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

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:10:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.

Of course. And, I might add it seems somewhat difficult to find a
"health club" that will accept just any one. I went to one, oh maybe 2
km from the house, and asked about joining. Figured I could bike down
get a workout and a shower and back home smelling all clean and perty.
Yes Sir! We have the six month (pay in advance) option or the one year
(pay in advance) "full membership. "Which would you prefer sir? And of
course I'm sure that you understand that a personal trainer is extra.

I mumbled something about, "maybe three days a week, work out with the
free weights a little?" I was assured that they only had the very
latest and specialized exercise machines here.

To be honest, I'm not sure that the little girl at the counter quite
understood the term "free weights", but after looking in the windows
to the "exercise rooms" I realized I wouldn't fit in any way. All
those people were wearing. at least, $200 of "exercise clothing" while
my idea of "exercise clothes" is an old pair of shorts and a singlet.
--
Cheers,

John B.

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann 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 oneÂ’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
gym to do it! They donÂ’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.

I’m not sure it much matters. That simply *is* the landscape you’re
dealing with, and thus a major part of the problem that needs to be
solved. Besides, symptoms have a way of becoming causes of other
illnesses. Obesity is a prime example.

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.

But that doesn’t address the problem that bicycles *still* require
effort to use and still expose you to weather. Most guys who wears a
suit at work aren’t going to be keen on biking 15 miles in the rain,
regardless of their fitness level. If we *really* take a big enough
step backwards, we see all kinds of problems that are interconnected.
We can’t just address a single issue and act like that is going to
result in the widespread adoption of bicycling.

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.

But the real problem is that they still likely *want* a car, and
probably will get one when they can afford one. If you want to see a
real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such
a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric
vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic
impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s
really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt
and/or adapt them.

In other
words, define the problem you're trying to solve first, and then talk
about solutions.

But we must also be aware we need to define a problem that people
*want* to solve. In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that
most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably.
Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change. But
we appear to be living at a time where large numbers of people are
rejecting objective reality and science.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

On 8/16/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Landau wrote:

Can you ride your bicycle to synagogue on Shabbat? I don't think that riding it is carrying it, it's it carrying you, so #1 is not a concern. Also, if you haven't been riding, then it;'s not a weekday activity, so #3 is OK too. But if the chain breaks you're ****ed.


1) It is prohibited to carry objects in a public domain on Shabbat. Transporting an object by riding it is tantamount to carrying it.

2) Fixing a device on Shabbat is prohibited. If the bicycle breaks down, for example if the chain falls off, there is concern that the rider may fix it.

3) Riding a bike is considered a mundane weekday activity, one that we refrain from on Shabbat.

FWIW, we have Amish areas not far from our home. I've learned that
their rules vary from congregation to congregation. Some allow the use
of bicycles; others forbid bicycles but allow push scooters, so you can
see Amish scooting along highways. I was told of one congregation that
allowed driving cars, so long as all the shiny bits on the car were
painted black.

Theology is complicated. Even the theology of bicycles.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/16/2017 11:57 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:

If you want to see a
real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such
a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric
vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic
impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s
really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt
and/or adapt them.

But we must also be aware we need to define a problem that people
*want* to solve. In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that
most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably.
Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change.

When comparing countries, it's good to remember that certain aspects of
history are effectively irreversible. If the United States had been
confined to an area the size of the Netherlands, we'd have the
population density and short trip distances that do so much to enable
bike transportation in northern Europe. We would also have been able to
finance high quality mass transportation.

But settlers here were given access to the width of a continent, with
only a few inconvenient Native Americans in the way. The society
immediately spread out, and there are still plenty of people who feel
that if they can see the smoke from another's chimney, things are too
crowded.

The resulting low density and long travel distances severely limit bike
transportation. And even certain bike enthusiasts are guilty of moving
to communities way out in the sticks, then complaining that it's
difficult to ride where they pretend they'd like to. Americans tend to
want lots of space, so the density problem isn't going away.
--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:29:55 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

The resulting low density and long travel distances severely limit bike
transportation. And even certain bike enthusiasts are guilty of moving
to communities way out in the sticks, then complaining that it's
difficult to ride where they pretend they'd like to. Americans tend to
want lots of space, so the density problem isn't going away.
--
- Frank Krygowski

The size of Canada or the United States of America boggles the minds of many.

To give some idea of the sizes of Canada and the United States of America let's look at ONE Canadian province = Ontario, Canada. Into this province you can fit ALL of France and ALL Germany and still have 67,725 square miles left over. Subtract the ENTIRE Netherlands 16,164 square miles and you still have 51,561 sqaure miles of Ontario, Canada in which to place other countries of your choice. You can help fill in that space by adding ALL of Lithuania at 25,174 square miles and ALL Latvia at 24,926 square miles and STILL have 1,461 square miles left over.

That's why the populationdesities are not high enough in cities in orddrt o have a comprehensive bicycling only infrastructure.

To top it off many bicycling infrastruction goals also includ make them MUPs rather than dedicated to bicycles. Often too those facilities will have ridicuously low bicycling maxinum speeds such as 20 kph (12.5 mph) which makes them nearly useless to dedicated bicycle commuters travelling any distance.

This is NOT to mention the extremely poor even dangerous designs of most bicycling facilities.

Cheers

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 1:07:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/16/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Landau wrote:

Can you ride your bicycle to synagogue on Shabbat? I don't think that riding it is carrying it, it's it carrying you, so #1 is not a concern. Also, if you haven't been riding, then it;'s not a weekday activity, so #3 is OK too. But if the chain breaks you're ****ed.


1) It is prohibited to carry objects in a public domain on Shabbat. Transporting an object by riding it is tantamount to carrying it.

2) Fixing a device on Shabbat is prohibited. If the bicycle breaks down, for example if the chain falls off, there is concern that the rider may fix it.

3) Riding a bike is considered a mundane weekday activity, one that we refrain from on Shabbat.

FWIW, we have Amish areas not far from our home. I've learned that
their rules vary from congregation to congregation. Some allow the use
of bicycles; others forbid bicycles but allow push scooters, so you can
see Amish scooting along highways. I was told of one congregation that
allowed driving cars, so long as all the shiny bits on the car were
painted black.

Theology is complicated. Even the theology of bicycles.

https://swissmennonite.org//feature_...02/200211.html Floyd could ride a bike, but he had to get special dispensation to wear shorts. https://swissmennonite.org//feature_...02/200211.html I don't think he bothered getting permission for the drugs.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 5:34:04 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:29:55 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

The resulting low density and long travel distances severely limit bike
transportation. And even certain bike enthusiasts are guilty of moving
to communities way out in the sticks, then complaining that it's
difficult to ride where they pretend they'd like to. Americans tend to
want lots of space, so the density problem isn't going away.
--
- Frank Krygowski

The size of Canada or the United States of America boggles the minds of many.

To give some idea of the sizes of Canada and the United States of America let's look at ONE Canadian province = Ontario, Canada. Into this province you can fit ALL of France and ALL Germany and still have 67,725 square miles left over. Subtract the ENTIRE Netherlands 16,164 square miles and you still have 51,561 sqaure miles of Ontario, Canada in which to place other countries of your choice. You can help fill in that space by adding ALL of Lithuania at 25,174 square miles and ALL Latvia at 24,926 square miles and STILL have 1,461 square miles left over.

That's why the populationdesities are not high enough in cities in orddrt o have a comprehensive bicycling only infrastructure.

To top it off many bicycling infrastruction goals also includ make them MUPs rather than dedicated to bicycles. Often too those facilities will have ridicuously low bicycling maxinum speeds such as 20 kph (12.5 mph) which makes them nearly useless to dedicated bicycle commuters travelling any distance.

This is NOT to mention the extremely poor even dangerous designs of most bicycling facilities.

I always point out that you can put The Netherlands in the lower right-hand corner of Oregon and nobody would notice, except a few cows. Eastern Oregon bike lane: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archive...n%20Desert.jpg


-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:20:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/15/2017 1:20 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:

Bicycling is already an economical alternative to driving by at least
an order of magnitude when comparing a mid-range bike with a
mid-range car. Operating costs of a bike are a tiny fraction of the
operating costs of a car, even when factoring the stupidly high
prices of consumables like bike tires...

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.

I think you're using too restrictive a definition of "economic." Yours
seems to be counting only dollars. But at least in some discussions
"economics" is used to describe human behavior in response to benefits
and detriments in general, not just when counting dollars. (The
_Freakonomics_ series of books goes into this idea in detail.)

OK, you make a good point. I was thinking strictly dollars. But a 20
minute drive to work versus an hour bike ride or a 1 1/2 hour bus ride
has definite value that influences decisions. Or being able to bring
home a week's work of groceries in one's car versus maybe a day or two
by bike. If one lives in a compact city with broadly available bike
infrastrucure- Copenhagen, for example- it changes those aspects of
economics in ways that won't happen for many people in LA, Chicago, etc.

While I'm staunchly in favor of bicycling, I think American society
practically mandates owning an automobile, at least for well over 90%
of households. I'll bicycle to the grocery store today, but I'll be
making a 120 mile round trip in a few days, then a much longer round
trip a few days after that. In each of those cases I know no
practical alternative to driving the car.

Yes, most Americans live in cities and most US cities are socially
engineered to make it very difficult to live without a car.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:57:01 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I beg to differ. Excessive body mass and lack of motivation are
certainly real problems. However, they are symptoms, not causes.

I’m not sure it much matters. That simply *is* the landscape you’re
dealing with, and thus a major part of the problem that needs to be
solved. Besides, symptoms have a way of becoming causes of other
illnesses. Obesity is a prime example.

It matters. Treating the root cause is far more effective than simply
treating the symptoms.

But that doesn’t address the problem that bicycles *still* require
effort to use and still expose you to weather. Most guys who wears a
suit at work aren’t going to be keen on biking 15 miles in the rain,
regardless of their fitness level.

Google images suggests otherwise:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycling+business+suit&tbm=isch

Incidentally, I have a photo somewhere, of my father on a skiing
vacation somewhere in Germany in 1947. He's holding 7ft long wooden
skis and wearing a wool suit and tie. Sports fashions have changed in
the past and can change again. Cycling fashions are no different:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/da/9b/02/da9b02f6a34d7acf57e9f5106a931094.jpg

If we *really* take a big enough
step backwards, we see all kinds of problems that are interconnected.
We can’t just address a single issue and act like that is going to
result in the widespread adoption of bicycling.

True, but you can identify these problems and concentrate on those
that will have the greatest impact on cycling popularity. For
example, taking on the automobile competition problem is much like
banging your head against a wall where success is unlikely. However,
if you pick the problems that can be solved, the chance of success is
more likely and will certainly offer better use of taxpayers money and
municipal resources.

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.

But the real problem is that they still likely *want* a car, and
probably will get one when they can afford one.

Replace "want" with "need". I need a car because I run a business
that requires I drag around a fair quantity of tools and need to
transport customers computahs. I've tried to do service calls on a
bicycle and failed. I've also tried to do the same using municipal
bus transport, which was even worse. If all I need to move was myself
and a few tools, I could do it on a bicycle.

The teenagers mentioned attend one of two local colleges. Both are
about 15 miles away from home. They are riding bicycles effectively,
but not when the weather fails to cooperate, where they switch to
either public transport or getting a ride in someone's car. If we
lived in a small town, where everything is fairly close, a bicycle
would be practical. If the major facilities were farther away, the
bicycle becomes less practical.

If you want to see a
real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such
a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric
vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic
impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s
really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt
and/or adapt them.

That's easy. Just apply government subsidies and tax incentives to
any activity that is unpopular, impractical, or overly expensive.
Maybe a tax break for NOT driving a car. Cycling Low cost or maybe
free bicycles are a good start. Free parking. Free air for the
tires. Free bicycle racks. Free bicycle lanes, lanes, and
infrastructure. From the governments point of view, "We provide the
infrastructure. You do the rest". However, these are all solutions
being pounded being used to solve an unspecified problem. Perhaps it
might be better to define the problem before blundering forward?

In other
words, define the problem you're trying to solve first, and then talk
about solutions.

But we must also be aware we need to define a problem that people
*want* to solve.

Read through the congressional record or the various state and local
web piles for a rather large list of laws, most of which I neither
understand or care about. The problems behind each of these laws are
many and varied, few of which I care much about. Working in problems
that "people" (which means "me") want to solve runs the risk of the
non-problems becoming a NIMBY (not in my back yard) problem. For
example, if you want to make cycling safe by adding a dedicated
bicycle lane, how many automobile parking places can you remove before
the residents riot?

In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that
most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably.
Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change.

Sustainable for how long? Incentives paid by whom and to whom? Who's
reality, yours or mine? Does align mean agree or a compromise? Once
we get beyond the basic necessities (food, shelter, internet), things
become rather more complexicated.

But
we appear to be living at a time where large numbers of people are
rejecting objective reality and science.

Sure. I've been thinking of joining them. It's so much easier to
fabricate my own reality according to whatever I consider expedient,
righteous, profitable, or politically useful.


--
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 20:33:38 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:
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.

Huh. That's an interesting notion. I had not thought about it, because
I don't do this myself, but many people only plan to own a car 2-4
years. Then they trade it in or sell it, getting a replacement vehicle.
With that kind of approach, paying off the loan is moot. For that
matter, leasing rather than buying is a viable option.

I kept my first car 7 years (and it was totalled or I would have kept it
longer), my second and third cars 13 years each (and the third car was
11 years old when I bought it). My fourth car was bought 2 years used
and was a VW diesel, sold back to VW but I had been intending to keep
that at least 10 years. Now I have a new replacement and expect to have
that at least 10 years. That should get me to 68 at which point who
knows what the car market is going to look like. I am hoping for a
fully viable electric with five minute charging and a 400 mile range. I
could get away with an electric car with a 65 mile range now for all my
commuting needs, or a Chevy Volt. I thought real hard about that
option.

Or maybe I'll just ride my bike then.

And not only does that approach apply to cars but also to houses (people
often buy without the intent of making it their lifelong home, unlike my
parents' generation or me) and to credit cards. Readily available debt
changes the math a lot. Many/most business cannot survive without debt;
farmers cannot survive without debt; perhaps half of Americans have
credit card debt they will never pay off and will die owing tens of
thousands of dollars. That's one of the three big looming economy
killers: mass defaults in the housing loan market (again), credit card
market and student loan market.