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

On 8/15/2017 12:12 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:02:07 AM UTC-7, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
financial.

No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now
mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they
travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time.

Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

I’d bet against that. Even if you gave free bikes to everyone who
wanted one, most people would still prefer to sit on their ass in
traffic and scream at other cars.

Unless you put in bike paths everywhere. Then they would ride. Really. Even if they live 15 miles from their work on the other side of a mountain. https://www.ridersmate.com/wp-conten...-of-moher1.jpg

Good thing those guys are wearing helmets. Can you imagine falling off
those cliffs without one? ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:58:30 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
480,000 Americans die before their time every year from smoking-related diseases -- and the stupidity of successive governments and anti-smoking campaigners and grandstanding, dim-witted legislators. Now comes Scott Gottlieb, who demonstrates that he's a clear thinker who hasn't been captured by the hysterics of control freak Left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...garette-policy

Why doesn't cycling have a clear thinker like Scott Gottlieb to cut through the bull**** and define the problem?

Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.

Andre Jute
Stands to reason that first you should define the problem correctly

The main underlying problem, in the States anyway, is simply that everything is scaled to automobiles. Almost everything follows from this fact.

It is also of great importance that there so few Americans who cycle constantly, who don't reach automatically for the car keys.

You know that I think that the number of cyclist deaths in the US is disgraceful, but we've done that to death on this forum, and in any event 700 deaths isn't enough to get any politician excited. I mention this merely as background, not because I want to fight an old helmet/no helmet battle over again. However, if the number of cyclists double, it is likely that the number of road deaths will more than double, and if the number of cyclists quadruple, the number of road deaths will increase by a much larger factor, because most cyclists now are more experienced and cautious than those new cyclists will be.

A problem that follows from there not already being visible number of cyclists, never mind a preponderance of cyclists, is "motorists' right to the road".

The major barrier to more cyclists being put on the road is attitudinal. Existing cyclists, mainly old roadies, who think they'll be riding to work at 25mph, will be sorely disappointed. Large numbers of cyclists will bring down everyone's top and average speed. The attitudes of car drivers is too obvious for me to comment on. Lawmakers can change a cultural outlook but it takes decades and presupposes a receptive audience, which brings us back to the breakpoint at which there are so many cyclists that they can no longer be ignored by anyone.

I don't take Tim's point that raising the price of petrol necessarily turns people on to cycling. where I live petrol costs more than the four dollars a gallon he mentions*, but still most drivers look down on cyclists as poverty riders. Where I live several of my pedal pals ride elite bikes that they bought for fifty euro, virtually unused, from the garages of people who, at some petrol-tax rise or government subsidized bike purchase scheme, bought a bike and then lost enthusiasm after one ride, and went back to the car. Yet we live in a place where almost anything can be conveniently reached on foot or by bicycle within only minutes. To me that indicates a deep-seated preference for the car.

* I don't actually know how much petrol costs here now: I haven't kept a car since 1992, and anyway, our cars consumed very little petrol as money value in comparison with servicing charges and especially with depreciation.

Andre Jute
The difficult we do before lunch, the impossible takes until tomorrow

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 5:12:10 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:02:07 AM UTC-7, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
financial.

No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now
mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they
travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time.

Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

I’d bet against that. Even if you gave free bikes to everyone who
wanted one, most people would still prefer to sit on their ass in
traffic and scream at other cars.

Unless you put in bike paths everywhere. Then they would ride. Really. Even if they live 15 miles from their work on the other side of a mountain. https://www.ridersmate.com/wp-conten...-of-moher1.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.

A few years ago the government paid for bicycle parking racks to be installed in my village. They were wrongly sited of course, and to this day I've never once seen them used. But never mind that. A television company paid by the EU to promote environmentalist was there to film the proceedings and invited me, as the area's most noted cyclist, to come make a speech. It also invited everyone it could reach who cycles. Here's the punchline: I was the only one who turned up on a bike, because I don't have a car. Though all of them lived nearer the venue than half a mile, the rest all came not on their bikes or on foot but by car.

There, in a single observation, you have the entire prognosis for the future of cycling in Ireland: not good.

Mind you, the bike share scheme in three cities appear to go well, though they were at the time described as "trial schemes" and I haven't heard of any new ones being started, which is a little ominous. See http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/p...-and-limerick/

Andre Jute
Leading by example just makes you unpopular for being "superior"

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 8/15/2017 3:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:28:04 +1000, James
wrote:

On 15/08/17 06:58, Andre Jute wrote:
480,000 Americans die before their time every year from
smoking-related diseases -- and the stupidity of successive
governments and anti-smoking campaigners and grandstanding,
dim-witted legislators. Now comes Scott Gottlieb, who demonstrates
that he's a clear thinker who hasn't been captured by the hysterics
of control freak Left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...garette-policy

Why doesn't cycling have a clear thinker like Scott Gottlieb to cut
through the bull**** and define the problem?

Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.

I heard recently that e-cigarettes contain some possibly worse chemicals
than good old fashion cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety...nic_cigarettes

The Swedes have Snus instead. Best of both worlds.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/sweden-f...10-gwothf.html

Actually "dipping snus" is probably roughly the same as chewing
tobacco as far as danger to the individual. I used to work with snus
users and they seem to be as dependent on it as cigarette smokers. We
had an old crane operator that threatened to leave if they forgot to
bring his Copenhagen on the next crew change.

It sounds like they acknowledge that the tobacco in snus is still
addicting. It's just that ingesting it this way causes far less
physical harm.

I do wonder if it requires as much ugly spitting as chewing tobacco.

Snus (we called it "dip") is big where I grew up, the stereotypical pair
of Wrangler jeans always has a circular wear mark in the back pocket
made by a tin of Copenhagen or Skoal. Spitting is required, just as
with chewing tobacco -- don't even think about drinking the last sip of
Coke in the bottom of that stray can.

Dip is hell on the teeth and gums, sometimes to the point of cancer, and
doesn't do much for the sweetness of the breath. (Cancer does give one
awful halitosis). On the other hand, it doesn't cause lung cancer,
emphysema, smoker's cough or shortness of breath. It's not a fire
hazard, and users don't annoy anyone with drifting smoke.

--

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:57:50 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
financial.

No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now
mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they
travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time.

I beg to differ. Excessive body mass and lack of motivation are
certainly real problems. However, they are symptoms, not causes. Take
a giant step backwards and ask yourself why people are like that, and
you'll probably discover a range of problems that if they can be
solved, will also have a positive effect on obesity and motivation.

Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

I’d bet against that. Even if you gave free bikes to everyone who
wanted one, most people would still prefer to sit on their ass in
traffic and scream at other cars.

See the reply by Frank Krygowski on expanding the definition of
economical. I was having problems trying to find a suitable word for
making bicycling attractive to the GUM (great unwashed masses). One
way is to reduce costs and promote healthy exercise, but others are to
reduce the relative costs between walking, cycling, public transport,
and driving. By costs, I mean dollars per year for insurance and debt
retirement and dollars per mile for operating costs. For example, my
neighbors teenage sons all ride bicycles, not because bicycles are
cheap, but because they can't afford the insurance costs for even a
shared automobile.

I won't offer any solutions to the problem, because this discussion is
about defining the problem, not find a solution. Much of the
discussion over infrastructure seem to resemble selecting a favored
solution from a menu of available possibilities, and force fitting
that solution into whatever problem yells the loudest. In other
words, define the problem you're trying to solve first, and then talk
about solutions.



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

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:57:50 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
financial.

No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now
mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they
travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time.

Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

I’d bet against that. Even if you gave free bikes to everyone who
wanted one, most people would still prefer to sit on their ass in
traffic and scream at other cars.

It apparently is human nature to avoid undue effort. It is a very
visible phenomena in developing countries. The poor walk - the economy
improves a bit and they buy a bicycle. The economy improves a little
more and it is a 90cc motorcycle and finally, within one person's
lifetime, an automobile.

It has happened in every country I have lived in, including, to a
certain extent, the U.S.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:12:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:02:07 AM UTC-7, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
financial.

No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now
mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they
travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time.

Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

I’d bet against that. Even if you gave free bikes to everyone who
wanted one, most people would still prefer to sit on their ass in
traffic and scream at other cars.

Unless you put in bike paths everywhere. Then they would ride.
Really. Even if they live 15 miles from their work on the other side
of a mountain.
https://www.ridersmate.com/wp-conten...-of-moher1.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.

Certainly they would. Perhaps not on the days when it is raining, or
those hideously hot summer days, or when they've got to pick the kid
up from school and take him to his clarinet lesson, or maybe not on
the days they aren't feeling too well after yesterday's big party.
Or...
--
Cheers,

John B.

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.


--

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:10:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/15/2017 3:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:28:04 +1000, James
wrote:

On 15/08/17 06:58, Andre Jute wrote:
480,000 Americans die before their time every year from
smoking-related diseases -- and the stupidity of successive
governments and anti-smoking campaigners and grandstanding,
dim-witted legislators. Now comes Scott Gottlieb, who demonstrates
that he's a clear thinker who hasn't been captured by the hysterics
of control freak Left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...garette-policy

Why doesn't cycling have a clear thinker like Scott Gottlieb to cut
through the bull**** and define the problem?

Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.

I heard recently that e-cigarettes contain some possibly worse chemicals
than good old fashion cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety...nic_cigarettes

The Swedes have Snus instead. Best of both worlds.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/sweden-f...10-gwothf.html

Actually "dipping snus" is probably roughly the same as chewing
tobacco as far as danger to the individual. I used to work with snus
users and they seem to be as dependent on it as cigarette smokers. We
had an old crane operator that threatened to leave if they forgot to
bring his Copenhagen on the next crew change.

It sounds like they acknowledge that the tobacco in snus is still
addicting. It's just that ingesting it this way causes far less
physical harm.

I do wonder if it requires as much ugly spitting as chewing tobacco.

Yup. It is basically about the same as chewing with perhaps a slightly
lower flow of Saliva. If you swallow it makes you sick.
(been there, done that :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 8/15/2017 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:57:50 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
financial.

No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now
mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they
travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time.

Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

I’d bet against that. Even if you gave free bikes to everyone who
wanted one, most people would still prefer to sit on their ass in
traffic and scream at other cars.

It apparently is human nature to avoid undue effort. It is a very
visible phenomena in developing countries. The poor walk - the economy
improves a bit and they buy a bicycle. The economy improves a little
more and it is a 90cc motorcycle and finally, within one person's
lifetime, an automobile.

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

--
- Frank Krygowski