the disturbing conspiracy of the bicycling elite

[ComandanteBanana]

This is no ordinary conspiracy like the alliens abducted Bush on 9/11.
This is the real thing, about real cyclists --or so they say-- about
real issues. I didn't invent it though. Got it from here...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7368267&posted=1#post7368267

(I make my observations below)

Originally Posted by Bekologist
"There's a disturbing consipracy of 'elite' bicyclists that seek to
retard bicycling accommodations in this country. They leave bicycling
stunted by standing as obstructionists to bike specific
infrastructure, or to such limited application that communities will
continue to be designed with autos first and foremost.

sensible transportation engineers understand the public would like a
lot more than 50mph traffic and 14 foot lanes to get out and consider
bicycling in this country. The bare minimum of planning for bikes is
their stated goal, and it is very anti-bike.

Very disturbing. I got an bulk email from a 'bicycle cooridinator' in
a large Texas city faintly bragging how there'd be no new bike lanes
during his term if he had anything to do with it.

this is a club, a clique a loosely organized group of 'trained' and
elite bicyclists that stand in the way of furthering bicycle
accomodation in this country. They stunt bicycling numbers and
participation in this country.

Shame on obstructionists, this makes me sick to see 'bicyclists' so
blind to the rest of the public -

who might think bicycling shouldn't be a sporting game of
assertiveness and bluster undertaken in the midst of fast, distracted
motorists."



I always knew about this conspiracy, but I was afraid to be told that
I was into conspiracy theories like the CIA blew up the towers or
Hussein was tied up to terrorism, etc.

This one is true though. If they oppose what would bring the people to
ride bikes is because they hate the ordinary people and want to be the
only ones to ride bikes. They would feel insignificant in a place like
Holland, say.

Even the commuters are looked down upon because most of them would
favor bike lanes and other facilities. The telltale sign though is
that most wear lycra and ride big buck bikes.

They are also Republicans but are often members of the Libertarian
Party. Oh, and only use bikes on Saturdays and Sundays, always for the
hell of it, never to go the market or something. That's my
profiling. ;)

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

[ZBicyclist]

Post by ComandanteBanana
This is no ordinary conspiracy like the alliens abducted Bush on 9/11.
This is the real thing, about real cyclists --or so they say--
about
real issues. I didn't invent it though. Got it from here...

The post is too long. I will wait for the Oliver Stone movie.

[KingOfTheApes]

This is no ordinary conspiracy like the aliens abducted Bush on 9/11.
This is the real thing, about real cyclists --or so they say-- about
real issues. I didn't invent it though. Got it from here...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7368267&posted=1#post7368267

(I make my observations below)

Originally Posted by Bekologist
"There's a disturbing consipracy of 'elite' bicyclists that seek to
retard bicycling accommodations in this country. They leave bicycling
stunted by standing as obstructionists to bike specific
infrastructure, or to such limited application that communities will
continue to be designed with autos first and foremost.

sensible transportation engineers understand the public would like a
lot more than 50mph traffic and 14 foot lanes to get out and consider
bicycling in this country. The bare minimum of planning for bikes is
their stated goal, and it is very anti-bike.

Very disturbing. I got an bulk email from a 'bicycle cooridinator' in
a large Texas city faintly bragging how there'd be no new bike lanes
during his term if he had anything to do with it.

this is a club, a clique a loosely organized group of 'trained' and
elite bicyclists that stand in the way of furthering bicycle
accomodation in this country. They stunt bicycling numbers and
participation in this country.

Shame on obstructionists, this makes me sick to see 'bicyclists' so
blind to the rest of the public -

who might think bicycling shouldn't be a sporting game of
assertiveness and bluster undertaken in the midst of fast, distracted
motorists."

...

I always knew about this conspiracy, but I was afraid to be told that
I was into conspiracy theories like the CIA blew up the towers or
Hussein was tied up to terrorism, etc.

This one is true though. If they oppose what would bring the people to
ride bikes is because they hate the ordinary people and want to be the
only ones to ride bikes. They would feel insignificant in a place like
Holland, say.

Even the commuters are looked down upon because most of them would
favor bike lanes and other facilities. The telltale sign though is
that most wear lycra and ride big buck bikes.

They are also Republicans but are often members of the Libertarian
Party. Oh, and only use bikes on Saturdays and Sundays, always for the
hell of it, never to go the market or something. That's my
profiling. ;)


WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
(where the lions conspire to control everything)
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by ZBicyclist
The post is too long. I will wait for the Oliver Stone movie.

This post is even longer, but it makes a lot of sense and if you can
sit 3 hours at the movies, you can read it. Or is it true that
Americans don't want to read? ;)

(my answer follows)

Originally Posted by mandovoodoo
OK all your points are well taken. But what about the flip side...
that the whole reason for the poor paths and their implementation is
that there is a voice here in the US that keeps telling planners/
engineers that "roads are good enough," therefore that "bike highway"
will never be built... and paths and lanes are only for those that use
bikes as toys (the majority of bike owners in the US who only do
weekend/park rides)."

I'm really doubting that the planners are listening or researching all
that much. They tend to grab some design manual that's outdated and
make a token design. The roads certainly aren't good enough! That's a
much more important issue than bike paths. They aren't good enough for
motorists, let alone the truck/auto/micro-auto/moto/scooter/cycle
world we're headed into. I participated enough early on in the game
(1970s) to notice how little attention the designers actually gave
real users at that time!

I think major bike route systems can be done quite effectively through
a combined network of marked and improved existing roads and new cycle-
only areas, or cycle plus calmed cars. I'd rather see a whole county
reworked with existing roads and a few specialty connectors than a
major path of the same cost put in. That would benefit more people.

Eventually folks have to get off a bicycle highway or lane. Unless you
contemplate every road having a dedicated cycle lane along it. Here
where our larger backroads are only 20 ft wide that would be very
difficult. Many roads are 14 ft wide. That's the road - not the lane!
So where would a cycle lane go? Contemplating an entire separate
system? Not going to happen. Can't maintain the road or cycle lane
systems already in place, from what I can see.

"Therefore whether a true conspiracy exists (quick call Jack Bauer) or
whether this all is a result of a larger auto centric group think, the
results are the same... cycling will not be treated as a viable form
of transportation in this country... especially with the likes of the
VC crowd insisting that "all roads are bike lanes" even in the face of
ridiculous situations as 65MPH arterials, without even bike lanes,
connecting together major communities."

Yes, of course. Bike lanes or better yet, patrolled limited access
bicycle throughways between major points would be great. That wasn't
the original thrust here. Were a bicycle throughway suggested along,
say Kingston Pike in Knoxville I suspect support would be high. But
that's not what's generally suggested. What's generally under
discussion is something like our local Maryville MUP, which doesn't
seem to go anywhere many need to go, and which has ad hoc design
features that are horribly dangerous. This is typical in that it ends
somewhere odd. Has cute design features that do nothing but make it
interesting on a map. Has built in hazards that would be unacceptable
on a roadway. And so on. Plus it's expensive.

And it's too late. Cycling is already a viable means of transportation
in this country. It's getting more viable all the time. If you want to
enhance viability, then you've got to consider the whole road network.
Resources are limited. From here, for example, I'd like to be able to
go down to route 321 just 1 mile away, pop on my cycle highway or
dedicated and maintained cycle lane, head towards Ktown. Choose the
fast bypass or the local through Maryville. Run along Alcoa Highway
safely (think we'd need a tunnel or elevated highway!) and end up in
downtown Ktown or at the University. I'd have probably used that when
I worked in downtown. But it isn't going to happen.

The way to counter whatever elitist group you think is there is a two
pronged assault. First, work to come up with model comprehensive
bicycle friendly systems that can be implemented anywhere. Second,
involve the "elite" and win them over with your superior approach to
the integrated diverse traffic problem.

The "elite" aren't the enemy. They're usually people with all too much
exposure to paths, lanes, and the results thereof. Show them how
they'll be better able to get from point A to B without encountering
excess hazards and they'll like it.

Now, there are other threads and complaints about people using lanes
and paths on this forum. They ride too fast, they scare people, etc.
Have to consider that, too. Postulate a lane on a highway with a 25
mph speed limit and you'll have cycles moving that. On a 45 mph road
you'll have a number in the upper 20s. So you have to consider the mix
of 8 mph, 15 mph, and 25 mph cyclists. What do you propose?

And lanes can't go everywhere. What do you propose?

And they need to be paid for. What do you propose?

(I cut out some stuff here to make you happy)

...


There's a THIRD OPTION: Slow down the right hand lanes to 20 mph to
accomodate bicycles. At the same time grant fast cars a more lenient
policy to speed (say up to 40mph) and pass on the left. Anyway a good
chunk of cars today customarily do more than 40mph on a 30mph zone...
on the right hand side lane --terrorizing the bikes.

It's kind of the same as LANE DISCIPLINE, but taking account of the
very slow and the ones not so slow. Put bike signs all over the place
and speed cameras on lights. Advise law breakers to smile for the
camera. ;)

[Tom Keats]

Post by ZBicyclist

Post by ComandanteBanana
This is no ordinary conspiracy like the alliens abducted Bush on 9/11.
This is the real thing, about real cyclists --or so they say-- about
real issues. I didn't invent it though. Got it from here...

The post is too long.

It also doesn't make any sense.

Post by ZBicyclist
I will wait for the Oliver Stone movie.

Not me. I'm gonna listen to that
Timothy Leary's Dead song, and then
Alice Cooper's: Lost In America.
And then go to bed.

Tomorrow's another day.

Maybe I'll wait for the Irving Stone novel.

Since this is x-posted to uk.rec.cycling:
helloo to my Neeves relatives in Ticehurst/
Peacehurst Sx. Behave yourselves enough to
not get into too much trouble.

Take my advice. I'm not using it.


cheers from the Colonies,
Tom

[Tom Sherman]

Post by ComandanteBanana
This is no ordinary conspiracy like the alliens abducted Bush on 9/11.
This is the real thing, about real cyclists --or so they say-- about
real issues. I didn't invent it though. Got it from here...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7368267&posted=1#post7368267
(I make my observations below)
Originally Posted by Bekologist
"There's a disturbing consipracy of 'elite' bicyclists that seek to
retard bicycling accommodations in this country. They leave bicycling
stunted by standing as obstructionists to bike specific
infrastructure, or to such limited application that communities will
continue to be designed with autos first and foremost.
sensible transportation engineers understand the public would like a
lot more than 50mph traffic and 14 foot lanes to get out and consider
bicycling in this country. The bare minimum of planning for bikes is
their stated goal, and it is very anti-bike.
Very disturbing. I got an bulk email from a 'bicycle cooridinator' in
a large Texas city faintly bragging how there'd be no new bike lanes
during his term if he had anything to do with it.
this is a club, a clique a loosely organized group of 'trained' and
elite bicyclists that stand in the way of furthering bicycle
accomodation in this country. They stunt bicycling numbers and
participation in this country.
Shame on obstructionists, this makes me sick to see 'bicyclists' so
blind to the rest of the public -
who might think bicycling shouldn't be a sporting game of
assertiveness and bluster undertaken in the midst of fast, distracted
motorists."

Why do you repost such utter garbage?

Post by ComandanteBanana
I always knew about this conspiracy, but I was afraid to be told that
I was into conspiracy theories like the CIA blew up the towers or
Hussein was tied up to terrorism, etc.
This one is true though. If they oppose what would bring the people to
ride bikes is because they hate the ordinary people and want to be the
only ones to ride bikes. They would feel insignificant in a place like
Holland, say.

Oh, Bullshit.

Post by ComandanteBanana
Even the commuters are looked down upon because most of them would
favor bike lanes and other facilities. The telltale sign though is
that most wear lycra and ride big buck bikes.

More Bullshit. Cycling commuters come to practice vehicular cycling,
since that is what works best. You can take your bicycle ghettos that
promote cyclists as second class road users and bugger off.

Post by ComandanteBanana
They are also Republicans but are often members of the Libertarian
Party. Oh, and only use bikes on Saturdays and Sundays, always for the
hell of it, never to go the market or something. That's my
profiling. ;)

More utter crap from the anti-cyclist troll.

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by ComandanteBanana
This is no ordinary conspiracy like the alliens abducted Bush on 9/11.
This is the real thing, about real cyclists --or so they say-- about
real issues. I didn't invent it though. Got it from here...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7368267&posted=1#post7368267
(I make my observations below)
Originally Posted by Bekologist
"There's a disturbing consipracy of 'elite' bicyclists that seek to
retard bicycling accommodations in this country. They leave bicycling
stunted by standing as obstructionists to bike specific
infrastructure, or to such limited application that communities will
continue to be designed with autos first and foremost.
sensible transportation engineers understand the public would like a
lot more than 50mph traffic and 14 foot lanes to get out and consider
bicycling in this country. The bare minimum of planning for bikes is
their stated goal, and it is very anti-bike.
Very disturbing. I got an bulk email from a 'bicycle cooridinator' in
a large Texas city faintly bragging how there'd be no new bike lanes
during his term if he had anything to do with it.
this is a club, a clique a loosely organized group of 'trained' and
elite bicyclists that stand in the way of furthering bicycle
accomodation in this country. They stunt bicycling numbers and
participation in this country.
Shame on obstructionists, this makes me sick to see 'bicyclists' so
blind to the rest of the public -
who might think bicycling shouldn't be a sporting game of
assertiveness and bluster undertaken in the midst of fast, distracted
motorists."

Why do you repost such utter garbage?

Post by ComandanteBanana
I always knew about this conspiracy, but I was afraid to be told that
I was into conspiracy theories like the CIA blew up the towers or
Hussein was tied up to terrorism, etc.
This one is true though. If they oppose what would bring the people to
ride bikes is because they hate the ordinary people and want to be the
only ones to ride bikes. They would feel insignificant in a place like
Holland, say.

Oh, Bullshit.

Post by ComandanteBanana
Even the commuters are looked down upon because most of them would
favor bike lanes and other facilities. The telltale sign though is
that most wear lycra and ride big buck bikes.

More Bullshit. Cycling commuters come to practice vehicular cycling,
since that is what works best. You can take your bicycle ghettos that
promote cyclists as second class road users and bugger off.

Post by ComandanteBanana
They are also Republicans but are often members of the Libertarian
Party. Oh, and only use bikes on Saturdays and Sundays, always for the
hell of it, never to go the market or something. That's my
profiling.  ;)

More utter crap from the anti-cyclist troll.

Everything they say make a lot of sense. There are cyclists standing
on the way of cyclists. I'd expect cars to be the problem, but somehow
there's a bunch of cyclists that deny bike lanes, and other ideas that
may bring millions of people onto the roads.

We've got to suggest a name of Stone's next movie:

"Who killed the bike lanes?"

[Tom Sherman]

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by ComandanteBanana
This is no ordinary conspiracy like the alliens abducted Bush on 9/11.
This is the real thing, about real cyclists --or so they say-- about
real issues. I didn't invent it though. Got it from here...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7368267&posted=1#post7368267
(I make my observations below)
Originally Posted by Bekologist
"There's a disturbing consipracy of 'elite' bicyclists that seek to
retard bicycling accommodations in this country. They leave bicycling
stunted by standing as obstructionists to bike specific
infrastructure, or to such limited application that communities will
continue to be designed with autos first and foremost.
sensible transportation engineers understand the public would like a
lot more than 50mph traffic and 14 foot lanes to get out and consider
bicycling in this country. The bare minimum of planning for bikes is
their stated goal, and it is very anti-bike.
Very disturbing. I got an bulk email from a 'bicycle cooridinator' in
a large Texas city faintly bragging how there'd be no new bike lanes
during his term if he had anything to do with it.
this is a club, a clique a loosely organized group of 'trained' and
elite bicyclists that stand in the way of furthering bicycle
accomodation in this country. They stunt bicycling numbers and
participation in this country.
Shame on obstructionists, this makes me sick to see 'bicyclists' so
blind to the rest of the public -
who might think bicycling shouldn't be a sporting game of
assertiveness and bluster undertaken in the midst of fast, distracted
motorists."

Why do you repost such utter garbage?

Post by ComandanteBanana
I always knew about this conspiracy, but I was afraid to be told that
I was into conspiracy theories like the CIA blew up the towers or
Hussein was tied up to terrorism, etc.
This one is true though. If they oppose what would bring the people to
ride bikes is because they hate the ordinary people and want to be the
only ones to ride bikes. They would feel insignificant in a place like
Holland, say.

Oh, Bullshit.

Post by ComandanteBanana
Even the commuters are looked down upon because most of them would
favor bike lanes and other facilities. The telltale sign though is
that most wear lycra and ride big buck bikes.

More Bullshit. Cycling commuters come to practice vehicular cycling,
since that is what works best. You can take your bicycle ghettos that
promote cyclists as second class road users and bugger off.

Post by ComandanteBanana
They are also Republicans but are often members of the Libertarian
Party. Oh, and only use bikes on Saturdays and Sundays, always for the
hell of it, never to go the market or something. That's my
profiling. ;)

More utter crap from the anti-cyclist troll.

Everything they say make a lot of sense. There are cyclists standing
on the way of cyclists. I'd expect cars to be the problem, but somehow
there's a bunch of cyclists that deny bike lanes, and other ideas that
may bring millions of people onto the roads.
"Who killed the bike lanes?"

Bicycle farcilities (sic) such as "bicycle lanes" are promoted by
anti-cyclist motorists who wish to confine bicycles to a ghetto.

Ask anyone who has tried vehicular cycling. It is much better than
cowering in fear in gutter behind a white paint stripe.

What cycling commuters need is vigorous prosecution of the idiotic
cagers who harm others through malice and incompetence.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by ComandanteBanana
This is no ordinary conspiracy like the alliens abducted Bush on 9/11.
This is the real thing, about real cyclists --or so they say-- about
real issues. I didn't invent it though. Got it from here...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7368267&posted=1#post7368267
(I make my observations below)
Originally Posted by Bekologist
"There's a disturbing consipracy of 'elite' bicyclists that seek to
retard bicycling accommodations in this country. They leave bicycling
stunted by standing as obstructionists to bike specific
infrastructure, or to such limited application that communities will
continue to be designed with autos first and foremost.
sensible transportation engineers understand the public would like a
lot more than 50mph traffic and 14 foot lanes to get out and consider
bicycling in this country. The bare minimum of planning for bikes is
their stated goal, and it is very anti-bike.
Very disturbing. I got an bulk email from a 'bicycle cooridinator' in
a large Texas city faintly bragging how there'd be no new bike lanes
during his term if he had anything to do with it.
this is a club, a clique a loosely organized group of 'trained' and
elite bicyclists that stand in the way of furthering bicycle
accomodation in this country. They stunt bicycling numbers and
participation in this country.
Shame on obstructionists, this makes me sick to see 'bicyclists' so
blind to the rest of the public -
who might think bicycling shouldn't be a sporting game of
assertiveness and bluster undertaken in the midst of fast, distracted
motorists."

Why do you repost such utter garbage?

Post by ComandanteBanana
I always knew about this conspiracy, but I was afraid to be told that
I was into conspiracy theories like the CIA blew up the towers or
Hussein was tied up to terrorism, etc.
This one is true though. If they oppose what would bring the people to
ride bikes is because they hate the ordinary people and want to be the
only ones to ride bikes. They would feel insignificant in a place like
Holland, say.

Oh, Bullshit.

Post by ComandanteBanana
Even the commuters are looked down upon because most of them would
favor bike lanes and other facilities. The telltale sign though is
that most wear lycra and ride big buck bikes.

More Bullshit. Cycling commuters come to practice vehicular cycling,
since that is what works best. You can take your bicycle ghettos that
promote cyclists as second class road users and bugger off.

Post by ComandanteBanana
They are also Republicans but are often members of the Libertarian
Party. Oh, and only use bikes on Saturdays and Sundays, always for the
hell of it, never to go the market or something. That's my
profiling.  ;)

More utter crap from the anti-cyclist troll.

Everything they say make a lot of sense. There are cyclists standing
on the way of cyclists. I'd expect cars to be the problem, but somehow
there's a bunch of cyclists that deny bike lanes, and other ideas that
may bring millions of people onto the roads.
"Who killed the bike lanes?"

Bicycle farcilities (sic) such as "bicycle lanes" are promoted by
anti-cyclist motorists who wish to confine bicycles to a ghetto.
Ask anyone who has tried vehicular cycling. It is much better than
cowering in fear in gutter behind a white paint stripe.
What cycling commuters need is vigorous prosecution of the idiotic
cagers who harm others through malice and incompetence.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Sounds like the way to go to me, Tom.

However, radical changes like that will take forever to implement. :-
(

Lewis.

*****

[RicodJour]

There are cyclists standing on {sic} the way of cyclists.

Like you, for instance? You're the poster boy for shooting oneself in
the foot.

At least you're entertaining yourself and not out actually trying to
accomplish something - that'd just backfire horrendously... Come to
think of it, you've already discovered that fact, haven't you?

R

[ComandanteBanana]

There are cyclists standing on {sic} the way of cyclists.

Like you, for instance?  You're the poster boy for shooting oneself in
the foot.
At least you're entertaining yourself and not out actually trying to
accomplish something - that'd just backfire horrendously...  Come to
think of it, you've already discovered that fact, haven't you?
R

I've tried it long enough to notice that I will get killed if I keep
doing it.

Is my own survival a good enough reason not to bike that much on our
roads? I thought SURVIVAL is the most important aspect of life in the
jungle...

(The original subject is kayaking, another sport where I feel hunted
down, so to speak)

Yes, you are a sitting duck, which is a really good reason not to go where
you can't be safe. I presume you would not ride your bicycle on I-95, which
would you ride you kayak in a zone where running on a plane is legal?

Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...

Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner.
I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.

Then you realize you live in the jungle.

Welcome to the Jungle --if you dare.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by ComandanteBanana
...
Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...
Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner.
I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.
Then you realize you live in the jungle.
Welcome to the Jungle --if you dare.

DUDE, GET OFF THE SIDEWALK!!!

[Pat]

Post by ComandanteBanana

There are cyclists standing on {sic} the way of cyclists.

Like you, for instance?  You're the poster boy for shooting oneself in
the foot.
At least you're entertaining yourself and not out actually trying to
accomplish something - that'd just backfire horrendously...  Come to
think of it, you've already discovered that fact, haven't you?
R

I've tried it long enough to notice that I will get killed if I keep
doing it.
Is my own survival a good enough reason not to bike that much on our
roads? I thought SURVIVAL is the most important aspect of life in the
jungle...
(The original subject is kayaking, another sport where I feel hunted
down, so to speak)

Yes, you are a sitting duck, which is a really good reason not to go where
you can't be safe. I presume you would not ride your bicycle on I-95, which
would you ride you kayak in a zone where running on a plane is legal?

Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...
Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner.
I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.
Then you realize you live in the jungle.
Welcome to the Jungle --if you dare.

You and EnoughAlready need to take up a dialogue so that you can go
harass yourselves and leave everyone else alone. Maybe you could go
do it in alt.paranoid.schizo

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Pat

Post by ComandanteBanana

There are cyclists standing on {sic} the way of cyclists.

Like you, for instance?  You're the poster boy for shooting oneself in
the foot.
At least you're entertaining yourself and not out actually trying to
accomplish something - that'd just backfire horrendously...  Come to
think of it, you've already discovered that fact, haven't you?
R

I've tried it long enough to notice that I will get killed if I keep
doing it.
Is my own survival a good enough reason not to bike that much on our
roads? I thought SURVIVAL is the most important aspect of life in the
jungle...
(The original subject is kayaking, another sport where I feel hunted
down, so to speak)

Yes, you are a sitting duck, which is a really good reason not to go where
you can't be safe. I presume you would not ride your bicycle on I-95, which
would you ride you kayak in a zone where running on a plane is legal?

Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...
Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner.
I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.
Then you realize you live in the jungle.
Welcome to the Jungle --if you dare.

You and EnoughAlready need to take up a dialogue so that you can go
harass yourselves and leave everyone else alone.  Maybe you could go
do it in alt.paranoid.schizo- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Where's your paradise? I understand you are not the Pat from NY, so
must be the one from Texas.

Yep, we've got a good taste of that in the last 8 years. ;)

By the way, you must have the highest SUV percapita in the world, or
is it Kuwait?

[Tom Sherman]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Pat

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by RicodJour

There are cyclists standing on {sic} the way of cyclists.

Like you, for instance? You're the poster boy for shooting oneself in
the foot.
At least you're entertaining yourself and not out actually trying to
accomplish something - that'd just backfire horrendously... Come to
think of it, you've already discovered that fact, haven't you?
R

I've tried it long enough to notice that I will get killed if I keep
doing it.
Is my own survival a good enough reason not to bike that much on our
roads? I thought SURVIVAL is the most important aspect of life in the
jungle...
(The original subject is kayaking, another sport where I feel hunted
down, so to speak)

Post by RicodJour
Yes, you are a sitting duck, which is a really good reason not to go where
you can't be safe. I presume you would not ride your bicycle on I-95, which
would you ride you kayak in a zone where running on a plane is legal?

Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...
Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner.
I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.
Then you realize you live in the jungle.
Welcome to the Jungle --if you dare.

You and EnoughAlready need to take up a dialogue so that you can go
harass yourselves and leave everyone else alone. Maybe you could go
do it in alt.paranoid.schizo- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Where's your paradise? I understand you are not the Pat from NY, so
must be the one from Texas.[...]

WRONG.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by RicodJour

There are cyclists standing on {sic} the way of cyclists.

Like you, for instance? You're the poster boy for shooting oneself in
the foot.
At least you're entertaining yourself and not out actually trying to
accomplish something - that'd just backfire horrendously... Come to
think of it, you've already discovered that fact, haven't you?
R

I've tried it long enough to notice that I will get killed if I keep
doing it.
Is my own survival a good enough reason not to bike that much on our
roads? I thought SURVIVAL is the most important aspect of life in the
jungle...
(The original subject is kayaking, another sport where I feel hunted
down, so to speak)

Post by RicodJour
Yes, you are a sitting duck, which is a really good reason not to go where
you can't be safe. I presume you would not ride your bicycle on I-95, which
would you ride you kayak in a zone where running on a plane is legal?

Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...
Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner.
I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.

Why the f*** are you cycling on the sidewalk?
You're not going to increase your safety significantly, but definitly
decrease your riding comfort and increase the anger of pedestrians.

Tadej

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Tadej Brezina
Why the f*** are you cycling on the sidewalk?
You're not going to increase your safety significantly

Oh, I don't know... some research suggests he'll be safer by a clear
*negative* factor (i.e., significantly more dangerous on the pavement)

Being on a pavement takes you away from the road where drivers are
looking out for you, so when it inevitably comes time to get back on the
road you have an immediate right of way conflict, and RoW conflicts are
where accidents happen.

Footways are the best place for wee kids who don't have the experience
or understanding to cycle in a predictable fashion on the roads, but for
anyone who does the road will typically be safer than the footway.

Pete.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Tadej Brezina
Why the f*** are you cycling on the sidewalk?
You're not going to increase your safety significantly

Oh, I don't know... some research suggests he'll be safer by a clear
*negative* factor (i.e., significantly more dangerous on the pavement)
Being on a pavement takes you away from the road where drivers are
looking out for you, so when it inevitably comes time to get back on the
road you have an immediate right of way conflict, and RoW conflicts are
where accidents happen.
Footways are the best place for wee kids who don't have the experience
or understanding to cycle in a predictable fashion on the roads, but for
anyone who does the road will typically be safer than the footway.

You're right of course. I should have used marks for indicating my poor
attempt on irony. ;-)

Tadej

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Tadej Brezina
Why the f*** are you cycling on the sidewalk?
You're not going to increase your safety significantly

Oh, I don't know... some research suggests he'll be safer by a clear
*negative* factor (i.e., significantly more dangerous on the pavement)

By pavement, do you mean sidewalk? In the US we regard the material that is
used for the surface of a street as pavement (which wouldn't be involved in
a sidewalk-- even if it is exactly the same material, it still wouldn't be
_called_ pavement), so your terminology is confusing, and I believe you've
conveyed exactly the reverse of what you were intending to say to readers in

Post by Peter Clinch
Oh, I don't know... some research suggests he'll be safer by a clear
*negative* factor (i.e., significantly more dangerous on the surface of
the road)

[ComandanteBanana]

On Sep 5, 10:45 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Tadej Brezina
Why the f*** are you cycling on the sidewalk?
You're not going to increase your safety significantly

Oh, I don't know... some research suggests he'll be safer by a clear
*negative* factor (i.e., significantly more dangerous on the pavement)

By pavement, do you mean sidewalk?  In the US we regard the material that is
used for the surface of a street as pavement (which wouldn't be involved in
a sidewalk-- even if it is exactly the same material, it still wouldn't be
_called_ pavement), so your terminology is confusing, and I believe you've
conveyed exactly the reverse of what you were intending to say to readers in

As if wasn't confusing enough where to ride a bike, now you add to the
confusion. ;)

I think kids and people who care for their lives should ride on the
sidewalk, or stay home.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by ComandanteBanana
I think kids and people who care for their lives should ride on the
sidewalk, or stay home.

I think that's a sweeping generalisation, because there are places where
it's been demonstrated it's more dangerous. So your "one size fits
all" suggestion doesn't actually fit all.

Pete.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by ComandanteBanana
I think kids and people who care for their lives should ride on the
sidewalk, or stay home.

I think that's a sweeping generalisation, because there are places where
 it's been demonstrated it's more dangerous.  So your "one size fits
all" suggestion doesn't actually fit all.

Well, it fits 100% of kids and most rational adults.

Never seen kids ride on the road, I mean the main roads that get you
places. And the adults you see are mostly hardcore cyclists that are
ready to die, and be insulted in the process.

I do ride back streets to get my supermarket 1 mile away, but they are
very quite, and not everybody is that lucky.

[Daniel Barlow]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Well, it fits 100% of kids and most rational adults.

In your experience perhaps. Your experience is, however, not
universal. If you don't want to engage in _meaningful_ discussion
with cyclists fortunate/far-sighted enough to live in the civilised
world[*], please remove uk.rec.cycling from your Newsgroups line.

Thanks in advance


-dan

[*] from having spent some time travelling in the US in the 1998-2000
era, I do have vague memories of large parts of it - Newark Airport
excepted - also being quite nice places. But I wouldn't want to
contradict the information of people who actually live there, so I can
only assume it has deteriorated over the last ten years.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Daniel Barlow

Post by ComandanteBanana
Well, it fits 100% of kids and most rational adults.

In your experience perhaps.

He obviously doesn't have any experience. He is only posting here because he
hasn't anything real to do.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Daniel Barlow

Post by ComandanteBanana
Well, it fits 100% of kids and most rational adults.

In your experience perhaps.

He obviously doesn't have any experience. He is only posting here because he
hasn't anything real to do.

Obviously, 99.4% of Americans who do NOT ride to work don't have it
either, and yet somehow, someone has to speak for them...

You are not very clever with math, are you?

[Tom Kunich]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Tom Kunich
He obviously doesn't have any experience. He is only posting here because he
hasn't anything real to do.

Obviously, 99.4% of Americans who do NOT ride to work don't have it
either, and yet somehow, someone has to speak for them...
You are not very clever with math, are you?

What I find interesting is that you consider yourself representative of
99.4% of the population.

And by the way - the government tells us that more than 50% of the
population owns their own bicycle.

[Daniel Barlow]

Post by Tom Kunich
And by the way - the government tells us that more than 50% of the
population owns their own bicycle.

The remainder own someone else's bicycle?


-dan

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Daniel Barlow

Post by Tom Kunich
And by the way - the government tells us that more than 50% of the
population owns their own bicycle.

The remainder own someone else's bicycle?
-dan

The USA has one of the highest percapitas of bike ownership, but they
are not used! Pity, no?

[Pat]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Daniel Barlow

Post by Tom Kunich
And by the way - the government tells us that more than 50% of the
population owns their own bicycle.

The remainder own someone else's bicycle?
-dan

The USA has one of the highest percapitas of bike ownership, but they
are not used! Pity, no?

Remember, the US is the place where you get into your car to drive to
the gym so you can treadmill.

Post by ComandanteBanana
http://youtu.be/nOJibBn1Et4

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Pat

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Daniel Barlow

Post by Tom Kunich
And by the way - the government tells us that more than 50% of the
population owns their own bicycle.

The remainder own someone else's bicycle?
-dan

The USA has one of the highest percapitas of bike ownership, but they
are not used! Pity, no?

Remember, the US is the place where you get into your car to drive to
the gym so you can treadmill.

Post by ComandanteBanana

Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly, the system is set up so that no one can get away with cheap
exercise.

Gas to the gym plus membership makes you feed the system.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Tom Kunich
He obviously doesn't have any experience. He is only posting here because he
hasn't anything real to do.

Obviously, 99.4% of Americans who do NOT ride to work don't have it
either, and yet somehow, someone has to speak for them...
You are not very clever with math, are you?

What I find interesting is that you consider yourself representative of
99.4% of the population.

Well, if Bush is representative of the SUV bunch, I feel anyone of us
with a bike can represent the bike crowd.

Well, perhaps by me being a "comandante," my voice can be a little bit
more loud.

Post by Tom Kunich
And by the way - the government tells us that more than 50% of the
population owns their own bicycle.

Sure, but they are afraid to ride it. That's the problem, the
government looks the other way when it comes to safety.

[ComandanteBanana]

(Some people questions my credentials, but hey, I'm not running for
president either)

Originally Posted by chipcom

"Try actually riding a bike."

I rode 8 miles today on trails today...

That makes me the leader of the revolution, right?

Or is it going to be led by the cyclist with the more miles per year?
You'd be funny if you weren't pathetic, but by any means stop whining
and do the revolution.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Velorution: The movement for the cyclists who want bike facilities
now."

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote91

[Tom Kunich]

Post by ComandanteBanana
I rode 8 miles today on trails today...

My appologies for assuming that because of the way you were writing you were
inexperienced. Obviously you are not very experienced because you don't
understand your road rights etc. but then I would assume that you will
eventually learn them. At that point I predict you will change your position
as regards roads and trails.

Post by ComandanteBanana
Or is it going to be led by the cyclist with the more miles per year?
You'd be funny if you weren't pathetic, but by any means stop whining
and do the revolution.

Perhaps it won't be "led" by those with more miles but certainly it will be
led by those who have SUFFICIENT experience and that adds up from many
miles.

I do want to point out that most road accidents in daylight occur to people
without experience and the more experience you gain the less likely that you
will have an accident involving a motor vehicle caused by improper actions
on the part of the cyclist.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Tom Kunich
My appologies for assuming that because of the way you were writing you were
inexperienced. Obviously you are not very experienced because you don't
understand your road rights etc. but then I would assume that you will
eventually learn them. At that point I predict you will change your position
as regards roads and trails.

Post by ComandanteBanana
Or is it going to be led by the cyclist with the more miles per year?
You'd be funny if you weren't pathetic, but by any means stop whining
and do the revolution.

Perhaps it won't be "led" by those with more miles but certainly it will be
led by those who have SUFFICIENT experience and that adds up from many
miles.
I do want to point out that most road accidents in daylight occur to people
without experience and the more experience you gain the less likely that you
will have an accident involving a motor vehicle caused by improper actions
on the part of the cyclist.

Well, the 8 miles were easy riding on sand and pavement along the
beach but still counts.

The point is, my fellow cyclist, that the same way fear of terrorists
putting bombs on buses has put people on bikes in the UK, fear of
"terrorists" on our roads has put people out of bikes in the US. You
can expect ANYTHING from them and the authorities do little if
anything to bring security to our roads. I have to say it again, THE
FIRST ISSUE TO FACE IN AMERICA IS TRAFFIC SAFETY. There's no talk of
sharing when people do whatever they want, ie. bully cyclists, use
cell phones, ignore headlights, etc, etc.

So TERRORISM is an issue for us too, just the other way around. ;)

[Tom Kunich]

I have to say it again, THE FIRST ISSUE TO FACE IN AMERICA
IS TRAFFIC SAFETY.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about? There are only
something like 700 fatal bicycle accidents in the USA each year and perhaps
some 3500 serious injuries. What's more, 2/3rds of those fatal accidents
occur at night and involve alcohol by either the cyclist, the auto driver or
both.

Got that? Bicycling is perhaps the safest form of transportation other than
buses. It may even be safer than walking around streets.

[Pat]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by ComandanteBanana
I think kids and people who care for their lives should ride on the
sidewalk, or stay home.

I think that's a sweeping generalisation, because there are places where
 it's been demonstrated it's more dangerous.  So your "one size fits
all" suggestion doesn't actually fit all.

Finally, a voice of reason -- where one answer doesn't apply to
everyone. Yeah.

Where I live, rural NY (USA), we have many vastly different roads
within just a short distance. If you ride a bike on the road in front
of my house -- any bike, any time, any rider -- you're asking to get
killed. It's 4 lanes with NO shoulder (actually had granite curbs).
It's a state road with a Federal number, so it gets a lot of traffic.
2 tractor trailers, side by side, have trouble staying apart on the
corners because the lanes aren't generously wide -- MAYBE 6" on each
side of their mirrors on a straight-a-way.

So if you're on a bike, you should be on the sidewalk.

Now the street behind my house, a toddler could ride a bike all day on
the road an be perfectly safe.

Where I grew up, my mother always told us to "go out in the street and
play" because we lived near the end of a dead-end road and it was the
only flat area around.

In addition to these conditions, the one-size-fits-all argument
doesn't fit well here because you talk of pavement and sidewalks.
Many of our roads are dirt. Some are seasonal. But at least on
those, you're probably perfectly safe riding down the middle of the
road (because there's no other traffic). However, the few bicyclers
(mountain bikers) who I've seen on those roads don't obey the
standards and customs of dirt roads -- for example, trucks have right-
of-way over cars; uphill has right-of-way over downhill.

Now, for changing the subject, here's an article from the Buffalo
News:
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/431368.html
You can cross out "pedestrian" and insure "cyclist".

So back to the original question of "Who Killed Bike Lanes"; here's
your answer. It's your zoning law.

Post by Peter Clinch
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel [phone] ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax [phone]              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK

[Tom Keats]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by ComandanteBanana
I think kids and people who care for their lives should ride on the
sidewalk, or stay home.

I think that's a sweeping generalisation, because there are places where
it's been demonstrated it's more dangerous. So your "one size fits
all" suggestion doesn't actually fit all.

This banana guy has long been an obvious anti-cycling
propagandist trying to frighten incipient riders off
the streets & roads, while maintaining his imperviousness
to reasoned discussion.

Consider his above quoted statement. Someone once said:
"By their fruits shall ye know them."

He claims to be something of a cyclist. That's just an
artless, insidious, infiltrational, fifth column ruse.
He wants bike lanes so he can insist riders stay out of
his way while he drives his motor vehicle.

To actual, real riders like you and you and you and me,
he is our enemy. At least he's trying to be.

We don't mambly-pambly debate with The Enemy. We
clobber him, and right soundly. 'Cuz that's what
he's trying to do to bicycle ridership.

The way to clobber him is not to attempt to engage in
rational discussion with his stupid statements, and
getting in a circular argument with Tar Baby. Rather,
it is to shine the Light of Truth upon him. That Truth
being that he's an anti-bicycling propagandist who exerts
great efforts to dissuade new riders from accessing the
streets & roads.

His topic changes/subject mutations are mere diversionary
and distractional tactics (note how he squirms like a worm,)
but his main message remains the same: bicycle riders
should get off the road and "out of the ways" of cars.
That's his agendum, which is concisely summed-up in his
above-quoted statement.

He should be Phil Greased & feathered and ridden out of
town in a Croozer trailer, with a sign hung around his
neck that says: "I'm a Shameful, Anti-Bicycling Bigot."


cheers,
Tom

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by ComandanteBanana
I think kids and people who care for their lives should ride on the
sidewalk, or stay home.

I think that's a sweeping generalisation, because there are places where
 it's been demonstrated it's more dangerous.  So your "one size fits
all" suggestion doesn't actually fit all.

This banana guy has long been an obvious anti-cycling
propagandist trying to frighten incipient riders off
the streets & roads, while maintaining his imperviousness
to reasoned discussion.
"By their fruits shall ye know them."
He claims to be something of a cyclist.  That's just an
artless, insidious, infiltrational, fifth column ruse.
He wants bike lanes so he can insist riders stay out of
his way while he drives his motor vehicle.
To actual, real riders like you and you and you and me,
he is our enemy.  At least he's trying to be.
We don't mambly-pambly debate with The Enemy.  We
clobber him, and right soundly.  'Cuz that's what
he's trying to do to bicycle ridership.
The way to clobber him is not to attempt to engage in
rational discussion with his stupid statements, and
getting in a circular argument with Tar Baby.  Rather,
it is to shine the Light of Truth upon him.  That Truth
being that he's an anti-bicycling propagandist who exerts
great efforts to dissuade new riders from accessing the
streets & roads.
His topic changes/subject mutations are mere diversionary
and distractional tactics (note how he squirms like a worm,)
but his main message remains the same: bicycle riders
should get off the road and "out of the ways" of cars.
That's his agendum, which is concisely summed-up in his
above-quoted statement.
He should be Phil Greased & feathered and ridden out of
town in a Croozer trailer, with a sign hung around his
neck that says: "I'm a Shameful, Anti-Bicycling Bigot."

I knew you were part of the conspiracy... ;)

I'm not for scaring the monkeys; I'm for putting the lion (SUVs and
bullies) in the cage.

Regrettably, our government followed by the sheep like you turn away
from MAKING OUR ROADS SAFE.

Then and only then we can talk about bike lanes or no bike lanes. Once
upon a time I was for bike lanes, but now I'm for giving control of
the roads to the cyclists.

And if you are not part of the conspiracy, then you are mighty stupid
(like all sheep). ;)

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Tadej Brezina
Why the f*** are you cycling on the sidewalk?
You're not going to increase your safety significantly

Oh, I don't know... some research suggests he'll be safer by a clear
*negative* factor (i.e., significantly more dangerous on the pavement)

By pavement, do you mean sidewalk?[...]

"Pavement" is the British equivalent of the USian "sidewalk".

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Tadej Brezina
Why the f*** are you cycling on the sidewalk?
You're not going to increase your safety significantly

Oh, I don't know... some research suggests he'll be safer by a clear
*negative* factor (i.e., significantly more dangerous on the pavement)

By pavement, do you mean sidewalk?[...]

"Pavement" is the British equivalent of the USian "sidewalk".

My husband is Scottish, so I know that, but probably the majority of people
who read his message did not. I was trying to suggest that he choose words
that didn't convey the reverse of his actual meaning to a significant
percentage of the people who are reading it.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by ComandanteBanana

There are cyclists standing on {sic} the way of cyclists.

Like you, for instance?  You're the poster boy for shooting oneself in
the foot.
At least you're entertaining yourself and not out actually trying to
accomplish something - that'd just backfire horrendously...  Come to
think of it, you've already discovered that fact, haven't you?
R

I've tried it long enough to notice that I will get killed if I keep
doing it.
Is my own survival a good enough reason not to bike that much on our
roads? I thought SURVIVAL is the most important aspect of life in the
jungle...
(The original subject is kayaking, another sport where I feel hunted
down, so to speak)

Yes, you are a sitting duck, which is a really good reason not to go where
you can't be safe. I presume you would not ride your bicycle on I-95, which
would you ride you kayak in a zone where running on a plane is legal?

Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...
Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner.
I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.

Why the f*** are you cycling on the sidewalk?
You're not going to increase your safety significantly, but definitly
decrease your riding comfort and increase the anger of pedestrians.
Tadej

Boy, you must come to the jungle, I mean Miami. You'll see everybody
riding on the sidewalks along the major streets. You'll never want to
be at the bottom of the food chain, even when you put the pedestrians
at risk. But I wouldn't worry too much about it either, as there are
very, but very few pedestrians out.

Remember, WHEN IN ROME... ;)

[ComandanteBanana]

Hey, I know many of you haven't been to "the jungle," but survival
there ain't easy... ;)

(let's see what this survivor has to say)

Originally Posted by KarmicPedals
The South Florida drivers are very bike-aggressive. In the last week:

1) A friend of mine was attacked while riding his bike (on a
residential street) by a carload of young males: they threw beer
bottles at him -- hit him in the back of the head -- yelling at him --
and tore off when he crashed to the ground. The bike is pretty much a
loss.. his knee, ribs, are messed up -- and he has a nasty lump on his
head.

2) Yesterday, while riding my old raleigh -- in a dress -- in SLOW
rush hour traffic on a local street (I went to the post office and
back), I had to take the edge of a lane for about 20 feet due to
construction on the sidewalk - I took the edge of the lane as traffic
should be slowing down for the red light -- was in it for however long
it takes me to go 20 feet -- and a HUGE SUV sped up and tried to get
next to me -- I cut over to the sidewalk just as they got to me - and
a teen male was HANGING OUT OF WINDOW and screaming over and over "
GET OUT OF THE WAY" -- trying to scare me off of my bicycle.

Yeah. It's bike friendly here in Miami.

***

Hey, that sounds scary enough. I rather go safari in Africa and deal
with the wild beasts... ;)

[ComandanteBanana]

(Isn't it kind of stupid to have a Secretary of Defense and not a
Secretary of Bike Facilities? This guy is a good candidate)

Originally Posted by Bekologist
"i'm a proponent of optional use laws. Washington state law
specifically says that a bicyclist MAY use a bike lane if one exists.
and far right as practicable law has the ordinary 'exclusions not
limited to' allowance to effectively allow a bicyclist to ride
anywhere in the lane.

communities in North America may be well accomodated with only 10
percent bike laned roads, arterial connector routes working in
conjunction with sharrowed streets, bike boulevards, off road path
networks and end of trip facilities to genuinely stimulate bicycling
in communities.

and those 90 percent of un bike laned roads will still be bikeable.
hysterical rantings about 'infrastructure is where we'll be expected'
is not even specious but merely misleading."


Bek, you make so much sense that when the revolution gets to power we
can name you the "Secretary of Bike Facilities," and then we pass to
you the budget of the Secretary of Defense, since there's not going to
be more need for wars for oil.

We've got to discuss now how to get from here to there. ;)

[ComandanteBanana]

I just need to quote this post without comments...

an excerpt from the Washington Post article today...

"...Yet in the United States, with the exception of a handful of
cities, (accomodation) strategies have been ignored. Car-centric
transport policies and suburban sprawl continue to make bicycle
commuting rare, arduous and relatively dangerous. Although millions of
Americans recreate on bikes, they ride them for just 0.4 percent of
their trips to work, according to the U.S. Census.

Germans are 10 times more likely than Americans to ride a bike and
three times less likely to get hurt while doing so. On any given
workday, more commuters park their bikes at train and subway stations
in Tokyo (704,000) than cycle to work in the entire United States
(535,000), according to the Tokyo government and the U.S. census."

link to article (featured in Sunday Seattle Times)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...icycles31.html

[Jeremy Parker]

[snip]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Originally Posted by Bekologist
"There's a disturbing consipracy of 'elite' bicyclists that seek to
retard bicycling accommodations in this country. They leave
bicycling
stunted by standing as obstructionists to bike specific
infrastructure,

[snip]

I'm not in the USA right now, but I'm proud to admit to being one of
the elite. Actually, it's not a very elitist elite. Here in London,
where bike training is probably the best in the world, thousands of
children each year are being trained to ride properly, and adults are
being trained too.

It is possible, of course, to design good bike networks, and 25 miles
up the road from my location at the northern edge of London lies
Stevenage, the town that showed the world how to do it. Even the
Dutch didn't design good bike networks until they came to visit
Stevenage.

It turns out that to build a good network you have to do things in
the right order. You have to build the network first, and then build
the town round it. Doing it the other way takes too much dynamite,
to get rid of houses and things that are in the wrong place.

It takes plenty of dynamite. Stevenage was started in the 1940s. In
the first half of the 1940s Hitler's luftwaffe had brought over many
planeloads of explosives and incendiary bombs to clear spaces in
Britain's cities, much to the joy of Britain's town planners, who
welcomed the opportunity to get rid of the mistakes of the past, and
to build things again, this time correctly. However, that wasn't
enough to make bike networks possible.

In the last few years there has been another attempt to "help"
cyclists, driven by a mayor who explained that he couldn't possibly
ride a bike himself, owing to some ear problem that interfered with
his balance. The bomb sites are gone now, so it's not possible to
build new bike paths, only to paint bike lanes which never make the
streets wider. I've been pointing out that London has 8500 miles of
bike route, because every street in London is a bike route. It's
obviously unacceptable to declare only a few streets "bike routes",
because that would, presumably, make all the rest "not bike routes",
where the presence of bikes was, at best, somewhat dubious. I've
been told that my view is "true, but not helpful". However, it's not
my job to be helpful to the bureaucrats. It's their job to be
helpful to me.

Cycling has been increasing in London. The congestion charge (about
$15 per day now) no doubt helps. Transit strikes help too. I was
thinking about nominating Bob Crow, leader of the RMT Union, as
cycling's "person of the year" for his transit strikes, but the
organizers thought that wasn't quite what they had in mind. The 7/7
bombings may have helped increase cycling, too.

The presence of more bike facilities here hasn't raised their
reputation. At least there's no law here compelling us to use the
damn things. There's talk about ghettos in the gutter, margins for
the marginalized, built by idiots for idiots. With novice cyclists
taking up cycling, and non cyclists taking an interest in the
subject, there's still some interest in facilities, although not much
among actual cyclists. The result is that it's fairly obvious that
those who talk about bike lanes now don't even know what a lane is.
The most common cause of fatal bike accidents here in left driving
Britain is left turning trucks. That used to account for about a
quarter of the fatalities, but now the new bike lanes seem to be a
magnet to entice novices, particularly women, into the coffin corner.
This led to somewhat confused reports that researchers had discovered
that it was safer for women to run red lights than to wait. And the
proportion of left hook accidents ever increases.

It is still somewhat politically incorrect here to say that bike
training teaches useful skills. Officially it's purpose is only to
"increase confidence". However, I think the British army method of
increasing confidence is quicker and cheaper - just give everyone a
tot of rum before they go over the top. I wonder whether the rum
drinking method works for internet posting too.

Jeremy Parker

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Jeremy Parker
[snip]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Originally Posted by Bekologist
"There's a disturbing consipracy of 'elite' bicyclists that seek to
retard bicycling accommodations in this country. They leave
bicycling
stunted by standing as obstructionists to bike specific
infrastructure,

[snip]
I'm not in the USA right now, but I'm proud to admit to being one of
the elite.  Actually, it's not a very elitist elite.  Here in London,
where bike training is probably the best in the world, thousands of
children each year are being trained to ride properly, and adults are
being trained too.
It is possible, of course, to design good bike networks, and 25 miles
up the road from my location at the northern edge of London lies
Stevenage, the town that showed the world how to do it.  Even the
Dutch didn't design good bike networks until they came to visit
Stevenage.
It turns out that to build a good network you have to do things in
the right order.  You have to build the network first, and then build
the town round it.  Doing it the other way takes too much dynamite,
to get rid of houses and things that are in the wrong place.
It takes plenty of dynamite.  Stevenage was started in the 1940s.  In
the first half of the 1940s Hitler's luftwaffe had brought over many
planeloads of explosives and incendiary bombs to clear spaces in
Britain's cities, much to the joy of Britain's town planners, who
welcomed the opportunity to get rid of the mistakes of the past, and
to build things again, this time correctly.  However, that wasn't
enough to make bike networks possible.
In the last few years there has been another attempt to "help"
cyclists, driven by a mayor who explained that he couldn't possibly
ride a bike himself, owing to some ear problem that interfered with
his balance.  The bomb sites are gone now, so it's not possible to
build new bike paths, only to paint bike lanes which never make the
streets wider.  I've been pointing out that London has 8500 miles of
bike route, because every street in London is a bike route.  It's
obviously unacceptable to declare only a few streets "bike routes",
because that would, presumably, make all the rest "not bike routes",
where the presence of bikes was, at best, somewhat dubious.  I've
been told that my view is "true, but not helpful".  However, it's not
my job to be helpful to the bureaucrats.  It's their job to be
helpful to me.
Cycling has been increasing in London.  The congestion charge (about
$15 per day now) no doubt helps.  Transit strikes help too.  I was
thinking about nominating Bob Crow, leader of the RMT Union, as
cycling's "person of the year" for his transit strikes, but the
organizers thought that wasn't quite what they had in mind.  The 7/7
bombings may have helped increase cycling, too.
The presence of more bike facilities here hasn't raised their
reputation.  At least there's no law here compelling us to use the
damn things. There's talk about ghettos in the gutter, margins for
the marginalized, built by idiots for idiots.  With novice cyclists
taking up cycling, and non cyclists taking an interest in the
subject, there's still some interest in facilities, although not much
among actual cyclists.  The result is that it's fairly obvious that
those who talk about bike lanes now don't even know what a lane is.
The most common cause of fatal bike accidents here in left driving
Britain is left turning trucks.  That used to account for about a
quarter of the fatalities, but now the new bike lanes seem to be a
magnet to entice novices, particularly women, into the coffin corner.
This led to somewhat confused reports that researchers had discovered
that it was safer for women to run red lights than to wait.  And the
proportion of left hook accidents ever increases.
It is still somewhat politically incorrect here to say that bike
training teaches useful skills.  Officially it's purpose is only to
"increase confidence".  However, I think the British army method of
increasing confidence is quicker and cheaper - just give everyone a
tot of rum before they go over the top.  I wonder whether the rum
drinking method works for internet posting too.
Jeremy Parker

Very informative of the way things should be: every street is a bike
lane. But somehow you miss WHY the Londoners can enjoy such a bike
paradise and America can't: their drivers and traffic laws. The UK has
one of the safest driving records in the world, something hard to say
about America.

So long as issues such as LANE DISCIPLINE, SIGNAL LIGHTS, CELL PHONES,
etc are not taken seriously in America, our roads will remain
Darwinistic, and you don't want to be the little fish (the bike) among
the big fish (do I need to say SUVs?)

So it is that the American elitist bike elite talks about riding the
road like a car, but for the average Joe on a bike the roads are a
jungle.

Just like the name of my website. ;)

[ZBicyclist]

.... But somehow you miss WHY the Londoners can enjoy such a bike
paradise and America can't: their drivers and traffic laws. The UK has
one of the safest driving records in the world, something hard to say
about America.

Indeed it does, by this measure
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm

The US is well down the list, at 40th.

Of course, there's a couple of quirks in using per capita
fatalities. India comes in at 16th, and anyone who's been to India
in the past few years knows why they strongly recommend foreigners
hire a driver.

[ComandanteBanana]

.... But somehow you miss WHY the Londoners can enjoy such a bike
paradise and America can't: their drivers and traffic laws. The UK has
one of the safest driving records in the world, something hard to say
about America.

Indeed it does, by this measurehttp://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-mult...
The US is well down the list, at 40th.
Of course, there's a couple of quirks in using per capita
fatalities.  India comes in at 16th, and anyone who's been to India
in the past few years knows why they strongly recommend foreigners
hire a driver.
--
Mike Krugerhttp://mikekr.blogspot.com/

Gee, I better ride a bike in India. ;)

[Jack May]

Post by ZBicyclist

.... But somehow you miss WHY the Londoners can enjoy such a bike
paradise and America can't: their drivers and traffic laws. The UK has
one of the safest driving records in the world, something hard to say
about America.

Indeed it does, by this
measurehttp://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-mult...
The US is well down the list, at 40th.
Of course, there's a couple of quirks in using per capita
fatalities. India comes in at 16th, and anyone who's been to India
in the past few years knows why they strongly recommend foreigners
hire a driver.
--
Mike Krugerhttp://mikekr.blogspot.com/

<Gee, I better ride a bike in India. ;)

Please do go ride a bike in India, or better yet in China.

China has the highest road death rate in the world and India is second.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Jack May

Post by ZBicyclist

.... But somehow you miss WHY the Londoners can enjoy such a bike
paradise and America can't: their drivers and traffic laws. The UK has
one of the safest driving records in the world, something hard to say
about America.

Indeed it does, by this
measurehttp://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-mult...
The US is well down the list, at 40th.
Of course, there's a couple of quirks in using per capita
fatalities. India comes in at 16th, and anyone who's been to India
in the past few years knows why they strongly recommend foreigners
hire a driver.
--
Mike Krugerhttp://mikekr.blogspot.com/

<Gee, I better ride a bike in India. ;)
Please do go ride a bike in India, or better yet in China.
China has the highest road death rate in the world and India is second.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You wouldn't catch me in China as they want to be like Americans and
drive big fat SUVs. It usually happens when people is forced
(something common under communism) to do something for so long (riding
a bike) and then they crave for something else. Probably many
Americans feel the same way about driving... ;)

As for India, I already feel like I'm there... With their caste
system, you get used to feel like an outcast by riding a bike in
America. I think they call them "untouchables" or something.

[ComandanteBanana]

(If it sounds like jungle talk, it's because we are talking about
survival)

Originally Posted by SSP

- Learn to ride a bike.
- Get involved with local cycling advocacy groups.

...

It sounds like teaching the gazelle to survive among the lions...

What's the best advice?

"Never let the guard down."

"Stay away from the bushes."

"Never piss the lion."

"Look at the lion in the eye, etc."

But how can a cyclist outrun a car the way the gazelle can outrun a
lion?

I think whether you survive or not on a bike depends more on dumb luck
than driving skills. Is the stupid driver on the phone? Is his
oversized SUV too big to fit in one lane together with your bike?

Getting involved with the local advocacy groups, you mean the ones the
cooperate with the system and are willing to wait 50 years to get bike
facilities... or something rather wild like Critical Mass?

I think there are better alternatives out there. And it's coming
soon...

(the monkeys are getting organized)

[Jym Dyer]

Post by ComandanteBanana
You wouldn't catch me in China as they want to be like
Americans and drive big fat SUVs.

=v= There has been an increase in motor vehicle use, which
the American press has portrayed in negative, fearful ways
(which they've never done about an increase in American motor
vehicle use, go figure). Typical of you to zero in on the
fear and notice nothing else.

=v= But in fact the bicycle remains #1 in China even with
the recent increase in car ownership, and the transportation
infrastructure reflects that fact much better than America's.

Post by ComandanteBanana
It usually happens when people is forced (something common
under communism) to do something for so long (riding a bike)
and then they crave for something else.

=v= Again, typical of you to present "reasons" for something
that's not really happening in the way you think that it is.
<_Jym_>

[Tom Sherman]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jack May

Post by ZBicyclist

.... But somehow you miss WHY the Londoners can enjoy such a bike
paradise and America can't: their drivers and traffic laws. The UK has
one of the safest driving records in the world, something hard to say
about America.

Indeed it does, by this
measurehttp://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-mult...
The US is well down the list, at 40th.
Of course, there's a couple of quirks in using per capita
fatalities. India comes in at 16th, and anyone who's been to India
in the past few years knows why they strongly recommend foreigners
hire a driver.
--
Mike Krugerhttp://mikekr.blogspot.com/

<Gee, I better ride a bike in India. ;)
Please do go ride a bike in India, or better yet in China.
China has the highest road death rate in the world and India is second.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You wouldn't catch me in China as they want to be like Americans and
drive big fat SUVs. It usually happens when people is forced
(something common under communism) to do something for so long (riding
a bike) and then they crave for something else. Probably many
Americans feel the same way about driving... ;)
As for India, I already feel like I'm there... With their caste
system, you get used to feel like an outcast by riding a bike in
America. I think they call them "untouchables" or something.

Er, Jack May is suggesting that you get yourself run over.

[george conklin]

Post by Jack May

Post by ZBicyclist

.... But somehow you miss WHY the Londoners can enjoy such a bike
paradise and America can't: their drivers and traffic laws. The UK has
one of the safest driving records in the world, something hard to say
about America.

Indeed it does, by this
measurehttp://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-mult...
The US is well down the list, at 40th.
Of course, there's a couple of quirks in using per capita
fatalities. India comes in at 16th, and anyone who's been to India
in the past few years knows why they strongly recommend foreigners
hire a driver.
--
Mike Krugerhttp://mikekr.blogspot.com/

<Gee, I better ride a bike in India. ;)
Please do go ride a bike in India, or better yet in China.
China has the highest road death rate in the world and India is second.

I have ridden a bike in India. Quite interesting, really. I also had a
small motorcycle, and that really is quite dangerous. But I was young, and
everyone rode a bike, and there really were no alternatives. I had my wife
and two babies on the motorcycle, by the way, just like a true resident of
India. One child sat between us and one was in a carrier on my wife's back.
Those who had scooters had the children stand in front of them!!!.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Jack May

Post by ZBicyclist

.... But somehow you miss WHY the Londoners can enjoy such a bike
paradise and America can't: their drivers and traffic laws. The UK has
one of the safest driving records in the world, something hard to say
about America.

Indeed it does, by this
measurehttp://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-mult...
The US is well down the list, at 40th.
Of course, there's a couple of quirks in using per capita
fatalities. India comes in at 16th, and anyone who's been to India
in the past few years knows why they strongly recommend foreigners
hire a driver.
--
Mike Krugerhttp://mikekr.blogspot.com/

<Gee, I better ride a bike in India. ;)
Please do go ride a bike in India, or better yet in China.
China has the highest road death rate in the world and India is second.

   I have ridden a bike in India.  Quite interesting, really.  I also had a
small motorcycle, and that really is quite dangerous.  But I was young, and
everyone rode a bike, and there really were no alternatives.  I had my wife
and two babies on the motorcycle, by the way, just like a true resident of
India.  One child sat between us and one was in a carrier on my wife's back.
Those who had scooters had the children stand in front of them!!!.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Must the "untouchables" resign to riding bikes?

Just a wild shot. ;)

Good thing in India there's a still a big chunk of people who still
ride scooters and bikes.

[ComandanteBanana]

Originally Posted by CB HI

"Hey Bek, look, you got your first of the 2 converts and it is
DonQuixote1954."

Hey not so fast, *I* am the guy with the revolution.

If he got one I wanna make sure it meets the criteria...

REVOLUTION
You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright

[j***@stanfordalumni.org]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by ZBicyclist

.... But somehow you miss WHY the Londoners can enjoy such a bike
paradise and America can't: their drivers and traffic laws. The UK
has one of the safest driving records in the world, something hard
to say about America.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-mult...

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by ZBicyclist
The US is well down the list, at 40th.
Of course, there's a couple of quirks in using per capita
fatalities.  India comes in at 16th, and anyone who's been to India
in the past few years knows why they strongly recommend foreigners
hire a driver.

I found this reference interesting and fitting well with my experience
riding bike for several days in London (England). I found both car
drivers and bicyclists more skilled and tolerant of one another than I
have found anywhere in the USA. Beyond that, when encountering
traffic signs and signals, following a pragmatic course of violating
their regulation was accepted by both drivers and pedestrians who
seemed to be far more tolerant than in the USA.

London bicyclists had a lot of bike messenger skills common in big
cities in the US, and drivers, especially those of large double decker
articulated buses, highly skilled in passing bicyclists on narrow
one-way streets that were originally two lanes but now have three, with
a Bus/Taxi/Bike lane on the left.

After reading the "three foot" passing law discussion here, I realized
that none of those in favor of such a proposal would be able to ride in
London. Passing there is reliably less than one foot clearance.
There just is no more room than that.

Post by ComandanteBanana
Gee, I better ride a bike in India. ;)

That all depends on how drivers and bikies in India "share the road".

Jobst Brandt

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by ZBicyclist

.... But somehow you miss WHY the Londoners can enjoy such a bike
paradise and America can't: their drivers and traffic laws. The UK
has one of the safest driving records in the world, something hard
to say about America.

 http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-mult...

Post by ZBicyclist
The US is well down the list, at 40th.
Of course, there's a couple of quirks in using per capita
fatalities.  India comes in at 16th, and anyone who's been to India
in the past few years knows why they strongly recommend foreigners
hire a driver.

I found this reference interesting and fitting well with my experience
riding bike for several days in London (England).  I found both car
drivers and bicyclists more skilled and tolerant of one another than I
have found anywhere in the USA.  Beyond that, when encountering
traffic signs and signals, following a pragmatic course of violating
their regulation was accepted by both drivers and pedestrians who
seemed to be far more tolerant than in the USA.

I think in the USA (United Selfish of America) things are hard to
coordinate since everybody is taught to be selfish, but since driving
must be a coordinated effort in order to work, then what you get is a
jungle where everybody must try to survive by being bigger not
smarter.

So the bicycle may be smarter but still is at the bottom of the food
chain. :(

I mean, it's just a thought. ;)

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by ComandanteBanana
You wouldn't catch me in China as they want to be like
Americans and drive big fat SUVs.

=v= There has been an increase in motor vehicle use, which
the American press has portrayed in negative, fearful ways
(which they've never done about an increase in American motor
vehicle use, go figure). Typical of you to zero in on the
fear and notice nothing else.
=v= But in fact the bicycle remains #1 in China even with
the recent increase in car ownership, and the transportation
infrastructure reflects that fact much better than America's.

Post by ComandanteBanana
It usually happens when people is forced (something common
under communism) to do something for so long (riding a bike)
and then they crave for something else.

=v= Again, typical of you to present "reasons" for something
that's not really happening in the way you think that it is.
<_Jym_>

Hey, are you defending communism or capitalism? It seems hard to tell
sometimes, as globalization tends to unite them in making the "little
fish" (the guy on the bike) kind of out style if not fair game for the
top predators (those who can afford the SUVs).

I think the only ones still promoting bikes are the Europeans, no? At
least cyclists don't seem to feel like an outcast (a loser in the
globalization game) like in India. Or maybe Europe is losing at this
game, kind of early to tell.

But I think the more sucessful the SUVs are, the more global warming
they create, and the more hurrricanes they produce, so I think the
winners would be the biggest losers.

I don't know, but I feel like getting under my bed in light of the 4
hurricanes coming at us from the Atlantic... ;)

(Just in the news that Gustav cost $10 billion to America. Like the
saying says, "What goes around comes around.")

[Jym Dyer]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Hey, are you defending communism or capitalism?

=v= I'm defending reality. It's an interesting place; you
should visit sometime.
<_Jym_>

P.S.: For some reason "ComandanteBanana" screwed up the
"References:" header, so it's probably impossible to tell
what this thread is about. Not that it really matters what
his threads are about, but I was responding to his claim
that China was being overrun by SUVs and his concocated
explanation for this inaccurate claim.

[ComandanteBanana]

This guy is telling it like it is, but I'd like to add my own colorful
language... ;)

Originally Posted by Bekologist
the particulars of any one bike lane design is not the focus of this
thread I started.

I am critical of obstructionists that stand in the way of any and all
bike specific on road infrastructure. these people are out there.

there is a loosely organized collective of EC pablum pushers that are
doing a disservice to american bicycling and retarding bike mode
share.

50mph traffic and 14 foot lanes are not bringing bicyclists to the
roads - despite there being 'room for bikes and cars to share lanes'
and keeping right of way MORE ambiguous at intersection approaches...

if you do not want to see bike riding increase in this country, the
status quo of autocentric roads and dangerous road conditions seem to
be your counterpoint.

goodonya, but some of us see the capabilities of redesign of american
streetscapes to be friendlier to peds, bikes, and people using limited
mobility devices.

***

Hey, I'm all the way with you. But it won't happen because it's all
about money, and money is the language of globalization.

Some of the cylists here are elitists and they won't side with the
monkey on the bike. They hate monkeys and democracy is just
camouflage, so to speak.

Our job is to expose the predator and keep on surviving in the
jungle.

"The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in
front of it" -Axel Munthe

Forgive the metaphors, but monkeys --the common people-- prefer
colorful language.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Riding a bike costs peanuts --which is why monkeys love biking"

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88

[ComandanteBanana]

Originally Posted by genec

London or England rather has a ride share similar to that of
America... so I would hardly say "things have worked out."

When we approach a ride share of say 10%, then I might think, "things
are working out."

***

True, but London itself might be approaching that figure after they
restricted vehicular traffic. NYC too is contemplating a similar law,
but New York is not the worst city in America. At least they've got
good public transportation.

Hey, Londoners, what's going on up there?

[ComandanteBanana]

This comment says a lot. A whole lot. I think the conspiracy is
totally exposed here...

(I answer below)

Originally Posted by uke

An interesting thread. Here's an article that supplements it nicely:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26478179/

Basically, nearly every bike-friendly country on Earth has figured out
the two keys to getting people to ride bicycles: investment in
infrastructure and restrictions on automobiles. We can argue over
whether or not to follow the path or not, but the longer we spend time
trying to reinvent the wheel, the longer we're going to stay pegged at
an average of 1% throughout the country. The only city even close to
10% (the minimum percentage I'd consider necessary for a city to be
described as bike-friendly) is Portland at 4-6%, and, unsurprisingly,
that's the city that's taken the most steps toward investing in
infrastructure, though they're still far behind in tactics and
percentages relative to a bike-friendly city.

I do think it's amusing, if tragic, that bicyclists in the US are our
own worst enemies with respect to our cause. Creating a bike-friendly
city isn't rocket science; it's being done all over the world, and the
formula is damned easy to follow. But so many cyclists here refuse to
even acknowledge the formula, much less advocate its implementation. I
truly believe that many cyclists here (on BF, and in the general
commuting community) truly believe that cycling in the US should be
reserved for people willing to risk their lives without modifications
to the status quo. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of
people in the country will never make such a leap is fine with them,
as they see nothing wrong with a 1% commuting population.

In the meantime, cyclists in other countries are working with their
governments at the city levels to make cycling a safe and therefore
viable activity for the general population, and as a result, cities
all over the world are going from 1% to 5% to 10% or more. It's
amazing to watch us fall backward in comparison to so many other
places, and to see how many of us are so eager to ignore reality.

***

I think they are experimenting with something called "democracy." But
here it is understood as coming out every four years to vote for the
candidate that promises cheap gas --and more drilling.

The couch potatoes' tyranny.

[Tom Sherman]

[...] and anyone who's been to India[na]
in the past few years knows why they strongly recommend foreigners
hire a driver.

I fixed Mike's post. ;)

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by ComandanteBanana
...
Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...
Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner.
I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.
Then you realize you live in the jungle.
Welcome to the Jungle --if you dare.

DUDE, GET OFF THE SIDEWALK!!!

Sure, *YOU* come here and you show us that you can ride Biscayne Blvd.
Yes, you are tough enough to be braver than us people from Miami who
dare NOT ride on such streets. FYI, though, maybe you'll be alone
riding such a major street that runs north to south connecting Miami
to Ft. Lauderdale.

Or maybe you want to take the challenge on Collins Ave or Flagler st,
etc.

Beware of the beast, though!

[Jeremy Parker]

"ComandanteBanana" <***@yahoo.com> wrote

[snip]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Very informative of the way things should be: every street is a bike
lane.

Er, not so. A six lane highway is six bike lanes, not one. It just
goes to prove the point I made, and which you quoted in your own
message, just before your own reply:-

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jeremy Parker
The result is that it's fairly obvious that
those who talk about bike lanes now don't even know what a lane is.

Jeremy Parker

[Daniel Barlow]

Post by Jeremy Parker
Er, not so. A six lane highway is six bike lanes, not one.

A six lane highway could quite easily be 12 bike lanes. While it
would be inappropriate to overtake cyclists leaving less room than you
would a car (c.f. Highway Code rule 302 or 306, whichever it is),
riding two abreast in a single car lane is often perfectly reasonable.


-dan

[KingOfTheApes]

What America needs is a Queen and bike facilities. Just kidding, we
just need the bike facilities and no BS... ;)

Bike Commuting: London Plans Free Bike Program
England's capitol follows the lead of Paris to offer free bikes in the
city as part of a major downtown overhaul

Paris, France, February 14, 2008:

London mayor Ken Livingstone likes bikes.

After bringing the Tour de France to London in 2007, he has announced
a new project that will transform the face of downtown London, making
it much more pedestrian and bike friendly.

Following on the heels of the private French program The Velib in
Paris, a government-funded program in London seeks to install 6,000
free bikes for rent on stands around London by the year 2010.

Watch a video of Velib and hear from its citizen-riders

To encourage Londoners and visitors to the city to actually use the
bikes, they have planned to first establish a series of bike lanes and
bike paths that will easily link up many of London's most popular
spots.

http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-12-16845-1,00.html?cm_mmc=RSS-_-bicrsshome-_-NA-_-NA

[Jens Müller]

Post by KingOfTheApes
To encourage Londoners and visitors to the city to actually use the
bikes, they have planned to first establish a series of bike lanes and
bike paths that will easily link up many of London's most popular
spots.

Londoners already use bikes, without that stupid apartheid.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by KingOfTheApes
To encourage Londoners and visitors to the city to actually use the
bikes, they have planned to first establish a series of bike lanes and
bike paths that will easily link up many of London's most popular
spots.

Londoners already use bikes, without that stupid apartheid.

Hey, maybe bike lanes and bike paths would be good tourists... Or you
don't want tourists? ;)

They don't need to be exclusive: You can on bike facilities to 10% of
places, while you feel it's safe enough to ride on any street.
Sometimes you want to ride with the kids too, you know.

[ComandanteBanana]

Originally Posted by Daily Commute

"Don't think about the lanes we've actually built. Reality is
overrated. And whatever you do, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND
THE CURTAIN!!!"


Which is why my slogan is...

"My struggle is not against the puppet, but against the puppeteer!"

And who's the puppeteer, Big Three, Big Money, Big Oil, Big
Bureaucracy, Big Insurance, Big Health Industry, etc, etc.

And who's the puppet, the ones that deny bike facilities for no good
reason. Even Bush is a puppet, some say.

Loading Image...

[ComandanteBanana]

Originally Posted by genec
"Overall I think BL are just emerging as part of a larger picture, and
they are evolving... but I am afraid that the larger picture has a
long long way to go. Political will and money are the fixes... The
solutions are varied."

The one thing I don't want to adhere to is "all roads are bike lanes,"
nor do I want to see "any stripe will do."

***

The best solution in an ideal world is to make a few car lanes for
cars and let the bicycles take over the rest of the facilities. Say,
give 10% of the roads to the cars, and the rest free and safe
territory for bikes and other environmentally friendly vehicles.

Thus the need for the revolution. ;)

VELORUTION!
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote91

[ComandanteBanana]

Originally Posted by buzzman

"Ironically, Don Quixote is one of my favorite novels and 1954 the
year of my birth so it pains me to see them used to label such
exasperatingly inane posts."

I also use other pseudonims, "ComandanteBanana," "KingOfTheApes," etc.
So take your pick...

But I'm sure DonQuixote would write like this, just that I use a
banana instead of a spear. Oh, and I try to laugh from my enemies, not
the other way around it. Plenty to laugh about.

All you do is talk and talk, and no action. Every European city is
getting to work, but here you get caught up in endless debates about
the advantages and disadvantages of bike facilities. You want to
ignore TRAFFIC SAFETY as the first issue that must be addressed in
this country. Then you become the laughing stock of the world driving
Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles, just to be safe on our roads.

Face it, it's a jungle!

PS: By the way, if you don't find a monkey with a banana funny, then
you must deny your heritage. Many sheep do. ;)

[ComandanteBanana]

In time, China itself will become another HUNGRY LION, and challenge
the hungry lion #1 because they got to eat, and oil is the only thing
that satisfies their appetites. It will be WWIII.

You just don't understand the world around you do you?

Why don't you enlighten us with your view of the world? I hope is not
the same propaganda you get fed on TV.

Why do you believe that military might will be the vehicle for the next
"war" between China and the US? At the moment China's entire growth is being
fueled via US coverage and it would harm China and the US to mess around
with that system. What's more, both the USA and China realize that they can
get more completed and less damaged society by using BUSINESS powers.
The whole point is that there is probably no chance of military fighting
between China and the US. What's more, China knows that the US has to
maintain a high financial position in order to put so much money into China.
The chances are that China is more interested in SUPPORTING the US than in
opposing them.

That's a best case scenario. But it assumes that the resources are
unlimited and that the monkeys (yes, our alpha male leaders) are into
cooperation, not competition. Sometimes it works, sometimes it
doesn't.

They chose to cooperate with North Korea, but to attack Iraq... See?
Stupid mistake. Now everybody wants to be a lion in the jungle...
Iran, Russia. But others get the point and choose to cooperate, such
as Kaddafi. It's a gamble, where the monkeys got nuclear weapons.

Wouldn't be smarter to support bicycling and alternative
transportation as the vehicle of choice? Yes, they could have taken
the best of China (bikes) and America (hi tech), but that would have
been too smart. Now China wants to be just like America (and so they
proclaim) with 1,300 million potential polluters.

Kind of a recipe of environmental catastrophe, no?

[JNugent]

Over the last week or so, it looks as though America is moving towards having
a Queen.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by JNugent
Over the last week or so, it looks as though America is moving towards having
a Queen.

I think that's another conspiracy. The real puppet master is behind
the curtains, so to speak.

(No, I don't believe in the Elders of Zion)

[ComandanteBanana]

(This feeling seems to be prevalent among elitist cyclists, even if it
is stupid. I answer below)

Originally Posted by chipcom

"I could care less about increasing numbers and I advise you to be
careful what you wish for. Imagine all of your bike lanes crowded with
cyclists who ride like they drive...much like you find on so many MUPs
on sunny weekend days..yet still significant amounts of motor vehicle
traffic too. That my be utopia for you, but not to me."


There you go: One of the CONSPIRATORS confesses! You don't want more
cyclists on the road, UNBELIEVABLE!

But you must be real stupid not to realize that dangerous cyclists are
not as dangerous as dangerous drivers of SUVs. You never studied mass
in physics?

Well, there's no punishment on account of being stupid. Thanks! ;)

[KingOfTheApes]

London is not near where I've thought they would be, but they are
growing fast and investing in bike infrastructure. They are far better
than us for sure. Hey, they fear the terrorists planting bombs in
buses, but I fear the ones behind the wheel... (and there's a lot of
them)

'It's not quite Amsterdam or Copenhagen, where commuting by bike is
the norm, but London is quickly becoming a major cycling city. Much of
the shift is a direct result of the bombings, which killed 52 people.

On cycling websites, London's new cyclists such as Wright refer to
themselves as "bomb dodgers."

No hard figures are available on the number of cyclists in the city. A
poll in 2003 found that 300,000 daily journeys are made by bicycle.
The Transport for London office estimates cycling has increased 52% in
the capital since 2000, based on the number of cyclists crossing
bridges over the Thames River.

Still, only 2% of Londoners cycle to work, compared with 20% in
Copenhagen and 28% in Amsterdam. London Mayor Ken Livingstone, a
bicycle enthusiast, wants to increase cycling 80% by 2010.'

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-09-20-london-bike_x.htm

[KingOfTheApes]

Global warming will hit first America and China... Regrettably, it
will hit Holland second, which is not fair, since they are really
civilized cyclists. But life in the jungle is NOT fair. Good reason to
end the Global Jungle, no?

Global warming likely to stoke more powerful hurricanes: study
2 hours ago

PARIS (AFP) — Global warming is likely to boost the power of the
strongest tropical cyclones, a study released on Wednesday says.

An additional one degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) in sea temperatures
in tropical regions where cyclones breed could lead to a nearly one-
third rise in the number of the most powerful storms, it says.

"As the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical
cyclone wind," say authors of the paper, released by the London weekly
Nature.

Previous research, based on observations over the past 30 years, has
already suggested that hurricanes -- as cyclones in the Atlantic are
known -- have become more intense as a result of warmer seas.

But the observational record for the Atlantic is more detailed and
goes back farther than for storms in the Indian Ocean, known as
cyclones, or those in the Pacific, which are called typhoons.

Seeking to fill in the blanks, a trio of US scientists crunched
satellite data for the period of 1981-2006 in all of these storm
basins.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwJsEPMCcrS25GkRtALDA-Oc-4vw

[DougC]

-various stuff-

Yep.
Anyway, uhh,,, back to me.

I expect it depends a lot on local conditions how practical bicycling as
transportation is. At the moment I live quite close to my job and on
days when traffic is really bad I can actually bike to work faster than
I can drive. Most people don't live reasonably close. And I even only do
it when the weather's nice, which isn't all year long.

-----

In practical terms I think that the mid-size town I currently live in
(50K pop) could do more to encourage bicycling by placing bicycle racks
in the business district than they would by painting bike lanes on some
of the streets.

-----

I doubt it really matters if you bother to minimize use of resources
while living in a big city, because of the fact that living in an urban
environment is inherently inefficient anyway, and does little to
encourage what meager conservation is possible. Riding a bicycle or a
bus instead of driving mainly relates to the fact that there's not
enough spaces to conveniently park a car--it doesn't mean anything with
regard to environmental benefits.
~