For the safety of others, please keep off the highways

[James Hodson]

On 17 Jul 2003 11:47:18 -0700, [email protected] (Brent Hugh) wrote:

>[email protected] (Brent Hugh) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
>
>It gets better and better . . .
>

An interesting little thread.

Presumably Joyce Morrison has fallen into the trap of thinking that cyclists pay no taxes. I also
assume that she, as an American, is at least a little proud of Lance Armstrong's and his USPS team
mates' exploits of the last few years. Where does she think Lance trains? On a rural path designed
for picnickers?

There have been several news items recently on this side of the pond stating that more and more of
us are becomming obese, and that the situation is far worse in the USA. I wonder how mnany of those
c4,500 cyclists were overweight.

On a personal note: I am epileptic and am not allowed to drive. Would Joyce Morrison wish to prevent
me travelling around under my own steam solely because of my disability?

Disconnected musing over. James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Weaver wrote:
> ... No, nobody out there in the corn fields rides bikes (Republicans or Democrats if there are
> any)--except maybe the kids who happen to live in town....

I happen to know several Illinois farmers that ride bicycles. The Illinois Farm Bureau even puts on
a multi-day bike ride. < http://www.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=6057 >

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Tom Sherman]

Fritz M wrote:
>
> I think it's a rural Illinois thing. When I lived in downstate Illinois it was the worst eight
> years of my life riding a bike....

I have never had any incidents with unfriendly motor vehicles while riding in rural downstate
Illinois, except near the fringes of the cities where some luxury SUV owner take offense at anything
that is in front of them on the road.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Eric]

"Marianne Goodland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> CWA is a conservative fundamentalist organization, BTW. One of the Denver papers quoted one of
> their leaders this morning railing against Bravo (the cable TV network) for ruining the children
> of America with their two new gay TV shows. CWA's website is says the group's intent is to put the
> bible into all areas of public policy. Now my question is, how does riding a bicycle on a
> publicly-paid for road fit in with that philosophy, since the author saw fit to ID herself as a
> CWA member.
>
> Marianne
>
>

Do they get their funding from GM? Own a bunch of Ford stock?

Eric

 

[Eric]

James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On 17 Jul 2003 11:47:18 -0700, [email protected] (Brent Hugh) wrote:
>
> >[email protected] (Brent Hugh) wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
> >
> >It gets better and better . . .
> >
>
> An interesting little thread.
>
> Presumably Joyce Morrison has fallen into the trap of thinking that cyclists pay no taxes. I also
> assume that she, as an American, is at least a little proud of Lance Armstrong's and his USPS team
> mates' exploits of the last few years. Where does she think Lance trains? On a rural path designed
> for picnickers?
>
> There have been several news items recently on this side of the pond stating that more and more of
> us are becomming obese, and that the situation is far worse in the USA. I wonder how mnany of
> those c4,500 cyclists were overweight.
>
> On a personal note: I am epileptic and am not allowed to drive. Would Joyce Morrison wish to
> prevent me travelling around under my own steam solely because of my disability?
>
> Disconnected musing over. James

No, that's why we have the Segway! Eric

 

[James Hodson]

On 20 Jul 2003 18:20:26 -0700, [email protected] (Eric) wrote:

>No, that's why we have the Segway!
>

Hi Eric

I presume your tongue was firmly lodged in one of your cheeks.

By Segway, are you referring to one of those relatively unstable, slow machines with two wheels,
both of which are in the wrong place?

BTW, is there a "tongue in cheek" emoticon? ;-)

Regards James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

[Heather Noggle]

Unfortunately, I was unaware of this until last night, but I let her have it. I'll post a few lines
for you to decide whether or not to continue reading.

---

Hans points us all to this illogical stockpot full of spurious assertion stew by, sadly, a
conservative in Illinois. I know, I know, you say - is it possible for conservatives to argue
illogically? Yes, sadly, it is.

Joyce Morrison is ******. She's ****** that the highways of Illinois (HER highways, dammit) are are
sometimes populated with, gasp, CYCLISTS! Let's give her a moment in the sun, here, ladies and
gentlemen, before we break down to a proper paragraph-level fisking.

***
OPINION -- Beware of bicycles - they could be hazardous to your health.

There are 55 bicycle trails in Illinois.

In fact, within "bicycle distance" of where we live is the Chain of Rocks bridge. This bridge
crosses the Mississippi River, which connects the Illinois bicycle trail beginning at Pere Marquette
State Park near Grafton, Illinois, to the well-known Katy Trail in Missouri. The Chain of Rocks
Bridge was recently renovated especially for pedestrians and bicycles and was paid for by we the
taxpayers.

With that wonderful recreational provision, why would 4,500 bikers (mainly from St. Louis) choose to
make a 100 mile bike ride on roads already heavy with tourist traffic that are two lane, curvy,
hilly roads under construction?
***

Okay. There's the argument. With all o' those trails, why are you on the roads? First, Trailnet
sponsors road rides. You know, sponsor, with cars driving by periodically checking on the riders to
ensure they are all right. Second, because roads are for bicycles, also. Third, what, silly, do you
think all FIFTY-FIVE of those bicycle trails are accessible by every citizen of Illinois/Missouri
at all times? Um, might I remind you that Illinois is a STATE. It is a state of 57,918 sq.mi. You
do the math.

Much, much more at
http://angelweaving.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_angelweaving_archive.html#105892916402652749
(my website).

hln

 

[Ed]

I have a drivers license too and pay fuel taxes when I drive. Don't I get to use the road for my
riding too? I commute to work by bike to save some money and cut down on pollution. WHy can't you
ride to church by bike?

news:<[email protected]>...
> Some poor motorist who had to wait 5 seconds has posted her anti-bike diatribe for your amusement.
>
> Here is the link to the full article; below that is an excerpt:
>
> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
>
> --------------------
>
> MORRISON: Beware of bicycles Tuesday, July 15, 2003 By Joyce Morrison
> ([email protected])
>
> OPINION -- Beware of bicycles - they could be hazardous to your health.
>
> There are 55 bicycle trails in Illinois.
>
> In fact, within "bicycle distance" of where we live is the Chain of Rocks bridge. This bridge
> crosses the Mississippi River, which connects the Illinois bicycle trail beginning at Pere
> Marquette State Park near Grafton, Illinois, to the well-known Katy Trail in Missouri. The Chain
> of Rocks Bridge was recently renovated especially for pedestrians and bicycles and was paid for by
> we the taxpayers.
>
> With that wonderful recreational provision, why would 4,500 bikers (mainly from St. Louis) choose
> to make a 100 mile bike ride on roads already heavy with tourist traffic that are two lane, curvy,
> hilly roads under construction?
>
> That is what Derry Brownfield of the Common Sense Coalition would call "ignorance gone to seed."
>
> Last Sunday on our way to church, we had the "privilege" of having our patience tested. We were
> behind one batch of these bikers going up a normally busy road with a steep winding hill, blind
> curves, no road shoulder. And these bikers were not about to budge out of the way. To top it off,
> the road was freshly milled in preparation for a new surface.
>
> To see these two wheelers peddling up the hill with rear ends stuck in the air in tight fitting
> britches is a humorous sight. But it wouldn't have been funny to have seen one stretched out along
> the road with tire marks across him. These Sunday road warriors were literally risking their lives
> to prove they had the right.
>
> We were in our car. We had our seat belts on as required by the law - our insurance and license
> fees were paid. We had paid fuel tax when we purchased our gasoline. Now wouldn't you think that
> would give us a bit of a priority?
>
> What was that biker's investment that would give him the right to go down the middle of the
> highway? Bikers have no license, no vehicle insurance, no seat belts, no fuel tax. They are not
> making any contribution into the local economy in the way of tourism dollars. They had their own
> manned rest stops that furnished them with food and water, and they certainly can't pack home much
> from the local shops on the back of their bikes or in those tight britches.
>
> . . .
>
> Bicycles have been around for a long time and brought joy to many. If used responsibly, a bicycle
> is a wonderful source of exercise and recreation. But are we being prepared to be forced to use
> bicycles for our major mode of transportation? Could it be this activity is purposely being placed
> into an elitist status with no restrictions and licensing in an effort to lure people into this
> mental mode?
>
> If you are a biker, please ride responsibly on a trail that has been provided for your
> entertainment, and for your own safety and the safety of others, please keep off the highways.
> --------------------
>
>
> --Brent bhugh [at] mwsc.edu

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

>
> >I agree it shouldn't be a conservative/liberal issue, but the case here
is
> >that it was an outspoken conservative that took the time to write that screed against cyclists.
> >Can you imagine a liberal writing such a thing?
> >
> >Pat in TX
>
> As a matter of fact, one doesn't have to "imagine" a liberal espousing
such a
> ridiculous idea. Liberals voice equally silly positions on a variety of
issues
> every day. Can you say "victims of a vast right wing conspiracy"? Sure...
I
> knew you could. ;-)
>
> Regards, Bob Hunt

Sure, liberals could say equally silly things, however, it is also ridiculous to say that when an
avowed conservative,i.e., a member of a well-known right wing organization who uses that affiliation
to give her statements credibility and weight, says something outrageous we should immediately say,
"Well, liberals could also say something ridiculous if they would." No, a person's statements have
to stand on their own---not with a "everybody does it!" excuse. I doubt you take the "everybody does
it!" argument in your daily work.

Pat in TX

 

[Steven Goodridg]

[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >"Pat" [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> >I agree it shouldn't be a conservative/liberal issue, but the case here is that it was an
> >outspoken conservative that took the time to write that screed against cyclists. Can you imagine
> >a liberal writing such a thing?
> >
> >Pat in TX
>
> As a matter of fact, one doesn't have to "imagine" a liberal espousing such a ridiculous idea.
> Liberals voice equally silly positions on a variety of issues every day. Can you say "victims of a
> vast right wing conspiracy"? Sure... I knew you could. ;-)
>
> Regards, Bob Hunt

I find both liberals and conservatives with anti-cyclist views find their own way to attack
cyclists. The conservatives in my region of the country attack cyclists as an underclass
undeserving of using roadways that belong to payers of gas taxes, and espouse a might-makes right
philosophy. The liberals in my region claim that cyclists need to be removed from the roadways for
the cyclists' own protection from reckless drivers, and because reckless drivers who swerve around
cyclists could hurt innocent people. And if a child on a tricycle cannot operate safely on a major
arterial, what right should an adult have to bike there? What kind of elitist overclass are those
"road cyclists" anyway?

Protection of the right to travel should bridge current political party differences, because this
ideal goes back to even before the US constitution, all the way to the time of the Magna Carta. The
public has a right to use its road system. Bicycling is an ordinary and expected use of public ways;
travel modes that create a greater inherent danger to the public due to excess weight, size, or
speed do not gain priority over the more basic, affordable, inherently safe modes. It takes neither
liberal nor conservative leanings to understand this.

-Steve Goodridge

 

[Paul Hamilton]

> Bicycles have been around for a long time and brought joy to many. If used responsibly, a bicycle
> is a wonderful source of exercise and recreation. But are we being prepared to be forced to use
> bicycles for our major mode of transportation? Could it be this activity is purposely being placed
> into an elitist status with no restrictions and licensing in an effort to lure people into this
> mental mode?

I am utterly fascinated by the idea of an activity with an "elitist status" that, nevertheless, has
no restrictions or licencing. Being lured into a "mental mode" sounds amusing and harmless, although
the writer seems to have entirely too much experience with unusual "mental modes."

Paul

 

[James Hodson]

On 23 Jul 2003 08:06:30 -0700, [email protected] (Heather Noggle) wrote:

[BIG SNIP]

>Third, what, silly, do you think all FIFTY-FIVE of those bicycle trails are accessible by every
>citizen of Illinois/Missouri at all times? Um, might I remind you that Illinois is a STATE. It is a
>state of 57,918 sq.mi. You do the math.
>

Hi Heather

Only 57,918 square miles, eh? According to MS Encarta 2002 England has an area of 50,352 square
miles and Great Britain covers a huge 88,753 square miles. Encarta shows Illinoi as having an area
of 57,918 square miles. Do we have the same source of information, Heather?

BTW, Great Britain is that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but
without the Northern Ireland bit.

Fifty five cycle trails doesn't sound so many when put into this context, does it?

IMO, Joyce Morrison is more than ****** (****** off, as I brought up the subject of my little bit of
the world); she has some extremely strange ideas about the requirements of bike riders and her local
geography.

Regards James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

[Michael]

I think the part about forcibly creating rail trails from abandoned rail right of ways is the cause
of her rant. Some one else posted a link showing where her farmer husband gets money from the USDA
for not planting (I may be wrong, but that is what I think it said). Put the two together, they must
have had a old railroad track along their property which got turned into a rail trail, so they
didn't get the land so they could get more money not to plant it.

"Heather Noggle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Unfortunately, I was unaware of this until last night, but I let her have it. I'll post a few
> lines for you to decide whether or not to continue reading.
>
> ---
>
> Hans points us all to this illogical stockpot full of spurious assertion stew by, sadly, a
> conservative in Illinois. I know, I know, you say - is it possible for conservatives to argue
> illogically? Yes, sadly, it is.
>
> Joyce Morrison is ******. She's ****** that the highways of Illinois (HER highways, dammit) are
> are sometimes populated with, gasp, CYCLISTS! Let's give her a moment in the sun, here, ladies and
> gentlemen, before we break down to a proper paragraph-level fisking.
>
> ***
> OPINION -- Beware of bicycles - they could be hazardous to your health.
>
> There are 55 bicycle trails in Illinois.
>
> In fact, within "bicycle distance" of where we live is the Chain of Rocks bridge. This bridge
> crosses the Mississippi River, which connects the Illinois bicycle trail beginning at Pere
> Marquette State Park near Grafton, Illinois, to the well-known Katy Trail in Missouri. The Chain
> of Rocks Bridge was recently renovated especially for pedestrians and bicycles and was paid for by
> we the taxpayers.
>
> With that wonderful recreational provision, why would 4,500 bikers (mainly from St. Louis) choose
> to make a 100 mile bike ride on roads already heavy with tourist traffic that are two lane, curvy,
> hilly roads under construction?
> ***
>
> Okay. There's the argument. With all o' those trails, why are you on the roads? First, Trailnet
> sponsors road rides. You know, sponsor, with cars driving by periodically checking on the riders
> to ensure they are all right. Second, because roads are for bicycles, also. Third, what, silly, do
> you think all FIFTY-FIVE of those bicycle trails are accessible by every citizen of
> Illinois/Missouri at all times? Um, might I remind you that Illinois is a STATE. It is a state of
> 57,918 sq.mi. You do the math.
>
> Much, much more at
http://angelweaving.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_angelweaving_archive.html#105892 916402652749
> (my website).
>
> hln

 

[James Hodson]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:01:46 GMT, "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I think the part about forcibly creating rail trails from abandoned rail right of ways is the cause
>of her rant. Some one else posted a link showing where her farmer husband gets money from the USDA
>for not planting (I may be wrong, but that is what I think it said). Put the two together, they
>must have had a old railroad track along their property which got turned into a rail trail, so they
>didn't get the land so they could get more money not to plant it.
>

Hi Michael

Assuming that the USDA is the US Department of Agriculture then I have have no sympathy with here
whatsoever. A huge amount of the EU's budget goes towards farming (the Comman Acrigultrural Policy
or CAP) and is, IMO, a huge waste of money. Subsidies are given to farmers for leaving their fields
fallow in the same way you mention above. Every now and again the papers state how much per annum
the "average family" (whatever one of those is) pays in tax towards this scheme. Once in a while,
usually just before a meeting of the EU heads of state, Blair (and his predecessors) says he will
definitely negotiate a reduction in the amount Britain pays towards this scheme. A few days later,
Tony returns from the heads of state meeting with ... wait for it ... no change to the policy.

Anyway, Michael, anti-EU rant over!

Personally, I can see nothing wrong with the creation of bike paths from disused railway lines. The
forcible creation of those tracks may well be a different matter. As always, the circumstances are
important.

There is only one similar train into bike path near me and it makes for a very nice 30+ mile ride.
OTOH, there is a nice series of A roads (one grade of road below motorway/multi-lane highway) that
goes between the same points. There are also some pleasant country lanes that cover the same route.

These days I prefer road riding to cycling on paths. Guess which route I'd take?

End of a rant on a different topic.

A final comment: I no longer drive a car but I can sympathise a little with Ms Morrison. Comming
across some 4,500 cyclists and not being able to overtake them in a reasonable time could be
frustrating, especially if one has allowed a certain time for a journey. I believe there is a
proverb about - I can't think of it at this moment.

End of over-long post. Regards James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> >I think the part about forcibly creating rail trails from abandoned rail right of ways is the
> >cause of her rant. Some one else posted a link
showing
> >where her farmer husband gets money from the USDA for not planting (I may
be
> >wrong, but that is what I think it said). Put the two together, they
must
> >have had a old railroad track along their property which got turned into
a
> >rail trail, so they didn't get the land so they could get more money not
to
> >plant it.
> >
>
> Hi Michael
<snip>>
> Personally, I can see nothing wrong with the creation of bike paths from disused railway lines.
> The forcible creation of those tracks may well be a different matter. As always, the circumstances
> are important.
>
> There is only one similar train into bike path near me and it makes for a very nice 30+ mile
> ride. OTOH, there is a nice series of A roads (one grade of road below motorway/multi-lane
> highway) that goes between the same points. There are also some pleasant country lanes that cover
> the same route.
>
> These days I prefer road riding to cycling on paths. Guess which route I'd take?
>
> End of a rant on a different topic.
>
> A final comment: I no longer drive a car but I can sympathise a little with Ms Morrison. Comming
> across some 4,500 cyclists and not being able to overtake them in a reasonable time could be
> frustrating, especially if one has allowed a certain time for a journey. I believe there is a
> proverb about - I can't think of it at this moment.
>
> End of over-long post. Regards James

James, Michael has it wrong--the amount of land that she would gain if the railbed was not used for
a bike path is very small--just a narrow strip with lots of gravel and rocks on it and, most likely,
severely sloping sides. And, consider that the ground would be horribly compacted from its previous
use. No, it's not the "loss of land" that drives people to fight the rails-to-trails program.
Rather, it's the idea that the "land belongs to them anyway" and they don't want 'rubbish' and
'outsiders' trespassing on what should actually belong to the nearby landowner. Whenever one of
these projects is started, the landowners bring up hoary scare stories about "hobos" and "marauding
bands of thieves" that would invariably descend upon the innocent landowners to rob them blind--and,
using the trail, disappear into the big city from which they came. This, they claim, must be stopped
before it begins! To arms! To arms! All of this is just bunkum!

Pat in TX

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

>
> >Sure, liberals could say equally silly things, however, it is also ridiculous to say that when an
> >avowed conservative,i.e., a member of a well-known right wing organization who uses that
> >affiliation to give her statements credibility and weight, says something outrageous we should
> >immediately say, "Well, liberals could also say something ridiculous if
they
> >would." No, a person's statements have to stand on their own---not with
a
> >"everybody does it!" excuse.

>
> "Excuse"? I wasn't excusing her idiocy. I was merely answering your
question-
> "Can you imagine a liberal writing such a thing?" There are stupid people of all political
> persuasions.
>
> Regards, Bob Hunt

Uh, no, Bob, you weren't answering the question. You were deflecting my criticism of her by saying
"anyone could have said that." My point is that anyone didn't say that. She did--and at the same
time proudly claimed to be doing it as a conservative. She linked that together, not me. Liberals in
general believe in personal freedom whereas conservatives of her stripe believe in controlling
individuals behavior in the way only they deem permissable (that is why they are called the "social
conservative wing" of the Republican party). Until a liberal comes out and says "we have to control
those cyclists and not permit them to use the roads" then I will believe a liberal would say such a
thing. As of right now, the "score" is conservatives=1, liberals=0.

Pat in TX

 

[James Hodson]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:23:46 -0500, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:

[SNIP]

>Whenever one of these projects is started, the landowners bring up hoary scare stories about
>"hobos" and "marauding bands of thieves" that would invariably descend upon the innocent landowners
>to rob them blind--and, using the trail, disappear into the big city from which they came. This,
>they claim, must be stopped before it begins! To arms! To arms! All of this is just bunkum!
>

Hi Pat

I'm not too surprised. I used to live in a village called Bramley in the county of Surrey (southern
England). Behind my house was a disused railway track.

Several years ago, some time after I'd left the area, it was decided to make this former train track
into a cycle path. In fact, it's a part of the cycle path I mentioned in my reply to Michael's post.
Although there had been a muddy non-cycle path along the same route for some 25 years the locals
only started complain once a change of use had been suggested. In truth, there was no real change of
use involved at all as cyclists, walkers etc. had always used the track.

You will not be too astonished to hear that the same excuses about "hobos" and "marauding bands of
thieves" were put forward on this side of the pond. (OK, maybe the word "hobo" wasn't used.
Linguistic differences!) Incidentally, none of the home owners actually owned this path; it was just
a strip of land behind their back gardens.

I understand that those once-complaining locals now quite like having a cycle path nearby as its
presence enhances the value of their properties. Easy access to the countryside and all that.

Regards James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> > "Pat" >
> wrote in part:
>
> >Uh, no, Bob, you weren't answering the question. You were deflecting my criticism of her by
> >saying "anyone could have said that."
> ---- remainder snipped for brevity ----

>
> I can't stop you from believing that I was trying to deflect your
criticism of
> the idiot that wrote that particular drivel anymore than you can stop me
from
> believing that there are stupid people scattered all over the political spectrum. C'est la vie.
>
> Regards, Bob Hunt

No, I don't believe that stupid people are NOT scattered all over the political spectrum. It's just
that this particular idiot chose to put forth as justification for her argument her status in a
certain political group. If she does that, she deserves the criticism.

Pat in TX

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> >Whenever one of these projects is started, the landowners bring up hoary scare stories about
> >"hobos" and "marauding bands of thieves" that would invariably descend
upon
> >the innocent landowners to rob them blind--and, using the trail,
disappear
> >into the big city from which they came. This, they claim, must be
stopped
> >before it begins! To arms! To arms! All of this is just bunkum!
> >
>
> Hi Pat
>
> I'm not too surprised. I used to live in a village called Bramley in the county of Surrey
> (southern England). Behind my house was a disused railway track.
>
> Several years ago, some time after I'd left the area, it was decided to make this former train
> track into a cycle path. In fact, it's a part of the cycle path I mentioned in my reply to
> Michael's post. Although there had been a muddy non-cycle path along the same route for some 25
> years the locals only started complain once a change of use had been suggested. In truth, there
> was no real change of use involved at all as cyclists, walkers etc. had always used the track.
>
> You will not be too astonished to hear that the same excuses about "hobos" and "marauding bands of
> thieves" were put forward on this side of the pond. (OK, maybe the word "hobo" wasn't used.
> Linguistic differences!) Incidentally, none of the home owners actually owned this path; it was
> just a strip of land behind their back gardens.
>
> I understand that those once-complaining locals now quite like having a cycle path nearby as its
> presence enhances the value of their properties. Easy access to the countryside and all that.
>
> Regards James

I have to tell you that the use of the word "hobo" seems to be confined to the elderly in Texas. I
have never heard this word used by a person under 75 years old. Most of the people fighting the
"rails to trails" concept have indeed been elderly--people who do not want change in any form. It's
the old "I've got mine" argument.

Pat in TX

 

[James Hodson]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:04:34 -0500, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I have to tell you that the use of the word "hobo" seems to be confined to the elderly in Texas. I
>have never heard this word used by a person under 75 years old. Most of the people fighting the
>"rails to trails" concept have indeed been elderly--people who do not want change in any form. It's
>the old "I've got mine" argument.
>

Not being an expert on anything Texan (apart from its location and some joke about a bus) I'll have
to agree with you.

BTW, when I refer to bike trails I don't necessarily mean paved routes (cycle paths). Rather, I mean
routes planned for cyclists. These, of course, are usually paved in urban areas. The former railway
lines usually are not.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg