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

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 17th 17, 02:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:00:10 +0700, John B wrote:

Actually "dipping snus" is probably roughly the same as chewing
tobacco as far as danger to the individual.


The addiction is to the drug, not the route of delivery. Nicotine is as
addictive as opioids.

BTW, after 35 years of working in mental health and substance abuse, the
gateway drug for narcotics, meth, etc., is not marijuana. It's tobacco.
Most addicts I have worked with started with tobacco and it's the
addiction they fight the hardest about giving up. From tobacco they
usually go to alcohol and/or whatever pills Mommy and Daddy leave laying
around the house unsupervised.
Ads
  #32  
Old August 17th 17, 05:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

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
  #33  
Old August 17th 17, 06:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

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
  #34  
Old August 17th 17, 06:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

On 8/16/2017 9:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Sports fashions have changed in
the past and can change again. Cycling fashions are no different:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/da/9b/02/da9b02f6a34d7acf57e9f5106a931094.jpg


I like these: https://goo.gl/images/DtW3Sh


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #35  
Old August 17th 17, 06:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

Frank Krygowski writes:

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.


Even those who enjoy biking no more than driving to work can come
out ahead, if they exercise regularly: Driving to work, driving to the
gym, exercising, and driving home frequently takes more time than just
biking to work, enjoying the cardiovascular benefits, and biking home.

Of course, that doesn't work if you really enjoy the gym, as some do.
Or if you just don't exercise, as many do.

--
  #36  
Old August 17th 17, 07:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

On 17/08/2017 1:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

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.


Even those who enjoy biking no more than driving to work can come
out ahead, if they exercise regularly: Driving to work, driving to the
gym, exercising, and driving home frequently takes more time than just
biking to work, enjoying the cardiovascular benefits, and biking home.

Of course, that doesn't work if you really enjoy the gym, as some do.
Or if you just don't exercise, as many do.


Riding my bike home from work burns stress off. Driving home in traffic
jams does just the opposite.
  #37  
Old August 17th 17, 07:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

On 8/17/2017 11:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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:


-snip snip-
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, there's an old adage, 'For every room in heaven,
there's another just like it in hell for someone else.'

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #38  
Old August 17th 17, 08:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Doc O'Leary[_21_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:57:01 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:


I beg to differ. Excessive body mass and lack of motivation are
certainly real problems. However, they are symptoms, not causes.


I’m not sure it much matters. That simply *is* the landscape you’re
dealing with, and thus a major part of the problem that needs to be
solved. Besides, symptoms have a way of becoming causes of other
illnesses. Obesity is a prime example.


It matters. Treating the root cause is far more effective than simply
treating the symptoms.


Treating *everything* is the most effective. Just because you can cure
a disease that leads to obesity doesn’t mean the person magically
becomes thin and fit as a result. Complex problems must be approached
holistically.

But that doesn’t address the problem that bicycles *still* require
effort to use and still expose you to weather. Most guys who wears a
suit at work aren’t going to be keen on biking 15 miles in the rain,
regardless of their fitness level.


Google images suggests otherwise:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycling+business+suit&tbm=isch


It suggests nothing beyond unscientific cherry picking on your part. Do
you or do you not want to have a rational discussion here?

If we *really* take a big enough
step backwards, we see all kinds of problems that are interconnected.
We can’t just address a single issue and act like that is going to
result in the widespread adoption of bicycling.


True, but you can identify these problems and concentrate on those
that will have the greatest impact on cycling popularity.


Maybe, but it’s tough to really know what will be the thing that
*actually* makes people try transportation alternatives. Because it
does generally seem to be the case that once someone buys a car, they
tend to use it for everything. Whether that’s the disease or just a
symptom doesn’t matter; it simply is the state of things that needs to
be fundamentally changed if you expect people to use bikes more.

Replace "want" with "need". I need a car because I run a business
that requires I drag around a fair quantity of tools and need to
transport customers computahs. I've tried to do service calls on a
bicycle and failed. I've also tried to do the same using municipal
bus transport, which was even worse. If all I need to move was myself
and a few tools, I could do it on a bicycle.


Funny, but that’s the same sort of “need” excuse that most people in
business suits would use to dismiss bicycling (do your own Google
search). My point is that you need to address the motivation of the
individual, and prove that there is a benefit to biking even at times
when a car/bus/whatever might be available.

The teenagers mentioned attend one of two local colleges. Both are
about 15 miles away from home. They are riding bicycles effectively,
but not when the weather fails to cooperate, where they switch to
either public transport or getting a ride in someone's car. If we
lived in a small town, where everything is fairly close, a bicycle
would be practical. If the major facilities were farther away, the
bicycle becomes less practical.


But that does not address my point. If they don’t *want* to bike,
they’ll stop the instant they can afford a car. To change that, you
have to address those pain points of distance and weather.

If you want to see a
real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such
a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric
vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic
impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s
really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt
and/or adapt them.


That's easy. Just apply government subsidies and tax incentives to
any activity that is unpopular, impractical, or overly expensive.


