Do you feel like biking makes you a loser?

Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem. Perhaps bicycles
are associated with homelessness if used with baskets that make them
practical, and bikers always risk the stigma of tree-hugger,
underemployed, immigrant, laborer, etc. among the general population
if used for other uses other than recreation.

So how do you feel about it, jumping the San Francisco bridge?

"Bicycles are often seen as having low status, associated with the
poorer classes or underdeveloped nations. Even in bicycle-friendly
Copenhagen and Amsterdam, pedestrian and bicycle officials talk about
difficulties in dealing with planners and engineers who think only in
terms of motorized solutions."

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/...e/swless01.htm


THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"

http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

[Unrelated groups rec.bicycles.rides [1] and uk.rec.cycling snipped]

KingOfTheApes aka Comendante Banana aka donquixote1954 aka WHO? wrote:
...
So how do you feel about it, jumping [off] the San Francisco bridge?

Was not considering it, but if I keep on reading these posts I might.

Please take a course on statistics so you will understand that cycling
is a relatively safe activity, even in the USA.

[1] This is for ride reports and discussion of routes, etc. dude.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

KingOfTheApes wrote:
Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem. Perhaps bicycles
are associated with homelessness if used with baskets that make them
practical, and bikers always risk the stigma of tree-hugger,
underemployed, immigrant, laborer, etc. among the general population
if used for other uses other than recreation.

So how do you feel about it, jumping the San Francisco bridge?

"Bicycles are often seen as having low status, associated with the
poorer classes or underdeveloped nations. Even in bicycle-friendly
Copenhagen and Amsterdam, pedestrian and bicycle officials talk about
difficulties in dealing with planners and engineers who think only in
terms of motorized solutions."

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/...e/swless01.htm


THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"

http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace



You are a Turing test and ICMFP

LN

THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"

Yeah, look at how successful it's been in a small country like Cuba.

By the way, I don't feel that biking makes me a loser.
I'm a loser because I'm a loser, biking is my escape.

Bike, bike, bike, meow,
ABS

Unfortunately, the most vocal cyclists tend to be the nutters such as
Spindrift, who tarnish the reputation of all cyclists. The majority
of cyclists are perfectly reasonable, but if they want to deal with
the image problem that cyclists have, they have to publicly disown the
anti-motorist, red light-jumping, inconsiderate, offensive buffoons
who claim to represent cyclists in general. Once cyclists have a
reputation for riding considerately, and campaigning for pro-cyclist
rather than anti-motorist measures, they will get the treatment that
they deserve. But at the moment, it's a case of doing as you would be
done by: while cyclists have a reputation for being ******* towards
other road users, other road users (including planners etc) aren't
going to be particularly well-disposed towards cyclists. It's just
the way life works.

You know I'm right, and anyone flaming me will just prove my point.

KingOfTheApes schrieb:
Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem. Perhaps bicycles
are associated with homelessness if used with baskets that make them
practical, and bikers always risk the stigma of tree-hugger,
underemployed, immigrant, laborer, etc. among the general population
if used for other uses other than recreation.

So how do you feel about it, jumping the San Francisco bridge?

No, why should I?

"Bicycles are often seen as having low status, associated with the
poorer classes or underdeveloped nations. Even in bicycle-friendly
Copenhagen and Amsterdam, pedestrian and bicycle officials talk about
difficulties in dealing with planners and engineers who think only in
terms of motorized solutions."

It's a matter of education and personal perception. For my country:
hardly any civil engineer will be found, that hasn't got a
car-dominating point of view, with just a little bit of recreational
cycling. Same is valid for politicians, so no one has to wonder, that
pro-cycling measures taken are hardly useful from the everyday cyclers
point of view.

T.
--
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair in The Jungle

Nuxx Bar schrieb:
But at the moment, it's a case of doing as you would be
done by: while cyclists have a reputation for being ******* towards
other road users, other road users (including planners etc) aren't
going to be particularly well-disposed towards cyclists.

That's what administrative courts are for ...

"Tadej Brezina" wrote in message
.. .
KingOfTheApes schrieb:


It's a matter of education and personal perception. For my country: hardly
any civil engineer will be found, that hasn't got a car-dominating point
of view, with just a little bit of recreational cycling. Same is valid for
politicians, so no one has to wonder, that pro-cycling measures taken are
hardly useful from the everyday cyclers point of view.

Most engineers are problem solvers and innovators. They are at the extreme
end of the curve away from the people with the technology laggard mental
condition. The want to invent the future, not return to the past with
bikes, transit, vinyl records, and near east religious fanatic.

Engineers want solutions. Technology laggards want to escape the present
and future by living in an illusion about how great the past was. The
mental condition of technology laggards make it hard for them to deal with
the present or the future. Engineers tend to be exactly the opposite of
technology laggards. They are repulsed by the illusions used of how great
things were in the past.

They don't see returning to using obsolete, failed technology as a way to
solve present and future problems. They also see technology as an
evolutionary process to find the best solution. The technology laggards
see technology as stagnant.

The main problem I see with bikes is that their supporters talk as though it
can all be done for free. The reality is that even bikes quickly start
requiring Governments to spend large amounts of money to support another
alternative that very few people will ever use. Remember about 85% of the
people in society are not technology laggards and will not follow the
fantasies of the laggards.

Your "car-dominating point of view" crap just points out that you have no
understanding of how things evolve in society with the best liked solutions
becoming dominant and killing off less liked approaches such as bikes.

Jack May wrote:
"Tadej Brezina" wrote in message
.. .
KingOfTheApes schrieb:

It's a matter of education and personal perception. For my country: hardly
any civil engineer will be found, that hasn't got a car-dominating point
of view, with just a little bit of recreational cycling. Same is valid for
politicians, so no one has to wonder, that pro-cycling measures taken are
hardly useful from the everyday cyclers point of view.

What is taught about geometric roadway design in US engineering schools
is motor vehicle centric. Cyclists and pedestrians are practically ignored.

Most engineers are problem solvers and innovators. They are at the extreme
end of the curve away from the people with the technology laggard mental
condition. The want to invent the future, not return to the past with
bikes, transit, vinyl records, and near east religious fanatic.

Transit is technology neutral - it can be done with obsolete, current or
future technology.

Engineers want solutions. Technology laggards want to escape the present
and future by living in an illusion about how great the past was. The
mental condition of technology laggards make it hard for them to deal with
the present or the future. Engineers tend to be exactly the opposite of
technology laggards. They are repulsed by the illusions used of how great
things were in the past.

The best thing about the recent past was a world population of 2
billion, instead of 6+ billion and rising. The US roadway transportation
system would work much better in its current form if half the people and
vehicles disappeared.

They don't see returning to using obsolete, failed technology as a way to
solve present and future problems. They also see technology as an
evolutionary process to find the best solution. The technology laggards
see technology as stagnant.

How are bicycles obsolete, failed technology? Bicycles have yet to
equaled in efficiency, and can be greatly improved with technology (e.g.
lightweight recumbent streamliner).

The main problem I see with bikes is that their supporters talk as though it
can all be done for free. The reality is that even bikes quickly start
requiring Governments to spend large amounts of money to support another
alternative that very few people will ever use. Remember about 85% of the
people in society are not technology laggards and will not follow the
fantasies of the laggards.

All bicycles require is the recognition of the right to use the road.

Of course, the government could do a service of getting all the
incompetent cagers off the roads.

Your "car-dominating point of view" crap just points out that you have no
understanding of how things evolve in society with the best liked solutions
becoming dominant and killing off less liked approaches such as bikes.

Not liking bicycling is a failing of morals and aesthetics. However,
that is not surprising in a society that votes with its money for crappy
food, crappy entertainment, crappy products and accepts crappy
politicians who provide no leadership.

The people have the dysfunctional and dangerous transportation system
they deserve.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Jack May schrieb:
"Tadej Brezina" wrote in message
.. .
KingOfTheApes schrieb:

It's a matter of education and personal perception. For my country: hardly
any civil engineer will be found, that hasn't got a car-dominating point
of view, with just a little bit of recreational cycling. Same is valid for
politicians, so no one has to wonder, that pro-cycling measures taken are
hardly useful from the everyday cyclers point of view.

[... some highly irrelevant talk in regard of this matter with the usual plethora of fancy words supporting your view, that the car and its usage is evolutions crown ...]

Matter of fact, civil engineering education in the western world in
means of transport is car dominated.
And very narrow-mindedly, concentrating on vehicle dynamics, road
construction, pavement design, in general lacking the holistic view on
transport and it's impacts (good an bad) on society.
What you teach them, they will act.

The main problem I see with bikes is that their supporters talk as though it
can all be done for free.

Who ever said that?
But it's way cheaper than most other means of transport.

The reality is that even bikes quickly start
requiring Governments to spend large amounts of money to support another
alternative that very few people will ever use. Remember about 85% of the
people in society are not technology laggards and will not follow the
fantasies of the laggards.

The eightyfive percent of population amount for "the mainstream", the
mainstream by definition is not on the frontiers of societal
development. So there are innovators in front and laggards behind of it.

Your "car-dominating point of view" crap just points out that you have no
understanding of how things evolve in society with the best liked solutions
becoming dominant and killing off less liked approaches such as bikes.

As usually you'r very generously concealing industrial interests, the
way political sysems work including the influence exerted upon by
different interest grous ...
From the Memetics point of view, a perfectly evolving system for the
purpose of self-reproduction.

Tadej
--
"Frauen sind als Gesprächspartner nun einmal interessanter,
weil das Gespräch nicht beendet ist, wenn nichts sinnvolles mehr zu
sagen ist."
David Kastrup in d.t.r