"news" from Chicago

On Jun 22, 3:30*pm, DougC wrote:
Bob wrote:
The Chicago Sun-Times ran an online poll today asking, "Which occupant
of Chicago streets is more annoying: bikers, drivers or pedestrians?"
The result? 44% found cyclists to be more annoying than drivers (43%)
or pedestrians (12%). Sounds pretty conclusive, doesn't it. Ah, but
wait- only 264 votes were cast. There are roughly 10 million people in
the Chicago metro area. If only 10% of those drive (a conservative
guesstimate) that is still a million people. 264 out of a million
doesn't sound like a very meaningful survey group to me but some on
either 'side' will point to the survey as proof we need more
legislation, more bike paths, more education, etcetera when all we
really need is to just laugh such silliness off and go ride.

Regards,
Bob

P.S.- And if we happen to be riding in the Chicago metro area we
should try not to annoy the 116 that voted us most annoying. g

If someone liked bicycling, I would wonder why they would choose to live
an an urban area to begin with. It's rather like a professional
snow-skier living in the middle of Death Valley.
~

As the population density increases it is automobiles that make less
and less sense not, as you purport bicycles - You are clearly the most
annoying git in Chicago.

On Jun 23, 2:17*pm, Brian Huntley wrote:
On Jun 22, 4:30*pm, DougC wrote:

If someone liked bicycling, I would wonder why they would choose to live
an an urban area to begin with. It's rather like a professional
snow-skier living in the middle of Death Valley.

I didn't bike daily as an adult UNTIL I moved downtown. It's simply
the best way to get around here (Toronto) for short distances (up to
about 10 km.)

And the ability to toss the bike on the subway makes traveling in off-
peak hours great. I miss it, but at least all our buses have bike
racks.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

John Kane wrote:
[...]
And the ability to toss the bike on the subway[...]

Like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/sets/72157619857116687/?

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

DennisTheBald wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:30 pm, DougC wrote:

If someone liked bicycling, I would wonder why they would choose to live
an an urban area to begin with. It's rather like a professional
snow-skier living in the middle of Death Valley.
~

As the population density increases it is automobiles that make less
and less sense not, as you purport bicycles - You are clearly the most
annoying git in Chicago.

Firstly, I am 300+ miles from Chicago, and have no interest in getting
closer than that.

Secondly.... As population density increases, a society automatically
engage in drastic inefficiencies just because individual people lack the
room to grow their own food, draw their own water, or engage in
alternative energy use. Everything that a city needs has to be brought
in from somewhere else, and all the trash a city generates has to be
carried out again. Those transportation-related inefficiencies are
hidden, but they are still present nonetheless.

Urban living is not, and never will be, the most efficient way to
live--in spite of how nice it is to be able to ride your bike or walk to
the corner organic grocery store. What's even more efficient is growing
your own vegetables--and most urban living arrangements are crowded onto
areas of real estate that couldn't possibly sustain these populations
directly.
~

DougC wrote:
DennisTheBald wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:30 pm, DougC wrote:

If someone liked bicycling, I would wonder why they would choose
to
live an an urban area to begin with. It's rather like a
professional
snow-skier living in the middle of Death Valley.
~

As the population density increases it is automobiles that make
less
and less sense not, as you purport bicycles - You are clearly the
most annoying git in Chicago.

Firstly, I am 300+ miles from Chicago, and have no interest in
getting
closer than that.

Secondly.... As population density increases, a society
automatically
engage in drastic inefficiencies just because individual people
lack
the room to grow their own food, draw their own water, or engage
in
alternative energy use. Everything that a city needs has to be
brought
in from somewhere else, and all the trash a city generates has to
be
carried out again. Those transportation-related inefficiencies are
hidden, but they are still present nonetheless.

Urban living is not, and never will be, the most efficient way to
live--in spite of how nice it is to be able to ride your bike or
walk
to the corner organic grocery store. What's even more efficient is
growing your own vegetables--and most urban living arrangements
are
crowded onto areas of real estate that couldn't possibly sustain
these populations directly.
~

Sure. We all know the most advanced societies are the ones where
subsistence farming is the dominant "industry".

--
Mike Kruger
"I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the
shackles of cause and effect." -Stephen Colbert

On Jun 24, 5:33*am, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° considered Tue, 23
Jun 2009 21:48:24 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Bob Hunt wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:08 am, Jym Dyer wrote:
The Chicago Sun-Times ran an online poll today asking, "Which
occupant of Chicago streets is more annoying: *bikers, drivers
or pedestrians?"
=v= I hate when newspapers do these thoroughly-unscientific
"polls" on topics that are entirely about emotion. *They may as
well ask which race is the most annoying and print the results
without any demographic breakdown.
* * _Jym_

That's an easy one- the human race.

Is the human race UCI sanctioned?

No, they banned us for not all having the same head position.

Research conducted by the UCI found that while all conformed to the
established standard of having their head securely mounted atop their
necks a significant percentage of qualifiers chose to modify that
position by implanting their head securely up their--- well, you know.
Later independent research revealed that this modification had little
to do with the type of bicycle chosen.

Regards,
Bob

On Jun 24, 7:02*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
John Kane wrote:
[...]
And the ability to toss the bike on the subway[...]

Like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/sets/72157619857116687/?

Nope, just roll on /roll off.

http://torontoist.com/2009/01/i_bike_on_the_ttc.php

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

DougC wrote:
DennisTheBald wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:30 pm, DougC wrote:

If someone liked bicycling, I would wonder why they would choose to live
an an urban area to begin with. It's rather like a professional
snow-skier living in the middle of Death Valley.
~

As the population density increases it is automobiles that make less
and less sense not, as you purport bicycles - You are clearly the most
annoying git in Chicago.

Firstly, I am 300+ miles from Chicago, and have no interest in getting
closer than that.

Secondly.... As population density increases, a society automatically
engage in drastic inefficiencies just because individual people lack the
room to grow their own food, draw their own water, or engage in
alternative energy use. Everything that a city needs has to be brought
in from somewhere else, and all the trash a city generates has to be
carried out again. Those transportation-related inefficiencies are
hidden, but they are still present nonetheless.

Yes, and solved since before Rome was built, or it wouldn't have been.

Urban living is not, and never will be, the most efficient way to
live--in spite of how nice it is to be able to ride your bike or walk to
the corner organic grocery store. What's even more efficient is growing
your own vegetables--and most urban living arrangements are crowded onto
areas of real estate that couldn't possibly sustain these populations
directly.

Things have improved immensely since Roman times, particularly after the
invention of the railroad, which remains the transport efficiency champion.

Agricultural efficiencies (labor) have gone up even more, which is why
the countryside is depopulating all over the developing world. The only
contrary trend has been suburbanism, which is pretty much due entirely
to the automobile and cheap energy.

Large increases in energy costs will impact agriculture, from a variety
of factors (fertilizer is basically 100% LNG, cultivating, drying and
irrigation are very energy intensive, etc.) over and above transport
costs. If we don't have the energy to transport the food, that will be
the very least of our problems. Soil loss, aquifer depletion,
salinization, desertification and climate change may eclipse even energy
considerations.

We are currently in the "oil war" part of history, from some accounts,
the "water war" and "food war" periods aren't far away. Struggles over
water supply privatization and some Middle East conflicts may be
indicating that the water wars have already begun.

On Jun 24, 7:29*pm, DougC wrote:

Urban living is not, and never will be, the most efficient way to
live--in spite of how nice it is to be able to ride your bike or walk to
the corner organic grocery store. What's even more efficient is growing
your own vegetables--and most urban living arrangements are crowded onto
areas of real estate that couldn't possibly sustain these populations
directly.

Homegrown vegetables are great and many people enjoy gardening but
whether individual garden plots are "efficient" depends entirely on
how efficiency is defined. If one defines efficiency as the most
benefit to the most people at the lowest cost- whether in hours of
labor or in money spent- then the individual garden plot is woefully
inefficient when compared to riding, walking, or even driving (gasp!)
to the grocery for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. Perhaps you
define efficiency differently. If so, please enlighten me.

Regards,
Bob

On Jun 23, 10:22*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Bob writes:

On Jun 23, 5:56*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
So I figure Chicagoans live there to support The Cubs.
It's a nice thought, anyways.
I don't follow professional baseball and I don't care about the
Cubs... but I repeat myself.
Regards,
Bob * (with an apology to Mark Twain)

I like that.

Hey, Bob, It's good to hear from you again.

I hope you're inclined to stick around, some.

cheers,
* * * * Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Thanks for the welcome back.

Regards,
Bob