Making America into Amsterdam

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:42:24 -0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

As I previously said, if one has a bike one doesn't need a car :-)

I'm not the "one" that can do it. I've previously mentioned my
attempts to do service calls on my bicycle. The technical problems
were easy. The stupid problem (strange bus transport rules,
unattended security, parts thieves, and potential damage to
electronics going over bumps) were not so easy.

I live about 1 mile from the main highway up a mostly paved road.
Checking Google Earth, there is an elevation rise of 465 ft. Average
slope is therefo
465 / 5280 = 8.8%
I can barely ride a bicycle up the hill. I find myself walking quite
often. I could not even imagine climbing the hill with a trailer full
of groceries, much less hauling a refrigerator (250-350 lbs). To be
fair, 50 years ago, I might have been able to do it, but not today.

It might be possible to survive without a car if the roads were all
flat, but in my area, very little is flat.



--
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 Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 9:15:39 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:42:24 -0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

As I previously said, if one has a bike one doesn't need a car :-)

I'm not the "one" that can do it. I've previously mentioned my
attempts to do service calls on my bicycle. The technical problems
were easy. The stupid problem (strange bus transport rules,
unattended security, parts thieves, and potential damage to
electronics going over bumps) were not so easy.

I live about 1 mile from the main highway up a mostly paved road.
Checking Google Earth, there is an elevation rise of 465 ft. Average
slope is therefo
465 / 5280 = 8.8%
I can barely ride a bicycle up the hill. I find myself walking quite
often. I could not even imagine climbing the hill with a trailer full
of groceries, much less hauling a refrigerator (250-350 lbs). To be
fair, 50 years ago, I might have been able to do it, but not today.

It might be possible to survive without a car if the roads were all
flat, but in my area, very little is flat.

Correction: "As I previously said, if one has [an e-]bike one doesn't need a car :-)"

John B. is just baiting Joerg anyway. It's all about being the rugged individualist in a suburban California golf course community and surviving on two wheels while the rest of the world drives a car, etc., etc. (fill in stories of gnarly trails, mountain lions and beer). I've never seen any foreigner so take to the Western myth. I'm rouging it on the 9th hole! Or I'm in the rough -- one of those things. Circle the golf carts!

-- Jay Beattie.

AMuzi writes:

Viet Minh moved mountain guns (designed for mule
transport) up mountains on jungle paths
with bicycles.

While nobody can take that away from them, one has to
wonder how much transport in today's Vietnam is
carried out on bicycles, and what the social status is
of doing that compared to the use of motor vehicles in
the eyes of the common Vietnamese?

China for example, once the bicycle country number one
in the world, I think today it is only used by them
not being able to afford to do it otherwise.

The public health, accident toll, and environment
impact of this paradigm shift isn't clear to a lot of
people - because of the smog.

--
underground experts exiled
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

On 2018-07-24 12:33, Emanuel Berg wrote:
AMuzi writes:

Viet Minh moved mountain guns (designed for mule
transport) up mountains on jungle paths
with bicycles.

While nobody can take that away from them, one has to
wonder how much transport in today's Vietnam is
carried out on bicycles, and what the social status is
of doing that compared to the use of motor vehicles in
the eyes of the common Vietnamese?


Not many bicycles left:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33DbB2YjbiM


China for example, once the bicycle country number one
in the world, I think today it is only used by them
not being able to afford to do it otherwise.

The public health, accident toll, and environment
impact of this paradigm shift isn't clear to a lot of
people - because of the smog.


The young invincible ones never think about that. After all, lung cancer
can't happen to them.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:01:59 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 23/07/2018 9:07 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:56:02 -0400, Duane
snip
We'll see what happens. Last year they added the 1 or 1.5m passing rule
and increased fines for dooring. But as far as I can determine, no one
has been fined for these things.


I read about the 1 M (1.5 M) rule but has anyone been convicted under
that law?

Unless one either has measuring sticks mounted on the vehicle (Or
rider) or wants to accept a by-stander's estimate, I can't see how the
law can be enforced.

Didn't I just say that no one has been fined?

As far a enforcement, it's pretty easy IMO. The guy that passed me 2"
from my elbow in plain sight of the cop was obviously in violation.

The idea that you need to know the exact distance is a red herring.
It's the close passes that concern most people. Not whether it was 970
cm or 1.0 meters.

I suggest that if your law says "1 meter" or "3 feet" the law will be
interpreted as such. Not "well officer, it was about awful close".

At least that was what happened soon after "radar guns" became
popular. Some bloke in Long Island, or thereabouts, demonstrated to
the court that the tuning procedures used by the police was incorrect.
All the convictions to date were appealed and chucked out the window
:-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:01:59 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 23/07/2018 9:07 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:56:02 -0400, Duane
snip
We'll see what happens. Last year they added the 1 or 1.5m passing rule
and increased fines for dooring. But as far as I can determine, no one
has been fined for these things.


I read about the 1 M (1.5 M) rule but has anyone been convicted under
that law?

Unless one either has measuring sticks mounted on the vehicle (Or
rider) or wants to accept a by-stander's estimate, I can't see how the
law can be enforced.

Didn't I just say that no one has been fined?

As far a enforcement, it's pretty easy IMO. The guy that passed me 2"
from my elbow in plain sight of the cop was obviously in violation.

The idea that you need to know the exact distance is a red herring.
It's the close passes that concern most people. Not whether it was 970
cm or 1.0 meters.

I suggest that if your law says "1 meter" or "3 feet" the law will be
interpreted as such. Not "well officer, it was about awful close".

At least that was what happened soon after "radar guns" became
popular. Some bloke in Long Island, or thereabouts, demonstrated to
the court that the tuning procedures used by the police was incorrect.
All the convictions to date were appealed and chucked out the window
:-)
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cops have cameras here. It’s less a question about making it stick and
more a question of the will to give a damn in my opinion.

--
duane

On 7/24/2018 5:50 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-24 12:33, Emanuel Berg wrote:
AMuzi writes:

Viet Minh moved mountain guns (designed for mule
transport) up mountains on jungle paths
with bicycles.

While nobody can take that away from them, one has to
wonder how much transport in today's Vietnam is
carried out on bicycles, and what the social status is
of doing that compared to the use of motor vehicles in
the eyes of the common Vietnamese?


Not many bicycles left:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33DbB2YjbiM

I've read in several different places that as soon as people in any
country get enough money, they want motorized transport.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:00:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/23/2018 8:27 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:13:21 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-22 21:44, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 20:32:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

But, I wonder. Isn't most bike riding primarily recreation. I'm sure
it is, at least here.


When I lived in the Netherlands it sure wasn't. For me, now in the US,
it is partially for sports and training (not so much recreation) but
there are also plenty of utility rides. Like the ride today.


In Bangkok, because of the traffic I ride really in the morning, about
the time that a bloke might be setting off for the office and I do,
occasionally see people that seem heading for work, but I see far more
that just seem out for a ride.

Now, I am aware that there are individuals who have and do ride to
work but I would also have to say that an anomaly doesn't necessarily
prove a point. The fact that a certain number of people up in the N.W.
corner of the U.S. enjoy riding in the rain (they must the only times
I have ever been in the Sea-Tac area it rained) isn't necessarily
proof positive that an equal number of folks are riding to work in
Nome, Alaska, or Dry Prong, Louisiana.

Now, I am aware that people do ride a bicycle to the shop to get a can
of beans but these same people have one or two cars in the garage.


We do have two cars in the garage. Each sees around 1000mi/year. I
assume you can guess why those numbers are so low, mine used to be much
higher.


Before feeling too virtuous have a look at the Bayley's pages. they
ride between 10,000 and 14,000 (Pamela) or 17,000 (John) miles
annually and apparently have never owned a car.


If the bicycles are for work, what are the cars for?


Have you ever tried to haul half a ton of wood pellets, firewood,
construction lumber and whatnot on a bicycle, uphill? With uphill I mean
some serious hills.

Why ever not? Small loads and many trips, just as you would if you
were walking. The argument, "OH! It is too big for my bike", is just
that an argument for using the car.



And before anyone argues "I gotta have a car" I remind you that Frank,
and undoubtedly many others, have ridden from one side of the country
to the other... on a bicycle. Good Lord, Lewis and Clark walked!

I need a car indeed.


That depends on your transportation needs. I even carry machine parts to
clients via bicycle. However, if they are too large or heavy I use the SUV.

Yet, some years ago someone - maybe Andrew - posted a photo of someone
hauling his new fridge home on a trailer, behind his bicycle. Are your
large and heavy parts larger then a household refrigerator?
I've seen farmers in Indonesia hauling 400 Kg. on a bicycle. Do your
parts weigh more then 400 kg?

This is not a black and white matter. It makes sense to have different
kinds of vehicles but to prefer the ones that improve personal fitness
and are better for the environment where possible. "Possible" is the
salient word here.

Viet Minh moved mountain guns (designed for mule transport)
up mountains on jungle paths with bicycles.

While that is likely it hardly describes the Viet Minh logistics
system accurately. When the Dien Bien Phu Siege opened the Viets had
some 100,000 "transportation workers" at the battle site and some 400
trucks.

In contrast, a good friend (5th Special Forces) was out in the bush
supposedly interdicting the so called "Ho Chi Minh Trail" required
helicopter re supply about once a week while the Viets who were using
the trail required no re supply as they were carrying it all on their
back.... all the way from N. Vietnam.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 21:33:31 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

AMuzi writes:

Viet Minh moved mountain guns (designed for mule
transport) up mountains on jungle paths
with bicycles.

While nobody can take that away from them, one has to
wonder how much transport in today's Vietnam is
carried out on bicycles, and what the social status is
of doing that compared to the use of motor vehicles in
the eyes of the common Vietnamese?

Considerably less :-) A process I've observed in every developing
country in S.E.A. is the transportation cycle. Initially people walked
and carried their goods, whether in their arms or with carrying poles.
As the economy improves people buy bicycle and can carry more. A bit
more increase and they buy a small motorcycle and finally a truck.

As for social status. Depending on the phase of the development those
who own a bicycle, motorcycle, small truck, are seen as "rich people"
and in an Asian country that is the only description necessary.


China for example, once the bicycle country number one
in the world, I think today it is only used by them
not being able to afford to do it otherwise.

The public health, accident toll, and environment
impact of this paradigm shift isn't clear to a lot of
people - because of the smog.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:41:08 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-23 18:27, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:13:21 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-22 21:44, John B. Slocomb wrote:

[...]


In Bangkok, because of the traffic I ride really in the morning, about
the time that a bloke might be setting off for the office and I do,
occasionally see people that seem heading for work, but I see far more
that just seem out for a ride.

Now, I am aware that there are individuals who have and do ride to
work but I would also have to say that an anomaly doesn't necessarily
prove a point. The fact that a certain number of people up in the N.W.
corner of the U.S. enjoy riding in the rain (they must the only times
I have ever been in the Sea-Tac area it rained) isn't necessarily
proof positive that an equal number of folks are riding to work in
Nome, Alaska, or Dry Prong, Louisiana.

Now, I am aware that people do ride a bicycle to the shop to get a can
of beans but these same people have one or two cars in the garage.


We do have two cars in the garage. Each sees around 1000mi/year. I
assume you can guess why those numbers are so low, mine used to be much
higher.


Before feeling too virtuous have a look at the Bayley's pages. they
ride between 10,000 and 14,000 (Pamela) or 17,000 (John) miles
annually and apparently have never owned a car.


If you have everything big delivered that's possible. However, then you
must count the miles and environmental impact of all the delivery vehicles.


If the bicycles are for work, what are the cars for?


Have you ever tried to haul half a ton of wood pellets, firewood,
construction lumber and whatnot on a bicycle, uphill? With uphill I mean
some serious hills.

Why ever not? Small loads and many trips, just as you would if you
were walking. The argument, "OH! It is too big for my bike", is just
that an argument for using the car.


Obviously you have never hauled four cords of firewood from a location
that is 1400ft lower than where you live. That's eight tons.


Quite the opposite. I spent much of my second career transporting
stuff through jungles, up and down hills and through swamps. I'm quite
aware of the effort of moving tons of machinery and equipment up and
down hills.

Or just 30 bags of pellets at 50lbs each. Yeah, you could make 30 trips
while sweating profusely. However, some of us still need to work and
earn money.

You make my point exactly. You could haul the pellets but it would
take a lot of trips and you'd rather use the car.

Or in other words, you didn't need the car, it was a convenience.

And before anyone argues "I gotta have a car" I remind you that Frank,
and undoubtedly many others, have ridden from one side of the country
to the other... on a bicycle. Good Lord, Lewis and Clark walked!

I need a car indeed.


That depends on your transportation needs. I even carry machine parts to
clients via bicycle. However, if they are too large or heavy I use the SUV.

Yet, some years ago someone - maybe Andrew - posted a photo of someone
hauling his new fridge home on a trailer, behind his bicycle. Are your
large and heavy parts larger then a household refrigerator?
I've seen farmers in Indonesia hauling 400 Kg. on a bicycle. Do your
parts weigh more then 400 kg?


I have hauled a bed that couldn't be disassembled, together with a
friend, using two road bikes. We got into a discussion with the
authorities at the border from Germany to the Netherlands. They didn't
want to let us ride on. A wee problem out here is that this would cause
a major traffic jam on a throroughfare. Upon which a sheriff's deputy
would show up.

[...]
--

Cheers,

John B.