Discussion:
Bicycle Blacklash
(too old to reply)
George Conklin
2008-05-10 14:16:46 UTC
Permalink
The bicycle backlash unfolds
By Claire Heald
BBC News


The bicycle. It's the model of green transport and sales of folding ones
that fit on trains are stepping up a gear. But as they multiply, so does
rush-hour resentment, as commuters and cyclists come to blows.
Dawn is breaking over one commuter-town train station as the daily grind of
travelling to work begins. A City type is easy to pick out at the far end of
the London-bound platform - he has forgone formal pinstripes for Lycra
shorts and a luminous top.
He collapses his bike into a spiral that is barely bigger than its 16in
(41cm) wheels.

Yes, you should try to protect the environment, but be sensitive to others
David Pyle
Commuter

A Brompton folding bicycle, it's the bowler hat of modern commuting -
compact, popular, a bit of a design classic.
Its owner is polite and considerate but hesitates to give his name. Glancing
sideways, he says he takes an earlier train to avoid the worst of the
rush-hour. For him, cycling "at both ends" - in the sticks and the city -
means he travels in an environmentally-friendly way.
So what's not to like here?
Plenty, say fellow commuters, aggrieved by the increasing number of folding
bikes vying for space on the train. Sales are up, and the crush inside the
carriages is on.
Sweaty menace?
"Here's one! Right here," pipes teacher David Pyle, as he opens the train
doors to reveal a folding bike strapped to a handrail on the 0628 BST from
Sevenoaks to Charing Cross.
Stepping inside, there are no seats left and he struggles to find a place to
stand and hold on.
He complains that bikes, even folding ones, take up too much room. And he
doubts their environmental credentials when some riders are dropped off at
the station in a 4x4
And there is wrath for the sweatier cyclists.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
James Waller of Evans Cycles shows us how to fold and assemble a folding
bike.
"Yes, you should try to protect the environment, but you should be sensitive
to others," he says. "If putting your bike on the train obstructs other
people's standing space, it doesn't fulfil any ecological criteria."
Cramming into a busy train while under pressure of time - commuting is
hardly an experience that brings out the spirit of generosity in us. Take
father and son city-workers Nick and Tom Hester.
"For years we had a long standing thing about a little guy who we called
'cyclo git'," says Nick. "He had a row just about every day - the classic
'get his bike out of the boot at Sevenoaks station' man."
"They're so arrogant with their 'let me through, I'm a cyclist' attitude.
The trains are crowded enough, they should be banned during rush hour."
"The most annoying of the lot is the people who build their bike just as
everyone gets up to get off," adds Tom. "There's a perfectly large station -
why do it on the train?"
Sales shift gear
They've noticed the change as sales of "folders" are on the rise in the UK -
about 75,000 of the 3.5 million bikes sold last year. Market leader Dahon
says its sales are growing by about a third each year. UK-based Brompton
says it's unable to keep pace with demand.
Partly it's down to technical improvements - folding bikes have improved
both in the ride they give and how quick and easy they are to fold (7-15
seconds for a Brompton).
Other factors have also driven sales: the London congestion charge (and
similar plans in 10 other UK centres); growing awareness about exercise; and
the 7 July bombings which converted many to pedal power.
The city now boasts a high-profile cycling mayor and will this year host its
second folding bike race for commuters. Across the rail network, standard
bikes are either banned by train companies at peak times or must be
booked-in.
"Tick, tick, tick"
As rush hour rolls on, the steady tap of rain on the train windows hardens
to a more aggressive pelt. Mac-clad passengers squash onboard. Soggy
brollies dangle. Tempers begin fray.
But there is also the "tick, tick, tick" sound of folding bikes being
wheeled up to, and off of, trains.

You can see them looking at you in your shorts, thinking 'I haven't got a
seat, and yet he's got a bike'
Ercan Ozcelik
Cyclist commuter

City lawyer Roger Day is undeterred by the conditions; indeed they are
"liberating". "I always cycle in the morning, rain or shine," he beams.
He does four miles to the station, and a quick sprint in the city: "I used
to drive to and from Canary Wharf, and it was miserable. This journey takes
longer, but I would take it a million times - it's fantastic and helps keep
me healthy."
Other cyclists are keen to show how little room their bike occupies; how
easy it is to assemble: "It takes half a minute," says investment banker
Jamie MacLean, unfolding his bike at London Bridge.
The us-and-them aggravation in the dog-eat-dog world of the train doorway is
well known to some, however. Ercan Ozcelik has 22 years of taking the train
and cycling to work under his waterproof, high-visibility belt.
"Coming home, when there's no seats, you can see them looking at you in your
shorts, thinking 'I haven't got a seat, and yet he's got a bike'."
Blame game
But to place blame under the tyres of the bicycle is to miss the problem,
say cycling's proponents. It is train overcrowding and the demise of the
storage-giving guard's van that are at the root.
"Commuters have a problem with other commuters," says Tom Bogdanowicz of the
London Cycling Campaign. "The bottom line is they're complaining about
overcrowding on trains, not specific items."
The solution? Greater capacity for people and trains designed to take bikes.
Then everyone could fold up their bike at the station, and carry it on to
the train.
Add your comments on this story, using the form below.
I recently bought a folder after being admonished for bringing my bicycle on
the train. It is compact and so much easier to transport and store. The ride
is surprisingly smooth and it is great in the city.
Candace, New Jersey, US
You should have to buy a ticket for a bike.
Matt Whitby, Thatcham
My folding bike is smaller than the majority of bags, briefcases and
suitcases that almost all commuters carry. Overcrowding is the issue.
Naythan, Rushden, UK
The worst example of a selfish cyclist I've seen was on a rush-hour train.
The bike's owner had decided to create their own bike parking space by
locking their bike in front of three folding seats. Folding seats are
designed to fold-away when not in use to allow easy access down the train's
corridors. Not only did this bike prevent the use of three of the train's
seats, it also blocked the corridor in the process.
DS, Croydon, England
The fault lies entirely with the rail company as they are not providing
suitable facilities for their paying customers, whether they are cyclists or
pedestrians.
Ken, Glasgow
The really annoying ones are the cyclists who don't fold up their bike, prop
it across the doors, and then get annoyed when someone wants to use the door
to actually get off the train, and they have to move their precious bike.
Nona, London
I use the train-and-cycle combo to get to work from Hertfordshire to central
London. However, I get incredibly irritated by the cramming in of frankly
not-very-small folding bikes by other commuters - the bikes get in the way
and take up valuable space. My solution is easy - I leave my bicycle in the
cycle racks at the train station in London and don't take it on the train.
It's not a folding bike, so I get a faster, more comfortable ride too. And I
don't have to fight to get my 'luggage' onto trains in the rush hour. At the
home end, I'm fortunate to live close enough to the station to walk. I'm
about to move further away and am going to pull the same trick there -
leaving a second bike at the station. This may seem expensive, but Brompton
bikes start at over £300, and go up to £700 or so. My full-size bicycle cost
£130, has integral lights, a luggage rack, and is comfortable enough to do
the London-Brighton ride and over 6,000 miles so far. So buying two
full-size bikes is cheaper than one folding. Perhaps more people should
consider this rather neat way of commuting...
Ian Cowley, Royston and London
What about more bike parks at stations? Then cyclists could leave their
bikes at the rail stations and join the rest of us on the
tubes/buses/pavements for the last part of their commutes. That's for those
cyclists who don't already join pedestrians on the pavements obviously.
Ian, London, UK
I remember the days, not very long ago, when trains had a carriage for
bikes. Despite bikes being higher up the agenda than ever, profit comes
first and bike accommodation is now limited to a couple of
bike/pushchair/disabled bays. Given they barely accommodate for peak volumes
of passengers, I suppose this is all that can be expected; though it is a
little rough to put this lack of accommodation on the cyclist.
Jack May
2008-05-10 21:28:31 UTC
Permalink
BART in the SF Bay area is now taking six dual seat benches out of each rail
car because of the extra space required for bicycles that people bring on
board.

The six dual seat removals are also needed for people that now need to stand
for their commute trip because of the space taken up by bicycles.

Obviously people need the bikes because BART and other transit system is not
a fully functional transportation system that can carry people from their
departure location to their destination except for a few percent of the
commuters.
Post by George Conklin
The bicycle backlash unfolds
By Claire Heald
BBC News
The bicycle. It's the model of green transport and sales of folding ones
that fit on trains are stepping up a gear. But as they multiply, so does
rush-hour resentment, as commuters and cyclists come to blows.
Dawn is breaking over one commuter-town train station as the daily grind of
travelling to work begins. A City type is easy to pick out at the far end of
the London-bound platform - he has forgone formal pinstripes for Lycra
shorts and a luminous top.
He collapses his bike into a spiral that is barely bigger than its 16in
(41cm) wheels.
Yes, you should try to protect the environment, but be sensitive to others
David Pyle
Commuter
Tadej Brezina
2008-05-11 20:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
BART in the SF Bay area is now taking six dual seat benches out of each rail
car because of the extra space required for bicycles that people bring on
board.
The six dual seat removals are also needed for people that now need to stand
for their commute trip because of the space taken up by bicycles.
Obviously people need the bikes because BART and other transit system is not
a fully functional transportation system that can carry people from their
departure location to their destination except for a few percent of the
commuters.
That is an absolutely ingenious (=newsbreaking) insight from you!
So please do not hesitate to feed us more of it.

Ships, trains (PT buses also), aeroplanes don't bring you from origin to
destination but to designated spots of service alon lines of service.
Whereas cars, chartered buses, lorries, bikes, motorbikes, feet may
bring you from origin to destination. But only on mainland.

regards
Tadej
--
"Frauen sind als Gesprächspartner nun einmal interessanter,
weil das Gespräch nicht beendet ist, wenn nichts sinnvolles mehr zu
sagen ist."
<David Kastrup in d.t.r>
Jack May
2008-05-12 04:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tadej Brezina
Post by Jack May
BART in the SF Bay area is now taking six dual seat benches out of each
rail car because of the extra space required for bicycles that people
bring on board.
The six dual seat removals are also needed for people that now need to
stand for their commute trip because of the space taken up by bicycles.
Obviously people need the bikes because BART and other transit system is
not a fully functional transportation system that can carry people from
their departure location to their destination except for a few percent of
the commuters.
That is an absolutely ingenious (=newsbreaking) insight from you!
So please do not hesitate to feed us more of it.
Ships, trains (PT buses also), aeroplanes don't bring you from origin to
destination but to designated spots of service alon lines of service.
Whereas cars, chartered buses, lorries, bikes, motorbikes, feet may bring
you from origin to destination. But only on mainland.
Airplanes and airports have a hierarchical structure that get you close to
your final destination or to your destination with the car you left at the
airport or other means. Not a full network by present definitions, but far
more useful than the crap technology left over from the 19th Century that
trains are designed to used.

Trains are not even remotely hierarchical with branches to small, remote
locations. Cars and roads are of course the most fully networked
transportation by the definitions of large networks by door to door travel
over large networks.

Before making a fool yourself again with your ignorance, you need to learn
how networks are defined with hierarchy, scalable to all levels of size, and
high flexibility to route anywhere in the a very large network with very low
penalties in changing routes. Think of the Internet and roads, not 19th
Century rail technology crap.
george conklin
2008-05-12 11:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Tadej Brezina
Post by Jack May
BART in the SF Bay area is now taking six dual seat benches out of each
rail car because of the extra space required for bicycles that people
bring on board.
The six dual seat removals are also needed for people that now need to
stand for their commute trip because of the space taken up by bicycles.
Obviously people need the bikes because BART and other transit system is
not a fully functional transportation system that can carry people from
their departure location to their destination except for a few percent
of the commuters.
That is an absolutely ingenious (=newsbreaking) insight from you!
So please do not hesitate to feed us more of it.
Ships, trains (PT buses also), aeroplanes don't bring you from origin to
destination but to designated spots of service alon lines of service.
Whereas cars, chartered buses, lorries, bikes, motorbikes, feet may bring
you from origin to destination. But only on mainland.
Airplanes and airports have a hierarchical structure that get you close to
your final destination or to your destination with the car you left at the
airport or other means. Not a full network by present definitions, but
far more useful than the crap technology left over from the 19th Century
that trains are designed to used.
Trains are not even remotely hierarchical with branches to small, remote
locations. Cars and roads are of course the most fully networked
transportation by the definitions of large networks by door to door travel
over large networks.
What did passenger trains in was the few places served out of the total
number which needed to be served.
RicodJour
2008-05-12 14:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
Airplanes and airports have a hierarchical structure that get you close to
your final destination or to your destination with the car you left at the
airport or other means. Not a full network by present definitions, but
far more useful than the crap technology left over from the 19th Century
that trains are designed to used.
I guess that's similar to the crap ceramic technology left over from
the 1st century. Oh...bad example. Or that crap medical technology
from most centuries that used leeches to....oh, another bad example.
How about....?

I could cite chapter and verse of technology that was replaced for
something "New and Improved!" that was revisited and found not to be
dead technology at all.

You are foundering when you start talking about a network and
arbitrarily omit segments of the network to make whatever point it is
you're trying to make.
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
Trains are not even remotely hierarchical with branches to small, remote
locations. Cars and roads are of course the most fully networked
transportation by the definitions of large networks by door to door travel
over large networks.
Door to door travel...what does that mean? Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio. That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses. There are too many fat asses.

Trains seem to do a pretty phenomenal job of covering the bulk of
Europe. There are less fat asses in Europe. I rest my case.
Post by george conklin
What did passenger trains in was the few places served out of the total
number which needed to be served.
A trolley is a train. It's not quite a supply and demand equation.
The automobile and oil companies set out to eliminate the trolley
competition. They did a good job in an organized crime sort of way.
Luckily for them there were politicians willing to ignore
transgressions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal

R
george conklin
2008-05-12 19:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
Post by Jack May
Airplanes and airports have a hierarchical structure that get you close to
your final destination or to your destination with the car you left at the
airport or other means. Not a full network by present definitions, but
far more useful than the crap technology left over from the 19th Century
that trains are designed to used.
I guess that's similar to the crap ceramic technology left over from
the 1st century. Oh...bad example. Or that crap medical technology
from most centuries that used leeches to....oh, another bad example.
How about....?
I could cite chapter and verse of technology that was replaced for
something "New and Improved!" that was revisited and found not to be
dead technology at all.
You are foundering when you start talking about a network and
arbitrarily omit segments of the network to make whatever point it is
you're trying to make.
Post by Jack May
Trains are not even remotely hierarchical with branches to small, remote
locations. Cars and roads are of course the most fully networked
transportation by the definitions of large networks by door to door travel
over large networks.
Door to door travel...what does that mean? Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio. That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses. There are too many fat asses.
That study which was supposed to show that people are thinner in cities
has been taken apart by the Journal of Urban Economics as a result of bad
methodology. If you have Science Direct, you can download the analysis from
that site. I've done that and find the article quite nicely done.
RicodJour
2008-05-12 23:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
Door to door travel...what does that mean? Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio. That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses. There are too many fat asses.
That study which was supposed to show that people are thinner in cities
has been taken apart by the Journal of Urban Economics as a result of bad
methodology. If you have Science Direct, you can download the analysis from
that site. I've done that and find the article quite nicely done.
"That" study...? I wasn't referring to any study at all - rather my
own personal observation during my travels here and abroad. I wasn't
correlating city living with either fat or thin people. I was saying
that sitting on your ass in a car is a helluva good way to avoid that
dreaded exercise, walking. People die from walking - everyone knows
that. That was proven in that "other" study. ;)

R
george conklin
2008-05-13 01:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
Door to door travel...what does that mean? Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio. That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses. There are too many fat asses.
That study which was supposed to show that people are thinner in cities
has been taken apart by the Journal of Urban Economics as a result of bad
methodology. If you have Science Direct, you can download the analysis from
that site. I've done that and find the article quite nicely done.
"That" study...? I wasn't referring to any study at all - rather my
own personal observation during my travels here and abroad. I wasn't
correlating city living with either fat or thin people. I was saying
that sitting on your ass in a car is a helluva good way to avoid that
dreaded exercise, walking. People die from walking - everyone knows
that. That was proven in that "other" study. ;)
Actually people must have a BMI above 30 before any excess mortality sets
in. Further, total lifetime costs spent on medicine are highest for the
so-called "healthy" and thin older person who lives long enough to need
advanced care at an advanced age.
RicodJour
2008-05-13 02:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
Door to door travel...what does that mean? Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio. That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses. There are too many fat asses.
That study which was supposed to show that people are thinner in cities
has been taken apart by the Journal of Urban Economics as a result of bad
methodology. If you have Science Direct, you can download the analysis from
that site. I've done that and find the article quite nicely done.
"That" study...? I wasn't referring to any study at all - rather my
own personal observation during my travels here and abroad. I wasn't
correlating city living with either fat or thin people. I was saying
that sitting on your ass in a car is a helluva good way to avoid that
dreaded exercise, walking. People die from walking - everyone knows
that. That was proven in that "other" study. ;)
Actually people must have a BMI above 30 before any excess mortality sets
in. Further, total lifetime costs spent on medicine are highest for the
so-called "healthy" and thin older person who lives long enough to need
advanced care at an advanced age.
I didn't realize I was taking part in a Turing test with a bot
programmed for non-sequitur and tangential response. Almost passes.
Kudos!

R
Jack May
2008-05-13 06:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
Door to door travel...what does that mean? Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio. That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses. There are too many fat asses.
That study which was supposed to show that people are thinner in cities
has been taken apart by the Journal of Urban Economics as a result of bad
methodology. If you have Science Direct, you can download the
analysis
from
that site. I've done that and find the article quite nicely done.
"That" study...? I wasn't referring to any study at all - rather my
own personal observation during my travels here and abroad. I wasn't
correlating city living with either fat or thin people. I was saying
that sitting on your ass in a car is a helluva good way to avoid that
dreaded exercise, walking. People die from walking - everyone knows
that. That was proven in that "other" study. ;)
Actually people must have a BMI above 30 before any excess mortality sets
in. Further, total lifetime costs spent on medicine are highest for the
so-called "healthy" and thin older person who lives long enough to need
advanced care at an advanced age.
I didn't realize I was taking part in a Turing test with a bot
programmed for non-sequitur and tangential response. Almost passes.
Kudos!
There are a lot of studies going on at this time on health and weight. I
guess you are ignorant of health fields as well.

The studies I have been most interested in have found that health problems
start going away for a waistline of 40 inches or less for men and 35 inches
are less for women. I use those studies to guide my weight control
program.

I hope you are aware that Arnold the Governor of California is officially
obese. He has a great body shape since he was one of the best body builders
and is still in outstanding shape. He weighs a lot because of his very
large amount of muscle.
RicodJour
2008-05-13 12:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
There are a lot of studies going on at this time on health and weight. I
guess you are ignorant of health fields as well.
Really? A lot of studies...? I had no idea.
Post by Jack May
The studies I have been most interested in have found that health problems
start going away for a waistline of 40 inches or less for men and 35 inches
are less for women. I use those studies to guide my weight control
program.
The health studies you are most interested in are the ones that allow
you to maintain your waistline.
There is a direct correlation between calories consumed and longevity.
There are no really old fat people.
You'd rather read than observe.
Post by Jack May
I hope you are aware that Arnold the Governor of California is officially
obese. He has a great body shape since he was one of the best body builders
and is still in outstanding shape. He weighs a lot because of his very
large amount of muscle.
I am hardly aware of Arnold unless he is on reruns.

R
george conklin
2008-05-13 13:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
Door to door travel...what does that mean? Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio. That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses. There are too many fat asses.
That study which was supposed to show that people are thinner in cities
has been taken apart by the Journal of Urban Economics as a result of bad
methodology. If you have Science Direct, you can download the
analysis
from
that site. I've done that and find the article quite nicely done.
"That" study...? I wasn't referring to any study at all - rather my
own personal observation during my travels here and abroad. I wasn't
correlating city living with either fat or thin people. I was saying
that sitting on your ass in a car is a helluva good way to avoid that
dreaded exercise, walking. People die from walking - everyone knows
that. That was proven in that "other" study. ;)
Actually people must have a BMI above 30 before any excess mortality sets
in. Further, total lifetime costs spent on medicine are highest for the
so-called "healthy" and thin older person who lives long enough to need
advanced care at an advanced age.
I didn't realize I was taking part in a Turing test with a bot
programmed for non-sequitur and tangential response. Almost passes.
Kudos!
There are a lot of studies going on at this time on health and weight. I
guess you are ignorant of health fields as well.
The studies I have been most interested in have found that health problems
start going away for a waistline of 40 inches or less for men and 35
inches are less for women. I use those studies to guide my weight
control program.
I hope you are aware that Arnold the Governor of California is officially
obese. He has a great body shape since he was one of the best body
builders and is still in outstanding shape. He weighs a lot because of
his very large amount of muscle.
And mortality starts to increase as people become thinner and thinner (and
the ideal weight may be too thin for minimum mortality).
Amy Blankenship
2008-05-13 15:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
Door to door travel...what does that mean? Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio. That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses. There are too many fat asses.
That study which was supposed to show that people are thinner in cities
has been taken apart by the Journal of Urban Economics as a result of bad
methodology. If you have Science Direct, you can download the
analysis
from
that site. I've done that and find the article quite nicely done.
"That" study...? I wasn't referring to any study at all - rather my
own personal observation during my travels here and abroad. I wasn't
correlating city living with either fat or thin people. I was saying
that sitting on your ass in a car is a helluva good way to avoid that
dreaded exercise, walking. People die from walking - everyone knows
that. That was proven in that "other" study. ;)
Actually people must have a BMI above 30 before any excess mortality sets
in. Further, total lifetime costs spent on medicine are highest for the
so-called "healthy" and thin older person who lives long enough to need
advanced care at an advanced age.
I didn't realize I was taking part in a Turing test with a bot
programmed for non-sequitur and tangential response. Almost passes.
Kudos!
There are a lot of studies going on at this time on health and weight. I
guess you are ignorant of health fields as well.
The studies I have been most interested in have found that health problems
start going away for a waistline of 40 inches or less for men and 35
inches are less for women. I use those studies to guide my weight
control program.
I hope you are aware that Arnold the Governor of California is officially
obese. He has a great body shape since he was one of the best body
builders and is still in outstanding shape. He weighs a lot because of
his very large amount of muscle.
My husband is like that.
Amy Blankenship
2008-05-13 15:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
"That" study...? I wasn't referring to any study at all - rather my
own personal observation during my travels here and abroad. I wasn't
correlating city living with either fat or thin people. I was saying
that sitting on your ass in a car is a helluva good way to avoid that
dreaded exercise, walking. People die from walking - everyone knows
that. That was proven in that "other" study. ;)
Actually people must have a BMI above 30 before any excess mortality sets
in. Further, total lifetime costs spent on medicine are highest for the
so-called "healthy" and thin older person who lives long enough to need
advanced care at an advanced age.
I didn't realize I was taking part in a Turing test with a bot
programmed for non-sequitur and tangential response. Almost passes.
Kudos!
HOW long have you been on this forum?
RicodJour
2008-05-14 02:53:41 UTC
Permalink
On May 13, 11:21 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
"That" study...? I wasn't referring to any study at all - rather my
own personal observation during my travels here and abroad. I wasn't
correlating city living with either fat or thin people. I was saying
that sitting on your ass in a car is a helluva good way to avoid that
dreaded exercise, walking. People die from walking - everyone knows
that. That was proven in that "other" study. ;)
Actually people must have a BMI above 30 before any excess mortality sets
in. Further, total lifetime costs spent on medicine are highest for the
so-called "healthy" and thin older person who lives long enough to need
advanced care at an advanced age.
I didn't realize I was taking part in a Turing test with a bot
programmed for non-sequitur and tangential response. Almost passes.
Kudos!
HOW long have you been on this forum?
I'm not sure that I am 'on' this forum. Drive bys. What prompts the
question?

R
Amy Blankenship
2008-05-14 03:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
On May 13, 11:21 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by RicodJour
Post by george conklin
Post by RicodJour
"That" study...? I wasn't referring to any study at all - rather my
own personal observation during my travels here and abroad. I wasn't
correlating city living with either fat or thin people. I was saying
that sitting on your ass in a car is a helluva good way to avoid that
dreaded exercise, walking. People die from walking - everyone knows
that. That was proven in that "other" study. ;)
Actually people must have a BMI above 30 before any excess mortality sets
in. Further, total lifetime costs spent on medicine are highest for the
so-called "healthy" and thin older person who lives long enough to need
advanced care at an advanced age.
I didn't realize I was taking part in a Turing test with a bot
programmed for non-sequitur and tangential response. Almost passes.
Kudos!
HOW long have you been on this forum?
I'm not sure that I am 'on' this forum. Drive bys. What prompts the
question?
Oh, no reason. :-o

Jack May
2008-05-13 05:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
Post by Jack May
Airplanes and airports have a hierarchical structure that get you close to
your final destination or to your destination with the car you left at the
airport or other means. Not a full network by present definitions, but
far more useful than the crap technology left over from the 19th Century
that trains are designed to used.
I guess that's similar to the crap ceramic technology left over from
the 1st century.
Wow, talking about total ignorance. The ceramics used these days are more
advanced than they were even a few years ago and way beyond anything in the
1st Century. You really have no clue what you are talking about.

Oh...bad example. Or that crap medical technology
Post by RicodJour
from most centuries that used leeches to....oh, another bad example.
How about....?
More total ignorance trying to pretend that medicine has not advanced in
centuries. Jeez! Incredible ignorance of history and society.
Post by RicodJour
I could cite chapter and verse of technology that was replaced for
something "New and Improved!" that was revisited and found not to be
dead technology at all.
Technology evolves over time with constant advances produced because the
previous technology is not good enough. Obviously you are totally off base
Post by RicodJour
You are foundering when you start talking about a network and
arbitrarily omit segments of the network to make whatever point it is
you're trying to make.
Post by Jack May
Trains are not even remotely hierarchical with branches to small, remote
locations. Cars and roads are of course the most fully networked
transportation by the definitions of large networks by door to door travel
over large networks.
Door to door travel...what does that mean? Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio. That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses. There are too many fat asses.
You are totally ignorant of just about everything it appears. Outside of
totally screwed up places like San Francisco, there is usually enough
parking to not need driving around search for parking (especially at home
and work). A reasonable approximation of door to door travel is considered
a requirement of acceptable transportation systems in this Century. Don't
try to keep acting the fool by trying to define door to door in some hyper
precise manner. Most people know how it is defined in practice.
Post by RicodJour
A trolley is a train. It's not quite a supply and demand equation.
The automobile and oil companies set out to eliminate the trolley
competition. They did a good job in an organized crime sort of way.
Luckily for them there were politicians willing to ignore
transgressions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal
Oh I wondered when the conspiracy theories would start. Always the sign of
extremely clueless people.
RicodJour
2008-05-13 12:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by RicodJour
Post by Jack May
Airplanes and airports have a hierarchical structure that get you close to
your final destination or to your destination with the car you left at the
airport or other means. Not a full network by present definitions, but
far more useful than the crap technology left over from the 19th Century
that trains are designed to used.
I guess that's similar to the crap ceramic technology left over from
the 1st century.
Wow, talking about total ignorance. The ceramics used these days are more
advanced than they were even a few years ago and way beyond anything in the
1st Century. You really have no clue what you are talking about.
Wow. If you heard a whooshing sound, that was my point flying right
over your head, Jack.
Post by Jack May
Oh...bad example. Or that crap medical technology
Post by RicodJour
from most centuries that used leeches to....oh, another bad example.
How about....?
More total ignorance trying to pretend that medicine has not advanced in
centuries. Jeez! Incredible ignorance of history and society.
Whoosh!
Post by Jack May
Post by RicodJour
I could cite chapter and verse of technology that was replaced for
something "New and Improved!" that was revisited and found not to be
dead technology at all.
Technology evolves over time with constant advances produced because the
previous technology is not good enough. Obviously you are totally off base
No, you are. You're in agreement with my point that trains have
evolved, the same as everything else, just at a slower rate in this
country because people that hear Whooshing sounds a lot think train
technology is antique. It's not - the implementation and the cluebie
newless' mindset like yours is antique. There's a difference.
Post by Jack May
Post by RicodJour
You are foundering when you start talking about a network and
arbitrarily omit segments of the network to make whatever point it is
you're trying to make.
Post by Jack May
Trains are not even remotely hierarchical with branches to small, remote
locations. Cars and roads are of course the most fully networked
transportation by the definitions of large networks by door to door travel
over large networks.
Door to door travel...what does that mean? Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio. That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses. There are too many fat asses.
You are totally ignorant of just about everything it appears. Outside of
totally screwed up places like San Francisco, there is usually enough
parking to not need driving around search for parking (especially at home
and work). A reasonable approximation of door to door travel is considered
a requirement of acceptable transportation systems in this Century. Don't
try to keep acting the fool by trying to define door to door in some hyper
precise manner. Most people know how it is defined in practice.
Hyper-precise? Please. There is no definition of a transportation
network that arbitrarily precludes using connecting transportation.
All of the transportation, whatever the form, _is_ the network. When
we can transport people like electrons, I'll buy into your Internet-
style transportation model. Until then I'll deal in the real world,
with all its inefficiencies.

