Drivers: How can you love something you hate so much?



"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_yVRc.258721$JR4.150983@attbi_s54...
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark
Jones wrote:
>
> > I am all for improving transportation options. I drive almost everywhere
> > now, but if there was a really good train system, I would have no
problem
> > with using it. I appreciated the convenience of the train and subway
> > system when I was in Japan. Remarkable when compared to what I
> > DO NOT have available in Kansas City.
>
> And that's just it, I don't know anyone who wouldn't take a transit
> option that worked better for the majority of their trips. Especially
> to work and back.
Exactly. I am for whatever works. Do not expect me to use
something that is a major step backwards from what I am
already using.
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<7pQRc.257322$JR4.126866@attbi_s54>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Scott en Aztlan wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the folks who want to "punish" personal automobile drivers
> > have another agenda, and are using transit advocacy as a smoke screen?
>
> That's the only explaination I can come up with. I am actually surprised
> that the various comments made about building transit that is better
> than driving have not been met with some angry replies. I had to kill
> file chi.general's 'transit advocate' enventually due to that sort of
> thing.

Better than driving? ANYTHING. Well, unless it's a good sports car...
Not in an American road though... Well, never mind, anything is
better... ;)
 
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:50:42 -0700, Scott en Aztlan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:06:40 GMT, Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Once congestion gets bad enough, riding the train will look a lot more
>>>attractive...
>>
>>What a wonderful philosophy - instead of making transit better - IOW faster -
>>we wait for the other utility to become so poor that the transit looks good by
>>comparison.
>
>That's not philosophy, that's pragmatism.

So we accept a crappy way to transport people, now and in the future, and
simply rejoice that it becomes, at some point, the best system around.

Naw, invent something better, deploy it, and destroy the status quo before the
whole transportation system becomes a universal cesspool.

>If I controlled the purse strings, I'd have all sorts of transit
>improvements under construction today. However, I'm not in control,
>and the morons that are are still mired in the auto-dependent
>mentality.

Cars are the only things that really work. The "morons" in charge know that
neglecting relatively cheap roads to build very expensive rail is not a good
idea. The roads are there, 24/7/365, while the transit shuts down
periodically. Plus, the roads carry _vastly_ more people than the transit
does, even in the best of situations.

Make the roads work, or invent something better, and allocate money for an
expensive, inefficient system, like the runs-on-a-schedule, and shuts down
periodically rail system, fairly sparingly.

>Thus, the only way public transit is actually going to
>improve is when enough people get fed up with traffic congestion and
>start demanding alternatives.

Ah, the "create enough pain in the best transport system, and people will
finally accept the inferior system" strategy. Sucks, I say. But that's what
they're trying around here - refusing to build the roads and bridges that the
highways need, WITHOUT any real hope of taking up the slack with some other
kind of transportation either. Its going to be a great place to move away
from, when the time comes.

>>No, no, no. Invent some transit that actually _is_ better.
>
>Go ahead. I hope you can find enough private investors who believe in
>your vision, because the public sure as hell isn't going to pay for
>it...

I'm just not willing to dedicate the rest of my life to promoting it. Its a
hellish problem to try to introduce a new system. The guy up in Minneapolis,
that is trying to get the taxi2000 system working, seems to be going mostly
nowhere, even tho the system would probably make a huge dent in the around-town
transportation problem for relatively little money. And he's got working
prototypes. Been going like this for years. Naw - I'm gonna retire in 5 - 8
years, and when I retire, I'm gonna _retire_ - no more huge stuggles - just lay
on the beach, take a few photos, etc.

Dave Head
 
> >I'm not refering to those areas which have never been developed, or
> >those areas which were once developed in the 19th century. Indeed, the
> >wilderness areas are shrinking, and countless small towns across America
> >are halfway headed toward ghost town status.
>
> Things change. As some places rise, others fall. That's perfectly
> natural, and trying to preserve every artifact of past development is silly.
>
> >> You can build them, but if you don't provide for cars, people won't
> >> come; they'd be trapped there.
> >
> >They'd all be hooked up by automobile of course. But you could do more
> >of your shopping in the community itself. And we'd expect zoning laws
> >to change, and businesses to shrink in size. Nobody wants to live next
> >to a Wall Mart.
>
> If they don't, that doesn't explain the rather expensive housing near
> the local one.
>
> >But it might be handy to live near a one-room grocery
> >store or a mom&pop hardware store.
>
> You won't find what you want in a small grocery store or a mom&pop
> hardware store, and it will be more expensive. When those were the
> only options, people settled for what was available -- but there's good
> reasons supermarkets took over in most areas.
>
> >We've too heavily segregated people
> >from commerce and industry, and built along straight lines instead of
> >spoke-like patterns which reduce the driving distance and bottlenecks
> >between places. They figured this out way back in the middle ages.
>
> Trying to rebuild small-town America is a nostalgic fantasy. Trying
> to rebuild medieval Europe is just plain silly.

Buying cheap things at Walmart is the future. Of course so is the
"Made in China" label that makes it possible. Too bad the "Made in
America" is out of fashion. What's wrong with that? You can always
work at Walmart.

A sign of the times... ;)
 
"DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Better than driving? ANYTHING. Well, unless it's a good sports car...
> Not in an American road though... Well, never mind, anything is
> better... ;)
This proves that you do not know what you are talking about.
 
DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Maybe you lived in the wrong part of town. Whereas America has a
> combined walking/cycling figure of 7%, Germany got 34%.
>
> You can find these stats at "Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to
> Improve Public Health: Lessons From the Netherlands and Germany."

Read my post again, I lived on "Train Station Street" The station was 200m
up the road. It was expensive and couldn't get me where I wanted to go,
that's why I didn't take it. Driving the autobahn isn't fun. It's crowded,
dangerous and stressfull. I would have much preferred to take the train,
but it couldn't get me to work.

I suspect the stats you post have anything to do with the relative costs of
driving. In Germany gas, insurance, taxes, and license are much greater
than they are in the US. I wonder if the 7% vs 34% is more an indication of
cost rather than some sort of societal preference. My experience is that
Germans are just as much in love with the automobile than Americans, however
there are more barriers to their use. Likewise, no one can drive until they
are 18, and it costs hundreds of Euros and many many hours to get a license.
To further skew the numbers, the towns are older, the streets are narrower,
the post-war economic conditions that gave rise to the auto culture in the
US were different, and the entire country is smaller and more densely
populated.

I don't doubt your stats, but I don't think they mean much either. It's the
old apples vs oranges comparison.

Tom
 
DonQuijote1954 wrote:

> Bownse <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>>"The typical American male devotes more than 1,600 hours a year to his
>>>car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He parks
>>>it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it and to
>>>meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for petrol, tolls,
>>>insurance, taxes and tickets."
>>
>>Cite please.
>>
>>I don't pay tolls.
>>
>>I haven't had a ticket in years.
>>
>>As for sitting in it while it goes, sitting outside of it under those
>>conditions would ear hazardous duty pay.
>>
>>Standing idling isn't something it does much thanks to choosing where I
>>work and what I drive for conditions (my motorcycle LOVES to lane share
>>when traffic is jammed)
>>
>>All the rest is choice baby. It's nice to live in a country where the
>>people still have the trump cards over the government wrt choice.
>
>
> Do I have news for you. In Europe you can walk, or ride a bicycle, or
> ride a bullet train, or ride a bus, or ride a trolley, or drive more
> and better cars than those found in the good ol' of US. Who you think
> is ahead on the road to communism?

Or listen to people ***** and whine if you choose something other than
what they mandate. If the minority ***** and whine loud enough they
criminalize you without recourse. Choice is choice as long as it's the
"right" choice.

--

Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
 
DonQuijote1954 wrote:

> Bownse <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Media keeps saying we are "in love" with it, though it seems more
>>>>>like we are stuck with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>We got an expensive and boring lover. :(
>>>>
>>>>Get an interesting car instead of an econo box and it can be
>>>>a lot of fun.
>>>>
>>>>http://home.mindspring.com/~mejones/Corvette.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>I get a lot of fun in my econobox, and don't get in trouble with the
>>>stupid American speed limits.
>>
>>I see you're unfamiliar with the western "outback" of NV, UT, ID, and
>>eastern OR and WA. Shame to base you bias on such a limited exposure.
>
>
> Even in a Porsche it would take me a couple of days to get there. :(

1000 miles a day on 2 wheels is doable with time left over for a stay in
a hotel.

--

Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
 
DonQuijote1954 wrote:

> "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>"DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>I get a lot of fun in my econobox, and don't get in trouble with the
>>>stupid American speed limits. A large car and sports car is an
>>>oxymoron only found in the good old US of A.
>>
>>You are not too bright if you think that only the U.S. has
>>large cars and sports cars. You need to get out a little more.
>
>
> I said large AND sport are an oxymoron. Porsche, small, GT pocket
> rockets--a class almost unheard of in America--even smaller. Corvette
> and Camaros are for looks. :(

Your list is still huge... oversized by 2 wheels each.

--

Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
 
DonQuijote1954 wrote:

>>>Holland and Denmark are very small, comparatively very flat countries.
>>>Most of the places where people want to be are close to one another, and
>>>the cities are modernisations of places originally intended to be walked.
>>
>>Sweden have almost exactly the same population density as USA and people
>>still use cars a lot less.
>>
>>
>>>The US is a very large country with vast distances (and, depending
>>>on locale, inhospitable terrain and/or climate) between places where
>>>people want to be. Most of the cities weren't ever designed for
>>>walkability.
>>
>>If you look at total distances travelled most will be in densely populated
>>areas like in California. Each person may travel longer in sparsely
>>populated areas in the Midwest, but they are a lot fewer. That most US
>>cities aren't designed for anything but using cars is an unfortunate fact,
>>but really no excuse.
>
>
> Exactly, the sprawl makes it all necessary, and more sprawl is added
> everyday, so expect more of the same for years to come. Also expect
> more pollution and more wars that go with it. ;)

Ahh the classic - force the masses back into urban centers by blocking
all development of infrastructure on any grounds possible, hobble energy
development to drive prices up. Haul mankind back into a very few urban
centers that grow upward and outlaw development on 90% of the available
land space. Even if that's not what they want, we know better than they.

--

Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
 
Dave Head wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 01:53:32 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>tcmedara wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Bownse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If they installed a high-speed rail between KC and San Antonio (with
>>>>>stops at major cities in between) I'd take it a LOT between the
>>>>>different places (KC, OKC, DFW, Austin, SA). I'd choose it over air
>>>>>travel.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like a winning plan. Amtrak seems to only serve the needs
>>>>of people along the east coast. Everyone else is out of luck.
>>>
>>>
>>>Prices aren't very competetive either. Most are willing to pay a premium to
>>>fly because it's quick. Others will accept the time delay and drive, paying
>>>only for the price, marginal operating costs, food, and hotel. With Amtrack
>>>you get prices equal to or greater than air travel, but often times slower
>>>travel. Not a very effective business model -- pay more for less! And then
>>>in an auto-based economy and transportation infrastructure, there's not much
>>>option but the rent a car at your final destination. May as well just drive
>>>to begin with! AddictionNo,justreality.
>>>
>>>Tom
>>
>>Considering lead time before the plane gets airborne and lag time once
>>it lands, a high speed rail option would be faster between DFW and San
>>Antonio.
>
>
> Well, since its one of those things that runs on a schedule, and since it would
> be a juicy target, you _might_ get the TSA into the act, and end up requiring
> passengers to be at the terminal 2 hrs early for the anal probe.
>
>
>>It's nearly as fast to drive the distance and you don't have
>>to arrange local transport when you get there. On more than one occasion
>>it took me 4 hours to make the trip due to delays in the "air traffic
>>system".
>
>
> Yeah, stuff that runs on a schedule can be slow.
>
> Dave Head
>
The problem is that, thanks for the inherent issues in the current air
transit system (over scheduling of O'Hare stacking up the whole system
nationally being just one example), it DOESN'T run on schedule. More
than once it's taken me 6 hours to fly to San Antonio from DFW when
driving is quicker. Sitting on the tarmac for 3 hours on more than one
occasion because of delays created elsewhere.

--

Mark Johnson, CNE
FAA DFW Tower/Tracon
 
Dave Head wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:00:44 -0700, Scott en Aztlan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:27:26 GMT, [email protected]
>>(Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But the problem is that transit advocates are often anti-car rather
>>>than pro-transit. Which is why so many measures to get people of their
>>>cars are designed to make driving less effective and more painful rather
>>>than making transit better. Make transit better and I'll use it. Make
>>>it so it doesn't take 3-4times longer than driving but just the same would
>>>be a start.
>>
>>At the rate things are going that will happen all by itself.
>>
>>Already it takes less time to ride the "L" from O'Hare to downtown
>>than it does to make the same trip by private automobile. By 2020, the
>>average speed on LA freeways is predicted to be about 10 MPH.
>>
>>Once congestion gets bad enough, riding the train will look a lot more
>>attractive...
>
>
> What a wonderful philosophy - instead of making transit better - IOW faster -
> we wait for the other utility to become so poor that the transit looks good by
> comparison. No, no, no. Invent some transit that actually _is_ better. Then
> the highways will be emptied, as people voluntarily, and _happily_, use it.
> And they'll build it, and use it, even in the rural settings, suburbs, etc.
>
> Dave Head
>
> Dave Head
>
Don't kid yourself. Legal representatives of Green Peace and other
conservation groups have stated that blocking infrastructure
improvements is their primary goal (to the point that any option other
than retracting ALL people back into large centralized urban areas is
begged for by the masses).

--

Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
 
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 02:45:08 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 01:53:32 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>tcmedara wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Bownse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If they installed a high-speed rail between KC and San Antonio (with
>>>>>>stops at major cities in between) I'd take it a LOT between the
>>>>>>different places (KC, OKC, DFW, Austin, SA). I'd choose it over air
>>>>>>travel.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like a winning plan. Amtrak seems to only serve the needs
>>>>>of people along the east coast. Everyone else is out of luck.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Prices aren't very competetive either. Most are willing to pay a premium to
>>>>fly because it's quick. Others will accept the time delay and drive, paying
>>>>only for the price, marginal operating costs, food, and hotel. With Amtrack
>>>>you get prices equal to or greater than air travel, but often times slower
>>>>travel. Not a very effective business model -- pay more for less! And then
>>>>in an auto-based economy and transportation infrastructure, there's not much
>>>>option but the rent a car at your final destination. May as well just drive
>>>>to begin with! AddictionNo,justreality.
>>>>
>>>>Tom
>>>
>>>Considering lead time before the plane gets airborne and lag time once
>>>it lands, a high speed rail option would be faster between DFW and San
>>>Antonio.
>>
>>
>> Well, since its one of those things that runs on a schedule, and since it would
>> be a juicy target, you _might_ get the TSA into the act, and end up requiring
>> passengers to be at the terminal 2 hrs early for the anal probe.
>>
>>
>>>It's nearly as fast to drive the distance and you don't have
>>>to arrange local transport when you get there. On more than one occasion
>>>it took me 4 hours to make the trip due to delays in the "air traffic
>>>system".
>>
>>
>> Yeah, stuff that runs on a schedule can be slow.
>>
>> Dave Head
>>
>The problem is that, thanks for the inherent issues in the current air
>transit system (over scheduling of O'Hare stacking up the whole system
>nationally being just one example), it DOESN'T run on schedule.

Yeah... well... its _supposed_ to! <G>

>More
>than once it's taken me 6 hours to fly to San Antonio from DFW when
>driving is quicker. Sitting on the tarmac for 3 hours on more than one
>occasion because of delays created elsewhere.

Uh huh. Travel sucks - all of it. 6 hrs to drive it sucks too. The trains
suck, simply because there aren't enough of 'em and they don't go _when_ you
want, _where_ you want, in the vast majority of cases. Buses? I had a
roommate unfamiliar with that scene, took a bus home, and you shoulda heard him
for about the next 6 weeks, with the stories of the people he got to share
space with! No, he was _not_ impressed with the company!!! <GGG>

High speed rail is gonna suck because as soon as you step off it, you're
stranded. That is, no car. Gotta go rent one, 'cuz the local transit isn't
going to go where you want to, when you want to, 99% of the time.

Dave Head
 
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 02:47:52 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:00:44 -0700, Scott en Aztlan
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:27:26 GMT, [email protected]
>>>(Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But the problem is that transit advocates are often anti-car rather
>>>>than pro-transit. Which is why so many measures to get people of their
>>>>cars are designed to make driving less effective and more painful rather
>>>>than making transit better. Make transit better and I'll use it. Make
>>>>it so it doesn't take 3-4times longer than driving but just the same would
>>>>be a start.
>>>
>>>At the rate things are going that will happen all by itself.
>>>
>>>Already it takes less time to ride the "L" from O'Hare to downtown
>>>than it does to make the same trip by private automobile. By 2020, the
>>>average speed on LA freeways is predicted to be about 10 MPH.
>>>
>>>Once congestion gets bad enough, riding the train will look a lot more
>>>attractive...
>>
>>
>> What a wonderful philosophy - instead of making transit better - IOW faster -
>> we wait for the other utility to become so poor that the transit looks good by
>> comparison. No, no, no. Invent some transit that actually _is_ better. Then
>> the highways will be emptied, as people voluntarily, and _happily_, use it.
>> And they'll build it, and use it, even in the rural settings, suburbs, etc.
>>
>> Dave Head
>>
>> Dave Head
>>
>Don't kid yourself. Legal representatives of Green Peace and other
>conservation groups have stated that blocking infrastructure
>improvements is their primary goal (to the point that any option other
>than retracting ALL people back into large centralized urban areas is
>begged for by the masses).

Well, Green Peace is not all-powerful. They wouldn't be able to stop it. And
Greenpeace is a terrorist organization, BTW, right along with the radical
elements in PETA. These two organzations give me a large pain, prolly worse
than the government organzations like NHTSA and EPA. At least the EPA invented
the hydraulic hybrid drive that will likely mean energy independence for the
USA someday.

Dave Head
 
> Newer "clean" cars are not clean; they are toxic. A single running
> car would have exterminated Biosphere 2 for instance, whiz-bang
> anti-emission technology notwithstanding.
> Chalo Colina

You mean that non-science 'event' where they knew going in it wouldn't
work and snuck in supplies and other bits to keep going so they wouldn't
have to get real jobs?
--

Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
 
Brent P wrote:
> Because the environment isn't the reason. It's the excuse. The reasons
> can be found elsewhere. IMO it's about power. Having power over where
> the masses can go and when they can go.

BINGO! "We know what you need and want to help you in spite of yourself!"

--

Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
 
tcmedara wrote:

> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Maybe you lived in the wrong part of town. Whereas America has a
>>combined walking/cycling figure of 7%, Germany got 34%.
>>
>>You can find these stats at "Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to
>>Improve Public Health: Lessons From the Netherlands and Germany."
>
>
> Read my post again, I lived on "Train Station Street" The station was 200m
> up the road. It was expensive and couldn't get me where I wanted to go,
> that's why I didn't take it. Driving the autobahn isn't fun. It's crowded,
> dangerous and stressfull. I would have much preferred to take the train,
> but it couldn't get me to work.
>
> I suspect the stats you post have anything to do with the relative costs of
> driving. In Germany gas, insurance, taxes, and license are much greater
> than they are in the US. I wonder if the 7% vs 34% is more an indication of
> cost rather than some sort of societal preference. My experience is that
> Germans are just as much in love with the automobile than Americans, however
> there are more barriers to their use. Likewise, no one can drive until they
> are 18, and it costs hundreds of Euros and many many hours to get a license.
> To further skew the numbers, the towns are older, the streets are narrower,
> the post-war economic conditions that gave rise to the auto culture in the
> US were different, and the entire country is smaller and more densely
> populated.
>
> I don't doubt your stats, but I don't think they mean much either. It's the
> old apples vs oranges comparison.
>
> Tom
>
>
Yep. They've found the price point at where they can tax the populous
enough to control mobility. After all, the oil comes from pretty much
the same place and transit costs are often cheaper from the middle east
to europe, so the only difference is the tax.

--

Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
 
"tcmedara" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I suspect the stats you post have anything to do with the relative costs
of
> driving. In Germany gas, insurance, taxes, and license are much greater
> than they are in the US. I wonder if the 7% vs 34% is more an indication
of
> cost rather than some sort of societal preference. My experience is that
> Germans are just as much in love with the automobile than Americans,
however
> there are more barriers to their use. Likewise, no one can drive until
they
> are 18, and it costs hundreds of Euros and many many hours to get a
license.
> To further skew the numbers, the towns are older, the streets are
narrower,
> the post-war economic conditions that gave rise to the auto culture in the
> US were different, and the entire country is smaller and more densely
> populated.
>
> I don't doubt your stats, but I don't think they mean much either. It's
the
> old apples vs oranges comparison.

I've been trying to tell him that for ages. To no avail.

You know what I think? I think DQ is a mole. Hired by the FordGMToyota
conglomerate, specifically put in here to kill off cycling.

Listen to his rants.
"I have 3 bikes, but I can't ride them because it's too dangerous"
"If you ride on the street, you must have a death wish"
"The lion will eat you"
"We should do it like they do in China" (cycling = communism)

Promoting cycling? No. I don't think I've ever heard someone more *anti*
cycling. Not even He Who Shall Remain Nameless.
If he really wanted to promote cycling, he'd just do it by example. Like a
lot of us do. Just STFU, and ride down to the local store and back.
Instead of continually telling people over and over how dangerous it is.

Pete
wonder how much he's getting paid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Re: Drivers: How can you love something you hate so much?
Replies
0
Views
341
Road Cycling
Bernard Farquart
B
Norjak71
Bikers and drivers
Replies
16
Views
3K
Road Cycling
reighn
R
C
What To Do About Jerk Drivers?
Replies
30
Views
4K
Road Cycling
JSWin
JSWin
U
Rude Drivers
Replies
25
Views
4K
Road Cycling
Uawadall
U
B
thanks for tips on "too polite automobile drivers" post.
Replies
1
Views
849
Road Cycling
[email protected]
J
Top Bottom Back