"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

no spam wrote:
Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first.
Never gonna happen though.
Bill Baka

And let me guess you support harsher penalties for those convicted of 'hate
crimes', right?


No. I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy with no use for religious zealots.
Bill Baka

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:

Most people automatically assume that transit is environmentally
friendly and haven't taken the effort to examine the claim.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...ion_statistics
/2004/html/table_04_20.html

OK, so I checked that one out. For the latest year they give BTU per
passenger mile for buses, I worked that out to about 32 passenger miles
per gallon of diesel.

I even checked out their source for bus data - the American Public
Transit Association "Fact Sheet". Their numbers check out. They also
say on average a diesel bus gets 3.65 MPG, so we must have a lot of
underutilized buses.

But one more thing: Although the average per-passenger fuel consumption
for cars is no worse, the figure for the cars that buses are competing
aginst for passengers is worse by driving in urban areas and generally
carrying only one person.

The BTUs per passenger mile for busses is a mix of long and short haul
systems. Short haul systems in urbans areas will get poorer economy.
Further, a short haul transit system will have ancillary vehicles,
usually using gasoline, that merely shuttle bus drivers around for
transfers. If this is factored into system economy it is reduced quite a
bit more.

You got any figures by how much?

It is also important to realize that not every transit
passenger is a converted car driver. Many short haul transit trips are
would-be pedestrians and bicyclists who have been lured into being
chauffered motorists.

So if someone changes from walking to work to using a vehicle to save
time, why is it so bad for that vehicle to be a bus? You want them to
drive cars or SUVs instead? I like bikes, but push too hard to push too
many people onto bikes (or make too many motorists slow down too much for
anything) and see what politicians can run on at election time!

On the other hand, some car drivers are so because transit fails to make
some needed improvements.

One reason I can cite for some: Take a 101 or 102 trolley into 69th St
in the midmorning, to transfer to the El to go downtown, and have to run
or else see the El departing and have to wait for the next one. I did a
lot of getting ticked off whenever I used the transit system back when I
lived within walking distance of Garrett Road.
I biked a little more and used transit a little less because of that,
but I don't think any transit mode should have any unneeded
artificial/arbitrary disadvantage. Most of my neighbors ticked off by the
scheduling drove rather than cycled as a result.

(Although my example does not use buses, I do suspect it exemplifies
a way urban mass transit can improve.)
If both the middle management of the city transit division and of the
"red arrow" division can both cooperate and get their acts together, they
can reduce Delco-downtown commute time by about 6 minutes.

Lastly, cars are generally assumed to have 1.2 passengers on average.

Including the conversion factors stated in the above-cited table, cars
averaged 34.7 passenger miles per gallon in 2002 and 35.2 passenger miles
per gallon in 2003.

Divide by 1.2, and that means 28.9 29.3 MPG respectively.

For one thing, that looks like this excludes SUVs. (The chart has an
entry for "other 2-axle 4-tire vehicles", which appears to me to be SUVs
and vans, and that one got a little worse per-passenger energy usage than
cars. I wonder why they did not separate SUVs and various vans - some of
which often have more than one person aboard.)

For another, I surely doubt cars average anywhere near 29 MPG when
driven by commuters who could take buses, since this is mainly in urban
areas. And I doubt cars taking people to work who could be taking buses
average 1.2 persons - I think more like averaging less than 1.1. And,
some of the people driving to work who could take buses are not driving
cars but SUVs. So I am not expecting cagers who could be riding buses to
be averaging anywhere near 35 passenger miles per gallon but closer to 20.

I can say something else about some bus routes: Some of their
passengers transfer to or from subway or elevated lines. Those are
quite energy-efficient and often profitable.

- Don Klipstein )

Bill Baka wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

You didn't answer my question. You predicted that 99.9% of the
world's food-producing capability was going to go away. I'm still
curious what your thought process was on that one. And I've been in
the Himalayas - they grow plenty (including poppies and pot).
That wasn't a question that really deserved an answer. It should be
obvious that more people will build more buildings and thus there will
be less land available.

Bill, pardon me for saying so, but LOL. I'd suggest using Mapquest or
Google Earth and start zooming out from the city of your choice using
the satellite view. Are you so stuck in the city that you think they
take up a big percentage of the available land? I'm trying to imagine
the number of people that would necessitate building on 99.9% of the
available land. Just a thumbnail estimate would make that number
somewhere in the trillions.

Land for housing, land for offices, and more land for cars. Much more
land for cars when the undeveloped countries start to be car junkies.
I used to have undeveloped fields around my house 4 years ago but that
big construction surge 2--3 years ago saw it all get developed with most
pre-fab houses. Now I have to ride an extra mile just to get past the
new developments.

Bill - read my - errrr, keyboard. NINETY NINE POINT NINE PERCENT.
That's how much you postulated would be taken out of circulation.
This would be a good time to admit you were just pulling a number out
of your butt. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Bill Baka wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:

Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put
a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The
other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and
try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG.

I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the
verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a
flat highway). Interested in taking that bet?

I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics
leaves a lot to be desired.

OK, so this is easy money for you. $1000? $10,000? All you gotta do
is take a stock Falcon and get 40mpg out of it at highway speed
(65mph) on level ground with no wind, by modifying the drive ratio in
the differential.

Or maybe you'd just be contributing to my retirement. ;-)

Just how SURE are you? Enough to put money on it?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
no spam wrote:

Top posting to save time.

How have you lived this long with expectations this high? Being a
motorcycle rider I expect the opposite, 100% of the car drivers are out
there to kill me. That type of thinking has saved many times.

Wow. How do you go anywhere with such paranoia? And if all car drivers
were out to kill you, how is it they haven't? Are they that inept, like
the bad guys in the movie "Commando," unable to hit the side of a barn?

A cyclist needs both a little paranoia as well as being prepared for and
being able to deal with widespread incompetence.

A few drivers are out to ding cyclists. Often cyclists can be a
small enough side of a very agile barn to be hit mainly by those who
were not trying to hit them, or just had not all parts of their brains
seeing anything smaller than another car until after impact.

Many drivers overestimate their ability to get away with all kinds of
dangerous and illegal things.

The accident statistics say this quite loudly enough. Nationwide in
USA, a majority of 1% ofdeaths are still from motor vehicle accidents.

If someone is driving a vehicle that has especially poor crash
protection, it makes sense to be on the paranoid side as in assuming that
the other vehicles will mow you down either from incompetence or
maliciously maintaining their speed and course when it becomes a collision
course to a collision where the offenders are less likely to lose much.

If you are the target of someone who is knowingly and wrongfully
maintaining a collission course with you (been there too many times, both
in cars and on bikes but more on bikes), all too often it gets down to
"playing chicken".
Oh, one more thing, Pennsylvania law requires you to yield right-of-way
to someone that is normally required to yield right-of-way to you whenever
doing so can avoid a crash. Supposedly, the police, judges and juries are
supposed to be the ones to rein in the bullies.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
Anonymous no spam wrote:

Simple, I don't give them the chance to do it easy. I don't pull out in
front of cars with their turn signals on until they slow down and I see
their wheels turning. I look both ways as I approach every intersection
even if I have right of way or the green light. I keep an eye on the backup
and taillights on cars in parking lots. Stay alert and stay alive.

Let's be real. Defensive driving is a must, but if all drivers were out
kill you like you sensationalized, you'd be dead. Fact is, people don't
want to hit others. Too messy.

It's more incompetence than malice. And most of those with mean spirit
are lazier types who put up effort only to maintain their speed and
course, and then mainly when they think they will lose less by "playing
chicken". 2-wheeler drivers do a good job of survival by assuming that
until discerned otherwise, cagers need to be considered to be in that last
category.

- Don Klipstein )

Wayne Pein wrote:
Fred G. Mackey wrote:

leaf collection tractors,




What the hell are those?


My town picks up leaves for about two months using a tractor pulling a
vacuum bin.


Ever heard of a rake?



Oh no, here we go again! "Giving" cyclists their own lane is like
putting American Indians on their own reservations. It's really being
friendly to motorists.


The cyclists apparently love it and why wouldn't they? They have plenty
of room to cycle without having to slap cars that pass too closely.



Wayne

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
wrote:
I snip
More on drivers out to kill and collide with others! Yes, there are a
very few psychotics out there. Am I going to assume they are after me?
No. Should anybody assume that? No. If you did, then you'd have to yield
inappropriately at every junction out of fear that the boogey man had
finally found you.

No, they are not after anyone specifically. But a significant (even if
small) percentage will "play chicken". Their most-specific target is
whoever they estimate that they are less likely to lose or lose much to by
"playing chicken". A few of the offenders have been in prison in the past
and/or will be in prison in the future by giving a bad weighting to some
factors for that matter!

I think a safer and more realistic attitude is to assume that people
don't want to hit you, but might make a mistake and accidentally do so.

Most don't want to hit you but sometimes just don't see you or
otherwise have incompentency of some kind and/or another, a few want
to get pushy at pushing you out of their way!

So you drive your vehicle in such a way as to mitigate that risk.

Wayne
Paranoia will destroy ya.

Just because you are not paranoid does not mean that nobody is out to
get you, let alone that nobody "plays chicken" on the road or that nobody
is incompentent, for example not having all parts of the brain seeing a
2-wheeler until after impact.

"Bike? What bike?" *SMASH!!!* "Oh, the one that was in front of me!"

(Happened to me once, I was driving a bike straight and steady in a
traffic lane and *BOOM!* and I was flying!)

- Don Klipstein )

Mark Hickey wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:

Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put
a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The
other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and
try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG.
I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the
verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a
flat highway). Interested in taking that bet?
I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics
leaves a lot to be desired.

OK, so this is easy money for you. $1000? $10,000? All you gotta do
is take a stock Falcon and get 40mpg out of it at highway speed
(65mph) on level ground with no wind, by modifying the drive ratio in
the differential.

Or maybe you'd just be contributing to my retirement. ;-)

Just how SURE are you? Enough to put money on it?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

First I have to find a project car. It should be easy to get 40 MPG
since I got 38 out of a 1961 Rambler, which was an aerodynamic brick.
Got any old cars with a 3 on the tree?
Bill Baka

In article ,
lid wrote in part:

Whatever works for you. When I am driving, I don't have time nor
appropriate facilities to evaluate the reasons for the risk they
present, nor is it germane. There are far too many drivers repeatedly
and consistently "making a mistake". Those drivers rely on my assumption
that they are (pick one or mo stupid, psycho, emotionally unfit,
inexperienced, inebriated, etc., etc., etc.) to avoid the collisions
which their (pick one or mo neglect, distraction, aggression, etc.,
etc., etc.) would otherwise cause.

Practically every police agency in the nation has data indicating that
almost *all* vehicular "accidents" (GOD, I HATE that term) are
AVOIDABLE.

That means that when "accidents" happen, they happen because drivers
don't want to avoid them. Ergo, most "accidents" happen because the
driver at fault wishes, at some level, for them to happen.

I think not wishing these mishaps to occur so much as thinking that the
odds of losing are 1 in a million but that is for actions so common that
the total sum committed by a slightly-worse-than-average driver is a
goodly fraction of a million - that means good chance of a serious
screwup sometime in the offending driver's life!

It does not help much that traffic law enforcement is all to often
all-too-lousy. Also, jurors often allow that "accidents happen",
especially when someone on a bike gets hit.

Another factor is "playing chicken". For one thing, under law in
Pennsylvania, one is required to yield right of way to a bully that is
supposed to yield right-of-way to you according to PA vehicle code if
doing so avoids a crash. I think the main solution is better traffic law
enforcement, and having the cops taking advantage of the fact that it is
not illegal to issue speeding tickets in a manner discriminating against
those who are bullies on the road.

Until then, the road is a jungle!

- Don Klipstein )