No Fat Trucks

[Eric]

Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:
>
> >So before you go suggesting that SUV gluttony makes one fat, consider that one who is fat for
> >reasons other than gluttony might choose a large, truck-based vehicle simply in order to fit into
> >his or her own car. That is the fault of the manufacturers and the sizeist society at large, not
> >of the big person who is making do.
>
> A valid point, Chalo, but it doesn't explain why it seems that a vast number of SUV drivers
> (especially 'luxury' SUV drivers) seem to be diminuitive white women. They certainly don't need
> all the extra space, and sometimes I wonder if they can see properly.
>
One very real reason is because their husbands wants to keep them "protected." It does no good to
try to explain to them that crash data shows that they are far worse off in an SUV. The reason most
sited is because when a car is hit by an SUV, the SUV wins. Can't even begin to explain that cars
are designed to absorb energy while SUVs are exempt from the higest levels of crash test
survivability, so they make them stronger (and less likely to absorb impact energy). Don't even get
me started about the "rollover discussion" a few months back.

Seeing is believing to these "protectionist" husbands who know what's best for the wife. At least
she can use the 4 wheel drive to get out of the driveway without him shoveling it out...

 

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:57:29 -0500, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
>> A valid point, Chalo, but it doesn't explain why it seems that a vast number of SUV drivers
>> (especially 'luxury' SUV drivers) seem to be diminuitive white women. They certainly don't need
>> all the extra space, and sometimes I wonder if they can see properly.
>
>Actually, a lot of women prefer SUVs because they are higher and provide better visibility
>than cars.
>

If that's so, then I have yet to see evidence of their using the better visibility to good effect.

Largely, I find that they maneuver these vehicles, which are considerably bigger than your average
car, as if they were driving compact sedans. The concept of "blind spot" seems lost on them.

-Luigi

>
> -=Dave=-

 

[Cathy Kearns]

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cKX%[email protected]...
> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
> > A valid point, Chalo, but it doesn't explain why it seems that a vast number of SUV drivers
> > (especially 'luxury' SUV drivers) seem to be diminuitive white women. They certainly don't need
> > all the extra space, and sometimes I wonder if they can see properly.
>
> Actually, a lot of women prefer SUVs because they are higher and provide better visibility
> than cars.

I'm one of those diminutive white women, that normally wouldn't be caught dead in anything bigger
than my german sports sedan because face it, when you hit a certain age the few times a year guys
ogle you in your car are precious, and I'm not giving those up for a SUV. (And sure, it may be the
car they are ogling, but in my mind....)

A few years back we decided to take our golf clubs on the family vacation, and after three spins
through the airport arrival area with bigger and bigger vehicles we finally got all the luggage into
a rental Chevy Suburban. I was shocked to find when I climbed into the driver's seat of this baby I
could see most of Maui. The visibility is much better than my sedan. But I'm still not giving up the
harmless flirting for that SUV.

Cathy

Required bike content: It is easier to travel to France with my coupled tandem than to Maui with
golf clubs. Also, when I rent clubs they are often better than mine (Callaway's) while the bikes are
never as good as my CoMotion SkyCap tandem.

 

[Cathy Kearns]

"Eric" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 25 Feb 2004 17:22:28 -0800, [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:
>
> Seeing is believing to these "protectionist" husbands who know what's best for the wife. At least
> she can use the 4 wheel drive to get out of the driveway without him shoveling it out...

Or even moving his car...

 

[Luigi de Guzman]

On 28 Feb 2004 05:44:58 -0800, [email protected] (Eric) wrote:

>Seeing is believing to these "protectionist" husbands who know what's best for the wife. At least
>she can use the 4 wheel drive to get out of the driveway without him shoveling it out...

"Protectionist" husbands buy Hummers....

<grin>

-Luigi

 

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:19:08 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" <[email protected]> wrote: olf clubs on
>
>finally got all the luggage into a rental Chevy Suburban. I was shocked to find when I climbed
>into the driver's seat of this baby I could see most of Maui. The visibility is much better than
>my sedan.

...and just about equal to what I see from the saddle of my bicycle!

that forward visibility is your benefit and the curse of everybody else on the road, since now,
jacked up to rock-crawling height, you block everybody else's view of the road in front of them.
You also have *much* larger blind spots in a bigger vehicle. A Suburban's blind spot will easily
fit two cyclists!

Of course, drivers are expected to remember that vehicles have blind spots to the rear and on either
side of a vehicle--and for tall vehicle, blind spots directly behind. Driving in or allowing someone
to drive in those spots for an extended period of time is unsafe, so we are instructed to maintain a
safe distance from the car in front to prevent this.

Forward visibility on the highway is also matter of safe following distance--if you feel that you
can't see because the other car is too tall, make the other car smaller...by following at a
greater distance.

I'm sure you know all that. But I'm not sure many of the SUV drivers
do. The "signal-free" lanechanging and turning is downright dangerous in a vehicle with blind spots
the size of a suburban. Big vehicles just compound the problems related to bad motorist
behaviour, since the momentum is much greater and notwithstanding the higher eyepoint and
forward visibility, the blind spots are bigger. Add to this the fact that many motorists are
unaware of the actual width and length of their vehicles and you have major problems for non-
SUV road-users.

-Luigi

> But I'm still not giving up the harmless flirting for that SUV.

>Cathy
>
>Required bike content: It is easier to travel to France with my coupled tandem than to Maui with
>golf clubs. Also, when I rent clubs they are often better than mine (Callaway's) while the bikes
>are never as good as my CoMotion SkyCap tandem.

 

[David Reuteler]

Cathy Kearns <[email protected]> wrote:
: Required bike content:

cathy, please. not necessary .. winter rules apply until march 21 so no bike content is necessary
until then. after that we bicker about it.

: It is easier to travel to France with my coupled tandem than to Maui with golf clubs. Also, when I
: rent clubs they are often better than mine (Callaway's) while the bikes are never as good as my
: CoMotion SkyCap tandem.

derrr.. comotion makes pretty nice bikes. pity no one sells them anywhere near me & they're still
the cheapest way to get an s&s coupled bike. has anyone done a good comparison between s&s and the
ritchey break-away dealie?
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Luigi de Guzman wrote:

> You also have *much* larger blind spots in a bigger vehicle. A Suburban's blind spot will easily
> fit two cyclists!

In fact, a Suburban's blind spot will fit an entire BMW. One of these behemoths backed right over my
poor little 2002 in a gas station parking lot. It was like watching one of those car-crushing
monster truck shows.

Matt O.

 

[Badger_South]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:19:08 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm one of those diminutive white women, that normally wouldn't be caught dead in anything bigger
>than my german sports sedan because face it, when you hit a certain age the few times a year guys
>ogle you in your car are precious, and I'm not giving those up for a SUV. (And sure, it may be the
>car they are ogling, but in my mind....)

What kind of laptop do you have?

-B .jpg of your bike?

 

[Matt O'Toole]

David Reuteler wrote:

> derrr.. comotion makes pretty nice bikes. pity no one sells them anywhere near me & they're still
> the cheapest way to get an s&s coupled bike.

I was amazed when I first saw one, and how compact it was when broken down. The biggest problem with
tandems is size. Many people don't have anywhere to "park" them. As far as I'm concerned, a Co-
Motion is the only way to go, if you're a tandem rider (and you can afford it).

> has anyone done a good comparison between s&s and the ritchey break-away dealie?

Not for a tandem -- which Ritchey doesn't make, AFAIK. I've seen the Breakaway frame for $1100. It
would be hard to find a suitable frame, and have the couplers installed for much less. The Ritchey
design is lighter and better looking, and doesn't require special tools. If you already have a
suitable frame, the couplers might be the way to go.

Better yet, get the Dahon version of the Breakaway -- $1500 w/ 105 -- a better value than the Ultegra-
equipped Ritchey for $2500. AFAIK, the frame is identical, except for paint and decals.

I really like this Breakaway design. I hope it will find its way into other bikes -- tandems,
mountain bikes, and touring bikes, and sensible racing bikes with clearance for >23mm tires/fenders.
There's no downside to it except cost -- and for what it costs it's a better value than just about
anything else, equipment wise. I'm sure the cost will come down, too. It's inherently much cheaper
to manufacture than the S&S couplers. This could be the "next big thing" in cycling.

Matt O.

 

[Bill Patterson]

Outlaw power steering.

Badger_South wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:57:29 -0500, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A valid point, Chalo, but it doesn't explain why it seems that a vast number of SUV drivers
>>>(especially 'luxury' SUV drivers) seem to be diminuitive white women. They certainly don't need
>>>all the extra space, and sometimes I wonder if they can see properly.
>>
>>Actually, a lot of women prefer SUVs because they are higher and provide better visibility
>>than cars.
>>
>>
>> -=Dave=-
>
>
> You tryin' to be unintentionally funny?
>
> <tha-thump> "What was that?"
>
> "I don' tknow, I didn't see anything (continues babblling on cellphone while applying mascara in
> the mirror) Anyway, Marge, you should have seen..."
>
> =B
>
>

--
Outlaw power steering

See some Bikes At:

http://home.earthlink.net/~wm.patterson/index.html

Class and Helicopter

http://www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/

Reply to [email protected]

 

[David Reuteler]

Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
:> has anyone done a good comparison between s&s and the ritchey break-away dealie?
:
: Not for a tandem -- which Ritchey doesn't make, AFAIK. I've seen the Breakaway frame for $1100. It
: would be hard to find a suitable frame, and have the couplers installed for much less. The Ritchey
: design is lighter and better looking, and doesn't require special tools. If you already have a
: suitable frame, the couplers might be the way to go.

i was thinking for a single .. i've owned an S&S coupled bike for several years and i'm pretty
comfortable, happy with the design. it gives me warm fuzzies. i've never even seen the ritchey
design soo, basically just wondering if anyone has any actual experience with it. actually i'd like
to see it, damnit.

egads, i don't think the couplers are anywhere near as ugly as the two- colour paint job ritchey
uses to emphasize the break-down aspect of the bike.

: I really like this Breakaway design. I hope it will find its way into other bikes -- tandems,
: mountain bikes, and touring bikes, and sensible racing bikes with clearance for >23mm
: tires/fenders. There's no downside to it except cost -- and for what it costs it's a better value
: than just about anything else, equipment wise. I'm sure the cost will come down, too. It's
: inherently much cheaper to manufacture than the S&S couplers. This could be the "next big thing"
: in cycling.

it makes a helluva lot of sense on a touring bike (like my bike).

the biggest downside to either design are the f'ing TSA goons. before 9/11 it was less of a problem.
now you're potentially screwd if they open up your bike when you're not around and try and stuff it
all back together. at least with the S&S couplers it is anything but intuitive (actually it changes
with each bike) and a pretty tight fit.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Matt O'Toole]

David Reuteler wrote:

> i was thinking for a single .. i've owned an S&S coupled bike for several years and i'm pretty
> comfortable, happy with the design. it gives me warm fuzzies.

Yup, they're great.

i've never even seen the ritchey design soo,
> basically just wondering if anyone has any actual experience with it. actually i'd like to see
> it, damnit.

I saw one at a cafe in town here. The owner came for a VA Tech game, and bought the bike just
before the trip because of all the great riding in the area. We talked about it a bit, and I got to
see it up close. It's just like it looks on the web. You wouldn't notice the extra hardware at
first glance.

Another cool thing is that it's not custom -- it's an off the rack product, complete with everything
you need, ready to go. You know what the bottom line is from the outset. You're not going to have to
buy some ridiculously overpriced accessory afterward to get the thing to work.

> egads, i don't think the couplers are anywhere near as ugly as the two- colour paint job ritchey
> uses to emphasize the break-down aspect of the bike.

Well, you could always go for the Dahon version, in monotone gray or silver (I can't tell from
the picture):

http://www.dahon.com/allegro.htm

Also, I saw a Ritchey one on eBay which was all orange. Perhaps there are several color choices.

> it makes a helluva lot of sense on a touring bike (like my bike).

Yup, especially if you travel to tour.

> the biggest downside to either design are the f'ing TSA goons. before 9/11 it was less of a
> problem. now you're potentially screwd if they open up your bike when you're not around and try
> and stuff it all back together. at least with the S&S couplers it is anything but intuitive
> (actually it changes with each bike) and a pretty tight fit.

Here's an idea -- place the manual for the bike, or an ad, or something that illustrates what it is,
on top of the bike in the case. Maybe that will help them recognize it, and leave it alone.

Matt O.

 

[Zippy the Pinhe]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:20:05 -0500, Badger_South <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>Actually, a lot of women prefer SUVs because they are higher and provide better visibility
>>than cars.
>>
>>
>> -=Dave=-
>
>You tryin' to be unintentionally funny?
>
><tha-thump> "What was that?"

Actually, he was inadvertently correct. "Visibility" means "Capable of being seen". SUVs are
that, for sure.

Vision? I don't know.

 

[Rick Onanian]

On 29 Feb 2004 05:49:23 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]>
wrote:
>the biggest downside to either design are the f'ing TSA goons. before 9/11 it was less of a
>problem. now you're potentially screwd if they open up your bike when you're not around and try and
>stuff it all back together. at least with the S&S couplers it is anything but intuitive (actually
>it changes with each bike) and a pretty tight fit.

It behooves you to put in the case large, easy to read and easy to understand, step-by-step
instructions with photographs.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[David Reuteler]

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
> It behooves you to put in the case large, easy to read and easy to understand, step-by-step
> instructions with photographs.

hahaha. that's funny.

i do and have always done that. it's still takes me over 15 minutes to pack it and i know what i'm
doing and like my bike. i used the word goon for a reason.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[David Reuteler]

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
> It behooves you to put in the case large, easy to read and easy to understand, step-by-step
> instructions with photographs.

hahaha. that's funny.

of course i do that and have always done that. it's still takes me about 15 minutes to pack it and i
know what i'm doing and wish to preserve my bike. there are several stories of trashed folding bikes
out there and they're even easier. i use the word goon for a reason.
--
david reuteler