#151
|
|||
|
|||
Bus racks
On 2018-09-08 00:48, Ned Mantei wrote:
On 07-09-18 21:43, Joerg wrote: There are lots of people in this world who are taller than 6ft and need large frame sizes. For an example, at this link click on the picture of Jobst Brandt on his bicycle: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/nort...gadfly-dies-80 His bike looks like it has an unusually short wheel base. Mine is 102cm and the bike frame was custom-fitted when I bought it. I haven't tried whether it fits the bus racks, just was surprised that it was longer than a friends 26" MTB. We were riding light rail together and had to hold the bikes side by side in the train at either end. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ads |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Bus racks
On 2018-09-07 16:15, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 07:49:45 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-04 16:55, John B. Slocomb wrote: [...] But more important the state has between $713 billion and $1.02 trillion in unfunded pension obligation, the tax base is decreasing, since 2000, more people have left California than have arrived from other states every year, the gasoline tax is not large enough to pay for road building and repairs. In short, taxes will have to increase or the state will go bankrupt. https://californiapolicycenter.org/c...-remains-grim/ The pension boondoggle has to be curbed. That is the only solution. You mean that a guy ought to work for twenty years and not get any form of retirement pension? Get a reasonable retirement. Not 90% of salary at 50 or 55. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Bus racks
On 2018-09-07 16:44, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 06:27:27 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 10:38:05 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-07 10:20, AMuzi wrote: On 9/7/2018 12:03 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-07 08:04, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:52:38 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-04 17:15, AMuzi wrote: On 9/4/2018 6:10 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-03 16:10, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:45:01 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-02 16:36, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 08:02:04 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-01 21:30, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 3:03:16 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2018-08-31 11:06, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 1:36:09 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2018-08-31 08:51, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:13:51 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: snip [...] [...] (BTW, in front of my office building. I have to dodge those things). We also have private buses up to the mountains for skiing and airport shuttle buses, etc. Those are what could be construed as cherry-picking. What I meant was a full blown system that includes not so lucrative routes all the way to Outer Podunk. A sysme that enables most residents not to even have a car. Not going to happen in a market economy. The fares would be too high for either local users who have to subsidize rural users or for rural users who have to pay actual cost plus ROI. There might be a way to do this by selling losses to investors -- running the system as a tax shelter, but I'll let the tax accountants figure that one out. The bottom line is that barriers to entry are not that high and certainly lower than in Germany, and if mass transit could be done profitably in a large US urban area by private business, it would be. People are always looking for a way to make a buck. It might work elsewhere in a dense European city, but it has been tried and failed here in PDX. The German example I brought was from an area much less densely populated than Portland. AFAIK they even operate ferries in the system. Germany is a comparatively small country with a large population. Distances are not so great there compared to many areas of the USA. As I wrote, I picked an example (on purpose) from an area that is less densely populated than where I live now. Again, if Germany is so gosh darn great, then why have so many Germans emigrated? Because it wasn't always great and still isn't in many aspects. One cannot generalize. For example, public transportation is clearly better there but bike paths and even more so MTB trails are definitely not. Before moving to the US I would have never dreamed that bicycle infrastructure could become better here than in Germany but it has. Agencies in the various contries could learn from each other but there is often a lack of willingness. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ I wonder what would happen if to create a new bicycling infrastructure or bus/rail link that would benefit mainly bicyclists, if bicyclists were told they alone would have to pay for it? Cheers Many years ago Riverside, California attempted to "register" bicycles. The idea was to have a record of who owned what bicycle which they hoped might reduce bicycle theft. If I remember correctly it cost the owner 50 cents and he got a nice little "number plate" to attach to his bicycle. You never heard as much moaning and groaning, "You mean I gotta pay 50 cents to ride a bicycle." The city gave up on the scheme. Apparently cyclists are cheap. I doubt that, and they should not make it mandatory anyhow. If they made it mandatory then Californians can already smell it that pretty soon the authorities would start to tax bicycles per year and they don't want that. If there is any way to extract yet another tax from the people CA will eventually do that. But if you don't pay your taxes who is going to support the homeless, and the illegal immigrants, and the bike paths and, and, and. If you are going to have socialism someone's got to pay for it. We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's enough taxes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I see, you want bike paths, racks on buses, and all the other free goodies provided by the state, but you don't want to pay for them. See above. We already paid for them. [...] You California taxpayers paid for extravagant pensions, the $80billion choo choo which doesn't run, homeless, welfare and illegal services, fire fighting of forests which should have been logged and so on. That's the price for a leftist government. Like it always end up. And yet you expect the government to provide you with special bike racks on buses. No, bike racks that actually work with contemporary bikes that are commonly used in this area. Just like we now have roads that accommodate vehicles wider than a Ford Model T. It's that simple. [...] Every other government program is profligate and counterproductive so why should bike racks on buses be any different? Maybe so but that does require us to speak up. As taxpayers we have a stake in this, our money is in this and, therefore, we have a say in this. I can't understand people who think otherwise. If the"US" you mention is bicycle riders then it is approximately 1% of the population. Why do you feel that this minority should dictate anything? Think: For whom are bike racks on buses meant? For the other 99% that don't use bikes? But if you do it might be noted that homeless amount to about 1.2 percent of the California. Do they get to dictate to the state also? Right now it sure feels like it. Probably not much different where Jay lives. https://cal.streetsblog.org/2016/03/...uting-by-bike/ Correction. Homeless in California are about 0.5% of the population. And they are trashing the place. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Bus racks
On 2018-09-07 16:38, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:42:17 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-07 12:18, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/7/2018 1:03 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-07 08:04, jbeattie wrote: And yet you expect the government to provide you with special bike racks on buses. No, bike racks that actually work with contemporary bikes that are commonly used in this area. Just like we now have roads that accommodate vehicles wider than a Ford Model T. It's that simple. I've seen no evidence except your assertions for the idea that your style of bike is common among those who use buses. I rarely trust your assertions. So do you have any evidence? If you had followed the bike market at least a little you could have answered that question yourself: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/stud...egories-stores Quote "Twenty-niners now account for 41 percent of dollars sold in mountain bikes at IBDs". And regarding roads and Model Ts: ISTM your situation is like that of a 1930s guy who built or bought something on this style https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/07/2...specifications then complained the roads weren't suitable for its use. Don't buy something out of spec for the infrastructure you want to use, then complain about the infrastructure. You don't seem to even know what spec is these days. Hint: We are in the 21st century now. Yesterday I rode light rail back to where our truck was parked. My old 1982 road bike was riding next to a 26" of a friend which would barely fit the bus rack. My road bike is longer! Any questions? Luckily light rail allows to take bikes on board so it doesn't matter. Hmmm... the last you wrote you owned two vehicles one a new (to you) SUV and you had passed your old car on to your wife. Where do you dream up all those stories? My wife and I bought our cars around the same time 20-some years ago. Nothing was handed down. She has a compact car (Toyota) because she like that. I have a small SUV but that only holds one bike so if a friend comes along we either need a truck or two cars. ... Now you mention a truck? You mean that you have purchased a truck just to haul your oversized bicycle around? Apparently you are flush with cash if you have a new truck... so three vehicles for a 2 person family is correct but ask you to contribute to the common good by paying taxes and you fall down on the floor and kick your feet and scream. Believe it or not but besides my wife and I there are about 20,000 other people living in our community. Lo and behold they have motor vehicles as well and ... drum roll ... some even ride bicycles. One of them happens to own a pickup truck. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Bus racks
On 9/8/2018 8:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/7/2018 8:12 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 20:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/7/2018 7:42 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 19:21:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/7/2018 5:40 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 9/7/2018 2:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/7/2018 1:03 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-07 08:04, jbeattie wrote: And yet you expect the government to provide you with special bike racks on buses. No, bike racks that actually work with contemporary bikes that are commonly used in this area. Just like we now have roads that accommodate vehicles wider than a Ford Model T. It's that simple. I've seen no evidence except your assertions for the idea that your style of bike is common among those who use buses. I rarely trust your assertions. So do you have any evidence? And regarding roads and Model Ts: ISTM your situation is like that of a 1930s guy who built or bought something on this style https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/07/2...specifications then complained the roads weren't suitable for its use. Don't buy something out of spec for the infrastructure you want to use, then complain about the infrastructure. Roads not suitable to that ugly 3 wheel monstrosity? How so? I see them (and copies) all summer around here. But not in the 1930s, as I said. I was alive in the 1930's and I can assure you that the two lane blacktop roads in New Hampshire (at least) would accommodate a three wheel motorcycle... at least the three wheel Harley's that the Police had would fit. I don't doubt that. But I said "something on this style." https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/07/2...specifications For more specifics, that Polaris is wider than a Corvette, with a 69 inch front track measurement. And the ground clearance is just over 5 inches, with a 105" wheelbase. And it requires three decently smooth tracks in the road, not just two. The currently made, as of 2012, Morgan 3 wheeler is 128" long, 68 inches wide and has a ground clearance of 4.5 inches. https://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/3-wheeler/ Imagine trying to drive that on a typical 1930s country road. http://www.dcnyhistory.org/Fact_Fancy/images/6.07.jpg (BTW, why is the Polaris driver wearing a helmet? Does he think it will tip over?) Modern Morgans are powered by engines built near me in Viola WI. Really? Wow. I wonder how the tariff battles will affect that. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Bus racks
On 9/8/2018 10:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
I have a small SUV but that only holds one bike so if a friend comes along we either need a truck or two cars. Why on earth can you not carry more than one bike with a small SUV? In 1985 we bought a new Honda Civic station wagon. That's a very tiny car. Yet a year later we drove that car to California and back, towing a tiny camping trailer and carrying three bikes. Two (including the tandem) were on the roof and one was on the rear rack. In 2004 we bought a Pontiac Vibe. I could carry our two touring bikes vertically _inside_ the car by removing the front wheels and using two of those floor-mount front fork clamps. I also had to remove my seatpost, but my wife's bike fit without that bother. If I wanted to add the roof rack and rear rack, I could carry up to seven bikes. You seem to have SO many problems that others easily solve! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Bus racks
On 2018-09-08 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2018 10:12 AM, Joerg wrote: I have a small SUV but that only holds one bike so if a friend comes along we either need a truck or two cars. Why on earth can you not carry more than one bike with a small SUV? You need a receiver plus an outside bike rack, neither of which I have. I can get one bike inside but laying another on top of it is out because the lifting aggravates my back pain and it can smash stuff on the bikes, such as derailers. In 1985 we bought a new Honda Civic station wagon. That's a very tiny car. Yet a year later we drove that car to California and back, towing a tiny camping trailer and carrying three bikes. Two (including the tandem) were on the roof and one was on the rear rack. Don't have a roof or rear rack, and no receiver. In 2004 we bought a Pontiac Vibe. I could carry our two touring bikes vertically _inside_ the car by removing the front wheels and using two of those floor-mount front fork clamps. I also had to remove my seatpost, but my wife's bike fit without that bother. If I wanted to add the roof rack and rear rack, I could carry up to seven bikes. You seem to have SO many problems that others easily solve! I am likely a lot taller than you because the Mitsubishi Montero Sport will not allow any of my bikes to sit vertically inside. My wife's, yes, but not mine. Shrinking a foot in height is obviously not an easy solution. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Bus racks
jbeattie writes:
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:52:38 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-04 17:15, AMuzi wrote: On 9/4/2018 6:10 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-03 16:10, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:45:01 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-02 16:36, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 08:02:04 -0700, Joerg wrote: [ ... ] But if you don't pay your taxes who is going to support the homeless, and the illegal immigrants, and the bike paths and, and, and. If you are going to have socialism someone's got to pay for it. We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's enough taxes. I see, you want bike paths, racks on buses, and all the other free goodies provided by the state, but you don't want to pay for them. See above. We already paid for them. [...] You California taxpayers paid for extravagant pensions, the $80billion choo choo which doesn't run, homeless, welfare and illegal services, fire fighting of forests which should have been logged and so on. That's the price for a leftist government. Like it always end up. And yet you expect the government to provide you with special bike racks on buses. Well, I want a PONY! Why aren't my much-larger-than-yours taxes providing me with a PONY! If government spent less money on PERS and more on PONIES, we would all be better off. I would also like bicycle-only facilities from my driveway to work that are swept twice a day. Other demands are forthcoming. You make it sound so simple. My town just instituted loaner PONIES for all residents, and, although I'm normally a fiscal conservative I was all in favor. Naturallly, I tried one out shortly after they were available. Sadly I found much still to be desired. Firstly, the PONY was much too short for a person of my stature, indeed, my feet nearly dragged the ground. Also, in spite of his short legs, this PONY had such long ears that I had a hard time seeing in front of me -- an obvious safety hazard. I hoped the PONY might make up this with a turn of speed, so I applied the crop (not town-supplied, a major procurement faux pas, I had to requisition a piece of disused garden hose). The PONY did not gallop, nor did he even trot, he just made the sort of noises you might expect from a Hell demon on open mike night. Not long into the ride we were passed by a young lady on what appeared to be a much higher quality, private PONY, nicely proportioned, with a curly blonde mane and a tasteful little horn in the middle of her forehead, just like the PONIES I remember from the old country. On seeing this, my municipal PONY perked right up, he cantered, he capered, he continued to make horrible noises. And, regrettably, his stud tackle grew to the point that I was afraid he might step on it (no wonder they called him "starfish" at the stables). I found this so embarrassing and inappropriate that I was tempted to ditch the PONY like a San Jose dockless scooter, but, since I was raised responsibly I whipped him right back in the other direction and turned him in. There you have it, yet another example of incompetent government letting us down. -- |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Bus racks
On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:02:53 -0700, Joerg
wrote: On 2018-09-07 16:15, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 07:49:45 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-04 16:55, John B. Slocomb wrote: [...] But more important the state has between $713 billion and $1.02 trillion in unfunded pension obligation, the tax base is decreasing, since 2000, more people have left California than have arrived from other states every year, the gasoline tax is not large enough to pay for road building and repairs. In short, taxes will have to increase or the state will go bankrupt. https://californiapolicycenter.org/c...-remains-grim/ The pension boondoggle has to be curbed. That is the only solution. You mean that a guy ought to work for twenty years and not get any form of retirement pension? Get a reasonable retirement. Not 90% of salary at 50 or 55. Why ever not? While I did retire after 20 years in the A.F. with a 50% of salary retirement pay had I stayed until 50 years of age I'd have received 75%. But more to the point, the retirement pay problem that California faces is not the fault of the retirees who entered into a contract with the state possible 20 or 30 years ago and now are being paid a retirement that was specified in their contracts. The fault lies with the state that certainly should have been able to foresee what their liabilities would be in 5, 10, 20 years and did nothing about it. But what is the solution? It appears that there are two options, (1) renege on the contracts that the state offered to individuals who they employed, which would probably result in a mammoth class action suit against the state in which I suggest that any reasonable court would support the retirees; or (2) increase State income, probably by increasing taxes. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Bus racks
On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:07:29 -0700, Joerg
wrote: On 2018-09-07 16:44, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 06:27:27 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 10:38:05 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-07 10:20, AMuzi wrote: On 9/7/2018 12:03 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-07 08:04, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:52:38 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-04 17:15, AMuzi wrote: On 9/4/2018 6:10 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-03 16:10, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:45:01 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-02 16:36, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 08:02:04 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2018-09-01 21:30, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 3:03:16 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2018-08-31 11:06, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 1:36:09 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2018-08-31 08:51, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:13:51 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: snip [...] [...] (BTW, in front of my office building. I have to dodge those things). We also have private buses up to the mountains for skiing and airport shuttle buses, etc. Those are what could be construed as cherry-picking. What I meant was a full blown system that includes not so lucrative routes all the way to Outer Podunk. A sysme that enables most residents not to even have a car. Not going to happen in a market economy. The fares would be too high for either local users who have to subsidize rural users or for rural users who have to pay actual cost plus ROI. There might be a way to do this by selling losses to investors -- running the system as a tax shelter, but I'll let the tax accountants figure that one out. The bottom line is that barriers to entry are not that high and certainly lower than in Germany, and if mass transit could be done profitably in a large US urban area by private business, it would be. People are always looking for a way to make a buck. It might work elsewhere in a dense European city, but it has been tried and failed here in PDX. The German example I brought was from an area much less densely populated than Portland. AFAIK they even operate ferries in the system. Germany is a comparatively small country with a large population. Distances are not so great there compared to many areas of the USA. As I wrote, I picked an example (on purpose) from an area that is less densely populated than where I live now. Again, if Germany is so gosh darn great, then why have so many Germans emigrated? Because it wasn't always great and still isn't in many aspects. One cannot generalize. For example, public transportation is clearly better there but bike paths and even more so MTB trails are definitely not. Before moving to the US I would have never dreamed that bicycle infrastructure could become better here than in Germany but it has. Agencies in the various contries could learn from each other but there is often a lack of willingness. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ I wonder what would happen if to create a new bicycling infrastructure or bus/rail link that would benefit mainly bicyclists, if bicyclists were told they alone would have to pay for it? Cheers Many years ago Riverside, California attempted to "register" bicycles. The idea was to have a record of who owned what bicycle which they hoped might reduce bicycle theft. If I remember correctly it cost the owner 50 cents and he got a nice little "number plate" to attach to his bicycle. You never heard as much moaning and groaning, "You mean I gotta pay 50 cents to ride a bicycle." The city gave up on the scheme. Apparently cyclists are cheap. I doubt that, and they should not make it mandatory anyhow. If they made it mandatory then Californians can already smell it that pretty soon the authorities would start to tax bicycles per year and they don't want that. If there is any way to extract yet another tax from the people CA will eventually do that. But if you don't pay your taxes who is going to support the homeless, and the illegal immigrants, and the bike paths and, and, and. If you are going to have socialism someone's got to pay for it. We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's enough taxes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I see, you want bike paths, racks on buses, and all the other free goodies provided by the state, but you don't want to pay for them. See above. We already paid for them. [...] You California taxpayers paid for extravagant pensions, the $80billion choo choo which doesn't run, homeless, welfare and illegal services, fire fighting of forests which should have been logged and so on. That's the price for a leftist government. Like it always end up. And yet you expect the government to provide you with special bike racks on buses. No, bike racks that actually work with contemporary bikes that are commonly used in this area. Just like we now have roads that accommodate vehicles wider than a Ford Model T. It's that simple. [...] Every other government program is profligate and counterproductive so why should bike racks on buses be any different? Maybe so but that does require us to speak up. As taxpayers we have a stake in this, our money is in this and, therefore, we have a say in this. I can't understand people who think otherwise. If the"US" you mention is bicycle riders then it is approximately 1% of the population. Why do you feel that this minority should dictate anything? Think: For whom are bike racks on buses meant? For the other 99% that don't use bikes? But if you do it might be noted that homeless amount to about 1.2 percent of the California. Do they get to dictate to the state also? Right now it sure feels like it. Probably not much different where Jay lives. https://cal.streetsblog.org/2016/03/...uting-by-bike/ Correction. Homeless in California are about 0.5% of the population. And they are trashing the place. Yes, and I have read that approximately 10% of the employed labor force in California is made up of illegal immigrants but you don't seem to have jobs for your citizens. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Car racks | Owen | Australia | 4 | October 29th 09 10:58 AM |
Racks is racks, right? | Mike Rocket J Squirrel | Techniques | 46 | September 24th 08 02:46 PM |
Racks...Racks...Who needs a Rack??? | [email protected] | Racing | 8 | May 25th 06 07:23 PM |
Racks | Sam Salt | UK | 17 | January 24th 04 06:55 PM |
Racks? | gravelmuncher | Australia | 10 | November 19th 03 04:40 AM |