What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

On May 24, 10:55 pm, Nobody wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:28:18 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote:





In article ,
Nobody writes:

A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens
anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down
with athsma is also good.

Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect
two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those
weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best.

I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related
flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can.
And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be
/made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is
quite do-able right now.

Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!

Alternative transportation is not regressive.

Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and
hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler
across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and
snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message.

What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km?

It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
wish or function.

It is for me, and for many others.

Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
in the closest pond.

It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
"practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)-

It makes sense FOR MANY, particularly for those sitting in traffic...

http://atom.smasher.org/construction...ing%21&l3=&l4=

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 24, 3:17 pm, "
wrote:
On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954
wrote:





On May 23, 11:28 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

In article ,
Nobody writes:

A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens
anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down
with athsma is also good.

Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to
expect
two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow
those
weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best.

I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related
flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can.
And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be
/made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is
quite do-able right now.

Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!

Alternative transportation is not regressive.

Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies
and
hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a
two-wheeler
across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet
and
snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message.

What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km?

It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either
by
wish or function.

It is for me, and for many others.

And for many more who are hold back by the unnecessary danger present
on our roads...

Are SUV drivers more reckless?

This is subjective, in other words what I see around with my own eyes,
but it seems that size and recklessness go hand in hand, all the way
up to the Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles...

So are they the new terrorists of the road, or just innocent suckers
who fell for advertising?

Just wondering...

--Whatever keeps you from driving an older econo car or a newer
microcar like a honda fit?--

I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my
strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive.
Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess
only buses protect me from the big predators out there.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and
tandems.-

They know how to drive. The avarage semi driver is well above the
average Joe SUV.


When there is an accident with an 18-wheeler, the car driver is 9 times more
likely to be killed.

In article ,
Nobody writes:

It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
wish or function.

It is for me, and for many others.


Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics
for numerous North American cities.

I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
in the closest pond.

10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider.
But it doesn't take long to be able to easily
and routinely ride that distance, and even further.

It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
"practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

Who exactly /is/ "most of us"?

And why are you so vehement about discouraging people
from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability?


--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of
cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's
healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment.

On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any just
about any transportation method except walking.

:-)

- B

"Tom Keats" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nobody writes:

A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens
anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down
with athsma is also good.

Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect
two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those
weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best.

I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related
flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can.
And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be
/made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is
quite do-able right now.

Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!

Alternative transportation is not regressive.

No, just not wanted by 95%+ of the population.

- B

Bill wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of
cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's
healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment.

On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any just
about any transportation method except walking.

:-)

- B



Yeah,
Maybe, but what about that 3,000+ pounds of steel that is just being
transferred from parking lot to garage and idling tons of CO2 into the
air in a traffic jam? I had to back a trailer for a dump load (real junk
junk) and felt guilty idling the pick me up truck, also full, while they
were trying to clear trees out of my way.
They get 2 full truck passes per year and somehow manage to collect that
much. Many bicycle parts but all 20" or smaller Chinese Wal-mart kids bikes.
On the upside, I was the only one who cycled the 3 miles each way to get
there and was in better shape than the 3 guys who were younger than me
in their early fifties. If I breath out too much CO2 and get healthy and
don't pay nearly $3.75 in California that makes me feel good.
Bill Baka

In article ,
"Bill" writes:

Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!

Alternative transportation is not regressive.

No, just not wanted by 95%+ of the population.

Where do you get that 595%+ figure from?


--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
"Bill" writes:

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of
cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's
healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment.

On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any just
about any transportation method except walking.

:-)

The CO2 emitted by humans and other life forms
comes from, and is recycled and reabsorbed by
the current biosphere.

The problematic CO2 comes from sources that have
long been sequestered from the environment in
mineralogical forms, and then re-released when
burnt as fossil fuels, inflicting an accumulative
effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

"Tom Keats" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill" writes:

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of
cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's
healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment.

On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any
just
about any transportation method except walking.

:-)

The CO2 emitted by humans and other life forms
comes from, and is recycled and reabsorbed by
the current biosphere.

The problematic CO2 comes from sources that have
long been sequestered from the environment in
mineralogical forms, and then re-released when
burnt as fossil fuels, inflicting an accumulative
effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Eh? So the earth says to itself "uh oh, this CO2 molecule was generated by
cars and not humans, therefor I should recycle and reabsorb it"?

"Joe the Aroma" wrote in message
...

"Tom Keats" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill" writes:

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of
cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's
healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment.

On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any
just
about any transportation method except walking.

:-)

The CO2 emitted by humans and other life forms
comes from, and is recycled and reabsorbed by
the current biosphere.

The problematic CO2 comes from sources that have
long been sequestered from the environment in
mineralogical forms, and then re-released when
burnt as fossil fuels, inflicting an accumulative
effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Eh? So the earth says to itself "uh oh, this CO2 molecule was generated by
cars and not humans, therefor I should recycle and reabsorb it"?

Global dimming mostly comes from airplanes and it is carbon particles. Not
exasperated by our lungs in other words. Global warming is the least of our
problems as it is now because the dimming particles are keeping us from
being burned up etc...