If you don't believe in Evolution, then why do you drive an SUV?



George Conklin wrote:
> "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!
>
> Exercise is supposed to make you tired.
>
Physically, maybe. Mentally, no.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
 
George Conklin wrote:
> "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.
>
butbutbut, riding a bicycle is more fun than all those other possible
activities!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
 
On Jan 14, 8:26 am, "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:%[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >> Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
> > >> it is hidden in other expenses.
>
> > > The true cost of riding a bicycle is huge, and hidden by nonsense posted
> > > here.
>
> > True. 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.

George, I seldom defend the bikers but you need to take into account
more things than just transportation when you look at biking. Not
only does it provide the utility of transportation but it also
provides the moral superiority of know you commute by bike as well as
some health and fitness benefits. Stop living in a disjoint world.

Biking is a combo activity that is part utilitarian and part
recreational. It is hard to make value judgments about recreation.
Take something like snowboarding, for example. It's high injury per
mile, but people go out of their way to do it. All transportation
should be that way !!!

Look at sex. That's another activity with almost no utilitarian
benefits (and I've go teenagers, so don't tell me that kids are a
benefit) and it is "dangerous on a per-mile basis" but if the junk
emails that I get are any indication, it seems like a lot of people
are involved in it.
 
On Jan 13, 11:49 am, "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "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.
> Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
> locker rooms too.

But George, IIRC you work at a college. You have showers in the
buildings at work. Besides, without one you've be just another smelly
guy on campus -- like that's any big deal.
 
Pat Who? wrote:
> ...
> George, I seldom defend the bikers but you need to take into account
> more things than just transportation when you look at biking....

PLEASE, we are CYCLISTS.

"Bikers" ride noisy, smelly machines powered by infernal (sic) combustion.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
 
>> Exercise is supposed to make you tired.
> Physically, maybe. Mentally, no.

=x= Clearly, George Conklin has opted for mental tiredness.
As a way of life.
<_Jym_>
 
> I'll bet dollars to donut holes a bunch of 'em don't even
> ride, or otherwise put their money where their mouth is.

=v= You were right-on until you threw this unsubstantiated
nonsense into the mix.
<_Jym_>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> "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.

Not necessarily. One just needs the right kind of raingear.
And it doesn't have to be expensive GoreTex stuff.

It's all about ventilation. And fenders, preferably
w/ at least a front mudflap.

A pair of cheap cordura hiking gaiters does wonders
for keeping lower legs dry. A proper cycling rain
cape provides "protection" from rain while allowing
huge volumes of ventilation. Fashion toeclip cozies
out of strips of inner tube, and your feet & shoes
stay not only nice 'n dry, but warm, too, 'cuz they
serve as fairings to keep the wind off yer li'l toesies.

Please, no more canards. I grow weary of shooting
ducks down. Got any valid arguments?


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> message
>> 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.

Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
data and shows the data says:

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."
 
Jack May wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>> 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.
>
> Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
> so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
> data and shows the data says:
>
> http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
>
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
> the rates for car occupants."
>
Get rid of the excessive number of automobiles and light trucks, and the
death rate for cyclists would plummet.

Get rid of bicycles, and the death rate for motorists would not be
measurably affected.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>> 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.
>
> Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
> so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
> data and shows the data says:
>
> http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
>
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly
> exceed
> the rates for car occupants."

But the majority of bike fatalities are CAUSED by car occupants. The
reverse is not true.
 
Jack May wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>> 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.
>
> Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any
> data so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that
> actually has data and shows the data says:
>
> http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
>
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly
> exceed the rates for car occupants."

LOL You STILL can't read and I *just explained* it to you! (Hint II: The
original statement was, "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis."
Period. (Of course they're more dangerous than CARS on that basis; that was
NOT what the statement said.)

HTH yet again.

Bill "someone else 'splain it to the Moron May please" S.
 
Jack May wrote:

> "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.

Yeah, your often repeated sermon.
But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
Conk said:
"... 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."

His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
wage rates".

*) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.


--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>
 
"Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack May wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> Yeah, your often repeated sermon.

And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
exists.

> But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
> Conk said:
> "... 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."
>
> His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
> wage rates".
>
> *) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
> fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
> cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.

Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
riding a bicycle. With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.

Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.
 
> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
> riding a bicycle.

=v= Numbers? Sources?

> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider.

=v= Numbers? Sources?
<_Jym_>
 
Jack May wrote:
> "Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>
>>> "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.
>> Yeah, your often repeated sermon.
>
> And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
> exists.
>
>> But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
>> Conk said:
>> "... 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."
>>
>> His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
>> wage rates".
>>
>> *) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
>> fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
>> cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.
>
> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
> riding a bicycle. With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
> safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.
>
> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
> in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
> problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.
>
If a person does not enjoy cycling, they are morally and intellectually
defective.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message


> If a person does not enjoy cycling, they are morally and intellectually
> defective.

I enjoy exersize on my Olympic size trampoline more than exersize on my
bike. The trampoline produces a lot more thrills.

That said, this spring I expect to buy a recumbent bike with a clear plastic
"roof" which cuts drag. I bike on a paved path along the SF Bay shoreline
which is across the street from the area where I live.

The problem with a bike has been the high winds that rip down the bay and
make biking less than enjoyable at times. The advantage to a bike is that
it gets you out among people. There are a lot of people using the path
along the bay.
 
Jack May wrote:
> ...
> That said, this spring I expect to buy a recumbent bike with a clear plastic
> "roof" which cuts drag. I bike on a paved path along the SF Bay shoreline
> which is across the street from the area where I live....
>
Birk Butterfly? Go-One?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
 
Jack May wrote:

> "Tadej Brezina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Jack May wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"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.
>>
>>Yeah, your often repeated sermon.
>
>
> And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
> exists.
>
>
>>But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
>>Conk said:
>>"... 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."
>>
>>His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
>>wage rates".
>>
>>*) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
>>fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
>>cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.
>
>
> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
> riding a bicycle.

I do not know the statistics for the US.
In my country, and I guess it's not any different in other European
countries, the death and injury rate of cycling is almost below the
classical margin of measureability. And those few fatalities that occur
on bikes are practically never 'alone accidents' but cyclist hit by cars
due to bad infrastructure design (namely separated cycle paths at
intersections).
So your statement is irrelvant quality and quantity-wise.

> With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
> safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.

Definitly certain at this, although I do only have the corresponding
inquiries in paper at hand, not on a website.
Increased number of cyclists decreases cycling risks.

> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
> in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
> problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.

Wow, honestly Jack, I've read many statements from you that I do
disagree strongly with. A lot of them I would even consider as utter
nonsense, as proven by many others on these boards often. But the above
is the peak of nonsense so far! Ridiculous!

As you consider yourself as a guy with technological insight: How's the
relationship in energy consumption ratio of additional energy needed for
moving human body and bicycle one one hand side and on the other of
moving 1000+ kg of vehicle and one human body on average?
One or two (maybe even three) orders of magnitude?

Consider that the energy in excess that is consumed (=eaten) by the
average westerner, lead by the north americans, and is not used for
locomotion but is accumulated as body fat, also due to horrible lack of
body movement, would easily support cycling for many hours a day.

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>
 
> I enjoy exersize on my Olympic size trampoline more
> than exersize on my bike.

=x= Your spelling is in greater need of exorcising.
<_Jym_>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
We froggies don't believe !
Replies
0
Views
268
Road Cycling
Sandy
S
S
We froggies don't believe !
Replies
0
Views
293
Road Cycling
Sandy
S
S
We froggies don't believe !
Replies
0
Views
344
Road Cycling
Sandy
S
S
We froggies don't believe !
Replies
9
Views
436
Road Cycling
Bill C
B
G
Bad luck? Bah, I don't believe it...
Replies
0
Views
586
Road Cycling
gregr
G
Top Bottom Back