If you don't believe in Evolution, then why do you drive an SUV?

George Conklin wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Tom Keats" wrote in message
...
Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of
"free"
parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they
want to
hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are
still
installed these days for people that exercise at work.

Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?

If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a
lot
more commuter cyclists.

You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
one
and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
exhausted to boot.

Nonsense. Riding a bicycle is fun! Regular exercise makes a person LESS
tired.

Get out of your cage!

Exercise is supposed to make you tired.

Physically, maybe. Mentally, no.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

George Conklin wrote:
"Tadej Brezina" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
more commuter cyclists.
You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
one
and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
exhausted to boot.
1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
confused reasoning!

If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income. Otherwise,
you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
forth. It is a very important issue.

butbutbut, riding a bicycle is more fun than all those other possible
activities!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Pat Who? wrote:
...
George, I seldom defend the bikers but you need to take into account
more things than just transportation when you look at biking....

PLEASE, we are CYCLISTS.

"Bikers" ride noisy, smelly machines powered by infernal (sic) combustion.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

In article ,
"George Conklin" writes:

"Tom Keats" wrote in message
...

In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings
at
work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
year.

I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.

With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
than if I'd walked.


If you used raingear around here, you would arrive at work even more
soaked through and you would need to wash the raingrear to get the sweat
out.

Not necessarily. One just needs the right kind of raingear.
And it doesn't have to be expensive GoreTex stuff.

It's all about ventilation. And fenders, preferably
w/ at least a front mudflap.

A pair of cheap cordura hiking gaiters does wonders
for keeping lower legs dry. A proper cycling rain
cape provides "protection" from rain while allowing
huge volumes of ventilation. Fashion toeclip cozies
out of strips of inner tube, and your feet & shoes
stay not only nice 'n dry, but warm, too, 'cuz they
serve as fairings to keep the wind off yer li'l toesies.

Please, no more canards. I grow weary of shooting
ducks down. Got any valid arguments?


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

"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in message

George Conklin wrote:

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
That's not very fair!

Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT with
which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis." (No
mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although they were included in
the preceding context.) They are not.

Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
data and shows the data says:

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermai...ne/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."

Jack May wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in message

George Conklin wrote:

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
That's not very fair!
Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT with
which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis." (No
mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although they were included in
the preceding context.) They are not.

Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
data and shows the data says:

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermai...ne/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."

Get rid of the excessive number of automobiles and light trucks, and the
death rate for cyclists would plummet.

Get rid of bicycles, and the death rate for motorists would not be
measurably affected.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in message

George Conklin wrote:

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
That's not very fair!

Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT with
which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis." (No
mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although they were included in
the preceding context.) They are not.

Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
data and shows the data says:

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermai...ne/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly
exceed
the rates for car occupants."

But the majority of bike fatalities are CAUSED by car occupants. The
reverse is not true.

Jack May wrote:

"Tadej Brezina" wrote in message
...

George Conklin wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message


1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
confused reasoning!

Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
determining how people value their time.

Yeah, your often repeated sermon.
But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
Conk said:
"... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."

His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
wage rates".

*) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.


--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
Martina Diel in d.t.r

"Tadej Brezina" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:

"Tadej Brezina" wrote in message
...

George Conklin wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message


1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
confused reasoning!

Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
determining how people value their time.

Yeah, your often repeated sermon.

And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
exists.

But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
Conk said:
"... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."

His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
wage rates".

*) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.

Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
riding a bicycle. With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.

Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.

Jack May wrote:
"Tadej Brezina" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:

"Tadej Brezina" wrote in message
...

George Conklin wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message

1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
confused reasoning!
Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
determining how people value their time.
Yeah, your often repeated sermon.

And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
exists.

But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
Conk said:
"... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."

His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
wage rates".

*) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.

Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
riding a bicycle. With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.

Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.

If a person does not enjoy cycling, they are morally and intellectually
defective.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth