Do you feel like biking makes you a loser?

[KingOfTheApes]

Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem. Perhaps bicycles
are associated with homelessness if used with baskets that make them
practical, and bikers always risk the stigma of tree-hugger,
underemployed, immigrant, laborer, etc. among the general population
if used for other uses other than recreation.

So how do you feel about it, jumping the San Francisco bridge?

"Bicycles are often seen as having low status, associated with the
poorer classes or underdeveloped nations. Even in bicycle-friendly
Copenhagen and Amsterdam, pedestrian and bicycle officials talk about
difficulties in dealing with planners and engineers who think only in
terms of motorized solutions."

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/univcourse/swless01.htm


THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"

http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

[Tom Sherman]

[Unrelated groups rec.bicycles.rides [1] and uk.rec.cycling snipped]

...
So how do you feel about it, jumping [off] the San Francisco bridge?

Was not considering it, but if I keep on reading these posts I might.

Please take a course on statistics so you will understand that cycling
is a relatively safe activity, even in the USA.

[1] This is for ride reports and discussion of routes, etc. dude.

[lardyninja]

Post by KingOfTheApes
Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem. Perhaps bicycles
are associated with homelessness if used with baskets that make them
practical, and bikers always risk the stigma of tree-hugger,
underemployed, immigrant, laborer, etc. among the general population
if used for other uses other than recreation.
So how do you feel about it, jumping the San Francisco bridge?
"Bicycles are often seen as having low status, associated with the
poorer classes or underdeveloped nations. Even in bicycle-friendly
Copenhagen and Amsterdam, pedestrian and bicycle officials talk about
difficulties in dealing with planners and engineers who think only in
terms of motorized solutions."
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/univcourse/swless01.htm
THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"
http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

You are a Turing test and ICMFP

LN

[a***@sbcglobal.net]

Post by KingOfTheApes
THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"

Yeah, look at how successful it's been in a small country like Cuba.

By the way, I don't feel that biking makes me a loser.
I'm a loser because I'm a loser, biking is my escape.

Bike, bike, bike, meow,
ABS

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net

Post by KingOfTheApes
THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"

Yeah, look at how successful it's been in a small country like Cuba.
By the way, I don't feel that biking makes me a loser.
I'm a loser because I'm a loser, biking is my escape.
Bike, bike, bike, meow,
ABS

I'd consider it an escape if I could do it on a bike path in the
middle of nowhere, but not in traffic.

Actually I'd feel myself like a cat among the dogs. ;)

[Nuxx Bar]

Unfortunately, the most vocal cyclists tend to be the nutters such as
Spindrift, who tarnish the reputation of all cyclists. The majority
of cyclists are perfectly reasonable, but if they want to deal with
the image problem that cyclists have, they have to publicly disown the
anti-motorist, red light-jumping, inconsiderate, offensive buffoons
who claim to represent cyclists in general. Once cyclists have a
reputation for riding considerately, and campaigning for pro-cyclist
rather than anti-motorist measures, they will get the treatment that
they deserve. But at the moment, it's a case of doing as you would be
done by: while cyclists have a reputation for being tossers towards
other road users, other road users (including planners etc) aren't
going to be particularly well-disposed towards cyclists. It's just
the way life works.

You know I'm right, and anyone flaming me will just prove my point.

[Jens Müller]

Post by Nuxx Bar
But at the moment, it's a case of doing as you would be
done by: while cyclists have a reputation for being tossers towards
other road users, other road users (including planners etc) aren't
going to be particularly well-disposed towards cyclists.

That's what administrative courts are for ...

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by KingOfTheApes
Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem. Perhaps bicycles
are associated with homelessness if used with baskets that make them
practical, and bikers always risk the stigma of tree-hugger,
underemployed, immigrant, laborer, etc. among the general population
if used for other uses other than recreation.
So how do you feel about it, jumping the San Francisco bridge?

No, why should I?

No you shouldn't, but it's a metaphorical escape by those who can't
take so much humiliation riding a bike on American roads.

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by KingOfTheApes
"Bicycles are often seen as having low status, associated with the
poorer classes or underdeveloped nations. Even in bicycle-friendly
Copenhagen and Amsterdam, pedestrian and bicycle officials talk about
difficulties in dealing with planners and engineers who think only in
terms of motorized solutions."

hardly any civil engineer will be found, that hasn't got a
car-dominating point of view, with just a little bit of recreational
cycling. Same is valid for politicians, so no one has to wonder, that
pro-cycling measures taken are hardly useful from the everyday cyclers
point of view.

Well, here it's the same but multiplied by 100. But there's hope the
situation will improve in the next century. ;)

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by KingOfTheApes
Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem. Perhaps bicycles
are associated with homelessness if used with baskets that make them
practical, and bikers always risk the stigma of tree-hugger,
underemployed, immigrant, laborer, etc. among the general population
if used for other uses other than recreation.
So how do you feel about it, jumping the San Francisco bridge?

No, why should I?

Post by KingOfTheApes
"Bicycles are often seen as having low status, associated with the
poorer classes or underdeveloped nations. Even in bicycle-friendly
Copenhagen and Amsterdam, pedestrian and bicycle officials talk about
difficulties in dealing with planners and engineers who think only in
terms of motorized solutions."

It's a matter of education and personal perception. For my country:
hardly any civil engineer will be found, that hasn't got a
car-dominating point of view, with just a little bit of recreational
cycling. Same is valid for politicians, so no one has to wonder, that
pro-cycling measures taken are hardly useful from the everyday cyclers
point of view.

T.

[Jack May]

It's a matter of education and personal perception. For my country: hardly
any civil engineer will be found, that hasn't got a car-dominating point
of view, with just a little bit of recreational cycling. Same is valid for
politicians, so no one has to wonder, that pro-cycling measures taken are
hardly useful from the everyday cyclers point of view.

Most engineers are problem solvers and innovators. They are at the extreme
end of the curve away from the people with the technology laggard mental
condition. The want to invent the future, not return to the past with
bikes, transit, vinyl records, and near east religious fanatic.

Engineers want solutions. Technology laggards want to escape the present
and future by living in an illusion about how great the past was. The
mental condition of technology laggards make it hard for them to deal with
the present or the future. Engineers tend to be exactly the opposite of
technology laggards. They are repulsed by the illusions used of how great
things were in the past.

They don't see returning to using obsolete, failed technology as a way to
solve present and future problems. They also see technology as an
evolutionary process to find the best solution. The technology laggards
see technology as stagnant.

The main problem I see with bikes is that their supporters talk as though it
can all be done for free. The reality is that even bikes quickly start
requiring Governments to spend large amounts of money to support another
alternative that very few people will ever use. Remember about 85% of the
people in society are not technology laggards and will not follow the
fantasies of the laggards.

Your "car-dominating point of view" crap just points out that you have no
understanding of how things evolve in society with the best liked solutions
becoming dominant and killing off less liked approaches such as bikes.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

It's a matter of education and personal perception. For my country: hardly
any civil engineer will be found, that hasn't got a car-dominating point
of view, with just a little bit of recreational cycling. Same is valid for
politicians, so no one has to wonder, that pro-cycling measures taken are
hardly useful from the everyday cyclers point of view.

What is taught about geometric roadway design in US engineering schools
is motor vehicle centric. Cyclists and pedestrians are practically ignored.

Post by Jack May
Most engineers are problem solvers and innovators. They are at the extreme
end of the curve away from the people with the technology laggard mental
condition. The want to invent the future, not return to the past with
bikes, transit, vinyl records, and near east religious fanatic.

Transit is technology neutral - it can be done with obsolete, current or
future technology.

Post by Jack May
Engineers want solutions. Technology laggards want to escape the present
and future by living in an illusion about how great the past was. The
mental condition of technology laggards make it hard for them to deal with
the present or the future. Engineers tend to be exactly the opposite of
technology laggards. They are repulsed by the illusions used of how great
things were in the past.

The best thing about the recent past was a world population of 2
billion, instead of 6+ billion and rising. The US roadway transportation
system would work much better in its current form if half the people and
vehicles disappeared.

Post by Jack May
They don't see returning to using obsolete, failed technology as a way to
solve present and future problems. They also see technology as an
evolutionary process to find the best solution. The technology laggards
see technology as stagnant.

How are bicycles obsolete, failed technology? Bicycles have yet to
equaled in efficiency, and can be greatly improved with technology (e.g.
lightweight recumbent streamliner).

Post by Jack May
The main problem I see with bikes is that their supporters talk as though it
can all be done for free. The reality is that even bikes quickly start
requiring Governments to spend large amounts of money to support another
alternative that very few people will ever use. Remember about 85% of the
people in society are not technology laggards and will not follow the
fantasies of the laggards.

All bicycles require is the recognition of the right to use the road.

Of course, the government could do a service of getting all the
incompetent cagers off the roads.

Post by Jack May
Your "car-dominating point of view" crap just points out that you have no
understanding of how things evolve in society with the best liked solutions
becoming dominant and killing off less liked approaches such as bikes.

Not liking bicycling is a failing of morals and aesthetics. However,
that is not surprising in a society that votes with its money for crappy
food, crappy entertainment, crappy products and accepts crappy
politicians who provide no leadership.

The people have the dysfunctional and dangerous transportation system
they deserve.

[Tadej Brezina]

It's a matter of education and personal perception. For my country: hardly
any civil engineer will be found, that hasn't got a car-dominating point
of view, with just a little bit of recreational cycling. Same is valid for
politicians, so no one has to wonder, that pro-cycling measures taken are
hardly useful from the everyday cyclers point of view.

[... some highly irrelevant talk in regard of this matter with the usual plethora of fancy words supporting your view, that the car and its usage is evolutions crown ...]

Matter of fact, civil engineering education in the western world in
means of transport is car dominated.
And very narrow-mindedly, concentrating on vehicle dynamics, road
construction, pavement design, in general lacking the holistic view on
transport and it's impacts (good an bad) on society.
What you teach them, they will act.

The main problem I see with bikes is that their supporters talk as though it
can all be done for free.

Who ever said that?
But it's way cheaper than most other means of transport.

The reality is that even bikes quickly start
requiring Governments to spend large amounts of money to support another
alternative that very few people will ever use. Remember about 85% of the
people in society are not technology laggards and will not follow the
fantasies of the laggards.

The eightyfive percent of population amount for "the mainstream", the
mainstream by definition is not on the frontiers of societal
development. So there are innovators in front and laggards behind of it.

Your "car-dominating point of view" crap just points out that you have no
understanding of how things evolve in society with the best liked solutions
becoming dominant and killing off less liked approaches such as bikes.

As usually you'r very generously concealing industrial interests, the
way political sysems work including the influence exerted upon by
different interest grous ...
From the Memetics point of view, a perfectly evolving system for the
purpose of self-reproduction.

Tadej

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tom Sherman
[Unrelated groups rec.bicycles.rides [1] and uk.rec.cycling snipped]
KingOfTheApes aka Comendante Banana aka donquixote1954 aka WHO? wrote:> ...

So how do you feel about it, jumping [off] the San Francisco bridge?

Was not considering it, but if I keep on reading these posts I might.
Please take a course on statistics so you will understand that cycling
is a relatively safe activity, even in the USA.
[1] This is for ride reports and discussion of routes, etc. dude.

Biking is so safe in America that as much as 0.4% of the commuting
population does so by bike.

Actually, it's pretty good on paper (and probably safer than doing the
tour in Afghanistan)...

Let's see what this folk has to say:

'Hi,

The Pennsylvania DOT has a website advocating what I believe is that
standard doctrine about narrow roads: take the middle of the lane. The
main advantage of this, aside from the fact that the road is better
and the car doors more easily avoidable, is that cars and really big
trucks are not encouraged to "share" the lane with you. So I tried it.

It's led so some pretty aggravating situations, with drivers leaning
on their horns under the impression, obviously, that you're doing it
to slow them down. (Like all brain surgeons and supreme court
justices, their time is obviously very important.)

On top of that, I actually worry more than anything else that people
drive without actually looking in front of them. That may be
(slightly) irrational, and I've never seen anyone mow a cyclist down
just because they weren't looking, but I've certainly seen them ignore
stop signs because they weren't looking (as opposed to not caring), so
lately I've moved back to the side of the road.

Unless there's a major information campaign and general change in
attitude I can't actually see the middle of the road position ever
being really that viable in this country. For the side of the road
position to work all (?) you really need is something to get people to
give you your rightful three feet of space. The only solutions I can
think of are (a) again, a public awareness campaign (b) those flag /
lollipop things (c) jerseys with "give me three feet please" on them.

Does anyone have any better ideas? I don't suppose the Leader of the
Free World reads the fora. Pity. '

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=437461

[Tom Sherman]

...I don't suppose the Leader of the Free World...

Who is that?

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tom Sherman

...I don't suppose the Leader of the Free World...

Who is that?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

I think is some sort of powerful monkey who holds the key to the
survival of all other monkeys (some 6.5 billion of them)...

Loading Image...

[KingOfTheApes]

(someone who doesn't understand my metaphors, do you?)

Originally Posted by donnamb
"I'm a pretty common person and I still have no idea what you are
talking about."

Well, it goes this way.

In this jungle where we live there's a king of the jungle (the lion)
that runs the kingdom according to his tastes and appetites (leaving
no room for the monkeys to ride bikes), but there's a monkey that had
it, and challenged the Law of the Jungle (SUVs rule). He's got two
choices: use violence (become another lion) and risk being eaten,
or... share his banana with the hungry lion...

Thus the Banana Revolution becomes the way of the nonviolent, clever
monkeys figthting for survival in the jungle. "Never go in the jungle
without a banana!" That's another T-shirt slogan...

[Tom Sherman]

Post by KingOfTheApes
(someone who doesn't understand my metaphors, do you?)
Originally Posted by donnamb
"I'm a pretty common person and I still have no idea what you are
talking about."
Well, it goes this way.
In this jungle where we live there's a king of the jungle (the lion)...

butbutbut, the elephant is the real king of the jungle. Lions live in
open savanna country.

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by KingOfTheApes
(someone who doesn't understand my metaphors, do you?)
Originally Posted by donnamb
"I'm a pretty common person and I still have no idea what you are
talking about."
Well, it goes this way.
In this jungle where we live there's a king of the jungle (the lion)...

butbutbut, the elephant is the real king of the jungle. Lions live in
open savanna country.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

In a way, you are right. The elephant is now the king of the jungle...

"If the Republicans are represented by an elephant and the Democrats
by a donkey, why can't we be represented by a smart monkey?"

(These metaphors are a pretty accurate picture of certain things
happening in "the jungle," but don't tell you if the king of the
jungle lives in the jungle or not. We are not monkeys either, but are
close enough)

[KingOfTheApes]

Well, what I mean is, we should approach the people and ask them, "Why
don't you ride a bike?" Then if they say, "Well, because it's
dangerous out there, stupid!" Then the politicians go to work and fix
it! But if they say, "Just because I'm lazy and stupid," then
everything is left like it is.

It makes so much sense, you know, that in the nation where everything
is polled, we poll this issue, shouldn't we? Now let's take a
poll...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=439585

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republicans are represented by an Elephant, the Democrats by a
Donkey, and we, the Banana Revolution, are represented by a Chihuahua.
"Small Is Better!"

[B***@yahoo.com]

Post by KingOfTheApes
Well, what I mean is, we should approach the people and ask them, "Why
don't you ride a bike?" Then if they say, "Well, because it's
dangerous out there, stupid!" Then the politicians go to work and fix
it! But if they say, "Just because I'm lazy and stupid," then
everything is left like it is.
It makes so much sense, you know, that in the nation where everything
is polled, we poll this issue, shouldn't we? Now let's take a
poll...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=439585
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----
The Republicans are represented by an Elephant, the Democrats by a
Donkey, and we, the Banana Revolution, are represented by a Chihuahua.
"Small Is Better!"

Many people think biking is dangerous because they are sharing the
road with people who shouldn't be driving. The roadway planners were
trying to shoehorn bike lanes onto streets that were not originally
biking routes. That's why bikers get doored. Most of our streets were
designed when gasoline was cheap and people rarely biked. It was
assumed that we would drive cars. The addition of bike lanes was
prompted by rising gas prices, the fitness movement, etc. Los Angeles
had a bike path in 1910 where Hwy 110 is now. Only two miles of the
bike path was completed before the auto and oil industry wanted it
torn down. At that time, the toll on the bike path was $.05, train
fare was $.25. The railroad wanted the bike path torn down because it
was losing passengers, and therefore money. The automotive industry is
very powerful, as is the oil industry. These industries effectively
told us that bikes are toys and do not belong on streets.

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by Longfemur
"If you're a child, ride on the sidewalk. If you're an adult who has
the mind of a child, walk."

The system tries to kill the child within, so you give up the bike and
become an avid consumer of oil and everything related with the
automobile industry.

But some adults refuse to grow and pay the price --their bike being
considered "a toy" by the rest of society.

Am I getting too philosophical?


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

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88

[B***@yahoo.com]

Post by KingOfTheApes
Originally Posted by Longfemur
"If you're a child, ride on the sidewalk. If you're an adult who has
the mind of a child, walk."
The system tries to kill the child within, so you give up the bike and
become an avid consumer of oil and everything related with the
automobile industry.
But some adults refuse to grow and pay the price --their bike being
considered "a toy" by the rest of society.
Am I getting too philosophical?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----
"Riding a bike costs peanuts --which is why monkeys love biking"
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88

According to the California Vehicle Code, bicycles are considered
vehicles in their own right, and are subject to the same rights and
responsibilities as motorists. I think the age requirement is what
makes many people think bikes are toys. When gas prices to $10/gallon,
I'm sure people would reconsider the bike's status.
My biking range is extensive: Hollister, Santa Cruz, Half Moon Bay,
San Francisco, Oakland, Sunol, and Sausalito. Just muscle power!
I have been compared to Lance Armstrong, a huge biker who won the Tour
De France 7 times. Of course Europe has a bigger bike culture than the
USA due to exorbitant gas prices and compact urban areas. The USA's
addiction to cars would make it difficult to get people on bikes. High
gas prices alone would not do it. Bike To Work Day is one attempt
which is somewhat successful, although I started 5 years before the
first BTWD. Bike To Work Day is the third Thursday in May, and began
in 1994, one month before my first ride to Gilroy. I had ridden to San
Francisco once or twice then, now 21 times

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:48:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com said
in

Post by B***@yahoo.com
According to the California Vehicle Code, bicycles are considered
vehicles in their own right

Followup-to amended to remove uk.rec.cycling, since the California
Vehicle Code does not apply in the uk.

Guy

[Tom Keats]

Post by B***@yahoo.com
I have been compared to Lance Armstrong, a huge biker who won the Tour
De France 7 times.

I've been compared to Alice Cooper.
I can even "do" him when I'm inspired.

Make of that what you will.

Heh (sweetie.)

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

It's a short step from doing Alice Cooper
to doing Bruce Dern.

Stacy Keach is hard to do, 'cuz his
characterizations are hard to pin down.

My supervisor sorta looks like Lance Armstrong.
He keeps buggin' me to get a haircut. As if
that'll ever happen.

[KingOfTheApes]

"Republican Congressman Blasts Bicycles"

The Republicans are represented by the elephant, which believes that
"bigger is better"; the Democrats are represented by the donkey, which
is slow to change; and the Banana Revolution is represented by a
clever monkey that believes "small is better" and wants to change
ASAP.

PS: We also use a chihuahua, so take your pick.

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by Ed Holland
"I think this must be the worst case of cyclist inferiority syndrome
we have ever seen?"

The 99.6% of commuters who do NOT use a bike to work seem to agree
with me.

Even kids understand this...

Why do so many people who ride bicycles ride in the streets when there
is a sidewalk nearby?
Now I ride my bike all the time and definitely stay on the
sidewalks... so why do so many people ride in the streets and slow
traffic and risk getting hit? Its sooo annoying and stupid (in my
opinion)

Answerer 4
By law, a bicycle is a vehicle and belongs in the street.

Of course, common sense says that a bicycle is too frail for being in
motor vehicle traffic.

Conclusion: There is no proper place for bicycles.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0182657AArONFj

Hey, it would be interesting to take kids to Bikelandia!


Originally Posted by Ed Holland I think this must be the worst case
of cyclist inferiority syndrome we have ever seen?

The 99.6% of commuters who do NOT use a bike to work seem to agree
with me.

Even kids understand this...

Why do so many people who ride bicycles ride in the streets when there
is a sidewalk nearby?
Now I ride my bike all the time and definitely stay on the
sidewalks... so why do so many people ride in the streets and slow
traffic and risk getting hit? Its sooo annoying and stupid (in my
opinion)

Answerer 4
By law, a bicycle is a vehicle and belongs in the street.

Of course, common sense says that a bicycle is too frail for being in
motor vehicle traffic.

Conclusion: There is no proper place for bicycles.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080610182657AArONFj

Hey, it would be interesting to take kids to Bikelandia!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republicans are represented by an Elephant, the Democrats by a
Donkey, and we, the Banana Revolution, are represented by a Chihuahua.
"Small Is Better!"

[Tom Sherman]

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by Tom Sherman

...I don't suppose the Leader of the Free World...

Who is that?

I think is some sort of powerful monkey who holds the key to the
survival of all other monkeys (some 6.5 billion of them)...
http://www.ukuleleman.net/uploaded_images/bush_darwin%20monkey%20man-718799.jpg

I do not believe that the citizens of other free countries consider the
occupant of the US White House to be their leader, especially the
current occupant.

Many residents of the US feel the same way due to the current occupant
winning election 5 to 4 along partisan lines in the US Supreme Court and
the irregularities of the 2004 election.

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by st0ut
"you over-estimate the role of planners. Our cities are fine for bike
use as is.
Your fundamental lack of understanding of why Holland is a bike
friedly area is astounding. Also it is farily mythical as well. As you
have never been on the A-5 in a traffic jam on the way to Utrect. What
works in Amsterdam does not work in Vienen. what you are going to ride
from Vienen to Utrect every day to goto a store? No neither do the
dutch so they take a car."


In Holland you've got choices... Are you scared of the word?

If we get one lane, cars keep two (assuming three lanes minimum), plus
the slow lane on the right. If the lanes are put to good use, passing
only on the left, they don't lose any speed, but possibly gain from
slower cars keeping to the right and middle lane.

I voted for the American way, but I still think we need some traffic
planners from Europe, not just about bikes, but to fix the whole
traffic chaos we've got here.

I wonder what they think about us, uncivilized?

poll...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7020948&posted=1#post7020948

[KingOfTheApes]

cyclezealot wrote:
"Check it out Quixote. There is a bicycle caucus in the Congress.
Headed by the congressman Earl ( something) from Portland, Or. Not all
pols are dumb heads. That caucus does all it can to further bike
infrastructure."

Yeah, I think we discussed it before. They can only do so much with
little resources. Nothing like the Pentagon, or even NASA. That's
where the real money goes.

I'm even sure the War on Drugs gets more money than bikes. Come to
think of it, if we brought the Dutch system, we could use that money
for bike facilities.

[KingOfTheApes]

No, it's not a new theme park in Orlando, but a whole region of Europe
where cycling can still be a pleasant experience. And it's NOT that
I'm promoting tourism over there either, but that it shows what
America could be if there was the political will to make it happen. In
the meantime, dream on folks! ;)

"Bikelandia is my name for a huge bike-friendly chunk of Europe that
embraces most of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Holland and Denmark
plus France, Corsica, Belgium and Luxembourg. While monstrous trucks
and obscene-sized RVs have made bike touring less and less inviting on
America's roads, touring by bicycle is flourishing in Bikelandia and
is soaring in popularity with each passing year.

In Bikelandia, everything America's bike activists are striving for
already exists. Without exaggeration, cycling is ten times safer and
more pleasant than it is on most American roads. People are friendly
and helpful and in most hotels, someone speaks English. All of which
makes Bikelandia the the one best place for touring by bike.

From spring through fall, millions of men and women of all ages use
bikes every day for shopping or riding to work or school. Bike parking
racks exist within a few yards of almost every store. There are no
drive-in banks or restaurants or loose dogs, no pick-up trucks or U.S.
style motels, and most motorists seem patient and willing to share the
roads with cyclists. In many ways, cycling is much like it was in the
great days of biking 40 years or more ago."

http://www.tourvelo.org/bikeland.html

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by crhilton
'Another way to do financial incentives is through gasoline. The
Europeans do this: Put a big tax on gasoline, pay for most of your
road construction with it, and then add an environmental tax. If $4
has people talking, $7 might have them doing.

I'm not offering any of these as a preferred solution. I'm simply
throwing out ideas. I recognize how distasteful and offensive $7 a
gallon sounds to most Americans: That's what makes it a powerful
incentive.

The stupid's dilemma: "How do you get a stupid to change if he doesn't
see the need for change because he's stupid?'


Some of these solutions make a lot of sense, but remember the stupid's
dilemma above. Likely Americans will fight to death among each other,
before considering a bike. That was the scenario put by a documentary
about the day oil runs out (in 2017), and the last SUV owners fight
for dwindling gas.

As you say, only solution may be coming from TV, and TV lives off big
money, which is not associated with bikes. Yep, the idiot's box holds
the last hope.

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by Treespeed
"Can you say tangent? No one brought up the bible and your banishment
from the garden of eden metaphor has nothing to do with cycling
advocacy. This seems to be a logical fallacy that you engage in with
some regularity; it doesn’t follow that because one metaphor is bad,
that your metaphor is good. You haven’t established your main argument
that demonizing SUV drivers gets more people to ride bicycles, or
worse yet that confused animal metaphors convinces people to ride
bikes."

That I have convince you, dude, to ride bicycles would be stupid. This
is a Bicycle Forum which you seem to forget when defending SUVs so
much.

This is for the 99.6% who don't ride bikes to work and elsewhere,
possibly because they feel intimidated. Many of them are "survivors,"
in the economic sense of the word.

My metaphor is also perfect because the cars and particularly the SUVs
keep the lion's share of the road, and then often roar (honk, shout)
to intimidate you. It's not demonizing them, but showing they are
playing the game of the corporations, which is making you buy their
"wares," ie. Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles, Oil and Insurance, not Smart
Utility Bikes, which are truly utility vehicles --only that they don't
feed the system as much. Thus the name of Hungry Lion becomes
evident.

Then the selling point to the poor is obvious:

"The bike is the vehicle to financial freedom in a jungle where the
lion is after you..."

Hey, grab a banana and hit the road in an organized way! ;)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monkey can live on peanuts and banana (a bicycle would do), but
the lion wants the monkey to be a big spender (big houses and SUVs) so
he gets fed.

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by Bekologist
"i was controlling the lane yesterday morning on the way to work,
approaching a left turn in a left turn only lane, and a motorist,
peturbed I was slower and ahead of him, guns it, crosses the double
yellow approaching a blind corner, drove over a raised barrier and cut
ahead of me halfway thru the intersection, then did the paltry 'bumper
dive' threat to show me I wasn't supossed to be inhibiting his
speed...."

That's INTIMIDATION, but you are not the only one.

This one says, "You are not the only one being intimidated by the
predators!" ;)

Loading Image...

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by DennisTheBald

Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem...

I would think that it would be motoring about that would make one feel
like a loser (with a capital L)... the sort of weak and infirm git
that couldn't haul their own ass across the surface of the planet to
save their soul. The sort of incorrigible lout that actually buys
into Madison avenue's drivel about how owning a particular brand of
auto will make them feel good about themselves and earn them the envy
if not respect of the other people that witness them driving. The
sort of murderous bastard that kills 44,000 USofAliens every freaking
year.
Yeah, going about on a bike causes me to think less of myself than if
I drove a car, you bet... keep talking like that and you'll never
evolve into a sentient being you stupid monkey.

It's NOT by hiding that feeling that we can fix the problem. Obviously
SUVs selling point is that they make you feel powerful and important.
"You are the King of the Jungle." Then you have the bike at the other
of the spectrum. "You are a survivor in the jungle."

So in order we can change that we must make the lion (the King of the
Jungle) look stupid and ridiculous... How? Make him eat banana. ;)

The monkey comes out a winner, not a loser.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by KingOfTheApes
The monkey comes out a winner, not a loser.

=x= Monkeys who crosspost inappropriately and/or post drivel
get put into killfiles, no matter how many sockpuppet email
addresses they use. That's one measure of being a total loser.
<_Jym_>

[DennisTheBald]

Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem...

I would think that it would be motoring about that would make one feel
like a loser (with a capital L)... the sort of weak and infirm git
that couldn't haul their own ass across the surface of the planet to
save their soul. The sort of incorrigible lout that actually buys
into Madison avenue's drivel about how owning a particular brand of
auto will make them feel good about themselves and earn them the envy
if not respect of the other people that witness them driving. The
sort of murderous bastard that kills 44,000 USofAliens every freaking
year.

Yeah, going about on a bike causes me to think less of myself than if
I drove a car, you bet... keep talking like that and you'll never
evolve into a sentient being you stupid monkey.

[KingOfTheApes]

While we can't get our act together, the Dutch are going around by
bikes without much controversy about the need for bike lanes, paths
and other bike facilities. Why can't we hire some of their bike
planners to see if they can make America bike friendly?

New Paths

DOT must make sure its' bike planners have an important say in how new
bridge paths and their approaches are built. The opening of the
Manhattan Bridge path demonstrated that it takes time and energy to
make proper traffic improvements like those now in place on the
Manhattan side. DOT Bicycle planners should be involved at every stage
of Williamsburg and Manhattan Bridge bike paths construction to ensure
that cyclists can easily get to and from them when the paths open.

http://www.transalt.org/files/newsro...bikelanes.html

But I do propose another alternative: Open all right hand lanes to
bikes and reduce the speed limit on them to 20MPH. That would be the
"American way."

[Jym Dyer]

[Removed rec.bicycles.rides and uk.rec.cycling where this is OFF-TOPIC.]

Post by KingOfTheApes
http://www.transalt.org/files/newsro...bikelanes.html

=v= Invalid link.

Post by KingOfTheApes
DOT must make sure its' [sic] bike planners have an important
say in how new bridge paths and their approaches are built.
The opening of the Manhattan Bridge path demonstrated that it
takes time and energy to make proper traffic improvements like
those now in place on the Manhattan side.

=v= That's a REopening, actually. There's more history here
than you know. Access to the Manhattan Bridge is one of those
cases where, if the people lead, the leaders follow.

=v= I'd say that started one night when some Yehuda Moon types
installed an access ramp on the Brooklyn side so that people
would have an easier time getting their bikes up and down the
stairs. It was an instant success and attracted much ridership.
With some chagrin, the city quietly replaced it with something
more official.

=v= The sheer volume of bikers using that bridge and agitating
for improvments ever since is what has driven the DOT's actions.
The DOT was a combination of unresponsive and blundering until
its current leadership, so the current leadership is certainly
appreciated, but true credit should go to the activists and
advocates who've been working for these improvements for years.
<_Jym_>

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Jym Dyer
[Removed rec.bicycles.rides and uk.rec.cycling where this is OFF-TOPIC.]

Post by KingOfTheApes
http://www.transalt.org/files/newsro...bikelanes.html

=v= Invalid link.

Post by KingOfTheApes
DOT must make sure its' [sic] bike planners have an important
say in how new bridge paths and their approaches are built.
The opening of the Manhattan Bridge path demonstrated that it
takes time and energy to make proper traffic improvements like
those now in place on the Manhattan side.

=v= That's a REopening, actually.  There's more history here
than you know.  Access to the Manhattan Bridge is one of those
cases where, if the people lead, the leaders follow.
=v= I'd say that started one night when some Yehuda Moon types
installed an access ramp on the Brooklyn side so that people
would have an easier time getting their bikes up and down the
stairs.  It was an instant success and attracted much ridership.
With some chagrin, the city quietly replaced it with something
more official.
=v= The sheer volume of bikers using that bridge and agitating
for improvments ever since is what has driven the DOT's actions.
The DOT was a combination of unresponsive and blundering until
its current leadership, so the current leadership is certainly
appreciated, but true credit should go to the activists and
advocates who've been working for these improvements for years.
    <_Jym_>

I always believed in the power of the people. A monkey alone can't do
much. Make noise perhaps. ;)

Thanks for the feedback!

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by KingOfTheApes
But I do propose another alternative: Open all right hand lanes to
bikes and reduce the speed limit on them to 20MPH. That would be the
"American way."

I hope SOMEONE (hopefully a politician) reads this and draws some
lessons from the Dutch...

Originally Posted by Pig_Chaser
"Maybe we could bring over the Dutch laws... if a motorist hits a
cyclist he is assumed at fault unless it can be proven the cyclist was
negligent."

meb wrote:
Can you confirm that this law was actually passed?

I've seen press articles that such a law was considered:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/despatches/34915.stm

However, reading a Dutch version of a FAQ on site:
http://www.fietsersbond.nl/urlsearch...itemnumber=790 suggests it was
considered but not passed.

As far as cycling comparisons go, I've cycled in all 12 Dutch
provinces and in all 50 US states. They are fairly different systems.

The size of the Netherlands is about same size as MA/CT/RI together
with 16-million people. A good percentage of these people live in a
megalopolis in the west. There isn't much space to put new roads there
and some Dutch still definitely like their cars with miles-long
traffic jams happening at times. Minimum driving age is 18 and getting
a license is tougher. There is a fairly complete separate bike network
with paths and traffic signals. Bicycles are basic transportation with
a reasonable percentage of the population cycling. For example, my
grandmother kept riding until age of 92 (not very fast mind you). A
reasonable percentage of the population cycles and it is probably
easier to do without owning a car. Last time I was there (2007), I
liked some of the separate path network - though found some bumpier
than I remembered from previous visits.

I've cycled on some paths/lanes in the US. Some are quite good, though
my typical complaint is that they aren't always "continuous" or
designed as a system. Occasionally, a piecemeal solution is as bad as
no solution at all. In some places you have a different size/scale as
compared to the Netherlands (e.g. Colorado is eight times as large as
the Netherlands with a quarter of the population). So, I think it is
useful to understand and learn from other areas such as the
Netherlands - but one will still need to create a solution that meets
needs of Colorado.