I always said that happiness --having fun-- is the purpose of life,
and not suffering, particularly when this suffering is totally
unnecessary. Well, the little Kingdom of Bhutan has developed such a
concept and now it talks about Gross National Happiness instead of
Gross National Product. They got challenges such as Western influence,
but "not everything from the West is evil." The digital revolution
(Internet) can be used for good and evil, such I use it to fight evil.
There's another program I saw last night called "Digital Nation,"
which may be of benefit to some people out there looking for
solutions. I say Internet is good but you must balance with an equal
proportion of "monkey out of the cage," which the bicycle so
facilitates. But if you live in the mountains, then you can take
advantage of hiking or whatever makes you go out there. I'm going to
New York --not NYC-- up in the mountains somewhere where bicycling is
not effective, so be it. The Wise Man is happy with Nature.
The program on digital technology has an interesting debate on
shooting the "bad guys" from an air conditioned room somewhere in
Nevada with a drone. This seems like an escalation of the Law of the
Jungle that may bring us untold worries and by the end of the decade
we will have many drones flying over American skies. If we could use
them to take out drivers who terrorize pedestrians and we could be
happy once again. But that's only my humble opinion.
Cruiser Philosopher" <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I always said that happiness --having fun-- is the purpose of life,
>and not suffering, particularly when this suffering is totally
>unnecessary. Well, the little Kingdom of Bhutan has developed such a
>concept and now it talks about Gross National Happiness instead of
>Gross National Product. They got challenges such as Western influence,
>but "not everything from the West is evil." The digital revolution
>(Internet) can be used for good and evil, such I use it to fight evil.
>There's another program I saw last night called "Digital Nation,"
>which may be of benefit to some people out there looking for
>solutions. I say Internet is good but you must balance with an equal
>proportion of "monkey out of the cage," which the bicycle so
>facilitates. But if you live in the mountains, then you can take
>advantage of hiking or whatever makes you go out there. I'm going to
>New York --not NYC-- up in the mountains somewhere where bicycling is
>not effective, so be it. The Wise Man is happy with Nature.
There are no mountains in New York. some moderate hills, yes, but real
mountains are conspicuous by their absence.
As for Bhutan, if your GNP is based on Yak Butter then you need to
something to brag about, I suppose. But more realistically, you
probably can't find more then two people in the country who understand
what GNP actually is. Po Folks are generally far more interested in
where the grits for tomorrow are coming from then some abstract number
that you can't put in your mouth and chew.
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:20:28 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
> Cruiser Philosopher" <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I always said that happiness --having fun-- is the purpose of life,
> >and not suffering, particularly when this suffering is totally
> >unnecessary. Well, the little Kingdom of Bhutan has developed such a
> >concept and now it talks about Gross National Happiness instead of
> >Gross National Product. They got challenges such as Western influence,
> >but "not everything from the West is evil." The digital revolution
> >(Internet) can be used for good and evil, such I use it to fight evil.
> >There's another program I saw last night called "Digital Nation,"
> >which may be of benefit to some people out there looking for
> >solutions. I say Internet is good but you must balance with an equal
> >proportion of "monkey out of the cage," which the bicycle so
> >facilitates. But if you live in the mountains, then you can take
> >advantage of hiking or whatever makes you go out there. I'm going to
> >New York --not NYC-- up in the mountains somewhere where bicycling is
> >not effective, so be it. The Wise Man is happy with Nature.
> There are no mountains in New York. some moderate hills, yes, but real
> mountains are conspicuous by their absence.
Well, coming from Florida they are mountains. ;)
But listen to this. The town has bike lanes, 2 blocks long!
Isn't that exciting!?
> As for Bhutan, if your GNP is based on Yak Butter then you need to
> something to brag about, I suppose. But more realistically, you
> probably can't find more then two people in the country who understand
> what GNP actually is. Po Folks are generally far more interested in
> where the grits for tomorrow are coming from then some abstract number
> that you can't put in your mouth and chew.
Well, let's put it this way: It could be like Haiti. They got
healthcare (not sure it reaches all), free education (including AIDS
education) and A DEEP RESPECT FOR NATURE.
Up there in New York you must make sure not to go outside the 2 blocks
of bike lane. But I'd give up stressful cycling in hostile conditions
for hiking. It's 7 miles to the nearest market but there's no space to
ride a bike and lots of blind curves.
Living in the boondocks is hardly a solution. We must learn to live in
close quarters with lots of people and space for bikes.
> On Jun 20, 3:54 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I always said that happiness --having fun-- is the purpose of life,
> > and not suffering, particularly when this suffering is totally
> > unnecessary. Well, the little Kingdom of Bhutan has developed such a
> > concept and now it talks about Gross National Happiness instead of
> > Gross National Product. They got challenges such as Western influence,
> > but "not everything from the West is evil." The digital revolution
> > (Internet) can be used for good and evil, such I use it to fight evil.
> > There's another program I saw last night called "Digital Nation,"
> > which may be of benefit to some people out there looking for
> > solutions. I say Internet is good but you must balance with an equal
> > proportion of "monkey out of the cage," which the bicycle so
> > facilitates. But if you live in the mountains, then you can take
> > advantage of hiking or whatever makes you go out there. I'm going to
> > New York --not NYC-- up in the mountains somewhere where bicycling is
> > not effective, so be it. The Wise Man is happy with Nature.
> > The program on digital technology has an interesting debate on
> > shooting the "bad guys" from an air conditioned room somewhere in
> > Nevada with a drone. This seems like an escalation of the Law of the
> > Jungle that may bring us untold worries and by the end of the decade
> > we will have many drones flying over American skies. If we could use
> > them to take out drivers who terrorize pedestrians and we could be
> > happy once again. But that's only my humble opinion.
> Now, Monkey, those drivers are Real People and might have relatives
> who object to their being taken out. OTOH, maybe they gave up thier
> right to life when they put themselves behind the wheel. Perhaps it
> could be a state option? Toci
Well nowadays they got a license to kill, but that could change. You
may argue that THE VEHICLE IS A WEAPON which they can not use to
terrorize people.
Cruiser Philosopher" <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 20, 8:10 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:20:28 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
>> Cruiser Philosopher" <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I always said that happiness --having fun-- is the purpose of life,
>> >and not suffering, particularly when this suffering is totally
>> >unnecessary. Well, the little Kingdom of Bhutan has developed such a
>> >concept and now it talks about Gross National Happiness instead of
>> >Gross National Product. They got challenges such as Western influence,
>> >but "not everything from the West is evil." The digital revolution
>> >(Internet) can be used for good and evil, such I use it to fight evil.
>> >There's another program I saw last night called "Digital Nation,"
>> >which may be of benefit to some people out there looking for
>> >solutions. I say Internet is good but you must balance with an equal
>> >proportion of "monkey out of the cage," which the bicycle so
>> >facilitates. But if you live in the mountains, then you can take
>> >advantage of hiking or whatever makes you go out there. I'm going to
>> >New York --not NYC-- up in the mountains somewhere where bicycling is
>> >not effective, so be it. The Wise Man is happy with Nature.
>> There are no mountains in New York. some moderate hills, yes, but real
>> mountains are conspicuous by their absence.
>Well, coming from Florida they are mountains. ;)
>But listen to this. The town has bike lanes, 2 blocks long!
>Isn't that exciting!?
To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents. However, we do
have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
determining fault and seems to work pretty well. At least I can't
remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
civilized actions in the developing countries?
>> As for Bhutan, if your GNP is based on Yak Butter then you need to
>> something to brag about, I suppose. But more realistically, you
>> probably can't find more then two people in the country who understand
>> what GNP actually is. Po Folks are generally far more interested in
>> where the grits for tomorrow are coming from then some abstract number
>> that you can't put in your mouth and chew.
>Well, let's put it this way: It could be like Haiti. They got
>healthcare (not sure it reaches all), free education (including AIDS
>education) and A DEEP RESPECT FOR NATURE.
I think, that if you look into the matter, that when developing
countries start to talk about GNP it is usually a case of them being
given access to free money - development loans - and suddenly
developing the necessary vocabulary to demand more.
At Least I don't remember a great discussion of GNP in Haiti while
Papa Doc was driving the wagon. Now he is gone and the foreigners are
tossing money that-a-way they have suddenly discovered that they have
one.
>Up there in New York you must make sure not to go outside the 2 blocks
>of bike lane. But I'd give up stressful cycling in hostile conditions
>for hiking. It's 7 miles to the nearest market but there's no space to
>ride a bike and lots of blind curves.
It must be something in the psyche of America. I've lived and ridden a
bike in Jakarta, Indonesia and Bangkok, Thailand, two of the most
chaotic traffic conditions in the world, and both lacking "Bicycle
Facilities" (which the citizenry don't seem to consider necessary)
with no difficulties. No curses, bottles, cans.
>Living in the boondocks is hardly a solution. We must learn to live in
>close quarters with lots of people and space for bikes.
> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to look and mathematical enough to understand.
> However, we do
> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
> At least I can't
> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
> civilized actions in the developing countries?
Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents, while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own attitude.
On Jun 21, 10:11 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
> > in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> > bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
> > don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
> Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
> while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
> think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
> attitude.
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
I will make a simple statement which I want you all to ponder about:
BEFORE WE CAN RIDE ON THE ROAD WE NEED TO TAME TRAFFIC.
Then we may need to take away some "privileges" away from drivers,
such as talking on the phone.
acheiving self actualization is the directed purpose of life.
for example, there are river valleys in NY. Flat, fairly free of heavy traffic in the terminal rust zone...Lake Eire. Morning dew fog with sun burning thru moist life giving water running to the sea corn waving the horizon a Nehi Orange pulled from real ice cooler ahhhhhhhhhhh
<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>John B. wrote:
>> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
>> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
>> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
>> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
>The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
>The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to >look and mathematical enough to understand.
> > However, we do
>> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
>> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
>> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
>> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
>> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
>> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
>> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
>> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
>An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
>> At least I can't
>> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
>> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
>> civilized actions in the developing countries?
>Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
>Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents, >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own >attitude.
But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
see the necessity for bike lanes. Of course, by the same token there
should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
"Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
teenager.
Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
Cruiser Philosopher" <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 21, 10:11 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>> > To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
>> > in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
>> > bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
>> > don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
>> Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
>> while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
>> think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
>> attitude.
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>I will make a simple statement which I want you all to ponder about:
>BEFORE WE CAN RIDE ON THE ROAD WE NEED TO TAME TRAFFIC.
>Then we may need to take away some "privileges" away from drivers,
>such as talking on the phone.
No man, you got it all backward. It is the danger and hazards of
riding in traffic that is the great thing. How else would one of you
modern chappies prove your bravery? Watching the "reality T.V.;
without cowering in terror? After all riding out to slay dragons is no
longer politically correct (the dragons got a new P.R. bloke).
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> >John B. wrote:
> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
> > > However, we do
> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
> >> At least I can't
> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
> >attitude.
> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
> see the necessity for bike lanes.
You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
have to share lanes with them.
This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
> Of course, by the same token there
> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
> teenager.
> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
transportation... take away these assholes right to private
transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
> On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> > >John B. wrote:
> > >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
> > >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> > >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
> > >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
> > >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
> > >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
> > >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
> > >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
> > >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
> > >look and mathematical enough to understand.
> > > > However, we do
> > >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
> > >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
> > >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
> > >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
> > >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
> > >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
> > >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
> > >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
> > >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
> > >> At least I can't
> > >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
> > >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
> > >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
> > >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
> > >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
> > >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
> > >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
> > >attitude.
> > But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
> > see the necessity for bike lanes.
> You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
> them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
> purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
> This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
> unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
> have to share lanes with them.
> This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
> heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
> facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
> make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
> that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
> roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
> you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
> > Of course, by the same token there
> > should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
> > with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
> > "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
> > spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
> > teenager.
> > Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
> > recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
> I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
> demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
> inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
> transportation... take away these assholes right to private
> transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible)
Not really difficult to implement... Plant undercover cops to ride
bikes, subject to the drivers' worst instincts, and then the second
cop is waiting for them with a hefty fine/imprisonment. That's easy to
do it.
- restrict
> their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
> public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
> there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
> intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
> rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
> otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
> compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
What a relief, I thought you'd call for Sharia Law (amputation of
right foot).
>On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>> >John B. wrote:
>> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
>> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
>> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
>> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
>> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
>> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
>> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
>> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
>> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
>> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
>> > > However, we do
>> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
>> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
>> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
>> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
>> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
>> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
>> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
>> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
>> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
>> >> At least I can't
>> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
>> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
>> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
>> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
>> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
>> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
>> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
>> >attitude.
>> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
>> see the necessity for bike lanes.
>You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
>them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
>purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
>This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
>unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
>have to share lanes with them.
>This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
>heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
>facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
>make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
>that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
>roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
>you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
>> Of course, by the same token there
>> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
>> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
>> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
>> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
>> teenager.
>> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
>> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
>I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
>demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
>inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
>transportation... take away these assholes right to private
>transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
>their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
>public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
>there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
>intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
>rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
>otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
>compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
traffic speed; weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> >> >John B. wrote:
> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
> >> > > However, we do
> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
> >> >> At least I can't
> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
> >> >attitude.
> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
> >have to share lanes with them.
> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
> >> Of course, by the same token there
> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
> >> teenager.
> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
> traffic speed;
They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
cooperation I was talking about.
> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
concept, as is "trespass".
>On Jun 23, 5:04 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >John B. wrote:
>> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
>> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
>> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
>> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
>> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
>> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
>> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
>> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
>> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
>> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
>> >> > > However, we do
>> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
>> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
>> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
>> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
>> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
>> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
>> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
>> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
>> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
>> >> >> At least I can't
>> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
>> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
>> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
>> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
>> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
>> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
>> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
>> >> >attitude.
>> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
>> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
>> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
>> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
>> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
>> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
>> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
>> >have to share lanes with them.
>> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
>> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
>> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
>> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
>> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
>> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
>> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
>> >> Of course, by the same token there
>> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
>> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
>> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
>> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
>> >> teenager.
>> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
>> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
>> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
>> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
>> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
>> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
>> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
>> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
>> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
>> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
>> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
>> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
>> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
>> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
>> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
>> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
>> traffic speed;
>They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
>sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
>cooperation I was talking about.
>> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
>> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
>> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
>> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
>One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
>> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
>The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
>concept, as is "trespass".
Given that I was quoting someone I thought it might be useful to quote
him as exactly as I could :-)
But frankly I cannot for the live of me see what all the folderol and
furor is about. You bought a bike? Then go and ride it. You don't like
the road? Then do what the truckers do and use another road; or get
off and push it.
The concept that one goes out and buys something and then discovers
that he/she doesn't want to play with their goodie because of some
perceived danger and therefore tax payer's money should be spent to
provide these people with a special venue for playing with their new
toys simply appears so ludicrous that I am truly amazed that anyone
even cares to advocate it.
Hmmm.... I wonder whether I can get the NRA to advocate building a new
target range closer to my house.
> >> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
> >> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> >> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
> >> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
> >> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
> >> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
> >> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
> >> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
> >> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
> >> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
> >> >> > > However, we do
> >> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
> >> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
> >> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
> >> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
> >> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
> >> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
> >> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
> >> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
> >> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
> >> >> >> At least I can't
> >> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
> >> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
> >> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
> >> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
> >> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
> >> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
> >> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
> >> >> >attitude.
> >> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
> >> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
> >> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
> >> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
> >> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
> >> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
> >> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
> >> >have to share lanes with them.
> >> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
> >> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
> >> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
> >> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
> >> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
> >> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
> >> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
> >> >> Of course, by the same token there
> >> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
> >> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
> >> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
> >> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
> >> >> teenager.
> >> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
> >> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
> >> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
> >> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
> >> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
> >> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
> >> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
> >> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
> >> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
> >> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
> >> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
> >> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
> >> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
> >> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
> >> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
> >> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
> >> traffic speed;
> >They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
> >sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
> >cooperation I was talking about.
> >> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
> >> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
> >> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
> >> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
> >One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
> >> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
> >The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
> >concept, as is "trespass".
> Given that I was quoting someone I thought it might be useful to quote
> him as exactly as I could :-)
> But frankly I cannot for the live of me see what all the folderol and
> furor is about. You bought a bike? Then go and ride it. You don't like
> the road? Then do what the truckers do and use another road; or get
> off and push it.
> The concept that one goes out and buys something and then discovers
> that he/she doesn't want to play with their goodie because of some
> perceived danger and therefore tax payer's money should be spent to
> provide these people with a special venue for playing with their new
> toys simply appears so ludicrous that I am truly amazed that anyone
> even cares to advocate it.
> Hmmm.... I wonder whether I can get the NRA to advocate building a new
> target range closer to my house.
If they don't make one, then you may want to start aiming at people.
But bikes don't need infrastructure if you are on a budget. All you
need is to TAKE THE LANE every time. Nobody can deny you space, can
they?
> >> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
> >> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> >> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
> >> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
> >> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
> >> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
> >> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
> >> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
> >> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
> >> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
> >> >> > > However, we do
> >> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
> >> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
> >> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
> >> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
> >> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
> >> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
> >> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
> >> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
> >> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
> >> >> >> At least I can't
> >> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
> >> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
> >> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
> >> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
> >> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
> >> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
> >> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
> >> >> >attitude.
> >> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
> >> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
> >> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
> >> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
> >> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
> >> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
> >> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
> >> >have to share lanes with them.
> >> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
> >> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
> >> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
> >> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
> >> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
> >> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
> >> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
> >> >> Of course, by the same token there
> >> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
> >> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
> >> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
> >> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
> >> >> teenager.
> >> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
> >> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
> >> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
> >> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
> >> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
> >> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
> >> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
> >> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
> >> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
> >> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
> >> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
> >> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
> >> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
> >> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
> >> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
> >> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
> >> traffic speed;
> >They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
> >sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
> >cooperation I was talking about.
> >> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
> >> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
> >> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
> >> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
> >One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
> >> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
> >The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
> >concept, as is "trespass".
> Given that I was quoting someone I thought it might be useful to quote
> him as exactly as I could :-)
> But frankly I cannot for the live of me see what all the folderol and
> furor is about. You bought a bike? Then go and ride it. You don't like
> the road? Then do what the truckers do and use another road; or get
> off and push it.
> The concept that one goes out and buys something and then discovers
> that he/she doesn't want to play with their goodie because of some
> perceived danger and therefore tax payer's money should be spent to
> provide these people with a special venue for playing with their new
> toys simply appears so ludicrous that I am truly amazed that anyone
> even cares to advocate it.
I think you're mixing up my message with someone else's.
> Hmmm.... I wonder whether I can get the NRA to advocate building a new
> target range closer to my house.
I imagine they'd advocate just about any and every proposal for a new
shooting range.
Cruiser Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 24, 8:26 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Jun 23, 5:04 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
>> >> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
>> >> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
>> >> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
>> >> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
>> >> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
>> >> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
>> >> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
>> >> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
>> >> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
>> >> >> > > However, we do
>> >> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
>> >> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
>> >> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
>> >> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
>> >> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
>> >> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
>> >> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
>> >> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
>> >> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
>> >> >> >> At least I can't
>> >> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
>> >> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
>> >> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
>> >> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
>> >> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
>> >> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
>> >> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
>> >> >> >attitude.
>> >> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
>> >> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
>> >> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
>> >> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
>> >> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
>> >> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
>> >> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
>> >> >have to share lanes with them.
>> >> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
>> >> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
>> >> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
>> >> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
>> >> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
>> >> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
>> >> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
>> >> >> Of course, by the same token there
>> >> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
>> >> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
>> >> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
>> >> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
>> >> >> teenager.
>> >> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
>> >> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
>> >> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
>> >> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
>> >> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
>> >> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
>> >> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
>> >> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
>> >> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
>> >> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
>> >> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
>> >> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
>> >> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
>> >> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
>> >> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
>> >> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
>> >> traffic speed;
>> >They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
>> >sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
>> >cooperation I was talking about.
>> >> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
>> >> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
>> >> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
>> >> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
>> >One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
>> >> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
>> >The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
>> >concept, as is "trespass".
>> Given that I was quoting someone I thought it might be useful to quote
>> him as exactly as I could :-)
>> But frankly I cannot for the live of me see what all the folderol and
>> furor is about. You bought a bike? Then go and ride it. You don't like
>> the road? Then do what the truckers do and use another road; or get
>> off and push it.
>> The concept that one goes out and buys something and then discovers
>> that he/she doesn't want to play with their goodie because of some
>> perceived danger and therefore tax payer's money should be spent to
>> provide these people with a special venue for playing with their new
>> toys simply appears so ludicrous that I am truly amazed that anyone
>> even cares to advocate it.
>> Hmmm.... I wonder whether I can get the NRA to advocate building a new
>> target range closer to my house.
>If they don't make one, then you may want to start aiming at people.
>But bikes don't need infrastructure if you are on a budget. All you
>need is to TAKE THE LANE every time. Nobody can deny you space, can
>they?
Well, disregarding the fact that by "taking the lane" one is
deliberately impeding traffic to a speed that you can manage on the
bike - say less then 30 MPH - which some might feel is a bit careless
of other's rights and privileges, to say nothing of the possibility of
someone, say a large truck, approaching from the rear at twice your
speed and possibly being unable to stop or maneuver to avoid you.
Personally I have always regarded traffic as a 900 lb. gorilla. "What
can a 900 lb. gorilla do? Why, anything he wants to." So the logical
rider will do just what one does with the gorilla - stay out of his
way. Having the right-of-way is of little value if one is laying in
the casket with everyone else walking by saying how well one looks,
"why, he looks just like he's sleeping".
>John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:26:49
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>>On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Jun 23, 5:04 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> >> <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >John B. wrote:
>>>> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
>>>> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
>>>> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
>>>> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
>>>> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
>>>> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
>>>> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
>>>> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
>>>> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
>>>> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
>>>> >> > > However, we do
>>>> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
>>>> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
>>>> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
>>>> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
>>>> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
>>>> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
>>>> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
>>>> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
>>>> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
>>>> >> >> At least I can't
>>>> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
>>>> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
>>>> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
>>>> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
>>>> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
>>>> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
>>>> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
>>>> >> >attitude.
>>>> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
>>>> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
>>>> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
>>>> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
>>>> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
>>>> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
>>>> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
>>>> >have to share lanes with them.
>>>> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
>>>> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
>>>> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
>>>> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
>>>> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
>>>> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
>>>> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
>>>> >> Of course, by the same token there
>>>> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
>>>> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
>>>> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
>>>> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
>>>> >> teenager.
>>>> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
>>>> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
>>>> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
>>>> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
>>>> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
>>>> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
>>>> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
>>>> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
>>>> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
>>>> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
>>>> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
>>>> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
>>>> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
>>>> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
>>>> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
>>>> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
>>>> traffic speed;
>>>They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
>>>sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
>>>cooperation I was talking about.
>>>> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
>>>> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
>>>> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
>>>> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
>>>One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
>>>> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
>>>The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
>>>concept, as is "trespass".
>>Given that I was quoting someone I thought it might be useful to quote
>>him as exactly as I could :-)
>>But frankly I cannot for the live of me see what all the folderol and
>>furor is about. You bought a bike? Then go and ride it. You don't like
>>the road? Then do what the truckers do and use another road; or get
>>off and push it.
>>The concept that one goes out and buys something and then discovers
>>that he/she doesn't want to play with their goodie because of some
>>perceived danger and therefore tax payer's money should be spent to
>>provide these people with a special venue for playing with their new
>>toys simply appears so ludicrous that I am truly amazed that anyone
>>even cares to advocate it.
>The basis for this belief is that a place has been provided (the
>road), and should be usable, but has been rendered less usable by the
>failure of the powers-that-be to properly regulate other traffic which
>has been allowed to dominate it to an extent that renders it unfit for
>original purpose (traveling without the assistance of an infernal
>combustion engine). Therefore it is the responsibility of the
>power-that-be to restore that function, either by properly controlling
>motor traffic or by providing an alternative.
I see, rather like the minimum speed regulations which are, or were,
popular for the limited access highways that were built in the U.S.
But your argument seems a bit one sided. After all I see little
provision being made for the poor horseman, who certainly were the
original reason that the roadways were constructed. No hitching posts,
no watering troughs, hard pavement, very bad for the hoofs, etc.
Perhaps as you say, a restoration of that function, by banning those
flashy cycles that are forever dodging in and out and scaring the
horses would be the first move.
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:35:03 +0100, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk>
> wrote:
> >John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:26:49
> >+0700 the perfect time to write:
> >>On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>>On Jun 23, 5:04 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
> >>>> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> >>>> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
> >>>> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
> >>>> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
> >>>> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
> >>>> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
> >>>> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
> >>>> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
> >>>> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
> >>>> >> > > However, we do
> >>>> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
> >>>> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
> >>>> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
> >>>> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
> >>>> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
> >>>> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
> >>>> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
> >>>> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
> >>>> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
> >>>> >> >> At least I can't
> >>>> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
> >>>> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
> >>>> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
> >>>> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
> >>>> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
> >>>> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
> >>>> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
> >>>> >> >attitude.
> >>>> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
> >>>> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
> >>>> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
> >>>> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
> >>>> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
> >>>> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
> >>>> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
> >>>> >have to share lanes with them.
> >>>> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
> >>>> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
> >>>> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
> >>>> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
> >>>> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
> >>>> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
> >>>> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
> >>>> >> Of course, by the same token there
> >>>> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
> >>>> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
> >>>> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
> >>>> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
> >>>> >> teenager.
> >>>> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
> >>>> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
> >>>> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
> >>>> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
> >>>> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
> >>>> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
> >>>> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
> >>>> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
> >>>> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
> >>>> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
> >>>> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
> >>>> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
> >>>> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
> >>>> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
> >>>> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
> >>>> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
> >>>> traffic speed;
> >>>They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
> >>>sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
> >>>cooperation I was talking about.
> >>>> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
> >>>> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
> >>>> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
> >>>> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
> >>>One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
> >>>> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
> >>>The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
> >>>concept, as is "trespass".
> >>Given that I was quoting someone I thought it might be useful to quote
> >>him as exactly as I could :-)
> >>But frankly I cannot for the live of me see what all the folderol and
> >>furor is about. You bought a bike? Then go and ride it. You don't like
> >>the road? Then do what the truckers do and use another road; or get
> >>off and push it.
> >>The concept that one goes out and buys something and then discovers
> >>that he/she doesn't want to play with their goodie because of some
> >>perceived danger and therefore tax payer's money should be spent to
> >>provide these people with a special venue for playing with their new
> >>toys simply appears so ludicrous that I am truly amazed that anyone
> >>even cares to advocate it.
> >The basis for this belief is that a place has been provided (the
> >road), and should be usable, but has been rendered less usable by the
> >failure of the powers-that-be to properly regulate other traffic which
> >has been allowed to dominate it to an extent that renders it unfit for
> >original purpose (traveling without the assistance of an infernal
> >combustion engine). Therefore it is the responsibility of the
> >power-that-be to restore that function, either by properly controlling
> >motor traffic or by providing an alternative.
> I see, rather like the minimum speed regulations which are, or were,
> popular for the limited access highways that were built in the U.S.
> But your argument seems a bit one sided. After all I see little
> provision being made for the poor horseman, who certainly were the
> original reason that the roadways were constructed. No hitching posts,
> no watering troughs, hard pavement, very bad for the hoofs, etc.
> Perhaps as you say, a restoration of that function, by banning those
> flashy cycles that are forever dodging in and out and scaring the
> horses would be the first move.
I think he meant the failure of the authority to rein in the
uncooperative domination of the roads by aggressive motorists.
Note the completely mode-agnostic nature of my definition of traffic
wrongdoer:
"any traveler who harms anyone else, or
demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
transportation"
> >>Hmmm.... I wonder whether I can get the NRA to advocate building a new
> >>target range closer to my house.
> >Only if there is some requirement for providing safe shooting, as
> >there usually is for safe roads.
I sort of prefer the Golden Rule - "do unto others as you would have
them do unto you" - it's sort of about being goodhearted in general
and not about being perfect ("without sin"). After all, isn't
shooting bullets from a gun nothing more or less than casting stones.
Note that there is no stoning in my recommended remedies for
wrongdoing.
John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:53:05 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
> Cruiser Philosopher"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But bikes don't need infrastructure if you are on a budget. All you
>> need is to TAKE THE LANE every time. Nobody can deny you space, can
>> they?
> Well, disregarding the fact that by "taking the lane" one is
> deliberately impeding traffic to a speed that you can manage on the
> bike - say less then 30 MPH - which some might feel is a bit careless
> of other's rights and privileges, to say nothing of the possibility of
> someone, say a large truck, approaching from the rear at twice your
> speed and possibly being unable to stop or maneuver to avoid you.
> Personally I have always regarded traffic as a 900 lb. gorilla. "What
> can a 900 lb. gorilla do? Why, anything he wants to." So the logical
> rider will do just what one does with the gorilla - stay out of his
> way. Having the right-of-way is of little value if one is laying in
> the casket with everyone else walking by saying how well one looks,
> "why, he looks just like he's sleeping".
Yep, the same old fear mongering. Except it's false.
As I mentioned, we just returned from France. Go there, and watch the cycling in Paris. It's absolutely common to see even women shoppers aged 60+ on Velib bikes riding down the middle of a narrow lane, just like everyone else, with motorists following patiently. No visible stress, no horn honking, and no dead bodies in caskets, at least that I could see. (Granted, I saw only about ten thousand cyclists in five days, so I might have missed something.)
I think if you told them they had to stay out of the way, they'd laugh at you.
> John B. wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:53:05 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
> > Cruiser Philosopher"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> But bikes don't need infrastructure if you are on a budget. All you
> >> need is to TAKE THE LANE every time. Nobody can deny you space, can
> >> they?
> > Well, disregarding the fact that by "taking the lane" one is
> > deliberately impeding traffic to a speed that you can manage on the
> > bike - say less then 30 MPH - which some might feel is a bit careless
> > of other's rights and privileges, to say nothing of the possibility of
> > someone, say a large truck, approaching from the rear at twice your
> > speed and possibly being unable to stop or maneuver to avoid you.
> > Personally I have always regarded traffic as a 900 lb. gorilla. "What
> > can a 900 lb. gorilla do? Why, anything he wants to." So the logical
> > rider will do just what one does with the gorilla - stay out of his
> > way. Having the right-of-way is of little value if one is laying in
> > the casket with everyone else walking by saying how well one looks,
> > "why, he looks just like he's sleeping".
> Yep, the same old fear mongering. Except it's false.
> As I mentioned, we just returned from France. Go there, and watch the
> cycling in Paris. It's absolutely common to see even women shoppers
> aged 60+ on Velib bikes riding down the middle of a narrow lane, just
> like everyone else, with motorists following patiently. No visible
> stress, no horn honking, and no dead bodies in caskets, at least that I
> could see. (Granted, I saw only about ten thousand cyclists in five
> days, so I might have missed something.)
> I think if you told them they had to stay out of the way, they'd laugh
> at you.
Nonetheless, in America - the land of the Chrysler 440 cubic inch
engine, we go from one encounter of aggressive hostility to another.
(But yeah, the monkey is off his rocker about it.)
>On Jun 24, 5:11 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:35:03 +0100, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:26:49
>> >+0700 the perfect time to write:
>> >>On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>>On Jun 23, 5:04 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> >On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
>> >>>> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
>> >>>> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
>> >>>> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
>> >>>> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
>> >>>> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
>> >>>> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
>> >>>> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
>> >>>> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
>> >>>> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
>> >>>> >> > > However, we do
>> >>>> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
>> >>>> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
>> >>>> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
>> >>>> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
>> >>>> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
>> >>>> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
>> >>>> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
>> >>>> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
>> >>>> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
>> >>>> >> >> At least I can't
>> >>>> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
>> >>>> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
>> >>>> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
>> >>>> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
>> >>>> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
>> >>>> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
>> >>>> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
>> >>>> >> >attitude.
>> >>>> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
>> >>>> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
>> >>>> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
>> >>>> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
>> >>>> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
>> >>>> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
>> >>>> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
>> >>>> >have to share lanes with them.
>> >>>> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
>> >>>> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
>> >>>> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
>> >>>> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
>> >>>> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
>> >>>> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
>> >>>> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
>> >>>> >> Of course, by the same token there
>> >>>> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
>> >>>> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
>> >>>> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
>> >>>> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
>> >>>> >> teenager.
>> >>>> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
>> >>>> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
>> >>>> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
>> >>>> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
>> >>>> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
>> >>>> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
>> >>>> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
>> >>>> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
>> >>>> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
>> >>>> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
>> >>>> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
>> >>>> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
>> >>>> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
>> >>>> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
>> >>>> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
>> >>>> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
>> >>>> traffic speed;
>> >>>They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
>> >>>sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
>> >>>cooperation I was talking about.
>> >>>> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
>> >>>> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
>> >>>> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
>> >>>> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
>> >>>One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
>> >>>> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
>> >>>The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
>> >>>concept, as is "trespass".
>> >>Given that I was quoting someone I thought it might be useful to quote
>> >>him as exactly as I could :-)
>> >>But frankly I cannot for the live of me see what all the folderol and
>> >>furor is about. You bought a bike? Then go and ride it. You don't like
>> >>the road? Then do what the truckers do and use another road; or get
>> >>off and push it.
>> >>The concept that one goes out and buys something and then discovers
>> >>that he/she doesn't want to play with their goodie because of some
>> >>perceived danger and therefore tax payer's money should be spent to
>> >>provide these people with a special venue for playing with their new
>> >>toys simply appears so ludicrous that I am truly amazed that anyone
>> >>even cares to advocate it.
>> >The basis for this belief is that a place has been provided (the
>> >road), and should be usable, but has been rendered less usable by the
>> >failure of the powers-that-be to properly regulate other traffic which
>> >has been allowed to dominate it to an extent that renders it unfit for
>> >original purpose (traveling without the assistance of an infernal
>> >combustion engine). Therefore it is the responsibility of the
>> >power-that-be to restore that function, either by properly controlling
>> >motor traffic or by providing an alternative.
>> I see, rather like the minimum speed regulations which are, or were,
>> popular for the limited access highways that were built in the U.S.
>> But your argument seems a bit one sided. After all I see little
>> provision being made for the poor horseman, who certainly were the
>> original reason that the roadways were constructed. No hitching posts,
>> no watering troughs, hard pavement, very bad for the hoofs, etc.
>> Perhaps as you say, a restoration of that function, by banning those
>> flashy cycles that are forever dodging in and out and scaring the
>> horses would be the first move.
>I think he meant the failure of the authority to rein in the
>uncooperative domination of the roads by aggressive motorists.
Err.... I though that the authorities posted speed limits. Isn't one
entitled to travel at these posted speeds? I used to see minimum
speeds posted on some roadways. Do you not still have those postings?
If this is still true then it appears that authorities have instituted
minimum and maximum speeds for that particular highway. All the
traveler needs to do is comply with the law :-)
>Note the completely mode-agnostic nature of my definition of traffic
>wrongdoer:
>"any traveler who harms anyone else, or
>demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
>inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
>transportation"
Ah! You are talking about that guy who is traveling so slow that a
whole bunch of cars are lined up behind him, waiting to pass?
>> >>Hmmm.... I wonder whether I can get the NRA to advocate building a new
>> >>target range closer to my house.
>> >Only if there is some requirement for providing safe shooting, as
>> >there usually is for safe roads.
>I sort of prefer the Golden Rule - "do unto others as you would have
>them do unto you" - it's sort of about being goodhearted in general
>and not about being perfect ("without sin"). After all, isn't
>shooting bullets from a gun nothing more or less than casting stones.
>Note that there is no stoning in my recommended remedies for
>wrongdoing.
Well, I always thought of it as punching holes in paper, but to each
his own description :-)
> Err.... I though that the authorities posted speed limits. Isn't one
> entitled to travel at these posted speeds?
No, absolutely not - although that's a misunderstanding that's not as rare as it should be. Any number of things can require motorists to drive far slower than the speed limit. It's an UPPER limit, not a lower limit.
> I used to see minimum
> speeds posted on some roadways. Do you not still have those postings?
In my state, those exist only on expressways, or limited access highways. In states (mostly) in the Western U.S. where bicycles are allowed access to expressways, bicycles are not required to travel at a minimum speed.
> If this is still true then it appears that authorities have instituted
> minimum and maximum speeds for that particular highway. All the
> traveler needs to do is comply with the law :-)
First they must know the law. Obviously, some do not. :-)
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Jun 24, 5:11 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:35:03 +0100, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >> >John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:26:49
> >> >+0700 the perfect time to write:
> >> >>On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>>On Jun 23, 5:04 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>> >On Jun 23, 6:15 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:11:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> >>>> >> >> To be frank, I can't see the necessity of "bike lanes". I have lived
> >> >>>> >> >> in 4 Asian countries in the past 20 years, all of whom do not have
> >> >>>> >> >> bicycle "facilities" and strangely enough (from what I read here) we
> >> >>>> >> >> don't seem to have a plurality of bicycle accidents.
> >> >>>> >> >The necessity of bike lanes is a myth, similar to other bike safety
> >> >>>> >> >myths. Americans have been told for 30 years now that they _need_ bike
> >> >>>> >> >lanes and special hats to survive riding a bike. Few question that
> >> >>>> >> >propaganda, and almost none bother to look for actual data.
> >> >>>> >> >The data would disprove both notions, if they were curious enough to
> >> >>>> >> >look and mathematical enough to understand.
> >> >>>> >> > > However, we do
> >> >>>> >> >> have the policy that in the event of an accident the largest
> >> >>>> >> >> participant is initially deemed to be at fault. i.e., a bike hits a
> >> >>>> >> >> pedestrian, the bike is initially deemed to be at fault; if a
> >> >>>> >> >> motorcycle hits a bicycle, it is the motorcycle's fault, if an auto
> >> >>>> >> >> hits a motorcycle it is the auto's fault, and so on.
> >> >>>> >> >> While investigation may very well demonstrate that the larger
> >> >>>> >> >> participant is blameless it does provide a starting place for
> >> >>>> >> >> determining fault and seems to work pretty well.
> >> >>>> >> >An entirely reasonable approach, I think.
> >> >>>> >> >> At least I can't
> >> >>>> >> >> remember a single case where I was threatened, cursed, or beer cans
> >> >>>> >> >> hurled at me while riding a bike. But perhaps that is a matter of more
> >> >>>> >> >> civilized actions in the developing countries?
> >> >>>> >> >Perhaps. Some of us get very little trouble when riding.
> >> >>>> >> >Alternately, perhaps it's just that some of us ignore minor incidents,
> >> >>>> >> >while others obsess over them and complain loudly online. I happen to
> >> >>>> >> >think the world a person inhabits is greatly shaped by the person's own
> >> >>>> >> >attitude.
> >> >>>> >> But in this modern "somebody else's gotta take care of me" era I can
> >> >>>> >> see the necessity for bike lanes.
> >> >>>> >You miss the point of bike lanes. While Nervous Nellie and Ned see
> >> >>>> >them as safe(r) places for them to ride out of car traffic, their real
> >> >>>> >purpose is to keep bike out of the way of cars.
> >> >>>> >This is not without benefit to the bicyclist, owing to the (mostly
> >> >>>> >unreasonable) hostility many motorists direct to bicyclists if they
> >> >>>> >have to share lanes with them.
> >> >>>> >This is not to say that bike lanes are an ideal solution, but what the
> >> >>>> >heck - as long as bicycling isn't relegated to token, poor
> >> >>>> >facilities. Ideally, ample satisfactory bicycling facilites would
> >> >>>> >make the attitude problem irrelevant. Anti-facility "advocates" argue
> >> >>>> >that facilities are a poor substitute for cooperative use of existing
> >> >>>> >roads, and there's truth in that; but you've got start somewhere;
> >> >>>> >you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.
> >> >>>> >> Of course, by the same token there
> >> >>>> >> should be "foot paths" solely reserved for foot traffic, and perhaps
> >> >>>> >> with the rapidly ageing population it might be useful to consider
> >> >>>> >> "Reserved for the Elderly" pathways. After all some of us aren't as
> >> >>>> >> spry as we used to be and can't leap out of the way of a speeding
> >> >>>> >> teenager.
> >> >>>> >> Of course, to be effective these byways need to be policed. I would
> >> >>>> >> recommend, say a $500 fine, for improper usage.
> >> >>>> >I would recommend, say, require any traveler who harms anyone else, or
> >> >>>> >demonstrates a pattern of disregard for cooperative principles,
> >> >>>> >inflicting undue distress on others in the course of their private
> >> >>>> >transportation... take away these assholes right to private
> >> >>>> >transportation (difficult to implement, but not impossible) - restrict
> >> >>>> >their free travel first to well-behaved use of (ample and adequate)
> >> >>>> >public transportation. If they can't maintain cooperative regard
> >> >>>> >there, take away their right to free travel. If that doesn't work,
> >> >>>> >intervention and incarceration, with incentives for productive
> >> >>>> >rehabilitation (requiring work to offset their cost to society -
> >> >>>> >otherwise put them in a hole somewhere). All subject to a
> >> >>>> >compassionate justice system based on reasonableness, of course.
> >> >>>> Err... I kind of agree with you. But you are leaving out the assholes
> >> >>>> who insist on impeding traffic by traveling slower then the average
> >> >>>> traffic speed;
> >> >>>They're not assholes about it if they weave out of the way onto
> >> >>>sidewalks and meadows, now are they? That would be the regard for
> >> >>>cooperation I was talking about.
> >> >>>> weave around and even (horrors) leave the highway for
> >> >>>> short sojourns onto sidewalks and curbs, or even across meadows and
> >> >>>> fields, frequently disobey traffic laws - ignoring stop signs and
> >> >>>> lights - and other (one might say) unfriendly acts?
> >> >>>One might say. "Reasonableness" is an interesting concept.
> >> >>>> Who was it that said, "let those without sin cast the first stone" ?
> >> >>>The concept crosses my mind fairly often. "Sin" is another interestng
> >> >>>concept, as is "trespass".
> >> >>Given that I was quoting someone I thought it might be useful to quote
> >> >>him as exactly as I could :-)
> >> >>But frankly I cannot for the live of me see what all the folderol and
> >> >>furor is about. You bought a bike? Then go and ride it. You don't like
> >> >>the road? Then do what the truckers do and use another road; or get
> >> >>off and push it.
> >> >>The concept that one goes out and buys something and then discovers
> >> >>that he/she doesn't want to play with their goodie because of some
> >> >>perceived danger and therefore tax payer's money should be spent to
> >> >>provide these people with a special venue for playing with their new
> >> >>toys simply appears so ludicrous that I am truly amazed that anyone
> >> >>even cares to advocate it.
> >> >The basis for this belief is that a place has been provided (the
> >> >road), and should be usable, but has been rendered less usable by the
> >> >failure of the powers-that-be to properly regulate other traffic which
> >> >has been allowed to dominate it to an extent that renders it unfit for
> >> >original purpose (traveling without the assistance of an infernal
> >> >combustion engine). Therefore it is the responsibility of the
> >> >power-that-be to restore that function, either by properly controlling
> >> >motor traffic or by providing an alternative.
> >> I see, rather like the minimum speed regulations which are, or were,
> >> popular for the limited access highways that were built in the U.S.
> >> But your argument seems a bit one sided. After all I see little
> >> provision being made for the poor horseman, who certainly were the
> >> original reason that the roadways were constructed. No hitching posts,
> >> no watering troughs, hard pavement, very bad for the hoofs, etc.
> >> Perhaps as you say, a restoration of that function, by banning those
> >> flashy cycles that are forever dodging in and out and scaring the
> >> horses would be the first move.
> >I think he meant the failure of the authority to rein in the
> >uncooperative domination of the roads by aggressive motorists.
> Err.... I though that the authorities posted speed limits. Isn't one
> entitled to travel at these posted speeds?
> I used to see minimum
> speeds posted on some roadways. Do you not still have those postings?
I can't recall ever having seen one, but imagine such things may
exist. Seems reasonable for some applications.
I find the manifest hostility of intolerant motorists everywhere
vastly more compelling, and think this is something like the "...
rendered less usable by the failure of the powers-that-be to properly
regulate other traffic which has been allowed to dominate it... " that
Phil mentioned.
> If this is still true then it appears that authorities have instituted
> minimum and maximum speeds for that particular highway. All the
> traveler needs to do is comply with the law :-)
See "Basic Rule". I believe the traveler should also cooperate
reasonably to accommodate the interests of others.
