Bus racks

On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:12:46 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-07 16:38, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:42:17 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-07 12:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/7/2018 1:03 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-07 08:04, jbeattie wrote:

And yet you expect the government to provide you with special bike
racks on buses.


No, bike racks that actually work with contemporary bikes that are
commonly used in this area. Just like we now have roads that
accommodate vehicles wider than a Ford Model T. It's that simple.

I've seen no evidence except your assertions for the idea that your
style of bike is common among those who use buses. I rarely trust your
assertions. So do you have any evidence?


If you had followed the bike market at least a little you could have
answered that question yourself:

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/stud...egories-stores

Quote "Twenty-niners now account for 41 percent of dollars sold in
mountain bikes at IBDs".


And regarding roads and Model Ts: ISTM your situation is like that of a
1930s guy who built or bought something on this style
https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/07/2...specifications

then complained the roads weren't suitable for its use.

Don't buy something out of spec for the infrastructure you want to use,
then complain about the infrastructure.


You don't seem to even know what spec is these days. Hint: We are in the
21st century now.

Yesterday I rode light rail back to where our truck was parked. My old
1982 road bike was riding next to a 26" of a friend which would barely
fit the bus rack. My road bike is longer! Any questions? Luckily light
rail allows to take bikes on board so it doesn't matter.

Hmmm... the last you wrote you owned two vehicles one a new (to you)
SUV and you had passed your old car on to your wife.


Where do you dream up all those stories? My wife and I bought our cars
around the same time 20-some years ago. Nothing was handed down. She has
a compact car (Toyota) because she like that. I have a small SUV but
that only holds one bike so if a friend comes along we either need a
truck or two cars.


I don't dream up any stories, I simply read what you have written over
the years.


... Now you mention a truck? You mean that you have purchased
a truck just to haul your oversized bicycle around?

Apparently you are flush with cash if you have a new truck... so three
vehicles for a 2 person family is correct but ask you to contribute to
the common good by paying taxes and you fall down on the floor and
kick your feet and scream.


Believe it or not but besides my wife and I there are about 20,000 other
people living in our community. Lo and behold they have motor vehicles
as well and ... drum roll ... some even ride bicycles. One of them
happens to own a pickup truck.


Referring to your post, above, where you write "Yesterday I rode light
rail back to where our truck was parked". Given that you use a word
(I) which would seem to indicate they you, yourself, rode the bike,
and (2) you then use the word "our" which again seems to indicate
ownership, or at least possession, it seems logical to assume that you
now own a pickup.

John B. Slocomb writes:

On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:02:53 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-07 16:15, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 07:49:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-04 16:55, John B. Slocomb wrote:


[...]

But more important the state has between $713 billion and $1.02
trillion in unfunded pension obligation, the tax base is decreasing,
since 2000, more people have left California than have arrived from
other states every year, the gasoline tax is not large enough to pay
for road building and repairs. In short, taxes will have to increase
or the state will go bankrupt.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/c...-remains-grim/


The pension boondoggle has to be curbed. That is the only solution.


You mean that a guy ought to work for twenty years and not get any
form of retirement pension?


Get a reasonable retirement. Not 90% of salary at 50 or 55.

Why ever not? While I did retire after 20 years in the A.F. with a 50%
of salary retirement pay had I stayed until 50 years of age I'd have
received 75%.

But more to the point, the retirement pay problem that California
faces is not the fault of the retirees who entered into a contract
with the state possible 20 or 30 years ago and now are being paid a
retirement that was specified in their contracts. The fault lies with
the state that certainly should have been able to foresee what their
liabilities would be in 5, 10, 20 years and did nothing about it.

Part of the problem is that the state workers and their unions had, and
have, a very significant influence on the workings of the state
government. To a certain extent they negotiated with themselves for a
sweet retirement, the practicability of which was, and is, based on
unrealistic forecasts of return on investment.

But what is the solution? It appears that there are two options, (1)
renege on the contracts that the state offered to individuals who they
employed, which would probably result in a mammoth class action suit
against the state in which I suggest that any reasonable court would
support the retirees; or (2) increase State income, probably by
increasing taxes.

(1) is default, bankruptcy. Watch Puerto Rico for a glimpse into the
future.


--

On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 09:26:09 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-08 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2018 10:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
I have a small SUV but that only holds one bike so if a friend comes
along we either need a truck or two cars.

Why on earth can you not carry more than one bike with a small SUV?


You need a receiver plus an outside bike rack, neither of which I have.
I can get one bike inside but laying another on top of it is out because
the lifting aggravates my back pain and it can smash stuff on the bikes,
such as derailers.



In 1985 we bought a new Honda Civic station wagon. That's a very tiny
car. Yet a year later we drove that car to California and back, towing a
tiny camping trailer and carrying three bikes. Two (including the
tandem) were on the roof and one was on the rear rack.


Don't have a roof or rear rack, and no receiver.


In 2004 we bought a Pontiac Vibe. I could carry our two touring bikes
vertically _inside_ the car by removing the front wheels and using two
of those floor-mount front fork clamps. I also had to remove my
seatpost, but my wife's bike fit without that bother. If I wanted to add
the roof rack and rear rack, I could carry up to seven bikes.

You seem to have SO many problems that others easily solve!


I am likely a lot taller than you because the Mitsubishi Montero Sport
will not allow any of my bikes to sit vertically inside. My wife's, yes,
but not mine. Shrinking a foot in height is obviously not an easy solution.

You seem to have a multitude of problems that others do not have. I
carried two normal size steel frame road bikes from Bangkok to Khorat
- about 200 miles - in a Honda Jazz (I think this is known as a "Fit"
in the U.S.).

On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:25:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-08 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2018 10:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
I have a small SUV but that only holds one bike so if a friend comes
along we either need a truck or two cars.

Why on earth can you not carry more than one bike with a small SUV?


You need a receiver plus an outside bike rack, neither of which I have.
I can get one bike inside but laying another on top of it is out because
the lifting aggravates my back pain and it can smash stuff on the bikes,
such as derailers.



In 1985 we bought a new Honda Civic station wagon. That's a very tiny
car. Yet a year later we drove that car to California and back, towing a
tiny camping trailer and carrying three bikes. Two (including the
tandem) were on the roof and one was on the rear rack.


Don't have a roof or rear rack, and no receiver.

FYI, those things can be purchased on the open market.


In 2004 we bought a Pontiac Vibe. I could carry our two touring bikes
vertically _inside_ the car by removing the front wheels and using two
of those floor-mount front fork clamps. I also had to remove my
seatpost, but my wife's bike fit without that bother. If I wanted to add
the roof rack and rear rack, I could carry up to seven bikes.

You seem to have SO many problems that others easily solve!


I am likely a lot taller than you because the Mitsubishi Montero Sport
will not allow any of my bikes to sit vertically inside. My wife's, yes,
but not mine. Shrinking a foot in height is obviously not an easy solution.

On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 15:39:04 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

jbeattie writes:

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:52:38 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-04 17:15, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/4/2018 6:10 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-03 16:10, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:45:01 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

On 2018-09-02 16:36, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 08:02:04 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

[ ... ]

But if you don't pay your taxes who is going to support
the homeless,
and the illegal immigrants, and the bike paths and, and,
and.

If you are going to have socialism someone's got to pay
for it.


We already pay among the highest taxes in the country.
That's enough taxes.

I see, you want bike paths, racks on buses, and all the
other free
goodies provided by the state, but you don't want to pay
for them.


See above. We already paid for them.

[...]


You California taxpayers paid for extravagant pensions, the $80billion
choo choo which doesn't run, homeless, welfare and illegal services,
fire fighting of forests which should have been logged and so on.


That's the price for a leftist government. Like it always end up.

And yet you expect the government to provide you with special bike
racks on buses. Well, I want a PONY! Why aren't my
much-larger-than-yours taxes providing me with a PONY! If government
spent less money on PERS and more on PONIES, we would all be better
off. I would also like bicycle-only facilities from my driveway to
work that are swept twice a day. Other demands are forthcoming.

You make it sound so simple. My town just instituted loaner PONIES for
all residents, and, although I'm normally a fiscal conservative I was
all in favor. Naturallly, I tried one out shortly after they were
available. Sadly I found much still to be desired.

Firstly, the PONY was much too short for a person of my stature, indeed,
my feet nearly dragged the ground. Also, in spite of his short legs,
this PONY had such long ears that I had a hard time seeing in front of
me -- an obvious safety hazard. I hoped the PONY might make up this
with a turn of speed, so I applied the crop (not town-supplied, a major
procurement faux pas, I had to requisition a piece of disused garden
hose). The PONY did not gallop, nor did he even trot, he just made the
sort of noises you might expect from a Hell demon on open mike night.

Not long into the ride we were passed by a young lady on what appeared
to be a much higher quality, private PONY, nicely proportioned, with a
curly blonde mane and a tasteful little horn in the middle of her
forehead, just like the PONIES I remember from the old country. On
seeing this, my municipal PONY perked right up, he cantered, he capered,
he continued to make horrible noises. And, regrettably, his stud tackle
grew to the point that I was afraid he might step on it (no wonder they
called him "starfish" at the stables).

I found this so embarrassing and inappropriate that I was tempted to
ditch the PONY like a San Jose dockless scooter, but, since I was raised
responsibly I whipped him right back in the other direction and turned
him in.

There you have it, yet another example of incompetent government letting
us down.

The pony you as you describe it, "with your feet dragging on the
ground and the big ears that hinder the forward view" doesn't sound
much like a "pony" a small member of the "horse" family. It sounds
more like a donkey... known as an "ass" in the Christian Scriptures.

Also be a little careful of those critters with "curly blonde mane and
a tasteful little horn in the middle of her forehead" as, if tradition
has it correctly they will only tolerate young virgin women. Others
they kill.

On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 6:18:48 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 15:39:04 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

jbeattie writes:

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:52:38 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-04 17:15, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/4/2018 6:10 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-03 16:10, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:45:01 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

On 2018-09-02 16:36, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 08:02:04 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

[ ... ]

But if you don't pay your taxes who is going to support
the homeless,
and the illegal immigrants, and the bike paths and, and,
and.

If you are going to have socialism someone's got to pay
for it.


We already pay among the highest taxes in the country.
That's enough taxes.

I see, you want bike paths, racks on buses, and all the
other free
goodies provided by the state, but you don't want to pay
for them.


See above. We already paid for them.

[...]


You California taxpayers paid for extravagant pensions, the $80billion
choo choo which doesn't run, homeless, welfare and illegal services,
fire fighting of forests which should have been logged and so on.


That's the price for a leftist government. Like it always end up.

And yet you expect the government to provide you with special bike
racks on buses. Well, I want a PONY! Why aren't my
much-larger-than-yours taxes providing me with a PONY! If government
spent less money on PERS and more on PONIES, we would all be better
off. I would also like bicycle-only facilities from my driveway to
work that are swept twice a day. Other demands are forthcoming.

You make it sound so simple. My town just instituted loaner PONIES for
all residents, and, although I'm normally a fiscal conservative I was
all in favor. Naturallly, I tried one out shortly after they were
available. Sadly I found much still to be desired.

Firstly, the PONY was much too short for a person of my stature, indeed,
my feet nearly dragged the ground. Also, in spite of his short legs,
this PONY had such long ears that I had a hard time seeing in front of
me -- an obvious safety hazard. I hoped the PONY might make up this
with a turn of speed, so I applied the crop (not town-supplied, a major
procurement faux pas, I had to requisition a piece of disused garden
hose). The PONY did not gallop, nor did he even trot, he just made the
sort of noises you might expect from a Hell demon on open mike night.

Not long into the ride we were passed by a young lady on what appeared
to be a much higher quality, private PONY, nicely proportioned, with a
curly blonde mane and a tasteful little horn in the middle of her
forehead, just like the PONIES I remember from the old country. On
seeing this, my municipal PONY perked right up, he cantered, he capered,
he continued to make horrible noises. And, regrettably, his stud tackle
grew to the point that I was afraid he might step on it (no wonder they
called him "starfish" at the stables).

I found this so embarrassing and inappropriate that I was tempted to
ditch the PONY like a San Jose dockless scooter, but, since I was raised
responsibly I whipped him right back in the other direction and turned
him in.

There you have it, yet another example of incompetent government letting
us down.

The pony you as you describe it, "with your feet dragging on the
ground and the big ears that hinder the forward view" doesn't sound
much like a "pony" a small member of the "horse" family. It sounds
more like a donkey... known as an "ass" in the Christian Scriptures.

Also be a little careful of those critters with "curly blonde mane and
a tasteful little horn in the middle of her forehead" as, if tradition
has it correctly they will only tolerate young virgin women. Others
they kill.

If I don't get my pony, I'm calling Kurtis Ming,Consumer Anchor/Reporter at CBS 13 - KOVR! He'll get me my pony. And I'm not taking a surplus pony, a used pony or a public pony. I want a pony voucher that I can use at the local pony store. http://oregondreamponies.com/ I'm a tax-payer, damnit!

-- Jay Beattie.

On 9/8/2018 7:55 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


But more to the point, the retirement pay problem that California
faces is not the fault of the retirees who entered into a contract
with the state possible 20 or 30 years ago and now are being paid a
retirement that was specified in their contracts. The fault lies with
the state that certainly should have been able to foresee what their
liabilities would be in 5, 10, 20 years and did nothing about it.

I suspect that part of the problem back then was "How are we going to
convince people to go into teaching, or risk their lives as police or
firefighters, for these puny wages?"

The answer may have been "We'll offer good retirement benefits. (And
some politician 30 years from now can figure out how to pay them.)"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/8/2018 8:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:25:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-08 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:

In 1985 we bought a new Honda Civic station wagon. That's a very tiny
car. Yet a year later we drove that car to California and back, towing a
tiny camping trailer and carrying three bikes. Two (including the
tandem) were on the roof and one was on the rear rack.


Don't have a roof or rear rack, and no receiver.

FYI, those things can be purchased on the open market.

That won't work for Joerg. I have no idea why, but most things don't
work for Joerg.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 22:42:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/8/2018 7:55 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


But more to the point, the retirement pay problem that California
faces is not the fault of the retirees who entered into a contract
with the state possible 20 or 30 years ago and now are being paid a
retirement that was specified in their contracts. The fault lies with
the state that certainly should have been able to foresee what their
liabilities would be in 5, 10, 20 years and did nothing about it.

I suspect that part of the problem back then was "How are we going to
convince people to go into teaching, or risk their lives as police or
firefighters, for these puny wages?"

The answer may have been "We'll offer good retirement benefits. (And
some politician 30 years from now can figure out how to pay them.)"

Possibly true, I no longer live in California and don't care but as I
said the choices are renege on the contract and get sued, raise taxes,
or as another reader reminded me, go bankrupt.

Of course governmental bodies can borrow money, sometimes through bond
issues, and tax free municipal bonds hold their value pretty well so
perhaps California can sell enough bonds to keep afloat.

Or perhaps do as the EU is trying to do and tax those that can afford
it a bit more :-)

On 2018-09-08 17:12, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. Slocomb writes:

On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:02:53 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-07 16:15, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 07:49:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-04 16:55, John B. Slocomb wrote:


[...]

But more important the state has between $713 billion and $1.02
trillion in unfunded pension obligation, the tax base is decreasing,
since 2000, more people have left California than have arrived from
other states every year, the gasoline tax is not large enough to pay
for road building and repairs. In short, taxes will have to increase
or the state will go bankrupt.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/c...-remains-grim/


The pension boondoggle has to be curbed. That is the only solution.


You mean that a guy ought to work for twenty years and not get any
form of retirement pension?


Get a reasonable retirement. Not 90% of salary at 50 or 55.

Why ever not? While I did retire after 20 years in the A.F. with a 50%
of salary retirement pay had I stayed until 50 years of age I'd have
received 75%.

But more to the point, the retirement pay problem that California
faces is not the fault of the retirees who entered into a contract
with the state possible 20 or 30 years ago and now are being paid a
retirement that was specified in their contracts. The fault lies with
the state that certainly should have been able to foresee what their
liabilities would be in 5, 10, 20 years and did nothing about it.

Part of the problem is that the state workers and their unions had, and
have, a very significant influence on the workings of the state
government. To a certain extent they negotiated with themselves for a
sweet retirement, the practicability of which was, and is, based on
unrealistic forecasts of return on investment.


Exactly. It can be summed up into one word: Corruption.


But what is the solution? It appears that there are two options, (1)
renege on the contracts that the state offered to individuals who they
employed, which would probably result in a mammoth class action suit
against the state in which I suggest that any reasonable court would
support the retirees; or (2) increase State income, probably by
increasing taxes.

(1) is default, bankruptcy. Watch Puerto Rico for a glimpse into the
future.


Some US cities have already done it. Had to.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/