Does a trike put me on a collision course with traffic?

ComandanteBanana wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:22 pm, "Jack May" wrote:

Lack of mobility with transit is an extremely high cost to the economy as is
really apparent in third world economies. The cost of transit is also
extremely high to Governments which leads to major problems funding other
parts of Government.

So what's the solution, get rid of public transportation?

I also tell you though that many buses run at capacity at peak times.
Have you ever been on one?

Mr. May stooping to ride a bus with the great unwashed?

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

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:51:15 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:

"Valued Corporate #120,345 Employee (B A R R Y)"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:48:17 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


Public transit maximizes global warming by spending most of the
transportation dollars to transport an insignificant number of people.
The
result is increased congestion caused by transit resulting in greatly
increased pollution and green house gases.
That's so stupid, my head exploded.
The SF Bay area spends two thirds of its transportation funds to carry 5% of
the travel. If you can't understand how that causes major problems, then
you are worthless as a person.


And that's why SF is in the running for Congestion Pricing, to force
folks off of their cars and into more efficient transportation.
Unfortunately, here in NYC, mass transit is so overutilized that we
can't squeeze more drivers into the trains.

Not that I believe your numbers of course.

A superior human being prefers to ride a bicycle.

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

Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 12, 12:48 am, "Jack May" wrote:
No, you were implying that transit spending is much higher than that of
individualized private motorized transport, which is silly when total
expenditures are compared.
As I said above total cost has no affect on people. Individual cost is
what is important.

Total cost has no effect? Does that money fall out of the sky as a gift
from heaven?

How does total cost affect an individual? If it does not paid by the
individual out of their pocket, their taxes (yes out of pocket), or their
lost time, how does it affect them.

Of course the total cost is paid either directly or in taxes [1]. Duh!

[1] Except for the very rich who write the tax laws with loopholes so
they pay much less than their fair share relative to what society
contributes to their personal wealth.

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

Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jens Müller wrote:
Tom Sherman schrieb:
Pat and Jack May obviously have the belief that bipedal apes can
overcome any problem through technological development. That is foolish
hubris, since these bipedal apes are not all powerful. It will be
amusing to observe the reaction of the bipedal apes when the ecological
limits of what the Earth can support are exceeded for an extended
period.
Well we bipedal apes have a long track record of solving problems.
Since problem solving with technology grows exponentially over time,
there is a very good chance we can continue to solve problems.

More foolish hubris. Pride goes before the fall.

Again you are just ****ed because nobody probably considers you part of
the solution and will pay you for solutions.
Another stupid assumption. However, I know I am not a parasite on others,
unlike so many of the "successful".

More of you being ****ed off at not being able to be successful in life.

How would Mr. May know? Omniscience? Sheesh!

I have a middle class income, which I more than earn, rather than
leaching off the labor of others.

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

Pat wrote:

Okay, I'll try to make it simple so that even you can follow the
thread.

You did not like my definitions of roads, as used locally.

You live in a place that doesn't want to spend the money to pave the
roads AND doesn't want to plow them in the winter, either. Let's be
honest it is cheaper to put up a "CLOSED" sign then it is to properly
maintain a road.

Based on your township's financial trouble, you want to project your
view on the rest of the country.

Around here, if someone lives on a road that is unpaved they are looked
down upon as some sort of hick. It is also a blot upon the town. But
here, people aren't being crushed by the taxes you are, either.

So consider this: You pay some of the highest taxes in the country, yet
don't have paved and maintained roads. Gee, what a swell deal.

Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"Eric Vey" wrote in message
...
Pat wrote:
On Apr 13, 3:22 am, Eric Vey wrote:
Pat wrote:

Sounds what life will be like for the survivors (if any) in the 22nd
Century.

What is going to kill them off.

It is not the environment that has been improving for years because we know
how to make it improve.

But that knowledge is not put to use. Rather the greed of the capitalist
sis fed at the expense of sustainability.

It is not natural recourses use which peaked in the 1970's.

Citation?

It is not health which is becoming increasingly easy to maintain with
medical advances.

For those who can afford it.

It is not food at least for advanced societies where genetic engineering and
other technologies provide powerful solutions.

Actually, food supplies are shrinking. The loss of pollinating insects
(already occurring) could devastate much of the food supply.

It is not problem solving which has become exponentially more powerful with
the increase in technology.

The technology often creates as many or more problems than it solves (in
the real world).

It is not energy with the many ways being developed to produce alternative
energy sources. Even fusion will last for over a billion years after it is
fully developed.

Counting on a power source where no real progress has been made for half
a century? Pollyanna Lives!

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

Pat Who? wrote:
On Apr 13, 3:04 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Pat Who? wrote:
On Apr 13, 5:26 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Pat Who? wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:58 pm, Eric Vey wrote:
Bill Z. wrote:
vey writes:
Jens Müller wrote:
Eric Vey schrieb:
Yes he seems to refer to road and highway interchangeably.
At least, I do that.
I know no better translation for the German _legal_ term "Straße".
I don't either, but by observation a Straße is a street found in a
city or town. Here streets have pretty low speed limits, just like
Straßes have. Usually 45KPH or below.
The word Straße simply means "street", regardless of where it is
located. High-speed, limited access roadways in Germany are called
Autobahnen (Autobahn is the singular form of the word).
Translating Straße as a legal term meaning "road/highway" in English
is just fine.
Your observation is probably the result of there being far more streets
in cities and towns (and there is a convention of tagging "straße" onto
the end of a word to name a street, so you'll see a lot of signs in towns
with that word on it).
Pat has no disadvantage when it comes to language. He continues to
confuse by referring to interstates as highways and makes arguments
around that confusion.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, if one were to accept your definitions as gospel:
A "road" here usually connects cities or towns, and usually has a
higher
speed limit, 30-45 MPH. A highway is a road with a higher speed limit
45-55 MPH.
Then we have a lot of dirt highways around here. All dirt roads
around here are unposted and therefore 55 mph. Gee, and I always
thought they were dirt roads. Come around here and refer to something
as a "Dirt Highway" and you'll have a lot of people giggling.
As for a road having a "higher speed limit, 30-45", higher than what?
There aren't any lower speed limits lower than 30 around here except
the occational school zone.
Around here, according to your definition, we have lots and lots of
highways that aren't striped, aren't paved, some are seasonal, and a
few aren't wide enough for two cars to go past each other except
slowing to a crawl.
That ain't how we define things around here.
Dirt highways. Who'd have thunk it. But they meet your definition.
Sort of makes you think....
Around here, a road is something a town or county maintains and the
signs all say "XYZ Road".
A street is something a village or city maintains and, by coincidence,
they are all named "Something Street".
What the state maintains mostly are what we call "routes" such as
"Route 219". More rural ones might also be called a road. State
routes don't have conventional names, just numbers. If you call 911,
you identify yourself as being on "Route XYZ"
Expressways are limited access. Highways can be limited access or at
least have some restrictions on access. They tend to be posted at 65
in NY and higher in other areas. Highways and expressways tend to be
numbered but some also carry names (the Thruway). If they carry
names, the tend to be "The Name" or even "The Number". Albany has
"The 787, The Thruway and The Northway". Rochester has "The 590" and
"The 490". Buffalo has "The Youngman and The Kensington". (Non-
expressways are just Route 219 or 219 or whatever). One
distinguishing characteristic of a highway or expressway is that they
don't have traffic control devices -- no traffic lights or stop sign.
Entering traffic must merge in.
Parkways are highway-ish but without shoulders, for no apparent
reason. But that's changed a bit in recent years because they are
otherwise so dangerous.
A Quickway is a highway that goes from Harriman NY to Binghamton NY.
Just a bizarre name.
There are city streets, surface streets, and side streets.
There are country roads (don't even start humming John Denver here)
and dirt roads and farm-to-market roads.
Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
The people who should know - those who actually design and administrate
public roads - have a different definition of highway than Pat does.
Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
As I said, dirt highways. Cool concept. Come on over and we'll go to
a diner and discuss it. It would be fun. People will laugh their
a**es off.
Dirt highways ... what a concept.
I never said anything about dirt highways - what do you mean?

Plenty of two-lane, PAVED, county and state highways (marked as such, no
less) in the US. Duh!

The definition of "highways" postulated earlier included dirt roads:
publicly owned and a speed limit of 55. That includes lots and lots
of dirt roads. Since these roads are "highways", that makes them dirt
highways. Cool concept. Great definition !!!!!!!!!!!

This is so silly it is not worth responding to. More silly than selling
a productive milk COW (not a STEER) for beef.

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

On Apr 14, 11:01*pm, Eric Vey wrote:
Pat wrote:
Okay, I'll try to make it simple so that even you can follow the
thread.

You did not like my definitions of roads, as used locally.

You live in a place that doesn't want to spend the money to pave the
roads AND doesn't want to plow them in the winter, either. Let's be
honest it is cheaper to put up a "CLOSED" sign then it is to properly
maintain a road.

Based on your township's financial trouble, you want to project your
view on the rest of the country.

Around here, if someone lives on a road that is unpaved they are looked
down upon as some sort of hick. It is also a blot upon the town. But
here, people aren't being crushed by the taxes you are, either.

So consider this: You pay some of the highest taxes in the country, yet
don't have paved and maintained roads. Gee, what a swell deal.

Towns don't have dirt roads out of financial hardship, they have them
because there's not reason to pave them. What's wrong with dirt
roads? They are a large percentage of the roads in the country.

Seasons Use roads are the same thing. If no one lives on a road, why
bother to plow it?

I thought you were an environmentalist. Dirt roads are low impact
roads without impermiable surfaces so that water can go on its own
way, naturally. Plus no pollution generated from paving it and no oil
to make blacktop. Also, if you don't plow a road in the winter,
you're saving money/oil. You should like that.

Frugal is green.

I can't help it if you look down on people who live on dirt roads. It
just proves you're a snobbish, arrogant moron. Why would you look
down on someone because of that? Do you look down on someone because
of race or gender? Are you looking down on someone from rural Alabama
because they live on a dirt road or because they are black? There's
some soul searching for you.

Oops. They aren't seasonal use roads. They are seasonal use
highways. Sorry, forgot. ... seasonal use highway ... good
one !!!

I'm still enjoying your definition.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:56:57 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:51:15 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:

"Valued Corporate #120,345 Employee (B A R R Y)"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:48:17 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


Public transit maximizes global warming by spending most of the
transportation dollars to transport an insignificant number of people.
The
result is increased congestion caused by transit resulting in greatly
increased pollution and green house gases.
That's so stupid, my head exploded.
The SF Bay area spends two thirds of its transportation funds to carry 5% of
the travel. If you can't understand how that causes major problems, then
you are worthless as a person.


And that's why SF is in the running for Congestion Pricing, to force
folks off of their cars and into more efficient transportation.
Unfortunately, here in NYC, mass transit is so overutilized that we
can't squeeze more drivers into the trains.

Not that I believe your numbers of course.

A superior human being prefers to ride a bicycle.

Naturally, but sometimes those trains are very convenient. If the
choice is driving or biking, I bike. But when I can sit on a train and
read, that is also nice. The jury may be out on whether to listen to
the radio while biking, but I think we all agree that reading while
biking is a no no.

"Jack May" writes:

"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
Jack May's factoids:
=v= So, bottom line, Jack May's numbers are completely wrong
and the opposite is true. As usual. And that's not even taking
into account the many and massive hidden costs and subsidies
that prop up car transportation. Not to mention the heavy bond
debt that we'll be saddled with to pay for Prop 1B.


You found nothing and you say I am wrong. I found the data. That is not a
proof of anything which is obvious to most people

I am not a free worker to find things for people that are not good at
finding things. Keep searching, it is there.

Given how much you post that is completely wrong, or at least seriously
hyped, nobody will believe you if you don't produce the references to
back up your statements.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB