Keep Biking - We Need To

[Johnny Sunset]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> I wouldn't expect a large segment of the population to pedal a bike
> back and forth to work or the store... even if decent "paths" were
> available. Too sweaty (especially in the summer) and exposed to the
> weather.
>
> But, do we really need huge expensive machines that weigh a ton or 5,
> to move around our nominally under 200lb bodies? That is the crazy
> thing. For getting around town, a very small and light vehicle would be
> sufficient... something like a velomobile with an electric powerplant
> capable of 30mph or so and a 30mph range would be great. If these were
> mass produced they would surely cost $2k or less, and get the
> equivalent of hundreds of mpg....

Like the Twike [1], only much less expensive.

[1] <http://www.twike.com/>.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Wayne Pein]

Ron Ruff wrote:

> I wouldn't expect a large segment of the population to pedal a bike
> back and forth to work or the store... even if decent "paths" were
> available. Too sweaty (especially in the summer) and exposed to the
> weather.
>
> But, do we really need huge expensive machines that weigh a ton or 5,
> to move around our nominally under 200lb bodies? That is the crazy
> thing. For getting around town, a very small and light vehicle would be
> sufficient... something like a velomobile with an electric powerplant
> capable of 30mph or so and a 30mph range would be great. If these were
> mass produced they would surely cost $2k or less, and get the
> equivalent of hundreds of mpg.
>
> Imagine how much safer, quieter, and less congested our urban areas
> would be if vehicles of this sort were used... rather than what we have
> now.
>
> The biggest problem I think, is that few would feel safe sharing the
> road with trucks and SUVs that could easily run right over them... so
> some kind of dedicated roads or paths would be necessary.

This is the same thinking that some bike proponents espouse, and it is
unworkable.

I'm OK with low power motor vehicles, but they need to operate on the
roads we have.

Wayne

 

[Ron Ruff]

Wayne Pein wrote:
>
> I'm OK with low power motor vehicles, but they need to operate on the
> roads we have.

That would be ok... in most cases. It isn't necessary to build a bunch
of new roads, but safe lanes are needed. On regular 2 lane roads,
something like a wide enough shoulder would help a lot. On multiple
lane roads, one lane could be divided into 2 or 3 lanes only for bikes
and light vehicles. Instead of favoring the biggest vehicles, make it
actually feasible (and worthwhile) to travel in something small and
efficient... without making it a life and death adventure.

I don't think there is any chance it will happen, but it isn't because
it isn't workable. It would be easier and cheaper all around.

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 19 Jan 2006 12:37:39 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>Wayne Pein wrote:
>> across many years. That means that on average a person taking public
>> transit is responsible for the same fuel consumption as car users. Take
>> your arguments to the government.
>>
>
>Although, by your arguments, the marginal cost of a person taking
>transit is essentially zero, since a bus with 100 passengers consumes
>almost the same as a bus with 99 passengers.

That's exactly why free-public-transport schemes tend to work fairly well,
subsidies can stay pretty much the same while social benefit is huge.

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:37:13 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>There are SO many people who seem to think that equity is a bad thing.
>Every time their house goes up $10K in value, they refinance and buy a
>new toy. I guess that's OK if it's a bike... ;-) but it scares me
>from a macroeconomic perspective. A sharp increase in interest rates
>could trigger a lot of mortgage defaults, which wouldn't do the
>economy a whole lot of good.

I wouldn't be surprised if the National Banks/Fed keep interest rate rises
to a gentle near-flat for pretty much that reason. Raising interest
significantly all at once is a good way to start a depression.

Jasper

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Mark Hickey wrote:
> >> Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Especially lately, with interest rates at record lows. A 30 year
> >>> mortgage with a 5 or 10 year fixed interest that you can just
> >>> barely cough up the dough for now is going to be a huge problem for
> >>> you 10 years on if interest rates have risen significantly -- which
> >>> is likely to stop the value of the home from following inflation,
> >>> let alone make profit. Sure, you can count on having gotten a few
> >>> promotions along the way, but if those don't materialise you're
> >>> screwed.
> >>
> >> There are SO many people who seem to think that equity is a bad
> >> thing. Every time their house goes up $10K in value, they refinance
> >> and buy a new toy. I guess that's OK if it's a bike... ;-) but it
> >> scares me from a macroeconomic perspective. A sharp increase in
> >> interest rates could trigger a lot of mortgage defaults, which
> >> wouldn't do the economy a whole lot of good.
> >>
> >> Mark Hickey
> >> Habanero Cycles
> >> http://www.habcycles.com
> >> Home of the $795 ti frame
> >
> > Interest rates in the US will go up regardless of what the Federal
> > Reserve does, due to the chronic deficit spending by the US
> > government. When the housing "bubble" bursts, not many people are
> > going to be in the market for new titanium alloy frame bicycles, even
> > those that start at $795. However, the LBS that does maintenance and
> > repair on commuter bicycles might do well as people look for cheap
> > alternative transportation.
>
> Way to bring down the newsgroup.

Maybe I will be able to afford a small condominium after the housing
bubble bursts.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley