What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands



C

Clark F Morris

Guest
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> Pat wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2
>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small
>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on
>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the
>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The
>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one (Freeway
>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small bicycle
>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big
>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another
>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way
>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection.
>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it.
>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are beyond
>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take
>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in my
>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life works
>>>> unless you are a city office drone.
>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics.
>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't
>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least).
>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka
>>>
>>>
>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here
>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to
>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game.
>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my
>>> mother's house for a few days.
>>>
>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
>>> motorcycle.
>>>
>>>

>> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of
>> the time.

>
>Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be avoided.
>

Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova
Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward
and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the
every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I
would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America
and Europe.
 
B

Bill

Guest
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Jun 1, 11:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Clark F Morris wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging a
>>>>>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license.
>>>>>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree with
>>>>>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers simply
>>>>>>>> weren't on the road?
>>>>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst part is
>>>>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the
>>>>>>> automobile.
>>>>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and
>>>>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle safely,
>>>>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone
>>>>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly.
>>>>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without owning a
>>>>> car.
>>>> Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new
>>>> sprawled suburban areas.
>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2
>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small
>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on
>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the
>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The
>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one (Freeway
>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small bicycle
>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big
>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another
>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way
>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection.
>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it.
>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are beyond
>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take
>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in my
>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life works
>>> unless you are a city office drone.
>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics.
>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't
>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least).
>>> Bill (realistic) Baka

>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here
>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to
>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game.
>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my
>> mother's house for a few days.
>>
>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
>> motorcycle.-

>
> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike.
>

There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work.
Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get.
Bill Baka
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"Clark F Morris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>> Pat wrote:
>>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2
>>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small
>>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done
>>>>> on
>>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the
>>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The
>>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one
>>>>> (Freeway
>>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small
>>>>> bicycle
>>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big
>>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are
>>>>> another
>>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way
>>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection.
>>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it.
>>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are
>>>>> beyond
>>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take
>>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in
>>>>> my
>>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life
>>>>> works
>>>>> unless you are a city office drone.
>>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics.
>>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but
>>>>> won't
>>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least).
>>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here
>>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to
>>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game.
>>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my
>>>> mother's house for a few days.
>>>>
>>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
>>>> motorcycle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of
>>> the time.

>>
>>Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be avoided.
>>

> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova
> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward
> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the
> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I
> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America
> and Europe.


One of the tragedies is that planning is for urban areas, and if you don't
fit that model, planners could care less.
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Clark F Morris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]
>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a
>>>>>> small
>>>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the
>>>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The
>>>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one
>>>>>> (Freeway
>>>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small
>>>>>> bicycle
>>>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big
>>>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection.
>>>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it.
>>>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are
>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take
>>>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life
>>>>>> works
>>>>>> unless you are a city office drone.
>>>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics.
>>>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but
>>>>>> won't
>>>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least).
>>>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here
>>>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to
>>>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game.
>>>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my
>>>>> mother's house for a few days.
>>>>>
>>>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
>>>>> motorcycle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>>Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be
>>>avoided.
>>>

>> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova
>> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward
>> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the
>> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I
>> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America
>> and Europe.

>
> But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where
> living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some
> exceptions).
>


The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have
jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything
involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that
would mean more jobs would have to got to China.
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 11:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Clark F Morris wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license.
>>>>>>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers
>>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>>> weren't on the road?
>>>>>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst
>>>>>>>> part is
>>>>>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the
>>>>>>>> automobile.
>>>>>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and
>>>>>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle
>>>>>>> safely,
>>>>>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone
>>>>>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly.
>>>>>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without
>>>>>> owning a
>>>>>> car.
>>>>> Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new
>>>>> sprawled suburban areas.
>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2
>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small
>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on
>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the
>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The
>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one
>>>> (Freeway
>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small
>>>> bicycle
>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big
>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another
>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way
>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection.
>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it.
>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are
>>>> beyond
>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take
>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in
>>>> my
>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life
>>>> works
>>>> unless you are a city office drone.
>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics.
>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't
>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least).
>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka
>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here
>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to
>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game.
>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my
>>> mother's house for a few days.
>>>
>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
>>> motorcycle.-

>>
>> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike.
>>

> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work.
> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get.
> Bill Baka


The New York Times had a strange article about the hazards of having a
summer home. One woman whined that at her summer house the fire alarm was
beeping because it needed a new battery. She said she did not know enough
to change the battery, and needed a superintendent to do it for her!!! That
is the New York City take on doing anything for yourself. So, naturally,
planners don't care if you need lumber. That would be the superintendent's
problem, not your problem.
 
