What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

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

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

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.)

"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.

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.

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