Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 9 topics

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is a Mosque at Ground Zero equivalent to a McDonald's in Baghdad?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/423e285d607ff4c7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 21 2010 10:28 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"

On Aug 21, 9:23 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
> "Hachiroku ????" <anonym...@not-for-mail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:i4otqg$4nb$5@tioat.net...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:53:52 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
> >>>> Do you believe that our policies NEVER result in consequences?
>
> >>> What did the WTC have to do with this?
>
> >>>> Answer carefully. Focus on the word NEVER.
>
> >> Can't discuss it without an answer to this question:
>
> >> Do you believe that our policies NEVER result in consequences?
>
> > Of course not!
>
> Then logically, a violent response is understandable. In this country, we
> pretty much know that if we want something changed, it can be done without
> violence, although we may not have enough money to bribe or embarrass the
> appropriate parties when the democratic process isn't the answer. In the
> case of a country whose people do not want us to have a military presence,
> even a peaceful one, there is NO amount of money which can sufficiently
> bribe the appropriate parties.
>
> You will now say I approve of the attack on the WTC. Try not to be a moron,
> just for one minute each month.

Par me, we got the best government money can buy. ;)

But we can bring any government down if we masturbate for peace and
keep at it long enough to amount to an indefinite general strike.

http://webpspawner.com/users/MASTURBATIONFORPEACE

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Replace internal DVD-RW on Dell Inspiron 5000 rather than buy a new
laptop? External or internal and compatibility?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e10b4b7a95b80a1f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 4:27 am
From: mike

On Aug 21, 11:25 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> "http://www.brainydeal.com/Slim-8x-CD-DVD-RW-Dual/M/B002IJ6CHG.htm"
>
> Note the most of the internal drives are pretty standard but they attach
> a proprietary connector to the standard connector, and may have a custom
> colored plastic front piece. You can sometimes swap those from the old
> drive. But the actual correct drive is not much more expensive.

Thanks SMS. Just realized I have an Inspiron 6000, not a 5000. Wrote
to Dell and they gave me the following part numbers for my Inspiron
6000:

"M6788, P7464 , UC823. You may choose any one part number provided"

May just get an external one; then it can be shared with my wife's
NetBook. It's about the same price; possibly less than getting the
internal. Good to have options.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: See Hot Sexy Star* Angelina Jolie* Nude Bathing Videos In All Angles
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/785c9ee4cf288097?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 5:05 am
From: sukanya

See Hot Sexy Star *Angelina Jolie* Nude Bathing Videos In All Angles
At http://moneyforwarding.co.cc

Due to high sex content, i have hidden the videos in an image.
in that website on Right side below search box click on image and
watch videos in all angles.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: This is one good reason I hate God
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5f54a12b6442f2cd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 6:11 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"

Aren't we kind of hunting for God to save him from a cat? Yes, in many
ways he's like a parrot, except he doesn't talk...

On Aug 22, 2:26 am, livvy <go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:21 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
> Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the

> > "When God doesn't talk to you, get a parrot"
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> God's fine....more to the point....you have no regard for God, why
> talk about him? Just ignore...go away. Those who do believe will
> do so, you have no regard whatsoever....and yet you waste so much time
> yapping. Why would one do that? You hate any thought of
> "God".....why can't you accept that, and shut up? Who asked you?

The concept of God is dangerous one. Why hate the Christians when they
only act as idiotic as their faith?

Like I've said, God has wings and may be in danger of being eaten by a
cat.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 7:35 am
From: "Edward Dolan"

"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock"
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4791b4ec-b55c-4662-b2fc-c0f4998cf57c@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Aren't we kind of hunting for God to save him from a cat? Yes, in many
> ways he's like a parrot, except he doesn't talk...
>
> On Aug 22, 2:26 am, livvy <go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 5:21 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>> Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the
>
>> > "When God doesn't talk to you, get a parrot"
>>
>> >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>>
>> God's fine....more to the point....you have no regard for God, why
>> talk about him? Just ignore...go away. Those who do believe will
>> do so, you have no regard whatsoever....and yet you waste so much time
>> yapping. Why would one do that? You hate any thought of
>> "God".....why can't you accept that, and shut up? Who asked you?
>
> The concept of God is dangerous one. Why hate the Christians when they
> only act as idiotic as their faith?
>
> Like I've said, God has wings and may be in danger of being eaten by a
> cat.

TM is a poor crazy bastard who just posts on his one favorite subject -
hatred of motor vehicles because they interfere with his use of the roads.
His other favorite subject is attacking Christianity. If you respond to this
poor crazy bastard, then you are a poor crazy bastard too.

He likes to reference monkeys and other wild animals normally found only in
zoos because he is most likely a wild beast himself. I think he fornicates
with monkeys, but I can't prove it.

TM should confine himself to just one thread instead of proliferating them
like a poor crazy bastard. He is insane of course. I liken him to the
village idiot of olden times. The difference these days is that no one any
longer recognizes the village idiot because idiocy has become so widespread.

But I will be here to remind one and all of what a poor crazy bastard TM is.
It is mark of My Greatness that I can still recognize the village idiot even
if the rest of you can't.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 1:37 pm
From: The Real Bev

On 08/22/10 07:35, Edward Dolan wrote:

> TM is a poor crazy bastard who just posts on his one favorite subject -
> hatred of motor vehicles because they interfere with his use of the roads.
> His other favorite subject is attacking Christianity. If you respond to this
> poor crazy bastard, then you are a poor crazy bastard too.

You may be interested in the LOLCat Bible, passed down to the faithful
by the Great Ceiling Cat. http://www.lolcatbible.com/

--
Cheers,
Bev
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
This is Usenet. We *are* the trained body for dealing
with psychotics. -- A. Dingley

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 1:55 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i4s1r8$da7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 08/22/10 07:35, Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> TM is a poor crazy bastard who just posts on his one favorite subject -
>> hatred of motor vehicles because they interfere with his use of the
>> roads.
>> His other favorite subject is attacking Christianity. If you respond to
>> this
>> poor crazy bastard, then you are a poor crazy bastard too.
>
> You may be interested in the LOLCat Bible, passed down to the faithful by
> the Great Ceiling Cat. http://www.lolcatbible.com/

On the other hand, I may be uninterested. I never go to a link unless it is
fully explained beforehand.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 2:45 pm
From: The Real Bev

On 08/22/10 13:55, Edward Dolan wrote:

> "The Real Bev"<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You may be interested in the LOLCat Bible, passed down to the faithful by
>> the Great Ceiling Cat. http://www.lolcatbible.com/
>
> On the other hand, I may be uninterested. I never go to a link unless it is
> fully explained beforehand.

I would have thought that 'LOLCat Bible' was sufficiently explicatory.
Had you been reading m.c.f-l for more than a few hours you would know
that I do not send people to virus-laden or pornographic sites.

Would 'linkophobia' or 'siteophobia' be the more appropriate word?

And speaking of phobias -- We have words like homophobia and
islamophobia, defined as fear of those concepts. -philia denotes love
of concepts. I've googled -- unsuccessfully -- for a while trying to
find a proper suffix to indicate indifference or distaste for concepts.
Any ideas?

--
Cheers, Bev
=========================================
"Welcome to Hell, here's your accordion."

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 3:09 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i4s5pl$m5e$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 08/22/10 13:55, Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> "The Real Bev"<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>>> You may be interested in the LOLCat Bible, passed down to the faithful
>>> by
>>> the Great Ceiling Cat. http://www.lolcatbible.com/
>>
>> On the other hand, I may be uninterested. I never go to a link unless it
>> is
>> fully explained beforehand.
>
> I would have thought that 'LOLCat Bible' was sufficiently explicatory. Had
> you been reading m.c.f-l for more than a few hours you would know that I
> do not send people to virus-laden or pornographic sites.
>
> Would 'linkophobia' or 'siteophobia' be the more appropriate word?

Always briefly explain what is to be found on any website you would like
anyone to go to. That is not an unreasonable request.

I am now the guardian of RBS since the Great Mr. Vandeman has left us for
greener pastures.

> And speaking of phobias -- We have words like homophobia and
> islamophobia, defined as fear of those concepts. -philia denotes love of
> concepts. I've googled -- unsuccessfully -- for a while trying to find a
> proper suffix to indicate indifference or distaste for concepts. Any
> ideas?

Yes! Fuck ALL Muslims! I hate the whole god damn tribe of them. I have
repeatedly advocated the atom bombing of the entire Middle East (save Israel
of course), but no one ever listens to me.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 4:32 pm
From: "Lou"

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i4s5pl$m5e$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 08/22/10 13:55, Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > "The Real Bev"<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> You may be interested in the LOLCat Bible, passed down to the faithful
by
> >> the Great Ceiling Cat. http://www.lolcatbible.com/
> >
> > On the other hand, I may be uninterested. I never go to a link unless it
is
> > fully explained beforehand.
>
> I would have thought that 'LOLCat Bible' was sufficiently explicatory.
> Had you been reading m.c.f-l for more than a few hours you would know
> that I do not send people to virus-laden or pornographic sites.
>
> Would 'linkophobia' or 'siteophobia' be the more appropriate word?
>
> And speaking of phobias -- We have words like homophobia and
> islamophobia, defined as fear of those concepts. -philia denotes love
> of concepts. I've googled -- unsuccessfully -- for a while trying to
> find a proper suffix to indicate indifference or distaste for concepts.
> Any ideas?
>

-phobia and -philia come fom Greek roots. From another Greek root -
"path" - meaning feeling or suffering, we get words like apathy, which among
other things can be defined as indifference. We might take a clue from this
word - the prefix "a" meaning "not" or "without". Maybe you're really
looking for a prefix, not a suffix.

There are words denoting specific types of indifference. Laodiceanism, for
instance, is the quality of being indfferent in politics or religion.
Pococurantism is indifference nor nonchance. Insouciance is lack of care or
concern. But I've never heard of a general suffix that conveys the idea of
indifference.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kosher Nostra Scam
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/916273292cd037a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 6:54 am
From: "Witziges Rätsel"

<tripletask@gmail..com> wrote in message
news:dhq07691esusuap2gutmudjuif442l47pa@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:52:34 -0400, "Witziges Rätsel"
> <zer@roer.invalid.com> wrote:
>>"walt tonne" <tonnewalt487@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:79f1be67-ee34-4ac3-a101-fe81f7fc5735@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Amazing that this scam is still operating. Start looking while you
>>> shop.
>>>
>> Isn't it also amazing that Mt Rushmore has lasted this long
>>without crumbling?
>>
> This kosher food deal has been going on alot longer then Mt. Rushmore,
> circa 1936.
>
Isn't the great taste of Kosher food amazing? Except there's
no pork. What with that? Pigs are delicious.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rabies shots
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f53c6a9297b41852?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 7:07 am
From: VFW

In article <georgeswk-CB8547.08213221082010@news.toast.net>,
VFW <georgeswk@toast.net> wrote:

> In article <georgeswk-044287.08124320082010@news.toast.net>,
> VFW <georgeswk@toast.net> wrote:
>
> > our Vet. wants $50 for a shot for the barn cat.
> > Clinics charge $11 but you wait in line and they are only open for an
> > hour on Saturday.
> > I wonder what the actual shot costs. anyone?
>
> well, doing some searches on the "net"
> yielded a price . the cost for the vet is about $1.65. when I told the
> vet. this and told them I could pay $20, they yielded and we settled on
> $22. the local "shot clinic" charges $11
> I mentioned this on "Craigslist" "Rants n Raves" a free forum you might
> enjoy.

and you might have second thoughts about visiting a Vet. that charges
like $50 for just one rabies shot. They are not serving the community
to make such shots less available. are they Greedy?
--
Money! What a concept.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: cell phones for the "home-less"?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/12b8843e63d546d8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 7:09 am
From: VFW

I want to give a home-less woman an old phone no longer in service but
I've heard you can still call 911. is that true?
I see "dead" phones at yard sales. would they work?
--
Money! What a concept.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 9:24 am
From: larry

VFW wrote:
> I want to give a home-less woman an old phone no longer in service but
> I've heard you can still call 911. is that true?
> I see "dead" phones at yard sales. would they work?

If she gets almost any type of state or federal aid, she
could qualify for one of the free 200min/mo cell services.
It's the latest of the "lifeline" replacements paid for with
you federal or state universal service fund tax. Wireless
can now offer dialtone for less than the ilec wired
dialtone, the few that even offer wired home service anymore.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 9:39 am
From: myob@inter.net

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:09:20 -0700, VFW <georgeswk@toast.net> wrote:

>I want to give a home-less woman an old phone no longer in service but
>I've heard you can still call 911. is that true?
>I see "dead" phones at yard sales. would they work?

the companies all have to let you call 911 any time. in nyc at least,
you can also get 'life-line service' for a cell phone, but i think it
costs $1/month. this is only a few calls, but it's better than
nothing. if she isn't together enough to get proof of income
[welfare, food stamps, maybe medicaid] or keep up monthly payments and
you want her to have it, you might be able to pay up front fo a year
for her.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 9:32 am
From: VFW

In article <2ccco.19029$st2.9955@newsfe09.iad>,
larry <larry@foobar.com> wrote:

> VFW wrote:
> > I want to give a home-less woman an old phone no longer in service but
> > I've heard you can still call 911. is that true?
> > I see "dead" phones at yard sales. would they work?
>
>
> If she gets almost any type of state or federal aid, she
> could qualify for one of the free 200min/mo cell services.
> It's the latest of the "lifeline" replacements paid for with
> you federal or state universal service fund tax. Wireless
> can now offer dialtone for less than the ilec wired
> dialtone, the few that even offer wired home service anymore.

why, thanks for the idea.
--
Money! What a concept.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 1:34 pm
From: The Real Bev

On 08/22/10 09:32, VFW wrote:

> In article<2ccco.19029$st2.9955@newsfe09.iad>,
> larry<larry@foobar.com> wrote:
>
>> VFW wrote:
>> > I want to give a home-less woman an old phone no longer in service but
>> > I've heard you can still call 911. is that true?
>> > I see "dead" phones at yard sales. would they work?

If they will hold a charge and actually work, yes. Unfortunately most
yard-sellers don't bother to charge their old phones before trying to
sell them. Nokias seem to be relatively bulletproof.

They frequently can't find the wall-warts for other electronic items
either. I conclude that just means they want to get rid of it without
actually throwing it in the trash and offer accordingly. Such offers
are generally accepted, and you can probably find a wall-wart around the
house that will work.

Just got a nice Casio 61-key keyboard for $5, and it runs on 6 aa-cells
too. We already had an appropriate wall-wart.

>> If she gets almost any type of state or federal aid, she
>> could qualify for one of the free 200min/mo cell services.
>> It's the latest of the "lifeline" replacements paid for with
>> you federal or state universal service fund tax. Wireless
>> can now offer dialtone for less than the ilec wired
>> dialtone, the few that even offer wired home service anymore.

Is a charger included, along with a list of people/businesses willing to
provide a charge? Not everyone is willing to let a homeless person come
in while his/her phone charges up.

--
Cheers, Bev
This is Usenet. We *are* the trained body for dealing
with psychotics. -- A. Dingley

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 2:36 pm
From: Derald

myob@inter.net wrote:

>the companies all have to let you call 911 any time. in nyc at least,
>you can also get 'life-line service' for a cell phone, but i think it
>costs $1/month.
No. As the previous poster pointed out it is "free" and includes
200 min/mo.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 2:36 pm
From: Derald

larry <larry@foobar.com> wrote:

>If she gets almost any type of state or federal aid, she
>could qualify for one of the free 200min/mo cell services.
Eligibility varies from state to state, I believe. In Florida, all
one needs is proof of income below a certain level. That income level is
higher than would qualify most families for OPM. This is from the
"Safelink" page pertinent to my (Florida) ZIP code:
>
>Your total household income is at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty
>Guidelines (FPG). The table below provides the maximum income you
>can have to be eligible for service.

Just as with most other entitlements and great-sounding
"compassionate" ideas, this one was designed, from jump, to be a gravy
train for deadbeats and a money machine for providers. The "service" has
proven to be so lucrative that, in Florida, contractors are actually
running competitive adverts on teevee trying to troll up new deadbeats.
That's our universal service fee, which was pitched as an aid to the
_disabled_, in action. When I was researching the issue, I determined
that subscribers to traditional "telephone" companies are the only
citizens subject to this tax. In my view, individuals would do well and
the U.S.A. would be best served if consumers cancelled their telephone
service and relied on prepaid cellular (not subject to the tax) or VoIP.
For my part, the nonproductive deadbeats can get along with exactly
the telephone service they "deserve": None. I've heard of no individual
in the history of mankind who ever has "needed" a telephone of any kind,
much less a cell phone. It's enough that the diminishing numbers of
productive citizens have to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical
care for the deadbeats' bastard rug rats that many cannot afford to
provide for their own families. The notion that someone could "need"
cellular service so badly that his fellow citizens should be expected to
provide it at their expense is too absurd for serious discussion and too
laughably Democratic for my tastes. Theft is theft, no matter what
euphemism is used to pretend it otherwise. Then, again, I never in my
life have given anything to a beggar, not even to SA kettles, but have
twice had food refused by individuals bearing "will work for food"
signs. I no longer offer.
My Fellow Citizens: You're not likely ever to "need" a cell phone;
if you want the convenience, get a job and pay for it. If you're on the
Great Teat and feeling sorry for yourself, then, maybe you'll feel a
little better about your unmotivated, loser-assed selves and your
sorry-assed lives for which _you_ are uniquely responsible. You don't
"deserve" anything from your fellow citizens except to be allowed to
live unmolested, end of story. Alternatively, just take yourself out of
the picture and relieve us of the burden. I'll willingly contribute to
any institution that pledges to provide the drugs, razor blade, bullet
and even the damned gun, whichever you prefer.
I confess to being a strong advocate of suicide at the earliest age
for those so inclined. To the extent such disposition is genetic, we can
largely eliminate suicide from our society within a few generations and
improve the breed. It's called "auto-eugenics": Provide those so
inclined with every opportunity and means to kill themselves,
preferrably before they become reproductive. Regrettably, the notion
seems to have taken hold only among those parents who dislike their
children enough to provide them with motorbikes and/or allow them to
drive ATVs on the public roadways but hope remains. Hell, maybe we _do_
need Vonnegut's suicide parlors....
--
Whew; I think I need another whisky,
Derald

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cycling Copenhagen through American eyes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/85edac9c2ebe5d06?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:51 am
From: Frank Studt

Am 16.08.2010 16:36, schrieb Peter Cole:
> Frank Studt 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.
>
> Perhaps for you, not for me. If I'm in a hurry, I take the street, if
> not I take a track (if there's one). I like having choices.
>

You are confusing travel mode choice with route choice.

>>
>>>>> 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
>
> I think those are your preferences.
>

Road safety is a big issue and its the number one reason (surveys) for
people to use segregated facilities.

>
>> 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.
>
> Bad lanes are dangerous. They're not necessary. I won't ride in a door
> zone, lane or not. I've instructed my kids explicitly to stay out of bad
> lanes. The worst lanes around here (Boston) were installed by cycling
> "advocates" who knew better. There has been at least one dooring
> fatality. I'm not naive.
>

The most facilities I know dont meet any guidelines regarding width etc.
and many of them are mandatory. And even the lawful built facilities
worsen safety (ok you dont care so much about safety). I have enough of
that shit.

>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Of course it is, and there are social reasons for that. Believing that
> motorists can be calmed through education or enforcement is unrealistic.
> It's not like it hasn't been tried.
>

Thats not really true. The positive road safety effects of Speed limits
and there enforcement for instance have been proven all around the
world. Traffic laws have become more severe in the last decades of
course there is much to be done.

>>
>>>> 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).
>
> So you say, but calling me a liar and stupid isn't very persuasive, but
> it's typical with ideologues.
>
>

Im just asking for some kind of empirical proof for you claims (survey).
Calling someone ideologues its typical for people who dont want to deal
with an well built argument.

>>
>>> 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.
>
> The results of studies are mixed. There is debate over
> correlation/causality, but my overall impression is that facilities,
> particularly well designed ones, get used and are frequently preferred
> by cyclists,
>
> http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/journal/v30/nS1/full/jphp200856a.html
>
> "Findings from revealed preference studies are mixed. At a city level,
> two studies have found that bike lanes are associated with higher rates
> of bicycle commuting (21, 25). However, at an individual level, other
> studies have not found such a link (14, 16). Several studies have found
> that bicyclists will take a longer route to use bicycle facilities, such
> as lanes or paths (15, 26, 27). Preference for lanes or paths may depend
> upon the type of bicyclist. One study found that bicycle commuters
> diverted very little from the shortest path and preferred not to ride on
> paths or trails (28). A national survey found that frequent bicyclists
> preferred bike lanes rather than paths. Infrequent bicyclists were more
> likely to want more bike paths rather than lanes (29)."

Again you are talking about route choice and not travel mode choice. Or
do I have to explain what "travel mode choice" means?

>
>>>>>>>> - 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 author did say:
>
> "3. I agree, many people (understandably, given a fear of cycling)
> prefer to cycle away from motorized traffic. I agree, we should provide
> these kinds of facilities, as seen in Dk and the NLs. Such facilities
> promote cycling."
>

I think the author is either very diplomatic or he does not think his
own argument to the end. Anyway this point is contradicting the message
of his essay. I wanted to write him my self when I read it maybe I will do.

> I think "fear of cycling" should be replaced by "fear of cycling around
> motor vehicles", but even then it would be a distortion. Some may fear
> traffic, other may just find it unpleasant.
>
>

I know a bunch of people who know about the dangers of facilities and
dont think they are safe or pleasant. Being routed in the blind spot of
right turning lorries or slow down at every intersection and gateway
despite you have right of way cause some turning driver might not
anticipate you doesnt sound safe nor pleasant. And I could go on and on
with other problems.

In Germany we have a saying "Angst ist ein schlechter Ratgeber" in
English "Fear is a bad counsellor". It refers to the high rate of
irrationality associated with fear. Bicycle Advocates should not make
this irrationality their on and demand facilitation.

>>
>>> 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.
>
> Again, insults aside, I think you are exaggerating the safety issues.

Not really. Cycling and safety or road safetysis a big issue. In Some
states even helmets are mandatory (the hole helmet discussion is a
safety discussion). So your nice facilities might not only worsen your
safety it might also bring you mandatory helmet laws.

And the differences between the safety of cyclists are very high.
Especially somebody in the US should be alarmed about the building of
unsafe facilities cause you allready have the highest risk of fatality
per miles traveld in the western world (about 7 times higher then in
Germany). In Germany and Western Europe the discussion about segregated
facilities have always been a discussion about the safety of cyclists.
Its even part of the German traffic code that the mandatory facilities
are explicitly bound on the claim they have positive safety.

> There is a divergence of "truth" about the relative safety of various
> facilities, but in absolute terms, cycling is safe enough that the net
> public health benefit will be positive. You can claim (luridly) that
> "facilities kill", but then the counter-claim (equally lurid) can be
> made that sedentary life "kills" just as surely. I think it's far from
> certain that facilities must carry a higher risk.
>

Its pretty certain, we have seen that even under the circumstances of a
high safety in numbers effect the safety of cyclists is worsened by
segregation.

>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> No, you just have to observe the popularity of facilities.

Nope, I explained it now several times I wont do it again.

>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> No, they're all over the map.

You are dreaming.

>
> Again, people choose additional risk all the time. It's not the
> overriding concern. You are attempting to portray in black and white an
> issue with many shades of gray.

Of course people choose risk for them self and sometimes for there kids
on purpose. But this is not what happens when they use segregated
facilities. Most people will explicitly tell you they use them cause
they are much safer and for the same reason they demand them to be
built... Your situation in the US might be different (would surprise me
and as far as I have seen the discussion about facilities in the USis
highly associated with safety).

>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Again, you're insults aren't helpful. The specific studies you cited
> have been cited before. I had attempted to find them in English at one
> time, I'm not going to spend more time again.
>

Try this one:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

>>>>>> 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.
>
> Traffic calming is a complicated (politically and technically) subject.
> I'm all in favor of it, but it's not politically feasible (US) or cheap.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Perhaps more exceptions than you think. Many US cities emptied out,
> residentially, in the 60's & 70's, many have since been "recolonized"
> with a demographically diverse population, a trend which has been
> gathering momentum for a couple of decades now. The "exceptions", like
> Portland, OR, may prove to be not all that exceptional.

>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Your metaphor is based on the claim that people are being misled on the
> relative safety of facilities. I don't see the evidence for that. Nor,
> as I keep repeating, do I see safety as the defining issue.
>
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> If there are no alternate routes (to facilities), I could see your
> point, but speaking to urban riding in the US, it's hard to visualize
> such a situation. There are simply so many routes in the urban grid that
> the choices are plenty. I can't speak about Germany, and I don't
> particularly care about rural and suburban cycling (in this context).

Some times there are alternatives but the good routes are highly
facilitated. You would love it.

>
>
>>>> 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.
>
> It seems you have safety on the brain. I don't think about it
> particularly. Even in the US, with it's relatively lousy bike safety
> record, I've never worried about it. I don't think it's as dangerous as
> driving.
>

In general its a question how you measure or compare the safety of
different activities. But I think for the US it doesnt make any
difference how you measure or compare, cycling would not look that good.
You have helmet laws in some states and want to tell me safety is no
issue...

>>> 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.
>
> I think you could drop "almost" from that tautology.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> I'm sure it is since I only studied for three years and never had an
> occasion to use it since. Though I don't know what my fluency (or lack
> of) has to do with anything.
>
>
>>>>>> 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...
>
> This is a case where education is really necessary, for both drivers and
> cyclists (and cops). Rational cycling plans assume a mix of conditions,
> not door-to-door facilities. Street riding is a necessary skill and a
> right, not privilege (unlike driving).
>
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> You are claiming that people are being misled, I see no evidence for
> that.

Just talk to people, listen what politician say or what news papers
write on the issue. Safety is all over the place.

> If people find "road sharing" unpleasant, then I think their
> preferences should be accommodated with a budget that reflects (perhaps
> with some growth factored in) modal share and overall social benefit.
> There is nothing exclusive about traffic reduction/calming and cycling
> facilities -- they are quite compatible, some say necessarily
> complimentary, a sentiment I'd agree with.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> I don't find the "discrimination" argument compelling, except in the
> "mandatory use" statutes. Where ample alternate routes exist, I just
> don't see the case at all. That describes my reality (US urban). If
> there's any discrimination, it's denying facilities to those who prefer
> them and contribute to infrastructure costs via taxes.
>

There is already infrastructure its called the road. As stated above
cycle lanes are kind of mandatory by principle and car drivers are
trying to sanction you for defections. Regarding cycle path its almost
the same. Till 1997 every facility in Germany was mandatory and a lot of
people still think they are and behave like it. Its a little complicated
subject and difficult to explain. But if there are facilitated routes
you lose your right to the road belief me or not.

>>
>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> That's not what I've seen in places like Portland, OR.

What? There is no safety in numbers effect in Portland?

>
>
>> 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.
>
> Ideally, a bike lane is only a space prohibited for use by motor
> vehicles. A good lane doesn't put cyclists in the door zone, a bad lane
> does. You can't judge all lanes by bad ones.

I see the reality in Germany I dont want them, even the "best" are worse
than no lane no point to argue.

>
> The idea of segregation of traffic by speed via lanes is well understood
> and accepted by motorists. Complications arise at intersections where
> the rules are unclear/unfamiliar. Cycle lanes have many drawbacks, but
> at the same time often represent a "take back" of road space, which in
> itself may have a traffic calming effect. Bad lanes are generally
> created when there simply isn't enough room for them, either because the
> road is too narrow to share or the "take back" wasn't aggressive enough.
> Reducing lane count, or even lane width, is very difficult politically
> here in the US.
>
>>> 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.
>
> No, of course not, but it's an extrapolation.
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Sure, if they stopped there and didn't tack on the ideology.
>

You call it ideology, but finding measures to ride safe in a car
dominated society is pure pragmatism for me. That they dont want
facilities its only natural not ideologues.

>>
>>> Finally, vehicular cycling
>>> ideologues are being pushed out
>>
>>
>> Pushed out where?
>
> Boston, Dallas, etc.

I think you are confusing cause and effect.

>
>> I dont think there have been many in administrations regarding
>> transportation planning, land use planning and transport policies in
>> general.
>
> They had been dominant in US cycling advocacy (LAB, etc.) for decades.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> No, ad hominem aside, I'm aware of "Effective Cycling" curricula and
> courses. It is useful stuff, orthogonal to the facilities debate (or
> should be). It hasn't trained a whole lot of cyclists in the US, however.
>

You would have less fatalities if every kid (and grown up) would be
trained in effective cycling and people wouldn't fear motorized traffic
so much they need segregation.

>>> and cycling modal share is increasing.
>>
>>
>> Nice scapegoat you are constructing.
>
> ??? Modal share is growing in several US cities. It was originally
> attributed to the spike in gas prices, but didn't revert when prices
> fell. All the talk (and implementation) in cities like New York &
> Boston, for examples, has been on facilities. This is a huge change.
> Boston had 0 miles of bike lane until very recently. This was the direct
> result of opposition by vehicular cyclists who dominated the dialog.
>

Its always the same. When more people start cycling the first thing they
demand is own facilities we have been through it in Germany and other
countries. If you want infrastructure demand parking facilities they are
much more useful. Anyway in twenty years you will look back and see how
naive you where with your damn facilities. Boston has the best
requirements to be a bike city. Its relatively plain, it has short ways
etc.. Cycling is supposed to be growing more or less naturally. You dont
need your own lanes etc. you need parking facilties at work etc.. As far
as I have seen (for Boston) the bike is highly competing with food
travel and public transport. Give the cyclists parking places and more
will use the bike instead of walking and using public transport, you
might even get some motorist involved.

>>> 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.
>
> I think the burden of proof is on you that facilities are being
> misrepresented.
>
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Sweeping generalizations aside, I can't speak for the entire US, but I
> live in a small city (90,000) 6 miles from downtown Boston (600,000). My
> family lives perhaps 75% car-free, and does a lot of utility and
> recreational cycling (often combining the two). We frequently use a
> segregated bike path (despite 2 extra miles) to get to the city. It's a
> typical early generation path (constructed in the 60's) with all the
> usual drawbacks -- crappy surface, dangerous intersections,
> undisciplined users, etc., but we generally prefer it simply because
> it's more pleasant than the (abundant) alternatives. Since the path
> isn't consistently plowed (and never sanded) we simply use studded tires
> in the winter.
>
> Our lifestyle isn't common, but it's not particularly difficult, either.

For the greater Boston area.

>
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Similar to "jaywalking" (originally a slur, btw) laws, the ordinances on
> the books are simply for the convenience of motor vehicles. There is no
> reason to insist that cyclists come to a full stop at stop signs or be
> constrained on one-way streets (or that pedestrians must cross only at
> crosswalks, for that matter). Traffic signals at every corner are there
> for the convenience of motorists. I was OK as long as such laws were
> never enforced and carried negligible fines, but the "vehicularists"
> changed all that here.
>

You are partly right but your argument does not justify the exclusion of
any kind of universal vehicle code. And I dont think you can blame it on
the vehicularists that the law is enforced. In general there are two
reasons why law enforcements concentrates on cyclists 1. There number is
increasing 2. Season (see one).

>>> 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.
>
> "Predictability of behavior" raises motorist speeds. Urban motor traffic
> is generally characterized by a high ratio of peak to average speeds --
> bad news for cyclists and pedestrians, and of no real advantage to
> motorists. I think "predictability of behavior" should be deliberately
> and significantly reduced.

You are partly right here and I might have chosen the wrong words. I
mostly meant visibility (of course in situations of making a turn you
should be highly predictable). I my self ad a little bit of
unpredictability to my driving by trying appear kind of insecure
(oscilating? more than I need to). But the point is there is an optimal
ratio between perceived risk and real risk. A cyclist in mixed traffic
is perceived as much more vulnerable (by riders and drivers) as an
cyclist on cycle lane for instance. In reality its exactly reverse. The
effect is drivers will drive faster and closer to cyclist in streets
with lanes and riders will feel saver then they really are. So youre
advocating for infrastructure contradicts your reducing predictability
argument.

>
>
>> 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.
>
> You may have a point with purely recreational cyclists who flaunt that
> status with their flashy clothes and bikes. They are, literally, playing
> in the streets after all. Not that I have a problem with that. I don't
> much care about being taken "seriously" or as an "equal". Those things
> should be self-evident and are historical rights.

Cant buy me nothing with should. I care about my equal right to use the
road as an cyclist because its not self-evident for many other road
users, politicians the media etc...

> Insisting on special
> behaviors to accommodate motorists erodes our true right of way, which
> goes back centuries. Your attitude makes you a motorist apologist.

WTF are you talking about?

> That's the only logical conclusion. You appear to be so brainwashed by
> car culture that you can't think outside the box.
>

Ok, logic isnt your field of expertise. We are living in a car dominated
society and traffic system and I have to deal with that for now and
sadly at least for the next one or two decades (cause I have to
participate in traffic). Vehicular cyclists have developed some
principles to deal with this situation and I have found by experience
that they are mostly right. If you have a need to think outside of the
box stop babbling about the advantages bicycle infrastructure, everybody
is doing it. Sadly my ideas and demands are to much outside of the box
for most people. Your thinking is so deep inside the box I can hardly
recognise it.

> There's a frequent claim that most car-bike crashes are caused by
> cyclist "scofflaws", but careful studies don't support that conclusion.

Of course not and I dont claim something like that. In Germany
statistics show that only 25% of car-bike crashes are caused by cyclists.

> "Vehicular equivalence" is an unfortunate consequence of vehicular
> cycling dogma. The ultimate result is that we are forced to comply with
> rules and road engineering that were designed with motor vehicle
> convenience as the highest priority. Queuing up with idling lines of
> cars and trucks on a hot summer rush hour or getting sloshed with gritty
> brine in the winter from a semi at my elbow isn't my idea of fun or
> progress. Good luck selling that vision.

My vision is car free cities. You misunderstood.

Frank

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 10:41 am
From: "Edward Dolan"

"Frank Studt" <frank.studt@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:i4rh1c$kfj$1@news.albasani.net...
> Am 16.08.2010 16:36, schrieb Peter Cole:
>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>> Am 15.08.2010 15:11, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>>>> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
[...]

Don't you assholes know how to edit a post? No one will read any of your
shit because it is too long. Fuck the both of you dumb assholes all the way
to Hell and back! Christ, were you born this stupid or did you have to work
at it?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 11:00 am
From: Clams <"Clams"@drunkenclam.com>

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Don't you assholes know how to edit a post? No one will read any of your
> shit because it is too long. Fuck the both of you dumb assholes all the way
> to Hell and back! Christ, were you born this stupid or did you have to work
> at it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Does everyone in MN have your 12-year old, limited vocabulary or do you
simply represent the ignorant?

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 1:49 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"

"Clams" <"Clams"@drunkenclam.com> wrote in message
news:i4rojt$s11$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> Don't you assholes know how to edit a post? No one will read any of your
>> shit because it is too long. Fuck the both of you dumb assholes all the
>> way to Hell and back! Christ, were you born this stupid or did you have
>> to work at it?
>
> Does everyone in MN have your 12-year old, limited vocabulary or do you
> simply represent the ignorant?

Vocabulary is neither here nor there. What counts is mind, something that
neither you nor TM possess.

No one in their right mind pays any attention to this god damn fucking TM.
He likes to write about monkeys mostly. That is because he is into fucking
them. He is depraved, but more importantly, he is insane. In short, just
another poor crazy Usenet bastard!

TM is nothing but a poor crazy bastard and if anyone wants to put him out of
his misery, he will have my blessing. But surely there is some motorist in
Florida who will accommodate us. And the sooner the better!

Listen up TM, you god damn fucking stupid son of a bitch! There is no point
in originating threads since all you have on your miniscule brain is one
subject. Find your thread, and then stay on it for all eternity. That way
you will have the freedom to consort with only your fellow idiots in peace.

If you continue to originate threads which have no new interest, I will step
on your posts and make you out to be the poor dumb bastard that you are. I
will only do copy and paste since you are not worthy of any kind of thought
on my part.

You are the village idiot, but at least if you have the grace to keep your
god damn fucking shit on a single thread, I will not bother you. Otherwise I
will bother you no end and I do not care if I take down the entire
newsgroup. You are one of the supreme assholes of all time and you have no
business being here at all.

Find something else to do. Why not fuck all those monkeys you are constantly
referencing. That ought to keep you busy for a few years at least.

Fucking Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 4:41 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"

"Frank Studt" <frank.studt@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:i4rh1c$kfj$1@news.albasani.net...
> Am 16.08.2010 16:36, schrieb Peter Cole:
[...]

> In Germany we have a saying "Angst ist ein schlechter Ratgeber" in
English "Fear is a bad counsellor". It refers to the high rate of
irrationality associated with fear. Bicycle Advocates should not make
this irrationality their on and demand facilitation.

Not sure if this is from Studt or Cole, but whoever it is from marks one as
an idiot. Fear is the best signpost of what is dangerous. It has nothing to
do with irrationality. It has to do with thousands of years of instinct.
Anyone who does not take heed of his fear is a fool.

But have not the Germans been reckless in the recent past? They should have
paid more attention to their fears instead of boldly dashing forward. If
they had, they might have avoided the destruction of their country by the
Americans and the Russians. Germany in 1945 was a mess. Without American
aid, they would have been slow to recover.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why I don't post in moderated groups
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ae2629ff8fff7541?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 9:55 am
From: Dennis

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:54:56 -0600, hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

>Fair? The world isn't "fair."

Turns out, the world is fair. But sometimes fair sucks.

IMHO, you are giving RS too much power. I don't even use KFs, but I
don't find it that hard to skip his posts or ignore the few
posts/responses that I do happen to stumble over

But I agree that something has happened to the spirit this group used
to enjoy.

Dennis (evil)
--
My output is down, my income is up, I take a short position on the long bond and
my revenue stream has its own cash flow. -George Carlin

==============================================================================

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

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Sunday, August 22, 2010

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

No comments: