Does a trike put me on a collision course with traffic?

[Tony B]

Jack May wrote:

> Highly unlikely that everybody just wants to stay poor and just sit around
> as society self destructs.

I would have thought so too, but just where is all the work-in-progress?
For years, alternative energy has been seen as a joke (at least here in
the UK). We have no real renewable prgram, at least nothing even close
to coming on stream with the requisite 225 mtonne oil equivalence we
use. Renewables are around 1% of UK energy, the vast majority is coal,
oil and gas... when wind farms are proposed, joe public gets up in arms
about the view getting spoiled. Nuclear? Not in my experience, and the
legacy of sixty years ago is still to be dealt with.. People buy huge
cars for no reason other than personal aggrandisement. Packaging has
reached ridiculous levels. Goods no-one needs are hauled round the world
for short term amusement. This is the reality of "the market" in action
but everyone goes along with it without a thought. To so much as bring
these things up in conversation attracts ridicule, ambivolence or
occasionally hostility. The whole show is built on the assumption of
continual growth, but given finite resourcing that is patently
impossible and no tech wonder solution can alter that. It needs a phase
change in our understanding of life to get away from conspicious
consumption, but there is no market driver for such a change.

Anyway enough of all this doom and gloom, I'm off to buy a new bicycle
to cheer myself up

T

 

[ComandanteBanana]

On Apr 4, 12:05 am, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:00 pm, ComandanteBanana <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
> > beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
> > TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
> > put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
> > can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
> > the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
> > sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
> > vehicle.
>
> > What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
> > tandem, or should I start planning my funerals?
>
> > WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
>
> The 2006 US Census estimated the total population at just under 300
> million people. According to FARS data in that same year, 773 cyclists
> were killed in traffic crashes. Adding pedestrian deaths there were
> just 5740 non-motorist deaths from traffic crashes that year. That
> would seem to contradict your view that a significant percentage of
> motorists are homicidal maniacs intent on doing cyclists harm. Either
> that or the overwhelming majority of that group are *extremely
> incompetent* homicidal maniacs.
> Pedal your bike, not your silly fearmongering.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt

It ain't fearmongering; it's the reality of the jungle, which is in
plain view for all to see...

'Doug - 03 April 2008 11:41 PM
On the subject of bicycles, I've noticed that here in South Beach,
riders can be as aggressive toward pedestrians as cars can.

Psychologists would probably say its a product of the "caged rat
syndrome." As a species, we've overpopulated to the extent that we're
turning on each other. Good idea for a horror movie plot!'


Hey Doug, I've got my own theory...

The SUV intimidates the car, they both intimidate the bicycle, the
bike gets on the sidewalk and it intimidates pedestrians, and
pedestrians just intimidate each other...

I'd dismiss the rat theory, because there are far more people crowded
together in places like Holland and they still get along pretty good.

Oh, the name of my theory is "The Big Fish Eats the Little Fish."
Coming to a theater near you...

http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=The+Big+Fish&l2=Eats&l3=the+Little+Fish&l4=

 

[ComandanteBanana]

On Apr 3, 9:38 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:

Oil is owned by a few major suppliers -- an
> oligarchy if you will -- who control the supply.  After that, it's
> supply and demand.  

Does our reliance on oil make us a Banana Republic? It certainly
sounds familiar: "oligarchy" and...

WELCOME TO THE BANANA REPUBLIC

'The term was coined by O. Henry, an American humorist and short story
writer... "Republic" in his time was often a euphemism for a
dictatorship, while "banana" implied an easy reliance on basic
agriculture and backwardness in the development of modern industrial
technology.'

And we can say the same of a republic that relies on old technologies
built around oil while having a strong commander in chief that drives
us into war to secure more oil.

But, of course, there are many more signs of Banana Republic...

http://banana-republic.net/

 

[Pat]

On Apr 4, 8:39 am, ComandanteBanana <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 12:05 am, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 12:00 pm, ComandanteBanana <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
> > > beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
> > > TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
> > > put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
> > > can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
> > > the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
> > > sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
> > > vehicle.
>
> > > What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
> > > tandem, or should I start planning my funerals?
>
> > > WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
>
> > The 2006 US Census estimated the total population at just under 300
> > million people. According to FARS data in that same year, 773 cyclists
> > were killed in traffic crashes. Adding pedestrian deaths there were
> > just 5740 non-motorist deaths from traffic crashes that year. That
> > would seem to contradict your view that a significant percentage of
> > motorists are homicidal maniacs intent on doing cyclists harm. Either
> > that or the overwhelming majority of that group are *extremely
> > incompetent* homicidal maniacs.
> > Pedal your bike, not your silly fearmongering.
>
> > Regards,
> > Bob Hunt
>
> It ain't fearmongering; it's the reality of the jungle, which is in
> plain view for all to see...
>
> 'Doug - 03 April 2008 11:41 PM
> On the subject of bicycles, I've noticed that here in South Beach,
> riders can be as aggressive toward pedestrians as cars can.
>
> Psychologists would probably say its a product of the "caged rat
> syndrome." As a species, we've overpopulated to the extent that we're
> turning on each other.  Good idea for a horror movie plot!'
>
> Hey Doug, I've got my own theory...
>
> The SUV intimidates the car, they both intimidate the bicycle, the
> bike gets on the sidewalk and it intimidates pedestrians, and
> pedestrians just intimidate each other...
>
> I'd dismiss the rat theory, because there are far more people crowded
> together in places like Holland and they still get along pretty good.
>
> Oh, the name of my theory is "The Big Fish Eats the Little Fish."
> Coming to a theater near you...
>
> http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=The+Big+Fish&l2=Eats&l3=the+L...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree and disagree with both of you, but not for the reasons anyone
would think. Mostly because I can't even comprehend the problems.

Living is a semi-rural area, we have civil people. We say "hi" to
each other and know our neighbors. I don't see any problems with SUV
drivers. For some reason the bikers have them under the microscope
but I just don't see why. Even when I go to cities (which is fairly
often) I don't see the difference.

So if you want to ride a bike and think there are safer areas out
there, then move. What's so hard about that? Go get another house.
Go get another job. If you feel unsafe biking to work, then change
things. What's the big deal. I could bike anywhere in the community
I live in and it wouldn't be a problem. So get your priorities in
line.

Meanwhile, if you feel unsafe, look within. Are you doing anything
that you shouldn't be or that's unpredictable? I see more of that
with people on bikes than with drivers. Drivers are a fairly
predictable group. You know about what speed they are going, how wide
the lane is and how wide the car is. If you are obstructing them,
then get out of the way. You need to be able to keep up with traffic
if you're going to be on the road.

Finally, I ride a motorcycle in the summer. Bigger and faster than a
bike, but still not a car. If ride like you are intimidated, you will
be intimidated. If you ride like you should, then you're not
intimidated. The only vehicle that really bothers me are dump trucks
with uncovered loads. Hit a pea-stone at 70 some time and you feel a
ting. But you plan for that because you know it's a hazzard. You
wear leathers and a full-face helmut. But you don't go crying about
it. You just plan for the possibility and accept that it will
happen. Personally, I also get on my CB and discuss the situation
with the driver and most of the time they don't realize that they have
stuff flying off their trucks. Most promise to cover their loads next
time. Most probably don't but some might. I don't know. But you
just plan for the know hazzards and accept the unknown ones. Life's
too short to be grumpy.

 

[Pat]

On Apr 1, 5:57 pm, ComandanteBanana <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 5:37 pm, Jens Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ComandanteBanana schrieb:
>
> > >> Bicycle parking facilities? Well, that might be the case. Facilities for
> > >> moving bicycle traffic? Here, there are much too many of them ...
>
> > > Nice. Most of the nation lacks those facilities.
>
> > No, not nice. They are actually causing completely real deaths of people..
>
> What is causing their deaths, the bike facilities?
>
> WE NEED BIKE LANES or 20MPH LANES --enforced by cameras.
>
> This is a fair comment that I stick to...
>
> tjspiel
> Was at a book store last night thumbing through the latest Bicycling
> magazine. I ended up buying it mostly because of their feature report
> called: "What you can do to fix America's traffic laws - and why you
> should".
>
> There was a lot of text devoted to several people that that been
> killed or sustained permanent, life altering injuries. They were
> struck by drunk drivers or in one case, a driver trying to grab
> something out of a bag in her back seat. All of the cyclists had been
> riding on a wide shoulder or in a bike lane and had been hit from
> behind.
>
> The article seemed to focus more on stonger penalties for people who
> kill or injure cyclists and not so much on new laws. There were a lot
> of interesting statistics. For example cities with more cyclists had a
> lower percentage of fatal collisions. Another thing they mentioned
> that is absolutely true is that in the U.S. there is little or no
> driver training related to being on the road with cyclists. There's
> also little formal training for cyclists on how to ride safely in the
> street. Both are sorely needed.
>
> One good idea though was implemented in Kansas. Apparently when you
> renew your license in that state there is a written test. A guy there
> was able to successfully get the state to insure that there would be
> at least one question related to cyclists on the test. The current
> version has a multiple choice question on how many feet you must leave
> between your car and the cyclist when passing. In Kansas, it's 4 feet.
>
> Anyway, the whole article definitely made me a little more nervous
> about riding with fast moving traffic. I still contend that segregated
> bike lanes are the way to go. You can't legislate away lapses in
> judgement and attention.

The bikers in the group say we need bike lanes and camera enforcement
and this and that. That's a HUGE investment for a relatively small
group of people. That public investment could probably go for better
uses.

Since you guys like telling other people what they should do and how
they should do it, what would happen if the rest of us -- the 99.9%
who don't ride bikes -- just said "it would be cheaper and better for
society if we just banned bikes from public streets because the added
cost of them is just too high and even the riders report that it is
way too dangerous". First the ban cell phones for drivers because
they are "dangerous"; why not ban bikes because they are too dangerous?

 

[Jens Müller]

Pat schrieb:

> The bikers in the group say we need bike lanes and camera enforcement
> and this and that. That's a HUGE investment for a relatively small
> group of people.


Far more than 10% in larger cities, especially in university cities.

> That public investment could probably go for better
> uses.

ACK. E.g. for motor vehicle driver instruction.

> Since you guys like telling other people what they should do and how
> they should do it, what would happen if the rest of us -- the 99.9%
> who don't ride bikes -- just said "it would be cheaper and better for
> society if we just banned bikes from public streets because the added
> cost of them is just too high and even the riders report that it is
> way too dangerous". First the ban cell phones for drivers because
> they are "dangerous"; why not ban bikes because they are too dangerous?

Because every one has the right to use public highways.

 

[Tony B]

Pat wrote:
> So you are proposing what? A complete nationalization (worldization)
> of oil?

whoa there, I never even thought such a thing... anyway US.com already
decides the oil business so it's kind of nationalised the point I'm
struggling to make is, pretty soon there will be no oil. A point that
seems lost to all but an almost statistically insignificant minority.

> So I pay more, I don't go take over the farmer's field.

or any major corn producing regions of the world.. hoho.

> Otherwise, we'll just have to take over the middle east and enslave
> the residents there.

who's this "we"?? and how come you use future tense?

> Oil is oil. If you don't like the price, then stop using it. That's
> how the demand curve shifts.

Stop using it. OK, so all my groceries can be delivered to the shops
how? Your corn is farmed using horse? How about pesticides and
fertilisers? Everybody that provides a service to my household gets here
how? And the stuff they use, the plastic, everything.. take oil out of
your life and see what's left. Then look forwards twenty or fifty or
even a hundred years if you think it will last out that long. Then look
around at what is beong done, globally, to deal with a problem that is
sending telegraph, semaphore and e-mail telling us it's on it's way.
Nowt, that's what's being done. Not in any significant way. There is
more effort being expounded squeezing a few precious drops of oil from
tar sands than is being put into real alternativs to our oil based
society. The Oil Age will end eventually (and expert opinion is tilting
in favour of sooner rather than later) but we do nothing.

Nothing to do with politics, consumerism, religion, far right or left
maniacs - just the fact that, six billion people are alive and need the
concentrated power of oil to stay that way. It's going to run out. So
you are proposing what? It's as though the world is in denial.

T

 

[Pat]

On Apr 4, 1:47 pm, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > So you are proposing what?  A complete nationalization (worldization)
> > of oil?  
>
> whoa there, I never even thought such a thing... anyway US.com already
> decides the oil business so it's kind of nationalised the point I'm
> struggling to make is, pretty soon there will be no oil. A point that
> seems lost to all but an almost statistically insignificant minority.
>
> > So I pay more, I don't go take over the farmer's field.
>
> or any major corn producing regions of the world.. hoho.
>
> > Otherwise, we'll just have to take over the middle east and enslave
> > the residents there.
>
> who's this "we"?? and how come you use future tense?
>
> > Oil is oil.  If you don't like the price, then stop using it.  That's
> > how the demand curve shifts.
>
> Stop using it. OK, so all my groceries can be delivered to the shops
> how? Your corn is farmed using horse? How about pesticides and
> fertilisers? Everybody that provides a service to my household gets here
> how? And the stuff they use, the plastic, everything.. take oil out of
> your life and see what's left. Then look forwards twenty or fifty or
> even a hundred years if you think it will last out that long. Then look
> around at what is beong done, globally, to deal with a problem that is
> sending telegraph, semaphore and e-mail telling us it's on it's way.
> Nowt, that's what's being done. Not in any significant way. There is
> more effort being expounded squeezing a few precious drops of oil from
> tar sands than is being put into real alternativs to our oil based
> society. The Oil Age will end eventually (and expert opinion is tilting
> in favour of sooner rather than later) but we do nothing.
>
> Nothing to do with politics, consumerism, religion, far right or left
> maniacs - just the fact that, six billion people are alive and need the
> concentrated power of oil to stay that way. It's going to run out. So
> you are proposing what? It's as though the world is in denial.
>
> T

I am proposing to let the market be the market. It will survive. We
will survive. There won't be any major shortages. There won't even
be any minor shortages. Things will take care of themselves -- they
always have and they always will. Trouble will happen when the
government steps in to "solve" something. Governments can regulate
and should on many issue, but they can't innovate and they have
trouble countering the market.

Here's something for you to worry about as you're laying in bed
tonight. No one -- not a single person, yet alone a government agency
-- is in charge of making sure that the grocery stores in your town
are stocked tomorrow. People/businesses figure it out by themselves
with no government planning. Scary isn't it.

The same is true for oil. As the price goes higher, people will
innovate and find substitutions. The higher it gets, the more
substitutions will occur and the more feasible they will be. Keeping
prices down will just stiffle the innovations. Right now, bottled gas
is cheaper per BTU than oil. That's a first. But most new houses (at
least in this area) are going with propane instead of heating oil.
Boom. Substitution. 3 years ago oil was cheaper.

Diesel is cheaper per btu than gasoline. As prices go up, more
vehicles will switch. As prices go higher, they'll switch to bio
diesel.

There are already plastics made from corn.

If plastic gets too high, maybe you'll start buying your meat at the
deli counter and get it wrapped in paper instead of being under shrink
wrap. Boom. Substitution effect.

Right now, copper is through the roof. The last few buildings we've
built have very little copper in them. Boom. Substitution effect.
It lowers the demand for copper. Interestingly, we are substitution
oil-based products for copper-based ones. Oil is cheaper than copper.

It's too early to predict what will happen. But the world is not a
static place.

 

[Pat]

On Apr 4, 12:40 pm, Jens Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pat schrieb:
>
> > The bikers in the group say we need bike lanes and camera enforcement
> > and this and that.  That's a HUGE investment for a relatively small
> > group of people.
>
> Far more than 10% in larger cities, especially in university cities.

In general, you're off by nearly an order of magnitude.

By State, highest percentage workers who travel to work by foot or by
other means:

Washington DC 13.7%
Alaska 12.1%
Montana 7.2%
Hawaii 7.2%
New York 7.1%
Vermont 6.5%
...
Mississippi 2.9%
Georgia 2.8%
Tenessee 2.3%
Alabama 2.1%

But a substantial number of them are walkers (more so than riders).
The data I use for ranking happens to combine walkers with "others".
For NYS, walkers+others = 7.1% For just others, it is 2.6%. There
are more people working from home than riding bikes and "other
means". Nationwide, it's 1.7% for "other means".

By Metro Area, there are only 9 (of 331) that have percentages over
10% starting with State College, PA. and ending with NYC at 10.3%

>
> > That public investment could probably go for better
> > uses.
>
> ACK. E.g. for motor vehicle driver instruction.
>
> > Since you guys like telling other people what they should do and how
> > they should do it, what would happen if the rest of us -- the 99.9%
> > who don't ride bikes -- just said "it would be cheaper and better for
> > society if we just banned bikes from public streets because the added
> > cost of them is just too high and even the riders report that it is
> > way too dangerous".  First the ban cell phones for drivers because
> > they are "dangerous"; why not ban bikes because they are too dangerous?
>
> Because every one has the right to use public highways.

No they don't. Lot's of thinks can't use the public highways. Amish
around here can use surface streets but can't use the highway.
Highways don't allow bikes, horses pedestrians or vehicles that can't/
don't go over 45 mph.

Public streets can't have motorized wheelchairs, those little
"motorcycles" that kids ride, off-road motorcycles (such as motocross)
and anything else without a place. Actually, a bicycle is an
exception to the common rule of what can be on a street. It's the
only thing I can think of that can be on a street without a plate and
without a licensed operator. Even snowmobiles need to be registered.
But not bikes. You've raised a good point. Maybe they should
register bikes, require a plate and have a licensed operator.
Hmmmmmmm.

 

[Jens Müller]

Pat schrieb:
> Here's the problem. You think you (and others) have some God-given
> right to oil. Maybe even a right to cheap oil.

Is Iraq's oil really worth 3000 billion dollars?

 

[Jens Müller]

Pat schrieb:
>> Because every one has the right to use public highways.
>
> No they don't. Lot's of thinks can't use the public highways. Amish
> around here can use surface streets but can't use the highway.
> Highways don't allow bikes, horses pedestrians or vehicles that can't/
> don't go over 45 mph.


Please look up the definition of "highway" in your local highway code.
Thank you.

Anyway, it's a) a matter of dedication - everyone may use public goods
(including public highways) for the purpose they were dedicated to and
b) about the basic right to mobility.

At least in my country, the rule of law still prevails.

 

[Jens Müller]

Pat schrieb:
> On Apr 4, 12:40 pm, Jens Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In general, you're off by nearly an order of magnitude.
>
> By State, highest percentage workers who travel to work by foot or by
> other means:
>
> Washington DC 13.7%
> Alaska 12.1%
> Montana 7.2%
> Hawaii 7.2%
> New York 7.1%
> Vermont 6.5%
> ...
> Mississippi 2.9%
> Georgia 2.8%
> Tenessee 2.3%
> Alabama 2.1%
>

I suppose you're living in the wrong country then ...

 

[Tony B]

Pat wrote:

> Here's something for you to worry about as you're laying in bed
> tonight. No one -- not a single person, yet alone a government agency
> -- is in charge of making sure that the grocery stores in your town
> are stocked tomorrow. People/businesses figure it out by themselves
> with no government planning. Scary isn't it.

no, because I can grow my own stuff or keep livestock.. however I will
struggle to build myself a powerstation or a hospital.

> The same is true for oil. As the price goes higher, people will
> innovate and find substitutions.

It's higher now - where are the substitutions? That's my point..


> Right now, bottled gas is cheaper per BTU than oil.

another finite resource.

> Diesel is cheaper per btu than gasoline.

not here, but it's almost the same as unleaded..

> As prices go higher, they'll switch to bio
> diesel.

which is how efficientr exactly?? How many biodiesel plants are there
worldwide? How long do they take to build?

> There are already plastics made from corn.
that's a new on eon me, I will google...


> It's too early to predict what will happen. But the world is not a
> static place.

no, it's not. it's not infinite either...

thanks for your pov Pat, but I fear we will forever be at cossed
purposes with this discourse so I'll leave it there if that's OK with you.

bfn,

T

 

[Pat]

On Apr 4, 3:51 pm, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > Here's something for you to worry about as you're laying in bed
> > tonight.  No one -- not a single person, yet alone a government agency
> > -- is in charge of making sure that the grocery stores in your town
> > are stocked tomorrow.  People/businesses figure it out by themselves
> > with no government planning.  Scary isn't it.
>
> no, because I can grow my own stuff or keep livestock.. however I will
> struggle to build myself a powerstation or a hospital.
>
> > The same is true for oil.  As the price goes higher, people will
> > innovate and find substitutions.
>
> It's higher now - where are the substitutions? That's my point..
>
> > Right now, bottled gas is cheaper per BTU than oil.
>
> another finite resource.
>
> > Diesel is cheaper per btu than gasoline.
>
> not here, but it's almost the same as unleaded..
>
> > As prices go higher, they'll switch to bio
> > diesel.
>
> which is how efficientr exactly?? How many biodiesel plants are there
> worldwide? How long do they take to build?
>
> > There are already plastics made from corn.
>
> that's a new on eon me, I will google...

http://www.natureworksllc.com/About-NatureWorks-LLC.aspx

There was a think on the History Channel's Modern Marvels about corn a
few weeks back. They showed the plant and stuff. It was pretty
interesting. They admitted it was first generation stuff. A lot of
it was food packaging stuff. They had some spun and used for
clothing. It was all biodegradable, too. Seems like they had a
problem with something, maybe hot foods, but I don't remember too
much.


>
> > It's too early to predict what will happen.  But the world is not a
> > static place.
>
> no, it's not. it's not infinite either...
>
> thanks for your pov Pat, but I fear we will forever be at cossed
> purposes with this discourse so I'll leave it there if that's OK with you.

k

>
> bfn,
>
> T

 

[Bob]

On Apr 4, 7:39 am, ComandanteBanana <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 12:05 am, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 12:00 pm, ComandanteBanana <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
> > > beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
> > > TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
> > > put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
> > > can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
> > > the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
> > > sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
> > > vehicle.
>
> > > What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
> > > tandem, or should I start planning my funerals?
>
> > > WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
>
> > The 2006 US Census estimated the total population at just under 300
> > million people. According to FARS data in that same year, 773 cyclists
> > were killed in traffic crashes. Adding pedestrian deaths there were
> > just 5740 non-motorist deaths from traffic crashes that year. That
> > would seem to contradict your view that a significant percentage of
> > motorists are homicidal maniacs intent on doing cyclists harm. Either
> > that or the overwhelming majority of that group are *extremely
> > incompetent* homicidal maniacs.
> > Pedal your bike, not your silly fearmongering.
>
> > Regards,
> > Bob Hunt
>
> It ain't fearmongering; it's the reality of the jungle, which is in
> plain view for all to see...
>

Some jungle. According to the National Safety Council's 2005
statistics your lifetime odds of dying in a car versus bike crash are
1 in 4098. To put that in perspective, the same statistics put your
lifetime odds of dying from falling out of your bed or a chair at 1 in
4225.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bob]

On Apr 4, 9:27 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The bikers in the group say we need bike lanes and camera enforcement
> and this and that.  That's a HUGE investment for a relatively small
> group of people.  That public investment could probably go for better
> uses.
>

There's a bit of crossposting going on but judging by your "bikers in
the group" phrase I'm guessing that you are posting from the
alt.planning.urban group. Just as a point of information, there are
probably at least as many cyclists vehemently opposed to bike lanes as
there are bike lane boosters.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[ComandanteBanana]

On Apr 4, 10:27 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 5:57 pm, ComandanteBanana <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 5:37 pm, Jens Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > ComandanteBanana schrieb:
>
> > > >> Bicycle parking facilities? Well, that might be the case. Facilities for
> > > >> moving bicycle traffic? Here, there are much too many of them ...
>
> > > > Nice. Most of the nation lacks those facilities.
>
> > > No, not nice. They are actually causing completely real deaths of people.
>
> > What is causing their deaths, the bike facilities?
>
> > WE NEED BIKE LANES or 20MPH LANES --enforced by cameras.
>
> > This is a fair comment that I stick to...
>
> > tjspiel
> > Was at a book store last night thumbing through the latest Bicycling
> > magazine. I ended up buying it mostly because of their feature report
> > called: "What you can do to fix America's traffic laws - and why you
> > should".
>
> > There was a lot of text devoted to several people that that been
> > killed or sustained permanent, life altering injuries. They were
> > struck by drunk drivers or in one case, a driver trying to grab
> > something out of a bag in her back seat. All of the cyclists had been
> > riding on a wide shoulder or in a bike lane and had been hit from
> > behind.
>
> > The article seemed to focus more on stonger penalties for people who
> > kill or injure cyclists and not so much on new laws. There were a lot
> > of interesting statistics. For example cities with more cyclists had a
> > lower percentage of fatal collisions. Another thing they mentioned
> > that is absolutely true is that in the U.S. there is little or no
> > driver training related to being on the road with cyclists. There's
> > also little formal training for cyclists on how to ride safely in the
> > street. Both are sorely needed.
>
> > One good idea though was implemented in Kansas. Apparently when you
> > renew your license in that state there is a written test. A guy there
> > was able to successfully get the state to insure that there would be
> > at least one question related to cyclists on the test. The current
> > version has a multiple choice question on how many feet you must leave
> > between your car and the cyclist when passing. In Kansas, it's 4 feet.
>
> > Anyway, the whole article definitely made me a little more nervous
> > about riding with fast moving traffic. I still contend that segregated
> > bike lanes are the way to go. You can't legislate away lapses in
> > judgement and attention.
>
> The bikers in the group say we need bike lanes and camera enforcement
> and this and that.  That's a HUGE investment for a relatively small
> group of people.  That public investment could probably go for better
> uses.
>

And so what's a better investment, the war in Iraq or landing on Mars?

The 1% is only the result of people being intimidated. I don't think
99% of the people are lazy and stupid.

That percentage should be around 50%.

 

[ComandanteBanana]

On Apr 4, 3:33 pm, Jens Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pat schrieb:
>
> > Here's the problem.  You think you (and others) have some God-given
> > right to oil.  Maybe even a right to cheap oil.  
>
> Is Iraq's oil really worth 3000 billion dollars?

It ain't worth it as a nation, it's stupid for the whole world, but
it's very much profitable for the military and civilian contractors.

 

[ComandanteBanana]

On Apr 4, 3:39 pm, Jens Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pat schrieb:
>
> >> Because every one has the right to use public highways.
>
> > No they don't. Lot's of thinks can't use the public highways. Amish
> > around here can use surface streets but can't use the highway.
> > Highways don't allow bikes, horses pedestrians or vehicles that can't/
> > don't go over 45 mph.
>
> Please look up the definition of "highway" in your local highway code.
> Thank you.
>
> Anyway, it's a) a matter of dedication - everyone may use public goods
> (including public highways) for the purpose they were dedicated to and
> b) about the basic right to mobility.
>
> At least in my country, the rule of law still prevails.

And we are still ruled by the law of the jungle. I'm quoting here
something I posted elsewhere...

"Maria de los Angeles - 04 April 2008 03:58 PM
It's not that we're rats ... we've just lost all focus, which makes us
lose touch with our spiritual consciousness."


It ain't so much that we are rats, it's that someone or something is
making us race against each other. So our rat race doesn't happen by
chance, but by design...

"If they can be convinced that the Law of the Jungle is the right and
proper law to govern human activity, they will fight among themselves
instead of against the economic jungle's powerful predators." (http://
www.islandhosting.com/~contempo/library/mai/worldorder.html)

In reality though, ONLY THROUGH COOPERATION WE CAN SURVIVE...

 

[ComandanteBanana]

On Apr 4, 10:28 pm, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 7:39 am, ComandanteBanana <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 12:05 am, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 31, 12:00 pm, ComandanteBanana <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
> > > > beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
> > > > TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
> > > > put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
> > > > can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
> > > > the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
> > > > sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
> > > > vehicle.
>
> > > > What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
> > > > tandem, or should I start planning my funerals?
>
> > > > WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
>
> > > The 2006 US Census estimated the total population at just under 300
> > > million people. According to FARS data in that same year, 773 cyclists
> > > were killed in traffic crashes. Adding pedestrian deaths there were
> > > just 5740 non-motorist deaths from traffic crashes that year. That
> > > would seem to contradict your view that a significant percentage of
> > > motorists are homicidal maniacs intent on doing cyclists harm. Either
> > > that or the overwhelming majority of that group are *extremely
> > > incompetent* homicidal maniacs.
> > > Pedal your bike, not your silly fearmongering.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Bob Hunt
>
> > It ain't fearmongering; it's the reality of the jungle, which is in
> > plain view for all to see...
>
> Some jungle. According to the National Safety Council's 2005
> statistics your lifetime odds of dying in a car versus bike crash are
> 1 in 4098. To put that in perspective, the same statistics put your
> lifetime odds of dying from falling out of your bed or a chair at 1 in
> 4225.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah, but that's only if you ride your bike once a year. I took a nice
20mile ride and survived it... What does it prove?

You are advising me to buy the tandem road bike I like and ride it
everyday among the top predators?

Hint: Check the book "It's No Accident," and you will know what
happens when people are not paying attention to driving.