This afternoon I'll be walking to the train station about a mile away
(no, I won't die from fatigue on route), catching the commuter train,
taking two subway lines and visiting my cousin's show at a gallery in
Manhattan. One way will take me about 75 minutes and cost me about
$10. Driving would cost about $4 for fuel, $5 for the bridge/tunnel
toll, and take me about 45 minutes driving - if I'm lucky. There is
no on street parking available to speak of on 57th St and the
surrounding area - a parking garage gets about $25 for an hour in that
area. I let the money do the talking and I don't mind walking.

Funnily enough, I'll be going door to door - really not much of a
choice in that unless you take some really odd trips. So I guess the
network actually works, even with all of that outdated 19th century
train technology.
Post by Jack May
Post by RicodJour
A trolley is a train. It's not quite a supply and demand equation.
The automobile and oil companies set out to eliminate the trolley
competition. They did a good job in an organized crime sort of way.
Luckily for them there were politicians willing to ignore
transgressions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal
Oh I wondered when the conspiracy theories would start. Always the sign of
extremely clueless people.
There's no conspiracy theory. It was, as the Mafia says, just
business. One branch of business decided to impinge on another's.
It's done all of the time. Detroit/Oil just did a better job of it.

If you'd seen the documentary "Taken for a Ride"
http://www.newday.com/reviews.lasso?filmid=FrBtRV9eY you'd have heard
firsthand from the managers that National City Lines hired to run the
trolley system into the ground. They told how they did it to make it
look like the business was just going bad and wasn't profitable so
they had no choice to shut it down. Luckily there were buses waiting
in the wings. Otherwise we'd all be walking and biking and die from
the ignominy.

R
Pat
2008-05-13 20:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
Post by Jack May
Airplanes and airports have a hierarchical structure that get you close to
your final destination or to your destination with the car you left at the
airport or other means.   Not a full network by present definitions,
but
far more useful than the crap technology left over from the 19th Century
that trains are designed to used.
I guess that's similar to the crap ceramic technology left over from
the 1st century.
Wow, talking about total ignorance.  The ceramics used these days are more
advanced than they were even a few years ago and way beyond anything in the
1st Century.   You really have no clue what you are talking about.
Wow.  If you heard a whooshing sound, that was my point flying right
over your head, Jack.
Oh...bad example.  Or that crap medical technology
Post by RicodJour
from most centuries that used leeches to....oh, another bad example.
How about....?
More total ignorance trying to pretend that medicine has not advanced in
centuries.  Jeez!  Incredible ignorance of history and society.
Whoosh!
Post by RicodJour
I could cite chapter and verse of technology that was replaced for
something "New and Improved!" that was revisited and found not to be
dead technology at all.
Technology evolves over time with constant advances produced because the
previous technology is not good enough.   Obviously you are totally off base
No, you are.  You're in agreement with my point that trains have
evolved, the same as everything else, just at a slower rate in this
country because people that hear Whooshing sounds a lot think train
technology is antique.  It's not - the implementation and the cluebie
newless' mindset like yours is antique.  There's a difference.
Post by RicodJour
You are foundering when you start talking about a network and
arbitrarily omit segments of the network to make whatever point it is
you're trying to make.
Post by Jack May
Trains are not even remotely hierarchical with branches to small, remote
locations.    Cars and roads are of course the most fully networked
transportation by the definitions of large networks by door to door travel
over large networks.
Door to door travel...what does that mean?  Driving around looking for
parking spaces and sitting in traffic is not efficient even if you do
get to listen to satellite radio.  That sort of thinking is what makes
fat asses.  There are too many fat asses.
You are totally ignorant of just about everything it appears.  Outside of
totally screwed up places like San Francisco, there is usually enough
parking to not need driving around search for parking (especially at home
and work).   A reasonable approximation of door to door travel is considered
a requirement of  acceptable transportation systems in this Century.   Don't
try to keep acting the fool by trying to define door to door in some hyper
precise manner.  Most people know how it is defined in practice.
Hyper-precise?  Please.  There is no definition of a transportation
network that arbitrarily precludes using connecting transportation.
All of the transportation, whatever the form, _is_ the network.  When
we can transport people like electrons, I'll buy into your Internet-
style transportation model.  Until then I'll deal in the real world,
with all its inefficiencies.
This afternoon I'll be walking to the train station about a mile away
(no, I won't die from fatigue on route), catching the commuter train,
taking two subway lines and visiting my cousin's show at a gallery in
Manhattan.  One way will take me about 75 minutes and cost me about
$10.  Driving would cost about $4 for fuel, $5 for the bridge/tunnel
toll, and take me about 45 minutes driving - if I'm lucky.  There is
no on street parking available to speak of on 57th St and the
surrounding area - a parking garage gets about $25 for an hour in that
area.  I let the money do the talking and I don't mind walking.
I think you screwed up your math or something. By my reckoning, it
would take 75 minutes and cost $10 to take a train. It would take 45
minutes and cost $9 to drive. So therefore you would drive because it
would save $1 and be a half-hour quicker.
Funnily enough, I'll be going door to door - really not much of a
choice in that unless you take some really odd trips.  So I guess the
network actually works, even with all of that outdated 19th century
train technology.
Post by RicodJour
A trolley is a train.  It's not quite a supply and demand equation.
The automobile and oil companies set out to eliminate the trolley
competition.  They did a good job in an organized crime sort of way.
Luckily for them there were politicians willing to ignore
transgressions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal
Oh I wondered when the conspiracy theories would start.  Always the sign of
extremely clueless people.
There's no conspiracy theory.  It was, as the Mafia says, just
business.  One branch of business decided to impinge on another's.
It's done all of the time.  Detroit/Oil just did a better job of it.
If you'd seen the documentary "Taken for a Ride"http://www.newday.com/reviews.lasso?filmid=FrBtRV9eYyou'd have heard
firsthand from the managers that National City Lines hired to run the
trolley system into the ground.  They told how they did it to make it
look like the business was just going bad and wasn't profitable so
they had no choice to shut it down.  Luckily there were buses waiting
in the wings.  Otherwise we'd all be walking and biking and die from
the ignominy.
R- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Amy Blankenship
2008-05-13 21:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
This afternoon I'll be walking to the train station about a mile away
(no, I won't die from fatigue on route), catching the commuter train,
taking two subway lines and visiting my cousin's show at a gallery in
Manhattan. One way will take me about 75 minutes and cost me about
$10. Driving would cost about $4 for fuel, $5 for the bridge/tunnel
toll, and take me about 45 minutes driving - if I'm lucky. There is
no on street parking available to speak of on 57th St and the
surrounding area - a parking garage gets about $25 for an hour in that
area. I let the money do the talking and I don't mind walking.
I think you screwed up your math or something. By my reckoning, it
would take 75 minutes and cost $10 to take a train. It would take 45
minutes and cost $9 to drive. So therefore you would drive because it
would save $1 and be a half-hour quicker.

------------------------------

I saw something in there about $25/hr parking, which then puts the tally
that public transportation is $24 cheaper. You also might well spend an
extra half hour parking and getting from the parking garage to the cousin...
RicodJour
2008-05-14 02:51:47 UTC
Permalink
On May 13, 5:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Pat
Post by RicodJour
This afternoon I'll be walking to the train station about a mile away
(no, I won't die from fatigue on route), catching the commuter train,
taking two subway lines and visiting my cousin's show at a gallery in
Manhattan. One way will take me about 75 minutes and cost me about
$10. Driving would cost about $4 for fuel, $5 for the bridge/tunnel
toll, and take me about 45 minutes driving - if I'm lucky. There is
no on street parking available to speak of on 57th St and the
surrounding area - a parking garage gets about $25 for an hour in that
area. I let the money do the talking and I don't mind walking.
I think you screwed up your math or something. By my reckoning, it
would take 75 minutes and cost $10 to take a train. It would take 45
minutes and cost $9 to drive. So therefore you would drive because it
would save $1 and be a half-hour quicker.
You know me better than that, Pat.
Post by Pat
I saw something in there about $25/hr parking, which then puts the tally
that public transportation is $24 cheaper. You also might well spend an
extra half hour parking and getting from the parking garage to the cousin...
I'm back and I didn't die from walking, thank you very much. We spent
a far bit more than an hour mucking about on a gorgeous day - the
parking would have been prolly $40 or more. I also got to take eat a
lovely bagel on the way in and enjoy a beer and take a nap on the way
out. These things don't work nearly as well when I'm driving.
Particularly the napping and beering - the police frown on those sort
of activities while you're driving around here.

R
Loading...