D

Dane Buson

Guest
In rec.bicycles.misc george conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where
>> living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some
>> exceptions).

>
> The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have
> jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything
> involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that
> would mean more jobs would have to got to China.


Of course, if you don't need multiple cars life becomes a lot easier [1].
It's perfectly feasible to have a single wage earner, have the other
parent stay home with the children and still sock away 25+% of ones
earnings into savings.

I think next summer when my second daughter is older we might take a
trip to Spain for a few weeks.

[1] Cars really are terribly expensive. [2]
[2] $500 for maintenance for ours just got paid to our mechanics.
Terrible. I could buy a nice bicycle for that, or two good used ones.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. If this had been an
actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell you?
 
D

Dane Buson

Guest
In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship
>> <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I
>>> would have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious
>>> about it than I am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many
>>> people I know would probably starve if they did not have one.

>>
>> How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it a
>> *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are going
>> to STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or a
>> Strawman?

>
> I didn't say people are going to starve.


I apologize if I misconstrued your statement. But I have problems
seeing how else I'm supposed to read this:

"Many people I know would probably starve if they did not have one."

> But there would be little political support for making it more
> difficult to get a driver's license, because people know that it
> simply isn't practical in most places not to be able to drive.


I acknowledge the complete lack of political support. I do take issue
with one word in the preceeding sentence. The phrase "because people
know" would be more accurately rendered "because people think" in my
judgement. Most people spend very little time really thinking about
alternatives. Once the change is upon them, people tend to become much
more creative.

> Therefore, making getting a license harder amounts to cruel and
> unusual punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their
> only crime is that they have not gotten their license yet.


"This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime
is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at."

I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as
cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here,
aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie?

> Which is precisely why people are not going to starve, unless
> something goes wrong with our ability to distribute fuel or the
> highway system.


Well, also because I believe our social safety network is more robust
than that.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which
the majority is blissfully ignorant." -John Simon
 
P

Pat

Guest
On Jun 1, 9:57 pm, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc george conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >> But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where
> >> living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some
> >> exceptions).

>
> > The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have
> > jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything
> > involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that
> > would mean more jobs would have to got to China.

>
> Of course, if you don't need multiple cars life becomes a lot easier [1].


Multiple cars? You forgot to throw in the motorcycles. Oh, and the
snow mobiles and the 4-wheelers. 4-wheels are big around here for
transporation.

> It's perfectly feasible to have a single wage earner, have the other
> parent stay home with the children and still sock away 25+% of ones
> earnings into savings.


LOL. Now THAT'S funny. Lots of people around here make $30,000 to
$40,000 a year. You want them to drop their salaries to $20,000 per
year, sell a car so that one of them is home with the kids but no
transportation (not even to the store or to school), and put $5,000
per year into the back. You're a comic genius !!!

>
> I think next summer when my second daughter is older we might take a
> trip to Spain for a few weeks.
>
> [1] Cars really are terribly expensive. [2]
> [2] $500 for maintenance for ours just got paid to our mechanics.
> Terrible. I could buy a nice bicycle for that, or two good used ones.


Cool. Maybe you should buy a bike and bring it up here to help me
with transporation tomorrow. Let's see, it's a slow day. I need to
get my 2 kids plus two other kids, three lacrosse bags, about 8
lacrosse sticks, two coolers and a box of lunch-stuff off to the
"home" lacrosse game that's 20 miles away because our local lacrosse
box is temporarily out of commission.

You could do this after you help one of the coaches haul the two steel
lacrosse nets over to the temp box. Maybe you could rig up some
wheels on it or something.

Public transporation isn't going to help much. I don't think the 3:30
bus that runs that direction (one per day) is going to help me get
there by noon.

As I said before, neither trains, planes,nor automobiles; not even
bicycles are a suitable mode of transporation for everyone. It
depends on where your live and what you do. If you live in the city
and stay at/near home a lot, bikes are fine. If you live where I
live, they aren't much of an option. Heck, I don't even get to ride
my motorcycles as much as I would like.

>
> --
> Dane Buson - [email protected]
> This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. If this had been an
> actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell you?
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
<[email protected]> wrote:

> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
> other forms of exercise.



Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
every day.

Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
jog on?

--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In rec.bicycles.misc george conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where
>>> living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some
>>> exceptions).

>>
>> The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have
>> jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything
>> involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that
>> would mean more jobs would have to got to China.

>
> Of course, if you don't need multiple cars life becomes a lot easier [1].


Yes, unemployment is easier than working.



> It's perfectly feasible to have a single wage earner



Not these days buddy boy.

, have the other
> parent stay home with the children and still sock away 25+% of ones
> earnings into savings.
>


Only if your employer pays for your housing.



> I think next summer when my second daughter is older we might take a
> trip to Spain for a few weeks.


Yes, your bicycle will be needed crossing the ocean.
 
G

george conklin

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>> other forms of exercise.

>
>
> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
> every day.
>
> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
> jog on?


It will hardly matter. Joggers are going to end up with bad knees and
feet no matter what the run on. As they get older, they will need those
knee replacements. And that is super-painful surgery.
 
D

Dane Buson

Guest
In rec.bicycles.misc george conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> In rec.bicycles.misc george conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have
>>> jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything
>>> involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that
>>> would mean more jobs would have to got to China.

>>
>> Of course, if you don't need multiple cars life becomes a lot easier [1].

>
> Yes, unemployment is easier than working.


Do you specialize in non-sequiturs, or do you outsource for those?

>> It's perfectly feasible to have a single wage earner

>
> Not these days buddy boy.


Funny, I must be living on a different planet than you. I'll have to go
look for the RFC for inter-planet IP packet routing for NNTP. I don't
think RFC 1149 will cut it.

>> have the other parent stay home with the children and still sock
>> away 25+% of ones earnings into savings.

>
> Only if your employer pays for your housing.


Pffft, you really do enjoy proof by assertion don't you?

>> I think next summer when my second daughter is older we might take a
>> trip to Spain for a few weeks.

>
> Yes, your bicycle will be needed crossing the ocean.


Where have I ever said that the bicycle should be the only form of
travel? I've simply argued for the appropriate forms of travel.

Let's see, that's Proof by Assertion, Red Herrings and Strawmen all in
one post. Come on George, I'm sure you could have upped the score to
four by throwing in an Ad Hominem. I have to admit to disappointment,
you really must try harder.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"Are [Linux users] lemmings collectively jumping off of the cliff of
reliable, well-engineered commercial software?"
(By Matt Welsh)
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Amy Blankenship
>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it. We'd have to start changing the way we build things. I
>>>> would have to plant a much bigger garden and be way more serious
>>>> about it than I am if I wanted to survive without a car. Many
>>>> people I know would probably starve if they did not have one.
>>>
>>> How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it a
>>> *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are going
>>> to STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or a
>>> Strawman?

>>
>> I didn't say people are going to starve.

>
> I apologize if I misconstrued your statement. But I have problems
> seeing how else I'm supposed to read this:
>
> "Many people I know would probably starve if they did not have one."
>
>> But there would be little political support for making it more
>> difficult to get a driver's license, because people know that it
>> simply isn't practical in most places not to be able to drive.

>
> I acknowledge the complete lack of political support. I do take issue
> with one word in the preceeding sentence. The phrase "because people
> know" would be more accurately rendered "because people think" in my
> judgement. Most people spend very little time really thinking about
> alternatives. Once the change is upon them, people tend to become much
> more creative.
>
>> Therefore, making getting a license harder amounts to cruel and
>> unusual punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their
>> only crime is that they have not gotten their license yet.

>
> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual
> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime
> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at."
>
> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as
> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here,
> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie?


You don't have to drink alcohol to live, but in most places you do have to
buy food.

