"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Jack May wrote:
> >>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>> George Conklin wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of
"free"
> >>>> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
> >>> A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they
> > want to
> >>> hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are
> > still
> >>> installed these days for people that exercise at work.
> >>>
> >> Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
> >>
> >> If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a
lot
> >> more commuter cyclists.
> >>
> > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
one
> > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
> > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
> > exhausted to boot.
> >
> Nonsense. Riding a bicycle is fun! Regular exercise makes a person LESS
> tired.
>
> Get out of your cage!
"Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
> >>more commuter cyclists.
> >
> > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
one
> > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
> > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
> > exhausted to boot.
>
> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> confused reasoning!
If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income. Otherwise,
you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
forth. It is a very important issue.
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>> "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>> ...
> >>>> And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
> >>>> a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
> >>>> one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
> >>>> neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
> >>>> have to be such a big deal.
> >>>>
> >>> In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the
buildings
> > at
> >>> work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
> > year.
> >>> Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
> >>> locker rooms too.
> >> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
> >> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
> >
> > So who gets free parking? And those externalities are infinite if
you
> > are one of those bicycle militants.
> >
> Every place I have ever worked at has had an employee parking lot.
Many such lots are NOT free. They charge employees to come to work, thus
taking back their wage.
"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <t%Ngj.4940$O97.2830@trndny01>,
> >> Stephen Harding <[email protected]> writes:
> >> > donquijote1954 wrote:
> >> >> On Jan 7, 5:09 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>George Conklin wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a
> > bicycle. Too
> >> >>>>many accidents per mile.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Like how many?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Cite please.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be
real
> >> >> though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.
> >> >
> >> > That's a fair point.
> >> >
> >> > However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
> >> > not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
> >> > such a view makes a convenient excuse.
> >> >
> >> > Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
> >> > convenient!
> >>
> >> And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
> >> a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
> >> one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
> >> neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
> >> have to be such a big deal.
> >>
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Tom
> >
> > In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings
at
> > work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
year.
>
> I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.
>
> With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
> than if I'd walked.
>
If you used raingear around here, you would arrive at work even more
soaked through and you would need to wash the raingrear to get the sweat
out.
> I don't need a shower. I'm a warehouse worker.
> I'm gonna get sweaty anyways, unloading shipments
> in marine containers from China to provide people
> like you with your cheap ****.
>
> > Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
> > locker rooms too.
>
> People who ride to jobs where they need to be fresh
> simply keep their fresh clothes at their worksites.
> And they don't need a full-on shower. A quick refresher
> at the washroom sink does the trick, perhaps along with
> an application of their pit-stick of choice.
>
> It's really easy and do-able.
>
> Ride past the gas station you usualy stop at, and
> thumb your nose at 'em. Maybe even give 'em a
> Flatbush cheer, while sticking your thumbs in your
> ears and waving all your fingers at 'em.
>
> If you can ride no-handed.
>
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> I'm really at:
> tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a
>> >>lot
>> >>more commuter cyclists.
>> >
>> > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
> one
>> > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
>> > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
>> > exhausted to boot.
>>
>> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>> confused reasoning!
>
> If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income.
> Otherwise,
> you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> forth. It is a very important issue.
If you die early because you're a big fat blob, not only do you lose any
time you could have spent fixing the house, etc., but your family loses your
future earnings and has to pay to bury you (assuming that death is instant
and you don't spend 6 months in the hospital---if that is the case then it
will be even more expensive).
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> > In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the
>> > buildings
> at
>> > work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
> year.
>>
>> I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.
>>
>> With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
>> than if I'd walked.
>>
>
> If you used raingear around here, you would arrive at work even more
> soaked through and you would need to wash the raingrear to get the sweat
> out.
When I was a student at Mississippi State University, the only
transportation I had the first year I lived off campus was a bike. I had
the same concerns, but I found after a few months that I was fit enough for
my normal commute and I didn't get sweaty anymore, even when it was hot.
Mississippi, even North Mississippi, tends to be warmer than North Carolina.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > George Conklin wrote:
> >
> > > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
> > >>more commuter cyclists.
> > >
> > > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
> one
> > > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
> > > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
> > > exhausted to boot.
> >
> > 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> > billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> > confused reasoning!
>
> If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income. Otherwise,
> you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> forth. It is a very important issue.
I'd rather spend that time on my bike than fixing the house or mowing
the lawn, so I actually come out ahead...
--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
George Conklin wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>> If more people biked more, the medical industry could
>> potentially lose millions.
> Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are
> dangerous on a per-mile basis.
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:%[email protected]...
>
> >> If more people biked more, the medical industry could
> >> potentially lose millions.
>
> > Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are
> > dangerous on a per-mile basis.
>
> LOL Good one! LOL
>
>
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a
> >> >>lot
> >> >>more commuter cyclists.
> >> >
> >> > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into
a
> > one
> >> > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are
wasting
> >> > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
> >> > exhausted to boot.
> >>
> >> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> >> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> >> confused reasoning!
> >
> > If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income.
> > Otherwise,
> > you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> > forth. It is a very important issue.
