Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[Peter Clinch]

donquijote1954 wrote:

> OK, your strategy doesn't motivate anyone because people are no
> fools. They know cars fly by too close for comfort.

Not if you're properly positioned, as per the advice in UK National
Standard Training or the "Cyclecraft" manual. How do I know? Because
I'm out there on busy thoroughfares and they don't fly by me too close
for comfort.
Which I can (and do) point out to people who say I'm a marvel because
"it's so dangerous out there!". I also point out it's not nearly as
dangerous as they think. In fact, compared to pedestrians on their
"safe" segregated sidewalks, cyclists get slightly fewer serious
injuries per unit distance. Counter intuitive, but true.

> That's why there's
> no significant number of people riding bikes on busy thoroughfares. It
> just doesn't make sense to push people onto roads and then having to
> say, "Sorry, **** happens."

Though it's perfectly all right to shove them onto a lane or track which
doesn't have any better safety record, and if they get mown down at a
junction (which is where most accidents happen, not getting hit from
behind on normal road) saying "Sorry, **** happens"?

When are you going to account for reality being the bottom line and not
your personal hopes for what it /should/ be?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road.
>>
>>
>>Of course it does! There are mandatory bike lane laws. Two lanes
>>become 4 lanes, the bike lane being a substandard width lane.
>
>
> A bike lane is not a substandard width lane,

Yea, all lanes are 4' wide.

Are you for real?

but in any case the
> rules of the road do not change. The legislature does not magically
> go into session and change the laws just because someone entered a
> bike lane while riding a bicycle, or even because someone put in a
> bike lane in their town.

More Fantasy Island Bike Lane lore.

Wayne

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 5:54 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> writes:
> > Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > > Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > >>Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > >>>ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy
> > >>>spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little
> > >>>boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up.
>
> > >>Damn, you are fool. Get off the floor Zauman!
> > > (Of course, being embarassed by his behavior, Pein snipped his
> > > infantile insults before replying.)
> > > Pein, why don't you get some professional help for your problem? You
> > > might start with an anger-management class, although a psychiatrist
> > > might be able to give you a more apropos suggestion.
>
> > Zauman,
>
> > Grow up.
>
> Pein, stop projecting and get some professional help for your emotional
> problems.

Pein, stop being a pain in the ass.

[Bill Z.]

Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > This argument is pure nonsense. You brought up the case where a
> > vehicle
> > was stopped ahead of you and you had to go around it. That requires a
> > lane change whether or not there is a bike lane. The drivers will
> > notice you just as much if there is a bike lane than if there is not
> > one
>
> If cyclist are put onto a different road network to cars, then car
> drivers will stop thinking that cyclist should be on the road.
> When a driver meets a cyclist on the road, (s)he will have less
> experience of how to deal with that cyclist.

You are confusing bike lanes with bike paths. The latter is a
"separate road network", but the former is not, but rather simply
a lane on the same road that drivers use. Bicyclists have to
leave bike lanes every so often - e.g., to prepare for a left
turn or when stopped at a light so that right-turning traffic
can get by.

At one spot a few miles from where I live, we have a bike lane a
few hundred feet long at a freeway underpass, with the bike lane
to the *left* of two lanes that lead onto the freeway (where
bicycles are permitted). This area gets very heavy commute traffic.
Given that the bike lane is placed between heavily used traffic
lanes, it would hardly send a message that cyclist do not belong
on the road. Also, the bike lane was really an improvement over
the previous design: if you road in a safe spot (to the left of
the right turn lanes), the optimal location in terms of not
inconveniencing drivers was right over a lane line, which had
"bots dots" (raised reflectors) on it. Now we can ride in basically
the same spot but without having to dodge reflectors. The bike
lane starts at the start of the dual turn lanes, so you only have
to cross one lane of traffic from the shoulder to enter it.

> - drivers de facto treat bike lanes like shoulder stripes. I've
> > yet to see anyone claim that riding to the right (left in the U.K.)
> > side of a shoulder stripe is dangerous.
>
> I claim that (ICMTP)
>
> cycling to the right (US) of the white strip is dangerous. It means
> that you are cycling in the un-swept gutter full of broken glass,
> branches from trees and marbles.

It's simply not true on the road in the town I live in. The shoulders
are kept free of debris, but by "dangerous" I was referring to
collisions only - in a short usenet post, you simply can't cover
every contingency, and this thread is not worth spending hours
composing each post, in order to cover every special case no matter
how obscure.

> > Your U.S. left turn argument is really bogus. If you are a mile
> > before your turn, you'd just use the bike lane to bypass most of the
> > traffic, and then you simply change lanes and get in position for your
> > left turn. If you can't manage that, you probably should not be
> > riding a bike, at least not on that road.
>
> IF you argue that, then you really don't know what the traffic is like
> in the UK, even on minor roads.

I was describing conditions in Silicon Valley - this area has some of
the worst congestion in the U.S., and we can get very long lines of
cars that are at a dead stop due to traffic signals.

> Sometimes I cycle three of more miles past almost stationary cars. It
> is dangerous to pass them kerbside, and idiotic to try and move across
> they non-existent flow.

It is not dangerous to pass them on by the curb if you have adequate
clearance from them and they are stopped, the usual situation around
here for the case where a bike lane really helps you get somewhere
faster. But whether they are stopped or not, if you are going at the
normal speed of traffic or faster, you don't have to use a bike lane
(at least you don't have to in California).

Whether you can safely pass moving vehicles by riding near the curb
depends on the situation. If you in an area with no driveways or
intersections, it is reasonably safe given adequate clearance from
the vehicles.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 6:11 pm, Martin Dann <martin.d...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road.
>
> But it makes most cagers think that the rules have changed.
> It is like have seating for coloured people on buses, you
> think it helps, but it just causes antagonism between groups.
>
> > In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic
> > have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state
> > standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other
> > traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to
> > use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left
> > turn,
>
> So if I see bike lanes in your state as inherently
> dangerous, I can ignore them completely?
> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does
> it has to get out of my way, or do these rules only work
> one way (e.g. niggers have to give up their bus seats for
> the superior whites).
>
> From you arguments it sounds like you just want to keep
> normal traffic (cyclists) out of your way.
>
> [1] On my bike I am normal traffic.

While your civil right activism is impressive, you are just choosing
the wrong parallel. A cyclist among cars is like you swimming in a
pool full of sharks. Feeding the sharks, so to speak...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36133139@N00/389281903/

I'm watching "Shark Week" on Discovery, and I can draw some
conclusions:

1- Never swim with the sharks;

2- Sharks are stupid;

3- Sharks are unpredictable...

2 and 3 are the issues that concern me the most: You never know when
the shark or which shark is going to eat you. So go back to #1 and you
are likely to have a long life.

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 8:04 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
> attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?

So what's solution to bring the ridership to, say, 30%? If we banned
cars from city centers we could bring it up 100% I guess.

Holland is a really stupid and violent place. They have the cheek to
say, "Beware of bikes!"

Not so in America. To begin with we hardly any cyclists out there
doing real things with bikes. And then we got the SUVs that are real
dangerous, but we simply don't brag about it. Yeap, it's a violent
place out there...

Beware of bikes!
Besides freeways, bus lanes and sideways, The Netherlands have
numerous bicycle paths, approximately 20000 kilometres in total
length! Because the country is so tiny and flat, the bicycle provides
an easy way to transport yourself, your friend, your dog and your
groceries, and is also handy when you're moving to a different
apartment or house.

http://www.siw.nl/english/thenetherlands.php

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 9:58 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > > Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> > > > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower
> > > > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane,
> > > > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless
> > > > > preparing for a turn across that lane.
>
> > > > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even
> > > > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD
> > > > NOT be anywhere else.
>
> > > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane,
> > > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I
> > > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning
> > > cars can get by.
>
> > They Smile? What a depressing life one must have if there highlight of
> > the day was a bike made it eaiser for you to make a right turn....
>
> When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure
> job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-) People around here
> are very busy, so anything that helps them get to where they are going
> faster gets a positive reaction.
>
> Also, it is a very liberal community by U.S. standards (although not
> quite as liberal as San Francisco). Here's a picture of our local
> movie theater <http://www.stanfordtheatre.org/stf/>. Click on "This
> Week" to see what we get. You'll be truly amazed.

It must really be liberal because it got such a great theater, not a
conservative place with a mega church and all. They really hate the
arts and bike lanes. I see them driving SUVs...

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 9:40 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > And what do you
> > expect to have when you go around electing members of a political
> > party (whose name starts with "R") whose official position is that
> > government can't work?
>
> We have been making progress on that front in recent years.
>
> [1] This, in many cases DOES not including exceeding the speed limit,
> which is about the only thing that ever seems to be enforced.
> [2] To a point. Obviously, in a country with a ridiculous level of
> overpopulation such as China, cycling in urban areas is not enjoyable
> unless one likes being part of a slow moving congested mass of people on
> bicycles.

OK, I finally figured you out. We may disagree on the bike lane as
part of the solution, but we totally agree on the absolute need to
retire a bunch of bad drivers, and enforce some rules of the road.

Lane discipline should be a high priority so you don't drivers
overtaking on the right lane at supersonic speeds, right next to the
bicycles. This is addressed too in our Political Platform...

"Our roads, where the Law of the Jungle rules, should be made safer,
say by enforcing passing on the left only."

See http://webspawner.com/users/elections2008

[Bill Z.]

Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road.
>
> But it makes most cagers think that the rules have changed.
> It is like have seating for coloured people on buses, you think it
> helps, but it just causes antagonism between groups.

Not true at all. It's more like having an HOV lane.

> > In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic
> > have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state
> > standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other
> > traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to
> > use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left
> > turn,
>
> So if I see bike lanes in your state as inherently dangerous, I can
> ignore them completely?

Sure, and if ticketed, you can try to convince the judge that there
was a real hazard. If the issue for you is traffic turning across
your path, the California law allows you to leave a bike lane at
when approaching a place where a right turn is permitted.

If Caltrans standards were ignored when the lane was installed, you
don't have to use it either.

> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get
> out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have
> to give up their bus seats for the superior whites).

Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity
to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal
speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly
modified the word "speed", not "traffic".

> From you arguments it sounds like you just want to keep normal
> traffic (cyclists) out of your way.

The phrase I used, "normal speed of traffic", appears in the California
Vehicle Code. What I posted was a factual statement about the laws in
California. If you don't like what they are, I suggest you write to
the state legislature. But don't blame me for merely telling you what
the law actually states.

> [1] On my bike I am normal traffic.

The law refers to traffic, not vehicular traffic, and the phrase was
"normal speed of traffic", not "normal traffic". Try thinking about
it for a few hours until you understand it.

Sorry for the repetition, by you really are being dense.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Martin Dann writes:
> ...
>> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get
>> out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have
>> to give up their bus seats for the superior whites).
>
> Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity
> to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal
> speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly
> modified the word "speed", not "traffic"....

Whoosh!

Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist, anymore
than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly used by
racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people of African
origin and/or descent" is.

Martin was making an analogy to the racist thought that "justified"
legal race based segregation in the U.S. being similar to the promotion
of second class facilities for cyclists, while reserving the first class
facilities for motorists.

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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Wayne Pein]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:

>
> Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
> attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?
>

He rides on bike lanes on Fantasy Island.

Wayne

[Bill Z.]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >
> > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower
> > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane,
> > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless
> > preparing for a turn across that lane.
>
> Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even
> worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD
> NOT be anywhere else.

Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane,
whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I
move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning
cars can get by.

> Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go
> when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001).

> Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
> attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?

I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and
after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably
shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes:
> >
> > > Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes:
> >
> > > > > Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > > > > > ...
<References to the California DMV driver handbook snipped>
> >
> > The California DMV includes bicycle-related questions on all written
> > tests, so you better know the material.
>
> Dude,
>
> You may not believe this, but not everyone lives in California.
>
> Where I live, it is theoretically possible to not have to take the
> written driving test for more than half a century.

Then you should follow our example and get your laws and regulations
changed so you can join the 21st century. :-) Seriously though, if
you want to talk about bike lanes, it kind of makes sense to talk
about how they work when things are sort of done right. Otherwise
you are simply complaining about inept government. And what do you
expect to have when you go around electing members of a political
party (whose name starts with "R") whose official position is that
government can't work?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[William]

On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower
> > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane,
> > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless
> > > preparing for a turn across that lane.
>
> > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even
> > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD
> > NOT be anywhere else.
>
> Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane,
> whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I
> move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning
> cars can get by.
>
> > Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go
> > when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001).
> > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
> > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?
>
> I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and
> after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably
> shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained.
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Your bike paths are swept? How often does someone on a bike A) have
trash and B) Drop it on the bike path when you could just drop it
in a trash can? And "Bike Path Sweeping" is not considred maintenence.
The asphalt or concert can take a little,,,, a whatever gets on it.
Not sure what though....

[William]

On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower
> > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane,
> > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless
> > > preparing for a turn across that lane.
>
> > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even
> > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD
> > NOT be anywhere else.
>
> Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane,
> whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I
> move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning
> cars can get by.


They Smile? What a depressing life one must have if there highlight of
the day was a bike made it eaiser for you to make a right turn....

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower
>>> traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane,
>>> then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless
>>> preparing for a turn across that lane.
>> Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even
>> worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD
>> NOT be anywhere else.
>
> Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane,
> whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I
> move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning
> cars can get by.

I have had drivers pass me to the LEFT when I was at the left side of
the left lane signaling a left turn, oncoming traffic be dammed.

I have also had several drivers point at the "bicycle lane" and yell at
me for riding in the street, despite the "bicycle lane" having a safe
design speed of less than 10 mph and requiring intersections be crossed
like a pedestrian. No thanks.

>> Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go
>> when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001).
>
>> Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
>> attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?
>
> I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and
> after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably
> shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained.

Is this town some upscale Silly Cone Valley community or similar? Where
I live, the potholes are big enough to rip a 185/60R14 tire off a rim -
think they have money for sweeping the "bicycle lane"?

Also, where I live the bicycle lane is mostly used to pass other motor
vehicles on the right, while driving 20 to 40 mph over the speed limit.

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 8:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower
> > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane,
> > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless
> > > preparing for a turn across that lane.
>
> > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even
> > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD
> > NOT be anywhere else.
>
> Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane,
> whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I
> move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning
> cars can get by.
>
> > Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go
> > when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001).
> > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
> > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?
>
> I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and
> after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably
> shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained.

Maybe where he lives the crooked politicians, you know, pocket the
money...

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes:
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
> <References to the California DMV driver handbook snipped>
>>> The California DMV includes bicycle-related questions on all written
>>> tests, so you better know the material.
>> Dude,
>>
>> You may not believe this, but not everyone lives in California.
>>
>> Where I live, it is theoretically possible to not have to take the
>> written driving test for more than half a century.
>
> Then you should follow our example and get your laws and regulations
> changed so you can join the 21st century. :-) Seriously though, if
> you want to talk about bike lanes, it kind of makes sense to talk
> about how they work when things are sort of done right. Otherwise
> you are simply complaining about inept government....

"Bicycle lanes" are not "doing things right". Stringent licensing
standards for motor vehicle operation, aggressive prosecution of
improper driving [1], vehicle and fuel taxes that cover the real cost of
motor vehicle operation and rewarding businesses for providing
facilities (showers and bike lockers) for cyclists is what is needed.
More cyclists [2] and less motor vehicles on the road will do the most
to improve cycling safety and enjoyment.

> And what do you
> expect to have when you go around electing members of a political
> party (whose name starts with "R") whose official position is that
> government can't work?

We have been making progress on that front in recent years.

[1] This, in many cases DOES not including exceeding the speed limit,
which is about the only thing that ever seems to be enforced.
[2] To a point. Obviously, in a country with a ridiculous level of
overpopulation such as China, cycling in urban areas is not enjoyable
unless one likes being part of a slow moving congested mass of people on
bicycles.

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Bill Z.]

William <willbecool10@gmail.com> writes:

> On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and
> > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably
> > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained.
>
> Your bike paths are swept? How often does someone on a bike A) have
> trash and B) Drop it on the bike path when you could just drop it
> in a trash can? And "Bike Path Sweeping" is not considred maintenence.
> The asphalt or concert can take a little,,,, a whatever gets on it.
> Not sure what though....

I mentioned bike lanes, which are part of the roads. The bike paths
(mostly by the bay) are clean as well, but I don't know the schedule,
only the results.

Road maintainence includes regular sweeping - once per week or so
around here. The street outside of where I live is completely clean of
debris. So are the bike lanes and the lanes next to them.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 9:01 pm, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> > > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower
> > > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane,
> > > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless
> > > > preparing for a turn across that lane.
>
> > > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even
> > > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD
> > > NOT be anywhere else.
>
> > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane,
> > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I
> > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning
> > cars can get by.
>
> > > Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go
> > > when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001).
> > > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
> > > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?
>
> > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and
> > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably
> > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained.
>
> > --
> > My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
>
> Your bike paths are swept? How often does someone on a bike A) have
> trash and B) Drop it on the bike path when you could just drop it
> in a trash can? And "Bike Path Sweeping" is not considred maintenence.
> The asphalt or concert can take a little,,,, a whatever gets on it.
> Not sure what though....-

They don't have budgets to clean the bike lanes? Where is that Africa?

[Bill Z.]

William <willbecool10@gmail.com> writes:

> On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > > Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >
> > > > Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower
> > > > traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane,
> > > > then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless
> > > > preparing for a turn across that lane.
> >
> > > Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even
> > > worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD
> > > NOT be anywhere else.
> >
> > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane,
> > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I
> > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning
> > cars can get by.
>
> They Smile? What a depressing life one must have if there highlight of
> the day was a bike made it eaiser for you to make a right turn....

When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure
job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-) People around here
are very busy, so anything that helps them get to where they are going
faster gets a positive reaction.

Also, it is a very liberal community by U.S. standards (although not
quite as liberal as San Francisco). Here's a picture of our local
movie theater <http://www.stanfordtheatre.org/stf/>. Click on "This
Week" to see what we get. You'll be truly amazed.

If you really don't think our city takes bicycling seriously, download
<http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7293>
(which should contain the bicycle transportation plan).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 9:31 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower
> >>> traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane,
> >>> then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless
> >>> preparing for a turn across that lane.
> >> Yeah, right. Put in a painted "bike lane" on the street (or even
> >> worse, sidewalk), and the brain-dead cagers think that cyclists SHOULD
> >> NOT be anywhere else.
>
> > Which is why most drivers don't yell at me for using a left turn lane,
> > whether or not there is a bike lane. And some actually smile if I
> > move out of a bike lane to stop at a red light so that right-turning
> > cars can get by.
>
> I have had drivers pass me to the LEFT when I was at the left side of
> the left lane signaling a left turn, oncoming traffic be dammed.
>
> I have also had several drivers point at the "bicycle lane" and yell at
> me for riding in the street, despite the "bicycle lane" having a safe
> design speed of less than 10 mph and requiring intersections be crossed
> like a pedestrian. No thanks.
>
> >> Yeah, sweeping the "bike lane" is one of the first things that will go
> >> when funds get tight (as they have been since 2001).
>
> >> Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
> >> attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?
>
> > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and
> > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably
> > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained.
>
> Is this town some upscale Silly Cone Valley community or similar? Where
> I live, the potholes are big enough to rip a 185/60R14 tire off a rim -
> think they have money for sweeping the "bicycle lane"?
>
> Also, where I live the bicycle lane is mostly used to pass other motor
> vehicles on the right, while driving 20 to 40 mph over the speed limit.

It sounds like Tijuana, Mexico. Viva la Raza!

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >> Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
> >> attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?
> > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and
> > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably
> > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained.
>
> Is this town some upscale Silly Cone Valley community or similar?
> Where I live, the potholes are big enough to rip a 185/60R14 tire
> off a rim - think they have money for sweeping the "bicycle lane"?

I posted a URL for one of our movie theaters in town. Take a look at
it and figure it out for yourself.

> Also, where I live the bicycle lane is mostly used to pass other motor
> vehicles on the right, while driving 20 to 40 mph over the speed limit.

