej Signature“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” <Upton Sinclair in The Jungle> >> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians >> and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with >> transponders? > > I think in Jack's ideal world, everybody's body is grafted onto an > automobile from birth... Remember in my world, technology evolves over time to best meet the needs of people. That is very different than your world where you want to force people to use failed transportation systems that almost all of the people have already rejected. Obviously you want a dictatorship. I want a democracy. > >> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians > >> and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Obviously you want a dictatorship. I want a democracy. A democracy where SUVs (a symbol of power and wealth) rule the roads? I thought democracy meant the poor people having a chance to ride bikes and scooters... "Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers" -Aristotle > >> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians > >> and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Obviously you want a dictatorship. I want a democracy. How is the huge amount of government investment that has and continues to be invested in this technology (which hasn't been implemented yet) somehow represent less of a democracy than improving other forms of transportation? Signature-Glennl e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317. > How is the huge amount of government investment that has and continues to > be invested in this technology (which hasn't been implemented yet) somehow > represent less of a democracy than improving other forms of > transportation? Private companies invest about an order of magnitude more money than Government on technology. The technology is appearing at a rapid rate in the market place. Since you can't see it, that is your problem. It is amazing how the bottom 14 percent of society that wants transit seems to be totally clueless on what is going on in the world. Improving on obsolete forms of transportation is mind numbingly stupid and is not done by the top of society that develop new technologies. >> How is the huge amount of government investment that has and continues to >> be invested in this technology (which hasn't been implemented yet) somehow [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Improving on obsolete forms of transportation is mind numbingly stupid and >is not done by the top of society that develop new technologies. Of course private companies spend almost nothing on science. > Of course private companies spend almost nothing on science. Most of their money is probably spent on technology to solve problems to get solutions to markets. Science research seldom gets results to users. Companies do often develop technology that is way ahead of University research. I don't think you understand how the future is invented. Extremely good research work is often done in companies. >> Of course private companies spend almost nothing on science. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't think you understand how the future is invented. Extremely good > research work is often done in companies. Lasers and microwave heat were both discovered in universities before anyone had though about what you might use them for. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> Of course private companies spend almost nothing on science. > >Most of their money is probably spent on technology to solve problems to get >solutions to markets. Science research seldom gets results to users. >Companies do often develop technology that is way ahead of University >research. Technology never gets ahead of science. >I don't think you understand how the future is invented. Extremely good >research work is often done in companies. Technology is applying science. The research is first done by scientists. Once we had Watson Labs and Bell Labs doing real science in the private sector, but almost all technology now relies on publicly funded researth, generally in universities, for breakthroughs. Some interesting facts for those Americans who love the environment as well as hate terrorism... "If Americans were to use public transportation at equivalent rates as Europeans, scientists estimate that U.S. dependence on imported oil would decrease by more than 40% and that carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by more than 25%." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transportation Of course, there's a T-shirt for you... http://www.zazzle.com/i_love_shirt-235077560498164886 >>> Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one >>> time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will > make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians. Back in the 1950s in cycle training I was told to take up a space on the road and not ride in the gutter. The result was that I was constantly hooted by motorists for being in their way. Imagine that combined with a system where they can whizz about ad lib in no danger of hurting themselves or each other. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >> Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one > >> time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The new technology the stupid and careless to drive. Well, they already do, but they won't have accidents. But unless the new techonologies allow them to fly high above, I don't see them bringing any relief. On Feb 21, 4:35 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <a1580a78-86f8-4e20-9d97-109c22dc2...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I'm really at: > tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca Short of calling Superman or Batman, we can catch the bad guys in SUVs by sticking together. Same strategy developed by the sardines 300 million years ago. Bicycles can get together and ride the lane, just like any other vehicle. Similar to Critical Mass but without antagonizing the motorists who in the end are also trapped in the cages. And also, unlike Critical Mass, we would ride the road every day for real transportation. This T-shirt can fit the bill (I've renounced to any profit on it)... http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories Then if everything fails, we call on Clark Kent. ;) On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I > go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives? > For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the > pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and > everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself > someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives? I think you're projecting a bit there Pat... Many of us on this group _love_ cities (I live in one of the biggest and most crowded cities on the planet, and I'd never live anywhere else). That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change them for the better. -Miles SignatureThe automobile has not merely taken over the street, it has dissolved the living tissue of the city. Its appetite for space is absolutely insatiable; moving and parked, it devours urban land, leaving the buildings as mere islands of habitable space in a sea of dangerous and ugly traffic. [James Marston Fitch, New York Times, 1 May 1960] For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives? ------------------------------------- You're apparently really eager to have the city follow you. Why are you so unhappy having someplace decent to live that you want it to become a city? > [...] > For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the > pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle,[...] ^^^^^^ We are not looking for places to sell things. Sheesh! SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the > pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and > everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself > someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives? I used to live in a small town until 4 years ago. I liked it, but I wouldn't ride my bike there. Driving around there I saw people in their 90's driving. They would never have dared to drive in "the city" because it was "too dangerous." Yet I routinely saw them drive through red lights that they just "didn't see." There was a bicyclist that was killed a few years ago while standing 30 feet off the shoulder of the road. That's a long way off, but the judge said it was just a "tragic accident." When judges use the word "tragic" that is shorthand for "no penalty." It occurs to me now that when growing up in the country and riding my Schwinn Varsity to school every day, a distance of over 7 miles, that if some dumbass had driven up behind me at 65 MPH (the allowed speed limit at the time on country roads) and plowed into me, the judge would have ruled that it was just a "tragic accident." > On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Believe it or not, the cities can be tamed, provided there's the political will to do it. There's plenty of evidence of it, from Curitiba (where public transportation was the key taming factor) to Copenhagen (where bike facilities made all the difference). Again, if everybody followed your advice you'd lose your paradise mighty soon. On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: - Show quoted text - Believe it or not, the cities can be tamed, provided there's the political will to do it. There's plenty of evidence of it, from Curitiba (where public transportation was the key taming factor) And all you have to do is get a lot of people to live on a few tens of dollars per month to accept your horrible nightmare. > On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And all you have to do is get a lot of people to live on a few tens of > dollars per month to accept your horrible nightmare. Jack People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Greg > On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And all you have to do is get a lot of people to live on a few tens of > dollars per month to accept your horrible nightmare. Ahhhh yeahhhh, of course: Copenhagen is a real horrific nightmare, especially when compared to some car traffic boosting city. Guess the same's valid for Amsterdam and other cities too? Jack your'e not knowing what you're talking about. Tadej Signature“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” <Upton Sinclair in The Jungle> >> On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Tadej Kind of like New York City. A nice to place to visit and then to leave? > Kind of like New York City. A nice to place to visit and then to leave? ARE YOU CRAZY????!!!! No, you're not crazy you're just a dogmatic ignoramus that apparently hasn't traveled past your "borders." Those borders may extend to town or maybe your back yard. Why don't you do what I did? "Join the Navy and see the world." Too old? I hear that they are enlisting up to age 40 now, so maybe not. I went when I was 27. If you had tried it, you wouldn't be such an ignoramus, typing tripe in your nice safe enclave. >> Kind of like New York City. A nice to place to visit and then to >> leave? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hasn't traveled past your "borders." Those borders may extend to town or > maybe your back yard. Many people think NYC is a nice place to visit and then go home. Why do you have a problem with that? > Why don't you do what I did? "Join the Navy and see the world." Too old? I > hear that they are enlisting up to age 40 now, so maybe not. I went when I > was 27. > > If you had tried it, you wouldn't be such an ignoramus, typing tripe in > your nice safe enclave. I lived in NYC for 18 years. So? > I lived in NYC for 18 years. So? No wonder. That's like living in LA. You need to expand your horizons a bit. Travel and if you can't afford it or are too old to enlist, at least go to the library and read some National Geographics. But by reading your posts, I know you are to "smart" for that. Why listen to people that have actually lived in these other places, when you can watch TV and "learn" everything you need to know? >> I lived in NYC for 18 years. So? > No wonder. That's like living in LA. You need to expand your horizons a > bit. Travel and if you can't afford it or are too old to enlist, at least > go to the library and read some National Geographics. You are a very ignorant person, to say the least. Your comments are just plan stupid. Travel with the Army? That is not travel. It is servitude. >> I lived in NYC for 18 years. So? >> > No wonder. That's like living in LA. You need to expand your horizons a > bit. Travel and if you can't afford it or are too old to enlist, at > least go to the library and read some National Geographics. Uh, where Conklin is now is more like living in LA than NYC is. > But by reading your posts, I know you are to "smart" for that. Why > listen to people that have actually lived in these other places, when > you can watch TV and "learn" everything you need to know? Some of it comes from The Reason Foundation, no? >>> I lived in NYC for 18 years. So? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Some of it comes from The Reason Foundation, no? Do they ride bicycles? >>>On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>Tadej > Kind of like New York City. A nice to place to visit and then to leave? Hahaaaaaaaaaa... well there IS something fascinating in your "out of this world" talking, I just have to figure out if it's a comedian or tragic talent you have? Tadej Signature“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” <Upton Sinclair in The Jungle> >>>> On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Tadej Tragic, I'm afraid. All that tax money spent for his education was a complete waste. That's tragic. >>>>> On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Tragic, I'm afraid. All that tax money spent for his education was a > complete waste. That's tragic. NYC is a nice place to visit, and then to leave. And, no, Philadelphia is no better. >>>>On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > world" talking, I just have to figure out if it's a comedian or tragic > talent you have? Well, having lived in NYC for 18 years, I don't see what you are crowing about. Many people visit the place and then leave. Many who were born in the area move to other parts of the world. So? George Conklin attempts to ponder: > Many people visit [New York City] and then leave. Many who > were born in the area move to other parts of the world. So? =v= So that is idiotic. New York City is famous worldwide as a place to move to. Its character and vibrancy are derived from the fact that people move *to* the city from all over the world. =v= The city's biggest drawback (and a major reason people move away even if they don't want to) is the high price of housing. This, of course, reflects demand, thereby indicating that the dominant trend is exactly the opposite of what George Conklin would have us believe. <_Jym_> > George Conklin attempts to ponder: >> Many people visit [New York City] and then leave. Many who >> were born in the area move to other parts of the world. So? > > =v= So that is idiotic. New York City is famous worldwide as a > place to move to. 40% of NYC today is foreign-born. Those who were actually natives to the city got out to make room for the newcomers. >> George Conklin attempts to ponder: >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 40% of NYC today is foreign-born. Those who were actually natives > to the city got out to make room for the newcomers. 36 percent, actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City If that's a measure of how badly people want to move away, then since 41 percent of the residents of Los Angeles are foreign-born. People must really be wanting to move away from there. >>> George Conklin attempts to ponder: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > percent of the residents of Los Angeles are foreign-born. People must > really be wanting to move away from there. I know my sister would love to move out of the LA area, but moving is a big financial and relations decision. I personally don't want to move out of the SF Bay area. >>>> George Conklin attempts to ponder: >>>>> Many people visit [New York City] and then leave. Many who [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I personally don't want to move out of the SF Bay area. But when the Lord rains fire and brimstone upon the evil, decadent, laggard transit users in the SF Bay Area, might you be caught in the cross fire? >>>>> George Conklin attempts to ponder: >>>>>> Many people visit [New York City] and then leave. Many who [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > laggard transit users in the SF Bay Area, might you be caught in the cross > fire? The laggard transit users are more worried about being crushed in the dark cold if they are caught in the transbay tube during an earthquake. The trans bay BART tube rests on the floor of the cold, cold SF Bay. There might be some fire and brimstone if the large amount of elevated BART track collapses after an earthquake and turns the trains into balls of fire from all of high voltage electricity. Today in the news we are seeing people killed by the collapse of a large crane in NYC, a tornado in Atlanta, and an earthquake in Portland. All of the place have large investments in transit. Maybe God hates transit like he hates trailer parks, churches, and the God worshiping mid-west when he destroys them with tornados. God obviously does not like kiss a.s people. Maybe God hates transit so much that he had the EPA establish this week that environmentally hostile trains must cut their particulate matter by 90% and pollution by 80% for all of those trains by 2030. To enforce his actions he has not given the knowledge to GE to meet those goals (according to GE) :-) I had a colonoscopy test this week and I continue with never having a polyp. As I have said before, Kaiser says I am the only person in the history of my particular Kaiser that has had no detectible medical problems in the large banks of tests they use for diagnosis. Obviously God wants to protect me to continue to try and bring you guys back to his fold :-) > I had a colonoscopy test this week and I continue with never having a > polyp. Thank you for