"Whites Only"?

On 10 Mar 2005 05:26:43 -0800, Maggie wrote:

There was a time when people only rode a bike because they could not
afford a car. Anyone out there remember being forced into riding a
bike because you had absolutely no money for a car? I do.

I remember that, I had just graduate College and I had my first
job. My car's engine blew. It was going to cost me more money than I
had so I rode my bike the 7 miles to work (OMG! What a distance ;-)

Maybe thats
why I can't relate to the bikes that cost thousands of dollars. It was
only a year ago that I found out that there are bikes that expensive.

I couldn't justify buying an expenisive bike until I figured out that
I was putting more miles on my bike and less on my car (1996 Saturn -
72K miles, 1990 Trek 1100 - 40K miles, Mongoose RX100 - 20K
miles). Once I figured out that I was spending less money by buying a
better quality bike the cost wasn't such a shock. New car = $20K, New
bike 1.5K. Length of ownership: car ~10 years, Trek ~10 years, RX100 -
5 years so far. Even the maintenance is lower on my car when I use the
bike more. So in a society where 'a car is necessity' is a motto my
less expensive bike has easily saved me money on my car. Of course
this doesn't even touch the health benifits. :-) (Except for the
mental part, remember I like to ride long distances).

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ (Text only)
http://hcs.sourceforge.net/ (HCS II)
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog

"RonSonic" wrote in message
...
On 10 Mar 2005 05:26:43 -0800, "Maggie" wrote:




For some reason this thread about which socio-economic or ethic group
rides bikes rubs me the wrong way. I have not figured out why as of
yet. Maybe it will come to me in a vision. Is this about "Lance
Armstrong Riding" or just plain old get on a bike and go?

Let's call it sport riding, as a contrast to DUI riders, migrant workers
who
haven't gotten a down payment to the buy here pay here lot, kids selling
crack
from chrome BMX bike and people who just gotta get in shape and cycling is
easier on the ankles even though they hate it as much as they do running.

Exactly. There are those who ride for the experience and benefits of riding,
and those who ride for the transportation of riding. Sometimes the two meet,
but not always.

Some folks don't do sport riding. Sometimes it makes sense as a practical
matter, other times it's just some cultural quirk. As for why it would rub
you
the wrong way, you know that you are a sport / fitness rider and you know
the
sort of attitude about that behavior common to your neighborhood.

Most Americans don't exercise, and they look at those who do with a
combination of disdain and jealousy.

I remember being broke and having a bike as my primary mode. But I am not
aware
that there was EVER a time when one rode a bike "only" because a car was
out of
the budget. That may have been the case in some neighborhoods in some
overpopulated mid-Atlantic region. Then again, that region seems to hold
other
narrow, stupid and bigoted ideas and practices.

I grew up in rural south Louisiana, and even the poorest black family had a
car of some sort. They may have lived in a tarpaper shack with a manually
pumped well in the front yard(in the 1980s), but there was always a car or
truck. I was very fortunate to live in a small town and to have parents who
refused to cater to my desires to be driven places. I was told to hop on my
bike, and it's just about the only thing I can thank them for.

As for bikes costing thousands, it is amusing when the bike is that much
more
capable than the rider. At the same time what's the point of expensive
furniture. Basically the same, these are nice things we'd like to own and
have
surrounding us.

People will spend $40000 on an SUV but don't understand someone spending
$1000 or more on a bike. These same people have no problem plunking down big
money on plasma TVs and other electronics which will be obsolete in a few
years. Bikes basically last forever, especially quality ones. :-)

"Maggie" wrote:

For some reason this thread about which socio-economic or ethic group
rides bikes rubs me the wrong way. I have not figured out why as of
yet. Maybe it will come to me in a vision. Is this about "Lance
Armstrong Riding" or just plain old get on a bike and go?

That could be just a knee-jerk reaction to a discussion of cultural
differences. We've been conditioned to automatically react that way,
which is too bad since this thread has been nearly 100% about "let's
make sure no one is putting up any barriers". More discussions like
this would be a good thing (in lots of arenas), even if they set off a
few PC alerts (I'm pretty much tone deaf to that frequency anyway).
;-)

There was a time when people only rode a bike because they could not
afford a car. Anyone out there remember being forced into riding a
bike because you had absolutely no money for a car? I do.

Naaah, go watch 'Breaking Away' again, and you'll see that there have
been plenty of us bike nerds around for a long, long time.

Maybe thats
why I can't relate to the bikes that cost thousands of dollars.

Errrr, ummmmm, coff, coff....

It was
only a year ago that I found out that there are bikes that expensive.

It's all relative - compared to the cost of most other sports, they're
actually quite cheap (and have much more utility than a set of golf
clubs unless there's a burglar in your house).

When John Kerry's bicycle was a topic of conversation. I actually
never knew a bike could cost that much.

I certainly never felt like the fact that a very, very, very rich
candidate bought an "expensive" bike was an issue - heck, I would dare
say you've spent a lot higher percentage of your disposable income on
your bike than he did on his. Both the candidates need some work on
riding clothing though - they needed to hire Fabrizio as a consultant
for a couple weeks - coulda thrown the election several points either
way I figger...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Neil Cherry wrote:

I couldn't justify buying an expenisive bike until I figured out that
I was putting more miles on my bike and less on my car (1996 Saturn -
72K miles, 1990 Trek 1100 - 40K miles, Mongoose RX100 - 20K
miles). Once I figured out that I was spending less money by buying a
better quality bike the cost wasn't such a shock. New car = $20K, New
bike 1.5K. Length of ownership: car ~10 years, Trek ~10 years, RX100 -
5 years so far. Even the maintenance is lower on my car when I use the
bike more.

I put about 5,000 "replacement" miles on my bike a year (those are
miles I'd otherwise have to drive). Figuring a very low per-mile
figure of $0.20 (for most newer cars, it's probably twice that, but my
trusty Jeep has 165,000 miles on it, so isn't depreciating very fast.
It also gets reasonably good gas mileage (around 24-25mpg on the open
road), so the $0.20 should cover the mileage even with gas at $2.00+.

That means I'm saving about $1,000 a year on a car, which can be spent
on a bike. Obviously if I spend a $2,000 on a bike, it's going to
take a few years to break even (after all, you do have to spend a
little on tires and tubes and chains and cassettes, etc.)... but after
that, it's gravy.

So you see (Maggie...) owning a bike doesn't cost anything - why, you
virtually get rich riding one. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 "high return" ti frame

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:59:48 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

"Maggie" wrote:

For some reason this thread about which socio-economic or ethic group
rides bikes rubs me the wrong way. I have not figured out why as of
yet. Maybe it will come to me in a vision. Is this about "Lance
Armstrong Riding" or just plain old get on a bike and go?

That could be just a knee-jerk reaction to a discussion of cultural
differences. We've been conditioned to automatically react that way,
which is too bad since this thread has been nearly 100% about "let's
make sure no one is putting up any barriers". More discussions like
this would be a good thing (in lots of arenas), even if they set off a
few PC alerts (I'm pretty much tone deaf to that frequency anyway).
;-)

There was a time when people only rode a bike because they could not
afford a car. Anyone out there remember being forced into riding a
bike because you had absolutely no money for a car? I do.

Naaah, go watch 'Breaking Away' again, and you'll see that there have
been plenty of us bike nerds around for a long, long time.

Maybe thats
why I can't relate to the bikes that cost thousands of dollars.

Errrr, ummmmm, coff, coff....

It was
only a year ago that I found out that there are bikes that expensive.

It's all relative - compared to the cost of most other sports, they're
actually quite cheap (and have much more utility than a set of golf
clubs unless there's a burglar in your house).

Ya know it doesn't have the aerobic element of cycling, but in every other way
is an excellent sport for any man or woman to take up, recommended over stick
and ball games by no less than Thomas Jefferson, I speak of the shooting sports.
Moderate physical exercise combined with unparalleled exercise of the mind and
body control.

And, not incidently way more useful than a set of golf clubs in case of
burglary.

Ron


When John Kerry's bicycle was a topic of conversation. I actually
never knew a bike could cost that much.

I certainly never felt like the fact that a very, very, very rich
candidate bought an "expensive" bike was an issue - heck, I would dare
say you've spent a lot higher percentage of your disposable income on
your bike than he did on his. Both the candidates need some work on
riding clothing though - they needed to hire Fabrizio as a consultant
for a couple weeks - coulda thrown the election several points either
way I figger...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

RonSonic wrote:
I speak of the shooting sports.
Moderate physical exercise combined with unparalleled exercise of the
mind and
body control.

??? Moderate physical exercise?

Well, everything's relative, I guess. A box of bullets is kind of
heavy when compared, say, to a coffee and donut...

wrote in message
oups.com...

RonSonic wrote:
I speak of the shooting sports.
Moderate physical exercise combined with unparalleled exercise of the
mind and
body control.

??? Moderate physical exercise?

Well, everything's relative, I guess. A box of bullets is kind of
heavy when compared, say, to a coffee and donut...

Google IPSC or IDPA and get back to us, Frank.

RonSonic wrote:
On 10 Mar 2005 05:26:43 -0800, "Maggie"
wrote:




For some reason this thread about which socio-economic or ethic
group
rides bikes rubs me the wrong way. I have not figured out why as of
yet. Maybe it will come to me in a vision. Is this about "Lance
Armstrong Riding" or just plain old get on a bike and go?

Let's call it sport riding, as a contrast to DUI riders, migrant
workers who
haven't gotten a down payment to the buy here pay here lot, kids
selling crack
from chrome BMX bike and people who just gotta get in shape and
cycling is
easier on the ankles even though they hate it as much as they do
running.

Some folks don't do sport riding. Sometimes it makes sense as a
practical
matter, other times it's just some cultural quirk. As for why it
would rub you
the wrong way, you know that you are a sport / fitness rider and you
know the
sort of attitude about that behavior common to your neighborhood.

There was a time when people only rode a bike because they could not
afford a car. Anyone out there remember being forced into riding a
bike because you had absolutely no money for a car? I do. Maybe
thats
why I can't relate to the bikes that cost thousands of dollars. It
was
only a year ago that I found out that there are bikes that
expensive.
When John Kerry's bicycle was a topic of conversation. I actually
never knew a bike could cost that much.

I remember being broke and having a bike as my primary mode. But I am
not aware
that there was EVER a time when one rode a bike "only" because a car
was out of
the budget. That may have been the case in some neighborhoods in some
overpopulated mid-Atlantic region. Then again, that region seems to
hold other
narrow, stupid and bigoted ideas and practices.

As for bikes costing thousands, it is amusing when the bike is that
much more
capable than the rider. At the same time what's the point of
expensive
furniture. Basically the same, these are nice things we'd like to own
and have
surrounding us.

Ron

I could never justify spending thousands for a bicycle, because I am
not going to be in competition or "go for the gold" I can't justify
spending 800.00 on a purse, but I have.

I guess spending thousands on a bike is a luxury which some people can
afford and if you can afford it, why not? We only get one go around in
this life, why not indulge sometimes.

If we spent our lives doing the practical thing, life would get boring.
I'm never practical, and I am not proud of that, but I am never bored
either. ;-)

I will guess that I will never own a bike that costs over 500 dollars.
I would consider that "my" top of the line bike. Unless I really get
into this as the seasons change here in my part of the world. I've
learned that you should NEVER SAY NEVER! All things are possible. Maybe
not probable, but possible.
All Good Things,
Maggie

On 10 Mar 2005 23:03:58 -0800, wrote:


RonSonic wrote:
I speak of the shooting sports.
Moderate physical exercise combined with unparalleled exercise of the
mind and
body control.

??? Moderate physical exercise?

Well, everything's relative, I guess. A box of bullets is kind of
heavy when compared, say, to a coffee and donut...

Yeah, moderate. I wouldn't expect to see you huffing and puffing out there.

Oh, you mean like it isn't even moderate. Sorta like saying that cycling is
easier than walking or running.

Ron

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:25:01 GMT, "Gooserider" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

RonSonic wrote:
I speak of the shooting sports.
Moderate physical exercise combined with unparalleled exercise of the
mind and
body control.

??? Moderate physical exercise?

Well, everything's relative, I guess. A box of bullets is kind of
heavy when compared, say, to a coffee and donut...

Google IPSC or IDPA and get back to us, Frank.

Hell, just stand there and complete a bullseye match. It doesn't look hard, and
it isn't in a grunt and huff and puff way. It just requires correct tension and
control of every muscle in your body.

Ron