Forester says...

On Feb 7, 9:53*pm, James wrote:
T m Sherm n _ wrote:

On 2/7/2011 9:49 PM, James Steward wrote:
T m Sherm n _ wrote:
Most states (in the US) require 6-mm or greater bullets for deer
hunting.

That sounds sensible.

This may be a slight overkill:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130-spectre-44.jpg.

A .338 Win. Mag. would be overkill on your pronghorn. *What you suggest
would be silly.

Speaking of silly [or insert your own adjective] things when hunting
in Wisconsin ...

http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm

DR

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:30:47 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Wes Newell appears to believe summary execution for petty theft is
morally correct.

I hate to keep this OT crap going, but I never said that, nor do I
believe it.

On 2/7/2011 2:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 6, 3:20 pm, Peter wrote:

I guess it's possible really anywhere for local authorities to put any
kind of restrictions on cycling.

Not anywhere. Ohio recently enacted laws prohibiting local
authorities from enforcing bicycling laws that fundamentally violate
Ohio traffic law. This happened after one cycling advocate pointed
out the existence of laws in certain communities that (for example)
required cyclists to dismount and walk across all intersections (!),
prohibited cyclists from using quite ordinary roads, required sidewalk
riding, and other silliness.

That sounds like a very positive development. Here in MA, local laws can
be challenged, but that probably requires more resources than can
usually be raised. Fortunately, odd local restrictions are pretty rare
in this state.


For many decades now, the US has followed a transportation policy that
has favored/subsidized motor vehicle traffic. Traffic engineers have
been more concerned with delays than anything else, and road designs and
policing policy has reflected that priority. This creates a sense of
moral high ground on the part of motorists when encountering slower
traffic. That in turn generates a certain amount of self-righteous
intolerance.

I agree that we need to remove motorists' sense of entitlement. But I
don't think it's caused entirely by transportation policies; I think
it goes both ways - that transportation policies evolved to confirm a
sense of entitlement among the early (elite) motorists. For example,
I read about a wealthy British motorist in the 1920s or 1930s who
referred to cyclists as "road lice." I imagine that someone riding in
a coach and four in 1800 would feel that the lowly peasants should
scatter when he sped through. Both policies and attitudes need to
change.

Motoring was promoted politically via some pretty powerful industries.
Post WWII, the exodus from the cities to the suburbs created the
desperate climate for "urban renewal", much of which involved making
cities much more accommodating to motor traffic. It wasn't until the
70's that the tide turned and people started resisting those changes. We
just spent billions restoring a small part of Boston.

Comparatively speaking, there's just no money (profit) in bikes. What
there is, really only in cities, is the opportunity to significantly
reduce costs -- it's a cheap way to move people, even with some
investment in facilities.


I think a good part of the disagreement in this NG is people
misunderstanding or not appreciating the local context. What seems fair
and pragmatic on the streets of Boston may not be so in a hamlet in
Ohio, or among the hog farms of Iowa.

Please keep in mind the particular "hamlet in Ohio" I write from is
part of a metro area with a population of over half a million. And a
lot of the points I make regarding bike facilities are based on
principles built into the Uniform Vehicle Code and standard traffic
interactions - that is, design principles and physics that don't vary
much from town to town.

It's not so much the absolute population size that makes one place so
different from another as population density.

Peter Cole wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Please keep in mind the particular "hamlet in Ohio" I write from is
part of a metro area with a population of over half a million. *And a
lot of the points I make regarding bike facilities are based on
principles built into the Uniform Vehicle Code and standard traffic
interactions - that is, design principles and physics that don't vary
much from town to town.

It's not so much the absolute population size that makes one place so
different from another as population density.

There is also the difference between a pre-motoring grid (or pre-
industrial irregular mesh) layout, and a post-WWII dendritic layout
where alternate routes have been eradicated by design. That is less a
function of density and more a function of age. It makes a huge
difference in the relationship between motor and non-motor traffic, as
you know but as some others are slow to acknowledge.

Chalo

On Feb 8, 1:58*pm, Chalo wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

It's not so much the absolute population size that makes one place so
different from another as population density.

There is also the difference between a pre-motoring grid (or pre-
industrial irregular mesh) layout, and a post-WWII dendritic layout
where alternate routes have been eradicated by design. *That is less a
function of density and more a function of age. *It makes a huge
difference in the relationship between motor and non-motor traffic, as
you know but as some others are slow to acknowledge.

I think the grid vs. dendritic layout may be more important (and I
like the word dendritic to describe that). For one thing, this metro
area is, rather famously, losing population. The density is way down,
particularly in the older areas, but the cycling is great because of
the grid layout. In that context, reduced density actually helps.

As it happens, I live right on the border between grid and dendritic.
Fortunately, I don't have to deal with much of the latter before I'm
out of town, at least in two directions.

BTW, in addition to "grid" and "dendritic" I'd like another word for
describing Pittsburgh. Something that conveys a dense, intensely
confusing tangle of streets with few right angles and super-steep
hills in every direction. Old, dense, and damned hard to ride a bike
in! Pittsburgh cyclists have my admiration.

- Frank Krygowski

On Feb 8, 2:16 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


BTW, in addition to "grid" and "dendritic" I'd like another word for
describing Pittsburgh. Something that conveys a dense...

Rich?

... intensely...

Passionate?

... confusing...

Easily confused, are you?

... tangle of streets...

Lot's of route alternatives?

... with few right angles...

Right angles are boring.

... and super-steep
hills in every direction. Old, dense, and damned hard to ride a bike
in! Pittsburgh cyclists have my admiration.


How about "Whjee!"

(Seriously, I thought you were uber-competent ;-)

On 2/7/2011 10:53 PM, James Steward wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/7/2011 9:49 PM, James Steward wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Most states (in the US) require 6-mm or greater bullets for deer
hunting.

That sounds sensible.

This may be a slight overkill:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130-spectre-44.jpg.


A .338 Win. Mag. would be overkill on your pronghorn. What you suggest
would be silly.

So use the 40-mm Bofors cannon instead of the 105-mm howitzer on the
pronghorn?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Dan O wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:16 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

... and super-steep
hills in every direction. Old, dense, and damned hard to ride a bike
in! Pittsburgh cyclists have my admiration.


How about "Whjee!"

(Seriously, I thought you were uber-competent ;-)

Frank would have us believe so, AFAICT.

JS.

On 2/7/2011 11:42 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:30:47 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Wes Newell appears to believe summary execution for petty theft is
morally correct.

I hate to keep this OT crap going, but I never said that, nor do I
believe it.

You certainly implied it. Maybe a writing course is in order?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Feb 8, 7:24*pm, James wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:16 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... and super-steep
hills in every direction. *Old, dense, and damned hard to ride a bike
in! *Pittsburgh cyclists have my admiration.

How about "Whjee!"

(Seriously, I thought you were uber-competent ;-)

Frank would have us believe so, AFAICT.

Frank has described all sorts of wonderful fantasies about how great
he is. Of course he has never cited any authority OTHER than himself
for such claims. ;-)

DR