Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

480,000 Americans die before their time every year from smoking-related diseases -- and the stupidity of successive governments and anti-smoking campaigners and grandstanding, dim-witted legislators. Now comes Scott Gottlieb, who demonstrates that he's a clear thinker who hasn't been captured by the hysterics of control freak Left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...garette-policy

Why doesn't cycling have a clear thinker like Scott Gottlieb to cut through the bull**** and define the problem?

Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.

Andre Jute
Stands to reason that first you should define the problem correctly

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:58:27 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

480,000 Americans die before their time every year from
smoking-related diseases -- and the stupidity of successive
governments and anti-smoking campaigners and grandstanding,
dim-witted legislators. Now comes Scott Gottlieb, who
demonstrates that he's a clear thinker who hasn't been
captured by the hysterics of control freak Left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...garette-policy

Why doesn't cycling have a clear thinker like Scott Gottlieb
to cut through the bull**** and define the problem?

What problem? Or rather, which cycling problem? If it were one
single problem, solutions would be obvious and possibly easily
implemented. But, because there are many problems, many of which
overlap into other problem areas, no single messiah is going to make
everyone happy.

Incidentally, one bicycling problem is very similar to the smoking
problem. State and local governments derive about 0.5 to 2.0% of
their revenue from tobacco taxes. I'm not sure of the percentage of
gasoline and automobile sales taxes that the states collect, but it
must be substantial. Were cycling to displace automobile use and
gasoline consumption, the state and local budgets would suffer
severely. Same with untaxed vaping cigarettes displacing taxed
tobacco products. Never mind the merits of the arguments. Just
follow the money and you'll see why little was being done about
tobacco and little is being done for solving bicycling problems.

Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.

Good article. I guess the lobbyists and vested interested haven't
gotten to Dr Gottlieb yet.

Stands to reason that first you should define the problem correctly

The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
financial. Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

Do I get a prize for defining the problem?

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:35:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

What problem? Or rather, which cycling problem?

There are two cycling problems, which may be defined by and from
specific perspectives. The first is that there are, relatively
speaking, far too few people riding bikes. The second is that there are
far too many people riding bikes.

Which problem did Andre want solved by a clear-headed thinker?

Incidentally, one bicycling problem is very similar to the smoking
problem. State and local governments derive about 0.5 to 2.0% of
their revenue from tobacco taxes. I'm not sure of the percentage of
gasoline and automobile sales taxes that the states collect, but it
must be substantial. Were cycling to displace automobile use and
gasoline consumption, the state and local budgets would suffer
severely. Same with untaxed vaping cigarettes displacing taxed
tobacco products. Never mind the merits of the arguments. Just
follow the money and you'll see why little was being done about
tobacco and little is being done for solving bicycling problems.

Gasoline taxes are handled very weirdly in most, if not all, states and
at the federal level. In practical terms, driving is considered as if
it is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed- by speed
limits, road construction, license revocation, people in Priuses or
drunk driving laws in particular.

In Minnesota, a $10 "wheelage tax" was added to new car registrations
and renewals to make up for the drop in revenue that resulted from (1)
improved gas mileage and (2) reduced average miles driven per year.
Many of the inveterate drivers are aging out of the active driving pool
and a lot of millenials don't own cars in urban areas- they ride bikes,
walk, use transit, Uber/Lyft it or do rentals by the hour or fraction
thereof. When gas hit $4.00+ pe gallon, I noted a local surge in people
riding their bikes to work and for errands and a marked increase in fuel
efficient vehicles. Those trends only partially reversed when the price
of gas dropped to practically historic lows.

Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.

Good article. I guess the lobbyists and vested interested haven't
gotten to Dr Gottlieb yet.

Of course they have. Whether you think the lobbyists and vested
interests have gotten to any particular commentator depends on which
lobbyists and vested interests have gotten to *you*. We all accept or
reject ideas and information based on our prejudices and few of us are
open to changing our beliefs. The funny thing there is that holding to
our prejudices makes us feel strong, but in fact robs us of our power to
a great extent. The people who pick our government are the very small
segment of the population that goes back and forth from one election
cycle to the next.

Stands to reason that first you should define the problem correctly

True as far as it goes; what again was the "problem" of cycling, Andre?

The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
financial. Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

Bicycling is already an economical alternative to driving by at least an
order of magnitude when comparing a mid-range bike with a mid-range car.
Operating costs of a bike are a tiny fraction of the operating costs of
a car, even when factoring the stupidly high prices of consumables like
bike tires (why do bike tires cost about the same as car tires with 500
times more rubber in them?).

The car I just bought listed at about 1/3 of the price I paid for my
house in 1993. My house has appreciated (according to my property tax
statement, which rivals Tolkien in the fantasy genre) to be worth three
times what I paid for it; my car won't appreciate. I could buy about 6
of my very most expensive bike- which was a silly amount of money to
spend- for the cost of my car.

What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so (I've
been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really don't
know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000? Economics are not
really the carrot one might hope for. People do not make choices in an
economically coherent fashion.

On 8/15/2017 1:20 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:

Bicycling is already an economical alternative to driving by at least an
order of magnitude when comparing a mid-range bike with a mid-range car.
Operating costs of a bike are a tiny fraction of the operating costs of
a car, even when factoring the stupidly high prices of consumables like
bike tires...

What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so (I've
been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really don't
know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000? Economics are not
really the carrot one might hope for. People do not make choices in an
economically coherent fashion.

I think you're using too restrictive a definition of "economic." Yours
seems to be counting only dollars. But at least in some discussions
"economics" is used to describe human behavior in response to benefits
and detriments in general, not just when counting dollars. (The
_Freakonomics_ series of books goes into this idea in detail.)

While I'm staunchly in favor of bicycling, I think American society
practically mandates owning an automobile, at least for well over 90% of
households. I'll bicycle to the grocery store today, but I'll be making
a 120 mile round trip in a few days, then a much longer round trip a few
days after that. In each of those cases I know no practical alternative
to driving the car.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:20:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/15/2017 1:20 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:

Bicycling is already an economical alternative to driving by at least
an order of magnitude when comparing a mid-range bike with a
mid-range car. Operating costs of a bike are a tiny fraction of the
operating costs of a car, even when factoring the stupidly high
prices of consumables like bike tires...

What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so
(I've been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really
don't know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000?
Economics are not really the carrot one might hope for. People do
not make choices in an economically coherent fashion.

I think you're using too restrictive a definition of "economic." Yours
seems to be counting only dollars. But at least in some discussions
"economics" is used to describe human behavior in response to benefits
and detriments in general, not just when counting dollars. (The
_Freakonomics_ series of books goes into this idea in detail.)

OK, you make a good point. I was thinking strictly dollars. But a 20
minute drive to work versus an hour bike ride or a 1 1/2 hour bus ride
has definite value that influences decisions. Or being able to bring
home a week's work of groceries in one's car versus maybe a day or two
by bike. If one lives in a compact city with broadly available bike
infrastrucure- Copenhagen, for example- it changes those aspects of
economics in ways that won't happen for many people in LA, Chicago, etc.

While I'm staunchly in favor of bicycling, I think American society
practically mandates owning an automobile, at least for well over 90%
of households. I'll bicycle to the grocery store today, but I'll be
making a 120 mile round trip in a few days, then a much longer round
trip a few days after that. In each of those cases I know no
practical alternative to driving the car.

Yes, most Americans live in cities and most US cities are socially
engineered to make it very difficult to live without a car.

On 8/16/2017 9:12 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:20:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/15/2017 1:20 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:

Bicycling is already an economical alternative to driving by at least
an order of magnitude when comparing a mid-range bike with a
mid-range car. Operating costs of a bike are a tiny fraction of the
operating costs of a car, even when factoring the stupidly high
prices of consumables like bike tires...

What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so
(I've been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really
don't know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000?
Economics are not really the carrot one might hope for. People do
not make choices in an economically coherent fashion.

I think you're using too restrictive a definition of "economic." Yours
seems to be counting only dollars. But at least in some discussions
"economics" is used to describe human behavior in response to benefits
and detriments in general, not just when counting dollars. (The
_Freakonomics_ series of books goes into this idea in detail.)

OK, you make a good point. I was thinking strictly dollars. But a 20
minute drive to work versus an hour bike ride or a 1 1/2 hour bus ride
has definite value that influences decisions. Or being able to bring
home a week's work of groceries in one's car versus maybe a day or two
by bike.

More on that aspect of benefits & detriments: It occurs to me that I
view bicycling (at least over moderate distances) far differently than
the typical American.

Before retirement, I thought "I get to ride my bike to work." I liked it
because I liked pretty much all bicycling (well, except in the rain),
and because it kept me in shape for more bicycling. It also put me in a
better mood all day. Similarly, I ride my bike to the grocery store
because it's fun for me and my wife, and we go the "long" way both to
enjoy a pleasant route and to get a few more miles.

So for me, riding is a benefit. I "get" to do it. For most Americans,
riding would be a detriment if they "had" to do it.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Tim McNamara writes:

[ ... ]

The car I just bought listed at about 1/3 of the price I paid for my
house in 1993. My house has appreciated (according to my property tax
statement, which rivals Tolkien in the fantasy genre) to be worth three
times what I paid for it; my car won't appreciate. I could buy about 6
of my very most expensive bike- which was a silly amount of money to
spend- for the cost of my car.

What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so (I've
been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really don't
know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000? Economics are not
really the carrot one might hope for. People do not make choices in an
economically coherent fashion.

Many people in the US literally don't care what their car costs, they
only care about the monthly payment. An increasing number of cars are
never paid off. This is, of course, insane, but that's how it is.

A small increase in the cost of fuel, insurance, parking, or tolls is
much more likely to lead to a change in behavior than a large increase
in the cost of a new car.


