VELORUTION! (bike revolution)

On Apr 19, 3:39*pm, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote:
"ComandanteBanana" wrote in message

...

OK, assume a far away land --a Banana Republic if you will-- where
the
cyclists are victims of discrimination and injustice, and all of a
sudden they come to power... and voila, VELORUTION!

Goodness gracious. *All this is very un-British. *I live, and ride my
bicycle in London, which seems to be the far-away land that you are
talking about. *London's a pretty good city to ride a bicycle in, no
need for new laws or conventions.

Oh, c'mon. The article was written by a Briton about Great Britain.
I've said your driving laws are very good and your new laws
restricting traffic into London are very encouraging, but I trust the
writer's statement that cyclists still live under the law of the
jungle in London to be right.

Either London is like Amsterdam, or it's not a welcoming place for
cyclists. How many people ride bike in London? Give me a percentage to
show.

Anyway, I'd rather ride a bike in London than in places where still
the drivers ignore any civilized rules of the road. In America we have
to tame the beast first.

I read the reviews of the book, but I'm sure even bullfighting can be
done in a safe way if you know the tricks of the trade beyond "never
stand before the bull"...

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/book_intro.html

One of the problems we've got is that everybody is armed and
dangerous. Nowadays the good-ol'-fashioned finger is not enough. Some
carry a gun, and some simply use their vehicles as the weapon. What's
a cyclist to do in such a jungle? I'm going to write a book, "Monkey
survival skills for the cyclist." First advice...

http://www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954...49274811492050


Road rage runs rampant
on Bay Area highways

....

For whatever reason, one's genitalia grow exponentially while moving
at 40 mph in a steel and aluminum cage. Being at the helm of a 2-ton
machine makes people feel powerful, I would assume, leading to extreme
reactions from otherwise rational people.

Unfortunately, those extreme reactions are becoming more deadly.

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, a man driving on
Interstate Highway 280 was shot from a passing car. The man who died,
Luis Solari, died in front of his kids in the car. His offense: He cut
someone off.

The worst part is that this wasn't the first on Bay Area freeways this
month.

A woman was shot and killed April 3 on Interstate Highway 80 near
Pinole, and a man was shot along the same stretch of freeway April 1.
An arrest has been made in the former incident.

A gun is unnecessary, and says a lot about violence in our society.
Few problems, especially ones relating to cars, have ever been solved
by use of a gun. Words, even hand gestures, are better answers to the
whole problem. No one gets hurt with any of those.

Even fisticuffs are better. Bruises go away over time.

But expressing one's disgust at other people's driving by shooting a
gun at them is revealing because it's solving the problem of anger
with violence. Those who could angrily waive guns at you from passing
automobiles and potentially use them, may be showing their small
children in the back seats how not to act.

Until this point, the worst I got for cutting someone off was the
finger, not a bullet in the chest.

http://media.www.thespartandaily.com...-3321714.shtml

On Apr 21, 12:25 am, Bob wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:49 pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:

One of the problems we've got is that everybody is armed and
dangerous.

Hyperbole must be part of the Troll's Rules of Conduct. If "everybody
is armed and dangerous" every day should be one gigantic bloodbath
with hundreds of thousands killed or maimed yet that isn't the case.

There are such a bad combination: BAD LAWS + CARS + GUNS = DEATH &
FEAR

Yep, bad laws --or lack of good laws-- start the cycle of violence.
Case in point is the lack of legislation or enforcement about passing
laws. Here's what's going on in my particular city that shouldn't be
much different from your average American city...

Miami is such a sprawling area. I don’t see how, even in the best possible circumstances, how the ENTIRE city could be bike-friendly.

Politicians and officers don’t care about bikes, one way or the other.
There ain’t much money in it. And basically you are at the good will
of drivers, who often feel cyclists are, at best, a nuisance.

But ALL IS NEEDED IS THE RIGHT LAWS, one that let’s you pass on the
left when in a hurry, and go slow on the right --as slow as 20mph if
we want to accomodate scooters and bikes. That’s THE WAY THEY DO IT IN
CIVILIZED COUNTRIES, not in the Banana Republics…

Road Rage Bill Clears Committee

A bill aimed at curbing road rage made it through its first Senate
committee, though similar legislation has stalled in recent years.

The legislation would attempt to reduce road rage by requiring drivers
to move out of the farthest lane left when being overtaken by faster
vehicles. It also would improve the flow of traffic, said the bill’s
sponsor, Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton.

One problem with the bill is that a person driving the legal speed
limit could be ticketed for not pulling over for someone who is
exceeding it, said Sen. Alex Villalobos, R-Miami, who voted against
the bill. The bill would also cause problems during rush hour because
there’s always someone in the left lane wanting to pass the car in
front of him, he said.

The Senate Committee on Transportation approved the bill (SB 658) with
a vote of 4-3. A similar House bill (HB 1177) passed its first
committee last week. The bill has several more stops before making it
to the floor of either chamber.

http://www.theledger.com/article/200...803260577/1374



Until this point, the worst I got for cutting someone off was the
finger, not a bullet in the chest.

The inference to be drawn from this would seem to be that you've
recently been shot for cutting someone off in traffic. In that case,
best wishes for a speedy recovery- and stop cutting people off.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

I simply quoted that article, but I share his concern. Settling
something with a finger or a gun are two different things.

The result of the equation above is that people are exposed to a real
threat, particularly if they assert their right with a finger. And
while few people actually get shot, the rest of the population live in
fear. Particularly the cyclists.

And we would have to start with changing the laws of the republic...

The only hope the cyclists got is that things get bad enough in the
international jungle. Yep, what may be bad news for the Stupid
Unnecessary Vehicles, may be good news for the smart and efficient
cyclits...

Oil prices spike to record above $117
Monday April 21, 9:53 am ET

Oil prices climb to record above $117 a barrel after Mideast attack on
Japanese oil tanker

Oil prices spiked to a record above $117 a barrel on Monday after a
Japanese oil tanker was attacked off the east coast of Yemen.
The 150,000-ton tanker Takayama was attacked about 270 miles off the
Yemen coast in the Gulf of Aden while it was heading for Saudi Arabia,
its Japanese operator, Nippon Yusen K.K., said in a statement posted
on its Web site.

***

But no need to cry over the soccer moms. They can use something like
this...

(cute, no?)

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DN

On Apr 21, 2:35 am, Harry Brogan
hbrogan57_AT_NOSPAM_DOT_YAHOO_DOT_COM wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:25:50 -0700 (PDT), Bob wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:49 pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:
One of the problems we've got is that everybody is armed and
dangerous.

Hyperbole must be part of the Troll's Rules of Conduct. If "everybody
is armed and dangerous" every day should be one gigantic bloodbath
with hundreds of thousands killed or maimed yet that isn't the case.

Until this point, the worst I got for cutting someone off was the
finger, not a bullet in the chest.

The inference to be drawn from this would seem to be that you've
recently been shot for cutting someone off in traffic. In that case,
best wishes for a speedy recovery- and stop cutting people off.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

It's only relatively recently, here in the U.S., that people have not
been able to be "armed" while out and about. I don't recall reading
anywhere about the "old west" being a blood bath.
__o | Every time I see an adult on a bicycle....
_`\(,_ | I no longer despair for the human race.
(_)/ (_) | ---H.G. Wells---- Hide quoted text -

Well, it seems to have been pretty wild...

I don't think many travellers would have dared ride a horse alone. No
safer than riding a bike in traffic today.

That's why "circle the wagons" came to be a popular saying.

[snip]

Goodness gracious. All this is very un-British. I live, and ride
my
bicycle in London, which seems to be the far-away land that you
are
talking about. London's a pretty good city to ride a bicycle in,
no
need for new laws or conventions.

Oh, c'mon. The article was written by a Briton about Great Britain.

As, indeed, was my previous e-mail. As indeed is this one. I can
look out of my window, right here, at actual London traffic.

I've said your driving laws are very good

Thankyou. I missed that posting, I guess. My apologies. What is it
about our laws that impresses you? Are we unique, or do other places
have similar laws?

and your new laws
restricting traffic into London are very encouraging,

Well, I have to admit that we haven't quite reached perfection yet.
Oxford Street, for example, from which private cars were already
banned before the congestion charge, has obviously - all too
obviously - not had its congestion reduced at all, because all those
buses, taxis, and delivery vehicles still clog it up. The "City"
part of London probably benefited more from the "ring of steel" anti
terrorism precautions which were introduced somewhat before the
congestion charges reduced motorised traffic still further.

but I trust the
writer's statement that cyclists still live under the law of the
jungle in London to be right.

Hmm. As one who lives here, and cycles here, I would say that is
unwise. Cycling is safe enough here that, if you do choose to live
by the law of the jungle, your mean free path between collisions
might be long enough for you to get away with it, but it's still not
a good idea.

Either London is like Amsterdam, or it's not a welcoming place for
cyclists.

Now you are just being silly. Cambridge is the British city which
has more cycling than Amsterdam, but I think that London is a better
city to cycle in than Cambridge. Of course, London has a good enough
public transport system for really the only reason to ride a bike in
London to be because it is fun. People travel thousands of miles to
come and ride on our buses, and our taxis, and their drivers, really
are wonderful. A London taxi can carry a bike, too, in case of
emergency.

London is rather bigger than Amsterdam. London was the largest city
in the world when I was growing up, although other ciries have long
since overtaken it. Amsterdam is such a dinky little town that you
can **walk** from the center of town - the main train station - to
the Ring Road, their beltway, in an hour.

How many people ride bike in London?

The should be new annual figures out any time now - watch for a press
release from Transport for London on their web site www.tfl.gov.uk.
Last years figures estimate 480 000 journeys a day. I would guess
that most people take around two journeys a day, rather than getting
on the train with their bike to come home again. Whether this
includes journeys to a train station, I don't know. Most London
statistics count only the "main leg" of a journey, so riding to the
station to catch a train might not be counted

Give me a percentage to
show.

About 1.5% averaged over all London. Around 7% in Central London
(roughly the congestion charge zone). The south western part of
London seems to have a higher rate of cycling than average, nobody
knows why. London is tending now to base its statistics on the
automatic bike counters on the TLRN (Trunk London Road Network)
Because of the nature of the TLRN this might lead to some
undercounting in Outer London.

Anyway, I'd rather ride a bike in London than in places where still
the drivers ignore any civilized rules of the road. In America we
have
to tame the beast first.

Having ridden many miles on both sides of th Altlantic, I would say
that there is not much in it, though there are, of course, many
places in the USA where I have not ridden (Chicago, for example).
Civilized or not - that might depend on your definition of civilized,
which doesn't always seem to be the same as everyone's on this
newsgroup - I would say that there always are rules, and when you
ride or bike, or are anywhere among other people, it's advisable to
know what those rules are.

I read the reviews of the book, but I'm sure even bullfighting can
be
done in a safe way if you know the tricks of the trade

[snip]

The moral of which, I take it, is to know the tricks of the trade.
Buy a copy of "Effective Cycling"

Jeremy Parker

Hey, I speak in parables (like Jesus), but I don’t have a clue if
people understand them. Well, just in case they don’t here’s an easy
explanation…

On Apr 20, 11:13 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
“ZBicyclist” writes:

ComandanteBanana wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
ComandanteBanana aka donquixote1954 wrote:
OK, I finally took delivery of official vehicle of the revolution
(the trike), with plenty of space in the basket to carry bananas
for the lions.[...]

What type of lions eat bananas?

The ones that are actually hungry to eat them. And they have the guts
for it. It’s in the Bible.

Cite?

There’s something by Isaiah about how the lion
shall eat straw, like the ox.

As an erstwhile guardian of felines, I can
assert they do eat grass. They don’t digest
it very well, though. I had a Persian/alley cat
(I called him “Balzac") that enjoyed the occasional
piece of doughnut. He weighed 23 lbs, and lived
just as many years. He only growled once in his
life, and that was because of a severe toothache.

Personally, I dislike bananas. I’m not terribly
partial toward straw, either. I’d rather eat
the ox.

And y’know what? Lions lead such tough, tragic
lives.


Interesting fact is that the Rich and Powerful surround themselves
with statues of lions and claim the lion in their family crest, so it
is that the lion is their cherished symbol. (They hate the monkey --
their real self-- for the same reason.)

And what’s the symbol for the down and out? The monkeys, of course.

So the statement that the lions eat banana could be understood to mean
that they’ll be humbled. When the monkey was cornered by the beast, he
said, “You can eat my banana!”

ComandanteBanana wrote:


I simply quoted that article, but I share his concern. Settling
something with a finger or a gun are two different things.

The result of the equation above is that people are exposed to a real
threat, particularly if they assert their right with a finger. And
while few people actually get shot, the rest of the population live in
fear. Particularly the cyclists.

And we would have to start with changing the laws of the republic...

Florida gives you an option to deal with this:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html

Had you left Jesus out of it and stopped after saying-
Hey, I speak in parables (like Jesus), but I don’t have a clue
I doubt many here would disagree.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob Hunt wrote:
Had you left Jesus out of it and stopped after saying-
Hey, I speak in parables (like Jesus), but I don’t have a clue
I doubt many here would disagree.

LOL!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful