What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"Clark F Morris" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:


"Bill" wrote in message
gy.net...
Pat wrote:
On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill wrote:
I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My
2
LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a
small
town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done
on
a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the
American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The
bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one
(Freeway
and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small
bicycle
trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big
appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are
another
big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each
way
to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection.
We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it.
Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are
beyond
bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take
someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in
my
business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life
works
unless you are a city office drone.
Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics.
I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but
won't
spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least).
Bill (realistic) Baka


One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here
to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to
drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game.
After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my
mother's house for a few days.

That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
motorcycle.


Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of
the time.

Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be
avoided.

Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova
Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward
and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the
every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I
would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America
and Europe.

But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where
living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some
exceptions).

Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems simple
enough to me.

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"george conklin" wrote in message
link.net...
...
Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking
about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking
your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Nonsense.

Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the urban
poor
The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of
the puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3),

We're talking about New York!


The physical abuse is the same.

That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
motorcycle.-

Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike.

There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work.
Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get.
Bill Baka

I ran into an interesting situation the other day. A collage student,
going home for the summer was shipping all her belongings home, via the
post office. She priced it out, and it only cost her $250. A rental truck
and the gas were going to be over $500.

How are we going to get by when gas, doubles and/or triples in price?

Everyone blames those 'greedy' oil companies, but it is simply supply and
demand. Demand is up 3% in last 6 months, and supply is only up 1%. With
no new refineries being built in the US (I don't want that nasty thing in
my back yard) the price will continue to rise.

China is the main new demand.




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

donquijote1954 wrote in
ups.com:

On Jun 1, 2:38 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:


How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it
a *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are
going to STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or
a Strawman?

I didn't say people are going to starve. But there would be little
political support for making it more difficult to get a driver's
license, because people know that it simply isn't practical in most
places not to be able to drive. Therefore, making getting a license
harder amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for people who have
not done anything wrong--their only crime is that they have not
gotten their license yet. Which is precisely why people are not
going to starve, unless something goes wrong with our ability to
distribute fuel or the highway system.

The real starvation will start when there's diruption of oil flow.
Then America will be the less fit to survive. I can already picture
those couch potatoes sweating and panting the first few weeks.


Plenty of reserve fat to live on for 6 - 8 months.

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

"Joe the Aroma" wrote in message
. ..

Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
simple enough to me.

Simple is as simple does ;-)

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"george conklin" wrote in message
link.net...
...
Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking
about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just
taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Nonsense.

Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the
urban poor
The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of
the puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3),

We're talking about New York!


The physical abuse is the same.

Let's see. First you objected to pedicabs in New York because they are
abusive in India. Then it was pointed out to you that most pedicab
operators in New York are actually entrepreneurs, doing it quite by their
own choice. You then decided you were against it because a pedicab operator
might wear out his knees. It was pointed out to you that many other
professions in the US have a far greater potential for damage or injury to
the person involved in them than pedicab driver. You stated as clearly as
you ever state anything that you don't object to those other professions.
So obviously you *do not* object to damaging professions per se.

More recently, you're back to the argument that because the culture of India
makes the lot of a pedicab driver less than optimal, we should not have
pedicabs in New York. When I point out to you that the culture of India has
no effect on the pedicab drivers in New York, you're back to claiming that
the "physical abuse" is the basis of your objection. Since you've made it
clear that physical abuse in one's vocation per se is not something you
object to across the board, then what, specifically, is it about pedicab
drivers that you *really* object to?

-Amy

On Jun 2, 2:35 pm, "george conklin" wrote:

The real starvation will start when there's diruption of oil flow.
Then America will be the less fit to survive. I can already picture
those couch potatoes sweating and panting the first few weeks.

Fuel-inefficient transit buses will get the first cut.-

And who will inherit the roads, the bikes? Well, I don't have a
problem with that. It will be even be good for the couch potatos, in
the long run.

On Jun 2, 2:57 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:
Yes, we, the Banana Revolution, has decided to join the race to the
White House with a unique specimen that will not lie, launch
territorial wars, or oppose environmental commitments.
http://www.teddybearfriends.co.uk/im...rge/gund-teddy...

Chris Dodd?

Who's that, another puppet?

On Jun 3, 10:26 am, Bolwerk wrote:
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Dane Buson" wrote in message
...
"This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime
is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at."

I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as
cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here,
aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie?

You don't have to drink alcohol to live...

It helps sometimes.

And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow!


If MADD catches you saying that you'd be in deep ****. They seem to
have a way with the HP (via lawyers, who also get a cut in it), and
politicians (who can catch on the photo op) who otherwise look the
other way to no less dangerous driving like DUCP (driving under cell
phone influence) and DUSUV (driving under supersized unnecessary
vehicle influence).

On Jun 3, 4:29 pm, Arif Khokar wrote:
wrote:
I hate to say it but a lot of cops are liars, and they get away with
it with impunity. Prove them wrong. And to add fuel to the fire, a
prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted. It does not take much
more to really screw you.

That is the reason I am supporting Barak Obama for Pres. I want to
see the drug laws ELIMINATED, completely.

Then you should support Ron Paul for president instead, because I'm
quite sure that Democrats, nor Barak Obama have any interest in
repealing drug laws.

Some people say our presidents and politicians are just puppets of the
corporations that finance their profession. If that were to be the
case, you'd be wasting your time and it would be smart to vote for a
real puppet...

http://www.teddybearfriends.co.uk/im...mbo-monkey.jpg

with ther real platform...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

(if it sounds repetitious is because in politics you have to repeat
things 1000 times to get your point across)