Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA

[Andre Jute]

480,000 Americans die before their time every year from smoking-related diseases -- and the stupidity of successive governments and anti-smoking campaigners and grandstanding, dim-witted legislators. Now comes Scott Gottlieb, who demonstrates that he's a clear thinker who hasn't been captured by the hysterics of control freak Left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450444/food-drug-administration-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-changes-united-states-tobacco-e-cigarette-policy

Why doesn't cycling have a clear thinker like Scott Gottlieb to cut through the bullshit and define the problem?

Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.

Andre Jute
Stands to reason that first you should define the problem correctly

[AMuzi]

He's not a one-note campaigner either. Dr Gottlieb writes
well and clearly on a range of issues. Been a fan of his
for a long while.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:58:27 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>480,000 Americans die before their time every year from
>smoking-related diseases -- and the stupidity of successive
>governments and anti-smoking campaigners and grandstanding,
>dim-witted legislators. Now comes Scott Gottlieb, who
>demonstrates that he's a clear thinker who hasn't been
>captured by the hysterics of control freak Left.
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450444/food-drug-administration-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-changes-united-states-tobacco-e-cigarette-policy
>
>Why doesn't cycling have a clear thinker like Scott Gottlieb
>to cut through the bullshit and define the problem?

What problem? Or rather, which cycling problem? If it were one
single problem, solutions would be obvious and possibly easily
implemented. But, because there are many problems, many of which
overlap into other problem areas, no single messiah is going to make
everyone happy.

Incidentally, one bicycling problem is very similar to the smoking
problem. State and local governments derive about 0.5 to 2.0% of
their revenue from tobacco taxes. I'm not sure of the percentage of
gasoline and automobile sales taxes that the states collect, but it
must be substantial. Were cycling to displace automobile use and
gasoline consumption, the state and local budgets would suffer
severely. Same with untaxed vaping cigarettes displacing taxed
tobacco products. Never mind the merits of the arguments. Just
follow the money and you'll see why little was being done about
tobacco and little is being done for solving bicycling problems.

>Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.

Good article. I guess the lobbyists and vested interested haven't
gotten to Dr Gottlieb yet.

>Stands to reason that first you should define the problem correctly

The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
financial. Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

Do I get a prize for defining the problem?

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[James]

On 15/08/17 06:58, Andre Jute wrote:
> 480,000 Americans die before their time every year from
> smoking-related diseases -- and the stupidity of successive
> governments and anti-smoking campaigners and grandstanding,
> dim-witted legislators. Now comes Scott Gottlieb, who demonstrates
> that he's a clear thinker who hasn't been captured by the hysterics
> of control freak Left.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450444/food-drug-administration-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-changes-united-states-tobacco-e-cigarette-policy
>
> Why doesn't cycling have a clear thinker like Scott Gottlieb to cut
> through the bullshit and define the problem?
>
> Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.

I heard recently that e-cigarettes contain some possibly worse chemicals
than good old fashion cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes

The Swedes have Snus instead. Best of both worlds.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/sweden-figured-out-how-to-stop-people-from-smoking-20170610-gwothf.html

My own theory is that many of these bad habits are the result of
boredom. In Iceland they may have found a cure.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/teens-drugs-iceland/513668/

--
JS

[Tim McNamara]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:35:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> What problem? Or rather, which cycling problem?

There are two cycling problems, which may be defined by and from
specific perspectives. The first is that there are, relatively
speaking, far too few people riding bikes. The second is that there are
far too many people riding bikes.

Which problem did Andre want solved by a clear-headed thinker?

> Incidentally, one bicycling problem is very similar to the smoking
> problem. State and local governments derive about 0.5 to 2.0% of
> their revenue from tobacco taxes. I'm not sure of the percentage of
> gasoline and automobile sales taxes that the states collect, but it
> must be substantial. Were cycling to displace automobile use and
> gasoline consumption, the state and local budgets would suffer
> severely. Same with untaxed vaping cigarettes displacing taxed
> tobacco products. Never mind the merits of the arguments. Just
> follow the money and you'll see why little was being done about
> tobacco and little is being done for solving bicycling problems.

Gasoline taxes are handled very weirdly in most, if not all, states and
at the federal level. In practical terms, driving is considered as if
it is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed- by speed
limits, road construction, license revocation, people in Priuses or
drunk driving laws in particular.

In Minnesota, a $10 "wheelage tax" was added to new car registrations
and renewals to make up for the drop in revenue that resulted from (1)
improved gas mileage and (2) reduced average miles driven per year.
Many of the inveterate drivers are aging out of the active driving pool
and a lot of millenials don't own cars in urban areas- they ride bikes,
walk, use transit, Uber/Lyft it or do rentals by the hour or fraction
thereof. When gas hit $4.00+ pe gallon, I noted a local surge in people
riding their bikes to work and for errands and a marked increase in fuel
efficient vehicles. Those trends only partially reversed when the price
of gas dropped to practically historic lows.

>>Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.
>
> Good article. I guess the lobbyists and vested interested haven't
> gotten to Dr Gottlieb yet.

Of course they have. Whether you think the lobbyists and vested
interests have gotten to any particular commentator depends on which
lobbyists and vested interests have gotten to *you*. We all accept or
reject ideas and information based on our prejudices and few of us are
open to changing our beliefs. The funny thing there is that holding to
our prejudices makes us feel strong, but in fact robs us of our power to
a great extent. The people who pick our government are the very small
segment of the population that goes back and forth from one election
cycle to the next.

>>Stands to reason that first you should define the problem correctly

True as far as it goes; what again was the "problem" of cycling, Andre?

> The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
> competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
> financial. Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
> and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

Bicycling is already an economical alternative to driving by at least an
order of magnitude when comparing a mid-range bike with a mid-range car.
Operating costs of a bike are a tiny fraction of the operating costs of
a car, even when factoring the stupidly high prices of consumables like
bike tires (why do bike tires cost about the same as car tires with 500
times more rubber in them?).

The car I just bought listed at about 1/3 of the price I paid for my
house in 1993. My house has appreciated (according to my property tax
statement, which rivals Tolkien in the fantasy genre) to be worth three
times what I paid for it; my car won't appreciate. I could buy about 6
of my very most expensive bike- which was a silly amount of money to
spend- for the cost of my car.

What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so (I've
been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really don't
know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000? Economics are not
really the carrot one might hope for. People do not make choices in an
economically coherent fashion.

[John B.]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:28:04 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 15/08/17 06:58, Andre Jute wrote:
>> 480,000 Americans die before their time every year from
>> smoking-related diseases -- and the stupidity of successive
>> governments and anti-smoking campaigners and grandstanding,
>> dim-witted legislators. Now comes Scott Gottlieb, who demonstrates
>> that he's a clear thinker who hasn't been captured by the hysterics
>> of control freak Left.
>>
>> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450444/food-drug-administration-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-changes-united-states-tobacco-e-cigarette-policy
>>
>> Why doesn't cycling have a clear thinker like Scott Gottlieb to cut
>> through the bullshit and define the problem?
>>
>> Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.
>
>I heard recently that e-cigarettes contain some possibly worse chemicals
>than good old fashion cigarettes.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes
>
>The Swedes have Snus instead. Best of both worlds.
>
>http://www.smh.com.au/world/sweden-figured-out-how-to-stop-people-from-smoking-20170610-gwothf.html
>

Actually "dipping snus" is probably roughly the same as chewing
tobacco as far as danger to the individual. I used to work with snus
users and they seem to be as dependent on it as cigarette smokers. We
had an old crane operator that threatened to leave if they forgot to
bring his Copenhagen on the next crew change.

>My own theory is that many of these bad habits are the result of
>boredom. In Iceland they may have found a cure.
>
>https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/teens-drugs-iceland/513668/
--

Cheers,

John B.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Andre - nicotine causes cancer - the tars and other detritus from smoking cigarettes causes the half dozen or more other illnesses such as emphysema.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170612094027.htm

Furthermore, most people that "vape" for more than a couple of months are very likely to switch to cigarettes.

https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/new-ucsf-study-e-cigarettes-are-expanding-tobacco-product-use-among-youth

So this isn't "clear headed thinking". It is merely the government not spending the money to battle the new threat. (And I don't believe it's any of their business to begin with.)

I was a smoker from an early age but when my father got emphysema he made me promise to quit. I did and I think I smoked one cigarette after a month and that was the end of it.

Why should any tax money be spent to prevent people from committing suicide?

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

> The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
> competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
> financial.

No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now
mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they
travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time.

> Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
> and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).

I’d bet against that. Even if you gave free bikes to everyone who
wanted one, most people would still prefer to sit on their ass in
traffic and scream at other cars.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/15/2017 3:00 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:28:04 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 15/08/17 06:58, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> 480,000 Americans die before their time every year from
>>> smoking-related diseases -- and the stupidity of successive
>>> governments and anti-smoking campaigners and grandstanding,
>>> dim-witted legislators. Now comes Scott Gottlieb, who demonstrates
>>> that he's a clear thinker who hasn't been captured by the hysterics
>>> of control freak Left.
>>>
>>> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450444/food-drug-administration-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-changes-united-states-tobacco-e-cigarette-policy
>>>
>>> Why doesn't cycling have a clear thinker like Scott Gottlieb to cut
>>> through the bullshit and define the problem?
>>>
>>> Read the article before you make a knee-jerk reflex.
>>
>> I heard recently that e-cigarettes contain some possibly worse chemicals
>> than good old fashion cigarettes.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes
>>
>> The Swedes have Snus instead. Best of both worlds.
>>
>> http://www.smh.com.au/world/sweden-figured-out-how-to-stop-people-from-smoking-20170610-gwothf.html
>>
> Actually "dipping snus" is probably roughly the same as chewing
> tobacco as far as danger to the individual. I used to work with snus
> users and they seem to be as dependent on it as cigarette smokers. We
> had an old crane operator that threatened to leave if they forgot to
> bring his Copenhagen on the next crew change.

It sounds like they acknowledge that the tobacco in snus is still
addicting. It's just that ingesting it this way causes far less
physical harm.

I do wonder if it requires as much ugly spitting as chewing tobacco.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Unless you put in bike paths everywhere. Then they would ride. Really. Even if they live 15 miles from their work on the other side of a mountain. https://www.ridersmate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/cliffs-of-moher1.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/15/2017 1:20 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> Bicycling is already an economical alternative to driving by at least an
> order of magnitude when comparing a mid-range bike with a mid-range car.
> Operating costs of a bike are a tiny fraction of the operating costs of
> a car, even when factoring the stupidly high prices of consumables like

> bike tires...

>
> What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so (I've
> been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really don't
> know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000? Economics are not
> really the carrot one might hope for. People do not make choices in an
> economically coherent fashion.

I think you're using too restrictive a definition of "economic." Yours
seems to be counting only dollars. But at least in some discussions
"economics" is used to describe human behavior in response to benefits
and detriments in general, not just when counting dollars. (The
_Freakonomics_ series of books goes into this idea in detail.)

While I'm staunchly in favor of bicycling, I think American society
practically mandates owning an automobile, at least for well over 90% of
households. I'll bicycle to the grocery store today, but I'll be making
a 120 mile round trip in a few days, then a much longer round trip a few
days after that. In each of those cases I know no practical alternative
to driving the car.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Good thing those guys are wearing helmets. Can you imagine falling off
those cliffs without one? ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

The main underlying problem, in the States anyway, is simply that everything is scaled to automobiles. Almost everything follows from this fact.

It is also of great importance that there so few Americans who cycle constantly, who don't reach automatically for the car keys.

You know that I think that the number of cyclist deaths in the US is disgraceful, but we've done that to death on this forum, and in any event 700 deaths isn't enough to get any politician excited. I mention this merely as background, not because I want to fight an old helmet/no helmet battle over again. However, if the number of cyclists double, it is likely that the number of road deaths will more than double, and if the number of cyclists quadruple, the number of road deaths will increase by a much larger factor, because most cyclists now are more experienced and cautious than those new cyclists will be.

A problem that follows from there not already being visible number of cyclists, never mind a preponderance of cyclists, is "motorists' right to the road".

The major barrier to more cyclists being put on the road is attitudinal. Existing cyclists, mainly old roadies, who think they'll be riding to work at 25mph, will be sorely disappointed. Large numbers of cyclists will bring down everyone's top and average speed. The attitudes of car drivers is too obvious for me to comment on. Lawmakers can change a cultural outlook but it takes decades and presupposes a receptive audience, which brings us back to the breakpoint at which there are so many cyclists that they can no longer be ignored by anyone.

I don't take Tim's point that raising the price of petrol necessarily turns people on to cycling. where I live petrol costs more than the four dollars a gallon he mentions*, but still most drivers look down on cyclists as poverty riders. Where I live several of my pedal pals ride elite bikes that they bought for fifty euro, virtually unused, from the garages of people who, at some petrol-tax rise or government subsidized bike purchase scheme, bought a bike and then lost enthusiasm after one ride, and went back to the car. Yet we live in a place where almost anything can be conveniently reached on foot or by bicycle within only minutes. To me that indicates a deep-seated preference for the car.

* I don't actually know how much petrol costs here now: I haven't kept a car since 1992, and anyway, our cars consumed very little petrol as money value in comparison with servicing charges and especially with depreciation.

Andre Jute
The difficult we do before lunch, the impossible takes until tomorrow

[Andre Jute]

A few years ago the government paid for bicycle parking racks to be installed in my village. They were wrongly sited of course, and to this day I've never once seen them used. But never mind that. A television company paid by the EU to promote environmentalist was there to film the proceedings and invited me, as the area's most noted cyclist, to come make a speech. It also invited everyone it could reach who cycles. Here's the punchline: I was the only one who turned up on a bike, because I don't have a car. Though all of them lived nearer the venue than half a mile, the rest all came not on their bikes or on foot but by car.

There, in a single observation, you have the entire prognosis for the future of cycling in Ireland: not good.

Mind you, the bike share scheme in three cities appear to go well, though they were at the time described as "trial schemes" and I haven't heard of any new ones being started, which is a little ominous. See http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/photo-essay-by-andre-jute-coca-cola-zero-bikes-share-scheme-in-cork-galway-and-limerick/

Andre Jute
Leading by example just makes you unpopular for being "superior"

[Radey Shouman]

Snus (we called it "dip") is big where I grew up, the stereotypical pair
of Wrangler jeans always has a circular wear mark in the back pocket
made by a tin of Copenhagen or Skoal. Spitting is required, just as
with chewing tobacco -- don't even think about drinking the last sip of
Coke in the bottom of that stray can.

Dip is hell on the teeth and gums, sometimes to the point of cancer, and
doesn't do much for the sweetness of the breath. (Cancer does give one
awful halitosis). On the other hand, it doesn't cause lung cancer,
emphysema, smoker's cough or shortness of breath. It's not a fire
hazard, and users don't annoy anyone with drifting smoke.

--

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:57:50 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary

<drol...@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

>For your reference, records indicate that
>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
>> competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
>> financial.
>
>No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now
>mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
>gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they
>travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time.

I beg to differ. Excessive body mass and lack of motivation are
certainly real problems. However, they are symptoms, not causes. Take
a giant step backwards and ask yourself why people are like that, and
you'll probably discover a range of problems that if they can be
solved, will also have a positive effect on obesity and motivation.

>> Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles
>> and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed).
>
>I’d bet against that. Even if you gave free bikes to everyone who
>wanted one, most people would still prefer to sit on their ass in
>traffic and scream at other cars.

See the reply by Frank Krygowski on expanding the definition of
economical. I was having problems trying to find a suitable word for
making bicycling attractive to the GUM (great unwashed masses). One
way is to reduce costs and promote healthy exercise, but others are to
reduce the relative costs between walking, cycling, public transport,
and driving. By costs, I mean dollars per year for insurance and debt
retirement and dollars per mile for operating costs. For example, my
neighbors teenage sons all ride bicycles, not because bicycles are
cheap, but because they can't afford the insurance costs for even a
shared automobile.

I won't offer any solutions to the problem, because this discussion is
about defining the problem, not find a solution. Much of the
discussion over infrastructure seem to resemble selecting a favored
solution from a menu of available possibilities, and force fitting
that solution into whatever problem yells the loudest. In other
words, define the problem you're trying to solve first, and then talk
about solutions.

[John B.]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:57:50 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
<drol...@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

It apparently is human nature to avoid undue effort. It is a very
visible phenomena in developing countries. The poor walk - the economy
improves a bit and they buy a bicycle. The economy improves a little
more and it is a 90cc motorcycle and finally, within one person's
lifetime, an automobile.

It has happened in every country I have lived in, including, to a
certain extent, the U.S.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Certainly they would. Perhaps not on the days when it is raining, or
those hideously hot summer days, or when they've got to pick the kid
up from school and take him to his clarinet lesson, or maybe not on
the days they aren't feeling too well after yesterday's big party.
Or...
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> writes:

[ ... ]

> The car I just bought listed at about 1/3 of the price I paid for my
> house in 1993. My house has appreciated (according to my property tax
> statement, which rivals Tolkien in the fantasy genre) to be worth three
> times what I paid for it; my car won't appreciate. I could buy about 6
> of my very most expensive bike- which was a silly amount of money to
> spend- for the cost of my car.
>
> What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so (I've
> been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really don't
> know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000? Economics are not
> really the carrot one might hope for. People do not make choices in an
> economically coherent fashion.

Many people in the US literally don't care what their car costs, they
only care about the monthly payment. An increasing number of cars are
never paid off. This is, of course, insane, but that's how it is.

A small increase in the cost of fuel, insurance, parking, or tolls is
much more likely to lead to a change in behavior than a large increase
in the cost of a new car.


--

[John B.]

Yup. It is basically about the same as chewing with perhaps a slightly
lower flow of Saliva. If you swallow it makes you sick.
(been there, done that :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

You left out the final step: Then they buy a treadmill, or join a health
club where they can "walk" indoors in one place.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Doug Landau]

Can you ride your bicycle to synagogue on Shabbat? I don't think that riding it is carrying it, it's it carrying you, so #1 is not a concern. Also, if you haven't been riding, then it;'s not a weekday activity, so #3 is OK too. But if the chain breaks you're fucked.


1) It is prohibited to carry objects in a public domain on Shabbat. Transporting an object by riding it is tantamount to carrying it.

2) Fixing a device on Shabbat is prohibited. If the bicycle breaks down, for example if the chain falls off, there is concern that the rider may fix it.

3) Riding a bike is considered a mundane weekday activity, one that we refrain from on Shabbat.

[John B.]

Of course. And, I might add it seems somewhat difficult to find a
"health club" that will accept just any one. I went to one, oh maybe 2
km from the house, and asked about joining. Figured I could bike down
get a workout and a shower and back home smelling all clean and perty.
Yes Sir! We have the six month (pay in advance) option or the one year
(pay in advance) "full membership. "Which would you prefer sir? And of
course I'm sure that you understand that a personal trainer is extra.

I mumbled something about, "maybe three days a week, work out with the
free weights a little?" I was assured that they only had the very
latest and specialized exercise machines here.

To be honest, I'm not sure that the little girl at the counter quite
understood the term "free weights", but after looking in the windows
to the "exercise rooms" I realized I wouldn't fit in any way. All
those people were wearing. at least, $200 of "exercise clothing" while
my idea of "exercise clothes" is an old pair of shorts and a singlet.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:57:50 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
> <drol...@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> >For your reference, records indicate that
> >Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is
> >> competition from automotive interests at all levels especially
> >> financial.
> >
> >No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now
> >mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a
> >gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they
> >travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time.
>
> I beg to differ. Excessive body mass and lack of motivation are
> certainly real problems. However, they are symptoms, not causes.

I’m not sure it much matters. That simply *is* the landscape you’re
dealing with, and thus a major part of the problem that needs to be
solved. Besides, symptoms have a way of becoming causes of other
illnesses. Obesity is a prime example.

> Take
> a giant step backwards and ask yourself why people are like that, and
> you'll probably discover a range of problems that if they can be
> solved, will also have a positive effect on obesity and motivation.

But that doesn’t address the problem that bicycles *still* require
effort to use and still expose you to weather. Most guys who wears a
suit at work aren’t going to be keen on biking 15 miles in the rain,
regardless of their fitness level. If we *really* take a big enough
step backwards, we see all kinds of problems that are interconnected.
We can’t just address a single issue and act like that is going to
result in the widespread adoption of bicycling.

> For example, my
> neighbors teenage sons all ride bicycles, not because bicycles are
> cheap, but because they can't afford the insurance costs for even a
> shared automobile.

But the real problem is that they still likely *want* a car, and
probably will get one when they can afford one. If you want to see a
real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such
a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric
vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic
impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s
really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt
and/or adapt them.

> In other
> words, define the problem you're trying to solve first, and then talk
> about solutions.

But we must also be aware we need to define a problem that people
*want* to solve. In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that
most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably.
Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change. But
we appear to be living at a time where large numbers of people are
rejecting objective reality and science.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/16/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Landau wrote:
>
> Can you ride your bicycle to synagogue on Shabbat? I don't think that riding it is carrying it, it's it carrying you, so #1 is not a concern. Also, if you haven't been riding, then it;'s not a weekday activity, so #3 is OK too. But if the chain breaks you're fucked.
>
>
> 1) It is prohibited to carry objects in a public domain on Shabbat. Transporting an object by riding it is tantamount to carrying it.
>
> 2) Fixing a device on Shabbat is prohibited. If the bicycle breaks down, for example if the chain falls off, there is concern that the rider may fix it.
>
> 3) Riding a bike is considered a mundane weekday activity, one that we refrain from on Shabbat.

FWIW, we have Amish areas not far from our home. I've learned that
their rules vary from congregation to congregation. Some allow the use
of bicycles; others forbid bicycles but allow push scooters, so you can
see Amish scooting along highways. I was told of one congregation that
allowed driving cars, so long as all the shiny bits on the car were
painted black.

Theology is complicated. Even the theology of bicycles.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/16/2017 11:57 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>
> If you want to see a
> real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such
> a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric
> vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic
> impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s
> really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt
> and/or adapt them.
>

> But we must also be aware we need to define a problem that people
> *want* to solve. In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that
> most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably.
> Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change.

When comparing countries, it's good to remember that certain aspects of
history are effectively irreversible. If the United States had been
confined to an area the size of the Netherlands, we'd have the
population density and short trip distances that do so much to enable
bike transportation in northern Europe. We would also have been able to
finance high quality mass transportation.

But settlers here were given access to the width of a continent, with
only a few inconvenient Native Americans in the way. The society
immediately spread out, and there are still plenty of people who feel
that if they can see the smoke from another's chimney, things are too
crowded.

The resulting low density and long travel distances severely limit bike
transportation. And even certain bike enthusiasts are guilty of moving
to communities way out in the sticks, then complaining that it's
difficult to ride where they pretend they'd like to. Americans tend to
want lots of space, so the density problem isn't going away.
--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:29:55 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

>
> The resulting low density and long travel distances severely limit bike
> transportation. And even certain bike enthusiasts are guilty of moving
> to communities way out in the sticks, then complaining that it's
> difficult to ride where they pretend they'd like to. Americans tend to
> want lots of space, so the density problem isn't going away.
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

The size of Canada or the United States of America boggles the minds of many.

To give some idea of the sizes of Canada and the United States of America let's look at ONE Canadian province = Ontario, Canada. Into this province you can fit ALL of France and ALL Germany and still have 67,725 square miles left over. Subtract the ENTIRE Netherlands 16,164 square miles and you still have 51,561 sqaure miles of Ontario, Canada in which to place other countries of your choice. You can help fill in that space by adding ALL of Lithuania at 25,174 square miles and ALL Latvia at 24,926 square miles and STILL have 1,461 square miles left over.

That's why the populationdesities are not high enough in cities in orddrt o have a comprehensive bicycling only infrastructure.

To top it off many bicycling infrastruction goals also includ make them MUPs rather than dedicated to bicycles. Often too those facilities will have ridicuously low bicycling maxinum speeds such as 20 kph (12.5 mph) which makes them nearly useless to dedicated bicycle commuters travelling any distance.

This is NOT to mention the extremely poor even dangerous designs of most bicycling facilities.

Cheers

[jbeattie]

https://swissmennonite.org//feature_archive/2002/200211.html Floyd could ride a bike, but he had to get special dispensation to wear shorts. https://swissmennonite.org//feature_archive/2002/200211.html I don't think he bothered getting permission for the drugs.

-- Jay Beattie.

[jbeattie]

I always point out that you can put The Netherlands in the lower right-hand corner of Oregon and nobody would notice, except a few cows. Eastern Oregon bike lane: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/Road%20Through%20Green%20Desert.jpg


-- Jay Beattie.

[Tim McNamara]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:20:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 1:20 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>> Bicycling is already an economical alternative to driving by at least
>> an order of magnitude when comparing a mid-range bike with a
>> mid-range car. Operating costs of a bike are a tiny fraction of the
>> operating costs of a car, even when factoring the stupidly high
>> prices of consumables like bike tires...
>>
>> What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so
>> (I've been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really
>> don't know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000?
>> Economics are not really the carrot one might hope for. People do
>> not make choices in an economically coherent fashion.
>
> I think you're using too restrictive a definition of "economic." Yours
> seems to be counting only dollars. But at least in some discussions
> "economics" is used to describe human behavior in response to benefits
> and detriments in general, not just when counting dollars. (The
> _Freakonomics_ series of books goes into this idea in detail.)

OK, you make a good point. I was thinking strictly dollars. But a 20
minute drive to work versus an hour bike ride or a 1 1/2 hour bus ride
has definite value that influences decisions. Or being able to bring
home a week's work of groceries in one's car versus maybe a day or two
by bike. If one lives in a compact city with broadly available bike
infrastrucure- Copenhagen, for example- it changes those aspects of
economics in ways that won't happen for many people in LA, Chicago, etc.

> While I'm staunchly in favor of bicycling, I think American society
> practically mandates owning an automobile, at least for well over 90%
> of households. I'll bicycle to the grocery store today, but I'll be
> making a 120 mile round trip in a few days, then a much longer round
> trip a few days after that. In each of those cases I know no
> practical alternative to driving the car.

Yes, most Americans live in cities and most US cities are socially
engineered to make it very difficult to live without a car.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:57:01 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary

<drol...@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

>For your reference, records indicate that
>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

>> I beg to differ. Excessive body mass and lack of motivation are
>> certainly real problems. However, they are symptoms, not causes.

>I’m not sure it much matters. That simply *is* the landscape you’re
>dealing with, and thus a major part of the problem that needs to be
>solved. Besides, symptoms have a way of becoming causes of other
>illnesses. Obesity is a prime example.

It matters. Treating the root cause is far more effective than simply
treating the symptoms.

>But that doesn’t address the problem that bicycles *still* require
>effort to use and still expose you to weather. Most guys who wears a
>suit at work aren’t going to be keen on biking 15 miles in the rain,
>regardless of their fitness level.

Google images suggests otherwise:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycling+business+suit&tbm=isch>

Incidentally, I have a photo somewhere, of my father on a skiing
vacation somewhere in Germany in 1947. He's holding 7ft long wooden
skis and wearing a wool suit and tie. Sports fashions have changed in
the past and can change again. Cycling fashions are no different:
<https://i.pinimg.com/564x/da/9b/02/da9b02f6a34d7acf57e9f5106a931094.jpg>

>If we *really* take a big enough
>step backwards, we see all kinds of problems that are interconnected.
>We can’t just address a single issue and act like that is going to
>result in the widespread adoption of bicycling.

True, but you can identify these problems and concentrate on those
that will have the greatest impact on cycling popularity. For
example, taking on the automobile competition problem is much like
banging your head against a wall where success is unlikely. However,
if you pick the problems that can be solved, the chance of success is
more likely and will certainly offer better use of taxpayers money and
municipal resources.

>> For example, my
>> neighbors teenage sons all ride bicycles, not because bicycles are
>> cheap, but because they can't afford the insurance costs for even a
>> shared automobile.
>
>But the real problem is that they still likely *want* a car, and
>probably will get one when they can afford one.

Replace "want" with "need". I need a car because I run a business
that requires I drag around a fair quantity of tools and need to
transport customers computahs. I've tried to do service calls on a
bicycle and failed. I've also tried to do the same using municipal
bus transport, which was even worse. If all I need to move was myself
and a few tools, I could do it on a bicycle.

The teenagers mentioned attend one of two local colleges. Both are
about 15 miles away from home. They are riding bicycles effectively,
but not when the weather fails to cooperate, where they switch to
either public transport or getting a ride in someone's car. If we
lived in a small town, where everything is fairly close, a bicycle
would be practical. If the major facilities were farther away, the
bicycle becomes less practical.

>If you want to see a
>real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such
>a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric
>vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic
>impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s
>really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt
>and/or adapt them.

That's easy. Just apply government subsidies and tax incentives to
any activity that is unpopular, impractical, or overly expensive.
Maybe a tax break for NOT driving a car. Cycling Low cost or maybe
free bicycles are a good start. Free parking. Free air for the
tires. Free bicycle racks. Free bicycle lanes, lanes, and
infrastructure. From the governments point of view, "We provide the
infrastructure. You do the rest". However, these are all solutions
being pounded being used to solve an unspecified problem. Perhaps it
might be better to define the problem before blundering forward?

>> In other
>> words, define the problem you're trying to solve first, and then talk
>> about solutions.
>
>But we must also be aware we need to define a problem that people
>*want* to solve.

Read through the congressional record or the various state and local
web piles for a rather large list of laws, most of which I neither
understand or care about. The problems behind each of these laws are
many and varied, few of which I care much about. Working in problems
that "people" (which means "me") want to solve runs the risk of the
non-problems becoming a NIMBY (not in my back yard) problem. For
example, if you want to make cycling safe by adding a dedicated
bicycle lane, how many automobile parking places can you remove before
the residents riot?

>In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that
>most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably.
>Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change.

Sustainable for how long? Incentives paid by whom and to whom? Who's
reality, yours or mine? Does align mean agree or a compromise? Once
we get beyond the basic necessities (food, shelter, internet), things
become rather more complexicated.

>But
>we appear to be living at a time where large numbers of people are
>rejecting objective reality and science.

Sure. I've been thinking of joining them. It's so much easier to
fabricate my own reality according to whatever I consider expedient,
righteous, profitable, or politically useful.

[Tim McNamara]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:33:38 -0400, Radey Shouman <sho...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Huh. That's an interesting notion. I had not thought about it, because
I don't do this myself, but many people only plan to own a car 2-4
years. Then they trade it in or sell it, getting a replacement vehicle.
With that kind of approach, paying off the loan is moot. For that
matter, leasing rather than buying is a viable option.

I kept my first car 7 years (and it was totalled or I would have kept it
longer), my second and third cars 13 years each (and the third car was
11 years old when I bought it). My fourth car was bought 2 years used
and was a VW diesel, sold back to VW but I had been intending to keep
that at least 10 years. Now I have a new replacement and expect to have
that at least 10 years. That should get me to 68 at which point who
knows what the car market is going to look like. I am hoping for a
fully viable electric with five minute charging and a 400 mile range. I
could get away with an electric car with a 65 mile range now for all my
commuting needs, or a Chevy Volt. I thought real hard about that
option.

Or maybe I'll just ride my bike then.

And not only does that approach apply to cars but also to houses (people
often buy without the intent of making it their lifelong home, unlike my
parents' generation or me) and to credit cards. Readily available debt
changes the math a lot. Many/most business cannot survive without debt;
farmers cannot survive without debt; perhaps half of Americans have
credit card debt they will never pay off and will die owing tens of
thousands of dollars. That's one of the three big looming economy
killers: mass defaults in the housing loan market (again), credit card
market and student loan market.

[Tim McNamara]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:00:10 +0700, John B <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> Actually "dipping snus" is probably roughly the same as chewing
> tobacco as far as danger to the individual.

The addiction is to the drug, not the route of delivery. Nicotine is as
addictive as opioids.

BTW, after 35 years of working in mental health and substance abuse, the
gateway drug for narcotics, meth, etc., is not marijuana. It's tobacco.
Most addicts I have worked with started with tobacco and it's the
addiction they fight the hardest about giving up. From tobacco they
usually go to alcohol and/or whatever pills Mommy and Daddy leave laying
around the house unsupervised.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/16/2017 9:12 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:20:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 8/15/2017 1:20 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>
>>> Bicycling is already an economical alternative to driving by at least
>>> an order of magnitude when comparing a mid-range bike with a
>>> mid-range car. Operating costs of a bike are a tiny fraction of the
>>> operating costs of a car, even when factoring the stupidly high
>>> prices of consumables like bike tires...
>>>
>>> What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so
>>> (I've been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really
>>> don't know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000?
>>> Economics are not really the carrot one might hope for. People do
>>> not make choices in an economically coherent fashion.
>>
>> I think you're using too restrictive a definition of "economic." Yours
>> seems to be counting only dollars. But at least in some discussions
>> "economics" is used to describe human behavior in response to benefits
>> and detriments in general, not just when counting dollars. (The
>> _Freakonomics_ series of books goes into this idea in detail.)
>
> OK, you make a good point. I was thinking strictly dollars. But a 20
> minute drive to work versus an hour bike ride or a 1 1/2 hour bus ride
> has definite value that influences decisions. Or being able to bring
> home a week's work of groceries in one's car versus maybe a day or two
> by bike.

More on that aspect of benefits & detriments: It occurs to me that I
view bicycling (at least over moderate distances) far differently than
the typical American.

Before retirement, I thought "I get to ride my bike to work." I liked it
because I liked pretty much all bicycling (well, except in the rain),
and because it kept me in shape for more bicycling. It also put me in a
better mood all day. Similarly, I ride my bike to the grocery store
because it's fun for me and my wife, and we go the "long" way both to
enjoy a pleasant route and to get a few more miles.

So for me, riding is a benefit. I "get" to do it. For most Americans,
riding would be a detriment if they "had" to do it.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Two followups:

1) Our habits match. The car I sold last year was 26 years old. I'd
owned it for 18 years. We've had this house for over 35 years. I'm what
the credit card companies call a "freeloader." My favorite bike is 31
years old. And so on.

2) About debt: The Wendell Barry novel _Jayber Crow_ was mainly a sort
of platonic love story, set in a rural area experiencing changing times.
It touched in part on the conflict between traditional vs. modern ideas
regarding debt for farmers. There were also some plot aspects regarding
government interference in a tiny private business, the effects of the
above on relationships within a community, etc. I thought it was a
beautiful book.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/16/2017 9:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Sports fashions have changed in
> the past and can change again. Cycling fashions are no different:
> <https://i.pinimg.com/564x/da/9b/02/da9b02f6a34d7acf57e9f5106a931094.jpg>
>

I like these: https://goo.gl/images/DtW3Sh


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

Even those who enjoy biking no more than driving to work can come
out ahead, if they exercise regularly: Driving to work, driving to the
gym, exercising, and driving home frequently takes more time than just
biking to work, enjoying the cardiovascular benefits, and biking home.

Of course, that doesn't work if you really enjoy the gym, as some do.
Or if you just don't exercise, as many do.

--

[Duane]

Riding my bike home from work burns stress off. Driving home in traffic
jams does just the opposite.

[AMuzi]

On 8/17/2017 11:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/16/2017 9:12 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:20:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2017 1:20 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:

-snip snip-

> So for me, riding is a benefit. I "get" to do it. For most
> Americans, riding would be a detriment if they "had" to do it.

Frank, there's an old adage, 'For every room in heaven,
there's another just like it in hell for someone else.'

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:57:01 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
> <drol...@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> >For your reference, records indicate that
> >Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> >> I beg to differ. Excessive body mass and lack of motivation are
> >> certainly real problems. However, they are symptoms, not causes.
>
> >I’m not sure it much matters. That simply *is* the landscape you’re
> >dealing with, and thus a major part of the problem that needs to be
> >solved. Besides, symptoms have a way of becoming causes of other
> >illnesses. Obesity is a prime example.
>
> It matters. Treating the root cause is far more effective than simply
> treating the symptoms.

Treating *everything* is the most effective. Just because you can cure
a disease that leads to obesity doesn’t mean the person magically
becomes thin and fit as a result. Complex problems must be approached
holistically.

> >But that doesn’t address the problem that bicycles *still* require
> >effort to use and still expose you to weather. Most guys who wears a
> >suit at work aren’t going to be keen on biking 15 miles in the rain,
> >regardless of their fitness level.
>
> Google images suggests otherwise:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycling+business+suit&tbm=isch>

It suggests nothing beyond unscientific cherry picking on your part. Do
you or do you not want to have a rational discussion here?

> >If we *really* take a big enough
> >step backwards, we see all kinds of problems that are interconnected.
> >We can’t just address a single issue and act like that is going to
> >result in the widespread adoption of bicycling.
>
> True, but you can identify these problems and concentrate on those
> that will have the greatest impact on cycling popularity.

Maybe, but it’s tough to really know what will be the thing that
*actually* makes people try transportation alternatives. Because it
does generally seem to be the case that once someone buys a car, they
tend to use it for everything. Whether that’s the disease or just a
symptom doesn’t matter; it simply is the state of things that needs to
be fundamentally changed if you expect people to use bikes more.

> Replace "want" with "need". I need a car because I run a business
> that requires I drag around a fair quantity of tools and need to
> transport customers computahs. I've tried to do service calls on a
> bicycle and failed. I've also tried to do the same using municipal
> bus transport, which was even worse. If all I need to move was myself
> and a few tools, I could do it on a bicycle.

Funny, but that’s the same sort of “need” excuse that most people in
business suits would use to dismiss bicycling (do your own Google
search). My point is that you need to address the motivation of the
individual, and prove that there is a benefit to biking even at times
when a car/bus/whatever might be available.

> The teenagers mentioned attend one of two local colleges. Both are
> about 15 miles away from home. They are riding bicycles effectively,
> but not when the weather fails to cooperate, where they switch to
> either public transport or getting a ride in someone's car. If we
> lived in a small town, where everything is fairly close, a bicycle
> would be practical. If the major facilities were farther away, the
> bicycle becomes less practical.

But that does not address my point. If they don’t *want* to bike,
they’ll stop the instant they can afford a car. To change that, you
have to address those pain points of distance and weather.

> >If you want to see a
> >real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such
> >a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric
> >vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic
> >impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s
> >really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt
> >and/or adapt them.
>
> That's easy. Just apply government subsidies and tax incentives to
> any activity that is unpopular, impractical, or overly expensive.

Now you’re firmly into troll territory. There is *nothing* easy
about proposing major changes to a transportation infrastructure.

> Maybe a tax break for NOT driving a car. Cycling Low cost or maybe
> free bicycles are a good start. Free parking. Free air for the
> tires. Free bicycle racks. Free bicycle lanes, lanes, and
> infrastructure.

Entitlements are rarely a good starting point. Indeed, a major
problem with the current transportation infrastructure is that it
externalizes the true costs of the automobile industry. That’s why
even simple changes, like moving from fossil fuels to renewables,
requires a big change to how that “free” infrastructure is paid for.

> From the governments point of view, "We provide the
> infrastructure. You do the rest". However, these are all solutions
> being pounded being used to solve an unspecified problem. Perhaps it
> might be better to define the problem before blundering forward?

And I’m doing that. The root problem is one of sustainability. The
issue on top of that is a lack of transportation planning based on the
things/people we want to move (rather than the vehicles we use to move
them/us).

> For
> example, if you want to make cycling safe by adding a dedicated
> bicycle lane, how many automobile parking places can you remove before
> the residents riot?

