Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!



-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Sancho Panza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>

> > Just how long do you think Israel would last if they nuked Iran?

>
> Long enough to make Iran regret it.
>

An up is down and down is sideways. Re-read the question -- if you can.
 
On 2006-08-28, Roger Houston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:10:05 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>Just how long do you think Israel would last if they nuked Iran?

>>
>> Now?
>> Longer than Iran would last.
>> A more appropriate question would be, how long do you think Iran would
>> last if it nuked Israel?

>
> Or put another way, What's the past tense of "Iran"?
>
>

Oilless
 
John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> donquijote1954 <[email protected]> writes
> >John Beardmore wrote:

>
> >> >Sure, here's a little tiny solution (a folding bike) that can bring
> >> >great results...
> >> >
> >> >DAHON COMMUTING FORUM
> >> >http://www.dahon.com/forum/index.php?s=0c8ad71b34044260b8775ffa685092d1&
> >> >showforum=18
> >>
> >> Yes - I've got no problem with that !

> >
> >OK, I don't have any problem with you not living in London,

>
> Good !
>
>
> > just that
> >don't sell like a solution, which is what they do here in America.

>
> I can't parse that - but I'm not suggesting that folding bikes will
> solve all mankind's problems if that's what you are thinking I'm
> thinking ? None the less, they can be part of a 'lower impact
> lifestyle'.


No, again, folding bikes can be just a good part of a MULTIMODAL
SOLUTION. They can fold and easily be transported in a car or bus, for
example. So we should promote independence from the automobile
monopoly...

Source: Talking Point, BBC News

Having lived in the US last year, I can say most of the comments here
belittling this lawsuit stem from ignorance of life in the US. People
here in the UK are MUCH more aware of what is healthy. In the US "Big
Food" dominates the airwaves and the vast majority of people are
genuinely misinformed. Americans live off processed food regularly now.

Having said that, I think the lawsuit is partially misguided because
bad
food is no more than half the problem of obesity that is now coming to
the fore in the US. The other half is the lifestyle the country imposes

on people. In the US you are literally FORCED to drive everywhere -
even
a 5 minute hop to a local supermarket. People live in a system where
they do everything sitting down. So it is not just that massive amounts

of calories (with little nutrition) are readily and cheaply on offer,
but that burning any of it off in the normal course of a day is near
impossible.
James, UK

>
>
> > Of
> >course, then they also want to sell you the gas-guzzling, polluting
> >SUV... Then you are part of the problem, notwithstanding all the bumper
> >stickers supporting the troops, believing in God, etc...

>
> Who ever "they" are...


They call them "yuppies" here, and they are the happy customers of the
"hungry lion" aka as SUV manufacturers, Big Oil and other predators. ;)

>
>
> >In my model, the hungry lion is MONOPOLISTIC and hates competition from
> >even the little bikes, which is not your case. Who knows, you may even
> >be part of the solution...

>
> Maybe...


"You are either with us or against us," said Bush, so the same can be
applied to the ecological/peace stance you take. Only that if you
follow Bush and company, you are likely to be against the environment
and peace. :(

>
>
> >THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
> >Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
> >day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and
> >seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all, demanded
> >JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to
> >have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever,
> >devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a
> >lion...
> >
> >When the HUNGRY LION saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match
> >for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the
> >indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
> >the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... (NOTE: Other
> >monkeys survived him...)

>
> Yes - maybe, but the message might be clearer without encryption !


If Jesus spoke in parables, I don't see a reason why we can't use them.
The lion is meant to be the "beast," similar to this one...

"The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in
front of it." -Axel Munthe
 
In reply to...

QUOTE(Elusor @ Aug 27 2006, 01:40 PM)

"i bike to work, and it is sometimes intimidating

i have to go through an area that has only one lane, and i can always
feel cars trying to over take me

i don't think i am brave enough to hog the lane yet since i don't bike
nearly as fast as some seasoned cyclists

i am also afraid of parked cars

they probably scare me more...that sound of a car door opening in my
general direction a few metres ahead..."


I say...

"The worse thing is to fear is fear itself," so go today to a lawyer
and do your will and then go out there and enjoy. :(

When the lion roars the little animals of the jungle get intimidated,
but the monkeys keep going around their business --probably because
they live in the tree branches. Only solution I see is separating
predators and prey, pretty much like separating cars and bicycles
through well marked bike lanes.
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
....
>
> They call them "yuppies" here, and they are the happy customers of the
> "hungry lion" aka as SUV manufacturers, Big Oil and other predators. ;)
>



I paid $2.40 for gas yesterday, if it keeps dropping, I might just go out
and buy a big SUV.
 
di wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> ...
> >
> > They call them "yuppies" here, and they are the happy customers of the
> > "hungry lion" aka as SUV manufacturers, Big Oil and other predators. ;)
> >

>
>
> I paid $2.40 for gas yesterday, if it keeps dropping, I might just go out
> and buy a big SUV.


Still biking is more fun.

Well, that's my point... ;)

http://cafepress.com/putsomefun
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:KHHJg.125329$LF4.80815@dukeread05...
>
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> ...
> >
> > They call them "yuppies" here, and they are the happy customers of the
> > "hungry lion" aka as SUV manufacturers, Big Oil and other predators. ;)
> >

>
>
> I paid $2.40 for gas yesterday, if it keeps dropping, I might just go out
> and buy a big SUV.
>

After taxes, gas is cheaper in Europe than in the US. In effect, you're
subsidizing the Europeans.
 
John Beardmore wrote:
> >When the lion roars the little animals of the jungle get intimidated,
> >but the monkeys keep going around their business --probably because
> >they live in the tree branches. Only solution I see is separating
> >predators and prey, pretty much like separating cars and bicycles
> >through well marked bike lanes.

>
> Not sure that's a great idea anyway. Prefer hogging the lane and going
> for it myself !
>


See, you are in the revolution. Either bike lanes or hugging the lane.

There's an identifying T-shirt for it...

http://cafepress.com/burncalories

But, of course, WE MUST GET ORGANIZED. ;)
 
"It doesn't take many miles in the saddle before you get cut off,
flipped off, screamed at, or run entirely off the road... As a
bicyclist, this can be terrifying. When a driver begins yelling
angrily, or gesturing obscenely, or comes a little too close when they
pass, you begin to appreciate how vulnerable you are as you compete for
space on the road with those cars, trucks, and buses."

If you wondered why there are so few cyclists out there, even though
bicycling is such a sensible option, which can even help prevent
predatory wars for resources, and thought the TERRORISTS wore a mask in
Iraq, think again. The answer may be in this appeal. Welcome to the
Jungle.

"If you are a cyclist you should know I exist, that I don't care about
you. That I don't care about your life."


Hatred Against Cyclists
posted by PAgent at 4:01 PM on July 14, 2006
If you commute by bicycle in Portland, you don't have to be told that
there are drivers out there that are hostile to cyclists. It doesn't
take many miles in the saddle before you get cut off, flipped off,
screamed at, or run entirely off the road. Even in a city that prides
itself on being 'bike-friendly', there are plenty of drivers that
resent the presence of bicycles on the road, and all-too-often their
resentment translates into action.

As a bicyclist, this can be terrifying. When a driver begins yelling
angrily, or gesturing obscenely, or comes a little too close when they
pass, you begin to appreciate how vulnerable you are as you compete for
space on the road with those cars, trucks, and buses.

Jonathan Maus over at BikePortland.org has posted an article reporting
how the hosts of 'The Playhouse' on 95.5 Jammin' FM were joking about
cyclists getting injured in car accidents. But they apparently went
beyond joking, to encouraging their listeners to commit violence
against cyclists. Jonathan quotes Portland cyclist Lanette Noble, who
indicates she heard the radio host say

"When I hear on TV that a cyclist has been hit and killed by a car I
laugh, I think it's funny"
and

"If you are a cyclist you should know I exist, that I don't care about
you. That I don't care about your life."

Now, if you head over to the "The Playhouse" website, it is instantly
clear that this program uses whatever shock tactics they can to
generate ratings. And that's fine. If I don't want to listen to their
style of radio, I can turn the channel. But when they start advocating
violence against any particular group of human beings, I think they've
crossed the line. And when they start advocating violence against a
group to which I belong, well, it's hard not to take it a bit
personally.

BikePortland.org provides the name of the company that owns Jammin' 95,
as well as the name and contact info for the station's General Manager.
There's no shortage of outrage in the comments left at BikePortland,
but personally I'd like to see a transcript of the show, hear a
recording, or hear additional accounts from folks that heard the
program before doing anything rash. Like demanding someone's head on a
plate.

So, did any of you hear this broadcast? What did you think of it? Is
this the kind of message we want broadcast here in Portland? If it
bothered you, let them know.

http://portland.metblogs.com/archives/2006/07/hatred_against.phtml

BIKE FOR PEACE
http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace
 
donquijote1954 wrote:


> Hatred Against Cyclists
> posted by PAgent at 4:01 PM on July 14, 2006
> If you commute by bicycle in Portland, you don't have to be told that
> there are drivers out there that are hostile to cyclists. It doesn't
> take many miles in the saddle before you get cut off, flipped off,
> screamed at, or run entirely off the road. Even in a city that prides
> itself on being 'bike-friendly', there are plenty of drivers that
> resent the presence of bicycles on the road, and all-too-often their
> resentment translates into action.


If cry baby bicyclists didn't whine about wanting their own lanes just
for bikes in Portland and elsewhere, then there wouldn't be an
artificially created us vs. them mentality.

Wayne
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
>
> > Hatred Against Cyclists
> > posted by PAgent at 4:01 PM on July 14, 2006
> > If you commute by bicycle in Portland, you don't have to be told that
> > there are drivers out there that are hostile to cyclists. It doesn't
> > take many miles in the saddle before you get cut off, flipped off,
> > screamed at, or run entirely off the road. Even in a city that prides
> > itself on being 'bike-friendly', there are plenty of drivers that
> > resent the presence of bicycles on the road, and all-too-often their
> > resentment translates into action.

>
> If cry baby bicyclists didn't whine about wanting their own lanes just
> for bikes in Portland and elsewhere, then there wouldn't be an
> artificially created us vs. them mentality.
>


Then you are with me: EITHER BIKES LANES OR TAKE THE LINE.

Right? Or maybe both, allowing for the brave ones to ride wherever they
please (the road, in this case) without butting in into where others
ride (bike lanes)...

Isn't that LIVE AND LET LIVE?
 
Jim E wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "It doesn't take many miles in the saddle before you get cut off,
> > flipped off, screamed at, or run entirely off the road... As a
> > bicyclist, this can be terrifying. When a driver begins yelling
> > angrily, or gesturing obscenely, or comes a little too close when they
> > pass, you begin to appreciate how vulnerable you are as you compete for
> > space on the road with those cars, trucks, and buses."
> >

>
>
> Every bicycle should pay the same license fees, and obey the same traffic
> laws as a car.
> Riding on the road should require an operators license.
> A bicyclist impeding traffic should get thirty days in the house of many
> doors.
>


Or maybe they could have BIKE LANES and all could share the road and
LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER...

You don't want monopoly over the road, right? Or you think, saving gas
and environment is not worth it of some inconveniences on your part?
But fewer cars on the road would be a good reward for you, isn't it?

Or maybe you should be the one going to prison for bullying others...
 
Jim E wrote:
> Why do cyclists think they can ignore traffic laws?


Quite simply because they are not deadly to others. For example, why
would have to stop at a stop sign on a bike? Of course, if you get run
over it's your responsibility...
 
John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> donquijote1954 <[email protected]> writes
>
> >Or maybe they could have BIKE LANES and all could share the road and
> >LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER...

>
> How much evidence is there that bike lanes make things safer for
> cyclists ?


It brings people out for one. And there's plenty of evidence that
there's SAFETY IN NUMBERS. You can relax more, also, if you concentrate
on keeping your lane instead of being on the lookout for every possible
danger. etc, etc, etc...

>
>
> >You don't want monopoly over the road, right?

>
> Bet he does.
>
>
> > Or you think, saving gas
> >and environment is not worth it of some inconveniences on your part?

>
> Doubt he does.
>
>
> >But fewer cars on the road would be a good reward for you, isn't it?

>
> No - criticising car use would be clear hypocrisy - that's probably
> why he's picking on cyclists...


No it isn't if you don't drive a car or if you use it only when
necessary. Hypocrisy would be critisize it and then drive an SUV.

>
>
> >Or maybe you should be the one going to prison for bullying others...

>
> Not sure that 'bullying' is an offence outside the playground walls...


It should be. I hear in Germany today it's an offense to give the
finger to other drivers. Civilized behavior should be enforced or else
we would have a jungle on the roads, which is what we got, at least in
America. Road Nazis should be prosecuted and executed. (just kidding)

"Our roads, where the Law of the Jungle rules, should be made safer,
say by enforcing passing on the left only."

more at...

COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1
 
On 2 Sep 2006 13:34:05 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jim E wrote:
>> Why do cyclists think they can ignore traffic laws?

>
>Quite simply because they are not deadly to others. For example, why
>would have to stop at a stop sign on a bike? Of course, if you get run
>over it's your responsibility...


And, of course, if the driver, instead of hitting you, swerved and hit
something (someone) else, causing damage or injury or death, would you
feel in any way responsible?
Hmmm... Maybe that's why bike riders have to obey traffic laws.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Bill Funk wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2006 13:34:05 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Jim E wrote:
> >> Why do cyclists think they can ignore traffic laws?

> >
> >Quite simply because they are not deadly to others. For example, why
> >would have to stop at a stop sign on a bike? Of course, if you get run
> >over it's your responsibility...

>
> And, of course, if the driver, instead of hitting you, swerved and hit
> something (someone) else, causing damage or injury or death, would you
> feel in any way responsible?
> Hmmm... Maybe that's why bike riders have to obey traffic laws.
> --


"Equal law" is not fair when you have big fat deadly SUVs pitted
against fragile bikes.

Only stopping and going would take more energy than a good breakfast.
 
John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> donquijote1954 <[email protected]> writes
> >John Beardmore wrote:
> >> In message <[email protected]>,
> >> donquijote1954 <[email protected]> writes

>
> >> >Or maybe they could have BIKE LANES and all could share the road and
> >> >LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER...
> >>
> >> How much evidence is there that bike lanes make things safer for
> >> cyclists ?

> >
> >It brings people out for one. And there's plenty of evidence that
> >there's SAFETY IN NUMBERS.

>
> Only helps if the cycle lanes have lots of users. Generally they do
> not, and thus can be a waste of road capacity.


People are not that stupid. What happens is the bike lanes are mostly
built where the lions --well, the important people live. And they only
use their bikes for pastime.

>
>
> > You can relax more, also, if you concentrate
> >on keeping your lane instead of being on the lookout for every possible
> >danger. etc, etc, etc...

>
> No - this reduces the interactive process of riding a bike to following
> a white line.


It's better to have your own turf than having nothing at all. And then
the drivers wonder what on earth are you doing in "their" road. !?
>
> With my Institute of Advance Motorists and Institute of Occupational
> Safety and Health hats on, I have to suggest that that sucks !


OK, I listen to the experts but also to common sense. Either we need
bike lanes or we take the lane. And then we need some public education
on the issue, and you'll see the little animals of the jungle come out
in hordes to enjoy such a fun, cheap, healthy transportation.

>
> >"Our roads, where the Law of the Jungle rules, should be made safer,
> >say by enforcing passing on the left only."

>
> So is passing on the left only the law in the US ?


The opposite of you. See, you are upside down. Or is it us? ;)
 
On 5 Sep 2006 13:02:26 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On 2 Sep 2006 13:34:05 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Jim E wrote:
>> >> Why do cyclists think they can ignore traffic laws?
>> >
>> >Quite simply because they are not deadly to others. For example, why
>> >would have to stop at a stop sign on a bike? Of course, if you get run
>> >over it's your responsibility...

>>
>> And, of course, if the driver, instead of hitting you, swerved and hit
>> something (someone) else, causing damage or injury or death, would you
>> feel in any way responsible?
>> Hmmm... Maybe that's why bike riders have to obey traffic laws.
>> --

>
>"Equal law" is not fair when you have big fat deadly SUVs pitted
>against fragile bikes.


SUVs?
What's the connection here? Get hit by an SUV or a Toyota, the result
is pretty much the same.
Of course equal law should apply here; bike riders aren't car-proof.
>
>Only stopping and going would take more energy than a good breakfast.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2006 13:02:26 -0700, "donquijote1954" dribbled:
>>
>>"Equal law" is not fair when you have big fat deadly SUVs pitted
>>against fragile bikes.

>
> SUVs?
> What's the connection here? Get hit by an SUV or a Toyota, the result
> is pretty much the same.


Well actually, if I recall correctly, the fatal injury rate to
pedestrians and similar others (cyclists) from SUV's is *much* higher.
So, they do present a rather higher risk to other people than a sedan
or similar car.

Which is beside the point. Please, please, please would you people
killfile quijote? Or at least trim the cycling newsgroups? He doesn't
even post in the bicycle newsgroups because he isn't a cyclist as far as
I can tell, he appears to be a full-time troll and/or headcase.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
The scum also rises.
-- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
 
Bill Funk wrote:
> >"Equal law" is not fair when you have big fat deadly SUVs pitted
> >against fragile bikes.

>
> SUVs?
> What's the connection here? Get hit by an SUV or a Toyota, the result
> is pretty much the same.


Well, let's the SUV is more likely to kill you. I think it's like 16
times more deadly to the passengers in the little Toyota than another
car. Let alone if it hits someone in an aluminum bike. Beauty vs. the
Beast.

> Of course equal law should apply here; bike riders aren't car-proof.


And they are even dangerous while parked: They are oversized and forced
cyclists into the lane, ie into their death.