Should you get a Free (Bicycle) Ride?



"RJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ghplw5.2tid0eaoxi80N%[email protected]...
> Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
> > > >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
> > > >wide use.
> > >
> > > Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
> > > winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain.

> >
> > There's this great new technology out there that's helpful in the

freezing
> > and soaking department. It's called a "jacket".

>
> Works great in 90 degree weather.


Yes, mine does. Does not yours?
 
"DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >STUPID TRANSPORTATION vs. SMART TRANSPORTATION
> > >
> > >Some just got and grab more oil to keep the gas-guzzling SUVs alive,
> > >others provide CHOICES. What would you rather have?

> >
> > I've got choices. I choose my gasoline-powered vehicles.

>
> You would like communism. Only one option. ;)
>
> >
> > >Transportation Alternatives
> > >
> > >There are a number of beneficial forms of transportation that make our
> > >lives easier, reduce congestion, reduce our dependence on cars &
> > >foreign oil, are safer & less costly, and help save the planet:
> > >
> > >1. TRAINS - Futuristic High-Speed trains like the Eurostar (pictured
> > >above), the French TGV (right), & the Bullet train; Regional trains;
> > >Monorails; Light rail; Trolleys; & Peoplemovers. Clean electric trains
> > >are a major form of daily transportation all across Europe, and are
> > >the single most powerful transportation choice that can solve serious
> > >mobility, environmental, economic, health, and social problems on a
> > >global scale.

> >
> > High speed trains cost a fortune to build and maintain. Even with
> > heavy state subsidies, they cost a fortune to ride on. And their
> > fixed routing makes them extremely inflexible. Regional trains, same
> > thing except they are more economical to ride; their infrequent
> > operation and schedules, not to mention routing make them far less
> > convenient than the automobile. Light rail and trolleys are transport
> > with all the disadvantages of both buses and trains, except for the
> > diesel stink. Trains solve nothing.

>
> Nothing except going 200mph... Can you beat that in your stupid SUV?
>


Planes beat that easily. 500 mph. Cost: one-third as much to run.
 
"DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >STUPID TRANSPORTATION vs. SMART TRANSPORTATION
> > >
> > >Some just got and grab more oil to keep the gas-guzzling SUVs alive,
> > >others provide CHOICES. What would you rather have?

> >
> > I've got choices. I choose my gasoline-powered vehicles.

>
> You would like communism. Only one option. ;)

There is always the 2nd option of a huge diesel powered
4x4 truck. I like this 2nd option.
 
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:49:59 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 05:34:02 +1000, "DRS"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >He's only going to play semantic games whilst
>> >avoiding this fundamental truth.

>>
>> Thanks for the heads up. :)

>
>No, he just provided a great litmus test for the sheep mentality: a
>convenient rationalization for evading the responsibility of thinking.


Thus far all I see is you using this as an excuse to dodge out of the
discussion.
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Cheney Wows Sept. 11 Commission By Drinking
Glass Of Water While Bush Speaks
http://www.theonion.com/index.php?issue=4016
 
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:44:08 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> > You only fail to grasp this because you are an intransigent
>> > collectivist.

>>
>> Resorting already to ad hominem is not a good sign for the strength of
>> your position.

>
>I appreciate your statement that "You have no rights except for what
>the mob agrees to", it saves me from the effort of correcting all the sundry
>errors you make. Only whackos would buy into your ideas on rights, and they
>are not a concern as far as arguments go (though one does have to worry
>about them in general). Call that ad hominem if you like, your opinion
>doesn't really matter anyway.


Wow, you sure don't like to deal with issues do you? Interesting that
you trimmed the rest of his post to only deal with this last little
inconsequential bit.
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Cheney Wows Sept. 11 Commission By Drinking
Glass Of Water While Bush Speaks
http://www.theonion.com/index.php?issue=4016
 
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "RJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1ghplw5.2tid0eaoxi80N%[email protected]...
> > Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many

countries.
> > > > >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage

their
> > > > >wide use.
> > > >
> > > > Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
> > > > winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain.
> > >
> > > There's this great new technology out there that's helpful in the

> freezing
> > > and soaking department. It's called a "jacket".

> >
> > Works great in 90 degree weather.

>
> Yes, mine does. Does not yours?
>
>


Yes, and you know what? Two work better than one!!!!
 
"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:44:08 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> > You only fail to grasp this because you are an intransigent
> >> > collectivist.
> >>
> >> Resorting already to ad hominem is not a good sign for the strength of
> >> your position.

> >
> >I appreciate your statement that "You have no rights except for what
> >the mob agrees to", it saves me from the effort of correcting all the

sundry
> >errors you make. Only whackos would buy into your ideas on rights, and

they
> >are not a concern as far as arguments go (though one does have to worry
> >about them in general). Call that ad hominem if you like, your opinion
> >doesn't really matter anyway.

>
> Wow, you sure don't like to deal with issues do you? Interesting that
> you trimmed the rest of his post to only deal with this last little
> inconsequential bit.


No, the "interesting" thing is how true to form you are (in that you are
neglecting alternatives again).

It's also "interesting" that you think his premise "You have no rights
except for what
the mob agrees to" is inconsequential since that explains his entire
political philosophy.


Shayne Wissler
 
"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:49:59 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 05:34:02 +1000, "DRS"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >He's only going to play semantic games whilst
> >> >avoiding this fundamental truth.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the heads up. :)

> >
> >No, he just provided a great litmus test for the sheep mentality: a
> >convenient rationalization for evading the responsibility of thinking.

>
> Thus far all I see is you using this as an excuse to dodge out of the
> discussion.


And as we have already seen, all you see is a world of artificially
restricted alternatives designed to prop up your bogus views.

But by all means, use my exit from this discussion as an excuse for
yourself.


Shayne Wissler
 
[email protected] (RJ) wrote in message news:<1ghplw5.2tid0eaoxi80N%[email protected]>...
> Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
> > > >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
> > > >wide use.
> > >
> > > Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
> > > winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain.

> >
> > There's this great new technology out there that's helpful in the freezing
> > and soaking department. It's called a "jacket".

>
> Works great in 90 degree weather.


What do Oslo in the middle of winter, and Key West in the middle of
summer got in common?

-bicycles ;)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
>> >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
>> >wide use.

>>
>> Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
>> winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain.

>
>There's this great new technology out there that's helpful in the freezing
>and soaking department. It's called a "jacket".


I've found them to be markedly inferior to a fully enclosed cabin.
Either the cold air and water enter the jacket and freeze the front of
my body, or other parts of my body get hot and sweaty, or (quite
often) both.

>> And your commute
>> will likely take a lot longer,

>
>Commute is ~5 miles in suburban streets, ~9 miles freeway, ~1 mile downtown
>streets
>
>Driving in rush hour traffic, parking in building: 35 minutes, but it costs
>$20/day to park
>Driving in rush hour traffic, parking in more remote lot: 40 minutes, $9 to
>park and then walk to office
>Driving to park and ride lot, taking bus: 45 minutes, free parking, employer
>subsidizes $2 bus fare
>Riding bike to park and ride lot, taking bus: 55 minutes, ditto subsidy of
>fare
>Riding bike to work, no bus: 70 minutes


So biking takes twice as long as driving.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >STUPID TRANSPORTATION vs. SMART TRANSPORTATION
>> >
>> >Some just got and grab more oil to keep the gas-guzzling SUVs alive,
>> >others provide CHOICES. What would you rather have?

>>
>> I've got choices. I choose my gasoline-powered vehicles.

>
>You would like communism. Only one option. ;)


Nyet.

>> operation and schedules, not to mention routing make them far less
>> convenient than the automobile. Light rail and trolleys are transport
>> with all the disadvantages of both buses and trains, except for the
>> diesel stink. Trains solve nothing.

>
>Nothing except going 200mph... Can you beat that in your stupid SUV?


Don't have one. But a train going 200mph from a place I don't want to
be to a place I don't want to go doesn't help all that much. Such
high-speed trains, if they existed, would be competition for air
travel, not for driving, because of the distances and costs involved.

>> >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
>> >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
>> >wide use.

>>
>> Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
>> winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain. And your commute
>> will likely take a lot longer, and forget about carrying anything
>> significant.

>
>Good encouragement for Lance Armstrong, ah? You know what, he's riding
>an obsolete transportation mode. And he ain't good at nothing. Are you
>happy? ;)


Armstrong races professionally; that's different than riding for
transportation.

>> >5. WALKING - An often forgotten way to get around because so many
>> >places have been made hostle to pedestrians. Still the preferred
>> >choice in dense urban areas.

>>
>> Great, if you ain't going far. Like from your car to the door.

>
>How can you walk if it is dangerous? Not an easy task in America...


Actually, quite easy. The problem with walking isn't the danger, it's
the fact that places are so damn far apart.
 
"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> > You only fail to grasp this because you are an intransigent
>> > collectivist.

>>
>> Resorting already to ad hominem is not a good sign for the strength
>> of your position.

>
> I appreciate your statement that "You have no rights except for what
> the mob agrees to", it saves me from the effort of correcting all
> the sundry errors you make.


Thereby demonstrating your inability to do so. Nice try, though.

> Only whackos would buy into your ideas on rights, and they are not a
> concern as far as arguments go (though one does have to worry about
> them in general). Call that ad hominem if you like, your opinion
> doesn't really matter anyway.


My opinion matters exactly as much as yours does. Make of that what
you will.
 
"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:

> It's also "interesting" that you think his premise "You have no
> rights except for what the mob agrees to" is inconsequential since
> that explains his entire political philosophy.


Since you don't know what my political philosophy is, that's a pretty
broad and inaccurate statement.
 
"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > The mob can either respect or trample my rights. That doesn't
>> > mean it creates or owns them.

>>
>> Actually, the reverse is true. You have no rights except for what
>> the mob agrees to.

>
> You claim that my life is morally allowed only by permission from
> the collective. And you claim that it's ad hominem when I call you a
> collectivist? To declare that accusing you of holding the position
> you avow is an insult is a bit strange, even for a collectivist.


No, I speak in practical terms. You have apparently conflated natural
law with divine law. Rights are a human concept and are not found in
any other level of existence.

I think you have a right to free speech. You- I presume- think I have
a right to free speech. We might even defend each other's rights to
free speech. Yet this depends on the philosophy of free agency, and
that philosophy has never been proven correct in 2,500 years of
trying. We can see in this example that having rights (or not) is an
extension of fundamental assumptions- if, for example, we are not in
fact free agents and all of our behaviors are controlled by cause and
effect, we in turn have no rights because we have no choice. If we
are not free agents, then the concept of rights is nonsensical.

If we have free agency- my personal position is that we do- then
rights become a possibility. We then must discuss how rights arise:
are they bestowed by a Creator, are they the result of natural law,
are they a societal value agreed upon explicitly and implicitly?
Since plants, animals and the inanimate world do not appear to
perceive themselves as having rights, it does not appear that natural
law is the fundamental source of rights. Since Divine law varies from
religion to religion and from sect to sect within religions, it does
not appear that this is a reliable or consistent foundation for
determining what rights people have. We are, therefore, left with two
primary candidates for the source of rights: self-assertion of rights,
and societal bestowal of rights.

Self-assertion of rights is fraught with peril. A free agent can
derogate to himself any rights he wishes. "I have the right to take
whatever I want from whomever I want," for example, could be asserted
by an individual. Indeed, this is the fundamental assertion of
individuals who are described as sociopaths. A society of
individualists would have to accept the sociopath's assertion of this
right, although no doubt some other individualist would assert the
right to blow the brains out of the sociopath if he tried to act upon
the right he (the sociopath) asserted. It is easy to see that extreme
individualism leads rapidly to chaos and anarchy.

Social bestowal of rights also has strengths and weaknesses. The main
strength is the ability to develop a code of rights and obligations
that promotes cooperation, mutuality and co-existence. The main
problem with this is that relatively powerful subgroups or individual
can dominate and exploit relatively weak subgroups or individuals.
One thinks of kings, religious sects, gangs, etc. in this regard. The
inequities of personal power eventually have led to the development of
the idea of "rule of law," in which rights can be identified
descriptively and assigned to groups of people. The more equitable
this structure is, the more people can prosper because of equalization
of opportunity. Ideally, prosperity ultimately becomes based on
motivation and ability.

Hence, I think that indeed what rights one has are determined by
society and not by natural law, Divine law or self-declaration. The
first results in savagery, the second in theocracy and the third in
anarchy. Societal law is not guaranteed to produce positive results,
either, but it has a better chance of doing so. It does so by
balancing individual rights and needs with social purposes; when in
doubt, it is probably better to tend to err on the side of the
individual in order to preserve adaptability to changing situations.
Societal law depends on the values held by the individuals within the
society, and those values can influence society so that it grows and
adapts to new conditions and new opportunities- democracy is the
culmination of this.

As has been shown repeatedly throughout history, individual
advancement is typically faster than societal advancement. As a
result, individual advancement often challenges the values and beliefs
of the society which must then either adapt to the advancement or put
a stop to it. Hence we have an election where- remarkably- science is
actually a campaign issue, where the extension of complete civil
rights to all citizens is a campaign issue, where the equity of the
economy is a campaign issue, where the equity of health care is a
campaign issue, etc. The traditional issue of national security looms
as large or larger than ever, but many of the other traditional issues
are taking a back seat so far. Very interesting stuff.
 
[email protected] (Don Wagner) writes:

> A couple of things that always detered me from riding to work was
> that it forces you to change in the office and winters in some areas
> of the world are just plain mean.
>
> Hauling a change of clothes with you everyday is a pain in the butt
> and lets face it, dress shirts and pants look like **** after a
> crunchy ride in a bike bag.


When I ride to work, I ride in my street clothes with some cycling
shrots underneath. This works fine except for when it's hot out or
raining, so I don't ride to work then. Otherwise as long as the
streets are clear of ice and snow, I can ride to work much of the
time. When commuting I ride slow enough that I don't get to work in
a muck sweat, much different than my free time rides.

I started this precisely because of the issues raised in your second
paragraph. Riding in street clothes works well, especially in the
fall and spring when I can ride to work in a sweater; they hold up to
riding quite well, and especially since woll doesn't tend to get
stinky. I even have some light wool T-shirts which are great.
 
"DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> You would like communism. Only one option. ;)


You only get one choice of computer electronic, integrated circuits.
Other choice like discrete transistors or tubes for computers are not a
practical choice.

Same way with transportation and most other technologies. One technology
dominates because it has evolved though market choice and capital investment
to improve that technology to provide what people most want and use.

There is choice of products that consumers want to buy and use. Transit
and other transportation choices in the US are much more limited because
people don't generally like and use those alternative choices.

For Government to offer choices that few people will want is a waste of
taxpayer money and a sign of gross incompetence. Incompetence in Government
is of course no surprise.

Communism tends not only to offer much more limited choice, but it also does
not respond to what people want. The result no choice and crappy
products. The people that left the Soviet Union were invariably
overwhelmed with the choices available in the US compared to Communism.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> My opinion matters exactly as much as yours does. Make of that what
> you will.


Wrong.

Opinions are valued by how useful and realistic they are in real life.
Unrealistic opinions have very little value to other people.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > It's also "interesting" that you think his premise "You have no
> > rights except for what the mob agrees to" is inconsequential since
> > that explains his entire political philosophy.

>
> Since you don't know what my political philosophy is, that's a pretty
> broad and inaccurate statement.


Your premise is a broad (and inaccurate) statement--broad conclusions can be
drawn from broad premises. I don't know every detail of your political
philosophy, but I don't need to--that statement really says it all.

I do compliment you on your willingness to sum up your viewpoint so
succinctly. Most collectivists are not as forthright and honest about the
meaning of all of the verbiage they spew forth. If they would all be as
honest then collectivism would quickly fade (I hope this doesn't prevent you
from being as honest in the future).


Shayne Wissler
 
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > Nothing except going 200mph... Can you beat that in your stupid SUV?
> >

>
> Planes beat that easily. 500 mph. Cost: one-third as much to run.


"Once more the special interests stand in the way of progress!"

How are planes alleviating the long line of predeluvian SUVs between
Miami and Key West? Dinosaurs in Paradise, we may call them. ;)

Fact is, Key West had both a train and a trolley, that were
respectively destroyed by nature and General Motors in the 1930s.

Places like this, and some others where hight intensity traffic is
common place do need a bullet train. Florida is indeed among them...

***

What is a "bullet train"?

A bullet train or high speed rail is a train that goes very fast, at
leaset 125 mph. Some trains used in Japan and Europe can go more than
200 mph. It is not like any of the conventional trains, light rail or
subways in the U.S. today.

Transportation experts believe bullet trains can operate economically
in many parts of the U.S., including Florida.

***

"This whole discussion on the high-speed railroad is such a waste of
time.
Look around and see how this modern means of transportation has made
inroads in practically all industrialized countries. Already we are
falling way behind.

Money is never a problem when a worthwhile venture is involved, and
this one is inevitable. Waiting will only make it more expensive.

Once more the special interests stand in the way of progress!"

Carl Muller

http://www.floridabullettrain.com/
 
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:14:01 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Your question is confused. If I didn't own them then neither did the person
>I bought them from, so why did I pay him for them in the first place?


Why would you pay for something when you don't believe in ownership?