Bus racks

On 2018-09-08 16:59, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:07:29 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-07 16:44, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 06:27:27 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

[...]

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2016/03/...uting-by-bike/


Correction. Homeless in California are about 0.5% of the population.


And they are trashing the place.

Yes, and I have read that approximately 10% of the employed labor
force in California is made up of illegal immigrants but you don't
seem to have jobs for your citizens.


They don't want jobs. That is one of the problems created by a welfare
state.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-09-08 17:09, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:12:46 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-07 16:38, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:42:17 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-07 12:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/7/2018 1:03 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-07 08:04, jbeattie wrote:

And yet you expect the government to provide you with special bike
racks on buses.


No, bike racks that actually work with contemporary bikes that are
commonly used in this area. Just like we now have roads that
accommodate vehicles wider than a Ford Model T. It's that simple.

I've seen no evidence except your assertions for the idea that your
style of bike is common among those who use buses. I rarely trust your
assertions. So do you have any evidence?


If you had followed the bike market at least a little you could have
answered that question yourself:

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/stud...egories-stores

Quote "Twenty-niners now account for 41 percent of dollars sold in
mountain bikes at IBDs".


And regarding roads and Model Ts: ISTM your situation is like that of a
1930s guy who built or bought something on this style
https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/07/2...specifications

then complained the roads weren't suitable for its use.

Don't buy something out of spec for the infrastructure you want to use,
then complain about the infrastructure.


You don't seem to even know what spec is these days. Hint: We are in the
21st century now.

Yesterday I rode light rail back to where our truck was parked. My old
1982 road bike was riding next to a 26" of a friend which would barely
fit the bus rack. My road bike is longer! Any questions? Luckily light
rail allows to take bikes on board so it doesn't matter.

Hmmm... the last you wrote you owned two vehicles one a new (to you)
SUV and you had passed your old car on to your wife.


Where do you dream up all those stories? My wife and I bought our cars
around the same time 20-some years ago. Nothing was handed down. She has
a compact car (Toyota) because she like that. I have a small SUV but
that only holds one bike so if a friend comes along we either need a
truck or two cars.


I don't dream up any stories, I simply read what you have written over
the years.


Obviously not carefully because you make up stuff I never wrote.



... Now you mention a truck? You mean that you have purchased
a truck just to haul your oversized bicycle around?

Apparently you are flush with cash if you have a new truck... so three
vehicles for a 2 person family is correct but ask you to contribute to
the common good by paying taxes and you fall down on the floor and
kick your feet and scream.


Believe it or not but besides my wife and I there are about 20,000 other
people living in our community. Lo and behold they have motor vehicles
as well and ... drum roll ... some even ride bicycles. One of them
happens to own a pickup truck.


Referring to your post, above, where you write "Yesterday I rode light
rail back to where our truck was parked". Given that you use a word
(I) which would seem to indicate they you, yourself, rode the bike,
and (2) you then use the word "our" which again seems to indicate
ownership, or at least possession, it seems logical to assume that you
now own a pickup.


The truck "we" used to get there. "Our" in this case has nothing to do
with ownership (it is owned by a cycling friend). In a similar way a
rented vehcile is not yours as you do not hold title to it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-09-08 17:27, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:25:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-08 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2018 10:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
I have a small SUV but that only holds one bike so if a friend
comes along we either need a truck or two cars.

Why on earth can you not carry more than one bike with a small
SUV?


You need a receiver plus an outside bike rack, neither of which I
have. I can get one bike inside but laying another on top of it is
out because the lifting aggravates my back pain and it can smash
stuff on the bikes, such as derailers.



In 1985 we bought a new Honda Civic station wagon. That's a very
tiny car. Yet a year later we drove that car to California and
back, towing a tiny camping trailer and carrying three bikes. Two
(including the tandem) were on the roof and one was on the rear
rack.


Don't have a roof or rear rack, and no receiver.

FYI, those things can be purchased on the open market.


Sure.

Receiver assy ... $200 (and only for the clone version)
Cable kit ... $ 50
Light bar ... $ 50
Bike rack ... $150

I can install that myself to save another $200 or so for a shop but a
pickup truck is way more practical.


In 2004 we bought a Pontiac Vibe. I could carry our two touring
bikes vertically _inside_ the car by removing the front wheels
and using two of those floor-mount front fork clamps. I also had
to remove my seatpost, but my wife's bike fit without that
bother. If I wanted to add the roof rack and rear rack, I could
carry up to seven bikes.

You seem to have SO many problems that others easily solve!