sharing. We're always curious about what is going on in your a.s... >> I had a colonoscopy test this week and I continue with never having a >> polyp. > > Thank you for sharing. We're always curious about what is going on in your > a.s... Here's the kicker: they had to use a satellite. >> = Jack May > = Mary Blankenship >> The laggard transit users are more worried about being >> crushed in the dark cold if they are caught in the transbay [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> turns the trains into balls of fire from all of high voltage >> electricity. =v= I seem to vaguely recall an earthquake of some sort back in 1989. Seems to me that both the transbay tube and the elevated rail structures were fine, but there was a wee little problem with collapsing car infrastructure. >> Today in the news we are seeing people killed by the collapse >> of a large crane in NYC, a tornado in Atlanta, and an >> earthquake in Portland. All of the place have large >> investments in transit. =v= Are we to believe that a subway ran into the crane? That the tornado was due to transit users not producing sufficient greenhouse gasses? That if the good people of Portland had sprawled the way you advise everyone to, that they wouldn't be out closer to the earthquake (rather than safely within their urban growth boundary)? =v= Of course there are also such disasters as the collapse of the Interstate highway bridge in Minneapolis, which Mary Peters blamed on bike lanes but was later found out to be the Hand of God warning them against inflicting the Republican National Convention on the area. >> I had a colonoscopy test this week and I continue with never >> having a polyp. > Thank you for sharing. We're always curious about what is > going on in your a.s... =v= The "facts" and such that he shares with us on a daily basis are pulled from there. <_Jym_> >>>>>> George Conklin attempts to ponder: >>>>>>> Many people visit [New York City] and then leave. Many who [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Obviously God wants to protect me to continue to try and bring you guys back > to his fold :-) [Explosion]Yes, he was behind the middle bush. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>> George Conklin attempts to ponder: >>>>>> Many people visit [New York City] and then leave. Many who [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > laggard transit users in the SF Bay Area, might you be caught in the > cross fire? A gold plated door on the thirty-third floor................. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>> George Conklin attempts to ponder: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > percent of the residents of Los Angeles are foreign-born. People must > really be wanting to move away from there. It has and old name: urban succession. > 40% of NYC today is foreign-born. Those who were actually > natives to the city got out to make room for the newcomers. =v= *Some* who were born in the city got out. Not necessarily because they wanted to. I realize that you felt the call of the 'burbs, the SUVs, and buying 9000 disposable paper plates at Price-Costco, but not everyone there is so warped. <_Jym_> >>> On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Kind of like New York City. A nice to place to visit and then to leave? This great big city's a wondrous toy. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>> On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> leave? > This great big city's a wondrous toy. Home of Bear-Stearns too. >>>>> On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Home of Bear-Stearns too. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >>> On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > This great big city's a wondrous toy. Ugh. NYC ain't a "wonderous" anything. "Your" newspaper ran an article about where I live. They title it (as least on the web site) a "haven". Now THIS is wonderous and THIS is how to live: http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/travel/escapes/14havens.html?scp=1&sq=ellic ottville&st=nyt Here's a hint. When people escape TO here, they are escaping FROM cities. > -- > Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it > has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management > decisions. -From "Rollerball"- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - >>> On Feb 23, 7:08 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> Jack your'e not knowing what you're talking about. Nothing new there. >> Tadej > > Kind of like New York City. A nice to place to visit and then to leave? Most places are nicer when you leave. >On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself >someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives? Most of the problems cited in the posting could occur in rural areas as well. Around my area in rural Nova Scotia, most of the roads have little or no shoulder and virtually no roads have the 10 foot paved shoulder, not even our limited access societies. However, in Nova Scotia, most motorist will stop for someone trying to cross the street. Clark Morris On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I > go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution First you apply your "guilt by association" and reason that because SOME SUV drivers are bad/aggressive/whatever that all are bad/ aggressive/whatever. Then you refer to them as terrorist just to up the ante. Well if you want to fight terrist and paint with a broad brush, I think you need to fight the newest type of domestic terrorists and BAN BICYCLING. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--timessquareblast0306mar 06,0,5524790.story Banning biking to end terrorism makes as much sense as anything you say. At least this is a real example of a recent event. > On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But for every cyclist terrorist there are 10 million potential SUV terrorists out there. Like I said, they may not even have the intention but the result of their reckless driving is terror and sometimes death and mayhem. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.