http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Leaking Parker ball pen - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/541de4e96f70cb4f?hl=en
* Cycling Copenhagen through American eyes - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/85edac9c2ebe5d06?hl=en
* Simple hack to get $3000 to your paypal account.. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4acec3623418273f?hl=en
* Substitute for cinder blocks in making temporary bookshelves? - 10 messages,
5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/92981ff9ab48c4ff?hl=en
* How to cook corn meal fine - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/404810c22fe27559?hl=en
* replacement car tires - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f3c01c800d47b4a2?hl=en
* Is it worth it? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9a6902a43392b7ce?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Leaking Parker ball pen
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/541de4e96f70cb4f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 14 2010 9:52 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
mm wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:50:16 +0100, "michael adams"
> <mjadams25@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> /
>> "geoff" <troll@uk-diy.org> wrote in message
>> news:C3FI3rPfybZMFwxp@demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <8clpjnFne4U1@mid.individual.net>, michael adams
>>> <mjadams25@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>> "john hamilton" <bluestar95@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:i448pu$qjp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> I thought Parker ball pens were not supposed to leak, mine has
>>>>> even though it's not been stored upside down.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's very sticky inside. Is there any good way to clean it out?
>>>>> Thanks for advice.
>>>>
>>>> Isopropyl alcohol, obtainable from a store chemist but quite
>>>> expensive.
>>>
>>> About £5/litre
>>
>>
>> The last time I bought any it cost £6.99 for 500ml, well over twice
>> that. The label is still on the bottle. With store chemists who
>
> That's amazing. The last time I bought some it was 70% isopropyl
> alcohol and it was about 2 dollars for a pint, 473 ml.
>
> That was about 2 months ago. I thought I would need to get the oil
> soot out of my computer, but the stuff turned out to not be sticky,
> and will blow right off what ever it is sitting on, or be sucked off
> with a vacuum cleaner.
>
>> actually stock it being thin on the ground, you have to take what
>> you can find.
>>
>> While it may be cheaper in bulk, isopropyl alcohol is highly
>> inflammable. And so buying a litre or more for occasional use
>> in cleaning tape heads and the like, is not only hazardous
>> but probably a false economy as well. Unless that is, additional
>> uses can be found for it.
>> michael adams
>
> Don't they make little stoves or lamps that run on this stuff?
Nope, thats metho.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 8:32 am
From: Shawn Hirn
In article <i448pu$qjp$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"john hamilton" <bluestar95@mail.invalid> wrote:
> I thought Parker ball pens were not supposed to leak, mine has even though
> it's not been stored upside down.
>
> It's very sticky inside. Is there any good way to clean it out? Thanks for
> advice.
Contact Parker's customer service. They might send you some free ink
cartridges.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 11:09 am
From: "Spamlet"
"Frank Erskine" <frank.erskine@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ade669jpj0ni3sn68htv2t419a570jra1@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 01:05:28 +0100, "Spamlet"
> <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Frank Erskine" <frank.erskine@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:4n8e665o9tqi6obvbl7qp7dd7p703dh4tf@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:22:25 +0000, info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com
>>> (DA) wrote:
>>>
>>>>responding to
>>>>http://www.homeownershub.com/cleaning/Leaking-Parker-ball-pen-10625-.htm
>>>>DA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>john hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I thought Parker ball pens were not supposed to leak, mine has even
>>>>> though it's not been stored upside down.
>>>>
>>>>Could have been a bad OEM cartridge i.e. Parker-compatible instead of
>>>>Parker. That or you can no longer trust anyone's quality [sigh] Toyota's
>>>>recent debacle comes to mind.
>>>
>>> I believe Parker 'ink' pens are now made in France 8-(((
>>>
>>> I don't know about their cartridges since I use a refillable (from an
>>> ink bottle!) insert-thing, but Quink is also French, according a quick
>>> glance under the bottle.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Frank Erskine
>>
>>If, like most people nowadays, you are doing most of your writing via a
>>keyboard, and adopt a pen only for cards and signatures, you will probably
>>find your fountain pen, and even good old Rotring, need cleaning out every
>>time you want to use them.
>
> I think I do more writing with an 'ink' pen, and real Cumberland 3H
> pencils... I try not to be like "most people".
>
>>You may find, as I have, that good old fashioned
>>dip pens with a good selection of nibs, and a range of small bottles of
>>coloured inks, are actually more convenient and fun to write with. They
>>only need a wipe with a tissue between uses. A dip mapping pen is still
>>excellent for fine lines too.
>>
> I have to admit that I haven't used a 'dip' pen for a wee while. Or my
> Rotring - probably since college days...
Try it: you will like it. Sadly, I used to use Rotring and similar pens all
the time, as I never could find a biro that wrote fine enough and where the
ink didn't stay tacky and leave blobs everywhere. As the fine writing
problem is now mostly resolved via Excel and Word tables and diagrams, my
Rotrings are always dried up solid when I would like to use them, and the
little wires inside tend to break off in the cleaning. The dip mapping pen
is a fair substitute.
S
>
> --
> Frank Erskine
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cycling Copenhagen through American eyes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/85edac9c2ebe5d06?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 2:10 am
From: Frank Studt
Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
> Frank Studt wrote:
>> Am 13.08.2010 14:46, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>>> Am 12.08.2010 14:22, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>>>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Here some important factors you need to consider if you are testing
>>>> for such hypothesis (and the author did not).
>>>> - In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
>>>> changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more
>>>> mileage.
>>>
>>> ???
>>
>> You dont believe? You dont understand? Im talking about the relocation
>> of bicycle traffic and car traffic. Many riders who can choose between
>> routes with or without facilities will use the one with facilities.
>> But it has to be said that route choice is not directly connected to
>> travel mode choice.
>
> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>
>
There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode choice
is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has dealt with
travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a claim like that
without testing for confounding factors...
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> - General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
>>>> uses data from a sample of roads).
>>>
>>> Why the capitalization? Is "GT&T" some sort of recognized discipline?
>>
>> What I meant to say is, if cycling is booming in the hole city of
>> Copenhagen or Denmark its no surprise if the volume of cyclists
>> increases in the sample of streets the author examined.
>
> OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
> they like.
>
Im sorry but your statements lag scientific background. Its well known
since decades in the field of social psychology that you cant directly
predict behaviour from attitude. Especially if you just use one variable.
I think the interesting thing about the surveys showing most people
think segregated facilities are safe and mixed traffic is dangerous is
that people just dont know where they are safe as cyclists. The only
consequence can be to enlighten people about their wrong perception.
Educate them how to ride properly in mixed traffic. Educate car drivers
to respect cyclists right to the road.
And if you asked the question what kind of infrastructure cyclists like
on an abstract level they will tell you they prefer infrastructure that
is safe first and fast second. Both criteria speek for mixed traffic and
not segregation.
>
>>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>>>
>>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>>
>>
>> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>>
>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>>
>> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
>
> I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.
>
Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-spaces.html
>>>
>>> You seem to have left out the more compelling ones.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, he didn't even check for weather or oil prices.
>
> I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
> people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
> that, just watch what they use.
>
Again you lag scientific background. The problems your "methods"
implicate have been discussed for decades in social sciences, economics,
psychology etc.. I already named you a few and could go on and on....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up
>> with a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling
>> facilities. Maybe you can name a few.
>
> http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20
>
Good one. The part about intersections almost exclusively deals with
roundabouts. There selection of studies is highly biased. I dont want to
get in to detail with the roundabout-studies but only so much: Most
accidents between cars and cyclists occur on town street intersections
and roundabouts are the most uncommon kind of intersection in towns. Why
the fuck would they concentrate on roundabout-studies. Funny thing they
came up with Jensens study "Safety effects of blue cycle crossings: a
before-after study" but missed the Copenhagen study we have been
discussing. Smells fishy.
>
>> BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I said you can find tons
>> of primary research about the topic.
>> Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
>> came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of cyclists.
>>
>>
>>>>> On the whole it was felt that
>>>>> the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for
>>>>> the
>>>>> safety problems.
>>>>
>>>> To trade off the worsening of road safety with the supposed health
>>>> benefits of cycle lanes (by increasing mileage) should not be the
>>>> issue here.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>
>> I think its more than cynical to let people be killed or mutilated for
>> the sake of more cyclists. And of course there are better ways to get
>> more people on bikes than killing cyclists. Best way is to make car
>> use unattractive and built parking places for bikes.
>>
>>>> The author is just speculating and again he has no data to prove his
>>>> speculations.
>>>
>>> This issue has been extensively studied in Denmark and elsewhere.
>>>
>>
>> What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
>> data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis
>
> I'm not so sure. If multiple studies show an overwhelming benefit to
> cycling from a health POV, including injury & fatalities, then a 10%
> increase in injuries and fatalities for a 20% increase in cycling would
> be an ethical trade-off.
How exactly do you measure an ethical trade-off.
> Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular
>
Me insisting on keeping cycling unpopular? Quite the opposite. I named a
lot of measures to raise the attraction of cycling and reduce car traffic.
>
>>
>>>> Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck
>>>> should I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective
>>>> scale when my individual safety is actually worsened.
>>>
>>> Perhaps because it's a social cost borne by all of us to some degree.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds very individual cost to me if you lose a leg or get you head
>> crushed by a right turning lorry cause the driver didn't see you in
>> his blind spot. And of course there a ways to increase cycling without
>> worsening road safety. If they want to push cycling they should do it
>> right.
>
> And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
> when nobody except a hard core participates.
>
As told already there are a lot of other measures to built incentives to
cycle then worsen road safety by building segregated facilities.
>
>>> In any case, it's not a requirement for you to use facilities, except
>>> where mandatory sidepath laws exist.
>>
>> That's BS (pardon my french). First of all what kind of choice do you
>> have with cycle lanes, they are mandadory by principle. BTW cycle
>> lanes, they reduce the distance of overtaking cars:
>>
>> http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ce_journalspr
>
>
> Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
> marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
> for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
> is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route, choose
> another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?
>
Im from Germany and I can tell you in most towns many good routes are
facilitated with crappy bicycle infrastructure. It can be very stressful
if car drivers try to insist to use them. Often there is no alternative
route and Im definitely not going to shitty side streets full of
potholes. I dont think I have to just accept the fact that motor traffic
oriented Transportation planners and politicians think cyclist should
ride in the gutter or on the curb of the road and people think this is
safe because they have been told for decades. Im speaking out the
interest of all cyclists if I insist of there right to ride safe. If
most cyclists and motorist dont know how safe riding work it is another
problem.
>> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice
>> cycle path they paid for with hard earned tax money.
>
> Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for out of
> general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
> usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.
>
You dont recognize sarcasm when it bites you in the face?
>> They are honking, yelling, overtaking very close and so on.
>
> They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.
It will get worse after the building of more facilities, you will loose
every right to use the road.
>
>> So Im very much effected by those facilities. Its gone that far that
>> many people (even cyclists) think cyclist dont belong on the road they
>> are better of on the footpath.
>> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
>> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
>
> Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
> most want facilities.
Most want to ride safe, facilities dont do that, so most cyclists just
dont know what they want.
> I'm also against mandating the use of those
> facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
> don't see what's so complicated.
>
You should make a little effort and read what is complicated. I
explained it.
> Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity,
Right
> I don't understand the
> fuss over a possible slight decline in safety
We are not speaking about slight decline. The Federal Highway Research
Institute in Germany came to the conclusion that in Germany cycling
facilities worsened the safety at intersections for 200-300% (and they
only looked at "well" built facilities. The Lund study came to the
conclusion that some facilities worsen safety 1200%. Or do you think
this a slight declines in safety?
> to make a large
> improvement in the cycling experience. I don't like riding in close
> proximity to cars and trucks. It doesn't scare me, it's just unpleasant.
There are measures to reduce motorized traffic.
> I'm extremely happy to have separate facilities. I frequently choose
> slower routes with more dangerous street crossings just to escape the
> din and stench of cars and trucks -- many other cyclists do, too.
Many of them dont know that their behaviour is more dangerous. If you
want to have special infrastructure I think the building of bicycle
boulevards can be useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard
>
> You like the idea of "vehicular" cycling.
Yes.
> I'm exactly the opposite. When
> I'm riding my bike I'm not a vehicle, I'm a cyclist...
riding a vehicle.
Frank
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 6:11 am
From: Peter Cole
Frank Studt wrote:
> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
>> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
>> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>>
> There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode choice
> is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has dealt with
> travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a claim like that
> without testing for confounding factors...
You're over-complicating things.
>> OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
>> they like.
> Im sorry but your statements lag scientific background. Its well known
> since decades in the field of social psychology that you cant directly
> predict behaviour from attitude. Especially if you just use one variable.
> I think the interesting thing about the surveys showing most people
> think segregated facilities are safe and mixed traffic is dangerous is
> that people just dont know where they are safe as cyclists.
Again, you focus exclusively on safety. People are not statisticians.
"Sharing the road" is by and large unpleasant. It might be less so if
drivers were better behaved and the driving was better moderated, but it
still wouldn't be pleasant.
> The only
> consequence can be to enlighten people about their wrong perception.
> Educate them how to ride properly in mixed traffic. Educate car drivers
> to respect cyclists right to the road.
You can't "educate" around the reality of mixing 2 ton vehicles with
vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
> And if you asked the question what kind of infrastructure cyclists like
> on an abstract level they will tell you they prefer infrastructure that
> is safe first and fast second. Both criteria speek for mixed traffic and
> not segregation.
People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction. They demand
facilities, they use them when they get them. What could be more obvious?
>>>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>>>>
>>>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>>>
>>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>>>
>>> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
>>
>> I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.
>>
>
>
> Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
> the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
> making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.
>
> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-spaces.html
So I guess he's (the blogger) an "idiot" until he posts something you
agree with...
The article is old news (as are so many of the quotes and cites --
literally). People have been fretting over cyclists being banned from
the roads for almost 100 years. It's a Forrester bogey-man. It's fear
mongering, nothing more.
Besides, what the argument boils down to is that you feel people should
do something they don't want to do (ride in the street) to protect your
right to ride in the street. That's like telling people who don't like
broccoli that they should eat it anyway because you (who like it) don't
want the broccoli farmers to go out of business. When they complain they
don't like it, you tell them that's immaterial, it's good for them.
>> I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
>> people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
>> that, just watch what they use.
> Again you lag scientific background. The problems your "methods"
> implicate have been discussed for decades in social sciences, economics,
> psychology etc.. I already named you a few and could go on and on....
You want to predict people's preferences, I just want to accommodate
them. I don't need to have predictive models to do that. You presume to
know better, I don't.
>>> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up
>>> with a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling
>>> facilities. Maybe you can name a few.
>>
>> http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20
>>
> Good one. The part about intersections almost exclusively deals with
> roundabouts. There selection of studies is highly biased. I dont want to
> get in to detail with the roundabout-studies but only so much: Most
> accidents between cars and cyclists occur on town street intersections
> and roundabouts are the most uncommon kind of intersection in towns. Why
> the fuck would they concentrate on roundabout-studies. Funny thing they
> came up with Jensens study "Safety effects of blue cycle crossings: a
> before-after study" but missed the Copenhagen study we have been
> discussing. Smells fishy.
You asked for an example. I really don't have the time to critique all
the studies. I merely point out that there is a divergence of opinion.
In any case, as I've belabored, I don't think "safety" is the most
important issue.
>>> BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I said you can find tons
>>> of primary research about the topic.
>>> Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
>>> came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of cyclists.
Yes, I've had no luck finding these in English, so I can't comment other
than to repeat the above.
>>> What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
>>> data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis
>>
>> I'm not so sure. If multiple studies show an overwhelming benefit to
>> cycling from a health POV, including injury & fatalities, then a 10%
>> increase in injuries and fatalities for a 20% increase in cycling would
>> be an ethical trade-off.
>
>
> How exactly do you measure an ethical trade-off.
Probably in years of life.
>> Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular
>>
>
>
> Me insisting on keeping cycling unpopular? Quite the opposite. I named a
> lot of measures to raise the attraction of cycling and reduce car traffic.
Simply stated, vehicular cycling has not been popular. Car traffic
reduction has not been politically feasible. This is in the US, I can't
speak of elsewhere.
>> And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
>> when nobody except a hard core participates.
>>
>
> As told already there are a lot of other measures to built incentives to
> cycle then worsen road safety by building segregated facilities.
But people want facilities and you offer broccoli, then don't understand
when they won't eat it.
>> Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
>> marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
>> for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
>> is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route, choose
>> another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?
>>
>
> Im from Germany and I can tell you in most towns many good routes are
> facilitated with crappy bicycle infrastructure.
I'm sure many are, but doesn't that mean that many aren't?
> It can be very stressful
> if car drivers try to insist to use them. Often there is no alternative
> route and Im definitely not going to shitty side streets full of
> potholes. I dont think I have to just accept the fact that motor traffic
> oriented Transportation planners and politicians think cyclist should
> ride in the gutter or on the curb of the road and people think this is
> safe because they have been told for decades. Im speaking out the
> interest of all cyclists if I insist of there right to ride safe. If
> most cyclists and motorist dont know how safe riding work it is another
> problem.
Again, where facilities exist, cyclists almost universally choose them.
You are in a minority and shouldn't expect the world to conform to your
ideals.
>>> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice
>>> cycle path they paid for with hard earned tax money.
>>
>> Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for out of
>> general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
>> usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.
> You dont recognize sarcasm when it bites you in the face?
Maybe it's a language thing.
>
>
>>> They are honking, yelling, overtaking very close and so on.
>>
>> They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.
>
> It will get worse after the building of more facilities, you will loose
> every right to use the road.
Now you're being hysterical.
>>> So Im very much effected by those facilities. Its gone that far that
>>> many people (even cyclists) think cyclist dont belong on the road they
>>> are better of on the footpath.
>>> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
>>> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
>>
>> Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
>> most want facilities.
>
> Most want to ride safe, facilities dont do that, so most cyclists just
> dont know what they want.
That's a pretty arrogant attitude and it explains a lot.
>> I'm also against mandating the use of those
>> facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
>> don't see what's so complicated.
>>
>
> You should make a little effort and read what is complicated. I
> explained it.
I have followed your "explanations". They're really just your personal
preferences. Calling them universal doesn't make them so.
>> Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity,
>
>
> Right
>
>> I don't understand the
>> fuss over a possible slight decline in safety
>
>
> We are not speaking about slight decline. The Federal Highway Research
> Institute in Germany came to the conclusion that in Germany cycling
> facilities worsened the safety at intersections for 200-300% (and they
> only looked at "well" built facilities. The Lund study came to the
> conclusion that some facilities worsen safety 1200%. Or do you think
> this a slight declines in safety?
I'm unfamiliar with those specific studies. The study you originally
cited (Copenhagen) was 110%, not 300% or 1200%. Still, the argument is
specious because it is possible to design safe segregated facilities,
and making cycling 100% safe does nothing if the modal share is 0.
In this country, with modal share at 0.5%, very little can be justified,
either in facilities or reduction of motor vehicle speeds or densities.
The fate of cycling rests on the possibility of drastically increasing
modal share. Vehicular cycling has been the dominant paradigm for
decades, with little to show for it. Finally, vehicular cycling
ideologues are being pushed out and cycling modal share is increasing.
It's about time. You can't talk people into liking broccoli.
>> to make a large
>> improvement in the cycling experience. I don't like riding in close
>> proximity to cars and trucks. It doesn't scare me, it's just unpleasant.
>
>
> There are measures to reduce motorized traffic.
Yes, of course there are, but in the US at least, politically impossible
for the most part.
>> I'm extremely happy to have separate facilities. I frequently choose
>> slower routes with more dangerous street crossings just to escape the
>> din and stench of cars and trucks -- many other cyclists do, too.
>
>
> Many of them dont know that their behaviour is more dangerous. If you
> want to have special infrastructure I think the building of bicycle
> boulevards can be useful.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard
I'm all in favor of them, but with such a small number of cyclists in
the US, the political base to support them is just too small.
>> You like the idea of "vehicular" cycling.
>
> Yes.
>
>> I'm exactly the opposite. When
>> I'm riding my bike I'm not a vehicle, I'm a cyclist...
>
> riding a vehicle.
You can call a bike a "vehicle", but that doesn't alter the physics. It
doesn't make people enjoy the experience of "sharing the road", either.
It's a rhetorical ploy, nothing more. I am personally very much
opposed to including bicycles in any kind of universal vehicle code.
That's the consequence of "vehicular equivalence". I don't need to
speculate about potential negative consequences, they've already
occurred. What "vehicularists" have lobbied for (and won, here in
Boston), is an increase in bicycle moving violation fines and
enforcement ("same rules, same roads"). I'm ecstatic to see them go.
Cyclists are not the equals of motorists, we have much greater
vulnerabilities and far fewer liabilities. To lump them all together as
"vehicles" is just nuts. But it's the predictable kind of nuttiness that
"vehicular cycling" advocates create.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 9:59 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"
On Aug 14, 2:34 pm, Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/14/2010 09:42 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
>
>
> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 1:27 pm, Jim A<j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2010 09:23 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> >> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> >>> On Aug 14, 1:15 pm, Jim A<j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> On 08/14/2010 12:04 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> >>>> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 13, 12:15 pm, Jim A<j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> I wouldn't recommend /holding/ the lane - just take it for as long as
> >>>>>> you need it then give it back for a bit.
>
> >>>>> This sounds like the war of the trenches. How can I give back a
> >>>>> position I just earned? ;)
>
> >>>> With good grace.
>
> >>> Over my dead body. ;)
>
> >>> I think we should either take the lane or take up indoor cycling.
>
> >>> Taking the lane doesn't need to be more dangerous than fighting a
> >>> bull.
>
> >> I hope you enjoy your indoor cycling. One thing is for sure - it's even
> >> slower than any other kind. 0 mph all the way ...
>
> >> --www.slowbicyclemovement.org-enjoy the ride
>
> > If you take "slow is better" to the end, then not moving makes sense.
> > What's the point of going to the market anyway? Call the delivery boy.
>
> He's riding a stationary bicycle too!
>
> --www.slowbicyclemovement.org- enjoy the ride
I did 4.5 virtual miles yesterday. Smooth take off and landing in my
recumbent on automatic pilot. Nobody blasted the horn or called
obscenities. I ended up in a very high mood, and listened to some
soprano music. Listen for yourself...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcVg1UtQLNQ
I say that because I end up depressed when I ride on the road. Nice,
sexy soprano, right?
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 10:44 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"
On Aug 15, 6:11 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Frank Studt wrote:
> > Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
> >> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
> >> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>
> > There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode choice
> > is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has dealt with
> > travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a claim like that
> > without testing for confounding factors...
>
> You're over-complicating things.
>
> >> OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
> >> they like.
> > Im sorry but your statements lag scientific background. Its well known
> > since decades in the field of social psychology that you cant directly
> > predict behaviour from attitude. Especially if you just use one variable.
> > I think the interesting thing about the surveys showing most people
> > think segregated facilities are safe and mixed traffic is dangerous is
> > that people just dont know where they are safe as cyclists.
>
> Again, you focus exclusively on safety. People are not statisticians.
> "Sharing the road" is by and large unpleasant. It might be less so if
> drivers were better behaved and the driving was better moderated, but it
> still wouldn't be pleasant.
>
> > The only
> > consequence can be to enlighten people about their wrong perception.
> > Educate them how to ride properly in mixed traffic. Educate car drivers
> > to respect cyclists right to the road.
>
> You can't "educate" around the reality of mixing 2 ton vehicles with
> vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
>
> > And if you asked the question what kind of infrastructure cyclists like
> > on an abstract level they will tell you they prefer infrastructure that
> > is safe first and fast second. Both criteria speek for mixed traffic and
> > not segregation.
>
> People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
> perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction. They demand
> facilities, they use them when they get them. What could be more obvious?
>
>
>
> >>>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>
> >>>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>
> >>> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>
> >>>http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>
> >>> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
>
> >> I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.
>
> > Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
> > the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
> > making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.
>
> >http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-s...
>
> So I guess he's (the blogger) an "idiot" until he posts something you
> agree with...
>
> The article is old news (as are so many of the quotes and cites --
> literally). People have been fretting over cyclists being banned from
> the roads for almost 100 years. It's a Forrester bogey-man. It's fear
> mongering, nothing more.
>
> Besides, what the argument boils down to is that you feel people should
> do something they don't want to do (ride in the street) to protect your
> right to ride in the street. That's like telling people who don't like
> broccoli that they should eat it anyway because you (who like it) don't
> want the broccoli farmers to go out of business. When they complain they
> don't like it, you tell them that's immaterial, it's good for them.
>
> >> I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
> >> people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
> >> that, just watch what they use.
> > Again you lag scientific background. The problems your "methods"
> > implicate have been discussed for decades in social sciences, economics,
> > psychology etc.. I already named you a few and could go on and on....
>
> You want to predict people's preferences, I just want to accommodate
> them. I don't need to have predictive models to do that. You presume to
> know better, I don't.
>
> >>> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up
> >>> with a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling
> >>> facilities. Maybe you can name a few.
>
> >>http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20
>
> > Good one. The part about intersections almost exclusively deals with
> > roundabouts. There selection of studies is highly biased. I dont want to
> > get in to detail with the roundabout-studies but only so much: Most
> > accidents between cars and cyclists occur on town street intersections
> > and roundabouts are the most uncommon kind of intersection in towns. Why
> > the fuck would they concentrate on roundabout-studies. Funny thing they
> > came up with Jensens study "Safety effects of blue cycle crossings: a
> > before-after study" but missed the Copenhagen study we have been
> > discussing. Smells fishy.
>
> You asked for an example. I really don't have the time to critique all
> the studies. I merely point out that there is a divergence of opinion.
> In any case, as I've belabored, I don't think "safety" is the most
> important issue.
>
> >>> BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I said you can find tons
> >>> of primary research about the topic.
> >>> Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
> >>> came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of cyclists.
>
> Yes, I've had no luck finding these in English, so I can't comment other
> than to repeat the above.
>
> >>> What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
> >>> data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis
>
> >> I'm not so sure. If multiple studies show an overwhelming benefit to
> >> cycling from a health POV, including injury & fatalities, then a 10%
> >> increase in injuries and fatalities for a 20% increase in cycling would
> >> be an ethical trade-off.
>
> > How exactly do you measure an ethical trade-off.
>
> Probably in years of life.
>
> >> Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular
>
> > Me insisting on keeping cycling unpopular? Quite the opposite. I named a
> > lot of measures to raise the attraction of cycling and reduce car traffic.
>
> Simply stated, vehicular cycling has not been popular. Car traffic
> reduction has not been politically feasible. This is in the US, I can't
> speak of elsewhere.
>
> >> And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
> >> when nobody except a hard core participates.
>
> > As told already there are a lot of other measures to built incentives to
> > cycle then worsen road safety by building segregated facilities.
>
> But people want facilities and you offer broccoli, then don't understand
> when they won't eat it.
>
> >> Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
> >> marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
> >> for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
> >> is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route, choose
> >> another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?
>
> > Im from Germany and I can tell you in most towns many good routes are
> > facilitated with crappy bicycle infrastructure.
>
> I'm sure many are, but doesn't that mean that many aren't?
>
> > It can be very stressful
> > if car drivers try to insist to use them. Often there is no alternative
> > route and Im definitely not going to shitty side streets full of
> > potholes. I dont think I have to just accept the fact that motor traffic
> > oriented Transportation planners and politicians think cyclist should
> > ride in the gutter or on the curb of the road and people think this is
> > safe because they have been told for decades. Im speaking out the
> > interest of all cyclists if I insist of there right to ride safe. If
> > most cyclists and motorist dont know how safe riding work it is another
> > problem.
>
> Again, where facilities exist, cyclists almost universally choose them.
> You are in a minority and shouldn't expect the world to conform to your
> ideals.
>
> >>> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice
> >>> cycle path they paid for with hard earned tax money.
>
> >> Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for out of
> >> general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
> >> usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.
> > You dont recognize sarcasm when it bites you in the face?
>
> Maybe it's a language thing.
>
>
>
> >>> They are honking, yelling, overtaking very close and so on.
>
> >> They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.
>
> > It will get worse after the building of more facilities, you will loose
> > every right to use the road.
>
> Now you're being hysterical.
>
> >>> So Im very much effected by those facilities. Its gone that far that
> >>> many people (even cyclists) think cyclist dont belong on the road they
> >>> are better of on the footpath.
> >>> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
> >>> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
>
> >> Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
> >> most want facilities.
>
> > Most want to ride safe, facilities dont do that, so most cyclists just
> > dont know what they want.
>
> That's a pretty arrogant attitude and it explains a lot.
>
> >> I'm also against mandating the use of those
> >> facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
> >> don't see what's so complicated.
>
> > You should make a little effort and read what is complicated. I
> > explained it.
>
> I have followed your "explanations". They're really just your personal
> preferences. Calling them universal doesn't make them so.
>
> >> Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity,
>
> > Right
>
> >> I don't understand the
> >> fuss over a possible slight decline in safety
>
> > We are not speaking about slight decline. The Federal Highway Research
> > Institute in Germany came to the conclusion that in Germany cycling
> > facilities worsened the safety at intersections for 200-300% (and
>
> ...
>
> read more »
You know, I've been struggling with this issue for many years and I
can almost face the experts and tell them when they are wrong and when
they are fucking wrong. To begin with, the experts will never tell you
that this is a POLITICAL PROBLEM and that it takes POLITICAL WILL to
solve it. All they can tell you is a bland "taking the lane is the
primary position, and if you can't hold it then take the secondary
position."
There's only one PRIMARY SOLUTION (free) and a SECONDARY SOLUTION ($$
$): The right lane is prioritized for bicycles OR build bike
facilities however faulty they are. Given the lousy record of working
lanes in America, though, I favor TAKING THE LANE, but also include
building bike paths (not lanes) for families, children or anyone
doesn't want the challenge of the road.
Anyways you won't get the money to build massive infrastructure in
America, so the PRIMARY SOLUTION is the only solution under the
current conditions, and you let me know when we start or else I go
back to my stationary bike. ;)
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 12:19 pm
From: Frank Studt
Am 15.08.2010 15:11, schrieb Peter Cole:
> Frank Studt wrote:
>> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
>
>>> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
>>> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>>>
>> There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode
>> choice is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has
>> dealt with travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a
>> claim like that without testing for confounding factors...
>
> You're over-complicating things.
>
Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.
>>> OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
>>> they like.
>
>> Im sorry but your statements lag scientific background. Its well known
>> since decades in the field of social psychology that you cant directly
>> predict behaviour from attitude. Especially if you just use one variable.
>> I think the interesting thing about the surveys showing most people
>> think segregated facilities are safe and mixed traffic is dangerous is
>> that people just dont know where they are safe as cyclists.
>
> Again, you focus exclusively on safety. People are not statisticians.
> "Sharing the road" is by and large unpleasant. It might be less so if
> drivers were better behaved and the driving was better moderated, but it
> still wouldn't be pleasant.
>
>
Nope again. People might be confusing "pleasant" or the perceived safety
with real safety but I dont think they tell you they want their kids (or
them self) rather ride on pleasant routes then on safe routes. To
clarify we are talking primary about utility cycling here. And the order
of preferences here is pretty clear:
1. safety
2. velocity
3. pleasantness
Most of the cycle facilities built in Germany dont meet one of the above
criteria. I dont even understand why people think that a marking on the
road (cycle lanes) in the door opening zone could be more pleasant than
riding without marking. Knowing the risks of facilities makes it far
more unpleasant to use them.
>> The only consequence can be to enlighten people about their wrong
>> perception. Educate them how to ride properly in mixed traffic.
>> Educate car drivers to respect cyclists right to the road.
>
> You can't "educate" around the reality of mixing 2 ton vehicles with
> vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
>
Why not? I think a neglected factor is the enforcement of traffic laws
especially on motorized traffic.
>> And if you asked the question what kind of infrastructure cyclists
>> like on an abstract level they will tell you they prefer
>> infrastructure that is safe first and fast second. Both criteria speek
>> for mixed traffic and not segregation.
>
> People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
> perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction.
I really think you are making that up or you are confused, not many
people want their own or the health of their kids be at risk for more
pleasantness. The order of preferences is pretty clear (see above).
> They demand
> facilities,
its more of an excuse, "if there were more facilities I would ride far
more often, but cycling on the road is much to dangerous"
> they use them when they get them. What could be more obvious?
>
Its not obvious at all. The impact on modal split by the building of
facilities have at best been small. Some studies even showed a decline.
We are talking about spending billions (for the whole US) for an
increase in the one digit percent range.
A 2004 study for NL shows that cycling is decreasing\stagnating, despite
the efforts an money put in cycling infrastructure.
http://www.ecf.com/misc/filePush.php?mimeType=application/pdf&fullPath=http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/23/BRR_158_english.pdf
Another study shows that infrastructure is of no relevance for choice of
Transport.
http://www.ecf.com/misc/filePush.php?mimeType=application/pdf&fullPath=http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/23/BRR_159_English.pdf
There is a big misunderstanding of the effect of infrastructure on
cycling in NL, DK. Bicycle use didnt rise after the building of
facilities. It never had been as low as it is in North-America. The
reason for the high figures of cyclists in this countries lie in there
town structure, relatively short ways between housing, work, shopping
etc. and a very late occurrence of mass motorization.
>>>>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>>>>
>>>> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
>>>
>>> I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
>> the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
>> making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.
>>
>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-spaces.html
>>
>
> So I guess he's (the blogger) an "idiot" until he posts something you
> agree with...
>
He didnt write the article above and in his comments he showed that he
did not understand it. So he is an idiot all the time.
> The article is old news (as are so many of the quotes and cites --
> literally). People have been fretting over cyclists being banned from
> the roads for almost 100 years. It's a Forrester bogey-man. It's fear
> mongering, nothing more.
>
BS its not my fault people ignore facts since decades sadly there are no
new news on the topic.
> Besides, what the argument boils down to is that you feel people should
> do something they don't want to do (ride in the street) to protect your
> right to ride in the street. That's like telling people who don't like
> broccoli that they should eat it anyway because you (who like it) don't
> want the broccoli farmers to go out of business. When they complain they
> don't like it, you tell them that's immaterial, it's good for them.
>
Nope Im advocating for the right of cyclists to ride safe and to know
the truth (I know you cant handle the truth) about safer cycling. Its
more like people want bananas and are given cucumbers. I just point out
that a banana is not a cucumber.
>>> I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
>>> people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
>>> that, just watch what they use.
>
>> Again you lag scientific background. The problems your "methods"
>> implicate have been discussed for decades in social sciences,
>> economics, psychology etc.. I already named you a few and could go on
>> and on....
>
> You want to predict people's preferences, I just want to accommodate
> them. I don't need to have predictive models to do that. You presume to
> know better, I don't.
If you want to proof your hypothesis or measure effects of
infrastructure on cycle use you need explanatory models the rest is just
speculating around.
>
>>>> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up
>>>> with a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling
>>>> facilities. Maybe you can name a few.
>>>
>>> http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20
>>>
>
>> Good one. The part about intersections almost exclusively deals with
>> roundabouts. There selection of studies is highly biased. I dont want
>> to get in to detail with the roundabout-studies but only so much: Most
>> accidents between cars and cyclists occur on town street intersections
>> and roundabouts are the most uncommon kind of intersection in towns.
>> Why the fuck would they concentrate on roundabout-studies. Funny thing
>> they came up with Jensens study "Safety effects of blue cycle
>> crossings: a before-after study" but missed the Copenhagen study we
>> have been discussing. Smells fishy.
>
> You asked for an example.
And you came up with a pretty crappy one.
> I really don't have the time to critique all
> the studies. I merely point out that there is a divergence of opinion.
The tendency of the studies regarding safety effects of cycling
infrastructure is pretty clear.
>
>>>> BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I said you can find tons
>>>> of primary research about the topic.
>>>> Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
>>>> came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of cyclists.
>
> Yes, I've had no luck finding these in English, so I can't comment other
> than to repeat the above.
>
>
Dont play dumb. There is enough English material on the issue. In the
above German studies the researchers where pretty astonished that year
long federal and local policies had high negative safety implications
for cyclists.
>>>> What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
>>>> data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure. If multiple studies show an overwhelming benefit to
>>> cycling from a health POV, including injury & fatalities, then a 10%
>>> increase in injuries and fatalities for a 20% increase in cycling would
>>> be an ethical trade-off.
>>
>>
>> How exactly do you measure an ethical trade-off.
>
> Probably in years of life.
>
>>> Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular
>>>
>>
>>
>> Me insisting on keeping cycling unpopular? Quite the opposite. I named
>> a lot of measures to raise the attraction of cycling and reduce car
>> traffic.
>
> Simply stated, vehicular cycling has not been popular. Car traffic
> reduction has not been politically feasible. This is in the US, I can't
> speak of elsewhere.
>
I think its just a question of how many cars are on the road how fast
they are going and with how they are treating other road users. All of
this factors can be influenced and you dont have to spend billions on
facilities.
I think the problem for many towns (people) in the US with making
cycling attractive is that average length of ways between home, work,
shopping etc. are to long. Sadly there isnt much to be done to change
that, land use in the US has been much to car oriented and it will take
decades in most areas to reverse that. Off course there are exceptions.
>
>>> And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
>>> when nobody except a hard core participates.
>>>
>>
>> As told already there are a lot of other measures to built incentives
>> to cycle then worsen road safety by building segregated facilities.
>
> But people want facilities and you offer broccoli, then don't understand
> when they won't eat it.
No, I just tell them a cucumber is not a banana. If they want to believe
cucumbers are bananas I cant change it but I refuse to join them.
>
>>> Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
>>> marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
>>> for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
>>> is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route, choose
>>> another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?
>>>
>>
>> Im from Germany and I can tell you in most towns many good routes are
>> facilitated with crappy bicycle infrastructure.
>
> I'm sure many are, but doesn't that mean that many aren't?
>
No, there are only a few I use and this are the ones that are totally
separated from motorized traffic. But they often have a bad surface and
aren't well maintained, are to small, are use by pedestrians etc.
>> It can be very stressful if car drivers try to insist to use them.
>> Often there is no alternative route and Im definitely not going to
>> shitty side streets full of potholes. I dont think I have to just
>> accept the fact that motor traffic oriented Transportation planners
>> and politicians think cyclist should ride in the gutter or on the curb
>> of the road and people think this is safe because they have been told
>> for decades. Im speaking out the interest of all cyclists if I insist
>> of there right to ride safe. If most cyclists and motorist dont know
>> how safe riding work it is another problem.
>
> Again, where facilities exist, cyclists almost universally choose them.
> You are in a minority and shouldn't expect the world to conform to your
> ideals.
>
Again, where no facilities exist, cyclists almost universally dont
choose them.
>
>>>> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice
>>>> cycle path they paid for with hard earned tax money.
>>>
>>> Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for out of
>>> general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
>>> usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.
>
>> You dont recognize sarcasm when it bites you in the face?
>
> Maybe it's a language thing.
>
Thought it was obvious, but I hope my English is better than your German.
>>
>>
>>>> They are honking, yelling, overtaking very close and so on.
>>>
>>> They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.
>>
>> It will get worse after the building of more facilities, you will
>> loose every right to use the road.
>
> Now you're being hysterical.
>
Not really. Drivers have been yelling at me I should ride on a cycle
path when there wasn't any in a one mile radius. The building of
facilities have the effect that most road users start to (or even more)
think, cyclists dont belong to the road. Many cyclist dont learn how to
ride properly in mixed traffic and it isnt uncommon that they use
pedestrian paths...
>
>>>> So Im very much effected by those facilities. Its gone that far that
>>>> many people (even cyclists) think cyclist dont belong on the road they
>>>> are better of on the footpath.
>>>> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
>>>> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
>>>
>>> Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
>>> most want facilities.
>>
>> Most want to ride safe, facilities dont do that, so most cyclists just
>> dont know what they want.
>
> That's a pretty arrogant attitude and it explains a lot.
>
What exactly does this explain? I think its cynical to make people
believe they are safe on segregated facilities and spend billions on
that crap. As an side effect you freeze the status quo of car dominated
cities for decades by not taking real measures to reduce car use.
>>> I'm also against mandating the use of those
>>> facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
>>> don't see what's so complicated.
>>>
>>
>> You should make a little effort and read what is complicated. I
>> explained it.
>
> I have followed your "explanations". They're really just your personal
> preferences. Calling them universal doesn't make them so.
>
>
Right to life and physical integrity are pretty universal to me as is my
right to use the road with the vehicle I choose without being discriminated.
>>> Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity,
>>
>>
>> Right
>>
>>> I don't understand the
>>> fuss over a possible slight decline in safety
>>
>>
>> We are not speaking about slight decline. The Federal Highway Research
>> Institute in Germany came to the conclusion that in Germany cycling
>> facilities worsened the safety at intersections for 200-300% (and they
>> only looked at "well" built facilities. The Lund study came to the
>> conclusion that some facilities worsen safety 1200%. Or do you think
>> this a slight declines in safety?
>
> I'm unfamiliar with those specific studies. The study you originally
> cited (Copenhagen) was 110%, not 300% or 1200%.
In Countries like DK and NL there is a pretty large safety in numbers
effect working in favor of cyclists. So the negative safety effects of
segregation tend to be smaller cause everybody is allways expecting
cyclists. In Germany we dont have that and in the US it is far worse.
Negative safety effects of facilitation have been much bigger in Germany
and other countries and the same will happen in the US. The smallest
worsening of safety will happen by the building of cycle lanes but I
dont really understand why people claim its more pleasant than riding in
mixed traffic. For me cycle lanes are more unpleasant cause you are
often expected to ride in the door opening zone and motorized traffic is
overtaking in closer proximity.
> Still, the argument is
> specious because it is possible to design safe segregated facilities,
> and making cycling 100% safe does nothing if the modal share is 0.
>
I dont think this scenario is of any interest at all.
> In this country, with modal share at 0.5%, very little can be justified,
> either in facilities or reduction of motor vehicle speeds or densities.
> The fate of cycling rests on the possibility of drastically increasing
> modal share. Vehicular cycling has been the dominant paradigm for
> decades, with little to show for it.
They came up with pretty good advice how to ride safe in mixed traffic
that's not bad.
> Finally, vehicular cycling
> ideologues are being pushed out
Pushed out where? I dont think there have been many in administrations
regarding transportation planning, land use planning and transport
policies in general. This are the key fields that determine modal split.
Have they even been relevant regarding road safety education? In other
words they developed methods how to ride safe and not how to increase
the number of cyclists, you are confused.
> and cycling modal share is increasing.
Nice scapegoat you are constructing.
> It's about time. You can't talk people into liking broccoli.
>
>
But you think you can tell them a cucumber is a banana, good lucky with
that one.
>>> to make a large
>>> improvement in the cycling experience. I don't like riding in close
>>> proximity to cars and trucks. It doesn't scare me, it's just unpleasant.
>>
>>
>> There are measures to reduce motorized traffic.
>
> Yes, of course there are, but in the US at least, politically impossible
> for the most part.
>
>
Bad for you. Most towns in the US are not fit for utility cycling
(distances to large for the majority of the typical fast food nourished
suburban SUV-driver). There have and will be exceptions of course.
>>> I'm extremely happy to have separate facilities. I frequently choose
>>> slower routes with more dangerous street crossings just to escape the
>>> din and stench of cars and trucks -- many other cyclists do, too.
>>
>>
>> Many of them dont know that their behaviour is more dangerous. If you
>> want to have special infrastructure I think the building of bicycle
>> boulevards can be useful.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard
>
> I'm all in favor of them, but with such a small number of cyclists in
> the US, the political base to support them is just too small.
>
>
>>> You like the idea of "vehicular" cycling.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> I'm exactly the opposite. When
>>> I'm riding my bike I'm not a vehicle, I'm a cyclist...
>>
>> riding a vehicle.
>
> You can call a bike a "vehicle", but that doesn't alter the physics. It
> doesn't make people enjoy the experience of "sharing the road", either.
> It's a rhetorical ploy, nothing more. I am personally very much opposed
> to including bicycles in any kind of universal vehicle code.
Car drivers an pedestrians will hate and disrespect you for that (even
more). And I cant take you serious on that one or explain:
> I am personally very much opposed
> to including bicycles in any kind of universal vehicle code.
> That's the
> consequence of "vehicular equivalence". I don't need to speculate about
> potential negative consequences, they've already occurred. What
> "vehicularists" have lobbied for (and won, here in Boston), is an
> increase in bicycle moving violation fines and enforcement ("same rules,
> same roads"). I'm ecstatic to see them go. Cyclists are not the equals
> of motorists, we have much greater vulnerabilities and far fewer
> liabilities. To lump them all together as "vehicles" is just nuts. But
> it's the predictable kind of nuttiness that "vehicular cycling"
> advocates create.
I dont think you are right and just work on your building of a
scapegoat. It can be easily argued that the dangers of cyclist for other
road users is relatively small so should be fines. But I do think
operating a bicycle should not follow traffic rules. Traffic rules and
there following are a necessity to raise predictability of behaviour.
With your position nobody will ever take cyclists serious as equal road
users. If cyclists take your viewpoint they always will be weirdos with
a kid toy.
Frank
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 12:32 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories"
On Aug 15, 12:19 pm, Frank Studt <frank.st...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 15.08.2010 15:11, schrieb Peter Cole:
>
> > Frank Studt wrote:
> >> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
>
> >>> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
> >>> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>
> >> There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode
> >> choice is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has
> >> dealt with travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a
> >> claim like that without testing for confounding factors...
>
> > You're over-complicating things.
>
> Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.
I'll make simple for you: IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!
"Exorbitant parking fees are yet another reason for keeping the car
culture"
The "car culture" has little to do with culture or public preference
or convenience. CONVENIENCE IS HAVING OPTIONS, ie. cars, public
transportation, bicycles, etc.
The car is about BIG MONEY, and this goes together with Darwinian
Capitalism. Yep, and we fell in the "trap" of the Hungry Lion today.
We went to this high school contest in the early hours (not fancy
opera concert time) and when we came out of the parking lot three
hours later they charged us... 22 bucks! (That's American dollars)
Oh c'mon, they never posted the rates and we may not have had the
money to come out. It's a rip off, legalized predatory behavior by a
private parking lot (so it was a private lion, not the city). When we
came out a Taxi driver said, "Oh, you fell into the trap."
NOTE: This happened at the Omni parking lot, next to the Carnival
Center of the Arts, near downtown Miami.
NEXT TIME...
http://kiwipolemicist.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/giving-the-finger-gorilla.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
"WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE"
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 2:47 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories"
On Aug 15, 12:32 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the
calories" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 12:19 pm, Frank Studt <frank.st...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 15.08.2010 15:11, schrieb Peter Cole:
>
> > > Frank Studt wrote:
> > >> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
>
> > >>> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
> > >>> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>
> > >> There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode
> > >> choice is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has
> > >> dealt with travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a
> > >> claim like that without testing for confounding factors...
>
> > > You're over-complicating things.
>
> > Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.
>
> I'll make simple for you: IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!
>
> "Exorbitant parking fees are yet another reason for keeping the car
> culture"
>
> The "car culture" has little to do with culture or public preference
> or convenience. CONVENIENCE IS HAVING OPTIONS, ie. cars, public
> transportation, bicycles, etc.
>
> The car is about BIG MONEY, and this goes together with Darwinian
> Capitalism. Yep, and we fell in the "trap" of the Hungry Lion today.
> We went to this high school contest in the early hours (not fancy
> opera concert time) and when we came out of the parking lot three
> hours later they charged us... 22 bucks! (That's American dollars)
>
> Oh c'mon, they never posted the rates and we may not have had the
> money to come out. It's a rip off, legalized predatory behavior by a
> private parking lot (so it was a private lion, not the city). When we
> came out a Taxi driver said, "Oh, you fell into the trap."
>
> NOTE: This happened at the Omni parking lot, next to the Carnival
> Center of the Arts, near downtown Miami.
>
> http://www.omni-parking.com/
>
> NEXT TIME...
>
> http://kiwipolemicist.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/giving-the-finger-g...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> "WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE"
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
On Aug 15, 12:57 pm, "J.R.Guthrie" <jguth...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
>
> > The "car culture" has little to do with culture or public preference
> > or convenience. CONVENIENCE IS HAVING OPTIONS, ie. cars, public
> > transportation, bicycles, etc.
>
> The "Car Culture" is all about transfers of wealth through subsidies to
> automobile users. The Libertarians in California once figures that 88% of
> the public cost of the auto on the public highway is subsidy -- taken from
> taxation unrelated to the use of the private auto.
>
> This goes back to the earlier part of the 20th Century, when Liberals and
> Progressives wanted to stick it to the Railroad Robber Barns and the Transit
> Tycoons -- so they set up all manner of subsidies so every man could be the
> king of his own destiny and avoid the profit-makers and private enterprise.
>
> Pres. Wilson even vetoed the Federal Highway Act of 1916 as un-American, but
> the Progressives in Congress over-rode the veto.
>
> Americans love a free lunch when they can get it, and they love Socialism
> and big gummint, central planning when it suits 'em.
>
> But not one who has ever stepped on an automobile accelerator to pull out of
> their private driveway can every honestly say they oppose government
> enterprise (except maybe for government enterprise that benefits someone
> other than themselves -- which for some, might be modern public
> transportation, since the power to tax was the power to destroy private
> enterprise in transit).
>
> You Big Government Tax and Spend Types are all the same.
>
> Cheers,
> Jim Guthrie
Right. More recent of the evidence of the above is that any candidate
to president who proposes to raise gasoline taxes is dead fish. They
could have raised the money for the war from it, but weren't willing
to pay the price. Last one was Perot...
Now we are in big debt, no money for public transportation or
infrastructure, except a little big waste here and there. ;)
Democracy and public transportation are at odds. Chavez though is
further down the road to socialism. Gassing up a big SUV costs you 2
bucks --thanks to subsidy.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Simple hack to get $3000 to your paypal account..
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4acec3623418273f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 4:47 am
From: SUHASINI
Simple hack to get $3000 to your paypal account at http://lifeisbeatiful.co.cc
i have hidden the paypal form link in an image.
in that website on Right Side below search box,
click on image and enter your name and paypal id.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Substitute for cinder blocks in making temporary bookshelves?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/92981ff9ab48c4ff?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 6:40 am
From: mike
I've made temporary bookshelves out of planks of wood using cinder
blocks to separate the planks. But cinder blocks are too heavy. Any
recommendations for something lighter to use? The bookshelves will
contain all paperbacks, so each shelf doesn't need to support a lot of
weight. Don't care about aesthetics (obviously!). The bookshelves will
live in a large walk-in closet. Just need visual access to the books
(vs. sitting in cardboard boxes).
Thanks!
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 7:06 am
From: mike
On Aug 15, 9:40 am, mike <mikeer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've made temporary bookshelves out of planks of wood using cinder
> blocks to separate the planks. But cinder blocks are too heavy. Any
> recommendations for something lighter to use? The bookshelves will
> contain all paperbacks, so each shelf doesn't need to support a lot of
> weight. Don't care about aesthetics (obviously!). The bookshelves will
> live in a large walk-in closet. Just need visual access to the books
> (vs. sitting in cardboard boxes).
>
> Thanks!
Cinder blocks are also too tall for paperbacks. Using them would
result in wasted wall space. Is there anything else I can pick-up
cheaply at my local Home Depot or Lowes to substitute for cinder
blocks? Something that would accommodate paperbacks without the wasted
space.
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 8:30 am
From: Shawn Hirn
In article
<43a0b05f-48a6-4aad-af82-f07e8bc4e3cd@p7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
mike <mikeerdas@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've made temporary bookshelves out of planks of wood using cinder
> blocks to separate the planks. But cinder blocks are too heavy. Any
> recommendations for something lighter to use? The bookshelves will
> contain all paperbacks, so each shelf doesn't need to support a lot of
> weight. Don't care about aesthetics (obviously!). The bookshelves will
> live in a large walk-in closet. Just need visual access to the books
> (vs. sitting in cardboard boxes).
>
> Thanks!
Those plastic mesh crates you can find in stores like Target and Walmart.
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 9:17 am
From: Jeff Thies
On 8/15/2010 9:40 AM, mike wrote:
> I've made temporary bookshelves out of planks of wood using cinder
> blocks to separate the planks. But cinder blocks are too heavy. Any
> recommendations for something lighter to use? The bookshelves will
> contain all paperbacks, so each shelf doesn't need to support a lot of
> weight. Don't care about aesthetics (obviously!). The bookshelves will
> live in a large walk-in closet. Just need visual access to the books
> (vs. sitting in cardboard boxes).
Shelves are cheap and come in a variety of sizes. Generally there are a
series of holes (1/8") on the sides and you can insert pegs to sit a
shelf on exactly where needed. You could be build your own, it's just a
box. The back typically keeps it from slumping over. I made some
recently with a half back and it is holding a lot. Alternatively attach
to wall (look for stud).
Books, whether hard bound or paperback are heavy. Pick up that box of
books again...
Try Target or IKEA, Walmart is a lower quality, but usable if also
annoying. Or Goodwill.
Jeff
>
> Thanks!
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 10:55 am
From: mike
Thanks Shawn and Jeff.
Wonder if they have "half height" cinder blocks. Or if there's a
cinder-block like item at a Home Depot or Lowes that would serve the
purpose. I have thought of milk crate-like boxes, but they're too wide
and probably too tall.
Definitely not interested in buying pre-made bookshelves. There either
aren't enough planks or they're not wide enough. I have a walk-in
closet where I could easily put in temporary shelving from 5 to 6 ft
long. They don't make bookcases that long so far as I know.
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 1:49 pm
From: Vandy Terre
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:55:07 -0700 (PDT), mike <mikeerdas@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thanks Shawn and Jeff.
>
>Wonder if they have "half height" cinder blocks. Or if there's a
>cinder-block like item at a Home Depot or Lowes that would serve the
>purpose. I have thought of milk crate-like boxes, but they're too wide
>and probably too tall.
>
>Definitely not interested in buying pre-made bookshelves. There either
>aren't enough planks or they're not wide enough. I have a walk-in
>closet where I could easily put in temporary shelving from 5 to 6 ft
>long. They don't make bookcases that long so far as I know.
Right now at my local WalMart there are half size 'milk' crates for sale as part
of school supplies. These in combination with planks might do the job.
Long ago, we used orange crates instead of bricks or concrete blocks. Check the
grocery produce manager for wood vegetable crates that will be tossed into the
trash. Also consider coffee cans as spacers. The canisters can be filled with
sand or rock or any thing with weight like collectable coins.
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 3:06 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
mike wrote:
> I've made temporary bookshelves out of planks of wood using cinder
> blocks to separate the planks. But cinder blocks are too heavy.
Too heavy for what ? Just moving them around when making the bookshelves ?
Seems pretty silly to worry about something you dont do often enough to matter.
You can get much lighter than normal blocks, still the same size but of lighter concrete.
> Any recommendations for something lighter to use?
The lighter blocks.
> The bookshelves will contain all paperbacks, so each shelf doesn't
> need to support a lot of weight. Don't care about aesthetics (obviously!).
They do look pretty reasonable anyway.
> The bookshelves will live in a large walk-in closet. Just need
> visual access to the books (vs. sitting in cardboard boxes).
Some people do use the very large plastic crates used to move
bread around in, just one book deep. The sellers of second hand
books at sales that move around do use those quite a bit, works
reasonably well, but not as good as proper bookshelves.
I make proper bookshelves with slotted square steel tubing, 1", with
aluminum flats in the slots to hold up the shelves but you do need to
be able to weld up the slotted square steel tubing unless you use the
Dexion system which has corners you hammer into the ends of the tubes.
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 3:11 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
mike wrote:
> On Aug 15, 9:40 am, mike <mikeer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I've made temporary bookshelves out of planks of wood using cinder
>> blocks to separate the planks. But cinder blocks are too heavy. Any
>> recommendations for something lighter to use? The bookshelves will
>> contain all paperbacks, so each shelf doesn't need to support a lot
>> of weight. Don't care about aesthetics (obviously!). The bookshelves
>> will live in a large walk-in closet. Just need visual access to the
>> books (vs. sitting in cardboard boxes).
> Cinder blocks are also too tall for paperbacks.
Not enough to matter.
> Using them would result in wasted wall space. Is there anything else I can pick-up
> cheaply at my local Home Depot or Lowes to substitute for cinder blocks?
> Something that would accommodate paperbacks without the wasted space.
Nope, thats why every uses blocks.
The slotted square tubing does fix the spacing problem because the slots are at
1" spaces. But that costs rather more than the blocks if you use the dexion system.
It works out pretty cheap if you can weld up rectacular frames and wouldnt cost
that much to get someone to weld them for you if you cant. You screw the frames
to the wall and use aluminum flats in the slots to hold the shelves themselves up.
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 3:14 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
mike wrote:
> Wonder if they have "half height" cinder blocks.
Yes they do, but that wont work because they are 4" high, too low for paperbacks.
> Or if there's a cinder-block like item at a Home Depot or Lowes
> that would serve the purpose. I have thought of milk crate-like
> boxes, but they're too wide and probably too tall.
Correct on both counts.
You can use bricks, but they arent anything like as stable as blocks.
> Definitely not interested in buying pre-made bookshelves. There either
> aren't enough planks or they're not wide enough. I have a walk-in
> closet where I could easily put in temporary shelving from 5 to 6 ft
> long. They don't make bookcases that long so far as I know.
Corse they do.
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 3:26 pm
From: mike
On Aug 15, 6:14 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> mike wrote:
> > Wonder if they have "half height" cinder blocks.
>
> Yes they do, but that wont work because they are 4" high, too low for paperbacks.
I checked my local Home Depot today. They sell 6" x 6" x 6" half
cinder blocks for $1.27 each. Perfect for paperbacks.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to cook corn meal fine
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/404810c22fe27559?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 12:03 pm
From: noel888
On Aug 14, 11:46 pm, "The Henchman" <y...@yup.org> wrote:
> "Gary Heston" <ghes...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9I6dnYtnV7y4rvrRnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@posted.hiwaay2...
>
> > In article
> > <89946692-231f-45ae-a549-fe2537514...@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > noel888 <harri85...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>No d irections at all on how to prepare this. Googled it and all i got
> >>were places where they want all your personal info before giving a
> >>recipe. I'm looking for the easiest and simplest way, if there is such
> >>a way. Thanks
>
> > Cornmeal is generally used for making things like cornbread, corn muffins,
> > and tortillas; have you looked fore recipes for them?
>
> > Is there anything you're specifically looking to cook?
>
> > Gary
>
> If you are cooking "polenta", the general rule is 4 cups of water per 1 cup
> of cornmeal. Salt to taste. about 30 to 40 minutes stovetop cooking
> time, like rice. I also use butter or cheese to taste with my cornmeal.
>
> You can also microwave it I was told. Boil the water first then add the
> cornmeal for less than 10 minutes. I've never tried this method.
>
> You gotta whisk it a lot at the beginning to get t eh texture right via
> stovetop method. You can also chill it afterwards and eat it like a load
> with your favourite topping ( use antipasto and crumbled pancetta and other
> times I used leftover Mexican taco or fajita meats)
HI, thanks yeah, that was the word escaping me "Polenta"..that
microwave cooking sounds interesting, but like others have said, you
have to whisk it constantly so it doesn't lump...if that is the case,
how does one whisk it in a microwave oven? LOL
==============================================================================
TOPIC: replacement car tires
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f3c01c800d47b4a2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 1:12 pm
From: Ohioguy
Are the manufacturer warranties on tires worth anything?
Typically, we replace our tires with new ones after about 2 or 2.5
years, just so we don't risk being on vacation or something and having
problems.
In the past, I've always gone to the same place and had them install
Dayton brand tires. I liked the fact that they were made in the USA, in
a factory that employed about 1,800.
We have a different car than we had last year, but my records show
that the last time we got new tires was 2007. At that time, we paid $60
per tire. When I called yesterday, they said each would be about $88 -
almost a 50% increase.
That's huge for such a short period. Is there a rubber shortage or
something?
Anyway, I find myself re-evaluating my habits here. I'm wondering if
it might be worth it to shop around online or something, and find a
place that offers a lower price, or higher tire wear warranty.
I'm just not sure it would be worth it. In my experience, the tires
last longest if they are regularly balanced & such. I think most places
charge for this, don't they? One thing I liked about the place we've
used is that you can come back every 10k and have rotation & balance
done free.
Even Wal-Mart has higher prices now that I've checked - $75 for a
decent tire there, and that doesn't even include installation,
balancing, rotation, etc. (it's $90 per tire with those included)
Are there any places online that offer good prices and low shipping
on a 60k or 80k mile warranted tire? Would I be better off sticking
with the local place because of the service that they offer?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 3:36 pm
From: Al
On Aug 15, 4:12 pm, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> Are the manufacturer warranties on tires worth anything?
>
> Typically, we replace our tires with new ones after about 2 or 2.5
> years, just so we don't risk being on vacation or something and having
> problems.
>
> In the past, I've always gone to the same place and had them install
> Dayton brand tires. I liked the fact that they were made in the USA, in
> a factory that employed about 1,800.
>
> We have a different car than we had last year, but my records show
> that the last time we got new tires was 2007. At that time, we paid $60
> per tire. When I called yesterday, they said each would be about $88 -
> almost a 50% increase.
>
> That's huge for such a short period. Is there a rubber shortage or
> something?
>
> Anyway, I find myself re-evaluating my habits here. I'm wondering if
> it might be worth it to shop around online or something, and find a
> place that offers a lower price, or higher tire wear warranty.
>
> I'm just not sure it would be worth it. In my experience, the tires
> last longest if they are regularly balanced & such. I think most places
> charge for this, don't they? One thing I liked about the place we've
> used is that you can come back every 10k and have rotation & balance
> done free.
>
> Even Wal-Mart has higher prices now that I've checked - $75 for a
> decent tire there, and that doesn't even include installation,
> balancing, rotation, etc. (it's $90 per tire with those included)
>
> Are there any places online that offer good prices and low shipping
> on a 60k or 80k mile warranted tire? Would I be better off sticking
> with the local place because of the service that they offer?
Last time I paid about $110 per tire for four large truck tires. I let
the GoodYear shop show me what they have and I depend on them to
reveal the various grades. The tires seem to last forever. I replace
when they get down on tread because I like a good tread on the snow.
The price included new stems and balancing. They would rotate them
free, but I keep my alignment tight and never have unusual wear so it
doesn't seem necessary. Tires are more expensive because tires are
made from OIL.
How many miles are you getting on a set of tires?
If you buy tires online you will pay substantial shipping and it will
cost $12-15 per tire for mounting, balancing and tire disposal. You
are also going to waste a lot of time moving tires around and waiting
for service behind those who are buying new tires.
My view is not standard on this, but I don't buy products based on
warranty whatsoever. I'd buy a new car with no warranty if they would
reduce the cost in line with the baked in warranty charge.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is it worth it?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9a6902a43392b7ce?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 15 2010 3:55 pm
From: MAS
A local bank has offered to give me $100.00, if I open a checking
account with at least $25.00 and either make 5 debit card transactions
or 1 automatic deposit within 60 days. The $100.00 will be reported as
interest income. Each debit card transaction is charged $0.25. You
must keep the account open for at least 6 months. I didn't see anything
about a minimum balance required. All of my financial stuff is set up
through a credit union. If I go through with this, I would do an
automatic deposit, maybe $10.00 of each paycheck. Is it worth the hassle?
Marsha
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
