What made the last big bike boom? The next?

In article ,
the robotic servitors of Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
rose up with the following chant:

There *are* solid tires, called Green tires (although they are black). I
used to use them, and they work fine except that they take about 5 km/h
of your top speed. Last about a year in heavy use, before they start
breaking appart.

Mounting them is a pain in the back unless you know a little trick:
Spray them with lemon degreaser first. That will make them softer and
somewhat larger in diameter. Put them on the wheel and then let the
degreaser evaporate over night, the tires will shrink back to their
original size and sit nuke proof on the wheel.

Currently I use tires reinforced by a 5 mm neoprene layer (made by
Schwalbe), they too work very nicely.

Thanks for the advice. My bike shop sells me an inner layer too, but it sure
doesn't look like it's 5 mm thick; mine is more the thickness of a trading
card. If I can find something thicker, it sounds like the way to go.

The (not so) funniest thing about broken glass is that after an accident
police officers use a broom to collect the glass bits into a neat little
heap. That the leave where? At the right side of the road, right in the
path of cyclists. Grrrr

I ride on bike paths that run right beside the road in places, and I've seen
the glass bits from accidents swept right onto the bike path. Grrr indeed.
Sure, maybe I should pay extra usage fees to get executive-level service
from the local Public Works department, but shouldn't they do no harm for
free?

-------- Scott Eiler B{D -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

In article ,
(Carl Fogel) wrote:

My point is that if a handful of bicyclists want the streets swept
so well that our delicate tires don't suffer, then who should be
taxed for such expensive services?

snip

It's quite common for special interest groups to demand more
services and then react in horror when asked to pay for them.

I'm already paying for such services. In our city, we had excellent
street maintainance until a whacko Republican mayor got elected and
decided it was more important to spend my tax dollars on corporate
welfare for his buddies than for services that actually benefit the
taxpayers. And he deluded himself into thinking he was the best mayor
in the country. Now that he's a senator, he's carrying on doing
exactly the same thing but with much greater scope and far more
potential for damage. He'll be a candidate for President in about 10
years.

www.bushboy.com

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
Currently I use tires reinforced by a 5 mm neoprene layer (made by
Schwalbe), they too work very nicely.

I think I've seen them in bike shops, but I thought it was the tubes
which were reinforced or self-healing.

The (not so) funniest thing about broken glass is that after an accident
police officers use a broom to collect the glass bits into a neat little
heap. That the leave where? At the right side of the road, right in the
path of cyclists. Grrrr

At least they collect it... Where do you live ? rant Here in Berlin
the firemen will pick up oil leaks without delay after an accident
(Grundwasserschutz), but the glass stays on until the BSR comes along,
which can be a while. Heck, even the car wrecks are just abandoned on
the spot by their owners after an accident, and can easily stay weeks or
even *months* by the roadside, preferably on the bike path, or else the
ADAC almighty might possibly get angry... /rant (But I find Berlin
nevertheless a great place for going around by bike.)

The broken-glass-on-the-road situation would be much better in Germany
if there was at last a proper money-back system for all containers, and
especially for glass ones. I find really sad that this should even be an
issue. Such systems have been working for decades all over
North-America, their problems have
been largely solved, and as a side effect it does wonders in reducing
the litter. I find the German grocers and packers lobby arguments and
tactics downright dumb and irritating, it really shows they're either
idiots, take us for idiots, or have never been abroad. Practically all
the glass shards I slalom around has remnants of Jevers, Becks or
Schultheiss labels, brands which are all sold in throwaway bottles -
it's surprising that I never see Erdinger and other Mehrwegflaschen
brands. Fastened plastic bottle empties lying on the road are another
hazard.

Gruß,

Alexandre

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Carl Fogel) wrote:

My point is that if a handful of bicyclists want the streets swept
so well that our delicate tires don't suffer, then who should be
taxed for such expensive services?

snip

It's quite common for special interest groups to demand more
services and then react in horror when asked to pay for them.

I'm already paying for such services. In our city, we had excellent
street maintainance until a whacko Republican mayor got elected and
decided it was more important to spend my tax dollars on corporate
welfare for his buddies than for services that actually benefit the
taxpayers. And he deluded himself into thinking he was the best mayor
in the country. Now that he's a senator, he's carrying on doing
exactly the same thing but with much greater scope and far more
potential for damage. He'll be a candidate for President in about 10
years.

www.bushboy.com

Dear Tim,

It sounds as if your fellow voters and taxpayers disagreed with
you. I'll leave you to brood about his evil national plan to
leave glass unswept and reduce rec.bicycles.tech to impotent fury.

You might as well be cheerful--it pays the same.

Carl Fogel

....stuff deleted

Dear Rick,

I like the point that you raise about roadside debris eventually being
removed, but I still think that my premise
is correct because the posters here are not asking for it to be removed
"eventually"--they want the roads swept
noticeably more often and more thoroughly. This still seems like asking
for additional service, and road-cleaning crews like
to be paid.


Having commuted by bicycle for many years, I do believe that the roads that
receive weekly maintenance are, generally on an schedule for cyclists. Yes,
there will be glass and debris that gathers that would be nice to see
removed, but it does, eventually, get removed. Other roads, however, are
cleaned on a schedule that is well below some safe threshold. I remember
passing the same road debris every day for over almost a year. For all I
know, it is still there, since I've changed jobs since then.

I'm afraid that I don't share your belief that any simple message
about pollution has been forgotten. I think that many people simply
don't agree with it or don't care about it. If they had only
forgotten it, you could simply remind them. If they disagree
or don't care, you have to convince or coerce them.


By forgotten, I mean that those who learned it have not passed it on
successfully. There was a period of time there where dropping garbage was
actively frowned upon and often received a sharp rebuke. Those days are
gone. It seems that even those who once seemed to care about the message do
so no longer. The degree of litter is obviously rising in the areas I've
been in lately, and I must say it is a sorry state of affairs.

I'm also afraid that I doubt your claim that "commute cyclists
provide a huge benefit for the general populace." Commuters
on bicycles are, as far as I know, extremely rare in the U.S.,
both as children going to school and as adults. If there are
enough bicycle commuters here to make a significant or even
measurable difference to the general public (much less a huge
one), perhaps you could dig up some figures or a web site address
to cheer me up?


Again, as a commuter, there are things I've seen and done that have improved
the commute of others. From stopping to assist drivers whose cars have
stalled or who needed help until the law arrived, to moving debris, ducks,
and dogs from the road and potential danger. From not driving on those
roads, others obviously had a (modestly) improved commute simply because I
was not taking up 17 feet of roadway that they might otherwise not be able
to access. So, yes, commuters do provide a definite, and appreciable,
service. One only notices us, however, when one makes the occasional minor
adjustment to accomodate a cyclist.

I do wish that my tone were as courteous as yours. It sets you
apart from much of what I've been reading here.


Aw, shucks. Just being me.

Rick

(Pete Harris) wrote in message om...
(Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote

Certainly not
'combat' but do local areas have an aggresive(read pays well)
bottle return system. That is, do places pay well for returned glass
containers?

That helps a wee bit.

Here's what doesn't help at all: Open Container laws which encourage
people to throw beer bottles out the window.

At least in California, it doesn't matter if the the bottle is
completely empty, it's a serious "moving vehicle" violation. Cops are
trained to look very carefully through your windows to find one of
these--then you're in big trouble, and we all know that.

Unfortuately, the MADD lobby is stronger than the bike lobby, so all
we can do is teach our kids the importance of lofting the backhand
toss clear over the shoulder and safely into the ditch where someone
who needs the money can pick up the bottle for the redemption value.

- Pete

Dear Pete,

Wouldn't it be simpler to teach your kids not to leave open liquor
bottles, empty or otherwise, rolling around in your car in the first
place?

Come to think of it, which do you fear more when you're riding your
bicycle, some glass on the road and a flat tire, or a drunk driver
coming up behind you?

Why do you think that the police look for open beer bottles when they
pull drivers over?

Hope you don't hit anyone while explaining your position.

Carl Fogel

Xelax wrote:

The broken-glass-on-the-road situation would be much better in Germany
if there was at last a proper money-back system for all containers, and
especially for glass ones. I find really sad that this should even be an
issue. Such systems have been working for decades all over
North-America, their problems have
been largely solved, and as a side effect it does wonders in reducing
the litter.

Alexandre

If Alexandre thinks that the litter problem in North America has "been
largely solved", then I can safely conclude that he has never been here.
Maybe to Disneyland, where the litter does get cleaned up.

--
Ted Bennett
Portland OR

In article ,
(Carl Fogel) wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Carl Fogel) wrote:

It's quite common for special interest groups to demand more
services and then react in horror when asked to pay for them.

Out of curiosity, who isn't a special interest group? Wait, let me
guess: the people who agree with *you.*

I'm already paying for such services. In our city, we had
excellent street maintainance until a whacko Republican mayor got
elected and decided it was more important to spend my tax dollars
on corporate welfare for his buddies than for services that
actually benefit the taxpayers. And he deluded himself into
thinking he was the best mayor in the country. Now that he's a
senator, he's carrying on doing exactly the same thing but with
much greater scope and far more potential for damage. He'll be a
candidate for President in about 10 years.

www.bushboy.com

It sounds as if your fellow voters and taxpayers disagreed with
you. I'll leave you to brood about his evil national plan to leave
glass unswept and reduce rec.bicycles.tech to impotent fury.

Hee hee. Well, that was a rather complicated election what with
Wellstone- who was leading in the polls and moving away- being killed
and all. You'll notice, perhaps, that St. Paul's former mayor didn't
carry St. Paul in the senatorial election. I'm content to wait until
his next election. Mr. Coleman is doing such a nice job renegging on
his public campaign promises that he should make an excellent
candidate for President.

In article ,
(Carl Fogel) wrote:

Wouldn't it be simpler to teach your kids not to leave open liquor
bottles, empty or otherwise, rolling around in your car in the
first place?

Now, see, that's just it. Our kids *don't* keep the bottles in the
car. They throw them out the passenger window, where the bottles
smash right on the part of the road that bicyclists ride on. You,
like so many others, seem to lack the common sense approach of
teaching our kids not to drink and drive in the first place.

Now, I personally think that them who creates the problem should pay
for straightening it out. That's people in cars- bicyclists aren't
out smashing bottles in the bike lanes as a general thing. Virtually
every broken bottle on the street came out of a car. If we can't hold
the individual culprits accountable, then it gets spread out among the
whole class of people.

Ted Bennett wrote:

Xelax wrote:
The broken-glass-on-the-road situation would be much better in Germany
if there was at last a proper money-back system for all containers, and
especially for glass ones. I find really sad that this should even be an
issue. Such systems have been working for decades all over
North-America, their problems have
been largely solved, and as a side effect it does wonders in reducing
the litter.

If Alexandre thinks that the litter problem in North America has "been
largely solved", then I can safely conclude that he has never been here.

Hi Ted.

It's getting somewhat off-topic, but I feel I have to answer that.

I had spent practically my entire life in Montréal (30+ years) until I
moved over here. I was back there in may, and I must say that arriving
from Berlin, I found broken beer glass bottles on the streets to be
rather conspicuous by their absence; alumin[i]um cans were also seldom
to be seen; if one is littered it will be quickly picked up by someone
who needs the money. I've even picked up some myself while on my way to
the convenience store, thinking that the negligible extra effort was
well worth a couple of nickels. Nota bene : that DOESN'T mean there's no
litter, dumbness is universal, but there is at least a counter-force at
work here.

But I now realize while I'm writing this that there could be another
factor : there appears to be no [by]laws in Germany prohibiting the
consumption of alcohol on the public way. It's perhaps much less
hypocritical than the North-American practice of hiding one's brew in a
brown paper bag, but I'm still a bit shocked at the sight of men
guzzling through a six-pack of beer (500ml cans!) during a subway ride
on their way to the stadium.

Maybe to Disneyland, where the litter does get cleaned up.

For sure Montréal ain't no Disneyland, this city has its share of
problems. Policemen are more occupied chasing sausage sellers and
alcohol drinkers in parks on Sundays [in some places it is downright
ridiculous, for example, with upwards of 50 officers checking people's
bags at the Jeanne-Mance Park], than at curbing driver violence.
Pedestrians and bikes are not even an afterthought in most of the city
planning [I have some pictures of some really appalling places - it
seems the engineers have something in general against anything which
doesn't move in two tons of glass and steel], and the last government
introduced generalized RTOR (Right-Turn-On-Red) - they had the gall of
passing it off as an environmental and energy saving measure!!! The new
government upheld that decision, and even extended it to the island of
Montréal. Makes me puke.

Alexandre