|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bike facility funding, was: Cincy - $350M to fix I-75
|
Ads |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bike facility funding, was: Cincy - $350M to fix I-75
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bike facility funding, was: Cincy - $350M to fix I-75
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bike facility funding, was: Cincy - $350M to fix I-75
....stuff deleted
no it's not, and you recreationists need to stop telling this repeated Big Lie. Dennis, I don't know of a single commute cyclist who did not begin cycling for the purpose of recreation. I started cycling at at 6 and would ride simply for the sake of riding. Sure, at times, I had a destination in mind, but more often, I found riding was more enjoyable than, say, watching sports on TV. Now, I both commute and cycle recreationally. Often, I use the same roads for both. Perhaps I am missing something in your perspective, but as written, calling this a "big lie" is a big disinformation campaign. Rick |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bike facility funding, was: Cincy - $350M to fix I-75
I don't understand the prejudice against recreational bicycling
implied in the transportation bill. TEA-21 falls under the Federal Highway program and is intended to improve transportation. A completely off-road facility intended purely for recreational purposes would fall more under the parks and recreation departments. Having said that, there is no reason why an on-road facility cannot serve both transportational and recreational riders. In the past few years Delaware has put bike lanes on Rt. 1 between the resort towns of Rehoboth and Dewey. During the summer, the lanes are mostly ridden by recreational cyclists as the towns population grows 10 fold with beach goers. Throughout the year, commuters also use the route so both groups are served. Some of the recreational riders might become used to road travel and decide to use their bikes as a transportational option. If, instead of putting in bike lanes, the state had decided to create a linear park with a multiuser path, fewer of the purely recreational cyclists would make the cross over to transportation as their home area would not have such paths. I'm not condemning bikepaths per se. I ride rail trails and mountain bike paths occasionally. Most simply do not provide total home to destination routes. If a person is afraid to ride in the road, trails are unlikely to provide the necessary experience to prompt the rider to use roads, with or without bike lanes. Chris Law Newark, DE |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bike facility funding, was: Cincy - $350M to fix I-75
"Rick" wrote:
...stuff deleted no it's not, and you recreationists need to stop telling this repeated Big Lie. I don't know of a single commute cyclist who did not begin cycling for the purpose of recreation. I started cycling at at 6 and would ride simply for the sake of riding. Sure, at times, I had a destination in mind, but more often, I found riding was more enjoyable than, say, watching sports on TV. Now, I both commute and cycle recreationally. Often, I use the same roads for both. Perhaps I am missing something in your perspective, but as written, calling this a "big lie" is a big disinformation campaign. The relationship between "started cycling at 6 [for FUN]' and cyclecommute as an adult is trivially apparent: You were on a Bicycle in each case. Okay. You learned to ride when you were six. ok. But it's also the same kind of tortured, painful, POSTMODERN -- bordering on dishonest -- rhetoric that's most often heard coming from a post-disaster corporate spin doctor, or, dare i say it, Rush "Personal Responsibility" Limbaugh. Be Real. Appropriations bills aren't about 3rd or 4th order coupling constants. Your defense is making my teeth spall as i sit here. ..max -- the part of was played by maxwell monningh 8-p |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bike facility funding, was: Cincy - $350M to fix I-75
....stuff deleted
Appropriations bills aren't about 3rd or 4th order coupling constants. Your defense is making my teeth spall as i sit here. So, what you are saying here is that you don't have an answer as to what the "big lie" is. The reality is that any improvement made for cycling transportation is a general improvement. You can't improve a road for commuting only and ban joy riders from using said road. For this reason, I find the differentiation between "commuter" and "recreational" riding to be, essentially, nonsensical. What I asked was, how does one make that differentiation when virtually all cycle commuters and virtually all recreational cyclists use the roads for the same reasons, to move from point-to-point. Sorry about your teeth. Perhaps a visit to the dentist after the holidays will help. Rick |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bike facility funding, was: Cincy - $350M to fix I-75
"Rick" wrote: What I asked was, how does one make that differentiation when virtually all cycle commuters and virtually all recreational cyclists use the roads for the same reasons, to move from point-to-point. Yet the entirety of the post to which i replied: % I don't know of a single commute cyclist who did not begin cycling for % the purpose of recreation. I started cycling at at 6 and would ride % simply for the sake of riding. Sure, at times, I had a destination in % mind, but more often, I found riding was more enjoyable than, say, % watching sports on TV. Now, I both commute and cycle recreationally. % Often, I use the same roads for both. % % Perhaps I am missing something in your perspective, but as written, % calling this a "big lie" is a big disinformation campaign. LET us examine these two posts. Post A: "recreational cyclists use the roads for the same reasons, to move from point-to-point." Post B: "at times, I had a destination in mind, but more often, I found riding was more enjoyable than, say, watching sports on TV" Which is nothing at all like :cyclecommuting. Tell you what, Go up to Wisconsin and hop on the Kettle Morraine trail and cyclecommute to anything on that trail with running water and electricity and i'll give you a job. Or take Left Hand Canyon Rd. uphill outside of boulder and ride it to the top for any kind of business other than buying gatorade or hydroponic dope. Your arguement is about as meaningful as 1=2 because 1^0=2^0. Transportation bills are typically about promoting commerce via transportation -- 6 year olds playing teletubby in the park are not commerce via trasportation, sorry. In cyclecommuting, the journey is the journey and your JOB is your destination. In recreational riding, the journey is the destiniation is the journey. ..max -- the part of was played by maxwell monningh 8-p |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bike facility funding, was: Cincy - $350M to fix I-75
"Max" wrote in message ... ....stuff deleted LET us examine these two posts. Post A: "recreational cyclists use the roads for the same reasons, to move from point-to-point." Post B: "at times, I had a destination in mind, but more often, I found riding was more enjoyable than, say, watching sports on TV" Let me examine these post. Post 1 refused to describe why recreational cyclists are different from commuters. Post 2 refused to describe why recreational cyclists are different from commuters. I see I am convesing with someone who doesn't understand the rudiments of what I've written. I've cycle commuted for the past 10-15 years (not counting those few days each year when I've driven, hence the ambiguity). In every instance, I've cycled on the same roads on which I cycled for recreation. There is no difference between the two types of trips. None. So if you have a point, please present it. Which is nothing at all like :cyclecommuting. Tell you what, Go up to Wisconsin and hop on the Kettle Morraine trail and cyclecommute to anything on that trail with running water and electricity and i'll give you a job. Or take Left Hand Canyon Rd. uphill outside of boulder and ride it to the top for any kind of business other than buying gatorade or hydroponic dope. The above is meaningless drivel. It has no context whatsoever. Your arguement is about as meaningful as 1=2 because 1^0=2^0. Transportation bills are typically about promoting commerce via transportation -- 6 year olds playing teletubby in the park are not commerce via trasportation, sorry. So? Are 6 yo's capable of using the roads? Are 43 yo cyclists capable of using the road? Whether or not they are going to work isn't important. Nobody builds the roads for cyclists and the adaptations politicians want to make to roads to foster cycling are both pointless and unwelcome to the majority of us who regularly cycle the roads. If you want to argue that a specific bill fails to accomplish something, fine. I can probably find some agreement with you. If you simply use ambiguously reference specific geographical regions as examples of why something is "wrong," you will fail to find anyone who agrees with you. In cyclecommuting, the journey is the journey and your JOB is your destination. In recreational riding, the journey is the destiniation is the journey. Again, so what? Have you cycle commuted? If you had, you would realize that you began cycling for fun and then evolved into a commuter. This is a univesal truth that began when the cyclist realized that cycling was both fun and transportation. The original premise was that it was a "big lie" that recreational cyclists became commuters. I asked for, twice now, an explanation of that lie. You have twice failed to provide it. Since you have no supporting evidence and I can find sufficient examples to the opposite, I'll just assume you are a blathering heap of useless dung and add you to the killfile. Rick |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Danny-boy flails some more! (was: Advice on a good hardtail.) | Jonesy | Mountain Biking | 31 | June 18th 04 08:01 PM |
Bike Stores Endangerd Because of Super Chain Stores? | James Lynx | General | 112 | June 5th 04 01:22 PM |
Trips for Kids 13th Annual Bike Swap & Sale | Marilyn Price | General | 0 | June 1st 04 04:52 AM |
New Bikkel Bike - Teething Problems | Elisa Francesca Roselli | General | 19 | December 6th 03 04:18 AM |
my new bike | Marian Rosenberg | General | 5 | October 19th 03 03:00 PM |