What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

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)

On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...

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

Simple is as simple does ;-)


Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".

There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.

Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.

Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.

But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.

I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.

Take me, for example, do I NEED a motorcycle. No. It's back-up
transportation on a good day. It's less safe, has less pollution
control, and carries less. OTOH, it's a lot of fun to ride. I don't
NEED one, but I WANT one (okay, two or three depending on how you
count them).

Rather than fighting over a few cars that are in good shape. I think
the government would do better targetting the few worst pollution cars
out there -- the ones running too rich or burning oil. Getting the
worse 10% off the road through some incentive package would probably
do a lot to reduce air pollution.

"Pat" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...

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

Simple is as simple does ;-)


Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".

There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.

Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.

Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.

But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.

I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.

That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.

-Amy

On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...

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

Simple is as simple does ;-)

Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".

There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.

Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.

Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.

But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.

I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.

That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.

-Amy

I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
would be redundant. ;-)

In article ,
"Amy Blankenship" wrote:

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?

Based on his posting history, I'd wager that he's astroturfing for some
segment of the automobile industry. He's such a moron, though, that it
ends up doing more harm than good. I highly suggest a killfile entry.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In article , Bolwerk
wrote:

From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
other forms of exercise.


Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
every day.

Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
jog on?

The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
"self-abuse," should all be banned.

George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
mild
occupational hazard.

Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...



Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to do.

"George Conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In article , Bolwerk
wrote:

From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
other forms of exercise.


Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on
feet
and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
every day.

Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk
or
jog on?

The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
"self-abuse," should all be banned.

George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics,
ditch
digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
mild
occupational hazard.

Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...



Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to
do.

So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like
it.

On Jun 5, 9:56 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message

.. .





"Bolwerk" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:
In article , Bolwerk
wrote:

From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
other forms of exercise.

Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
every day.

Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
jog on?

The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
"self-abuse," should all be banned.

George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
mild
occupational hazard.

Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...

Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to do.


Still waiting for my example, George.

On Jun 5, 12:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote in message

ink.net...





"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
In article , Bolwerk
wrote:

From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
other forms of exercise.

Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on
feet
and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
every day.

Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk
or
jog on?

The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
"self-abuse," should all be banned.

George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics,
ditch
digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
mild
occupational hazard.

Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...

Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to
do.

So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like
it.

I think that pedicabs are like a lot of things. Yeah, they probably
are abusive or whatever, but if you are poor and starving and living
in a slum somewhere, is it better to have a pedicab and maybe make
some money or is it better to starve.

As for coming to America, who cares. We have lots of jobs, a minimum
wage, a permitting system, and things like OSHA. If a person doesn't
WANT to do it, then they don't HAVE to do it. It's a person's choice
or employment. If they want to do it, great. Why not? It beats the
heck out of a lot of other jobs out there.

I guess I see things in shades of gray, not in absolutes.