A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FLU



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 27th 17, 04:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,607
Default FLU

On 2017-11-26 18:46, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/26/2017 12:49 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 09:48, wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 9:03:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-25 16:30,
wrote:

goo.gl/CshRPR

assuming your superior healthy is an error ...


It isn't an error.


... around you people are not...

the 'satellite city' boom grew more high towers

I assume one n 2 stories are cheaper

nice photo couldn't find a view north of NYC

http://mossien.com/wp-content/upload...chester_NY.jpg



No ten horses would get me to live there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

no no no the local pop's health. who gives a damn abt your health.


I do. If someone choses to smoke which rural folks often do that isn't
my problem, it's theirs.


If rural life is so wonderful, what drives those people to ruin their
lives by getting into their "long term substance abuse problems" that
you mentioned?


Faulty government rules (tell'em pot is "harmless", let's grab those
extra taxes!), peer pressure, sometimes boredom. None of this applies to
us or any of our neighbors.


FWIW: When I was about 30 years old I thought it would be wonderful to
live a rural life. I'm extremely glad that I chose otherwise.


100% opposite here. Same for my wife who grew up in a huge metropolis
and never ever wants to go back to that sort of living.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #32  
Old November 27th 17, 04:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,607
Default FLU

On 2017-11-26 18:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/26/2017 12:29 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 09:16, AMuzi wrote:


This is a false dichotomy in that all of it can be true and likely is.
Choice is good, neither city nor rural life being perfect and humans
being by their nature a diverse lot.


Though as humans we need to recognize when we are damaging our bodies
and the denser the area the more that will happen. This is also why
I'll never understand people who say "Away with cycle paths, bicycles
belong on the road". I find that, sorry to say, stupid. Why would
anyone in their right mind want to travel alongside noisy and
polluting combustion engines buzzing by?


Another false dichotomy. Riding on the road does not mean ingesting
significant pollution. Several studies have shown that even in city
traffic, cyclists ingest less pollution than motor vehicle operators.
Other studies have shown that bicycle commuters live far longer than
those commuting by other means.


Ah yes, you have a magic energy shield around you so the fumes part
right in front of your face. Phhht. I can literally smell just about any
Diesel that comes by.

Cars have HEPA filters and a cocoon-like innard in whcih the operator
resideth, bicycles ... don't.


Besides, almost all of my riding involves relatively little traffic even
though I rarely use bike paths. I enjoy riding quiet roads, where I may
be passed by fewer than 20 cars per hour. But even on utility trips in
the city or its suburbs, I can usually choose quieter streets. On our
runs to the grocery store, we choose a route that gives us six miles
round trip. We'll typically be passed by only a dozen cars.


Good luck trying that where a metropolis is 30mi or closer. I sometimes
have to ride during rush our and then it's almost bumper to bumper.


I suppose in some idealistic theory, we could convince the government to
build a separate bike trail between our house and that grocery. But what
if we need to get to the library instead? Or the pharmacy? Or the
hardware store? Or the doctor's office? Or my best friend's house?
Should I stay off my bike until the government builds separate paths to
each of those places, plus all the others I want to visit?


If you move to a place such as Folsom, chances are you will find bike
facilities to all of those or at least for the major part of the ride.
Which is why I prefer to do my errand rides there and not in other
communities. So do others. Which results in higher sales tax collections
there. Which results in even better bike path coverage. Which causes
more people to move there. Which ...


Sorry, Joerg. I chose instead to learn to ride on the roads, and I do so
in perfect comfort and safety. You should try that. https://abea.bike/
Even you can learn to do it.


I know how to ride.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #33  
Old November 27th 17, 04:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,607
Default FLU

On 2017-11-26 16:16, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 1:30:19 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 12:11, jbeattie wrote:


[...]


These are ordinary city dwellers who actually ride and who
account for an appreciable share of traffic. They also do
super-gnarly weekend rides where they get to jump in puddles and
drink beer!

BTW, I was flying with my brother yesterday in one of his planes.
He doesn't work on that plane because it has a RR jet turbine
engine -- not something for the home mechanic.



No, and he must be super rich if that's just one of his planes.
Attorney?


Airline captain. His day job is flying Dreamliners. The second plane
is a Cessna 421. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_421 The turbo
prop is a modified Cessna 210. https://tinyurl.com/y9v5ctsl Both are
pressurized because he lives in Denver and frequently flies over the
Rockies with dogs -- rescuing them from various places. He buys used
planes, as do most plane owners.


That's usually a very high-paid job. The first owner of our house who
had it custom-built was a Pan Am pilot and that shows. Serious quality
and stuff that generally wasn't seen in the US in 1970 such as an indoor
barbecue alcove, radiant heat in the floors, phone outlet at the pool,
first attempts at structured wiring and so on. He also had a nice plane
with retractable gear to fly to his job.

[...]


Since when is Cameron Park "country living."



Since pretty much forever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfqa_fXf-DE


Yes, and I can link to trails in Portland fifteen minutes by bike
from my high-rise, cement, steel and glass tower of urban decay and
sickness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu7494oIWcc&t=13s



Nice video. We have a long singletrack going right through the village
and connects to other bike path systems. Trails out here are a bit more
scenic, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y38JzV-ueXI

What I am saying is that Cameron Park has a lot of country living. You
can buy 10-acre properties here with horse stables and all, plus ride
your horse or MTB onto a trial that runs right past your property.

We do not want to live in a high-rise. We want to be able to walk out
the front door and barbecue right there. Even in the driving rain under
a large overhang like we did with bread, ribs and sausages yesterday,
over a real wood fire (not store-bought charcoal). There is no way to
achieve that sort of taste with any indoor appliance. Try that on the
balcony of your high-rise and they'll send the goons out.


... Speaking
of Denver, it has an incredible system of paved and unpaved bike
lanes, although it is too far away from the Rockies for me. I'd
rather be in Golden or Boulder.



Hurricane in Utah would be an example of the largest size of community
I'd consider for a move.


... It's a f***** synthetic community built around a golf course
within commuting distance of SAC. It's a commuter suburb. It's
everything bad about land use and planning in California. It's a
virus. I'd be ashamed to live there. You should move to a real
town -- maybe Hurricane, UT or some other moonscape where the
rugged individuals know how to fix a flat!



Hurricane is precisely one of the areas on our radar for a
potential retirement move. St.George is too large for me but the
surrounding places are nice.


Hurricane is nice compared to the lunar surface. Zion is not close
enough. I'd live in SLC but for the winter smog -- from wood burning
stoves, among other things. The canyons are awesome for riding and
skiing.

There may be some place in the Southwest I'd consider -- but there is
no way I could acclimate to the Mesquite/Hurricane area. I could live
in a Sonoran desert but not a Nevada nuke site. I'm also not going to
live a zillion miles from an international airport. You're a
convenient drive to SAC. Wait until its four or five hours to a real
airport.


That doesn't matter anymore. Last year it happened for the first time
and this year for the second, where the number of business flights was
zero. I can consult and even modify drawings on other people's computers
thousands of miles away. I can even operate tools such as an
oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer sitting at the other ocean. If
something is really tricky and I need to work on a prototype myself
there is Fedex.

[...]


Portland is too rainy and cold for us. Also, when moving for
retirement I'll make 110% sure we won't get into another liberal
state. Which is why California would be out for that purpose and so
is Oregon. Now Idaho would be nice but too cold for my wife.


Alabama is for you. I'm not tied to Portland and expect to leave one
day, but I'm not moving to some **** hole with supposed
right-thinking people. Washington is income tax free. Live in White
Salmon and ski/ride on Hood.
http://www.blainefranger.com/blog/up..._HoodRiver.jpg



I have spend lots of time in WA state. Would be fine for me but too cold
for her.


PDX is an hour away, and I can cross the bridge and hang-out with the

hipsters in Hood River. And PDX is an hour away so my wife and I can
travel to some place warm when it gets dreary.


That what people in WA did a lot. When major purchases were contemplated
they borrowed or rented a truck nad headed to OR because no sales tax.
Even though it was a long ride from north Kirkland and other places of
Seattle.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #34  
Old November 27th 17, 06:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default FLU

Portland is like Hawaii ! Ceptin the rain ... Sometimes...

FLA pre condo 1985 AAA... 1952 out sight Seychelles...clear water...Ford/Edison

Finding a place is easy...go mobile. Finding security in a place ? $$$$$$$

There are AAA places but $$$$$$$ is necessary for cultural isolation. Yawl cannah move into Harlem without AAA.

I long for 19th C hayfield n woods clear streams ... n 21 C Civ Tech

Fla is AAA. But mosquito control is difficult. I'm at winter Yuma relishing clean air.

Bicycling AAA but dangerous.

I would tour Internet suggested areas.

Best deal is go mobile.. Class A motorcoach N-S seasonal. Ford GT

J's diagnosis is J is a burbian.

But why then move ? Many want to move into J but only Cals move to Portland.

My view is NE Ivy ...I'm the kid in the TV Xmas commercials..really freaky stuff no ? Great ride

Ask Cresswell
  #35  
Old November 27th 17, 06:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,607
Default FLU

On 2017-11-26 16:08, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 08:07:27 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-26 07:18, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/25/2017 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-25 12:51, wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-7,

wrote:
the foil joke may prevent you from arranging with/into your
environment

try this ... if foil was a component then why not .... ?

J this is an older German architectural/psych concept:
terracotta
buildings are healthier than steel reinforced concrete
...a much
larger off the ground scale

I cannot locate current info on the net


Steel re-enforced in most cases means some big residential
highrise in a congested area. No wonder that those people
are or feel less healthy. I have never understood the desire
of city folk to cram together like sardines in a can.


Try an intro Anthropology book some time.
Before The Inter Webs, close proximity promoted exchange of ideas and
specialization of effort. Still does to some extent.


It does, though specialization is not always a good thing. It results,
for example, in people who can't even fix a flat. Their tool of fixing
just about anything is the yellow pages.

As for health, dense living results in lot of civilization diseases,
higher stress levels and nowadays lung diseases because of pollution.
Probably also more cancer. Just about every time I reach the top of the
last hill to ride into the Sacramento Valley I see that brownish smog
line and I am thankful not to have to live down there. Other times I can
literally smell it.


I'm not so sure about the higher stress levels. I grew in a rural
village in New England and have lived in cities like Miami Fl, Tokyo,
Japan, Jakarta Indonesia and Bangkok Thailand and to be frank I have
never felt any stress from living in cities.



Such stress is often subconscious and not openly felt but it's there.
Honking, screeching tires, hustle and bustle, police sirens, general
traffic noise in the city ... versus tranquility, bird chirping, gentle
leaf rustling, rooster crowing in the country. It has been studied
scientifically many times.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1106...l/474429a.html

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #36  
Old November 27th 17, 08:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,488
Default FLU

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 9:38:12 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 16:08, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 08:07:27 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-26 07:18, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/25/2017 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-25 12:51, wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-7,

wrote:
the foil joke may prevent you from arranging with/into your
environment

try this ... if foil was a component then why not .... ?

J this is an older German architectural/psych concept:
terracotta
buildings are healthier than steel reinforced concrete
...a much
larger off the ground scale

I cannot locate current info on the net


Steel re-enforced in most cases means some big residential
highrise in a congested area. No wonder that those people
are or feel less healthy. I have never understood the desire
of city folk to cram together like sardines in a can.


Try an intro Anthropology book some time.
Before The Inter Webs, close proximity promoted exchange of ideas and
specialization of effort. Still does to some extent.


It does, though specialization is not always a good thing. It results,
for example, in people who can't even fix a flat. Their tool of fixing
just about anything is the yellow pages.

As for health, dense living results in lot of civilization diseases,
higher stress levels and nowadays lung diseases because of pollution.
Probably also more cancer. Just about every time I reach the top of the
last hill to ride into the Sacramento Valley I see that brownish smog
line and I am thankful not to have to live down there. Other times I can
literally smell it.


I'm not so sure about the higher stress levels. I grew in a rural
village in New England and have lived in cities like Miami Fl, Tokyo,
Japan, Jakarta Indonesia and Bangkok Thailand and to be frank I have
never felt any stress from living in cities.



Such stress is often subconscious and not openly felt but it's there.
Honking, screeching tires, hustle and bustle, police sirens, general
traffic noise in the city ... versus tranquility, bird chirping, gentle
leaf rustling, rooster crowing in the country. It has been studied
scientifically many times.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1106...l/474429a.html


Population pressures can cause stress, but remote, sparsely populated areas can be stressful, too, and some places are simply alienating -- socially and visually.

And there are dangers of living in a truly remote area. It is like skiing out of bounds. If you get hurt, you better have a beacon and an evacuation strategy.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #37  
Old November 27th 17, 09:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,077
Default FLU

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:15:34 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 18:46, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/26/2017 12:49 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 09:48, wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 9:03:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-25 16:30,
wrote:

goo.gl/CshRPR

assuming your superior healthy is an error ...


It isn't an error.


... around you people are not...

the 'satellite city' boom grew more high towers

I assume one n 2 stories are cheaper

nice photo couldn't find a view north of NYC

http://mossien.com/wp-content/upload...chester_NY.jpg



No ten horses would get me to live there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

no no no the local pop's health. who gives a damn abt your health.


I do. If someone choses to smoke which rural folks often do that isn't
my problem, it's theirs.


If rural life is so wonderful, what drives those people to ruin their
lives by getting into their "long term substance abuse problems" that
you mentioned?


Faulty government rules (tell'em pot is "harmless", let's grab those
extra taxes!), peer pressure, sometimes boredom. None of this applies to
us or any of our neighbors.


FWIW: When I was about 30 years old I thought it would be wonderful to
live a rural life. I'm extremely glad that I chose otherwise.


100% opposite here. Same for my wife who grew up in a huge metropolis
and never ever wants to go back to that sort of living.


Well, you're certainly into dichotomies.

In reality, there's quite a spectrum of living or housing densities; and there are people who choose every condition on that spectrum, from hermits living in caves to city denizens living in 500 square foot efficiency apartments packed into skyscrapers. Each choice has its own benefits and detriments.

One problem with the most fashionable choice (which is a new development in some cornfield, within driving distance of city amenities) is that the choice is extremely dependent on transportation by car, and consumes resources very inefficiently. Yes, there is one hero in Cameron Park who does epic bike rides to avoid using his car. But for every bike hero who moves to such a place, there are hundreds of motorists who say "It's another half hour to my job and the grocery store, but I don't mind."

Then, once the community is established, developers spot the opportunity for a convenience store and gas station out at the highway. They'll run power lines and sewer out to that. The new sewer will trigger another housing development, which sprouts an entire plaza by the highway, which attracts more housing. And so it goes, an endless cycle of paving the rural landscape.

All this demands money to extend the infrastructure. It paves more ground to generate flash runoff from storms, increases the area the police must patrol, lengthens the routes of the school bus and trash pickup, etc. On a global scale, it's far less "green" than dense city living.

And it's all done so people can satisfy their atavistic pioneer urges - but ruin the atmosphere for the few that have always lived there.

Years ago, I came across a poster by Robert Crumb that summarized all this. It had about a dozen panels showing one intersection of roads as time marched on decade by decade. It started with a pretty rural scene with two dirt roads and a large shade tree. It progressed through "development" step by step, ending with a dingy scene with clotted car traffic in front of crumbling buildings with trash blowing. The caption, IIRC, was "What are we doing?"

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #38  
Old November 27th 17, 09:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,077
Default FLU

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 18:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/26/2017 12:29 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 09:16, AMuzi wrote:


This is a false dichotomy in that all of it can be true and likely is..
Choice is good, neither city nor rural life being perfect and humans
being by their nature a diverse lot.


Though as humans we need to recognize when we are damaging our bodies
and the denser the area the more that will happen. This is also why
I'll never understand people who say "Away with cycle paths, bicycles
belong on the road". I find that, sorry to say, stupid. Why would
anyone in their right mind want to travel alongside noisy and
polluting combustion engines buzzing by?


Another false dichotomy. Riding on the road does not mean ingesting
significant pollution. Several studies have shown that even in city
traffic, cyclists ingest less pollution than motor vehicle operators.
Other studies have shown that bicycle commuters live far longer than
those commuting by other means.


Ah yes, you have a magic energy shield around you so the fumes part
right in front of your face. Phhht. I can literally smell just about any
Diesel that comes by.

Cars have HEPA filters and a cocoon-like innard in whcih the operator
resideth, bicycles ... don't.



IOW, "Don't bother me with scientific studies. My own imagination is infallible."

Besides, almost all of my riding involves relatively little traffic even
though I rarely use bike paths. I enjoy riding quiet roads, where I may
be passed by fewer than 20 cars per hour. But even on utility trips in
the city or its suburbs, I can usually choose quieter streets. On our
runs to the grocery store, we choose a route that gives us six miles
round trip. We'll typically be passed by only a dozen cars.


Good luck trying that where a metropolis is 30mi or closer. I sometimes
have to ride during rush our and then it's almost bumper to bumper.


Oh dear, you poor baby! Imagine! Sometimes having to ride in rush hour!

But I'm sure you've convinced those in power to add a completely separate bike facility along all of your routes, right? After all, you seem to think that's the only solution to your problem.

Oh - and I'm sure your completely separate bike paths will be hermetically sealed, and given their own supply of filtered and purified air, right? It wouldn't do to have them downwind from some cars. One can't be too careful!

I suppose in some idealistic theory, we could convince the government to
build a separate bike trail between our house and that grocery. But what
if we need to get to the library instead? Or the pharmacy? Or the
hardware store? Or the doctor's office? Or my best friend's house?
Should I stay off my bike until the government builds separate paths to
each of those places, plus all the others I want to visit?


If you move to a place such as Folsom, chances are you will find bike
facilities to all of those or at least for the major part of the ride.


Why, that's wonderful! So everyone should just move to Folsom... whose bike mode share is about one percent, IIRC.

But as I recall, you weren't talking about moving to Folsom yourself. Last we heard, you were going to flee to some conservative bastion, some place that doesn't collect taxes from the innocent citizens and waste them on froufrou playthings like bike paths.



Which is why I prefer to do my errand rides there and not in other
communities. So do others. Which results in higher sales tax collections
there. Which results in even better bike path coverage. Which causes
more people to move there. Which ...


Sorry, Joerg. I chose instead to learn to ride on the roads, and I do so
in perfect comfort and safety. You should try that. https://abea.bike/
Even you can learn to do it.


I know how to ride.


And there's one of bicycling's biggest problems. Everyone over 12 thinks "I know how to ride." They can't imagine there's anything they don't already know, so they absolutely refuse to consider learning anything. It's Dunning-Kruger in full force.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #39  
Old November 27th 17, 09:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,607
Default FLU

On 2017-11-27 12:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:15:34 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 18:46, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/26/2017 12:49 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 09:48, wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 9:03:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:
On 2017-11-25 16:30,
wrote:

goo.gl/CshRPR

assuming your superior healthy is an error ...


It isn't an error.


... around you people are not...

the 'satellite city' boom grew more high towers

I assume one n 2 stories are cheaper

nice photo couldn't find a view north of NYC

http://mossien.com/wp-content/upload...chester_NY.jpg





No ten horses would get me to live there.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

no no no the local pop's health. who gives a damn abt your
health.


I do. If someone choses to smoke which rural folks often do
that isn't my problem, it's theirs.

If rural life is so wonderful, what drives those people to ruin
their lives by getting into their "long term substance abuse
problems" that you mentioned?


Faulty government rules (tell'em pot is "harmless", let's grab
those extra taxes!), peer pressure, sometimes boredom. None of this
applies to us or any of our neighbors.


FWIW: When I was about 30 years old I thought it would be
wonderful to live a rural life. I'm extremely glad that I chose
otherwise.


100% opposite here. Same for my wife who grew up in a huge
metropolis and never ever wants to go back to that sort of living.


Well, you're certainly into dichotomies.

In reality, there's quite a spectrum of living or housing densities;
and there are people who choose every condition on that spectrum,
from hermits living in caves to city denizens living in 500 square
foot efficiency apartments packed into skyscrapers. Each choice has
its own benefits and detriments.

One problem with the most fashionable choice (which is a new
development in some cornfield, within driving distance of city
amenities) is that the choice is extremely dependent on
transportation by car, and consumes resources very inefficiently.
Yes, there is one hero in Cameron Park who does epic bike rides to
avoid using his car. But for every bike hero who moves to such a
place, there are hundreds of motorists who say "It's another half
hour to my job and the grocery store, but I don't mind."

Then, once the community is established, developers spot the
opportunity for a convenience store and gas station out at the
highway. They'll run power lines and sewer out to that. The new sewer
will trigger another housing development, which sprouts an entire
plaza by the highway, which attracts more housing. And so it goes, an
endless cycle of paving the rural landscape.


Then, another developer spots the opportunity. Suddenly, an industrial
park starts to sprout just as it did in Cameron Park. Voila, people can
almost walk to work. This is why I have a client right here in the
village. Normally I handle just about everything via online conference
but in their case I hop on the bike. Best of all, they are almost
adjacent to our singletrack which connects to other towns. Occasionally
I need to network with a software engineer because it's something I am
not skilled in and don't want to be. His home office is right at that
singletrack.

Oh, and we also have three supermarkets. Last time I got gas for my car
was ... heck, I can't even remember and that's because it was many
months ago. Some time in summer or so.


All this demands money to extend the infrastructure. It paves more
ground to generate flash runoff from storms, increases the area the
police must patrol, lengthens the routes of the school bus and trash
pickup, etc. On a global scale, it's far less "green" than dense city
living.

And it's all done so people can satisfy their atavistic pioneer urges
- but ruin the atmosphere for the few that have always lived there.


Unless it's done right.


Years ago, I came across a poster by Robert Crumb that summarized all
this. It had about a dozen panels showing one intersection of roads
as time marched on decade by decade. It started with a pretty rural
scene with two dirt roads and a large shade tree. It progressed
through "development" step by step, ending with a dingy scene with
clotted car traffic in front of crumbling buildings with trash
blowing. The caption, IIRC, was "What are we doing?"


You have to have space for the people. Shoe-horning them all into a
tightly packed city full of concrete and fumes is not helping and a lot
of people don't want that to be living like sardines in a can.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #40  
Old November 27th 17, 10:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,607
Default FLU

On 2017-11-27 12:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 18:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/26/2017 12:29 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 09:16, AMuzi wrote:


This is a false dichotomy in that all of it can be true and
likely is. Choice is good, neither city nor rural life being
perfect and humans being by their nature a diverse lot.


Though as humans we need to recognize when we are damaging our
bodies and the denser the area the more that will happen. This
is also why I'll never understand people who say "Away with
cycle paths, bicycles belong on the road". I find that, sorry
to say, stupid. Why would anyone in their right mind want to
travel alongside noisy and polluting combustion engines buzzing
by?

Another false dichotomy. Riding on the road does not mean
ingesting significant pollution. Several studies have shown that
even in city traffic, cyclists ingest less pollution than motor
vehicle operators. Other studies have shown that bicycle
commuters live far longer than those commuting by other means.


Ah yes, you have a magic energy shield around you so the fumes
part right in front of your face. Phhht. I can literally smell just
about any Diesel that comes by.

Cars have HEPA filters and a cocoon-like innard in whcih the
operator resideth, bicycles ... don't.



IOW, "Don't bother me with scientific studies. My own imagination is
infallible."


That goes for you. When have you last seen a bicycle with a HEPA filter?
Do you know what a HEPA filter is?


Besides, almost all of my riding involves relatively little
traffic even though I rarely use bike paths. I enjoy riding quiet
roads, where I may be passed by fewer than 20 cars per hour. But
even on utility trips in the city or its suburbs, I can usually
choose quieter streets. On our runs to the grocery store, we
choose a route that gives us six miles round trip. We'll
typically be passed by only a dozen cars.


Good luck trying that where a metropolis is 30mi or closer. I
sometimes have to ride during rush our and then it's almost bumper
to bumper.


Oh dear, you poor baby! Imagine! Sometimes having to ride in rush
hour!

But I'm sure you've convinced those in power to add a completely
separate bike facility along all of your routes, right? After all,
you seem to think that's the only solution to your problem.


It is the only environmentally friendly one. The other solution is to
use the car.


Oh - and I'm sure your completely separate bike paths will be
hermetically sealed, and given their own supply of filtered and
purified air, right? It wouldn't do to have them downwind from some
cars. One can't be too careful!


The one I took on Friday does come close to roads and even ... gasp
.... Highway 50 at one spot where you can hear faint vroom vroom sounds.
Smells? Pine needle scent, foliage, earth, and oo, the occasionally
horse poop. I rather smell horse poop than the soot from a big Diesel.
You might be so city-addicted that you don't notice the difference but I
sure do.


I suppose in some idealistic theory, we could convince the
government to build a separate bike trail between our house and
that grocery. But what if we need to get to the library instead?
Or the pharmacy? Or the hardware store? Or the doctor's office?
Or my best friend's house? Should I stay off my bike until the
government builds separate paths to each of those places, plus
all the others I want to visit?


If you move to a place such as Folsom, chances are you will find
bike facilities to all of those or at least for the major part of
the ride.


Why, that's wonderful! So everyone should just move to Folsom...



Lots of people do. They told me that was one of the key reasons to move
there and not to other areas like where we live.


whose bike mode share is about one percent, IIRC.


Slightly higher by now but I doubt it'll ever go higher. We have
discussed this ad nauseam. This is America and not Denmark. People are
different. You could give many of our people a free $1000 eliptical and
it would just collect dust. The couch in front of the 55" TV won't.


But as I recall, you weren't talking about moving to Folsom yourself.
Last we heard, you were going to flee to some conservative bastion,
some place that doesn't collect taxes from the innocent citizens and
waste them on froufrou playthings like bike paths.


They do have bike paths there, lots of them including very scenic ones.
They've got their priorities right.

https://www.mtbproject.com/directory...-and-la-verkin


Which is why I prefer to do my errand rides there and not in other
communities. So do others. Which results in higher sales tax
collections there. Which results in even better bike path coverage.
Which causes more people to move there. Which ...


Sorry, Joerg. I chose instead to learn to ride on the roads, and
I do so in perfect comfort and safety. You should try that.
https://abea.bike/ Even you can learn to do it.


I know how to ride.


And there's one of bicycling's biggest problems. Everyone over 12
thinks "I know how to ride." They can't imagine there's anything they
don't already know, so they absolutely refuse to consider learning
anything. It's Dunning-Kruger in full force.


Of course, you will never accept anyone who has even a slightly
different opinion than you do. Doesn't matter to me.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.