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

In article ,
wrote:
In article ,
says...
The Real Bev wrote:
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.

I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the
curb. No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough
space to pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is
probably already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody,
and most bicyclists stay off such roads.

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?

Sounds to me that you are considering shoulders. One hazard to cyclists
there is passing cars stopped on the shoulder (easy enough to do by
walking the bike around such cars to the right). Another hazard to
cyclists is cars that just developed emergencies requiring them to pull
out of the traffic onto the shoulder if a shoulder is available - and
drivers handling such emergencies may not be looking out too well for
cyclists on the shoulder. Thirdly, the shoulder does not exist everywhere
- and is lacking on many bridges!

- Don Klipstein )

Some of the suburbs of Vancouver have them. Called Shuttle buses but only
go short distances in town.

Fred G. Mackey wrote:

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

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you actually are that thick.

I suppose he's talking about interstates which charge tolls.

Nope. The free part of freeway has nothing to do with the toll.

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.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

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

Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

Mark Hickey wrote:

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).

More like thousands actually.

Graham

In article , Wayne Pein wrote
in part:

A 2 ft wide bicycle fits just fine no matter how narrow the lane.

I have driven smaller rental trucks on lanes that had at most 6 inches
to each side of the truck!

A bicycle driver need only ride right in the center of the lane.

And hold up traffic? Oh how popular! (SNORT!) Especially given states
having laws telling cyclists to stay at the right edge of the lane they
are in! Oh, I have heard of allowance for cyclists to hog a lane to block
vehicles that the cyclists know cannot safely pass them, but if a cyclist
needs to hog a lane more than briefly for such safety purposes then the
cyclist could easily lose on the road, and again (or the cyclist's next
of kin could lose that next battle) at a resulting jury trial!

The roads are full of slow vehicles such as stopped busses, motor vehicles
completely stopped at stop lights, parked delivery vehicles, front
loaders, bicycles, etc. Motorists can deal with it.

All too many motorists will feel more free to push out of their way a
cyclist than a bus or a UPS/Fedex/mail/etc. truck! Also, motorists don't
mind waiting in line for a light to change so much as they do a slow
vehicle blocking them, much worse still one that sometimes gets in their
way but also passes by them when they are standing still in line waiting
for the light to change!

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:

I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the curb.
No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough space to
pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is probably
already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody, and most
bicyclists stay off such roads.


It's interesting how motorists incriminate themselves by claiming that
slow traffic, and specifically bicycle traffic, causes the danger. As a
motorist, I don't have a problem with slow traffic such as bicycles,
front loaders, stopped busses, cars and delivery vehicles. I think
incompetent motorists should just not drive.

What percentage of motorists do you expect to keep their cool when they
have to slow down a lot for a cyclist, only to see the cyclist keep moving
towards beside the vehicle at the head of the line when the motor vehicles
stop and line up for a red light?

Do you expect so much as 99%? How many weeks or months will the cyclist
live if commuting daily through a narrow bridge or other shoulderless
stretch of road following a trafficlight-controlled intersection if 99.99%
of motor vehicle drivers keep their cool on the shoulderless stretch when
slowed down by 20-25 MPH by a cyclist that passed them when they were in a
line 1/4-1/2 mile before waiting for the light to turn green?

- Don Klipstein )

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Feb 3, 4:35 pm, Bill Baka wrote:

So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are
causing Armageddon!
That isn't too unreasonable since they are also the ones whom God (the
pope) told to have as many kids as possible so they would need a big van
(SUV) to carry them all over the place.

I see. So it may be God that made people to ride SUVs. But since we
know that the Devil is disguised as God, we may as well see Satan at
work. You know, there's so much camouflage in religious afffairs...

HOW GOD WAS TEMPTED

One day the Devil, having heard about that incredible story of turning
the other cheek, slapped God in order to make him fall into
temptation... And He, without hesitation, turned the other cheek...
Another day, escalating the provocations, the Devil pitched Him a
brick, but God only smiled... Until, tired of wasting his time, the
Devil had an idea: He would dress like another god...

And that's how God, who wouldn't tolerate other gods, became so mad
that He declared war against the Devil...

So now Earth is a war zone???

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
fluffy bunny wrote:

In article ,
Wayne Pein wrote:


Further, any bus with a
bike rack on it is heavier and thus gets worse gas mileage than one that
doesn't whether it gets used for carrying a bike or not.


fair enough. Now stop waving your hands near the screen and show us
your calculations quantifying the relative energy costs of
two cyclists driving two cars vs:
one bus driving w/o the two cyclists or rack
vs. one bus w/o cyclists but with a rack
vs. cyclists riding the bus w/ bikes on the rack


Why don't you?

Why don't you carry a bus bike rack on your head along an entire bus
route. That'll give you a headache and make you respect how much energy
is required.

If that rack gets just one car replaced by a bike for commuting
along/near the bus route on a daily basis, I see energy savings even if
the bus has to carry the rack all day and one bike a few miles daily!

- Don Klipstein )

Mark Hickey wrote:
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

What. Only one example. That makes my case.
Bill Baka

Don Klipstein wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:
fluffy bunny wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote:

Further, any bus with a
bike rack on it is heavier and thus gets worse gas mileage than one that
doesn't whether it gets used for carrying a bike or not.

fair enough. Now stop waving your hands near the screen and show us
your calculations quantifying the relative energy costs of
two cyclists driving two cars vs:
one bus driving w/o the two cyclists or rack
vs. one bus w/o cyclists but with a rack
vs. cyclists riding the bus w/ bikes on the rack


Why don't you?

Why don't you carry a bus bike rack on your head along an entire bus
route. That'll give you a headache and make you respect how much energy
is required.

If that rack gets just one car replaced by a bike for commuting
along/near the bus route on a daily basis, I see energy savings even if
the bus has to carry the rack all day and one bike a few miles daily!

Where is this bike rack ?

Graham