The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone



T

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Brent P? wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>...
>>> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven.

>> Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary
>> bicycle?

>
> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life.


Bicycle outside will provide mental health benefits that the "hamster
wheel" will not. Improved mental health boosts the immune system.

Gerbils are much happier if their environment is a couple hundred square
feet instead of 2 square feet.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
T

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> OK, out with it! What did you eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner the
> past month? What's your cholesterol count? What did your father and
> his brothers die of? How much beer do you drink? Society has a right
> to know!!!!


Hey, beer in moderate quantities is good for you!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER is FOOD

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
T

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
John S? wrote:
> ...
> Google is well designed and works great. You need to get a more up to
> date interface. One that allows you to scroll easily between messages
> and keep things in context. It will reduce the chances of your
> becoming confused in the future on simple topics like this....


When my news-feed temporarily went down, I reverted to Gurgle Gropes
[1], and the slow speed, screwed up format of attribution names, munging
of headers and worst of all, the limits on how many posts could be sent
annoyed the hell out of me.

[1] gene-speak for Google Groups.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
T

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted.

>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much different in
>> their effectiveness.

>
> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws.
>
>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on
>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car crashes.

>
> Wrong.
>
>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied
>> head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear collision
>> (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a mere 14 mph
>> (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left hook" collision with
>> a car).

>
> You want to volunteer for testing?
>
>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being far
>> too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to replicate a
>> "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell engineers correctly
>> claimed that anything that would protect against a really serious
>> crash would be unwearable.

>
> So MC helmets are worthless....


Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF do
MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that?

An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a foam
bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in
effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to wear
on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in anything but
winter weather.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 24, 5:22 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Marz wrote:
> >> On Aug 24, 11:46 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>> /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane.

>
> >> Do they exist? I've never seen one around here (Texas), where folks
> >> consider everywhere to the right of that white line the appropiate
> >> place to dump beer bottles, stolen cars and bbqs (ok only ever one
> >> bbq). Bike lanes, segmented sections of the highways as opposed to
> >> bike paths (which are of some use), do NOTHING for cyclist's safety.
> >> In fast moving traffic (>30mph) how do handle a left hand turn from a
> >> righthand side cycle lane?

>
> > In San Diego County, our bike lanes are wonderful (with rare
> > exceptions, of course). Others have said similar things about their
> > locales (Arizona comes to mind).

>
> Many places in Oregon.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Must suck to live where they're lousy. (Sounds more like a shoulder
> > line than a true bike lane, btw.)- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Sounds like an interstate overpass/interchange that you never use a
bike lane on if you don't want to be bugshit on the side on a
semitrailer. I've been on the pedestrian walk and seen my own "death"
enough times to know better.

For all of you who don't want me on a hardly used sidewalk I offer
that the locals, especially high school kids are spooked by riders and
may even tell them to use the sidewalk. For every advance there is a
de-evolution with each generation. It takes a while (maybe tickets)
for them to figure it out.

The best thing would be that the kids are getting into blues and jazz
more and are sick of Disney.
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 24, 5:29 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >> Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>> A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any
> >>> stationary bike.

>
> >> Not if you have the proper stionary bike.

>
> > It's a Schwinn Airdyne. I used to ride around 55 to 60 rpm to keep my
> > heart rate in the target range. The last time I tried, I had to ride
> > it around 67 rpm for the same effect.

>
> You can't adjust the resistance?


I used to get the cardio bikes to 160 rpm and roll back to 120 for a
while.

I'm just nuts though and like the burn. Usage was free while that
owner had the fitness club, but he went to prison on tax or
embezzlement charges and the new owner didn't offer that deal. I got
down to 235 that year.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Arif Khokar wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Wayne Pein wrote:

>
>>> "Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane.

>
>> Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean,
>> effective bike lane.

>
> Happens to me when I ride in the bike lane (that's why I don't ride in
> that "lane" anymore).
>
> I'm almost positive that you don't even ride a bike in traffic.


Almost 21,000 miles on current two bikes, but thanks for your concern.
(What a maroon...)
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:

>> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences before
>> spouting off.


> Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to somewhere
> where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me that ALL bike lanes
> are bad (previous claim IIRC).


You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike lanes
have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that? because they
always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes needlessly complicate
intersections. So, no matter how you construct them, every intersection
is a problem.

Of course what are bike lanes trying to address? Hit from behind.
Afterall, a wide curb lane produces all the ease of passing for motor
vehicles. So in trying to solve the smaller risk of hit from behind the
higher risk of intersection related collisions is increased.

>> I've already run into close to handful of motorists bikelane
>> propaganda has had excatly that effect on. I am sure most just don't
>> bother yelling it at me. (hint: all were where there aren't any bike
>> lanes at all) Now if I include all of those who think bicyclists are
>> limited to bike paths, well I lost count of those *YEARS* ago.


> My 45-mile ride today was lovely. I'd say roughly 60% or so was bike-laned;
> much of the rest good road, too. (There are a few trouble spots on this
> route, but nothing an experienced, confident rider can't handle.) I
> probably saw 50 other cyclists (all helmeted, by the way -- usually see at
> least a few unlidded) all using the wonderful bike lanes these roads
> provide.
>
> But we're all nuts and you and Pein are right. Whatever.


Well wooptie do for you. Now ride the bike lanes that aren't the
exception to the rule. I've seen substandard bicycle lanes in
IL,WI,Iowa,MN,and HI while seeing none of these magical well designed
bicycle lanes you and the rest of the zealots speak of. I see glorified
shoulders (HI, Iowa, WI) and bike lanes carved out the pavement margins
where nobody in their right mind would ride (IL, MN)
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:

> Not using a stationary.


That's right troll, I go places with a bicycle.

> CARDIO-VASCULAR WORKOUT


go be a gerbil if you want to be a gerbil. However I think you'd be
better off under a bridge.

>>> I've been cycling for 55+ years and never wore one.


>> Then why are you apprently offended by my dislike of foam hats and
>> manditory foam hat laws? The most probable answer is that you're just
>> another shithead troll.


> I'm not offended at all. I think mandatory helmets for kids is a good
> idea. For adults, I say let natural selection do its work.


You're just another garden variety troll. Go find some garden gnomes to
bother.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>
>>> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences
>>> before spouting off.

>
>> Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to
>> somewhere where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me
>> that ALL bike lanes are bad (previous claim IIRC).

>
> You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike lanes
> have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that? because they
> always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes needlessly complicate
> intersections. So, no matter how you construct them, every
> intersection is a problem.


Absurd. (But of course you know this. OR... "You should get out and about
more and increase your experiences
before spouting off." HTH!)

Done.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences
>>>> before spouting off.

>>
>>> Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to
>>> somewhere where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me
>>> that ALL bike lanes are bad (previous claim IIRC).

>>
>> You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike lanes
>> have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that? because they
>> always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes needlessly complicate
>> intersections. So, no matter how you construct them, every
>> intersection is a problem.

>
> Absurd. (But of course you know this. OR... "You should get out and about
> more and increase your experiences
> before spouting off." HTH!)
> Done.


Guess you've never tried to turn left with asshole motorists who wanted
to defend their view that bicyclists are restricted to bike lane. Or
maybe you still act like a child and walk your bike across the road
making a box turn.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences
>>>>> before spouting off.
>>>
>>>> Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to
>>>> somewhere where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me
>>>> that ALL bike lanes are bad (previous claim IIRC).
>>>
>>> You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike
>>> lanes have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that?
>>> because they always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes
>>> needlessly complicate intersections. So, no matter how you
>>> construct them, every intersection is a problem.

>>
>> Absurd. (But of course you know this. OR... "You should get out
>> and about more and increase your experiences
>> before spouting off." HTH!)
>> Done.

>
> Guess you've never tried to turn left with asshole motorists who
> wanted to defend their view that bicyclists are restricted to bike
> lane.


You interviewed these drivers?!? ALL of them?!? LOL

> Or maybe you still act like a child and walk your bike across
> the road making a box turn.


You're a meanie. ROTFL

Bill "OK, really done" S.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike lanes
> have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that? because they
> always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes needlessly complicate
> intersections. So, no matter how you construct them, every intersection
> is a problem.


But only for the lame of mind, thereby increasing the fitness of the gene
pool.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences
>>>>> before spouting off.
>>>
>>>> Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to
>>>> somewhere where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me
>>>> that ALL bike lanes are bad (previous claim IIRC).
>>>
>>> You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike
>>> lanes have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that?
>>> because they always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes
>>> needlessly complicate intersections. So, no matter how you construct
>>> them, every intersection is a problem.

>>
>> Absurd. (But of course you know this. OR... "You should get out and
>> about more and increase your experiences
>> before spouting off." HTH!)
>> Done.

>
> Guess you've never tried to turn left with asshole motorists who
> wanted to defend their view that bicyclists are restricted to bike
> lane. Or maybe you still act like a child and walk your bike across
> the road making a box turn.
>
>


What caused all this? One guy in a Cadillac make a smart ass remark about
your outfit?
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> Not using a stationary.

>
> That's right troll, I go places with a bicycle.
>
>> CARDIO-VASCULAR WORKOUT

>
> go be a gerbil if you want to be a gerbil. However I think you'd be
> better off under a bridge.


It's just like TRANSIT. You can do all sorts of other stuff whill you're
getting the CV workout! All you do is build an odor.

>
>>>> I've been cycling for 55+ years and never wore one.

>
>>> Then why are you apprently offended by my dislike of foam hats and
>>> manditory foam hat laws? The most probable answer is that you're
>>> just another shithead troll.

>
>> I'm not offended at all. I think mandatory helmets for kids is a good
>> idea. For adults, I say let natural selection do its work.

>
> You're just another garden variety troll. Go find some garden gnomes
> to bother.


You Are a Bitter Little Man.

>
>
>
 
J

John S.

Guest
On Aug 24, 8:59 am, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:
> >> I see you think everyone uses google's web interface. This is usenet, not
> >> some web forum. Deleting context and then making a response is simply to
> >> ignore the previous points, which you did.

> > Google is well designed and works great. You need to get a more up to
> > date interface. One that allows you to scroll easily between messages
> > and keep things in context. It will reduce the chances of your
> > becoming confused in the future on simple topics like this.

>
> No, you need to get with the program and stop using excuses for what
> amounts to bad form. If you don't have a real reply, don't reply instead
> of deleting all quoted material and inserting a propaganda spew.
>


I'm having no problems reading messages with an excelent reader like
Google. It would appear that whatever service you have chosen to pay
for is providing something not up to the job ofsimple tasks like
reading messages within the context of a thread. That you can't do
something as simple as browse historical messages is simply amazing in
this day and age. It's the equivalent of typing dos command line
prompts in the age of Windows. Get with the program bud.....

> The rest of Brent's repetitive information deleted.
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 rec.autos.driving:685079
>
>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must
>> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is it
>> refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special danger
>> which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all other
>> forms of risk?

>
>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
>state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted.


Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must
a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
T

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Brent P? wrote:
> ...
> Well wooptie do for you. Now ride the bike lanes that aren't the
> exception to the rule. I've seen substandard bicycle lanes in
> IL,WI,Iowa,MN,and HI while seeing none of these magical well designed
> bicycle lanes you and the rest of the zealots speak of. I see glorified
> shoulders (HI, Iowa, WI) and bike lanes carved out the pavement margins
> where nobody in their right mind would ride (IL, MN)
>

Hey, those "bicycle lanes" are "needed" for motorists going 30+ mph over
the speed limit to use to pass on the right!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
> Brent P? wrote:
>> ...
>> Well wooptie do for you. Now ride the bike lanes that aren't the
>> exception to the rule. I've seen substandard bicycle lanes in
>> IL,WI,Iowa,MN,and HI while seeing none of these magical well designed
>> bicycle lanes you and the rest of the zealots speak of. I see glorified
>> shoulders (HI, Iowa, WI) and bike lanes carved out the pavement margins
>> where nobody in their right mind would ride (IL, MN)


> Hey, those "bicycle lanes" are "needed" for motorists going 30+ mph over
> the speed limit to use to pass on the right!


A car wouldn't fit in the ones I'm familiar with.
 
B

Bill Shatzer

Guest
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Brent P? wrote:


>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:


>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:


>>>> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven.


>>> Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary
>>> bicycle?


>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life.


> Bicycle outside will provide mental health benefits that the "hamster
> wheel" will not. Improved mental health boosts the immune system.


> Gerbils are much happier if their environment is a couple hundred square
> feet instead of 2 square feet.


How does one measure gerbil happiness?

Are gerbils even capable of "happiness"?

Peace and justice,