I've been passed while driving by a speeding vehicle that decided to
use a bike lane to get by, even though there was no on-coming traffic
and the road was completely straight. You can always find some idiot
on the road who is competely irresponsible. What else is new? It
simply has nothing to do with bike lanes - they'll do something
incredibly stupid regardless.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Aug 1, 9:33 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Aug 1, 7:44 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > I live in a town that sweeps its bike lanes and has both before and
> > > after 2001. If you aren't going to maintain a facility, you probably
> > > shouldn't put it in, but where I live, these things are maintained.
>
> > Your bike paths are swept? How often does someone on a bike A) have
> > trash and B) Drop it on the bike path when you could just drop it
> > in a trash can? And "Bike Path Sweeping" is not considred maintenence.
> > The asphalt or concert can take a little,,,, a whatever gets on it.
> > Not sure what though....
>
> I mentioned bike lanes, which are part of the roads. The bike paths
> (mostly by the bay) are clean as well, but I don't know the schedule,
> only the results.
>
> Road maintainence includes regular sweeping - once per week or so
> around here. The street outside of where I live is completely clean of
> debris. So are the bike lanes and the lanes next to them.

My bet is that fewer than 1% of the bike lanes in the US are swept
weekly.

I just returned from a vacation in a city famous for lots of bike
lanes. On one of my previous trips there, I had a conversation with
one of the bike advocates that helped get them installed. When I
mentioned the debris, he claimed it was no problem - that a wonderful
system was in place to report debris and get almost immediate
sweeping.

Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.

My town has almost no bike lanes, thank goodness. But I know the
street sweeping schedule. Streets are swept twice per year, if the
budget allows. And I see no prospect of the budget getting much
better. More bike lanes certainly will not have that effect.

Zaumen, like other bike lane advocates, claims to live with ideal bike
lanes: well designed, well maintained, and very beneficial. All I can
say is that there are many, many bike lanes that do not meet the first
two criteria; and even those that do generally seem useless to me.

I won"t go so far as to say all bike lanes are evil. There may be
isolated instances where that magic stripe does some good. But in all
the situations I know, the total width of pavement is what makes the
difference. Things are no better, and usually somewhat worse, if the
extra width is separated by a white stripe.

If bike lane advocates switched to advocating "sharrows," I could
possibly accept more of their ideas.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes:
> >>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>>>> ...
> > <References to the California DMV driver handbook snipped>
> >>> The California DMV includes bicycle-related questions on all written
> >>> tests, so you better know the material.
> >> Dude,
> >>
> >> You may not believe this, but not everyone lives in California.
> >>
> >> Where I live, it is theoretically possible to not have to take the
> >> written driving test for more than half a century.
> > Then you should follow our example and get your laws and regulations
> > changed so you can join the 21st century. :-) Seriously though, if
> > you want to talk about bike lanes, it kind of makes sense to talk
> > about how they work when things are sort of done right. Otherwise
> > you are simply complaining about inept government....
>
> "Bicycle lanes" are not "doing things right".

You'd look a bit less dishonest if you replied to what I actually said
instead of making things up. The phrase "sort of done right" obviously
meant that you should base an evaluation on bike lanes that conform to
current design standards, and not select ones that simply ignored those
standards. That is not the same as "doing things right" in general.

<snip>


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Martin Dann writes:
> > ...
> >> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get
> >> out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have
> >> to give up their bus seats for the superior whites).
> > Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity
> > to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal
> > speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly
> > modified the word "speed", not "traffic"....
>
> Whoosh!
>
> Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist,
> anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly
> used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people
> of African origin and/or descent" is.

The **** it isn't. The word is so offensive to some people that you
simply should not use it.

> Martin was making an analogy to the racist thought that "justified"
> legal race based segregation in the U.S. being similar to the
> promotion of second class facilities for cyclists, while reserving the
> first class facilities for motorists.

No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic",
that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and
pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles
from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was
similar to racism.

I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage.
It is completely dishonest.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> ...
> When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure
> job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-)...

I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and
hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high four
figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income. :)

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 9:55 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" who? wrote:
> > ...
> > Thank you for explaining so well what I have in mind. Actually that's
> > the idea behind...
>
> >http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories
>
> I think a better solution would be two jerseys [1]. In the morning [2],
> the jersey worn would say in large letters on the back "RIDING TO WORK".
> The afternoon jersey would say "RIDING HOME FROM WORK".
>
> [1] Or a reversible sign for recumbents.
> [2] Reverse for night shift workers.

Yeah, but then you need more like, "RIDING TO THE MARKET," "RIDING TO
HAVE A DATE," etc. ;)

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 10:01 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" who? wrote:
> > ...
> > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE
> > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVE[L]S TO THE DUTCH
> > OR DANISH LEVELS?...
>
> The Danes have almost a 100% tax on new automobiles, high gas taxes, and
> (in the cities) very limited and expensive parking. They also have a
> beautiful cool spring to fall climate, and winters that can be mostly
> handled with proper raingear.
>
> Ride to work even a short distance at a slow pace in much of the U.S.
> during summer and you will be soaked in sweat.

You know some bikes do have an electric motor? We can use some of
those. Where I live is real hot, but doable in the early morning and
late afternoon.

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 10:22 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> j...@phred.org aka Joshua Putnam wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Even the limited-access freeway near me has its shoulder open to
> > bicycles -- bikes are allowed on many miles of Interstates, boring and
> > noisy, but safe and direct....
>
> Do the drivers look for cyclists crossing their path when merging and
> exiting?

They only talking on the phone. But then again, we need to retire them.

[Bill Z.]

frkrygow@gmail.com writes:

> On Aug 1, 9:33 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I mentioned bike lanes, which are part of the roads. The bike paths
> > (mostly by the bay) are clean as well, but I don't know the schedule,
> > only the results.
> >
> > Road maintainence includes regular sweeping - once per week or so
> > around here. The street outside of where I live is completely clean of
> > debris. So are the bike lanes and the lanes next to them.
>
> My bet is that fewer than 1% of the bike lanes in the US are swept
> weekly.

Ours our clean of debris - almost: I about a mile along one today
and spotted a solitary leaf that must have fallen since the last
cleaning.

>
> I just returned from a vacation in a city famous for lots of bike
> lanes. On one of my previous trips there, I had a conversation with
> one of the bike advocates that helped get them installed. When I
> mentioned the debris, he claimed it was no problem - that a wonderful
> system was in place to report debris and get almost immediate
> sweeping.
>
> Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
> and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
> the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.

Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
city he rode.


> My town has almost no bike lanes, thank goodness. But I know the
> street sweeping schedule. Streets are swept twice per year, if the
> budget allows. And I see no prospect of the budget getting much
> better. More bike lanes certainly will not have that effect.

Move somewhere else. :-)


>
> Zaumen, like other bike lane advocates, claims to live with ideal bike
> lanes: well designed, well maintained, and very beneficial. All I can
> say is that there are many, many bike lanes that do not meet the first
> two criteria; and even those that do generally seem useless to me.

More lies from Krygowski (his speciality) - I don't go around asking
for bike lanes (which is what a bike-lane advocate does).

> If bike lane advocates switched to advocating "sharrows," I could
> possibly accept more of their ideas.

Nobody I know (nor I) have any objections to sharrows, but you can't
put them on just any street - there are some Caltrans rules about
what sort of street they can go on.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > ...
> > When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure
> > job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-)...
>
> I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and
> hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high
> four figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income. :)

There are some things you can't outsource to India. Working on an OS
is one of them, particularly when new hardware is involved (and India
is mostly doing software, not hardware). Some of the hardware design
done in Silicon Valley requires a huge capital investment in server
farms for chip verification. That is not available in India or China
right now, which may be why we have so many people from India or
China living here and getting U.S.-level salaries.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Pat who? wrote:
> ...If you don't like it, go talk to the lawmakers.

That is not a practical suggestion for those of us who can not afford to
attend $1000/plate fund-raising dinners.

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Amy Blankenship]

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1186026759.465588.281360@g4g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
> On Aug 1, 1:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185986935.706809.292940@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 1, 12:39 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
>> > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> >> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1185984742.195387.107300@b79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk>
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at
>> >> >> > > > you,
>> >> >> > > > but
>> >> >> > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the
>> >> >> > > > paintwork.
>> >> >> > > > If you
>> >> >> > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far
>> >> >> > > > more
>> >> >> > > > maligned
>> >> >> > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no
>> >> >> > > > choice
>> >> >> > > > to
>> >> >> > > > use
>> >> >> > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead.
>>
>> >> >> > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them
>> >> >> > > > not
>> >> >> > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?*
>>
>> >> >> > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES,
>> >> >> > > HOW
>> >> >> > > DO
>> >> >> > > WE
>> >> >> > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE
>> >> >> > > DUTCH
>> >> >> > > OR DANISH LEVELS?
>>
>> >> >> > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong
>> >> >> > direction.
>> >> >> > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone
>> >> >> > else".
>> >> >> > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and
>> >> >> > address
>> >> >> > that.
>>
>> >> >> > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to
>> >> >> > bike
>> >> >> > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they
>> >> >> > get
>> >> >> > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might
>> >> >> > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not
>> >> >> > really.
>>
>> >> >> > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for
>> >> >> > football
>> >> >> > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school
>> >> >> > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately,
>> >> >> > there's
>> >> >> > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually
>> >> >> > because
>> >> >> > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is
>> >> >> > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So
>> >> >> > at
>> >> >> > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking
>> >> >> > at 9
>> >> >> > hour bike ride.
>>
>> >> >> I don't blame you, biking works best
>> >> >> when everything is
>> >> >> more central and dense like a metro area.
>>
>> >> >> > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The
>> >> >> > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way
>> >> >> > issue.
>> >> >> > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to
>> >> >> > people,
>> >> >> > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in
>> >> >> > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in
>> >> >> > 1
>> >> >> > trip.
>>
>> >> >> > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more
>> >> >> > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage
>> >> >> > shopping
>> >> >> > by bike.
>>
>> >> >> Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your
>> >> >> from nowhere land.
>>
>> >> > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of
>> >> > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the
>> >> > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is
>> >> > a
>> >> > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle.
>> >> > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow
>> >> > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry
>> >> > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32
>> >> > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is
>> >> > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom
>> >> > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a
>> >> > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter
>> >> > to
>> >> > me, because I don't wear a watch.
>>
>> >> > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by
>> >> > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me.
>> >> > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill
>> >> > the
>> >> > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity.
>> >> > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But
>> >> > that's what makes it nice.
>>
>> >> > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the
>> >> > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it.
>> >> > That's
>> >> > excitement around here.
>>
>> >> > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes
>> >> > to
>> >> > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each
>> >> > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50
>> >> > (each)
>> >> > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys
>> >> > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle.
>>
>> >> > So what about this "quality" thing?
>>
>> >> If you had a Wal-Mart right there they would immediately start
>> >> four-laning
>> >> the road in front of it and put in access roads. That would make it
>> >> far
>> >> less bike friendly. Most ordinary sized grocery stores, however, do
>> >> not
>> >> insist on four lane highways. Cluster a number of smaller shops
>> >> around
>> >> it
>> >> and you have most of the selection of Wal-Mart, probably better
>> >> quality,
>> >> and
>> >> a more bike-friendly environment.
>>
>> >> -Amy
>>
>> > Man, I am dating myself, but remember the days when a few bigger
>> > grocery stores out build next to a department store and share a common
>> > entrance. It was like a Jamesway next to a Shop Rite. Jamesway,
>> > Barkers and others all did that, here and there. You could go between
>> > the stores, up at the front.
>>
>> > Now, all of those departments stores are closed. Must not have been
>> > such a good idea.
>>
>> > The thing is, people LIKE Walmart. Maybe you don't and William
>> > doesn't, but there are sure a whole lot of people out there who do.
>>
>> > We'd like one here. The sales tax revenue would help the city coffers
>> > and people wouldn't have to drive so far to buy skivies.
>>
>> About that sales tax revenue...
>>
>> http://www.newrules.org/retail/policefactsheet.pdfhttp://amiba.net/pdf/barnstable_fiscal_impact_report.pdfhttp://edlabor.house.gov/publications/WALMARTREPORT.pdf
>
> 3 interesting -- and useless -- studies.
>
> The first one suggests that somehow, the sales tax from Walmart will
> be less than the sales taxes from stores that close because of WM.
> Well, that would only be true if the total volume of taxable sales
> fell because of WM. Granted, it will redistribute sales taxes because
> they will spike in the area near WM as WM has it sales and the store
> in that area see increased sales. Sales tax will fall 20 to 30 miles
> away where WM has a negative impact on stores.
>
> That study is also interesting in that it blames WM for increased
> crime. I don't know about you, but I think the CRIMINAL is
> responsible for the crime, not the victim. If a sexy woman wears a
> tiny bit of clothing down the street and gets rapes, is SHE to blame
> or is it the rapist?
>
> The second study is typical government-trash. The government hires a
> consultant who then interviews the government officials and develops a
> study that legitimizes their views. That's what the methodology says
> they did. The most interesting part of the study is that is discusses
> assessment based on cost, not replacement value. That is easy data
> collection but bad assessment practice. The other interesting thing
> is that the study was significantly biases away from hotels.
>
> There is another problem with this type of study, which I call "The
> Salt Situation". It involves a great deal of research I did on the
> cost of road salt. The conclusion can only be summarized as the cost/
> benefit of de-icing salt is whatever you want it to be and it changes
> depending on how you want to measure cost & benefit. This study uses
> a snapshot approach, which is the most limited view but I will stay
> with The Salt Situation to explain things. If you look at the cost of
> buying salt v. the cost of sand, salt is more expensive. But, if you
> you factor in the fact that you need fewer applications, it appears to
> move into the lead. But if you then factor in the added storage costs
> and trucking, it falls behind. But if you then factor in the fact
> that you don't have to clean it up in the spring, if goes back to the
> front. Then if you factor in environmental damage, it again is more
> expensive. But if you figure in the societal savings due to fewer
> accidents, rustouts, and paint chips, if is gains cheaper. Whether
> salt is more expensive or cheaper is not really determinable because
> the outcome came be made to be whatever you want it to be.
>
> This study is the same way. Okay, some town hires an additional cop
> at the cost of $75,000 per year. So WM costs the town money, right.
> Well, maybe or maybe not. What about the savings that the town
> residents get on their shopping. If that totals over $75,000 per
> year, then the residents are still better off. Then answer is
> determined by how you ask the question and what you choose to include
> in a your cost/benefit analysis.

http://www.epinet.org/workingpapers/wp276.pdf

> The third study was just plain ridicules. The government cannot fault
> someone for following the law. If the government, esp. Congress,
> doesn't like the current minimum wage or labor laws, they should
> change them -- not fault someone else for following them. Are their
> lapses, sure. But their always are in any organization of that size,
> just as their are lapse in the government following the law. As long
> as they comply with the law, they are okay. If you don't like it, go
> talk to the lawmakers.

So "encouraging" workers to work off the clock is following the law?

-Amy

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 12:02 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pat who? wrote:
> > ...If you don't like it, go talk to the lawmakers.
>
> That is not a practical suggestion for those of us who can not afford to
> attend $1000/plate fund-raising dinners.
>

That's only the price to get in. To get listened to you need at least
100 times that amount.

[Pat]

On Aug 2, 12:02 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pat who? wrote:
> > ...If you don't like it, go talk to the lawmakers.
>
> That is not a practical suggestion for those of us who can not afford to
> attend $1000/plate fund-raising dinners.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Weird. Our State Assemblyman and Senator are both VERY accessible.
I've met with them often on things. You call, make an appointment and
you go see them. If you're in Albany on a trip or whatever, it's
easier to get in because they have so few constituents see them there.

It takes a bit longer to get into see our Congressman, but he does set
up "Town Hall" meetings once-a-year that are well publicized. He
stops makes 6 or 7 stops in the county in the day he is there, so you
never have to go very far to see him. But few people bother to show
up. But he makes the effort. I don't terribly like the guy, but he is
accessible and he tries to get out into the district (which is quite
large).

Our Senators, though, are a bit more distant. Schumer travels the
state pretty regularly. I think you it's pretty easy to get to see
Hillary, too, as long as you travel to Iowa to do it -- but still
under the $1000 ticket threshold.

I did pay to go to an event to see Spitzer, but it was only $60 for
the conference. He's shorter than he looks.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Aug 2, 2:48 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > My bet is that fewer than 1% of the bike lanes in the US are swept
> > weekly.
>
> Ours our clean of debris - almost: I about a mile along one today
> and spotted a solitary leaf that must have fallen since the last
> cleaning.

I'm sure you do live in bike lane paradise, Bill. I'm describing what
I've seen in the rest of the world, and it isn't like your paradise.

> > I just returned from a vacation in a city famous for lots of bike
> > lanes. On one of my previous trips there, I had a conversation with
> > one of the bike advocates that helped get them installed. When I
> > mentioned the debris, he claimed it was no problem - that a wonderful
> > system was in place to report debris and get almost immediate
> > sweeping.
>
> > Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
> > and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
> > the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.
>
> Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
> everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
> any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
> city he rode.

Portland, Oregon and its surrounding suburbs. The city itself wasn't
bad for bike lane trash, but it was also perfectly fine riding where
there were no bike lanes. The suburbs had plenty of trash in the bike
lanes, including trash of the tire-slashing variety.

Those bike lanes might not have trash if a street & lane sweeping had
just occurred, but there is no question that they are glass storage
lanes for more than a week at a time. The first time my family and I
rode in from the east, a few years ago, the amount of glass in the
bike lanes was astonishing. (Maybe some Portland residents can tell
us the suburban street sweeping schedule.)

> > Zaumen, like other bike lane advocates, claims to live with ideal bike
> > lanes: well designed, well maintained, and very beneficial. All I can
> > say is that there are many, many bike lanes that do not meet the first
> > two criteria; and even those that do generally seem useless to me.
>
> More lies from Krygowski (his speciality) - I don't go around asking
> for bike lanes (which is what a bike-lane advocate does).

"Advocate (n.): a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an
idea."

If you haven't been doing that, you'd better keep an eye on your evil
twin. He's got your computer password again.

- Frank Krygowski

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> frkrygow@gmail.com writes:

>>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
>>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
>>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.
>
>
> Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
> everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
> any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
> city he rode.
>

Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for many
writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.

Wayne

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman writes:
>>>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>> <References to the California DMV driver handbook snipped>
>>>>> The California DMV includes bicycle-related questions on all written
>>>>> tests, so you better know the material.
>>>> Dude,
>>>>
>>>> You may not believe this, but not everyone lives in California.
>>>>
>>>> Where I live, it is theoretically possible to not have to take the
>>>> written driving test for more than half a century.
>>> Then you should follow our example and get your laws and regulations
>>> changed so you can join the 21st century. :-) Seriously though, if
>>> you want to talk about bike lanes, it kind of makes sense to talk
>>> about how they work when things are sort of done right. Otherwise
>>> you are simply complaining about inept government....
>> "Bicycle lanes" are not "doing things right".
>
> You'd look a bit less dishonest if you replied to what I actually said
> instead of making things up. The phrase "sort of done right" obviously
> meant that you should base an evaluation on bike lanes that conform to
> current design standards, and not select ones that simply ignored those
> standards. That is not the same as "doing things right" in general.

ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore their
deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of the
particular implementation.

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Martin Dann writes:
>>> ...
>>>> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get
>>>> out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have
>>>> to give up their bus seats for the superior whites).
>>>
>>> Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity
>>> to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal
>>> speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly
>>> modified the word "speed", not "traffic"....
>> Whoosh!
>>
>> Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist,
>> anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly
>> used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people
>> of African origin and/or descent" is.
>
> The **** it isn't. The word is so offensive to some people that you
> simply should not use it.

So the word "nigger" should not appear in a dictionary of "irregular"
English? The fact is the word and its usage exist, and pretending
otherwise will not make it go away.

By the way in "the hood" I hear people who strongly appear to be of
darker skinned African descent use the word "nigger" all the time when
talking about each other.

>> Martin was making an analogy to the racist thought that "justified"
>> legal race based segregation in the U.S. being similar to the
>> promotion of second class facilities for cyclists, while reserving the
>> first class facilities for motorists.
>
> No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic",
> that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and
> pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles
> from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was
> similar to racism.
>
> I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage.
> It is completely dishonest.

I thought the politically correct did not use the term "you people"?

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Martin Dann]

Bill Z. wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Martin Dann writes:
>>> ...
>>>> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get
>>>> out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. niggers have
>>>> to give up their bus seats for the superior whites).
>>> Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity
>>> to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal
>>> speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly
>>> modified the word "speed", not "traffic"....
>> Whoosh!
>>
>> Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist,
>> anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly
>> used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people
>> of African origin and/or descent" is.
>
> The **** it isn't. The word is so offensive to some people that you
> simply should not use it.

The word f*ck is also a very offensive word to some people.
Have you ever seen the film "Blazing Saddles"

>> Martin was making an analogy to the racist thought that "justified"
>> legal race based segregation in the U.S. being similar to the
>> promotion of second class facilities for cyclists, while reserving the
>> first class facilities for motorists.


> No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic",
> that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and
> pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles
> from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was
> similar to racism.

As I don't live in the USA, I was unaware that such a
legal phrase existed. However when motorised traffic moves
slower than the "normal speed of traffic", does it have to
get out of the way of bikes. Does a slow lorry have to
pull over for cars to pass. If not then this phase
translates directly into "normal" traffic hence the
comparison to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott
I also suggest you search the web for "Daniel Cadden"


It is my opinion, and that of a great many cyclists that
cycles should be on the main road, not segregated and
pushed onto poor facilities.

> I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage.
> It is completely dishonest.

What is dishonest is promoting second class cycling
facilities as a good idea.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> ...
>>> When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure
>>> job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-)...
>>
>> I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and
>> hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high
>> four figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income. :)
>
> There are some things you can't outsource to India. Working on an OS
> is one of them, particularly when new hardware is involved (and India
> is mostly doing software, not hardware).

For now.

> Some of the hardware design
> done in Silicon Valley requires a huge capital investment in server
> farms for chip verification. That is not available in India or China
> right now,
^^^^^^^^^

Exactly.

> which may be why we have so many people from India or
> China living here and getting U.S.-level salaries.

Expanded guest worker program, perhaps?

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ace]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:14:13 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

>donquijote1954 wrote:
>
>> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
>> them through bike lanes.
>
>Bike lanes don't have a better safety track record than the roads.
>
>Go to http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html and actually do
>some reading around the subject.

Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.


--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

[Wayne Pein]

> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
>> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
>> them through bike lanes.

I think letting you loose out of your cell would be dangerous.

Wayne

[Peter Clinch]

Ace wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:14:13 +0100, Peter Clinch
> <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
>>> them through bike lanes.
>> Bike lanes don't have a better safety track record than the roads.
>>
>> Go to http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html and actually do
>> some reading around the subject.
>
> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.

Fair point...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Tony Raven]

Ace wrote:
>
> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.
>

Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets
killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his
neighbourhood ;-)

Tony

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 3:24 am, Ace <see...@virgin.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:14:13 +0100, Peter Clinch
>
> <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> >donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
> >> them through bike lanes.
>
> >Bike lanes don't have a better safety track record than the roads.
>
> >Go tohttp://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.htmland actually do
> >some reading around the subject.
>
> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.

Bike lanes and thus people riding bikes and saving gas is such
monomaniacal idea. Reasonable people just drive a country to war and
get more oil. They all want to be like Napoleon. Isn't that a clinical
case?

[Ace]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:08:26 +0100, Tony Raven <traven@gotadsl.co.uk>
wrote:

>Ace wrote:
>>
>> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
>> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
>> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.
>>
>
>Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets
>killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his
>neighbourhood ;-)

That'd be a shame.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 5:08 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> Ace wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
> > clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
> > take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.
>
> Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets
> killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his
> neighbourhood ;-)

A real possibility for me, like that of you getting killed by
terrorists. Well, they are both terrorists, right?

[Tony Raven]

Ace wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:08:26 +0100, Tony Raven <traven@gotadsl.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Ace wrote:
>>> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
>>> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
>>> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.
>>>
>> Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets
>> killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his
>> neighbourhood ;-)
>
> That'd be a shame.
>

Or an exaggeration.

Tony

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 5:27 am, Mike Clark <m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In message <1186004419.923909.283...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>
> donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 1:13 pm, Mike Clark <m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > In contrast to the 'idea' of ever more separate lanes being good for
> > > improved safety there is the contradictory data that shows that in
> > > places where you remove all the lane markings, signs and junction
> > > priorities you often get a measurable increase in safety.
>
> > Should we erase the car lanes too? I think we could have bike lanes
> > and still enforce those breaking the law, so they can pay for more
> > bike lanes. Are you parked in the bike lane? You got a fine for 100
> > bucks...
>
> Yes the data is based on situations where all the lane markings and
> junction priorities, traffic lights etc are removed. Basically people
> stop driving as if they have a known priority and instead start looking
> out for and avoiding other road users.

OK, either lanes for all or lanes for none. When do we start that
campaign?

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 5:28 am, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> Ace wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:08:26 +0100, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Ace wrote:
> >>> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
> >>> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
> >>> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.
>
> >> Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets
> >> killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his
> >> neighbourhood ;-)
>
> > That'd be a shame.
>
> Or an exaggeration.

Well, *I* exaggerated. My risk of getting killed by road terrorism is
greater, much greater, than you getting killed by the other type of
terrorism.

I saw a bumper sticker today that here is quite revolutionary: SLOWER
TRAFFIC KEEP TO THE RIGHT... AVOID ROAD RAGE! That must be a communist
attempt at bringing regulation to our roads. We want to zigzag if we
please, and drive our SUVs while on the phone if we want, so we can
remain a free nation!

Rage is part of life in the jungle, and the strong shall survive.
Hallelujah!

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure
> >>> job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. :-)...
> >>
> >> I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and
> >> hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high
> >> four figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income. :)
> > There are some things you can't outsource to India. Working on an OS
> > is one of them, particularly when new hardware is involved (and India
> > is mostly doing software, not hardware).
>
> For now.

No, for a very long time to come, as long as the U.S. has a
substantial technical edge, and if India and China catch up, their
incomes will become comparable to ours.

Also, infrastructure is important - when you are running chip
simulations that need the largest machines you can get your hands on
and that have to run for a day or more (maybe a lot more), you can't
get by in a place where there are regular power failures on a weekly
or daily basis.

> > Some of the hardware design
> > done in Silicon Valley requires a huge capital investment in server
> > farms for chip verification. That is not available in India or China
> > right now,
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Exactly.

except it is for as long as those countries are not at the top of the
heap in the high-tech world.

> > which may be why we have so many people from India or
> > China living here and getting U.S.-level salaries.
>
> Expanded guest worker program, perhaps?

We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in
the area to know why.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:

>
> ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore
> their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of
> the particular implementation.

Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to
merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road).
I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal"
facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility).

Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to
show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some
figment of your imagination.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist,
> >> anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly
> >> used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people
> >> of African origin and/or descent" is.
> > The **** it isn't. The word is so offensive to some people that you
> > simply should not use it.
>
> So the word "nigger" should not appear in a dictionary of "irregular"
> English? The fact is the word and its usage exist, and pretending
> otherwise will not make it go away.

If you would actually *read* a dictionary you would know that it is
considered completely inappropriate to use.

> > No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic",
> > that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and
> > pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles
> > from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was
> > similar to racism.
> > I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage.
> > It is completely dishonest.
>
> I thought the politically correct did not use the term "you people"?

I'm not "politically correct", just liberal. If you don't think that
is possible, watch a San Francisco Mime Troupe production and you'll
see some very liberal people skewering everything in sight
(particularly Cheney and Condi).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

frkrygow@gmail.com writes:

> On Aug 2, 2:48 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > frkry...@gmail.com writes:
> > >
> > > My bet is that fewer than 1% of the bike lanes in the US are swept
> > > weekly.
> >
> > Ours our clean of debris - almost: I about a mile along one today
> > and spotted a solitary leaf that must have fallen since the last
> > cleaning.
>
> I'm sure you do live in bike lane paradise, Bill. I'm describing what
> I've seen in the rest of the world, and it isn't like your paradise.

I've ridden a bicycle in San Francisco, including in bike lanes, and
there was not the level of debris you reported, and the bike lanes
I used were simply along the route I was taking (e.g. from the
train station to somewhere near Fisherman's Wharf or the Civic Center.



>
> > > I just returned from a vacation in a city famous for lots of bike
> > > lanes. On one of my previous trips there, I had a conversation with
> > > one of the bike advocates that helped get them installed. When I
> > > mentioned the debris, he claimed it was no problem - that a wonderful
> > > system was in place to report debris and get almost immediate
> > > sweeping.
> >
> > > Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
> > > and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
> > > the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.
> >
> > Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
> > everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
> > any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
> > city he rode.
>
> Portland, Oregon and its surrounding suburbs. The city itself wasn't
> bad for bike lane trash, but it was also perfectly fine riding where
> there were no bike lanes. The suburbs had plenty of trash in the bike
> lanes, including trash of the tire-slashing variety.

Given that the U.S. norm is clean suburbs and neglected cities, I really
have to wonder about your claim. My guess is that you went out of your
way to find a poorly maintained bike lane - it would fit your past
behavior.

BTW, if there is trash in the bike lane, you aren't required to use it.

> Those bike lanes might not have trash if a street & lane sweeping had
> just occurred, but there is no question that they are glass storage
> lanes for more than a week at a time.

And you've never seen glass on a road?



> The first time my family and I rode in from the east, a few years
> ago, the amount of glass in the bike lanes was astonishing. (Maybe
> some Portland residents can tell us the suburban street sweeping
> schedule.)


>
> > > Zaumen, like other bike lane advocates, claims to live with ideal bike
> > > lanes: well designed, well maintained, and very beneficial. All I can
> > > say is that there are many, many bike lanes that do not meet the first
> > > two criteria; and even those that do generally seem useless to me.
> >
> > More lies from Krygowski (his speciality) - I don't go around asking
> > for bike lanes (which is what a bike-lane advocate does).
>
> "Advocate (n.): a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an
> idea."

Which I'm not doing. Stating that something is not a problem is not
pleading a cause or propounding an idea (which does not mean in this
context merely stating an opinion or a fact). The actual "advocate" of
course is Krygowksi and a few others with a thing up their you know what
about bike lanes.

> If you haven't been doing that, you'd better keep an eye on your evil
> twin. He's got your computer password again.

Krygowski of course is lying as usual. It is at most once in a blue
moon that he posts anything without enough spin to make Karl Rove
spin in his future grave.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

"donquijote1954" who? wrote:
> On Aug 1, 9:55 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" who? wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Thank you for explaining so well what I have in mind. Actually that's
>>> the idea behind...
>>> http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories
>> I think a better solution would be two jerseys [1]. In the morning [2],
>> the jersey worn would say in large letters on the back "RIDING TO WORK".
>> The afternoon jersey would say "RIDING HOME FROM WORK".
>>
>> [1] Or a reversible sign for recumbents.
>> [2] Reverse for night shift workers.
>
> Yeah, but then you need more like, "RIDING TO THE MARKET," "RIDING TO
> HAVE A DATE," etc. ;)

The point is the motorists (with half a brain) will understand that you
are just another poor schulb going to work.

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

"donquijote1954" WHO? wrote:
> On Aug 2, 12:02 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Pat who? wrote:
>>> ...If you don't like it, go talk to the lawmakers.
>> That is not a practical suggestion for those of us who can not afford to
>> attend $1000/plate fund-raising dinners.
>>
>
> That's only the price to get in. To get listened to you need at least
> 100 times that amount.

See <http://www.tpj.org/docs/pioneers/pioneers_table.jsp> for a list of
those who have collected "bundled" contributions to Bush the Lesser of
$100,000 or more.

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore
> > their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of
> > the particular implementation.
>
> Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to
> merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road).
> I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal"
> facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility).
>
> Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to
> show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some
> figment of your imagination.

Besides, if "separate but equal" is the law of the land in many areas,
particularly applied to those who live beyond walled communities, I
don't see why it should apply to bikes and SUVs. They do NOT mix, just
as lions and monkeys.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore
>> their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of
>> the particular implementation.
>
> Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to
> merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road).
> I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal"
> facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility).
>
> Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to
> show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some
> figment of your imagination.

Yo Billy - Not all of us live in Silly Cone Valley, much less
California. The CVC (not any other legislation) is NOT the arbiter of
right-of-way, which has developed over many centuries.

Until I ride or drive in California, I could care less about the CVC and
Caltrans design standards.

"Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are
the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous for
cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are
"special" bicycle farcilities (sic).

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Martin's use of the word "nigger" in this context is not racist,
>>>> anymore than using the word "nigger" in the phrase "nigger is commonly
>>>> used by racist people as a derogatory term for darker skinned people
>>>> of African origin and/or descent" is.
>>> The **** it isn't. The word is so offensive to some people that you
>>> simply should not use it.
>> So the word "nigger" should not appear in a dictionary of "irregular"
>> English? The fact is the word and its usage exist, and pretending
>> otherwise will not make it go away.
>
> If you would actually *read* a dictionary you would know that it is
> considered completely inappropriate to use.

[Yawn]

>>> No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic",
>>> that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and
>>> pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles
>>> from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was
>>> similar to racism.
>>> I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage.
>>> It is completely dishonest.
>> I thought the politically correct did not use the term "you people"?
>
> I'm not "politically correct", just liberal. If you don't think that
> is possible, watch a San Francisco Mime Troupe production and you'll
> see some very liberal people skewering everything in sight
> (particularly Cheney and Condi).

[Yawn]

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrot