Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

[Aeek]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:34:09 -0500, "George Conklin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>>
>> Oh, bollocks! I have to drive pick-up trucks for work and they are quite
>> lousy to drive and uncomfortable compared to my Honda Civic, which gets
>> a real world 35+ mpg in urban driving.
>
> The Honda Civic? My sister-in-law had one about 20 years ago. She
>hated it too.

I love my 85 Corolla Seca, I can toss most of my bikes in the back
without removing the front wheel - and that's what matters.

 

[Pat]

On Dec 11, 9:51 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't understand
> >> that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
> >> stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
> >> any real value.-
>
> > What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid of
> > the competition?
>
> Bicycle lanes are a horrible idea - I go out of my way to avoid streets
> with them when I am riding one of my bicycles (or trike). Why should
> cyclists be expected to use second class ghetto facilities, while
> leaving the "real" road to the cagers?

There's no problem with bikes sharing lanes with traffic ... just a
long as you can keep up with it. I'll give you a friendly wave when I
see you tooling down the expressway on your bike at 70mph. And I hope
those wind blasts from tractor trailers don't bother you too much. I
know they bother me on my 800 lb motorcycle but I wouldn't imaging
they would bother a bicyclist too much.

>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

 

[Pat]

On Dec 12, 8:34 am, "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > George Conklin wrote:
> > > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>> People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and Japan
> were
> > >>> so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.
> > >> Yeah, that's why those miserable small cars outsell SUVs and the Big
> > >> Three are sucking sewage. But no, blame it on the unions! Yeah,
> that's
> > >> the ticket!
>
> > > Your complaint was that there are too many SUVs. Now you say there are
> not.
> > > In fact, people don't like those miserable small cars.
>
> > Oh, bollocks! I have to drive pick-up trucks for work and they are quite
> > lousy to drive and uncomfortable compared to my Honda Civic, which gets
> > a real world 35+ mpg in urban driving.
>
> The Honda Civic? My sister-in-law had one about 20 years ago. She
> hated it too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

George, ever been in a pickup much. Unless you have a road-only,
upper end one, they ride pretty lousy. They have a definate purpose
as a work vehicle and the ride really doesn't matter too much then,
but as for comfort -- generally they're not too good.

 

[Stephen Harding]

Aeek wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:34:09 -0500, "George Conklin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>>Oh, bollocks! I have to drive pick-up trucks for work and they are quite
>>>lousy to drive and uncomfortable compared to my Honda Civic, which gets
>>>a real world 35+ mpg in urban driving.

>> The Honda Civic? My sister-in-law had one about 20 years ago. She
>>hated it too.
>
> I love my 85 Corolla Seca, I can toss most of my bikes in the back
> without removing the front wheel - and that's what matters.

I love my '98 Dodge Ram half ton, 4WD, V8 pickup truck!

Just toss 12 bikes plus camping gear in the back (and on a
bike rack) and the team's bikes go from MA to IA in about
27 hours with no nicks, scrapes or dings.

And quite honestly, that truck is a very comfortable
driving vehicle. I think the more upright seating is
probably why.

Now the $100 to fully fill the tank isn't so nice. That's
one reason I bicycle commute (though not the only one, as
I've been bike commuting for 15+ years) and leave the
"global warmer" at home for tasks it is more amenable to.


SMH

SMH

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 8:34 am, "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The Honda Civic? My sister-in-law had one about 20 years ago. She
> hated it too.

Could be a genetic problem, then, or could be just bad upbringing.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 8:53 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There's no problem with bikes sharing lanes with traffic ... just a
> long as you can keep up with it. I'll give you a friendly wave when I
> see you tooling down the expressway on your bike at 70mph. And I hope
> those wind blasts from tractor trailers don't bother you too much. I
> know they bother me on my 800 lb motorcycle but I wouldn't imaging
> they would bother a bicyclist too much.

Pat's posting from a position of ignorance.

I've done hundreds of freeway miles on my bike. It's legal in much of
the American west.

No, I didn't hit 70 mph. I didn't need to. I rode the shoulder, or
when that was obstructed, the right lane. My wife and daughter rode
with me on that tour.

Wind blasts from tractor trailers were welcomed. The draft gave us a
slight boost in speed, and never caused a hint of stability
problems.