--

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:33:38 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

[ ... ]

The car I just bought listed at about 1/3 of the price I paid for my
house in 1993. My house has appreciated (according to my property
tax statement, which rivals Tolkien in the fantasy genre) to be worth
three times what I paid for it; my car won't appreciate. I could buy
about 6 of my very most expensive bike- which was a silly amount of
money to spend- for the cost of my car.

What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so
(I've been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really
don't know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000?
Economics are not really the carrot one might hope for. People do
not make choices in an economically coherent fashion.

Many people in the US literally don't care what their car costs, they
only care about the monthly payment. An increasing number of cars are
never paid off. This is, of course, insane, but that's how it is.

A small increase in the cost of fuel, insurance, parking, or tolls is
much more likely to lead to a change in behavior than a large increase
in the cost of a new car.

Huh. That's an interesting notion. I had not thought about it, because
I don't do this myself, but many people only plan to own a car 2-4
years. Then they trade it in or sell it, getting a replacement vehicle.
With that kind of approach, paying off the loan is moot. For that
matter, leasing rather than buying is a viable option.

I kept my first car 7 years (and it was totalled or I would have kept it
longer), my second and third cars 13 years each (and the third car was
11 years old when I bought it). My fourth car was bought 2 years used
and was a VW diesel, sold back to VW but I had been intending to keep
that at least 10 years. Now I have a new replacement and expect to have
that at least 10 years. That should get me to 68 at which point who
knows what the car market is going to look like. I am hoping for a
fully viable electric with five minute charging and a 400 mile range. I
could get away with an electric car with a 65 mile range now for all my
commuting needs, or a Chevy Volt. I thought real hard about that
option.

Or maybe I'll just ride my bike then.

And not only does that approach apply to cars but also to houses (people
often buy without the intent of making it their lifelong home, unlike my
parents' generation or me) and to credit cards. Readily available debt
changes the math a lot. Many/most business cannot survive without debt;
farmers cannot survive without debt; perhaps half of Americans have
credit card debt they will never pay off and will die owing tens of
thousands of dollars. That's one of the three big looming economy
killers: mass defaults in the housing loan market (again), credit card
market and student loan market.

On 8/16/2017 9:24 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:33:38 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

[ ... ]

The car I just bought listed at about 1/3 of the price I paid for my
house in 1993. My house has appreciated (according to my property
tax statement, which rivals Tolkien in the fantasy genre) to be worth
three times what I paid for it; my car won't appreciate. I could buy
about 6 of my very most expensive bike- which was a silly amount of
money to spend- for the cost of my car.

What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so
(I've been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really
don't know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000?
Economics are not really the carrot one might hope for. People do
not make choices in an economically coherent fashion.

Many people in the US literally don't care what their car costs, they
only care about the monthly payment. An increasing number of cars are
never paid off. This is, of course, insane, but that's how it is.

A small increase in the cost of fuel, insurance, parking, or tolls is
much more likely to lead to a change in behavior than a large increase
in the cost of a new car.

Huh. That's an interesting notion. I had not thought about it, because
I don't do this myself, but many people only plan to own a car 2-4
years. Then they trade it in or sell it, getting a replacement vehicle.
With that kind of approach, paying off the loan is moot. For that
matter, leasing rather than buying is a viable option.

I kept my first car 7 years (and it was totalled or I would have kept it
longer), my second and third cars 13 years each (and the third car was
11 years old when I bought it). My fourth car was bought 2 years used
and was a VW diesel, sold back to VW but I had been intending to keep
that at least 10 years. Now I have a new replacement and expect to have
that at least 10 years. That should get me to 68 at which point who
knows what the car market is going to look like. I am hoping for a
fully viable electric with five minute charging and a 400 mile range. I
could get away with an electric car with a 65 mile range now for all my
commuting needs, or a Chevy Volt. I thought real hard about that
option.

Or maybe I'll just ride my bike then.

And not only does that approach apply to cars but also to houses (people
often buy without the intent of making it their lifelong home, unlike my
parents' generation or me) and to credit cards. Readily available debt
changes the math a lot. Many/most business cannot survive without debt;
farmers cannot survive without debt; perhaps half of Americans have
credit card debt they will never pay off and will die owing tens of
thousands of dollars. That's one of the three big looming economy
killers: mass defaults in the housing loan market (again), credit card
market and student loan market.

Two followups:

1) Our habits match. The car I sold last year was 26 years old. I'd
owned it for 18 years. We've had this house for over 35 years. I'm what
the credit card companies call a "freeloader." My favorite bike is 31
years old. And so on.

2) About debt: The Wendell Barry novel _Jayber Crow_ was mainly a sort
of platonic love story, set in a rural area experiencing changing times.
It touched in part on the conflict between traditional vs. modern ideas
regarding debt for farmers. There were also some plot aspects regarding
government interference in a tiny private business, the effects of the
above on relationships within a community, etc. I thought it was a
beautiful book.

--
- Frank Krygowski

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
financial.

No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now
mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they
travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time.

Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

I’d bet against that. Even if you gave free bikes to everyone who
wanted one, most people would still prefer to sit on their ass in
traffic and scream at other cars.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly