> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:00:58 -0700, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
> Philosopher wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 11:29 pm, capri <prh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 18, 10:54 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > I think that's a valuable thought to have in mind even though I
> >> > sometimes drive. Same idea for smoking, which is why I quit many
> >> > moons ago. Actually driving and smoking have a lot in common, both
> >> > are addictions, both are expensive and both pollute.
> >> > One more reason to ride a bike and have strong legs and lungs. But
> >> > that's only my humble opinion.
> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
> >> Coming from the intellect of a twelve year old!
> > C'mon guys, even a monkey can deal with your arguments. You don't even
> > know how to ride a bike anymore.
> I think it's great if people can ride bikes...  Often helps them, and
> therebye helps society.  Healthier people, who contribute more, etc.
> Plus, less pollution in the air...  Save money over driving, wear/tear/
> gas, trouble..  Even if one has a car..
> Good if people can buy and use cars too..  Isn't directly going to help
> with health of course.... (through exercise, but going to the doctor?
> market?)  But, might help with environmental stuff, if people go to work,
> the library, wherever and advance society, do research, development, make
> money, pay taxes/etc. that leads to better technology that's cheaper than
> say, oil burning engines...  Oil burning engines lead to things that can
> be better...  Or, cures for cancer or better computers... (although nice
> people don't have to move around as much too, today...)
> It's like in some ways, starting a business..  You don't have income, but
> need to put money into it.. Which works against making money, directly.
> Burning gasoline can lead to not having to burn gasoline, because maybe
> you end up learning to use - whatever, dilithium crystals, algae,
> hydrogen...  But even then good to ride a bike....
> I've thought it'd be smart to have whole streets that are designated as
> bike (and maybe small-engine, slow vehicle, low-impact-risk, moped/etc.)
> roads...  Going through cities some distance in various ways....  Big
> motorized vehicles would only go on them to get to properties, but not go
> through...
> Vs. having bike paths alongside cars going along at 50mph often...  If
> it's just mopeds, bikes, maybe small 3-4 wheelers that whack you, not
> such a big deal..  all going the same speeds approx..
> Save money for lots of people while they also got exercise...  Maybe
> Breitbart wouldn't have died if he could have used better bike paths,
> etc... and lots of other people..
> Probably politically complex though, depending on the streets.....  for
> interests of people living along them, or having businesses...  Some
> might even prefer cars zipping by, vs. crazy bicyclists who might stop
> and poop or barf on your lawn, who knows....  Or, might like interesting
> bicyclists who'd stop and talk...  Hard to do with a multi-ton car..
> A bike can go a lot of places pretty fast (well, unless too hilly.)
> Often, considerable distance..
> Fat people would get thin, congested arteries get rootered..
> --
> Bobby

Philosopher wrote:
> I think that's a valuable thought to have in mind even though I
> sometimes drive. Same idea for smoking, which is why I quit many moons
> ago. Actually driving and smoking have a lot in common, both are
> addictions, both are expensive and both pollute.

> One more reason to ride a bike and have strong legs and lungs. But
> that's only my humble opinion.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------

> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

> On 3/19/2012 1:56 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

> Philosopher wrote:
> > I think that's a valuable thought to have in mind even though I
> > sometimes drive. Same idea for smoking, which is why I quit many moons
> > ago. Actually driving and smoking have a lot in common, both are
> > addictions, both are expensive and both pollute.

> > One more reason to ride a bike and have strong legs and lungs. But
> > that's only my humble opinion.

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------

> >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

> Yeah, but my 400+ HP car gets me places much more quickly than biking
> would. Also I can get strong lungs and lungs by running, it's a more
> effective form of exercise than biking when take into account the amount
> of energy you exert over a give period of time.

> James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:41:46
> +1100 the perfect time to write:

> >On 19/03/12 02:52, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> >> I think that's a valuable thought to have in mind even though I
> >> sometimes drive. Same idea for smoking, which is why I quit many moons
> >> ago. Actually driving and smoking have a lot in common, both are
> >> addictions, both are expensive and both pollute.

> >> One more reason to ride a bike and have strong legs and lungs. But
> >> that's only my humble opinion.

> >The fuel your body requires is carbon based and produces carbon dioxide
> >upon decomposition with oxygen, just as you car does.

> If the carbon energy used by the car was sequestered from atmospheric
> CO2 (which is what happens with human power), instead of moving long
> buried fossil carbon into the atmosphere, it would be comparable - if
> you could get the energy cost down to similar levels, of course,
> including that used in manufacture of the vehicles and supporting
> infrastructure.

> The only one of those that is possible is running a car on biofuel,
> and we have far more important uses for agricultural land than growing
> vehicle fuel - like feeding people, for example.

> While there are still people in the world short of food, using
> agricultural land to power vehicles is an obscenity.