Now you’re firmly into troll territory. There is *nothing* easy
about proposing major changes to a transportation infrastructure.

Maybe a tax break for NOT driving a car. Cycling Low cost or maybe
free bicycles are a good start. Free parking. Free air for the
tires. Free bicycle racks. Free bicycle lanes, lanes, and
infrastructure.


Entitlements are rarely a good starting point. Indeed, a major
problem with the current transportation infrastructure is that it
externalizes the true costs of the automobile industry. That’s why
even simple changes, like moving from fossil fuels to renewables,
requires a big change to how that “free” infrastructure is paid for.

From the governments point of view, "We provide the
infrastructure. You do the rest". However, these are all solutions
being pounded being used to solve an unspecified problem. Perhaps it
might be better to define the problem before blundering forward?


And I’m doing that. The root problem is one of sustainability. The
issue on top of that is a lack of transportation planning based on the
things/people we want to move (rather than the vehicles we use to move
them/us).

For
example, if you want to make cycling safe by adding a dedicated
bicycle lane, how many automobile parking places can you remove before
the residents riot?


Again, you need to holistically approach *all* the issues at play.
It’s not *just* about favoring one approach over the other, but what
the actual goal is. *Why* would bikes need a dedicated lane to be
safer? *Why* do cars deserve those particular places to park? And
what is the long term vision for the street/neighborhood that guides
the proposed infrastructure changes?

In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that
most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably.
Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change.


Sustainable for how long?


Ideally until the Sun boils off all the oceans and engulfs the Earth.
If that’s asking too much, I would settle for seeing both a 100 year
and a 1000 year plan.

Incentives paid by whom and to whom?


Paid to suppliers by people who have demands. Econ 101.

Who's
reality, yours or mine?


There is only one reality that is shared by all rational people.
Scientific reality.

Does align mean agree or a compromise?


It might mean both. There is a real lack of experimentation when it
comes to governance, and that really should change. I see no reason why
a city couldn’t try to redesign a neighborhood to be a car free zone
(with some agreement/compromises by the current residents) and see what
works and what doesn’t.

Once
we get beyond the basic necessities (food, shelter, internet), things
become rather more complexicated.


There is nothing at all basic about the logistics needed to supply food
in the modern developed world. Hell, it might not even be fundamentally
sustainable. But we’re better off asking that kind of question rather
than pushing forward as though it’s never going to bite us in the ass.

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


  #39  
Old August 17th 17, 10:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

On 8/17/2017 2:20 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:57:01 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:


-snip-
Maybe, but it’s tough to really know what will be the thing that
*actually* makes people try transportation alternatives. Because it
does generally seem to be the case that once someone buys a car, they
tend to use it for everything. Whether that’s the disease or just a
symptom doesn’t matter; it simply is the state of things that needs to
be fundamentally changed if you expect people to use bikes more.


-snippy snip-

"someone buys a car, they tend to use it for everything"

Seems contagious. Same thing happened when I bought my bike!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #40  
Old August 18th 17, 02:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:10:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

You left out the final step: Then they buy a treadmill, or join a health
club where they can "walk" indoors in one place.


Like garage queen bicycles, treadmills tend to collect spider webs and
dust after the initial surge of motivation. I've been looking for a
treadmill from which I can cannibalize the DC motor. The local
recycler has a pile of treadmills. Same with the local used sporting
goodies dealer:
http://www.playitagainsports-soquel.com/equipment/category/6547/treadmills/1
A few of my neighbors have treadmills rusting on their decks.

About 3 years ago, we took up a collection to buy a rather elaborate
treadmill for a rather obese friend. I helped put it together and
program the monster. He used it at least once per day for about a
month, less so after that, and abandoned it after about 4 months. I
get a report via email whenever it's run. Except when the kids or
their friends play with it, it hasn't been seriously used for at least
2 years.

There are also 4 bicycles (one for every member of the family) in the
garage in atrocious condition. However, things may soon change. They
bought a retirement house in the Sierra foothills, where it would be
possible to ride their bicycles on roads with less congestion and
fewer homicidal drivers. There was some talk about fixing or
replacing the bicycles. There is hope.

So, what changed? It's the perception that it's safer to ride the
rural roads than the local commuter speedways. They may or may not be
safer, but it's the perception that they're safer that's important
here. The GUM (great unwashed masses) do not ride bicycles if they
feel that there is some risk.


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




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ducklings on their way to vehicular cycling lesson, note the helmets;sorry Duane Andre Jute[_2_] Techniques 2 April 16th 15 08:53 PM
See-behind-your-head-a-scope POHB UK 5 December 22nd 07 10:31 PM
Future transportation dreaming- extreme thinker? Tomorrows 'bents? [email protected] Recumbent Biking 1 February 8th 07 08:06 PM
Future transportation dreaming- extreme thinker? Tomorrows 'bents? [email protected] Recumbent Biking 0 February 8th 07 06:29 AM
FA: NEW VOLER PVC CYCLING RAIN JACKET clear xl Bologna Sandwich Marketplace 0 December 31st 06 12:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.