A March on Washington... on Bicycle?

On Nov 18, 4:10*am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"KingOfTheApes" wrote in message

...
[...]

Well, I knew the UK was a smarter place, not only because they have
tamed traffic to a higher degree, but also because they don't have a
Republican party.

The UK is one of the most ****ed up places on earth. Only France is more
****ed up. The last good prime minister they had was Margaret Thatcher who
at least had sense enough to know how to kick Argentine butt. I think the
Brits are still dumb enough to revere the late Winston Churchill when all he
ever did was preside over the demise of the British Empire. Great Britain is
no longer Great. It has now become a tiny kingdom by the sea.


And yet their worst error was to discover America. If it had been the
French, we would at least have good food.

On Nov 18, 4:17*am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message

...





KingOfTheApes wrote:

Anyway, this assessment about Holland seems to support my idea TRAFFIC
TAMING, BIKE ROUTES AND BIKE LANES. Thank you!

Or rather, the above assessment shows you didn't read what I wrote very
carefully, so take back your tanks and read it again.

I said that what makes the real difference isn't the bike paths but the
typical cycle-awareness of the drivers. *Think how cycle-aware the
average driver where you are is, and now think how he might improve if
rather than confronting him with more bikes, you confront him with
/less/, by moving the traffic off the road for most of the time (but
crucially *not* the time at junctions where there is most danger).

As I pointed out, there's plenty of shared road space in NL, and it is
shared relatively civilly because, AFAICT, of the awareness of the
typical motorist for cyclists. *That awareness does not come about by
removing cyclists from the roads.

The key to be safe isn't putting up physical barriers between cars and
bikes, it's making sure motorists are properly aware of cyclists and
share the road with them as equals. *In much the same way that users of
Smart cars share as equals with 18 wheeler trucks that /could/ squash
them like bugs.

Pete.

Peter Clinch * * * * * * * * * *Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 * Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 * * * * * * *Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net * *http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland is as always out to lunch when it come to
bicycle safety. It is a wonder he has not been run over and killed by now..
He is an idiot and you listen to anything he has to say at your peril. For
God's sakes, just look at his signature above and you will know everything
you will ever have to know about him. He has absolutely got the worst
signature of anyone on Usenet. Why can't he get a modest and humble
signature like mine!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are Napoleonic...

http://geschichte.surfbrett.at/napol...n_waterloo.jpg

and your destiny is to rule over the roaches of the world after you
finish with humanity, Dr. Evil.

(This guy introduces the subject of walkable, which I adapt for this
forum to bikeable, so you can actually find out if you live in
something called in the old times a "community" or just a hole)

Doug wrote:
I was surprised that my old neighborhood in New Orleans was a
“walker’s paradise” at 100%, while my South Beach apartment was only
“very walkable” at 86%. I’m only somewhat walkable now at 51% in
DeLand.

Walkscore.com apparently gauges its rating by the proximity of things
like grocery stores, parks, movie theatres, schools, libraries,
bookstores, bars, drug stores, etc. However, that doesn’t necessarily
mean the streets are that friendly to cross! And it also leaves out a
lot of businesses and mentions others that no longer exist.
Nonetheless, assuming the margin of error is equal, it should give you
a rough idea of how pedestrian-friendly your community is.

Enter your address into this gizmo and see how walkable your
neighborhood is!

(enter address here)
http://walkscore.com/

***

My place is highly walkable, but hardly bikeable…

Should I be happy or sad about it?

NOTE: I correct myself, my place only scored a 54… I can indeed walk
in safety and without barking mastiffs (something unheard of in Miami)
but it’s quite far. If you like long walks though (like a mile) then
you should be happy with it. The only thing that doesn’t make me happy
is that I rather bike a mile than walk a mile.

On Nov 18, 1:42*pm, KingOfTheApes wrote:
On Nov 18, 3:33*am, Peter Clinch wrote:





KingOfTheApes wrote:
Anyway, this assessment about Holland seems to support my idea TRAFFIC
TAMING, BIKE ROUTES AND BIKE LANES. Thank you!

Or rather, the above assessment shows you didn't read what I wrote very
carefully, so take back your tanks and read it again.

I said that what makes the real difference isn't the bike paths but the
typical cycle-awareness of the drivers. *Think how cycle-aware the
average driver where you are is, and now think how he might improve if
rather than confronting him with more bikes, you confront him with
/less/, by moving the traffic off the road for most of the time (but
crucially *not* the time at junctions where there is most danger).

As I pointed out, there's plenty of shared road space in NL, and it is
shared relatively civilly because, AFAICT, of the awareness of the
typical motorist for cyclists. *That awareness does not come about by
removing cyclists from the roads.

The key to be safe isn't putting up physical barriers between cars and
bikes, it's making sure motorists are properly aware of cyclists and
share the road with them as equals. *In much the same way that users of
Smart cars share as equals with 18 wheeler trucks that /could/ squash
them like bugs.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch * * * * * * * * * *Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 * Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 * * * * * * *Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net * *http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I may be excused from not interpreting your long answer but are not
from not interpreting my short worded solutions...

BIKE FACILITIES (bike lanes and bike facilities) AND/OR TRAFFIC
TAMING.

This side of the Atlantic we are sort of in the Wild West when it
comes to traffic safety: NO LANE DISCIPLINE, NO CONTROL OVER CELL
PHONES, UNREGULATED VEHICLES (SUV'S with deadly bumpers)... and LOTS
OF SPEEDING TICKETS.

You think Obama will change that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, I'll pick on my own question...

You expect Obama to change America, or just waiting for Jesus?

Sometimes too much expection can lead to disillusion, and disillusion
can lead to the Republican Party, so we better become realistic as to
what the real chances are of this brand-new President changing
America.

An unsurmountable debt, two wars, global rising temperatures as well
as tough budgets can make his good performance more of a miracle, and
we know how's the only only that can do miracles...

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...us-Posters.jpg

So who's going to fix America?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coming soon to a theater near you...

http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/...ution%21& l4=

"KingOfTheApes" wrote in message
...
[...]
You expect Obama to change America, or just waiting for Jesus?

Sometimes too much expection can lead to disillusion, and disillusion
can lead to the Republican Party, so we better become realistic as to
what the real chances are of this brand-new President changing
America.

An unsurmountable debt, two wars, global rising temperatures as well
as tough budgets can make his good performance more of a miracle, and
we know how's the only only that can do miracles...

You quiescing, dancing, subjective wretch. You are a disbelieving,
smegma-encrusted, self-defeating impugner. You are less than a moiling,
forsaken, gusseted wet blanket. You fussing, dotty, off-base toe-jam.
You collapsing, poltroon, tottering farmhand. You gurgling, hueless,
****ing adenoid. You gulping, incognisant, distressed herpes sufferer.
You absconding, squinting, villainous frump. You misconstruing,
bottle-fed, debilitated hand job. You mollifying, fuggy, indigent pile
of faeces. You belaboring, babbling, horsey duck. You excruciating,
milk-livered, babyish drug baron. You gasifying, grungy, hulking retard.
You are a pasturing, pearl necklace-wearing, pettifogging gallows bird.
You foraging, free-swimming, jingling malkin. You are a pumicating,
lacklustre, over-exposed licker. You are a misling, stuck-up, vile
yoghurt eater. You are a nidulating, obsessive-compulsive, potty dog's
groin. You postulating, hygienically challenged, hermaphrodite
fat-mouth. You fagoting, reactionary, ill-formed bat. You are a
sniggling, close-cropped, right-angled knockwurst. You are a pumicating,
red-faced, ladylike corpse. You are a goggling, repugnant, xenophobic
hogfish.

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

KingOfTheApes wrote:

I may be excused from not interpreting your long answer but are not
from not interpreting my short worded solutions...

BIKE FACILITIES (bike lanes and bike facilities) AND/OR TRAFFIC
TAMING.

You can shout all you want, but that isn't the key to safety. The key
to safety is mutual respect between road users.

This side of the Atlantic we are sort of in the Wild West when it
comes to traffic safety: NO LANE DISCIPLINE, NO CONTROL OVER CELL
PHONES, UNREGULATED VEHICLES (SUV'S with deadly bumpers)... and LOTS
OF SPEEDING TICKETS.

The bike facilities doesn't get you out of accidents happening at
junctions because if you want your "facilities" to go anywhere useful
they'll have to intersect with the roads, and so when the bikes are on
the roads the lack of awareness drivers have of bikes will be
exaggerated by their being fewer bikes /except/ at the junctions.

SUVs with deadly bumpers... well, even with "safe" bumpers the real key
is not colliding with vehicles at all. The key to that is mutual
respect, and you don't get that from bike lanes, and any "taming" of the
traffic you otherwise do is coloured by bikes being out of the equation
except at the most dangerous points (junctions).

You think Obama will change that?

No.

I'm also pretty sure that ghettoising cyclists onto half-baked
"facilities" (and experience suggests that outside of places with
existing bicycle culture like NL, Denmark, Germany etc. they *will* be
half baked) won't help either.

No great shortage of "facilities" round here. It's usually quicker and
safer for me to take the roads.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Nov 19, 3:42*am, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:
I may be excused from not interpreting your long answer but are not
from not interpreting my short worded solutions...

BIKE FACILITIES (bike lanes and bike facilities) AND/OR TRAFFIC
TAMING.

You can shout all you want, but that isn't the key to safety. *The key
to safety is mutual respect between road users.

Well, this based on subjective appreciation. I think good drivers
begin with education but ultimately depend on enforcement. So going
back to my favorite metaphor, WE NEED THE BANANA (the treat) AND THE
WHIP TO TAME THE BEAST.


This side of the Atlantic we are sort of in the Wild West when it
comes to traffic safety: NO LANE DISCIPLINE, NO CONTROL OVER CELL
PHONES, UNREGULATED VEHICLES (SUV'S with deadly bumpers)... and LOTS
OF SPEEDING TICKETS.

The bike facilities doesn't get you out of accidents happening at
junctions because if you want your "facilities" to go anywhere useful
they'll have to intersect with the roads, and so when the bikes are on
the roads the lack of awareness drivers have of bikes will be
exaggerated by their being fewer bikes /except/ at the junctions.

SUVs with deadly bumpers... well, even with "safe" bumpers the real key
is not colliding with vehicles at all. *The key to that is mutual
respect, and you don't get that from bike lanes, and any "taming" of the
traffic you otherwise do is coloured by bikes being out of the equation
except at the most dangerous points (junctions).

Only way to solve this conflict is put cameras on main intersections.
Any sort of bullying would cost the predator dearly ($$$)... to fund
more bike facilities.


You think Obama will change that?

No.

I guess only Jesus can, huh? Too bad for those who don't believe
there's a Jesus. Well luckily, there's a revolution around.


I'm also pretty sure that ghettoising cyclists onto half-baked
"facilities" (and experience suggests that outside of places with
existing bicycle culture like NL, Denmark, Germany etc. they *will* be
half baked) won't help either.

No great shortage of "facilities" round here. *It's usually quicker and
safer for me to take the roads.

OK, HAVING OPTIONS sounds good to me, and whether there's bike
facilities or not, you should be able to ride wherever you wish.

KingOfTheApes wrote:

Well, this based on subjective appreciation. I think good drivers
begin with education but ultimately depend on enforcement. So going
back to my favorite metaphor, WE NEED THE BANANA (the treat) AND THE
WHIP TO TAME THE BEAST.

So where does that need bike paths?

I guess only Jesus can, huh?

No.

Too bad for those who don't believe
there's a Jesus. Well luckily, there's a revolution around.

a) there isn't, and b) even if there were it would be missing the point
creating bike paths.

OK, HAVING OPTIONS sounds good to me, and whether there's bike
facilities or not, you should be able to ride wherever you wish.

Absolutely, but if you insist on creating bike paths with your
"revolution" you'll find yourself being pushed onto them whether you
like it or not. Why do I think that? That's what experience shows me
happens. It required extensive lobbying by the CTC (UK's biggest
cyclists' organisation) to get rid of a word-change to the Highway Code
that would say cyclists should use "facilities" wherever possible. That
it succeeeded in quashing the revision shows that a bit of democracy in
action can work, but that it was necessary to do it shows that creating
bike paths tends to limit options rather than expand them.

I'm afraid if you want real results you hhave to deal with relaity,
rather than dreams.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Nov 19, 10:38*am, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:
Well, this based on subjective appreciation. I think good drivers
begin with education but ultimately depend on enforcement. So going
back to my favorite metaphor, WE NEED THE BANANA (the treat) AND THE
WHIP TO TAME THE BEAST.

So where does that need bike paths?

I guess only Jesus can, huh?

No.

OK, let's say not everybody is "tough." Let's admit some people are
"chicken" or that they are just bothered by traffic noise... so they
need bike paths. Let's assume also that families with kids are not
tough enough for the roads, so they can have an space along the
ckicken.


*Too bad for those who don't believe
there's a Jesus. Well luckily, there's a revolution around.

a) there isn't, and b) even if there were it would be missing the point
creating bike paths.

Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to
protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are
unwilling or unable to drive SUVs.


OK, HAVING OPTIONS sounds good to me, and whether there's bike
facilities or not, you should be able to ride wherever you wish.

Absolutely, but if you insist on creating bike paths with your
"revolution" you'll find yourself being pushed onto them whether you
like it or not. *Why do I think that? *That's what experience shows me
happens. *It required extensive lobbying by the CTC (UK's biggest
cyclists' organisation) to get rid of a word-change to the Highway Code
that would say cyclists should use "facilities" wherever possible. *That
it succeeeded in quashing the revision shows that a bit of democracy in
action can work, but that it was necessary to do it shows that creating
bike paths tends to limit options rather than expand them.

I'm afraid if you want real results you hhave to deal with relaity,
rather than dreams.

Dreams sometimes become reality and sometimes become nightmares. Which
is good always go back to good-ol'-fashinoned Orwell.

Forgive me this revolutionary rhetoric...

Originally Posted by Lamplight

I was actually thinking more along the lines of executing the
aristocrats and walking around calling each other "citizen".

***

No, a bloody revolution would make as much sense as the war in Iraq,
which is to say we don't need it.

This is more along the lines of Gandhi and King, who were inspired by
Jesus, whether he existed or not.

So Christians are welcome, Muslims are welcome (because we don't agree
with the West nor with the terrorists), and, of course, the proles are
welcome since this a revolution largely inspired by Orwell's
animalism, thus we will call each other, "Hey brother monkey!"

WHY ANIMALS? Thank Orwell in large part...

'Orwell agreed with Marx's social arguments, but as we will later see,
disagreed on many of his other beliefs. In Animal Farm, we can see his
depictions as man as a social animal and his Socialist ideologies
through old Major's very Marxist speech in the barn: "Why... do we
continue in this miserable condition? Because nearly the whole of the
produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There,
comrades, is the answer to all our problems: It is summed up in a
single word ‹ Man. "Man is the only creature that consumes without
producing... He sets [the animals] to work, he gives back to them the
bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he
keeps for himself... "Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our
labour would be our own... That is my message to you, comrades:
Rebellion!'

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2074/orwell.htm

(No we don't need with Lenin and Mao)

Originally Posted by cyclezealot
"We are not into violence.. Let's have no Soviet/French style
revolution with blood in the streets. Can we turn Bush's scores of
jails set up about the country under his War Commissions Act into 're-
education centers, ' for the non-believers..."


I think what we can learn from Russia is a bloodless Perestroika! From
the French we can learn their passion for "the simple pleasures of
life," free time (35 hour workweek) and good food, which are all in
line with our Epicurean revolution (thus the names of food for it).

The nonbelievers though should be re-educated on SAVING ENERGY, and
made to commute by bike at least 1 day a week.