You'd never buy a bike and ride it in traffic

On Apr 16, 4:20*am, Sergio wrote:
On 16 Apr, 00:09, ComandanteBanana wrote:

I simply fail to understand why anybody would buy one of those little
****boxes.
Well, it's like that... CHOICES, CHOICES, CHOICES.
Small cars are also fun to drive if equipped with stick shift,

That's why I still drive an old FIAT 500.
Two pistons.
Unsinchronised.
No power steering, nor braking system.
So easy to maintain and service.
No electronics !

BONUS.
After moving the passenger's seat upside down behind the driver's, I
can fit in my racing bike with just the front wheel removed.
Quite tightly in fact, with no need to tie it to hold it in place.

Sergio
Pisa

I know, and you go IN STYLE everywhere. Those Fiats with the vinyl
sunroof beat the convenience of any convertible for a fraction of the
price.

They are the equivalent of a SS bike... I'm trying to get one.

(aka ComandanteBanana)

I had an original '72 Honda 600 (2 cyl) and it was a blast. I also a
had a Geo Metro (3 cyl) that was awesome. Both stick shift of course.

When it comes to cars I believe "less is more!" What kills a small car
is the automatic transmission.

Under the rules of the revolution I plan to give FREE BUS PASSES to
those who can't drive stick shift.

ComandanteBanana wrote:
(From Bike Forums, I answer at bottom)

"WASHINGTON – Micro cars can give motorists top-notch fuel efficiency
at a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they don't
fare too well in collisions with larger vehicles."

***

Originally Posted by mlts22
"Smart cars have a ways to go before they become mainstream. There is
no real point in buying one over a Honda Civic. Civics get more MPG,
are proven safe in crash tests, have more HP, and are *far* easier to
find parts for. The only thing I can say positive about a Smart car is
that you can park it 90 degrees in a parallel parking place.

Seen the crash test on the Smart cars? The darn thing crumpled,
bounced, then spun around like a top."

***

IF YOU JUDGE THINGS BY THE WAY THEY CRASH, you'd never buy a bike and
ride it in traffic.

That's the American way... Buy cars that are safer to crash but never
tame traffic, huh?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Monkeys of the World, Unite! You've got nothing to lose but your
cages"

http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

One of the problems that I think cripples the US car industry from even
trying out truly smaller/more-efficient vehicles is the assumption that
anything that's not a motorcycle has to meet car-crash standards.

It would be easy to design a tandem-seat enclosed vehicle that weighed
700 lbs or so, but it would need four wheels to be stable, and it would
never have a hope of passing US automotive crash tests--but why does
anyone give a **** about that??? MOTORCYCLES cannot pass car crash
tests, and nobody cares. Anyone who buys such a vehicle (as a
motorcycle) is presumed to know that they are more likely to suffer in
any collision with a car.

It is possible to build trikes in the US but they suffer stability
penalties due to only having three wheels. (yea I know there's trike
cars that sit four inches off the ground and corner very well, but
that's not going to work as a practical vehicle)

The US needs a "new" class of 4-wheel vehicle, with weight, power and
seating restrictions, that is treaded basically as a motorcycle.
~

On Apr 16, 7:19 pm, DougC wrote:
ComandanteBanana wrote:
(From Bike Forums, I answer at bottom)

"WASHINGTON – Micro cars can give motorists top-notch fuel efficiency
at a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they don't
fare too well in collisions with larger vehicles."

***

Originally Posted by mlts22
"Smart cars have a ways to go before they become mainstream. There is
no real point in buying one over a Honda Civic. Civics get more MPG,
are proven safe in crash tests, have more HP, and are *far* easier to
find parts for. The only thing I can say positive about a Smart car is
that you can park it 90 degrees in a parallel parking place.

Seen the crash test on the Smart cars? The darn thing crumpled,
bounced, then spun around like a top."

***

IF YOU JUDGE THINGS BY THE WAY THEY CRASH, you'd never buy a bike and
ride it in traffic.

That's the American way... Buy cars that are safer to crash but never
tame traffic, huh?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
"Monkeys of the World, Unite! You've got nothing to lose but your
cages"

http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

One of the problems that I think cripples the US car industry from even
trying out truly smaller/more-efficient vehicles is the assumption that
anything that's not a motorcycle has to meet car-crash standards.

It would be easy to design a tandem-seat enclosed vehicle that weighed
700 lbs or so, but it would need four wheels to be stable, and it would
never have a hope of passing US automotive crash tests--but why does
anyone give a **** about that??? MOTORCYCLES cannot pass car crash
tests, and nobody cares. Anyone who buys such a vehicle (as a
motorcycle) is presumed to know that they are more likely to suffer in
any collision with a car.

It is possible to build trikes in the US but they suffer stability
penalties due to only having three wheels. (yea I know there's trike
cars that sit four inches off the ground and corner very well, but
that's not going to work as a practical vehicle)

The US needs a "new" class of 4-wheel vehicle, with weight, power and
seating restrictions, that is treaded basically as a motorcycle.
~- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

VERY IMPORTANT VIEWPOINT.

Notice that cars must meet those standards but SUVs don't... Why?
Because they are trucks and thus they get off the hook. In reality WE
KNOW IT'S ALL ABOUT BIG MONEY.

By the same token light vehicles (somewhere in between cars and
motorcycles) should be exempted from Big Brother's regulation. In
France they do have such cars, which are superlight and they get away
with some privileges. You may call it "positive regulation" if you
will, but it's fair.

I guess socialism is more about CHOICES than HARDCORE CAPITALISM.

In article ,
DougC writes:

That's the American way... Buy cars that are safer to crash but never
tame traffic, huh?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Monkeys of the World, Unite! You've got nothing to lose but your
cages"

http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

One of the problems that I think cripples the US car industry from even
trying out truly smaller/more-efficient vehicles is the assumption that
anything that's not a motorcycle has to meet car-crash standards.

It would be easy to design a tandem-seat enclosed vehicle that weighed
700 lbs or so, but it would need four wheels to be stable, and it would
never have a hope of passing US automotive crash tests--but why does
anyone give a **** about that???

Golf carts. But they're not very fast, which evokes the
question: does speed capability enhance safety? I suspect
the opposite is true, but I'm afraid I can't prove it right
now with cites & refs. So I guess I'm just full of BS on
this particular point.

MOTORCYCLES cannot pass car crash
tests, and nobody cares. Anyone who buys such a vehicle (as a
motorcycle) is presumed to know that they are more likely to suffer in
any collision with a car.

The same points could be raised about bicycles,
including electric power-assisted bikes.

My own approach while riding is simply to not crash
into stuff or people.

What Commodore FrootLoop neglects to consider is that cyclists
are generally protected by their very position adjacent to
motorized traffic, rather than being regularly within it.
You & I et al understand that a rider knows how to use his/her
space to his/her own advantage as well as cooperatively to the
advantage of the adjacent motorized traffic, but he doesn't.

Frankly I'd still rather be on a skinny bike than in a fatter
and faster (but still relatively lightweight) motorized vehicle
that necessarily must occupy a position where more bad stuff
happens on the road. Actually, I'd just plain rather ride my
bike, period -- for reasons besides nursing a perception of
being safe & secure.

In this thread there seems to be two fixations: one on heavy,
bulky vehicular "armour" as a safety factor, and one on speed
to get or stay out of the way. and I have to express my belief
those are both wrong approaches; everybody might as well just
drive tanks. As if so many don't already.

BananaBoy's Original Post in this thread is just his
usual anti-bicycle fearmongering.


cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Apr 16, 9:05 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

It would be easy to design a tandem-seat enclosed vehicle that weighed
700 lbs or so, but it would need four wheels to be stable, and it would
never have a hope of passing US automotive crash tests--but why does
anyone give a **** about that???

Golf carts. But they're not very fast, which evokes the
question: does speed capability enhance safety? I suspect
the opposite is true, but I'm afraid I can't prove it right
now with cites & refs. So I guess I'm just full of BS on
this particular point.

Good point. I think you hit the nail by accident (since you don't seem
to be that smart). "Golf carts" includes some microcars that could be
driven everywhere --IF PEOPLE DARED TO DRIVE THEM along the SUVs and
reckless drivers. Here in Florida they are street legal and do appear
regularly in the streets of Key West.

Here's the Bombardier...

ELECTRIC BOMBARDIER NV
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED DECEMBER 1996 The neighborhood electric vehicle,
or NEV, is a concept that's come and gone, and come again. These
lightweight, inexpensive, and limited use EVs were envisioned for
local use, supplanting conventional cars for short trips around town
to the market, to work, or to pick up the kids at school.

As the electric vehicle field heated up in recent years, the
neighborhood electric vehicle seemed relegated to obscurity,
overshadowed by more glamorous - and expensive - electric hybrid
electric concepts. We've seen GM's EVI come to market for $34,000,
with other EVs like the Ford Ranger and Chevrolet S-Series EVs
targeting similar price ranges.

But guess what? The NEV is back, and it's on sale for under $7,000.
Bombardier, the Canadian aerospace and transportation firm, is now
marketing the composite two-passenger Bombardier NEV in Arizona, with
an imminent debut in California and Florida.

http://www.greencar.com/articles/bom...ic-vehicle.php

That you call them "golf carts" just show how much you despise
them.

You know why we don't have them? Because there's no communities around
other than a few lucky places. You find them, for sure, in many gated
communities, where they serve as a toy for leasure. I know of such a
place in Key Largo where the big shots come with their intimadating
SUVs and then trade them for the friendly EVs.

Now, I'd be dead fish if I tried it right in front of my house. You
know why? Because the Big Fish eats the Little Fish...


MOTORCYCLES cannot pass car crash
tests, and nobody cares. Anyone who buys such a vehicle (as a
motorcycle) is presumed to know that they are more likely to suffer in
any collision with a car.

The same points could be raised about bicycles,
including electric power-assisted bikes.

My own approach while riding is simply to not crash
into stuff or people.

What Commodore FrootLoop neglects to consider is that cyclists
are generally protected by their very position adjacent to
motorized traffic, rather than being regularly within it.
You & I et al understand that a rider knows how to use his/her
space to his/her own advantage as well as cooperatively to the
advantage of the adjacent motorized traffic, but he doesn't.

Frankly I'd still rather be on a skinny bike than in a fatter
and faster (but still relatively lightweight) motorized vehicle
that necessarily must occupy a position where more bad stuff
happens on the road. Actually, I'd just plain rather ride my
bike, period -- for reasons besides nursing a perception of
being safe & secure.

You are so smart that you it's a miracle to find cyclists like you
alive...

Besides the EVs and microcars giving you some degree of protection
(hey, it's all about mass and having a cage around you), they can
sustain highers speeds. WHAT KILLS YOU IS THE SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. Even
motorcycles are safer than bicycles, or at least are LESS STRESSFUL,
which is something you get a lot of when riding in traffic.


In this thread there seems to be two fixations: one on heavy,
bulky vehicular "armour" as a safety factor, and one on speed
to get or stay out of the way. and I have to express my belief
those are both wrong approaches; everybody might as well just
drive tanks. As if so many don't already.

That's what Insurance Industry says, and that's what the people do,
dude. Do they ever talk about TRAFFIC TAMING. Do you?


BananaBoy's Original Post in this thread is just his
usual anti-bicycle fearmongering.

cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.

I thought you were all about malice but then I read this:

"Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity"

On Apr 16, 9:05 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, your signature shows you are Canadian... So is the Bombardier,
which goes to show Canadians can be smart...

"The vehicle is well-designed and engineered to be sturdy and safe.
Because of the specific state legislation that allows the NEV's use in
Arizona, California, and Florida (and pending legislation in other
states), it has not had to undergo federal crash testing. The NEV's
governed 25 mph top speed is integral to the vehicle meeting the
criteria of this legislation.

Since the NEV is designed for a multitude of short range uses, it
seemed natural for Bombardier to take into account the needs of buyers
most likely to initially embrace the vehicle - those in large sunbelt
retirement communities, many of whom happen to be recreationally-
oriented. To this end, there's plenty of room and even a lockable
trunk to stow rackets and an assortment of other gear."

25 mph, a speed cyclists can live with...

How about leaving the whole right-hand lane for bicycles, scooters and
EVs? Too smart for you?

"Bombardier is basing its sales pitch on the idea that automobiles are
over designed for short trips to the grocery store, bank, recreation
center, golf course and neighbors' homes. Those trips, the
manufacturer says, make up between 50 and 80 percent of all auto
use."

Makes sense, right? Well 11 years later I still don't see them around.
It must be the concern over the jungle out there...

'Pete Gauntlett, traffic section commander for the Orlando Police
Department, worries that they could cause severe traffic accidents
with traditional automobiles.

"I think the vehicle certainly has its place in limited residential
areas and gated communities," he says. But, he adds, "I would
certainly be reluctant to speculate on what it would do throughout the
community." '

How Bombardier became legal in Florida...

http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/s...12/story8.html

In article ,
KingOfTheApes writes:
On Apr 16, 9:05 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

It would be easy to design a tandem-seat enclosed vehicle that weighed
700 lbs or so, but it would need four wheels to be stable, and it would
never have a hope of passing US automotive crash tests--but why does
anyone give a **** about that???

Golf carts. But they're not very fast, which evokes the
question: does speed capability enhance safety? I suspect
the opposite is true, but I'm afraid I can't prove it right
now with cites & refs. So I guess I'm just full of BS on
this particular point.

Good point. I think you hit the nail by accident (since you don't seem
to be that smart).

At least I know of which postings to threadedly respond.

And the whole world's onto your anti-bicycling game and
fearmongering campaign, but you're too blindly
dough-headed to realize it.

Pack it in yer suitcase.

I guess if you pop your head outa yer ass, and you see your
shadow, we'll get at least six more weeks of your bull****.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On 17.04.2009 19:09, ComandanteBanana wrote:
'Pete Gauntlett, traffic section commander for the Orlando Police
Department, worries that they could cause severe traffic accidents
with traditional automobiles.

"I think the vehicle certainly has its place in limited residential
areas and gated communities," he says.

ACK, I think the use of automobiles should be restricted to company
campusses and gated communities ... Very smart, that guy.