In fact, the truckers treated us a little _too_ courteously. The vast
majority of them shifted to the empty left lane, even when we were on
the shoulder. That meant the beneficial draft was less than it might
have been.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 8:57 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and Japan were
> > > so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.
>
> > Yeah, that's why those miserable small cars outsell SUVs and the Big
> > Three are sucking sewage. But no, blame it on the unions! Yeah, that's
> > the ticket!
>
> Your complaint was that there are too many SUVs. Now you say there are not.
> In fact, people don't like those miserable small cars.

It's not that people don't like them, it's that people feel terrorized
in them, the danger coming from SUVs.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 9:51 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't understand
> >> that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
> >> stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
> >> any real value.-
>
> > What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid of
> > the competition?
>
> Bicycle lanes are a horrible idea - I go out of my way to avoid streets
> with them when I am riding one of my bicycles (or trike). Why should
> cyclists be expected to use second class ghetto facilities, while
> leaving the "real" road to the cagers?

Just because the "real" road is a jungle ruled by the big fat
dinosaurs.

Which is why the primordial mammals hid from them and were nocturnal
creatures. Are you willing to ride a bike at 3am?

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 12, 8:35 am, "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and
> > > > > Japan were so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.
>
> > > > Yeah, that's why those miserable small cars outsell SUVs and the
> > > > Big Three are sucking sewage. But no, blame it on the unions!
> > > > Yeah, that's the ticket!
>
> > > Your complaint was that there are too many SUVs. Now you say there
> > > are not. In fact, people don't like those miserable small cars.
>
> > Toyota and Honda wouldn't be eating Detroit's lunch if that was true.
>
> Toyota and Honda get a $1,200 price advantage on every car because they
> do not have retirees yet, and the American medical system is bankrupting the
> nation.-

So now we have two presidential issues: UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE & ROAD
SAFETY.

Our MAN TO THE WHITE HOUSE can solve that...

http://webspawner.com/users/elections2008

 

[Bentracer and Bentrider]

On Dec 11, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
> > In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
> >>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
> >>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
> >>> too few people to be of any real value.
> >> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
> >> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
> >> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.
>
> > Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
> > transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
> > desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
>
> > Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!
>
> Recumbent bicycle riders are NOT fabulous. For that, we are grateful.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

TOM SHERNAN you are DRUNK

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 12, 10:36 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 12, 8:53 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There's no problem with bikes sharing lanes with traffic ... just a
> > long as you can keep up with it. I'll give you a friendly wave when I
> > see you tooling down the expressway on your bike at 70mph. And I hope
> > those wind blasts from tractor trailers don't bother you too much. I
> > know they bother me on my 800 lb motorcycle but I wouldn't imaging
> > they would bother a bicyclist too much.
>
> Pat's posting from a position of ignorance.
>
> I've done hundreds of freeway miles on my bike. It's legal in much of
> the American west.
>
> No, I didn't hit 70 mph. I didn't need to. I rode the shoulder, or
> when that was obstructed, the right lane. My wife and daughter rode
> with me on that tour.
>
> Wind blasts from tractor trailers were welcomed. The draft gave us a
> slight boost in speed, and never caused a hint of stability
> problems.
>
> In fact, the truckers treated us a little _too_ courteously. The vast
> majority of them shifted to the empty left lane, even when we were on
> the shoulder. That meant the beneficial draft was less than it might
> have been.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Down here in Florida we don't have the benefits of Wild West, so can't
ride on expressways.

I side with Pat though. The stress that you receive when the speed
differential and mass differential is so great that that's how I'd
imagine biking in Hell would be.

Nothing works like a bike lane to bring people out and there's safety
in numbers.

 

[Jack May]

"Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
>>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
>>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
>>> too few people to be of any real value.
>>
>> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
>> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
>> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.
>
> Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
> transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
> desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
>
> Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!

Actually research is clear that people that don't use cars tend to be
poorer, less educated, and less socially connected. Being poorer makes you
less sexually desirable and tends to result in being less fit.

 

[Jack May]

"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> The increase of funds for personal vehicles if from the $40B bonds the
>> voters approved to partially repair the damage done to California by the
>> foolish spending on transit over the last decades.
>
> I don't think ripping all the roads out would completely repair all the
> damage done by them. But I don't see what connection that would have to
> transit.

The connection is extremely easy to see even by California politicians. The
large amount of money spent on transit over the last few decades starved the
roads resulting in a crumbling of the infrastructure and increased
congestion.

The funds spent on transit over the past decades, as usual, did nothing to
solve our transportation problems.

 

[Jack May]

"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:728274c0-7e4f-4cb4-bbb1-a4837579b1aa@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
>> ...

> Better that than the brain-dead notion you espouse, that trillions of
> dollars should be spent subsidizing the use of one car for every
> commuter.

The problem is that very little was spent on roads resulting in decaying
roads and increased congestion. The money spent on transit did nothing to
improve transportation. Alternative transportation has proven to be a big
problem, not a solution.

Those problems caused by foolish transit spending resulted in the voters
approving the $40B in bonds.

 

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a278e94f-7753-46cd-910b-df5d271a3481@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't
> understand
> that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
> stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
> any real value.-

What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid of
the competition?

For example a bike path bridge over a major road or freeway is over $3M.
Bike paths are a fairly high percentage of transportation spending in the SF
Bay Area.

Bike use is down in the noise for commuting to and from work. It is not
real competition to anything. That is the problem with transportation
advocates. They seldom understand the tradeoff of money and usefulness.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 12, 12:46 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
> >>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
> >>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
> >>> too few people to be of any real value.
>
> >> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
> >> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
> >> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.
>
> > Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
> > transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
> > desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
>
> > Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!
>
> Actually research is clear that people that don't use cars tend to be
> poorer, less educated, and less socially connected. Being poorer makes you
> less sexually desirable and tends to result in being less fit.-

Only in America and poor countries. Not so in Holland or Denmark.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 12, 12:57 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:728274c0-7e4f-4cb4-bbb1-a4837579b1aa@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
> >> ...
> > Better that than the brain-dead notion you espouse, that trillions of
> > dollars should be spent subsidizing the use of one car for every
> > commuter.
>
> The problem is that very little was spent on roads resulting in decaying
> roads and increased congestion. The money spent on transit did nothing to
> improve transportation. Alternative transportation has proven to be a big
> problem, not a solution.

Transit is a solution in Europe, but not here. Is it a problem with
transit or sprawl.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 12, 1:03 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a278e94f-7753-46cd-910b-df5d271a3481@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't
> > understand
> > that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
> > stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
> > any real value.-
>
> What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid of
> the competition?
>
> For example a bike path bridge over a major road or freeway is over $3M.
> Bike paths are a fairly high percentage of transportation spending in the SF
> Bay Area.
>
> Bike use is down in the noise for commuting to and from work. It is not
> real competition to anything. That is the problem with transportation
> advocates. They seldom understand the tradeoff of money and usefulness.

I understand it is widespread in San Diego area. Are people in San
Francisco retarded?

 

[Stephen Harding]

[email protected] wrote:

> I've done hundreds of freeway miles on my bike. It's legal in much of
> the American west.
>
> No, I didn't hit 70 mph. I didn't need to. I rode the shoulder, or
> when that was obstructed, the right lane. My wife and daughter rode
> with me on that tour.
>
> Wind blasts from tractor trailers were welcomed. The draft gave us a
> slight boost in speed, and never caused a hint of stability
> problems.
>
> In fact, the truckers treated us a little _too_ courteously. The vast
> majority of them shifted to the empty left lane, even when we were on
> the shoulder. That meant the beneficial draft was less than it might
> have been.

I rode a freeway (not Interstate, but four lane divided highway)
while touring in Minnesota.

Certainly no real safety issues given the broad breakdown lane
(and the fact that outside the northeast, there don't appear to
be the knuckleheads that drive in that lane to move along a
congested highway a little faster [and end up often killing
someone making proper use of the lane]).

On and off ramps can be a bit of a problem on a congested highway,
though not the highway I pedaled.

However, I did not find it enjoyable riding. The constant whoosh
of cars and roaring truck engines just didn't mix well in my mind
with a bike ride! Furthermore, no shade on really hot days.

I'd much prefer a narrower road with a shoulder to a highway for
riding my bike.


SMH

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 3:32 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> However, I did not find it enjoyable riding. The constant whoosh
> of cars and roaring truck engines just didn't mix well in my mind
> with a bike ride! Furthermore, no shade on really hot days.
>
> I'd much prefer a narrower road with a shoulder to a highway for
> riding my bike.

Oh, I agree. Freeway riding wasn't aesthetically pleasant. Well,
except perhaps for some very early morning riding in very remote
areas, when traffic was very low.

But as usual, I was responding to a poster claiming or implying great
danger. And the great danger isn't there.

Too many people automatically assume that if they're not in their
upholstered tin can, they _must_ be in danger. It's a sad way to
live!

- Frank Krygowski