Again, you need to holistically approach *all* the issues at play.
It’s not *just* about favoring one approach over the other, but what
the actual goal is. *Why* would bikes need a dedicated lane to be
safer? *Why* do cars deserve those particular places to park? And
what is the long term vision for the street/neighborhood that guides
the proposed infrastructure changes?

> >In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that
> >most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably.
> >Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change.
>
> Sustainable for how long?

Ideally until the Sun boils off all the oceans and engulfs the Earth.
If that’s asking too much, I would settle for seeing both a 100 year
and a 1000 year plan.

> Incentives paid by whom and to whom?

Paid to suppliers by people who have demands. Econ 101.

> Who's
> reality, yours or mine?

There is only one reality that is shared by all rational people.
Scientific reality.

> Does align mean agree or a compromise?

It might mean both. There is a real lack of experimentation when it
comes to governance, and that really should change. I see no reason why
a city couldn’t try to redesign a neighborhood to be a car free zone
(with some agreement/compromises by the current residents) and see what
works and what doesn’t.

> Once
> we get beyond the basic necessities (food, shelter, internet), things
> become rather more complexicated.

There is nothing at all basic about the logistics needed to supply food
in the modern developed world. Hell, it might not even be fundamentally
sustainable. But we’re better off asking that kind of question rather
than pushing forward as though it’s never going to bite us in the ass.

[AMuzi]

On 8/17/2017 2:20 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:57:01 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
>> <drol...@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

-snip-
> Maybe, but it’s tough to really know what will be the thing that

> *actually* makes people try transportation alternatives. Because it
> does generally seem to be the case that once someone buys a car, they

> tend to use it for everything. Whether that’s the disease or just a
> symptom doesn’t matter; it simply is the state of things that needs to

> be fundamentally changed if you expect people to use bikes more.

-snippy snip-

"someone buys a car, they tend to use it for everything"

Seems contagious. Same thing happened when I bought my bike!

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:10:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>You left out the final step: Then they buy a treadmill, or join a health
>club where they can "walk" indoors in one place.

Like garage queen bicycles, treadmills tend to collect spider webs and
dust after the initial surge of motivation. I've been looking for a
treadmill from which I can cannibalize the DC motor. The local
recycler has a pile of treadmills. Same with the local used sporting
goodies dealer:
<http://www.playitagainsports-soquel.com/equipment/category/6547/treadmills/1>
A few of my neighbors have treadmills rusting on their decks.

About 3 years ago, we took up a collection to buy a rather elaborate
treadmill for a rather obese friend. I helped put it together and
program the monster. He used it at least once per day for about a
month, less so after that, and abandoned it after about 4 months. I
get a report via email whenever it's run. Except when the kids or
their friends play with it, it hasn't been seriously used for at least
2 years.

There are also 4 bicycles (one for every member of the family) in the
garage in atrocious condition. However, things may soon change. They
bought a retirement house in the Sierra foothills, where it would be
possible to ride their bicycles on roads with less congestion and
fewer homicidal drivers. There was some talk about fixing or
replacing the bicycles. There is hope.

So, what changed? It's the perception that it's safer to ride the
rural roads than the local commuter speedways. They may or may not be
safer, but it's the perception that they're safer that's important
here. The GUM (great unwashed masses) do not ride bicycles if they
feel that there is some risk.

[Radey Shouman]

I bought a hammer.
--

[Andre Jute]

Krygowski will discover that the mirrored duality of heaven and hell for himself soon enough, when he starts looking for the missing air conditioning dial...

Andre Jute
Calvinist: my place is reserved

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 2:28:32 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> About 3 years ago, we took up a collection to buy a rather elaborate
> treadmill for a rather obese friend. I helped put it together and
> program the monster. He used it at least once per day for about a
> month, less so after that, and abandoned it after about 4 months.

After heart surgery I bought a treadmill because for a while I had to be accompanied everywhere. Years later I still use the treadmill daily when there's no cycling because of the weather. I think I'm getting full value out of it. But I had an equally expensive rower that I soon lost interest in, because I'm just not a sculler, I'm a walker and a cyclist; i have sympathy with your friend, because I understand how one can come to hate a particular form of exercise. The rower wasn't the first manner of exercise I hated; where I grew up, rugby was next to godliness, and at my first college it was compulsory; I mean that literally; when I refused to turn out for the team I later captained, the house disciplinary committee descended on me (I put two of them in hospital for falling upon me in the middle of the night, and after that they walked carefully around me and managed to let me know which night they were coming so that I would stay over with my girlfriend, which was a good outcome). God, I hated the mud and all those sweaty, non-kulturny jocks; the irony is that some of my scholarships were openly given for athletic prowess, and where jock scholarships were not permitted, ways were found to reward me lavishly for turning out for whichever sport the alumnus fancied. After the rower there was a so-called Nordic Skywalker, which is like cross-country ski-walking and exercises all your limbs at once, but the physios at the hospital and my cardiologist's team hated it because apparently it tempts people to ramp up too suddenly, and to run their heart rate too high; I used to be on it two hours a day when it was impossible to cycle, just for the pure exuberance of the thing, and because it endowed me with a sense of rhythm. The Nordic Skywalker self-destructed on cheap bearings pretty quickly; I think it was built specifically to be used three times gently and briefly, and then to sit in a garage. The bearings were plain metal and appeared to be low-grade mild steel.

Andre Jute
Fit

[Tim McNamara]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski

True. The inverse of which is that I "have" to drive to work 3 of 4
days, and I hate driving. If I primarily lived some place where
pleasurable driving was reasonably possible, I might have a different
feeling about it.

But pleasant biking can be found and I don't "have" to do it. Come to
think of it, that feeling of "having" to ride my bike is why I stopped
racing in 2000.

[Tim McNamara]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:20:19 -0400, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
wrote:

>
> Riding my bike home from work burns stress off. Driving home in
> traffic jams does just the opposite.

+1

Make that +5