I am likely a lot taller than you because the Mitsubishi Montero
Sport will not allow any of my bikes to sit vertically inside. My
wife's, yes, but not mine. Shrinking a foot in height is obviously
not an easy solution.

I'm just under 6'4" and my son is 6'6", and we can stack our bikes in
the back of a Subaru Outback, although I usually use a roof rack or
hitch rack. Take one or both wheels off and save your back. Put a
blanket between the bikes. It's eminently do-able. Many years ago,
I was driving home from a a race in California with two bikes on a
first generation POS LaPrealpina roof rack that blew-off. I put two
bikes and a rack in the back of a VW bug.


Of course I have done stuff like that before. The results were often
unpleasant, such as bent derailer hangers and out of shape brake rotors.
The main issue though is a lower back problem because a lot of lifting
while bent is required, something that can really ruin my day.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 9/9/2018 2:06 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 22:42:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/8/2018 7:55 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


But more to the point, the retirement pay problem that California
faces is not the fault of the retirees who entered into a contract
with the state possible 20 or 30 years ago and now are being paid a
retirement that was specified in their contracts. The fault lies with
the state that certainly should have been able to foresee what their
liabilities would be in 5, 10, 20 years and did nothing about it.

I suspect that part of the problem back then was "How are we going to
convince people to go into teaching, or risk their lives as police or
firefighters, for these puny wages?"

The answer may have been "We'll offer good retirement benefits. (And
some politician 30 years from now can figure out how to pay them.)"

Possibly true, I no longer live in California and don't care but as I
said the choices are renege on the contract and get sued, raise taxes,
or as another reader reminded me, go bankrupt.

Of course governmental bodies can borrow money, sometimes through bond
issues, and tax free municipal bonds hold their value pretty well so
perhaps California can sell enough bonds to keep afloat.

Or perhaps do as the EU is trying to do and tax those that can afford
it a bit more :-)

Tax the rich??? Are you crazy??? ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/8/2018 10:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2018 8:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/7/2018 8:12 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 20:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/7/2018 7:42 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 19:21:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/7/2018 5:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/7/2018 2:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/7/2018 1:03 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-07 08:04, jbeattie wrote:

And yet you expect the government to provide you with
special bike racks on buses.


No, bike racks that actually work with contemporary
bikes
that are commonly used in this area. Just like we
now have
roads that accommodate vehicles wider than a Ford
Model T.
It's that simple.

I've seen no evidence except your assertions for the
idea
that your style of bike is common among those who
use buses.
I rarely trust your assertions. So do you have any
evidence?

And regarding roads and Model Ts: ISTM your
situation is
like that of a 1930s guy who built or bought
something on
this style
https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/07/2...specifications



then complained the roads weren't suitable for its use.

Don't buy something out of spec for the
infrastructure you
want to use, then complain about the infrastructure.


Roads not suitable to that ugly 3 wheel monstrosity?
How so? I see them
(and copies) all summer around here.

But not in the 1930s, as I said.

I was alive in the 1930's and I can assure you that the
two lane
blacktop roads in New Hampshire (at least) would
accommodate a three
wheel motorcycle... at least the three wheel Harley's
that the Police
had would fit.

I don't doubt that. But I said "something on this style."
https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/07/2...specifications


For more specifics, that Polaris is wider than a
Corvette, with a 69
inch front track measurement. And the ground clearance
is just over 5
inches, with a 105" wheelbase. And it requires three
decently smooth
tracks in the road, not just two.

The currently made, as of 2012, Morgan 3 wheeler is 128"
long, 68
inches wide and has a ground clearance of 4.5 inches.
https://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/3-wheeler/

Imagine trying to drive that on a typical 1930s country
road.
http://www.dcnyhistory.org/Fact_Fancy/images/6.07.jpg

(BTW, why is the Polaris driver wearing a helmet? Does
he think it will
tip over?)

Modern Morgans are powered by engines built near me in
Viola WI.

Really? Wow.

I wonder how the tariff battles will affect that.


Once Boris gets in, Brexit will re-establish our Special
Relationship. And screw Brussels.

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

On 9/8/2018 11:26 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-08 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2018 10:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
I have a small SUV but that only holds one bike so if a
friend comes
along we either need a truck or two cars.

Why on earth can you not carry more than one bike with a
small SUV?


You need a receiver plus an outside bike rack, neither of
which I have. I can get one bike inside but laying another
on top of it is out because the lifting aggravates my back
pain and it can smash stuff on the bikes, such as derailers.



In 1985 we bought a new Honda Civic station wagon. That's
a very tiny
car. Yet a year later we drove that car to California and
back, towing a
tiny camping trailer and carrying three bikes. Two
(including the
tandem) were on the roof and one was on the rear rack.


Don't have a roof or rear rack, and no receiver.


In 2004 we bought a Pontiac Vibe. I could carry our two
touring bikes
vertically _inside_ the car by removing the front wheels
and using two
of those floor-mount front fork clamps. I also had to
remove my
seatpost, but my wife's bike fit without that bother. If I
wanted to add
the roof rack and rear rack, I could carry up to seven bikes.

You seem to have SO many problems that others easily solve!


I am likely a lot taller than you because the Mitsubishi
Montero Sport will not allow any of my bikes to sit
vertically inside. My wife's, yes, but not mine. Shrinking a
foot in height is obviously not an easy solution.


Looks like hitch installers are in Placerville and Shingle
Springs which is too bad since no Cameron Park human ever
traveled that far and lived to tell the tale.

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

On 9/9/2018 10:44 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-08 17:27, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:25:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-08 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2018 10:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
I have a small SUV but that only holds one bike so if a friend
comes along we either need a truck or two cars.

Why on earth can you not carry more than one bike with a small
SUV?


You need a receiver plus an outside bike rack, neither of which I
have. I can get one bike inside but laying another on top of it is
out because the lifting aggravates my back pain and it can smash
stuff on the bikes, such as derailers.



In 1985 we bought a new Honda Civic station wagon. That's a very
tiny car. Yet a year later we drove that car to California and
back, towing a tiny camping trailer and carrying three bikes. Two
(including the tandem) were on the roof and one was on the rear
rack.


Don't have a roof or rear rack, and no receiver.

FYI, those things can be purchased on the open market.


Sure.

Receiver assy ... $200 (and only for the clone version)
Cable kitÂ*Â*Â*Â* ... $ 50
Light barÂ*Â*Â*Â* ... $ 50
Bike rackÂ*Â*Â*Â* ... $150

Oh for Pete's sake, you're quoting the most expensive possibility. If
you can't afford that your business must not be as successful as you
pretend.

So go to a garage sale and get a simple bike rack that straps on the
rear tailgate. I have two I acquired that way, and I rarely go near a
garage sale. Alternately you could buy a roof rack. I have two
inexpensive ones that have worked fine.


I can install that myself to save another $200 or so for a shop but a
pickup truck is way more practical.

I've installed four hitches on our various cars over the years,
completely fabricating the first. Even you should not have to pay for
installation.

But "A pickup truck is way more practical" is the typical American
solution to everything. "Gosh, what if I have to haul two tons of rocks?
That might happen some time in the next ten years, so I'd better buy a
vehicle that gets 15 miles per gallon when I get my groceries. Or hey, a
diesel! I can roll coal!"

[Jay Beattie wrote:] I put two
bikes and a rack in the back of a VW bug.


Of course I have done stuff like that before. The results were often
unpleasant, such as bent derailer hangers and out of shape brake rotors.

It's all about competence.

The main issue though is a lower back problem because a lot of lifting
while bent is required, something that can really ruin my day.

Strap the folding rack on the rear hatch. Lift straight up. Jeez...


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/8/2018 7:12 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. Slocomb writes:

On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:02:53 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-07 16:15, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 07:49:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-04 16:55, John B. Slocomb wrote:


[...]

But more important the state has between $713 billion and $1.02
trillion in unfunded pension obligation, the tax base is decreasing,
since 2000, more people have left California than have arrived from
other states every year, the gasoline tax is not large enough to pay
for road building and repairs. In short, taxes will have to increase
or the state will go bankrupt.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/c...-remains-grim/


The pension boondoggle has to be curbed. That is the only solution.


You mean that a guy ought to work for twenty years and not get any
form of retirement pension?


Get a reasonable retirement. Not 90% of salary at 50 or 55.

Why ever not? While I did retire after 20 years in the A.F. with a 50%
of salary retirement pay had I stayed until 50 years of age I'd have
received 75%.

But more to the point, the retirement pay problem that California
faces is not the fault of the retirees who entered into a contract
with the state possible 20 or 30 years ago and now are being paid a
retirement that was specified in their contracts. The fault lies with
the state that certainly should have been able to foresee what their
liabilities would be in 5, 10, 20 years and did nothing about it.

Part of the problem is that the state workers and their unions had, and
have, a very significant influence on the workings of the state
government. To a certain extent they negotiated with themselves for a
sweet retirement, the practicability of which was, and is, based on
unrealistic forecasts of return on investment.

But what is the solution? It appears that there are two options, (1)
renege on the contracts that the state offered to individuals who they
employed, which would probably result in a mammoth class action suit
against the state in which I suggest that any reasonable court would
support the retirees; or (2) increase State income, probably by
increasing taxes.

(1) is default, bankruptcy. Watch Puerto Rico for a glimpse into the
future.



And with unclear outcome as well in Illinois, whose 1970
Constitution expressly forbids any reduction in public
pensions. The ratchet can go up (and does) but not down.

Sadly, the money's gone and the obligation remains.

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

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 8:26:37 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/8/2018 10:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2018 8:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/7/2018 8:12 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 20:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/7/2018 7:42 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 19:21:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/7/2018 5:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/7/2018 2:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/7/2018 1:03 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-07 08:04, jbeattie wrote:

And yet you expect the government to provide you with
special bike racks on buses.


No, bike racks that actually work with contemporary
bikes
that are commonly used in this area. Just like we
now have
roads that accommodate vehicles wider than a Ford
Model T.
It's that simple.

I've seen no evidence except your assertions for the
idea
that your style of bike is common among those who
use buses.
I rarely trust your assertions. So do you have any
evidence?

And regarding roads and Model Ts: ISTM your
situation is
like that of a 1930s guy who built or bought
something on
this style
https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/07/2...specifications



then complained the roads weren't suitable for its use.

Don't buy something out of spec for the
infrastructure you
want to use, then complain about the infrastructure.


Roads not suitable to that ugly 3 wheel monstrosity?
How so? I see them
(and copies) all summer around here.

But not in the 1930s, as I said.

I was alive in the 1930's and I can assure you that the
two lane
blacktop roads in New Hampshire (at least) would
accommodate a three
wheel motorcycle... at least the three wheel Harley's
that the Police
had would fit.

I don't doubt that. But I said "something on this style."
https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/07/2...specifications


For more specifics, that Polaris is wider than a
Corvette, with a 69
inch front track measurement. And the ground clearance
is just over 5
inches, with a 105" wheelbase. And it requires three
decently smooth
tracks in the road, not just two.

The currently made, as of 2012, Morgan 3 wheeler is 128"
long, 68
inches wide and has a ground clearance of 4.5 inches.
https://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/3-wheeler/

Imagine trying to drive that on a typical 1930s country
road.
http://www.dcnyhistory.org/Fact_Fancy/images/6.07.jpg

(BTW, why is the Polaris driver wearing a helmet? Does
he think it will
tip over?)

Modern Morgans are powered by engines built near me in
Viola WI.

Really? Wow.

I wonder how the tariff battles will affect that.


Once Boris gets in, Brexit will re-establish our Special
Relationship. And screw Brussels.

S&S will have to pay higher prices for steel and aluminum (and probably Canadian or Chinese sourced components), driving up the price to Morgan who could then source from HD's Thailand plant or some other manufacturer of historically reenacted engines. OR UK tariffs engines in retaliation for US metals tariffs, maybe driving up prices and driving down sales for Morgans and other odd-ball luxury items. If Boris acts like Donnie, the relationship won't be that special, and Boris will retaliate for US metals tariffs because that is what super-tough guys do. Who knows what Brexit will do. It will certainly increase transaction cost dealing with import regulations for the EU and the UK, assuming S&S also has EU customers.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 11:18:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/9/2018 2:06 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 22:42:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/8/2018 7:55 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


But more to the point, the retirement pay problem that California
faces is not the fault of the retirees who entered into a contract
with the state possible 20 or 30 years ago and now are being paid a
retirement that was specified in their contracts. The fault lies with
the state that certainly should have been able to foresee what their
liabilities would be in 5, 10, 20 years and did nothing about it.

I suspect that part of the problem back then was "How are we going to
convince people to go into teaching, or risk their lives as police or
firefighters, for these puny wages?"

The answer may have been "We'll offer good retirement benefits. (And
some politician 30 years from now can figure out how to pay them.)"

Possibly true, I no longer live in California and don't care but as I
said the choices are renege on the contract and get sued, raise taxes,
or as another reader reminded me, go bankrupt.

Of course governmental bodies can borrow money, sometimes through bond
issues, and tax free municipal bonds hold their value pretty well so
perhaps California can sell enough bonds to keep afloat.

Or perhaps do as the EU is trying to do and tax those that can afford
it a bit more :-)

Tax the rich??? Are you crazy??? ;-)

The EU is considering a sort of additional tax for international
companies that arrange things so that they calculate their profits in
a country with a lower tax rate, Apple, for example, books most of its
iTunes revenue in Luxembourg.