I am neither liberal nor conservative. I call em as I see em, and I feel no
need to be lock step with anyone's political agenda.
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
....
>> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova
>> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward
>> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the
>> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I
>> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America
>> and Europe.

>
> One of the tragedies is that planning is for urban areas, and if you don't
> fit that model, planners could care less.


I think the reality is that it is very hard to get support for planning in
rural areas. That is not the fault of planners, but simply a political
reality that exists. So, like everyone else, they do what can be done and
let the rest go.
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]
> donquijote1954 wrote:

....
>> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike.
>>

> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work.
> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get.


I read a review of a recently published book (I'd have to look it up and I
don't have time right now, but I will if anyone wants to know) that
suggested that if stores ran delivery trucks instead of all the clients
having to come to the store, it could cut fuel usage by a significant
percentage.
 
D

donquijote1954

Guest
On Jun 2, 9:28 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as
> > cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here,
> > aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie?

>
> You don't have to drink alcohol to live, but in most places you do have to
> buy food.
>
> I am neither liberal nor conservative. I call em as I see em, and I feel no
> need to be lock step with anyone's political agenda.-


I may as well use the opportunity to launch our Presidential
Candidate...

(notice our issues are not related to private people's lives, like
abortion or gay rights, but to real issues like bike facilities)

Yes, we, the Banana Revolution, has decided to join the race to the
White House with a unique specimen that will not lie, launch
territorial wars, or oppose environmental commitments. Well, he's not
given to many words, but he's a real doer. "A man of action" so to
speak. And he doesn't even eat large salaries or kickbacks, just
peanuts. Oh, and he's all for EVOLUTION (revolution if need be), since
he realizes the need to get rid of a jungle that doesn't work. And
last but not least, he will challenge the "lion's share" that
currently the self-proclaimed "King of the Jungle" keeps. Without
further ado...

http://www.teddybearfriends.co.uk/images/teddy-bears/large/gund-teddy-bear-mambo-monkey.jpg

Isn't he loveable? Well, we won't send him up there without proper
tools because we plan to arm him with something his predecessors
lacked: A POLITICAL PLATFORM, in writing, so anyone with basic reading
skills can follow and there's no forgetting of electoral promises.
Anyway here's our Platform:

COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> ...
>>> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova
>>> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward
>>> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the
>>> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I
>>> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America
>>> and Europe.

>>
>> One of the tragedies is that planning is for urban areas, and if you
>> don't fit that model, planners could care less.

>
> I think the reality is that it is very hard to get support for planning in
> rural areas. That is not the fault of planners, but simply a political
> reality that exists. So, like everyone else, they do what can be done and
> let the rest go.
>


Planners, according to ACCESS this month, are heavily derived from
architects who plan for elaborate and fancy buildings. This does not
include rural, industrial and what most people want to live in. I have said
all along we need to plan for what people want, not to preach to them that
comfortable housing is bad. What is surprising is what architects in the
past denounced (say in UK), the now praise. It is like painting. Things go
in and out of fashion.
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:D[email protected]
>> donquijote1954 wrote:

> ...
>>> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike.
>>>

>> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work.
>> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get.

>
> I read a review of a recently published book (I'd have to look it up and I
> don't have time right now, but I will if anyone wants to know) that
> suggested that if stores ran delivery trucks instead of all the clients
> having to come to the store, it could cut fuel usage by a significant
> percentage.
>


You mean they would pick you up in the delivery truck and take you into the
store first?
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Jun 1, 2:38 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> > How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it a
>> > *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are going to
>> > STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or a Strawman?

>>
>> I didn't say people are going to starve. But there would be little
>> political support for making it more difficult to get a driver's license,
>> because people know that it simply isn't practical in most places not to
>> be
>> able to drive. Therefore, making getting a license harder amounts to
>> cruel
>> and unusual punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their
>> only crime is that they have not gotten their license yet. Which is
>> precisely why people are not going to starve, unless something goes wrong
>> with our ability to distribute fuel or the highway system.

>
> The real starvation will start when there's diruption of oil flow.
> Then America will be the less fit to survive. I can already picture
> those couch potatoes sweating and panting the first few weeks.
>


Fuel-inefficient transit buses will get the first cut.