A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old May 24th 07, 06:53 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
donquijote1954
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,851
Default only buses protect me from SUVs

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.

Ads
  #122  
Old May 24th 07, 08:15 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 671
Default only buses protect me from SUVs

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.


I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks,
we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son
was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid-
gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling.
Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to
drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and
the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe,
but maybe not as safe as I had thought.

  #123  
Old May 24th 07, 08:17 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default only buses protect me from SUVs

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.

  #124  
Old May 24th 07, 09:24 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
Stephen Sprunk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default only buses protect me from SUVs

wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954
wrote:
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 -


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


Many/most drivers of _any_ type of vehicle would be happy to see that, but
the teamsters will make sure it never happens. Instead, we're going the
other way, allowing doubles and now even triples.

Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the
streets for the majority of their trip anyways. More linear parks would be
a nice side benefit that any resident would support, and it's easy to
include bike trains in them at nearly no cost. Even sidewalk maintenance
(where they exist) is widely supported by local voters.

The key for "quality of life" stuff like this is getting local politicians
to change spending priorities and zoning rules, rather than trying to
influence corrupt state or national politicians who care only about getting
campaign contributions from unions and other lobbies.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #125  
Old May 24th 07, 10:26 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
John Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 885
Default only buses protect me from SUVs

On May 24, 4:24 pm, "Stephen Sprunk" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954
wrote:
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 -


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


Many/most drivers of _any_ type of vehicle would be happy to see that, but
the teamsters will make sure it never happens. Instead, we're going the
other way, allowing doubles and now even triples.

Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the
streets for the majority of their trip anyways. More linear parks would be
a nice side benefit that any resident would support, and it's easy to
include bike trains in them at nearly no cost.


Great idea. Once Broadway, Woodward, Yonge, The Strand and the
Champs d'Elyssée are turned into linear parks we should be a lot
better off.


Even sidewalk maintenance
(where they exist) is widely supported by local voters.

The key for "quality of life" stuff like this is getting local politicians
to change spending priorities and zoning rules, rather than trying to
influence corrupt state or national politicians who care only about getting
campaign contributions from unions and other lobbies.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com



  #126  
Old May 24th 07, 10:28 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
Wayne Pein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 657
Default only buses protect me from SUVs

Stephen Sprunk wrote:


Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the
streets for the majority of their trip anyways.



Oh sure. You mean, "Motorists would be better served by bike trails that
kept bicyclists off the streets..."

Wayne

  #127  
Old May 24th 07, 10:32 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
Tom Keats
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,193
Default only buses protect me from SUVs

In article ,
"Stephen Sprunk" writes in part:

Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the
streets for the majority of their trip anyways.


Not necessarily. Transportational cyclists need access
to the same destinations as do car drivers. We have
actual places to go, and actual reasons to go there, same
as anyone else. We'd be better served by more people
understanding that, and not impeding us.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
  #128  
Old May 25th 07, 03:55 AM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
Nobody[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

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.)
  #129  
Old May 25th 07, 03:17 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
nash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,061
Default What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands


"Nobody" wrote in message
...
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.)


what is wrong with 5 miles then.


  #130  
Old May 25th 07, 08:36 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
donquijote1954
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,851
Default only buses protect me from SUVs

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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands donquijote1954 General 360 June 12th 07 05:16 PM
American bikes best! yourbuddy General 2 December 21st 05 02:47 AM
NYC Power Proclamation Sets Lead for American Cities Cycle America General 0 April 28th 05 10:48 PM
NYC Power Proclamation Sets Lead for American Cities Cycle America Rides 0 April 28th 05 10:48 PM
Do good value for performance bikes have to be American? Jo Stoller UK 23 June 15th 04 08:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.