Poll: Why don't Americans ride bikes?

DennisTheBald writes:

On Sep 7, 7:12 am, Pat wrote:
On Sep 6, 4:36 pm, Will wrote:

What are you smoking? The difference between a $75k auto and a $25k
auto is $50k no mater what your annual income. The difference in
performance that the additional $50k would buy is pretty
insignificant. There must be some other perceived value in the more
expensive auto, I wonder what that could be?

Status (and, in a particular age group, an aid for attracting trophy
wives).




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sep 7, 8:11*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
DennisTheBald wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:12 am, Pat wrote:
On Sep 6, 4:36 pm, Will wrote:

On Sep 6, 3:15 pm, "Jack May" wrote:
People typically choose the transportation mode with the lowest cost..
Which perfectly explains why they buy cheap Audis and BMW's and get
Sat Nav options.
It's not really a "cost" factor as a "utility" factor. *Although it's
similar, people don't seek the lowest cost, they seek the highest
utility (benefit).

Say you have a $50,000 a year job. *You might scrape together enough
money to buy a $20,000 car. *You might even set aside enough money to
put a little away in savings. *For you, it works and you're happy with
the savings. *But for someone else with the same salary, they might
find a higher benefit to having no savings and a $25,000 car. *People
do what pleases them the most, but it isn't always the lowest cost.

If you make $1,000,000 a year, the difference between the cost of a
$25,000 car and a $75,000 car is negligible but the benefits are
substantial -- so you get the more expensive car. *In this case, the
difference between 15 mpg and 40 mpg as also inconsequential so it
really isn't a factor unless your name is Ed Beagley.

What are you smoking? *The difference between a $75k auto and a $25k
auto is $50k no mater what your annual income. *The difference in
performance that the additional $50k would buy is pretty
insignificant. *There must be some other perceived value in the more
expensive auto, I wonder what that could be?

I understand the more expensive car compensates for small genitalia.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Then what does it mean that I own a cheap car? :-o

On Sep 7, 7:07*pm, DennisTheBald wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:12 am, Pat wrote:



On Sep 6, 4:36 pm, Will wrote:

On Sep 6, 3:15 pm, "Jack May" wrote:

People typically choose the transportation mode with the lowest cost.

Pat in NY wrote:
On Sep 7, 8:11 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
DennisTheBald wrote:
[...]
What are you smoking? The difference between a $75k auto and a $25k
auto is $50k no mater what your annual income. The difference in
performance that the additional $50k would buy is pretty
insignificant. There must be some other perceived value in the more
expensive auto, I wonder what that could be?

I understand the more expensive car compensates for small genitalia.

PLEASE HONOR THE SIGNATURE SEPARATOR.

Then what does it mean that I own a cheap car? :-o

Ask your significant other.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

I understand the more expensive car compensates for small
genitalia.
Then what does it mean that I own a cheap car? :-o

=v= Actually, there are two car-ownership equations:

(1) Car status is inversely proportional to sexual adequacy.
(2) Excess car size is inversely proportional to intelligence.

Status and price are often correlated, but not always. If your
cheap car attains higher status, your penis shrinks accordingly.

=v= As SUVs got bigger and bigger, there was joking about how
this was Freudian compensation for smaller and smaller penises.
Actually, what the size increase meant was a reduction in IQ.
(Though of course, those with reduced IQs held bigger SUVs in
more esteem, increasing their status, thus creating an epidemic
of shrinking penises and other sexual inadequacies. It's no
surprise that Viagra was rushed to market during the SUV era.)

=v= All in all, it's best to go carfree and avoid all of this.
Plus, it makes you brilliant and fantastic in the sack.
_Jym_

--
Green Bay Steelers for Truth

I understand the more expensive car compensates for small
genitalia.
Then what does it mean that I own a cheap car? :-o

=v= Actually, there are two car-ownership equations:

(1) Car status is inversely proportional to sexual adequacy.
(2) Excess car size is inversely proportional to intelligence.

Status and price are often correlated, but not always. If your
cheap car attains higher status, your penis shrinks accordingly.

=v= As SUVs got bigger and bigger, there was joking about how
this was Freudian compensation for smaller and smaller penises.
Actually, what the size increase meant was a reduction in IQ.
(Though of course, those with reduced IQs held bigger SUVs in
more esteem, increasing their status, thus creating an epidemic
of shrinking penises and other sexual inadequacies. It's no
surprise that Viagra was rushed to market during the SUV era.)

=v= All in all, it's best to go carfree and avoid all of this.
Plus, it makes you brilliant and fantastic in the sack.
_Jym_

--
Green Bay Steelers for Truth

On Sep 6, 3:15*pm, "Jack May" wrote:
"ComandanteBanana" wrote in message

...



(No don't go the easy way and assume they are stupid. There may be
other rational explanations for them not doing the obvious thing)

Some argue that people should be riding bikes on the road, period. Not
very clever. Well, since nearly 99% of people don't ride bikes to
work, there must be some good reason for it. Perhaps PEOPLE ARE AFRAID
to share the roads with our reckless, sometime criminal drivers,
perhaps they are plain stupid, or perhaps they are lazy couch potatoes
who won't even go the supermarket on bikes...

Thus we put this poll so that a solution is found once the revolution
is in place.

Of course, the revolution will not be motorized.

The Poll is being taken here...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=462492

Hey retard it was explained to you that we know for an absolute fact that
people don't ride bikes because they highly value their time

Every scientist knows that it is impossible to balance
on only two wheels. Americans are scientists. Ergo,
we don't fall for the stupid.

III or more wheels. VI, if you can get 'em.

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes:

Some argue that people should be riding bikes on the road, period. Not
very clever. Well, since nearly 99% of people don't ride bikes to
work, there must be some good reason for it.

You're still trying to scare would-be riders off the
streets & roads, eh? Your FUDmongering disinformation
campaign is destined to fail. The Truth shall out,
as it inevitably does.

I don't think he's concern really is to scare existing roadway cyclers
off the and onto the sidewalk.
In some/many/most(?) US cities it may genuinely be a problem to ride a
bike in vehicular traffic, meaning, that there might be agressiv e
drivers honking horns and the likes. Especially for those, not used to
move with the stream.
But proposing sidewalk-cycling ist not at all a solution, that's
d'accord! So he may be a little "confused" about the best way to survive
in the jungle for real.
Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
Martina Diel in d.t.r

On Sep 6, 9:21*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * ComandanteBanana writes:

Some argue that people should be riding bikes on the road, period. Not
very clever. Well, since nearly 99% of people don't ride bikes to
work, there must be some good reason for it.

You're still trying to scare would-be riders off the
streets & roads, eh? *Your FUDmongering disinformation
campaign is destined to fail. *The Truth shall out,
as it inevitably does.

Not even bike-hating propagandists such as yourself
are safe from The Truth.

Go climb a banana tree. *And stay up there.

The monkeys should stay on the treetops for fear of the lion (SUVs)
feeding on them.

And the stupid sheep should keep grazing and feeding the beast (Big
Oil).

On Sep 7, 12:36 pm, Jym Dyer wrote:
ComandanteBanana, dragging in crap from elsewhere again:

Originally Posted by sojourn
I think a lot of guys think it's a "Gay" sport.........
I thought a lot of gays thought it was a guy sport. Nothing
effeminate about riding something until you drop exhausted.

=x= How can you even think this idiocy is worthy of discussion?
Are you mentally deficient or are you 8 years old?
_Jym_

I don't want to discuss my age here, just the issues.

But even kids know is deadly to ride bikes in America.

"Question
Why do so many people who ride bicycles ride in the streets when there
is a sidewalk nearby?

Now I ride my bike all the time and definitely stay on the
sidewalks... so why do so many people ride in the streets and slow
traffic and risk getting hit? It's sooo annoying and stupid (in my
opinion)

Answerer 4
By law, a bicycle is a vehicle and belongs in the street.

Of course, common sense says that a bicycle is too frail for being in
motor vehicle traffic.

Conclusion: THERE IS NO PROPER PLACE FOR BICYCLES."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0182657AArONFj