Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
When you drive your money goes up in smoke
16 views
Skip to first unread message
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Mar 19, 2012, 1:56:31 AM3/19/12
to
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
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
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Mar 19, 2012, 3:54:21 PM3/19/12
to
On Mar 19, 2:43 am, Robert Fitzgerald <rob...@fizmarkianbobo.com>
wrote:
> 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"
> >> 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
I don't know who this Breitbart is, but I can tell you that people is
just intimidated to ride a bicycle.
Your proposal sounds just reasonable and balanced. Nobody wants to
displace the automobile but they can not keep the lion's share of the
road and then still harass you. THEY DO NOT OWN THE ROAD. My proposal
is very similar, just that the car keeps the same roads but the
bicycle/mopeds/NEVs keep the right lane at speeds under 30 (enforced
by speed cameras). NEVs are Neighborhood Electric Vehicles and they
can be a great service around the community, practical for more than 1
person, or older people...
http://www.evfinder.com/NEVs.htm
No sacrifices there, no box either, just a windshield with side
windows optional. Great freedom there and very inexpensive compared to
a car. I'd imagine that you don't need insurance, so that's more
savings. No noise pollution either. No need to run around intimidating
people.
wrote:
> 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"
> > 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
I don't know who this Breitbart is, but I can tell you that people is
just intimidated to ride a bicycle.
Your proposal sounds just reasonable and balanced. Nobody wants to
displace the automobile but they can not keep the lion's share of the
road and then still harass you. THEY DO NOT OWN THE ROAD. My proposal
is very similar, just that the car keeps the same roads but the
bicycle/mopeds/NEVs keep the right lane at speeds under 30 (enforced
by speed cameras). NEVs are Neighborhood Electric Vehicles and they
can be a great service around the community, practical for more than 1
person, or older people...
http://www.evfinder.com/NEVs.htm
No sacrifices there, no box either, just a windshield with side
windows optional. Great freedom there and very inexpensive compared to
a car. I'd imagine that you don't need insurance, so that's more
savings. No noise pollution either. No need to run around intimidating
people.
Forrest Hodge
Mar 19, 2012, 7:39:26 PM3/19/12
to
On 3/19/2012 1:56 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
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.
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.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Mar 20, 2012, 10:12:19 AM3/20/12
to
It damages your joints and gives you no comparable relaxing
experience. It doesn't bring the groceries either.
In case you are burning ethanol, this viewpoint is interesting:
On Mar 19, 3:09 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> 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
> >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.
>
> >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.
And then there's the argument that corn-on-the-cob tastes infinitely
better than ethanol.
0 new messages