"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

Rod Speed wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

wrote:

In article ,
says...

And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.

Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?

Interstates aint freeways.

They are in the USA.


Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.



What is the distinction you are trying to make?

For example, I-10 is certainly an interstate and it is certainly a
freeway as well - it's even known as the Katy Freeway in one town that
it passes through. What makes it an exception?

Or are you going to claim that it stops being a freeway when you leave
town? At what point does it transition from being a freeway into being
an interstate?

Fred G. Mackey wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

wrote:

In article ,
says...

And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.

Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on
Interstates less than sensible, even though the accident rate is
neglible?

Interstates aint freeways.

They are in the USA.


Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.



What is the distinction you are trying to make?

That all freeways ban bikes and that not all interstates are freeways even in the USA.

For example, I-10 is certainly an interstate and it is certainly a
freeway as well - it's even known as the Katy Freeway in one town that it passes through. What
makes it an exception?

I JUST said that interstates aint freeways, not that no interstate is a freeway.

Or are you going to claim that it stops being a freeway when you leave town?

Nope.

At what point does it transition from being a freeway into being an interstate?

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, where bikes are banned.

Rod Speed wrote:
Fred G. Mackey wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:


Rod Speed wrote:


wrote:


In article ,
says...


And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.

Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on
Interstates less than sensible, even though the accident rate is
neglible?

Interstates aint freeways.

They are in the USA.


Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.



What is the distinction you are trying to make?


That all freeways ban bikes and that not all interstates are freeways even in the USA.


Are you thick?

What is the distinction between an interstate and a freeway?


For example, I-10 is certainly an interstate and it is certainly a
freeway as well - it's even known as the Katy Freeway in one town that it passes through. What
makes it an exception?


I JUST said that interstates aint freeways, not that no interstate is a freeway.

And I'm asking you to explain why you think an interstate is NOT a freeway.

What is different about I-10 that makes it a freeway?



Or are you going to claim that it stops being a freeway when you leave town?


Nope.


At what point does it transition from being a freeway into being an interstate?


Irrelevant to what was being discussed, where bikes are banned.



The discussion has turned to trying to understand why you claim that
interstates are not freeways.

Steve Spence wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
says...
And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?
Interstates aint freeways.
They are in the USA.

Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.


I-90 is a interstate, and it ain't free.


Sections of 90 are toll roads but most of it free.
Saying is is not free is like saying I-80 is not free because there is
a toll on the Bay Bridge.

So tell us, Rod, what are your definitions of interstates and
freeways? I will even give you some leeway so you tel us you meant to
say not all interstates are freeways.

Fred G. Mackey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fred G. Mackey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.

Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates less than sensible,
even though the accident rate is neglible?

Interstates aint freeways.

They are in the USA.

Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.

What is the distinction you are trying to make?

That all freeways ban bikes and that not all interstates are freeways even in the USA.

Are you thick?

No need to ask you, you can't even manage the most basic logic.

What is the distinction between an interstate and a freeway?

I never said a word about that.

For example, I-10 is certainly an interstate and it is certainly a freeway as well - it's even
known as the Katy Freeway in one town that it passes through. What makes it an exception?

I JUST said that interstates aint freeways, not that no interstate is a freeway.

And I'm asking you to explain why you think an interstate is NOT a freeway.

I didnt say I did.

What is different about I-10 that makes it a freeway?

I JUST said that interstates aint freeways, not that no interstate is a freeway.

Or are you going to claim that it stops being a freeway when you leave town?

Nope.

At what point does it transition from being a freeway into being an interstate?

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, where bikes are banned.

The discussion has turned to trying to understand why you claim that interstates are not freeways.

Because quite a few interestates aint freeways, stupid.

Bill Baka wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:

You don't want to even try to cut down on coal/oil burning plants?

Sure, but not by using more resources to build solar panels that won't
return the energy (much less the cost) for many years to come.

And it is OK to waste that same Silicon to make tons of
games/gadgets/cell phones!

First, since silicon is essentially sand, I'm not worried about
running out of it any time soon. Second, photocells use a lot more
than the itty bitty little microscopic junctions in most semiconductor
devices (where a single die the size of a small solar panel might
contain hundreds of microprocessor chips). Third, that doesn't
address the amount of energy and resources necessary to build that
solar panel (or the expense, which is really the issue).

Signs of a hard core Repuglican are starting to show.

If by that you mean "pragmatic and practical, rooted firmly in
reality", yup. The fact I agree with others that the solar panels are
no solution at this point is inarguable.

They are not a single, foolproof solution, but we had better start
somewhere.

Ahhhhh, the "do something, anything" approach to solving our problems.
No thanks.

I have a 5" solar panel that powers my portable AM/FM/Shortwave radio
quite nicely. That was a small effort on my part to obtain the
mini-panel to power the radio, even up to LOUD, and I never have to
worry about buying batteries and adding to the dumps overflowing mess of
disposables.

Or you can simply use a radio that's plugged into the wall and
probably consume no more than a few cents worth of electricity a month
to power that portable radio (even at very loud volumes). Try funding
a solar panel on that (after looking up "opportuntity cost" and
understanding the concept, which may be a "Republican thing", of
course, since it's not subject to debate or spin).

It would be very hard to find a plug in at the park my grandkids like to
go to, and I am opposed to disposable batteries.

So do what I did - buy a radio with a crank. Doesn't require leaving
it in the sun all day, and can be recharged any time you like with
just a bit of finger/wrist exercise.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Bill Baka wrote:

Religious people are hopeless.

Yeah, just look at the poor owner and coach of the Colts. A couple
real failures, those two.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:

What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting bike
users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels that I think are
no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!

There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's people
who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way.

How about Philadelphia's "George Platt Bridge"? Narrow lanes and hardly
anyone moving slower than significantly above the posted speed limit!

How about the "Ben Franklin Bridge" between Philadelphia and Camden?
Signs state a restriction of bikes to the walkway which is only open some
hours of the day. One day I hit that bridge behind schedule and cops were
there and they told me I had to wait for a bus or taxi that would take my
bike!

How about the "Walt Whitman Bridge" between southern portion of
Philadelphia and southern portion of Camden, and being a portion of I-76?
I am surely under the impression that this one is "motor vehicles only"!

How about the "Commodore Barry Bridge" crossing the Delaware River a
little ways south of Philadelphia, with a little gritty city on the PA
side with the name of Chester? No walkway, no bikeway, lanes almost
harrowingly narrow, trucks and buses restricted to right lane, and slower
traffic only slightly exceeds the posted 45 MPH speed limit? So
bike-unfriendly that I never checked for "motor vehicles only" signs that
I suspect exist.

- Don Klipstein )

William Souden wrote:
So tell us, Rod, what are your definitions of interstates and
freeways? I will even give you some leeway so you tel us you meant to
say not all interstates are freeways.

Well, it seems to me that he's just being an ass since he refuses to
explain what he means.

I suppose he's talking about interstates which charge tolls. Not living
in New Jersey or states which do that, I wasn't familiar with any. A
google search reveals that tolls CAN be charged on interstates that were
built with state funds prior to the creation of the interstate highway
system.

So a very small percentage (primarily in the NE) of the nearly 50,000
miles interstates cover are allowed to charge tolls.