Does a trike put me on a collision course with traffic?

[ComandanteBanana]

Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.

What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

[Papa Tom]

Where I live, Long Island, New York, you'd barely get out of your garage on
the trike without someone trying to run you off the road. When I ran my
bike recycling program a few years ago, I had the opportunities to test ride
a few trikes AND a quad. I thought riding the quad on the main street
running through my town might raise some awareness of alternate
transportation options, so off I went...only to return ten minutes later
having been honked off the road and forced onto the sidewalk more than a
dozen times.

I guess the answer to your question is largely dependent on where you live
and what the attitude toward cyclists is in that area.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Papa Tom
Where I live, Long Island, New York, you'd barely get out of your garage on
the trike without someone trying to run you off the road.  When I ran my
bike recycling program a few years ago, I had the opportunities to test ride
a few trikes AND a quad.  I thought riding the quad on the main street
running through my town might raise some awareness of alternate
transportation options, so off I went...only to return ten minutes later
having been honked off the road and forced onto the sidewalk more than a
dozen times.
I guess the answer to your question is largely dependent on where you live
and what the attitude toward cyclists is in that area.

It sounds like where I live...

But what would happen if I step off my door and into the three lane
road, where the marked speed is 30MPH, but the real speeds are closer
to 50MPH? Would I be able to stand my ground or just give in to the
law of the jungle?

[Papa Tom]

Would I be able to stand my ground or just give in to the law of the
jungle?<<<<

The speed limit on the road I described is 30mph. It has two schools and a
20mph speed limit in front of each. It also has a huge curve and a
grade-level railroad crossing at the end of a mile-long straightaway.
Still, the average speed driven on that road is 45, regardless of who is
walking or biking along the shoulder. If your town is like mine, my guess
is that you'd have to move AT LEAST 30mph on your trike (yeah, RIGHT!) or be
physically driven off the road.

[ComandanteBanana]

Would I be able to stand my ground or just give in to the law of the
jungle?<<<<

The speed limit on the road I described is 30mph.  It has two schools and a
20mph speed limit in front of each.  It also has a huge curve and a
grade-level railroad crossing at the end of a mile-long straightaway.
Still, the average speed driven on that road is 45, regardless of who is
walking or biking along the shoulder.  If your town is like mine, my guess
is that you'd have to move AT LEAST 30mph on your trike (yeah, RIGHT!) or be
physically driven off the road.

It sounds like a good reason for NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE. They push me
and I won't budge.

[Jack May]

Would I be able to stand my ground or just give in to the law of the
jungle?<<<<

The speed limit on the road I described is 30mph. It has two schools and a
20mph speed limit in front of each. It also has a huge curve and a
grade-level railroad crossing at the end of a mile-long straightaway.
Still, the average speed driven on that road is 45, regardless of who is
walking or biking along the shoulder. If your town is like mine, my guess
is that you'd have to move AT LEAST 30mph on your trike (yeah, RIGHT!) or be
physically driven off the road.
It sounds like a good reason for NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE. They push me

and I won't budge.

That is called being a Darwin Award Winner. Sounds like you are way too
stupid to be out there.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Would I be able to stand my ground or just give in to the law of the
jungle?<<<<

The speed limit on the road I described is 30mph. It has two schools and a
20mph speed limit in front of each. It also has a huge curve and a
grade-level railroad crossing at the end of a mile-long straightaway.
Still, the average speed driven on that road is 45, regardless of who is
walking or biking along the shoulder. If your town is like mine, my guess
is that you'd have to move AT LEAST 30mph on your trike (yeah, RIGHT!) or be
physically driven off the road.
It sounds like a good reason for NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE. They push me

and I won't budge.
That is called being a Darwin Award Winner.   Sounds like you are way too
stupid to be out there.

I thought you actually had to be stupid to be out there. Monkeys
riding bikes in traffic don't qualify for "survival of the fittest,"
which in this jungle means the ones that can afford the SUVs.

[donquijote1954]

the beauty...

http://www.schwinnbike.com/heritage/attachment.php?attachmentid=38628

and the beast...

Loading Image...

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Papa Tom
Where I live, Long Island, New York, you'd barely get out of your garage on
the trike without someone trying to run you off the road. When I ran my
bike recycling program a few years ago, I had the opportunities to test ride
a few trikes AND a quad. I thought riding the quad on the main street
running through my town might raise some awareness of alternate
transportation options, so off I went...only to return ten minutes later
having been honked off the road and forced onto the sidewalk more than a
dozen times.

How does somebody honk you off the road?
Or better why do you care, if being honked at? Or did some car-maniac
apply physical force to you?

Tadej

[ComandanteBanana]

Has anyone read this article?

"WHAT YOU CAN DO TO FIX AMERICA'S TRAFFIC LAWS --AND WHY YOU SHOULD"

http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/reviews/index.html

It would be interesting...

[Roger Zoul]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

I've ridden my recumbent trike in real live traffic on many occasions I
always live to tell about it. I take the lane when needed, too.

It's about attitude and if you ain't got none, ride something else.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

I've ridden my recumbent trike in real live traffic on many occasions I
always live to tell about it.  I take the lane when needed, too.
It's about attitude and if you ain't got none, ride something else.

Yeah, but if I'm riding a bike in traffic, I'm giving my back to the
enemy...

Whether I survive or not has little to with attitude, and a lot to
with their clemency.

[Papa Tom]

I'm not one who believes "resistance" will ever work.

There's something about bicyclists that people just don't like. Perhaps
it's just jealousy. When the road was ruled by horse-drawn wagons, they
cursed at us and threw sticks at our spokes because we were moving too fast.
Now they do the same thing because we move too slowly.

Perhaps when gas is $10 a gallon, drivers will start to see us in a
different light. Right now, keep your trike off the road - or face having
to pry it out of the grill of some jerk's Hummer.

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

I've ridden my recumbent trike in real live traffic on many occasions I
always live to tell about it. I take the lane when needed, too.
It's about attitude and if you ain't got none, ride something else.

Yeah, but if I'm riding a bike in traffic, I'm giving my back to the
enemy...

Whether I survive or not has little to with attitude, and a lot to
with their clemency.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Papa Tom
I'm not one who believes "resistance" will ever work.
There's something about bicyclists that people just don't like.  Perhaps
it's just jealousy.  When the road was ruled by horse-drawn wagons, they
cursed at us and threw sticks at our spokes because we were moving too fast.
Now they do the same thing because we move too slowly.
Perhaps when gas is $10 a gallon, drivers will start to see us in a
different light.  Right now, keep your trike off the road - or face having
to pry it out of the grill of some jerk's Hummer.

Man, this is eerie. That's exactly what I thought.

But I think it also has to do with HATE. Yeah, they hate that other
people remain free and healthy while they remain enslaved to their
thirsty vehicles. They think, "Hey, if I paid 50 grands for my Hummer,
no one on a bike will slow me down." And they just try to squeeze that
oversized vehicle and a bike on the same lane...

One day, though, the stupid dinosaurs will become extinct, and the
small furry animals will reclaim the earth. Brain is better than size,
right?

[Nigel Randell]

Post by Papa Tom
Perhaps when gas is $10 a gallon, drivers will start to see us in a
different light.

Don't hold your breath on that. It's up to $8.50/gallon equivalent here
(UK) and it hasn't made any real difference to attitudes. The vast majority
of drivers are as careful as they ever were and there's a very small, but
persistent, number of complete idiots.

[DennisTheBald]

Post by Nigel Randell

Post by Papa Tom
Perhaps when gas is $10 a gallon, drivers will start to see us in a
different light.

Don't hold your breath on that. It's up to $8.50/gallon equivalent here
(UK) and it hasn't made any real difference to attitudes. The vast majority
of drivers are as careful as they ever were and there's a very small, but
persistent, number of complete idiots.
--
Nigel

I've been there. It was my observation that on the whole the freaking
idiots over there are much nicer than the freaking idiots over here,
but I was pretty much just about town and not out in the country.
Freaking idiots abound, to paraphrase a long dead leader of the
USofAliens; God must love them as he made so many of 'em.

Over there I frequently saw bicyclists wearing normal clothes, over
here the assumption is that unless they're wearing spandex they must
be an undocumented worker. I guess maybe there is a immigration
problem there too? I did note a French language channel on the tele.

[Jack May]

Post by Papa Tom
I'm not one who believes "resistance" will ever work.
There's something about bicyclists that people just don't like. Perhaps
it's just jealousy. When the road was ruled by horse-drawn wagons, they
cursed at us and threw sticks at our spokes because we were moving too
fast. Now they do the same thing because we move too slowly.
Perhaps when gas is $10 a gallon, drivers will start to see us in a
different light. Right now, keep your trike off the road - or face having
to pry it out of the grill of some jerk's Hummer.

Will never happen becaue there are too many possible alternative energy
sources that will become available at much less than $10 per equivalent
gallon of gas.

[Tony B]

Post by Jack May
Will never happen becaue there are too many possible alternative energy
sources that will become available at much less than $10 per equivalent
gallon of gas.

name one that is plentiful in HUGE ammounts, does not involve the whole
world's infrastructure being replaced and does not mean food production
will suffer heavily.

oh, and you can't have "cake and a person's legs" as the answer :-)

T

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Tony B

Post by Jack May
Will never happen becaue there are too many possible alternative energy
sources that will become available at much less than $10 per equivalent
gallon of gas.

name one that is plentiful in HUGE ammounts, does not involve the whole
world's infrastructure being replaced and does not mean food production
will suffer heavily.
oh, and you can't have "cake and a person's legs" as the answer :-)

No danger of that from Jack. :-) He feels that nonproductive exercise is
essentially energy neutral, but as soon as it becomes useful it's somehow
really expensive to truck in all the fuel needed to power it.

[Jack May]

Post by Tony B

Post by Jack May
Will never happen becaue there are too many possible alternative energy
sources that will become available at much less than $10 per equivalent
gallon of gas.

name one that is plentiful in HUGE ammounts, does not involve the whole
world's infrastructure being replaced and does not mean food production
will suffer heavily.
oh, and you can't have "cake and a person's legs" as the answer :-)

The most efficient alternative to oil at this time is switch grass probably
using genetic engineering to develop "bugs", water and sunlight to convert
it to alcohol or hydrogen in mass quantities. It looks like hydrogen can be
stored at about the same pressure as the center of Saturn using bucky tubes
while storing 8% of the bucky tube as hydrogen.

We have no choice but to switch to alternative fuels because we can't
continue much longer with oil. There is no food production involved with
switch grass and the studies are clear that it will produce a large net
energy after processing.

Lots of money going into alternative energy sources because a lot see large
amounts of money in that business along with greatly reduced fuel prices
along with green house gas reductions. There are lots of solutions that are
being pursued and some of the look like they have a fairly good chance of
going into use.

The world is not going back to living in caves without using fuel or using
bikes or transit.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Tony B

Post by Jack May
Will never happen becaue there are too many possible alternative energy
sources that will become available at much less than $10 per equivalent
gallon of gas.

name one that is plentiful in HUGE ammounts, does not involve the whole
world's infrastructure being replaced and does not mean food production
will suffer heavily.
oh, and you can't have "cake and a person's legs" as the answer :-)

The most efficient alternative to oil at this time is switch grass
probably using genetic engineering to develop "bugs", water and sunlight
to convert it to alcohol or hydrogen in mass quantities. It looks like
hydrogen can be stored at about the same pressure as the center of Saturn
using bucky tubes while storing 8% of the bucky tube as hydrogen.
We have no choice but to switch to alternative fuels because we can't
continue much longer with oil. There is no food production involved with
switch grass and the studies are clear that it will produce a large net
energy after processing.

Another choice we could make is to quit building our environment so that so
many fuels of all types are necessary. We have all kinds of choices...

[Pat]

On Apr 2, 4:45 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May

Post by Tony B

Post by Jack May
Will never happen becaue there are too many possible alternative energy
sources that will become available at much less than $10 per equivalent
gallon of gas.

name one that is plentiful in HUGE ammounts, does not involve the whole
world's infrastructure being replaced and does not mean food production
will suffer heavily.
oh, and you can't have "cake and a person's legs" as the answer :-)

The most efficient alternative to oil at this time is switch grass
probably using genetic engineering to develop "bugs", water and sunlight
to convert it to alcohol or hydrogen in mass quantities.  It looks like
hydrogen can be stored at about the same pressure as the center of Saturn
using bucky tubes while storing 8% of the bucky tube as hydrogen.
We have no choice but to switch to alternative fuels because we can't
continue much longer with oil.   There is no food production involved with
switch grass and the studies are clear that it will produce a large net
energy after processing.

Another choice we could make is to quit building our environment so that so
many fuels of all types are necessary.  We have all kinds of choices...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You have cause and effect backwards. You can't force the building of
society to use less fuel. You have to wait until fuel prices go up
and then society will adapt to it by re-engineering itself. The
market will prevail.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Pat" <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message news:4dd8b0cf-fd34-40fb-bfc0-***@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 2, 4:45 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
Another choice we could make is to quit building our environment so that so
many fuels of all types are necessary. We have all kinds of choices...-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You have cause and effect backwards. You can't force the building of
society to use less fuel. You have to wait until fuel prices go up
and then society will adapt to it by re-engineering itself. The
market will prevail.

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

I said choice we could make, not thing someone could force on us/we could
force on each other. I think we can choose to do things without being
forced (even by the market). But I guess in America the belief in divine
predestination has given way to the idea that we must do whatever is
cheapest. I choose free will.

[Tony B]

The market will prevail.

There, in one very short sentence, is the whole problem.

It will not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

T

[ComandanteBanana]

"flyingman - 02 April 2008 06:09 PM
Pet peeves, are the a**holes talking on the cel going 10 miles/hour
slower than the speed limit, in the left lane on the highway. As far
as I'm concerned, once I see someone talking on a cel and driving,
they just lost all rights to any courtesy whatsoever."


To me, it's just another sign of Banana Republic. Few civilized
countries out there would allow such dangerous behavior to go
unchecked. See what the UK is doing...

(I guess NY residents are not that lucky)

Drivers face new phone penalties

Motorists who are caught using a hand-held mobile phone while driving
will have three penalty points added to their licence, the government
says.

Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander said the maximum fine would also
double to £60 from 27 February.

He added that it was "impossible to do two things at once" and that
using a mobile while driving was dangerous.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6287005.stm

[ComandanteBanana]

OK, I just had it with all those idiots behind the cell phone. I'm
launching...

MAD Against Cell Phone Idiots

We all know that they are more dangerous than drunk drivers, and yet
they parade their sin with pride.

By the way, why is it that in America we are proud of our sins? I've
always wondered about that whenever I see so many SUVs and motorboats
out there...

WHO WANTS TO SIT IN THE ORGANIZATION?

[Pat]

Post by Tony B

 The market will prevail.

There, in one very short sentence, is the whole problem.
It will not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
T

Yes the market will prevail.

Here's the problem. You think you (and others) have some God-given
right to oil. Maybe even a right to cheap oil. You think of it as
something that is owned in common, hence the example you cite.

But nothing could be farther from the truth. Oil isn't commonly owned
and the example cited in the link, re a commonly owned pasture is not
at all similar to oil. Oil is owned by a few major suppliers -- an
oligarchy if you will -- who control the supply. After that, it's
supply and demand. Cut back the supply and the price goes up. I
would guess the demand is pretty inelastic in the short term by highly
elastic in the long term.

If you want a farming analogy, it would be a farmer who owns a gravel
pit. The farmer knows that there is a limited supply of gravel. He
also knows that the price will increase in the long run. He also
knows that he has kids in college and he needs to balance his
lifestyle now with the ability to pay for his kids to go to college
with his retirement needs.

[Tony B]

Post by Pat

Post by Tony B

The market will prevail.

There, in one very short sentence, is the whole problem.
It will not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
T

Yes the market will prevail.
Here's the problem. You think you (and others) have some God-given
right to oil.

As an aetheist I can't see anyone having a god given anything, but let's
let that pass for now..

Post by Pat
But nothing could be farther from the truth. Oil isn't commonly owned
and the example cited in the link, re a commonly owned pasture is not
at all similar to oil.

no, it's not meant ot be just like a common (of which there are few
anyway..)


Oil is owned by a few major suppliers -- an

Post by Pat
oligarchy if you will -- who control the supply.

Don't they just.
After that, it's

Post by Pat
supply and demand. Cut back the supply and the price goes up.

Thing is, the whole of modern society depends on the black stuff. Why
does the world hold six billions now do you think? All the dinosaur
blood keeps us efficient. When it's gone...
I

Post by Pat
would guess the demand is pretty inelastic in the short term by highly
elastic in the long term.

those six billion will want feeding, and that's just for now - it could
be nearer 10 by 2050..

Post by Pat
If you want a farming analogy, it would be a farmer who owns a gravel
pit. The farmer knows that there is a limited supply of gravel. He
also knows that the price will increase in the long run. He also
knows that he has kids in college and he needs to balance his
lifestyle now with the ability to pay for his kids to go to college
with his retirement needs.

the difference is what happens to the gravel once he sells it. Unlike
oil, no-one is dependant on gravel to fuel modern society.

T

[Pat]

Post by Tony B

Post by Pat

Post by Tony B

 The market will prevail.

There, in one very short sentence, is the whole problem.
It will not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
T

Yes the market will prevail.
Here's the problem.  You think you (and others) have some God-given
right to oil.  

As an aetheist I can't see anyone having a god given anything, but let's
let that pass for now..
  > But nothing could be farther from the truth.  Oil isn't commonly owned

Post by Pat
and the example cited in the link, re a commonly owned pasture is not
at all similar to oil.  

no, it's not meant ot be just like a common (of which there are few
anyway..)
Oil is owned by a few major suppliers -- an

Post by Pat
oligarchy if you will -- who control the supply.

Don't they just.
   After that, it's

Post by Pat
supply and demand.  Cut back the supply and the price goes up.

Thing is, the whole of modern society depends on the black stuff. Why
does the world hold six billions now do you think? All the dinosaur
blood keeps us efficient. When it's gone...
  I

Post by Pat
would guess the demand is pretty inelastic in the short term by highly
elastic in the long term.

those six billion will want feeding, and that's just for now - it could
be nearer 10 by 2050..

Post by Pat
If you want a farming analogy, it would be a farmer who owns a gravel
pit.  The farmer knows that there is a limited supply of gravel.  He
also knows that the price will increase in the long run.  He also
knows that he has kids in college and he needs to balance his
lifestyle now with the ability to pay for his kids to go to college
with his retirement needs.

the difference is what happens to the gravel once he sells it. Unlike
oil, no-one is dependant on gravel to fuel modern society.
T- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So you are proposing what? A complete nationalization (worldization)
of oil? It's a commodity just like anything else. Corn is $6 a
bushel and my fresh sweet corn will be more expensive this summer. So
I pay more, I don't go take over the farmer's field.

Just because the world depends on it, doesn't mean the world owns it.
Otherwise, we'll just have to take over the middle east and enslave
the residents there. I think that's called "Vote McCain" or something
like that.

Oil is oil. If you don't like the price, then stop using it. That's
how the demand curve shifts.

[Tony B]

Post by Pat
So you are proposing what? A complete nationalization (worldization)
of oil?

whoa there, I never even thought such a thing... anyway US.com already
decides the oil business so it's kind of nationalised :-) the point I'm
struggling to make is, pretty soon there will be no oil. A point that
seems lost to all but an almost statistically insignificant minority.

Post by Pat
So I pay more, I don't go take over the farmer's field.

or any major corn producing regions of the world.. hoho.

Post by Pat
Otherwise, we'll just have to take over the middle east and enslave
the residents there.

who's this "we"?? and how come you use future tense?

Post by Pat
Oil is oil. If you don't like the price, then stop using it. That's
how the demand curve shifts.

Stop using it. OK, so all my groceries can be delivered to the shops
how? Your corn is farmed using horse? How about pesticides and
fertilisers? Everybody that provides a service to my household gets here
how? And the stuff they use, the plastic, everything.. take oil out of
your life and see what's left. Then look forwards twenty or fifty or
even a hundred years if you think it will last out that long. Then look
around at what is beong done, globally, to deal with a problem that is
sending telegraph, semaphore and e-mail telling us it's on it's way.
Nowt, that's what's being done. Not in any significant way. There is
more effort being expounded squeezing a few precious drops of oil from
tar sands than is being put into real alternativs to our oil based
society. The Oil Age will end eventually (and expert opinion is tilting
in favour of sooner rather than later) but we do nothing.

Nothing to do with politics, consumerism, religion, far right or left
maniacs - just the fact that, six billion people are alive and need the
concentrated power of oil to stay that way. It's going to run out. So
you are proposing what? It's as though the world is in denial.

T

[Pat]

Post by Tony B

So you are proposing what?  A complete nationalization (worldization)
of oil?  

whoa there, I never even thought such a thing... anyway US.com already
decides the oil business so it's kind of nationalised :-) the point I'm
struggling to make is, pretty soon there will be no oil. A point that
seems lost to all but an almost statistically insignificant minority.

So I pay more, I don't go take over the farmer's field.

or any major corn producing regions of the world.. hoho.

Otherwise, we'll just have to take over the middle east and enslave
the residents there.

who's this "we"?? and how come you use future tense?

Oil is oil.  If you don't like the price, then stop using it.  That's
how the demand curve shifts.

Stop using it. OK, so all my groceries can be delivered to the shops
how? Your corn is farmed using horse? How about pesticides and
fertilisers? Everybody that provides a service to my household gets here
how? And the stuff they use, the plastic, everything.. take oil out of
your life and see what's left. Then look forwards twenty or fifty or
even a hundred years if you think it will last out that long. Then look
around at what is beong done, globally, to deal with a problem that is
sending telegraph, semaphore and e-mail telling us it's on it's way.
Nowt, that's what's being done. Not in any significant way. There is
more effort being expounded squeezing a few precious drops of oil from
tar sands than is being put into real alternativs to our oil based
society. The Oil Age will end eventually (and expert opinion is tilting
in favour of sooner rather than later) but we do nothing.
Nothing to do with politics, consumerism, religion, far right or left
maniacs - just the fact that, six billion people are alive and need the
concentrated power of oil to stay that way. It's going to run out. So
you are proposing what? It's as though the world is in denial.
T

I am proposing to let the market be the market. It will survive. We
will survive. There won't be any major shortages. There won't even
be any minor shortages. Things will take care of themselves -- they
always have and they always will. Trouble will happen when the
government steps in to "solve" something. Governments can regulate
and should on many issue, but they can't innovate and they have
trouble countering the market.

Here's something for you to worry about as you're laying in bed
tonight. No one -- not a single person, yet alone a government agency
-- is in charge of making sure that the grocery stores in your town
are stocked tomorrow. People/businesses figure it out by themselves
with no government planning. Scary isn't it.

The same is true for oil. As the price goes higher, people will
innovate and find substitutions. The higher it gets, the more
substitutions will occur and the more feasible they will be. Keeping
prices down will just stiffle the innovations. Right now, bottled gas
is cheaper per BTU than oil. That's a first. But most new houses (at
least in this area) are going with propane instead of heating oil.
Boom. Substitution. 3 years ago oil was cheaper.

Diesel is cheaper per btu than gasoline. As prices go up, more
vehicles will switch. As prices go higher, they'll switch to bio
diesel.

There are already plastics made from corn.

If plastic gets too high, maybe you'll start buying your meat at the
deli counter and get it wrapped in paper instead of being under shrink
wrap. Boom. Substitution effect.

Right now, copper is through the roof. The last few buildings we've
built have very little copper in them. Boom. Substitution effect.
It lowers the demand for copper. Interestingly, we are substitution
oil-based products for copper-based ones. Oil is cheaper than copper.

It's too early to predict what will happen. But the world is not a
static place.

[Tony B]

Post by Pat
Here's something for you to worry about as you're laying in bed
tonight. No one -- not a single person, yet alone a government agency
-- is in charge of making sure that the grocery stores in your town
are stocked tomorrow. People/businesses figure it out by themselves
with no government planning. Scary isn't it.

no, because I can grow my own stuff or keep livestock.. however I will
struggle to build myself a powerstation or a hospital.

Post by Pat
The same is true for oil. As the price goes higher, people will
innovate and find substitutions.

It's higher now - where are the substitutions? That's my point..

Post by Pat
Right now, bottled gas is cheaper per BTU than oil.

another finite resource.

Post by Pat
Diesel is cheaper per btu than gasoline.

not here, but it's almost the same as unleaded..

Post by Pat
As prices go higher, they'll switch to bio
diesel.

which is how efficientr exactly?? How many biodiesel plants are there
worldwide? How long do they take to build?

Post by Pat
There are already plastics made from corn.

that's a new on eon me, I will google...

Post by Pat
It's too early to predict what will happen. But the world is not a
static place.

no, it's not. it's not infinite either...

thanks for your pov Pat, but I fear we will forever be at cossed
purposes with this discourse so I'll leave it there if that's OK with you.

bfn,

T

[Pat]

Post by Tony B

Post by Pat
Here's something for you to worry about as you're laying in bed
tonight.  No one -- not a single person, yet alone a government agency
-- is in charge of making sure that the grocery stores in your town
are stocked tomorrow.  People/businesses figure it out by themselves
with no government planning.  Scary isn't it.

no, because I can grow my own stuff or keep livestock.. however I will
struggle to build myself a powerstation or a hospital.

Post by Pat
The same is true for oil.  As the price goes higher, people will
innovate and find substitutions.

It's higher now - where are the substitutions? That's my point..

Post by Pat
Right now, bottled gas is cheaper per BTU than oil.

another finite resource.

Post by Pat
Diesel is cheaper per btu than gasoline.

not here, but it's almost the same as unleaded..

Post by Pat
As prices go higher, they'll switch to bio
diesel.

which is how efficientr exactly?? How many biodiesel plants are there
worldwide? How long do they take to build?

Post by Pat
There are already plastics made from corn.

that's a new on eon me, I will google...

http://www.natureworksllc.com/About-NatureWorks-LLC.aspx

There was a think on the History Channel's Modern Marvels about corn a
few weeks back. They showed the plant and stuff. It was pretty
interesting. They admitted it was first generation stuff. A lot of
it was food packaging stuff. They had some spun and used for
clothing. It was all biodegradable, too. Seems like they had a
problem with something, maybe hot foods, but I don't remember too
much.

Post by Tony B

Post by Pat
It's too early to predict what will happen.  But the world is not a
static place.

no, it's not. it's not infinite either...
thanks for your pov Pat, but I fear we will forever be at cossed
purposes with this discourse so I'll leave it there if that's OK with you.

k

Post by Tony B
bfn,
T

[ComandanteBanana]

On Apr 3, 9:38 pm, Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:

Oil is owned by a few major suppliers -- an

oligarchy if you will -- who control the supply.  After that, it's
supply and demand.  

Does our reliance on oil make us a Banana Republic? It certainly
sounds familiar: "oligarchy" and...

WELCOME TO THE BANANA REPUBLIC

'The term was coined by O. Henry, an American humorist and short story
writer... "Republic" in his time was often a euphemism for a
dictatorship, while "banana" implied an easy reliance on basic
agriculture and backwardness in the development of modern industrial
technology.'

And we can say the same of a republic that relies on old technologies
built around oil while having a strong commander in chief that drives
us into war to secure more oil.

But, of course, there are many more signs of Banana Republic...

http://banana-republic.net/

[Jens Müller]

Post by Pat
Here's the problem. You think you (and others) have some God-given
right to oil. Maybe even a right to cheap oil.

Is Iraq's oil really worth 3000 billion dollars?

[Jens Müller]

Post by Jack May

Post by Papa Tom
I'm not one who believes "resistance" will ever work.
There's something about bicyclists that people just don't like. Perhaps
it's just jealousy. When the road was ruled by horse-drawn wagons, they
cursed at us and threw sticks at our spokes because we were moving too
fast. Now they do the same thing because we move too slowly.
Perhaps when gas is $10 a gallon, drivers will start to see us in a
different light. Right now, keep your trike off the road - or face having
to pry it out of the grill of some jerk's Hummer.

Will never happen becaue there are too many possible alternative energy
sources that will become available at much less than $10 per equivalent
gallon of gas.

Recently, I visited an exhibition organized by the VCD (German Traffic
Club, a traffic club focussing on ecological issues) in the German
Technical Museum in Berlin. It's name was: "ReStart - Mobility without
oil" (roughly translated). And indeed, much of the stuff there was about
how to keep on as before, only without oil. Restart the insane show we
call traffic ...

[Tony B]

Jens Müller wrote:
It's name was: "ReStart - Mobility without

Post by Jens Müller
oil" (roughly translated). And indeed, much of the stuff there was about
how to keep on as before, only without oil. Restart the insane show we
call traffic ...

it's not just about mobility though. How would the world look without
oil-derived plastics? Although there are probably enough plastics as it is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7312777.stm

Still, it's easier to think "they" will sort this with a technology
solution and the world will move from one paradigm to the next in a
seamless transition. If this were indeed the case there should be more
of this new tech in use now, large scale. These tech solutions will take
time to come on stream in the sort of quantites required, meanwhile we
already have oil wars, petrol prices through the roof, food prices up
40% in the last twelve months and cities loosing electricity.. there
will be no rapture route out of this corner.

T

[Jack May]

Post by Jens Müller
It's name was: "ReStart - Mobility without

Post by Jens Müller
oil" (roughly translated). And indeed, much of the stuff there was about
how to keep on as before, only without oil. Restart the insane show we
call traffic ...

it's not just about mobility though. How would the world look without
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7312777.stm
Still, it's easier to think "they" will sort this with a technology
solution and the world will move from one paradigm to the next in a
seamless transition. If this were indeed the case there should be more of
this new tech in use now, large scale. These tech solutions will take time
to come on stream in the sort of quantites required, meanwhile we already
have oil wars, petrol prices through the roof, food prices up 40% in the
last twelve months and cities loosing electricity.. there will be no
rapture route out of this corner.

The economics has to be there or there will be no transition. Why should
it be seamless? Transition is difficult and takes lots of time and money.

For you to believe transition will not happen says that you believe there
are not people out there that want to get very rich by providing solutions
for people to keep going with an acceptable or better life style.

Highly unlikely that everybody just wants to stay poor and just sit around
as society self destructs.

[Tony B]

Post by Jack May
Highly unlikely that everybody just wants to stay poor and just sit around
as society self destructs.

I would have thought so too, but just where is all the work-in-progress?
For years, alternative energy has been seen as a joke (at least here in
the UK). We have no real renewable prgram, at least nothing even close
to coming on stream with the requisite 225 mtonne oil equivalence we
use. Renewables are around 1% of UK energy, the vast majority is coal,
oil and gas... when wind farms are proposed, joe public gets up in arms
about the view getting spoiled. Nuclear? Not in my experience, and the
legacy of sixty years ago is still to be dealt with.. People buy huge
cars for no reason other than personal aggrandisement. Packaging has
reached ridiculous levels. Goods no-one needs are hauled round the world
for short term amusement. This is the reality of "the market" in action
but everyone goes along with it without a thought. To so much as bring
these things up in conversation attracts ridicule, ambivolence or
occasionally hostility. The whole show is built on the assumption of
continual growth, but given finite resourcing that is patently
impossible and no tech wonder solution can alter that. It needs a phase
change in our understanding of life to get away from conspicious
consumption, but there is no market driver for such a change.

Anyway enough of all this doom and gloom, I'm off to buy a new bicycle
to cheer myself up :-)

T

[Roger Zoul]

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

I've ridden my recumbent trike in real live traffic on many occasions I
always live to tell about it. I take the lane when needed, too.
It's about attitude and if you ain't got none, ride something else.

:>Yeah, but if I'm riding a bike in traffic, I'm giving my back to the
:>enemy...

:>Whether I survive or not has little to with attitude, and a lot to
:>with their clemency.

I think it's clearly about your attitude toward what you think may happen
vs. what will happen. You're assuming drivers will run you down. Perhaps
you live some place where cyclists get run down as a matter of sport, on a
daily basis, anytime they share the road with traffic. Why don't you tell
us about where you live and how many cyclists are killed there per year?

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

I've ridden my recumbent trike in real live traffic on many occasions I
always live to tell about it. I take the lane when needed, too.
It's about attitude and if you ain't got none, ride something else.

:>Yeah, but if I'm riding a bike in traffic, I'm giving my back to the
:>enemy...
:>Whether I survive or not has little to with attitude, and a lot to
:>with their clemency.
I think it's clearly about your attitude toward what you think may happen
vs. what will happen.  You're assuming drivers will run you down.  Perhaps
you live some place where cyclists get run down as a matter of sport, on a
daily basis, anytime they share the road with traffic.  Why don't you tell
us about where you live and how many cyclists are killed there per year?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I don't know how many are killed a year, but I've seen a beautiful
lady on a scooter get crushed by a car running a red light right
before my eyes. And out of the few cyclists who dare ride this road,
never ever seen a trike. All you see is a few hardcore riders ride it
early on weekends.

By the way I do live in Miami Beach, USA.

[Roger Zoul]

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

I've ridden my recumbent trike in real live traffic on many occasions I
always live to tell about it. I take the lane when needed, too.
It's about attitude and if you ain't got none, ride something else.

:>Yeah, but if I'm riding a bike in traffic, I'm giving my back to the
:>enemy...
:>Whether I survive or not has little to with attitude, and a lot to
:>with their clemency.
I think it's clearly about your attitude toward what you think may happen
vs. what will happen. You're assuming drivers will run you down. Perhaps
you live some place where cyclists get run down as a matter of sport, on a
daily basis, anytime they share the road with traffic. Why don't you tell
us about where you live and how many cyclists are killed there per year?-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

:>I don't know how many are killed a year, but I've seen a beautiful
:>lady on a scooter get crushed by a car running a red light right
:>before my eyes. And out of the few cyclists who dare ride this road,
:>never ever seen a trike. All you see is a few hardcore riders ride it
:>early on weekends.

:>By the way I do live in Miami Beach, USA.

Sad about the lady...

Even here, there are roads that I choose not to ride on. But at the same
time, there seem to be plenty roads that I can ride on. If your view of
cycling means you go everywhere you need or want to go by trike/bike, then
perhaps that is a serious concern. As a recreational rider, I look at
cycling from a different POV.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

I've ridden my recumbent trike in real live traffic on many occasions I
always live to tell about it. I take the lane when needed, too.
It's about attitude and if you ain't got none, ride something else.

:>Yeah, but if I'm riding a bike in traffic, I'm giving my back to the
:>enemy...
:>Whether I survive or not has little to with attitude, and a lot to
:>with their clemency.
I think it's clearly about your attitude toward what you think may happen
vs. what will happen. You're assuming drivers will run you down. Perhaps
you live some place where cyclists get run down as a matter of sport, on a
daily basis, anytime they share the road with traffic. Why don't you tell
us about where you live and how many cyclists are killed there per year?-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

:>I don't know how many are killed a year, but I've seen a beautiful
:>lady on a scooter get crushed by a car running a red light right
:>before my eyes. And out of the few cyclists who dare ride this road,
:>never ever seen a trike. All you see is a few hardcore riders ride it
:>early on weekends.
:>By the way I do live in Miami Beach, USA.
Sad about the lady...

I don't know if she died or not, but she won't be as pretty as before
if left with a limping leg.

Post by Roger Zoul
Even here, there are roads that I choose not to ride on. But at the same
time, there seem to be plenty roads that I can ride on. If your view of
cycling means you go everywhere you need or want to go by trike/bike, then
perhaps that is a serious concern.  As a recreational rider, I look at
cycling from a different POV.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

To me FREEDOM TO BIKE is just that. Freedom to ride when you want,
where you want. Otherwise there's no freedom, period. You're just
feeding the beast (wars and environmental destruction).

I'm not opposed to driving, but most trips under 5 miles can be
accomplished by bikes.

http://atom.smasher.org/highway/?l1=You+are+feeding+&l2=the+Beast%21&l3=&l4=

[Jens Müller]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Yeah, but if I'm riding a bike in traffic, I'm giving my back to the
enemy...

If you are thinking about road traffic as war, you are definitely wrong
on public highways.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana
Yeah, but if I'm riding a bike in traffic, I'm giving my back to the
enemy...

If you are thinking about road traffic as war, you are definitely wrong
on public highways.

I see people getting either intimidated by it, or getting killed by
it.

A car is a weapon.

[Jack May]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana
Yeah, but if I'm riding a bike in traffic, I'm giving my back to the
enemy...

If you are thinking about road traffic as war, you are definitely wrong
on public highways.
I see people getting either intimidated by it, or getting killed by

it.

Post by Jens Müller
A car is a weapon.

No they are not. You are just far too stupid to survive.

[c***@new.rr.com]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

I've never had this happen when I rode a bicycle. It seems as though
riding a trike is such a dangerous thing. I wonder why this is?

Are people easily distracted by it?

Cullen

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by c***@new.rr.com

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

I've never had this happen when I rode a bicycle. It seems as though
riding a trike is such a dangerous thing. I wonder why this is?
Are people easily distracted by it?
Cullen

I think the cute factor may actually deter people from aggressive
behavior, but I'd be worried about the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL being too
great, particularly when they are on the phone.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by ComandanteBanana
But I think it also has to do with HATE. Yeah, they hate that other
people remain free and healthy ....

Free and healthy my ass! What we hate is groups of cyclists bored with the
many bikes and trails people like me paid for who ride 3 or 4 abreast at 20
mph blocking a 55mph highway. That's why "jousting" is so popular - y'know
a couple good old boys in the back of a pickup with 2x4s looking for
cyclists to put in the ditch. So much for free and healthy ....

Well, I 'm not talking about those hardcore cyclists, but about the
little guy doing the right thing by riding a bike around. And while
jousting is not done with 2x4s, it can easily be accomplished with the
bumpers.

Drivers envy motorcyclists because they remain free, and hate cyclists
because they are healthy and free --and slow them down.

[Jens Müller]

Post by ComandanteBanana
I think the cute factor may actually deter people from aggressive
behavior, but I'd be worried about the SPEED DIFFERENTIAL being too
great, particularly when they are on the phone.

You should definitely consider getting laws against phone usage while
driving over there.

[Papa Tom]

Post by Jens Müller
You should definitely consider getting laws against phone usage while
driving over there.<<<<

We've got them. They cost us millions of dollars and years of debate to
implement. Now the drivers ignore them and the police don't enforce them.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Papa Tom

Post by Jens Müller
You should definitely consider getting laws against phone usage while
driving over there.<<<<

We've got them. They cost us millions of dollars and years of debate to
implement. Now the drivers ignore them and the police don't enforce them.

I'm sorry to say, but everything is falling apart so much that I feel
I live in a Banana Republic!

Well, I've put together some signs of Banana Republic that seem
evident...

1- CORRUPT POLITICS (Do I need to elaborate?)

2- GATED COMMUNITIES (Crime outside forces those that can afford to
live behind gates and security guards)

3- CHAOTIC TRAFFIC (No, it's not like Germany; it's more like Mexico
City or Caracas)

4- LITTERING (Hey, who cares about littering anymore? Someone will
pick up after me...)

5- RELIANCE ON OLD PEOPLE (They are the ones who vote, usually about
issues that have more to do with quality of life)

6- SCAPEGOATING FOREIGN TYRANTS (You know who they are, right?)

7- DISFRANCHISEMENT OF THE POOR AND THE YOUNG (They feel ignored and
don't vote)

8- TOLERANCE OF DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR (Noisy parks, beaches, etc, with
the notorious absence of signs that call for proper behavior)

9- MINDING OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES (Elections based on homosexuals or
abortion, not constructive issues)

10- BIG HOMELESS PROBLEM (They are everywhere, and sometimes they are
dirty and dangerous)

11- LACK OF BIKE FACILITIES (Yes, a city that is hostile toward those
who care for a better planet, qualifies for the Banana Republic
title)

[Papa Tom]

I'm sorry to say, but everything is falling apart so much that I feel I
live in a Banana Republic!<<<

I thought Banana Republic was an overpriced clothing store that sells
garments made by slave labor in third world countries?

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Papa Tom

I'm sorry to say, but everything is falling apart so much that I feel I
live in a Banana Republic!<<<

I thought Banana Republic was an overpriced clothing store that sells
garments made by slave labor in third world countries?

You are right about them about being overpriced. That's why I created
"Banana Revolution Gear" line of clothing. And they deliver a message
too...

http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

[Jens Müller]

Post by Papa Tom

I'm sorry to say, but everything is falling apart so much that I feel I
live in a Banana Republic!<<<

I thought Banana Republic was an overpriced clothing store that sells
garments made by slave labor in third world countries?

Banana republics were those Central-American countries run by the CIA
and the United Fruit Company, at least to my knowledge.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Papa Tom

I'm sorry to say, but everything is falling apart so much that I feel I
live in a Banana Republic!<<<

I thought Banana Republic was an overpriced clothing store that sells
garments made by slave labor in third world countries?

Banana republics were those Central-American countries run by the CIA
and the United Fruit Company, at least to my knowledge.

Banana Republic could also be a place where's there's no law to
protect the weak ones like cyclists. The Corporations rule...

'A handful of rogue megacorporations and their "think tank" and
"lobbyist" front groups are sullying our democratic waters'

Time to Remove the Bananas...
and Return Our Republic to Democracy
by Thom Hartmann

Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush both seem to have a funny idea about
democracy: they think it's about voting. Saddam was able to win his
election without even having to use corporate money or Supreme Court
justices appointed by a relative: just hold an election and therefore
it must be a democracy. Bush and many, if not most, other American
politicians, think that giving hundreds of millions of dollars to huge
media corporations to carpet-bomb the minds of voters means that
democracy is served when a vote is held.

But in the earliest democracy, there was no voting: the Athenian
Greeks had an annual lottery, and every citizen was in the pool. When
your name was drawn, you had to serve in the Polis or legislature for
a year. At the end of the year, you were out and replaced by a new
person selected in the lottery. Sort of like jury duty.

...

I'm writing this from London, where a few days ago one of the local
newspapers, The Guardian, ran a news story about our then-upcoming
elections. In their November 2 issue, the newspaper referred to "the
2000 elections, when Florida became internationally famous for its
banana republic approach to the electoral process."

So long as our Supreme Court continues to assert that non-voting
corporations are "persons" entitled to Bill of Rights protections,
including the right to participate in politics alongside voting
citizens, we will continue to move further from the Founder's vision
of a true republican democracy and into an ancient and hauntingly
familiar form of governance that was once called feudalism and is now
seen in banana republic nations across South and Central America.

It's time to get the banana companies out of our republic. A handful
of rogue megacorporations and their "think tank" and "lobbyist" front
groups are sullying our democratic waters, corrupting our political
processes, and through monopolistic behavior wiping out local
businesspeople and putting free enterprise at risk along with the
democracy it once nurtured.

Stripping personhood from corporations (a simple return to the
policies of our Founders) will open the door to truly reforming our
electoral process, putting it back into the hands of the people, and
make it possible to return to our airwaves the voices of politicians
who haven't sold their souls to corporations for funds to buy
advertising. This can be done by bringing back public service and
public debate programming requirements, a ban on corporate money in
politics and elections (they can't vote, the Founders said, so why are
they involved in politics?), and putting in place instant runoff
voting (IRV) to widen the political spectrum.

With these steps, We, The People, can bring about a revitalization of
democracy in America, and reverse our current slide into banana
republic neofeudalism.

There's many links here...

http://banana-republic.net/

[Jens Müller]

Post by ComandanteBanana
4- LITTERING (Hey, who cares about littering anymore? Someone will
pick up after me...)

Here, some Neoliberals say: Well, that's creating jobs for people to
pick up the stuff.

Post by ComandanteBanana
5- RELIANCE ON OLD PEOPLE (They are the ones who vote, usually about
issues that have more to do with quality of life)

Here, much more than 50% of the voters are people who get money from the
state ... The welfare republic ...

Post by ComandanteBanana
8- TOLERANCE OF DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR (Noisy parks, beaches, etc, with
the notorious absence of signs that call for proper behavior)

What exactly is "proper behavior"?

Post by ComandanteBanana
9- MINDING OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES (Elections based on homosexuals or
abortion, not constructive issues)

Well, one might consider that "disruptive behavior"? Where to start,
where to end?

Post by ComandanteBanana
11- LACK OF BIKE FACILITIES (Yes, a city that is hostile toward those
who care for a better planet, qualifies for the Banana Republic
title)

Bicycle parking facilities? Well, that might be the case. Facilities for
moving bicycle traffic? Here, there are much too many of them ...

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana
4- LITTERING (Hey, who cares about littering anymore? Someone will
pick up after me...)

Here, some Neoliberals say: Well, that's creating jobs for people to
pick up the stuff.

The problem is they don't even pick it up. It lies there forever,
until it disintegrates or something.

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana
5- RELIANCE ON OLD PEOPLE (They are the ones who vote, usually about
issues that have more to do with quality of life)

Here, much more than 50% of the voters are people who get money from the
state ... The welfare republic ...

As a nation, it's the people who got money who vote.

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana
8- TOLERANCE OF DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR (Noisy parks, beaches, etc, with
the notorious absence of signs that call for proper behavior)

What exactly is "proper behavior"?

Like talking low, or playing radios down.

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana
9- MINDING OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES (Elections based on homosexuals or
abortion, not constructive issues)

Well, one might consider that "disruptive behavior"? Where to start,
where to end?

Say talking on the cell phone. It can kill people. Should that be
allowed?

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana
11- LACK OF BIKE FACILITIES (Yes, a city that is hostile toward those
who care for a better planet, qualifies for the Banana Republic
title)

Bicycle parking facilities? Well, that might be the case. Facilities for
moving bicycle traffic? Here, there are much too many of them ...

Nice. Most of the nation lacks those facilities.

[Jens Müller]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jens Müller
Bicycle parking facilities? Well, that might be the case. Facilities for
moving bicycle traffic? Here, there are much too many of them ...

Nice. Most of the nation lacks those facilities.

No, not nice. They are actually causing completely real deaths of people.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jens Müller
Bicycle parking facilities? Well, that might be the case. Facilities for
moving bicycle traffic? Here, there are much too many of them ...

Nice. Most of the nation lacks those facilities.

No, not nice. They are actually causing completely real deaths of people.

What is causing their deaths, the bike facilities?

WE NEED BIKE LANES or 20MPH LANES --enforced by cameras.

This is a fair comment that I stick to...

tjspiel
Was at a book store last night thumbing through the latest Bicycling
magazine. I ended up buying it mostly because of their feature report
called: "What you can do to fix America's traffic laws - and why you
should".

There was a lot of text devoted to several people that that been
killed or sustained permanent, life altering injuries. They were
struck by drunk drivers or in one case, a driver trying to grab
something out of a bag in her back seat. All of the cyclists had been
riding on a wide shoulder or in a bike lane and had been hit from
behind.

The article seemed to focus more on stonger penalties for people who
kill or injure cyclists and not so much on new laws. There were a lot
of interesting statistics. For example cities with more cyclists had a
lower percentage of fatal collisions. Another thing they mentioned
that is absolutely true is that in the U.S. there is little or no
driver training related to being on the road with cyclists. There's
also little formal training for cyclists on how to ride safely in the
street. Both are sorely needed.

One good idea though was implemented in Kansas. Apparently when you
renew your license in that state there is a written test. A guy there
was able to successfully get the state to insure that there would be
at least one question related to cyclists on the test. The current
version has a multiple choice question on how many feet you must leave
between your car and the cyclist when passing. In Kansas, it's 4 feet.

Anyway, the whole article definitely made me a little more nervous
about riding with fast moving traffic. I still contend that segregated
bike lanes are the way to go. You can't legislate away lapses in
judgement and attention.

[Jens Müller]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jens Müller
Bicycle parking facilities? Well, that might be the case. Facilities for
moving bicycle traffic? Here, there are much too many of them ...

Nice. Most of the nation lacks those facilities.

No, not nice. They are actually causing completely real deaths of people.

What is causing their deaths, the bike facilities?

Well, the concept of separation is causing them. The problem persists on
bike lanes (strict separation) and so-called "protection stripes"
(non-compulsory separation).

What is the English translation of "Aus den Augen, aus dem Sinn"?

[dkahn400]

Post by Jens Müller
What is the English translation of "Aus den Augen, aus dem Sinn"?

Out of sight, out of mind.

--
Dave...

[Tom Keats]

Post by dkahn400

Post by Jens Müller
What is the English translation of "Aus den Augen, aus dem Sinn"?

Out of sight, out of mind.
--
Dave...

Thanx for that.

I guessed it meant (regarding bike lanes:)
"damned if you do; damned if you don't."


cheers,
Tom

[Pat]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jens Müller
Bicycle parking facilities? Well, that might be the case. Facilities for
moving bicycle traffic? Here, there are much too many of them ...

Nice. Most of the nation lacks those facilities.

No, not nice. They are actually causing completely real deaths of people.

What is causing their deaths, the bike facilities?
WE NEED BIKE LANES or 20MPH LANES --enforced by cameras.
This is a fair comment that I stick to...
tjspiel
Was at a book store last night thumbing through the latest Bicycling
magazine. I ended up buying it mostly because of their feature report
called: "What you can do to fix America's traffic laws - and why you
should".
There was a lot of text devoted to several people that that been
killed or sustained permanent, life altering injuries. They were
struck by drunk drivers or in one case, a driver trying to grab
something out of a bag in her back seat. All of the cyclists had been
riding on a wide shoulder or in a bike lane and had been hit from
behind.
The article seemed to focus more on stonger penalties for people who
kill or injure cyclists and not so much on new laws. There were a lot
of interesting statistics. For example cities with more cyclists had a
lower percentage of fatal collisions. Another thing they mentioned
that is absolutely true is that in the U.S. there is little or no
driver training related to being on the road with cyclists. There's
also little formal training for cyclists on how to ride safely in the
street. Both are sorely needed.
One good idea though was implemented in Kansas. Apparently when you
renew your license in that state there is a written test. A guy there
was able to successfully get the state to insure that there would be
at least one question related to cyclists on the test. The current
version has a multiple choice question on how many feet you must leave
between your car and the cyclist when passing. In Kansas, it's 4 feet.
Anyway, the whole article definitely made me a little more nervous
about riding with fast moving traffic. I still contend that segregated
bike lanes are the way to go. You can't legislate away lapses in
judgement and attention.

The bikers in the group say we need bike lanes and camera enforcement
and this and that. That's a HUGE investment for a relatively small
group of people. That public investment could probably go for better
uses.

Since you guys like telling other people what they should do and how
they should do it, what would happen if the rest of us -- the 99.9%
who don't ride bikes -- just said "it would be cheaper and better for
society if we just banned bikes from public streets because the added
cost of them is just too high and even the riders report that it is
way too dangerous". First the ban cell phones for drivers because
they are "dangerous"; why not ban bikes because they are too dangerous?

[Jens Müller]

Post by Pat
The bikers in the group say we need bike lanes and camera enforcement
and this and that. That's a HUGE investment for a relatively small
group of people.

Far more than 10% in larger cities, especially in university cities.

Post by Pat
That public investment could probably go for better
uses.

ACK. E.g. for motor vehicle driver instruction.

Post by Pat
Since you guys like telling other people what they should do and how
they should do it, what would happen if the rest of us -- the 99.9%
who don't ride bikes -- just said "it would be cheaper and better for
society if we just banned bikes from public streets because the added
cost of them is just too high and even the riders report that it is
way too dangerous". First the ban cell phones for drivers because
they are "dangerous"; why not ban bikes because they are too dangerous?

Because every one has the right to use public highways.

[Pat]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Pat
The bikers in the group say we need bike lanes and camera enforcement
and this and that.  That's a HUGE investment for a relatively small
group of people.

Far more than 10% in larger cities, especially in university cities.

In general, you're off by nearly an order of magnitude.

By State, highest percentage workers who travel to work by foot or by
other means:

Washington DC 13.7%
Alaska 12.1%
Montana 7.2%
Hawaii 7.2%
New York 7.1%
Vermont 6.5%
...
Mississippi 2.9%
Georgia 2.8%
Tenessee 2.3%
Alabama 2.1%

But a substantial number of them are walkers (more so than riders).
The data I use for ranking happens to combine walkers with "others".
For NYS, walkers+others = 7.1% For just others, it is 2.6%. There
are more people working from home than riding bikes and "other
means". Nationwide, it's 1.7% for "other means".

By Metro Area, there are only 9 (of 331) that have percentages over
10% starting with State College, PA. and ending with NYC at 10.3%

Post by Jens Müller

Post by Pat
That public investment could probably go for better
uses.

ACK. E.g. for motor vehicle driver instruction.

Post by Pat
Since you guys like telling other people what they should do and how
they should do it, what would happen if the rest of us -- the 99.9%
who don't ride bikes -- just said "it would be cheaper and better for
society if we just banned bikes from public streets because the added
cost of them is just too high and even the riders report that it is
way too dangerous".  First the ban cell phones for drivers because
they are "dangerous"; why not ban bikes because they are too dangerous?

Because every one has the right to use public highways.

No they don't. Lot's of thinks can't use the public highways. Amish
around here can use surface streets but can't use the highway.
Highways don't allow bikes, horses pedestrians or vehicles that can't/
don't go over 45 mph.

Public streets can't have motorized wheelchairs, those little
"motorcycles" that kids ride, off-road motorcycles (such as motocross)
and anything else without a place. Actually, a bicycle is an
exception to the common rule of what can be on a street. It's the
only thing I can think of that can be on a street without a plate and
without a licensed operator. Even snowmobiles need to be registered.
But not bikes. You've raised a good point. Maybe they should
register bikes, require a plate and have a licensed operator.
Hmmmmmmm.

[Jens Müller]

Post by Pat

Post by Jens Müller
Because every one has the right to use public highways.

No they don't. Lot's of thinks can't use the public highways. Amish
around here can use surface streets but can't use the highway.
Highways don't allow bikes, horses pedestrians or vehicles that can't/
don't go over 45 mph.

Please look up the definition of "highway" in your local highway code.
Thank you.

Anyway, it's a) a matter of dedication - everyone may use public goods
(including public highways) for the purpose they were dedicated to and
b) about the basic right to mobility.

At least in my country, the rule of law still prevails.

[Jens Müller]

Post by Pat
In general, you're off by nearly an order of magnitude.
By State, highest percentage workers who travel to work by foot or by
Washington DC 13.7%
Alaska 12.1%
Montana 7.2%
Hawaii 7.2%
New York 7.1%
Vermont 6.5%
...
Mississippi 2.9%
Georgia 2.8%
Tenessee 2.3%
Alabama 2.1%

I suppose you're living in the wrong country then ...

[Bob]

Post by Pat
The bikers in the group say we need bike lanes and camera enforcement
and this and that.  That's a HUGE investment for a relatively small
group of people.  That public investment could probably go for better
uses.

There's a bit of crossposting going on but judging by your "bikers in
the group" phrase I'm guessing that you are posting from the
alt.planning.urban group. Just as a point of information, there are
probably at least as many cyclists vehemently opposed to bike lanes as
there are bike lane boosters.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Pat

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jens Müller
Bicycle parking facilities? Well, that might be the case. Facilities for
moving bicycle traffic? Here, there are much too many of them ...

Nice. Most of the nation lacks those facilities.

No, not nice. They are actually causing completely real deaths of people.

What is causing their deaths, the bike facilities?
WE NEED BIKE LANES or 20MPH LANES --enforced by cameras.
This is a fair comment that I stick to...
tjspiel
Was at a book store last night thumbing through the latest Bicycling
magazine. I ended up buying it mostly because of their feature report
called: "What you can do to fix America's traffic laws - and why you
should".
There was a lot of text devoted to several people that that been
killed or sustained permanent, life altering injuries. They were
struck by drunk drivers or in one case, a driver trying to grab
something out of a bag in her back seat. All of the cyclists had been
riding on a wide shoulder or in a bike lane and had been hit from
behind.
The article seemed to focus more on stonger penalties for people who
kill or injure cyclists and not so much on new laws. There were a lot
of interesting statistics. For example cities with more cyclists had a
lower percentage of fatal collisions. Another thing they mentioned
that is absolutely true is that in the U.S. there is little or no
driver training related to being on the road with cyclists. There's
also little formal training for cyclists on how to ride safely in the
street. Both are sorely needed.
One good idea though was implemented in Kansas. Apparently when you
renew your license in that state there is a written test. A guy there
was able to successfully get the state to insure that there would be
at least one question related to cyclists on the test. The current
version has a multiple choice question on how many feet you must leave
between your car and the cyclist when passing. In Kansas, it's 4 feet.
Anyway, the whole article definitely made me a little more nervous
about riding with fast moving traffic. I still contend that segregated
bike lanes are the way to go. You can't legislate away lapses in
judgement and attention.

The bikers in the group say we need bike lanes and camera enforcement
and this and that.  That's a HUGE investment for a relatively small
group of people.  That public investment could probably go for better
uses.

And so what's a better investment, the war in Iraq or landing on Mars?

The 1% is only the result of people being intimidated. I don't think
99% of the people are lazy and stupid.

That percentage should be around 50%. ;)

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jens Müller

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Jens Müller
Bicycle parking facilities? Well, that might be the case. Facilities for
moving bicycle traffic? Here, there are much too many of them ...

Nice. Most of the nation lacks those facilities.

No, not nice. They are actually causing completely real deaths of people.

Shhh. Don't tell Bill Zaumen. ;)

[Tim McNamara]

In article

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off
the beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

I see you've changed your screen name but not your behavior.

A trike is no more of a vehicle than a bicycle. The trike riders I have
met report that drivers give them more room on the road because they are
an unusual veicle. Drivers may assume that the rider is infirm in some
way, too.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Tim McNamara
In article

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off
the beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

I see you've changed your screen name but not your behavior.

I still remain Quixotic even though I changed my name.

Post by Tim McNamara
A trike is no more of a vehicle than a bicycle.  The trike riders I have
met report that drivers give them more room on the road because they are
an unusual veicle.  Drivers may assume that the rider is infirm in some
way, too.

That makes sense. Sort of what I expected. Still the vehicle code
calls all bicycles "vehicles," so we all are a family --though not
necessarily happy.

[Jack May]

Post by Tim McNamara
In article

That makes sense. Sort of what I expected. Still the vehicle code
calls all bicycles "vehicles," so we all are a family --though not
necessarily happy.

Anybody that is so stupid that they think the law is reality deserves to be
killed in traffic.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Jack May
Anybody that is so stupid that they think the law is reality deserves to be
killed in traffic.

That's true. So it is that in NY they have the right laws regarding
cell phones, but people do whatever they please. And bicycles are
considered "vehicles," but you still are pushed around on the roads.

Welcome to the reality of the jungle.

[Jens Müller]

Post by Tim McNamara
A trike is no more of a vehicle than a bicycle.

ACK.

A trike is no less a vehicle than a bicycle.

[Jack May]

Post by Tim McNamara
In article
A trike is no more of a vehicle than a bicycle. The trike riders I have
met report that drivers give them more room on the road because they are
an unusual veicle. Drivers may assume that the rider is infirm in some
way, too.

It seems like a lot of the trike riders are infirm. I plan on getting one
because I have a rare disease where my muscles get weaker the more that I
use them. I recover by resting to reduce the anti-bodies that attack my
muscle communications with the nerves.

On regular bike I would fall over eventually and be badly hurt. With a
trike I can stop and rest sitting on the trike seat until my muscles recover
in 10 minutes or so.

I will not be on the road but on a "pedway"along the SF Bay shoreline that
as no crossing traffic.

[ZBicyclist]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

Did I miss something? You seem to be comparing a vehicle made for two people
(tandem) with a vehicle made or one person (trike).

If you have a road bike among the bikes in your collection, you won't find
the road tandem different in terms of riding in traffic.

In neither case is any funeral planning needed.

[Ted]

Post by ComandanteBanana
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

The whole problem here is that a trike takes up much more road space
and it makes it more difficult for another wide vehicle (an
automobile) to pass, basically requiring the cars to slow down from
what you said is 45 mph to probably less than 18 mph until there is no
one in the opposing lane so they may pass safely. If the road is as
busy as you say it will be very inconvenient for the faster traffic
and they will get mad at you. I doubt they will try to kill you.
However, on a tandem you are very narrow and no one has to change
lanes to pass, and you could potentially travel much faster being
lighter with twice the power of the tricycle.

I would go with the tandem and travel that road with reckless abandon.

Ted

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Ted

Post by ComandanteBanana
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

The whole problem here is that a trike takes up much more road space
and it makes it more difficult for another wide vehicle (an
automobile) to pass, basically requiring the cars to slow down from
what you said is 45 mph to probably less than 18 mph until there is no
one in the opposing lane so they may pass safely.  If the road is as
busy as you say it will be very inconvenient for the faster traffic
and they will get mad at you.  I doubt they will try to kill you.
However, on a tandem you are very narrow and no one has to change
lanes to pass, and you could potentially travel much faster being
lighter with twice the power of the tricycle.
I would go with the tandem and travel that road with reckless abandon.
Ted

"Reckless abandon"... it sounds to me like, "Caesar, those who are
going to die you". They really were tough back then.

Anyway, the speed differential in itself is not the problem. It's the
lack of LANE DISCIPLINE. You find people racing on the right lane,
where the speed should not be any higher than 20MPH --if we are to
have bikes present. Ah, it's also the cell phone and oversized SUVs.

You must be a tough gladiator to handle all of the above.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Ted

Post by ComandanteBanana
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

The whole problem here is that a trike takes up much more road space
and it makes it more difficult for another wide vehicle (an
automobile) to pass, basically requiring the cars to slow down from
what you said is 45 mph to probably less than 18 mph until there is no
one in the opposing lane so they may pass safely.  If the road is as
busy as you say it will be very inconvenient for the faster traffic
and they will get mad at you.  I doubt they will try to kill you.
However, on a tandem you are very narrow and no one has to change
lanes to pass, and you could potentially travel much faster being
lighter with twice the power of the tricycle.
I would go with the tandem and travel that road with reckless abandon.
Ted

"Reckless abandon"... it sounds to me like, "Caesar, those who are
going to die you". They really were tough back then.
Anyway, the speed differential in itself is not the problem. It's the
lack of LANE DISCIPLINE. You find people racing on the right lane,
where the speed should not be any higher than 20MPH --if we are to
have bikes present. Ah, it's also the cell phone and oversized SUVs.
You must be a tough gladiator to handle all of the above.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

CORRECTION:
"Caesar, those who are going to die, SALUTE you"

[ComandanteBanana]

On Mar 31, 9:52 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"

Post by ComandanteBanana
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

Drivers don't hate cyclists. But Americans are all cowardly bullies
who love to pick on those weaker and when they're in a car they are
bigger and stronger than any cyclist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That has an element of truth, but I think the bullies only make up a
minority among the cowards.

[ComandanteBanana]

You must all have seen the movie, right?

[ComandanteBanana]

"Who said the good ol' times when they fought the beasts are over? Now
you can ride a bike and feel the same excitement --before you die."

http://www.zazzle.com/gladiator_shirt-235337870599597918

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Ted

Post by ComandanteBanana
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

The whole problem here is that a trike takes up much more road space
and it makes it more difficult for another wide vehicle (an
automobile) to pass, basically requiring the cars to slow down from
what you said is 45 mph to probably less than 18 mph until there is no
one in the opposing lane so they may pass safely.

A tricycle is typically about 30 inches wide, which is almost exactly
the width of my elbows in a fairly normal riding posture (I just
measured roughly).

James

[donquijote1954]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Ted

Post by ComandanteBanana
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

The whole problem here is that a trike takes up much more road space
and it makes it more difficult for another wide vehicle (an
automobile) to pass, basically requiring the cars to slow down from
what you said is 45 mph to probably less than 18 mph until there is no
one in the opposing lane so they may pass safely.

A tricycle is typically about 30 inches wide, which is almost exactly
the width of my elbows in a fairly normal riding posture (I just
measured roughly).
James

Perhaps this is better for a gladiator...

http://www.squidoo.com/triton

But sitting lower would be a greater problem for visibility.

[Roger Zoul]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Ted

Post by ComandanteBanana
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

The whole problem here is that a trike takes up much more road space
and it makes it more difficult for another wide vehicle (an
automobile) to pass, basically requiring the cars to slow down from
what you said is 45 mph to probably less than 18 mph until there is no
one in the opposing lane so they may pass safely.

A tricycle is typically about 30 inches wide, which is almost exactly
the width of my elbows in a fairly normal riding posture (I just
measured roughly).
James

Of course, on a bike you can ride on the very edge of the road, so that you
take up only ~15 inches, rather than 30. However, if the cars have you on
the white line on a bike, your life is in danger. A triker can hug the
white line with the right front wheel in a much safer fashion than can a
bicyclist.

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by ZBicyclist

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)

Did I miss something? You seem to be comparing a vehicle made for two people
(tandem) with a vehicle made or one person (trike).
If you have a road bike among the bikes in your collection, you won't find
the road tandem different in terms of riding in traffic.
In neither case is any funeral planning needed.

No, I don't have a road, but I have a racy folding bike. The tandem
would have been nice though so my girlfriend is not left behind. She's
intimidated easily into the sidewalk too, but I hope my bravery would
inspire her.... ;)

[Pat]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

As much as I had hoped that this would be some sort of April Fool's
joke, it isn't.

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/312617.html

[Roger Zoul]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

:>As much as I had hoped that this would be some sort of April Fool's
:>joke, it isn't.
:>
:>http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/312617.html

3 men riding on a 3-wheeled cycle....pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase!

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

:>As much as I had hoped that this would be some sort of April Fool's
:>joke, it isn't.
:>
:>http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/312617.html
3 men riding on a 3-wheeled cycle....pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase!

I think they meant a three wheeler ATV...

[Roger Zoul]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Roger Zoul

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

:>As much as I had hoped that this would be some sort of April Fool's
:>joke, it isn't.
:>
:>http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/312617.html
3 men riding on a 3-wheeled cycle....pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase!

I think they meant a three wheeler ATV...

Ok...that makes sense then...I guess the writer has never seen a trike...(a
3-wheeled cycle)

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Pat

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

As much as I had hoped that this would be some sort of April Fool's
joke, it isn't.
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/312617.html

It's known that guys on three wheel bikes are real dangerous... ?

But they are real dangerous riding the sidewalk, which is most people
do nowdays --if they want to live longer.

[ComandanteBanana]

You may say, "What the Banana Republic of Miami has to do with
bicycling?" But it does. The old people in Miami voted for issues
dealing with Castro, and not for bike facilities. They never will,
because only the young care about it. That's why we need a Banana
Revolution...

"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to
die in." -George McGovern

A REVOLUTION FOR THE YOUNG?
Sorry, guys, but this revolution is for the young --or at least for
the young at heart-- who care about the future, and about a quality of
life surrounding their needs.

Regrettably, they are not being enticed into politics. Important
issues like building bike facilities are kept out of the political
discourse. Simply, cunning politicians lure the elderly, who are
easily duped with the politics of fear*. Remember the 2000 elections
in Miami-Dade County. In other words: the Banana Republic relies on
the old and ignorant, while the Banana Revolution appeals to the young
and hopeful...

*80% of the young who don't vote do not live in democracy.

"Well, there's no hiding the fact that bananas taste better, and don't
contribute to Global Warming and War."

http://www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954/product/235363034463138037

[Pat]

Post by ComandanteBanana
You may say, "What the Banana Republic of Miami has to do with
bicycling?" But it does. The old people in Miami voted for issues
dealing with Castro, and not for bike facilities. They never will,
because only the young care about it. That's why we need a Banana
Revolution...
"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to
die in." -George McGovern
A REVOLUTION FOR THE YOUNG?
Sorry, guys, but this revolution is for the young --or at least for
the young at heart-- who care about the future, and about a quality of
life surrounding their needs.
Regrettably, they are not being enticed into politics. Important
issues like building bike facilities are kept out of the political
discourse. Simply, cunning politicians lure the elderly, who are
easily duped with the politics of fear*. Remember the 2000 elections
in Miami-Dade County. In other words: the Banana Republic relies on
the old and ignorant, while the Banana Revolution appeals to the young
and hopeful...
*80% of the young who don't vote do not live in democracy.
"Well, there's no hiding the fact that bananas taste better, and don't
contribute to Global Warming and War."
http://www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954/product/235363034463138037

With all the political stuff happening in NY, I keep telling everyone
that the Dems should use it as a marketing tool. Think of the
possible slogans, like "Party Like A Democrat" or "When Democrats Say
Party, They Mean It". What party would you rather join, the party of
drugs and high-priced hookers or the party of old men in airport
stalls. Now THAT"S something to think about.

[ComandanteBanana]

The same way this author says...

"with the exception of the areas where the wealthy people live... the
streets are filthy"
http://banana-republic.net/

We can say the bike paths and safer roads are located where the
moneyed people are. They put up traffic calming measures, or simply
block off their streets.

ANOTHER SIGN OF BANANA REPUBLIC.

[Bob]

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

The 2006 US Census estimated the total population at just under 300
million people. According to FARS data in that same year, 773 cyclists
were killed in traffic crashes. Adding pedestrian deaths there were
just 5740 non-motorist deaths from traffic crashes that year. That
would seem to contradict your view that a significant percentage of
motorists are homicidal maniacs intent on doing cyclists harm. Either
that or the overwhelming majority of that group are *extremely
incompetent* homicidal maniacs.
Pedal your bike, not your silly fearmongering.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[ComandanteBanana]

Post by Bob

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

The 2006 US Census estimated the total population at just under 300
million people. According to FARS data in that same year, 773 cyclists
were killed in traffic crashes. Adding pedestrian deaths there were
just 5740 non-motorist deaths from traffic crashes that year. That
would seem to contradict your view that a significant percentage of
motorists are homicidal maniacs intent on doing cyclists harm. Either
that or the overwhelming majority of that group are *extremely
incompetent* homicidal maniacs.
Pedal your bike, not your silly fearmongering.
Regards,
Bob Hunt

It ain't fearmongering; it's the reality of the jungle, which is in
plain view for all to see...

'Doug - 03 April 2008 11:41 PM
On the subject of bicycles, I've noticed that here in South Beach,
riders can be as aggressive toward pedestrians as cars can.

Psychologists would probably say its a product of the "caged rat
syndrome." As a species, we've overpopulated to the extent that we're
turning on each other. Good idea for a horror movie plot!'


Hey Doug, I've got my own theory...

The SUV intimidates the car, they both intimidate the bicycle, the
bike gets on the sidewalk and it intimidates pedestrians, and
pedestrians just intimidate each other...

I'd dismiss the rat theory, because there are far more people crowded
together in places like Holland and they still get along pretty good.

Oh, the name of my theory is "The Big Fish Eats the Little Fish."
Coming to a theater near you...

http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=The+Big+Fish&l2=Eats&l3=the+Little+Fish&l4=

[Pat]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Bob

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

The 2006 US Census estimated the total population at just under 300
million people. According to FARS data in that same year, 773 cyclists
were killed in traffic crashes. Adding pedestrian deaths there were
just 5740 non-motorist deaths from traffic crashes that year. That
would seem to contradict your view that a significant percentage of
motorists are homicidal maniacs intent on doing cyclists harm. Either
that or the overwhelming majority of that group are *extremely
incompetent* homicidal maniacs.
Pedal your bike, not your silly fearmongering.
Regards,
Bob Hunt

It ain't fearmongering; it's the reality of the jungle, which is in
plain view for all to see...
'Doug - 03 April 2008 11:41 PM
On the subject of bicycles, I've noticed that here in South Beach,
riders can be as aggressive toward pedestrians as cars can.
Psychologists would probably say its a product of the "caged rat
syndrome." As a species, we've overpopulated to the extent that we're
turning on each other.  Good idea for a horror movie plot!'
Hey Doug, I've got my own theory...
The SUV intimidates the car, they both intimidate the bicycle, the
bike gets on the sidewalk and it intimidates pedestrians, and
pedestrians just intimidate each other...
I'd dismiss the rat theory, because there are far more people crowded
together in places like Holland and they still get along pretty good.
Oh, the name of my theory is "The Big Fish Eats the Little Fish."
Coming to a theater near you...
http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=The+Big+Fish&l2=Eats&l3=the+L...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I agree and disagree with both of you, but not for the reasons anyone
would think. Mostly because I can't even comprehend the problems.

Living is a semi-rural area, we have civil people. We say "hi" to
each other and know our neighbors. I don't see any problems with SUV
drivers. For some reason the bikers have them under the microscope
but I just don't see why. Even when I go to cities (which is fairly
often) I don't see the difference.

So if you want to ride a bike and think there are safer areas out
there, then move. What's so hard about that? Go get another house.
Go get another job. If you feel unsafe biking to work, then change
things. What's the big deal. I could bike anywhere in the community
I live in and it wouldn't be a problem. So get your priorities in
line.

Meanwhile, if you feel unsafe, look within. Are you doing anything
that you shouldn't be or that's unpredictable? I see more of that
with people on bikes than with drivers. Drivers are a fairly
predictable group. You know about what speed they are going, how wide
the lane is and how wide the car is. If you are obstructing them,
then get out of the way. You need to be able to keep up with traffic
if you're going to be on the road.

Finally, I ride a motorcycle in the summer. Bigger and faster than a
bike, but still not a car. If ride like you are intimidated, you will
be intimidated. If you ride like you should, then you're not
intimidated. The only vehicle that really bothers me are dump trucks
with uncovered loads. Hit a pea-stone at 70 some time and you feel a
ting. But you plan for that because you know it's a hazzard. You
wear leathers and a full-face helmut. But you don't go crying about
it. You just plan for the possibility and accept that it will
happen. Personally, I also get on my CB and discuss the situation
with the driver and most of the time they don't realize that they have
stuff flying off their trucks. Most promise to cover their loads next
time. Most probably don't but some might. I don't know. But you
just plan for the know hazzards and accept the unknown ones. Life's
too short to be grumpy.

[Bob]

Post by ComandanteBanana

Post by Bob

Post by ComandanteBanana
Having other types of bikes in my collection, I'm about to get off the
beaten path and get either a ROAD TANDEM BIKE or a FANCY UPRIGHT
TRIKE. Well, I like them both but the road tandem would necessarily
put me on the road AMONG THE BEASTS all the time, while the trike I
can use on the back streets and on a new path being built overlooking
the ocean (cool). But I'd be tempted to ride it on the streets
sometimes, squarely TAKING THE LANE because then I'd be more of a
vehicle.
What's your thought, I'd be safer in the trike than on the road
tandem, or should I start planning my funerals? ;)
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

The 2006 US Census estimated the total population at just under 300
million people. According to FARS data in that same year, 773 cyclists
were killed in traffic crashes. Adding pedestrian deaths there were
just 5740 non-motorist deaths from traffic crashes that year. That
would seem to contradict your view that a significant percentage of
motorists are homicidal maniacs intent on doing cyclists harm. Either
that or the overwhelming majority of that group are *extremely
incompetent* homicidal maniacs.
Pedal your bike, not your silly fearmongering.
Regards,
Bob Hunt

It ain't fearmongering; it's the reality of the jungle, which is in
plain view for all to see...

Some jungle. According to the National Safety Council's 2005
statistics your lifetime odds of dying in a car versus bike crash are
1 in 4098. To put that in perspective, the same statistics put your
lifetime odds of dying from falling out of your bed or a chair at 1 in
4225.

Regards,
Bob Hunt