>
> If you die early because you're a big fat blob, not only do you lose any
> time you could have spent fixing the house, etc., but your family loses
your
> future earnings and has to pay to bury you (assuming that death is instant
> and you don't spend 6 months in the hospital---if that is the case then it
> will be even more expensive).
>
>
Riding a bicycle to work is not the solution to life's problems. It just
adds another one.
"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> >
> > "Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > George Conklin wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a
lot
> > > >>more commuter cyclists.
> > > >
> > > > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into
a
> > one
> > > > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are
wasting
> > > > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at
work
> > > > exhausted to boot.
> > >
> > > 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> > > billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> > > confused reasoning!
> >
> > If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income.
Otherwise,
> > you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> > forth. It is a very important issue.
>
> I'd rather spend that time on my bike than fixing the house or mowing
> the lawn, so I actually come out ahead...
No, you have to hire someone to do that, so riding your bicycle costs you a
fortune.
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the
> >> > buildings
> > at
> >> > work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of
the
> > year.
> >>
> >> I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.
> >>
> >> With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
> >> than if I'd walked.
> >>
> >
> > If you used raingear around here, you would arrive at work even more
> > soaked through and you would need to wash the raingrear to get the sweat
> > out.
>
> When I was a student at Mississippi State University, the only
> transportation I had the first year I lived off campus was a bike. I had
> the same concerns, but I found after a few months that I was fit enough
for
> my normal commute and I didn't get sweaty anymore, even when it was hot.
> Mississippi, even North Mississippi, tends to be warmer than North
Carolina.
>
> -Amy
>
>
Even the fit sweat.
....
> > > > 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> > > > billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> > > > confused reasoning!
> > >
> > > If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income.
> Otherwise,
> > > you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> > > forth. It is a very important issue.
No, it's not. If I'm getting my exercise time in on my way to work, I
actually come out ahead since I'm getting dual use of my time (getting
to work, and getting my aerobic miles in), instead of spending 25
minutes each way in the car, and then needing to go out for a ride after
I get home.
> >
> > I'd rather spend that time on my bike than fixing the house or mowing
> > the lawn, so I actually come out ahead...
>
> No, you have to hire someone to do that, so riding your bicycle costs you a
> fortune.
Hardly; it just gets put off until later. BTW, if you're so anti-
bicycling, why are you posting in a bicycling forum?
--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> message news:%[email protected]...
>>
>>>> If more people biked more, the medical industry could
>>>> potentially lose millions.
>>
>>> Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are
>>> dangerous on a per-mile basis.
>>
>> LOL Good one! LOL
>>
>>
>
> When you get hurt, stop laughing.
Now was that a nice thing to say? Tsk, tsk.
Bill "Conklin taken one too many conks to the noggin?" S.
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Conklin wrote:
>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:%[email protected]...
>
>>> If more people biked more, the medical industry could
>>> potentially lose millions.
>
>> Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are
>> dangerous on a per-mile basis.
>
> LOL Good one! LOL
LOL at what, your total ignorance of accident rates for bikes?
"Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Conklin wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> confused reasoning!
Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
determining how people value their time.
"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1d2482d8-b106-4041-8280-afc0e3856270@s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> Very few people ride a bike to work
>> Your "very few" is actually a rather large number in Portland, OR.
>
> =v= In San Francisco and New York City, as well.
Jym always being the dishonest person carefully cherry picking examples that
are false for most people.
Jack May wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>>"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>>If more people biked more, the medical industry could
>>>>potentially lose millions.
>>
>>>Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are
>>>dangerous on a per-mile basis.
>>
>>LOL Good one! LOL
>
> LOL at what, your total ignorance of accident rates for bikes?
Are these accident rate reports you read produced by people who
don't like bicycles?
Comparing accident rates on a per mile basis between car and
bike definitely inserts a bias against bicycles.
You need to determine accidents on a per hour basis. That way,
exposure to accident possibilities is equalized.
A motorist can't have an car accident in his living room watching
TV because he covered the 20 miles to the beer store in in 30
minutes while the bicyclist is still out on the road, facing the
possibility of accident for an additional 30 minutes.
Jack May wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> message news:%[email protected]...
>>
>>>> If more people biked more, the medical industry could
>>>> potentially lose millions.
>>
>>> Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are
>>> dangerous on a per-mile basis.
>>
>> LOL Good one! LOL
>
> LOL at what, your total ignorance of accident rates for bikes?
Stephen Harding wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>
>>>>> If more people biked more, the medical industry could
>>>>> potentially lose millions.
>>>
>>>> Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are
>>>> dangerous on a per-mile basis.
>>>
>>> LOL Good one! LOL
>>
>> LOL at what, your total ignorance of accident rates for bikes?
>
> Are these accident rate reports you read produced by people who
> don't like bicycles?
>
> Comparing accident rates on a per mile basis between car and
> bike definitely inserts a bias against bicycles.
>
> You need to determine accidents on a per hour basis. That way,
> exposure to accident possibilities is equalized.
>
> A motorist can't have an car accident in his living room watching
> TV because he covered the 20 miles to the beer store in in 30
> minutes while the bicyclist is still out on the road, facing the
> possibility of accident for an additional 30 minutes.
>
> That's not very fair!
Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT with
which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis." (No
mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although they were included in
the preceding context.) They are not.
