County: City traffic projections "laughable"
Evan D Ravitz
Perhaps the virtual Dick Dunn and Scott Weiser and others who like to
call my carefully researched analyses of City Transportation Division's
"Master" Plans, hyper-expensive concrete chicanery, etc. "rants" will
listen to the opinions of 2 of 3 County Commissioners, quoted in today's
Boulder Camera:
"It's laughable... I'm insulted that we would even be given this" said
Ron Stewart.
"These numbers are simply not plausible...wing and a prayer projections"
said Paul Danish.
Transportation Division director Phil Weisbach was saying that in spite
of projections that Boulder valley employment would increase by 48% by
2020, traffic on the Diagonal Highway would drop 20%!
2 years ago Mr. Weisbach signed his name to a memo from expensive Florida
transportation consultant Jim Charlier to City Council which
misrepresented cycling as insignificant because it's "role will be
restricted (for most people) to trips of 2 miles in length or less..."
When I pointed out repeatedly that the 1993 Boulder Valley Employee
Survey (p 7) shows that the *average* bike commute is 3.6 miles, the two
continued to assert their "opinion" DURING THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN FOR THE
TRANSIT TAX, a $150-250 million boondoggle defeated 2-1 at the polls. Not
until 5/12/95 did I receive a correction, which was buried in some City file.
It's time to stop giving these parasites 1/4 of the City budget to build
their medians, neckdowns, traffic circles, islands, etc. Transportation
Advisory Board, appointed by City Council can't say no. If you care about
your town, come to the TAB meeting regarding traffic circles and
residential parking THURSDAY MAY 30 6:15PM AT THE sENIOR CENTER, 909 ARAPAHOE
%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%
Evan Ravitz: 303 440 6838 ev...@vote.org www.vote.org/v/evan.htm
Voted "Best Activist" by readers of the Boulder Daily Camera.
Evan from Heaven, Not-so-Tight-rope art on the Mall, summer nights.
No car: my hiway the net, my byway the mtns, my flyway the stars.
Don Wrege
I believe one of the quotes from the article talked about Boulder's plan
"punishing people for driving cars."
Very much like city council punishing people for living in Gunbarrel and
Heatherwood with their sludge attitud. Now after apparently agreeing to
relieve the congestion on Diagonal with a more direct route to the north
east, this Transportation Division director Phil Weisbach guy has the
nerve to put forth his funny numbers with a straight face.
This city isn't that big to be run this badly.
dw
Don Wrege
I believe one of the quotes from the article talked about Boulder's plan
"punishing people for driving cars."
Very much like city council punishing people for living in Gunbarrel and
Heatherwood with their sludge attitude. Now after apparently agreeing to
relieve the congestion on Diagonal with a more direct route to the north
east, this Transportation Division director Phil Weisbach guy has the
nerve to put forth his funny numbers with a straight face and renege.
Scott Weiser
ev...@indra.com (Evan D Ravitz) wrote:
>Perhaps the virtual Dick Dunn and Scott Weiser and others who like to
>call my carefully researched analyses of City Transportation Division's
>"Master" Plans, hyper-expensive concrete chicanery, etc. "rants" will
>listen to the opinions of 2 of 3 County Commissioners, quoted in today's
>Boulder Camera:
>
>"It's laughable... I'm insulted that we would even be given this" said
>Ron Stewart.
>
>"These numbers are simply not plausible...wing and a prayer projections"
>said Paul Danish.
YOUR analyses? Oh please.
YOUR analyses are as loony as the City's projections, only different.
I think you and the T-division head ought to be locked up in a padded room together,
where you can hatch your plots harmlessly.
In case you didn't get it, Evan, the Commissioners were saying that traffic is bound
to *increase* and that transportation planning must face the unpleasant fact that
people are *not* going to give up cars for bikes or busses or taxis. It *might* be
possible to hold the line on traffic, but it will be at the expense of the economy.
If you make it so unpleasant to drive that people don't drive, they will just drive
elsewhere, and Boulder will suffer economically. Personally, I'm not sure I'm
opposed to a bit of urban decay, perhaps if Boulder weren't such a nice place to
live, people would stop coming here, and hopefully would go away.
However, since the facts are that traffic will increase, plans must be made to deal
with traffic problems, not simply ignore them.
And diverting transportation funds to pie-in-the-sky high-rise bicycle parking racks
will do *nothing* to deal with the problems, because no matter what you would like to
think, Evan, the vast majority of people *will not* take up bike riding. They are
too selfish, fat, old or unfit to do so, and bikes will *never* replace autos.
One way to increase bus ridership (outside of running busses where they are *needed*
not where some RTD twit thinks looks pretty on a colored map) would be to allocate
funds for *full-time* armed security at *every* park-and-ride. Even if I were able
to use RTD for travel, I would *never* park my car, even my 12 year old Blazer, at a
park-and-ride. It's an open invitation to thieves. No way am I going to advertise
"hey, I'll be gone for the WHOLE day, why don't you steal my stereo while I'm gone."
Not a chance in hell.
If you want me to use the bus to get to downtown, provide a gated, guarded HUGE
multi-level parking structure at each entry to town where I can park, and provide
small, efficient electric or CNG powered HOP-style busses to and from downtown and
other core shopping areas which run *every 2 minutes*, day and night, 24 hours.
Permit private citizens to run "gypsy" cabs a-la Commissioner Danish.
Allocate funds for push-carts on the mall so people who need to carry large packages
can get to and from their cars without herniating a disk.
Hire LOTS of helpful people to assist visitors with parking, catching busses,
carrying packages, directions, etc.
Permit shuttle busses to transport dogs.
But don't expect me to buy into your "Bicycles-uber-alles" mentality.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I were a laywer, you'd be
paying big bucks for this. All complaints should be
delivered in person to: Gatek...@hell.org
Copyright 1996 by Scott Weiser
All rights of reproduction or distribution are retained by the author.
PGP 2.62 public key fingerprint:
A6 BD 79 21 A4 24 7B 10 F1 4C 2E BF D1 40 2A 0A
Evan D Ravitz
Scott Weiser (Scott....@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: And diverting transportation funds to pie-in-the-sky high-rise bicycle parking racks
: will do *nothing* to deal with the problems, because no matter what you would like to
: think, Evan, the vast majority of people *will not* take up bike riding. They are
: too selfish, fat, old or unfit to do so, and bikes will *never* replace autos.
I never said we needed hi-rise bike parks like Amsterdam has, just that
they were possible. This is like your oft-repeated lie that I favor
citizens voting on *every* issue, when our web site (www.vote.org/v)
has an entire section "Balancing the Power of the People".
I was making the point that with 50 (maximum) bikes fitting (street
level) into 1 auto space (300 sq ft, as lots are designed, to include
backing and access) cycling is a far better use of expensive downtown
real estate.
: But don't expect me to buy into your "Bicycles-uber-alles" mentality.
If you actually read what I say, you'd know that I've advocated (since
the Transit Tax debate of 1994) a straight grid of bus routes, and
on-call "jitneys" to fill in the gaps.
As the son of a refugee from Nazi Germany, I despise your assinine
attempt to portray me as any kind of a control freak. Get your hate-hole
out of my face Weiser!
%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%
Evan Ravitz: 303 440 6838 ev...@vote.org www.vote.org/v/evan.htm
Voted "Best Activist" by readers of the Boulder Daily Camera.
Evan from Heaven, Not-so-tight-rope art on the Mall, summer nights.
Scott Weiser
>
>: And diverting transportation funds to pie-in-the-sky high-rise bicycle parking racks
>: will do *nothing* to deal with the problems, because no matter what you would like to
>: think, Evan, the vast majority of people *will not* take up bike riding. They are
>: too selfish, fat, old or unfit to do so, and bikes will *never* replace autos.
>
>I never said we needed hi-rise bike parks like Amsterdam has, just that
>they were possible. This is like your oft-repeated lie that I favor
>citizens voting on *every* issue, when our web site (www.vote.org/v)
>has an entire section "Balancing the Power of the People".
And it's possible that aliens will land and bring us the "transporter" device.
While it's interesting that Amsterdam has high-rise bike racks, the fact that you
mentioned the subject indicates your thinking on the subject. I've kept up with your
dogma over the years, and while the presentation is somewhat more sophisticated, and,
suprisingly, somewhat less strident, you agenda remains the same. Bicycles are not
viable methods of mass transit in our society. They never will be. Our cities are
not designed as "pedestrian/bicycle" friendly as many cities in Europe are, and our
climate makes it impossible. Such places evolved in a different culture, which makes
such transport possible. That is not the case here. Even in Europe, the use of
bicycles as primary transport is, relatively speaking, quite rare, though more
prevalant than here.
Given that fact, public money spent on accomodating bicyclists is money wasted on a
few, elite and largely self-righteous riders for their pleasure and convienence, at
the expense of the larger population who will continue to drive automobiles and who
provide the lion's share of the tax money you want to plunder.
Therefore, I object to spending *any* public money for accomodating such toys. This
money would be better spent on *real* transportation alternatives, like the busses
you suggest. I don't disagree with you on this point, only on the issue of bicycles.
As for "balancing the power", I stand by my analysis of your agenda in re voting by
phone. I fully expect you to deny it, and would be quite suprised if you didn't.
Which doesn't mean that what I believe is not the truth. The content of your
previous writings on the subject of "balancing the power" of citizens makes it
perfectly clear to me that you want to substitute *your* judgement and agenda for
that of the elected officials of Boulder, and probably the world. I have a memory,
Evan, and I remember *all* of your various rants and raves, and I don't trust you any
farther than I can throw you, despite your apparant attempt to moderate your tone,
which I see as a ploy to garner support. You're learning politics, but you haven't
got what it takes, and I, for one, won't let you pull the wool over our eyes if I can
prevent it.
>I was making the point that with 50 (maximum) bikes fitting (street
>level) into 1 auto space (300 sq ft, as lots are designed, to include
>backing and access) cycling is a far better use of expensive downtown
>real estate.
But since cycling is nothing more than a sport for elite yuppies, not a viable means
of mass transportation, it's utterly irrelevant....unless, of course, you *really*
believe that bike commuting is the wave of the future. In which case (as I suspect),
my input is all the more important, since the other liberals in Boulder are just
gullible enough to believe you, and waste yet *more* tax money on loony bike
projects. I won't subscribe to your clear implication that the downtown mall should
become an elite preserve for the spandex crowd, which is what you intend by replacing
parking spaces with bike parking. Downtown public parking is intended for *all*
citizens to use, not just the bike crowd, and it must remain that way, despite your
desire for a car-free Boulder.
>: But don't expect me to buy into your "Bicycles-uber-alles" mentality.
>
>If you actually read what I say, you'd know that I've advocated (since
>the Transit Tax debate of 1994) a straight grid of bus routes, and
>on-call "jitneys" to fill in the gaps.
Evan, I read *everything* you say. Despite the fact that most of it makes me shake
my head in wonderment at your lunacy. As I said, we don't disagree on the bus issue.
>As the son of a refugee from Nazi Germany, I despise your assinine
>attempt to portray me as any kind of a control freak. Get your hate-hole
>out of my face Weiser!
Oh, you're a control freak alright. You want to control *everything*, so everything
will go "Evan's way". You want to kick out our elected representatives and dismantle
the representative system, you want to open the voting system to widespread fraud,
you want to divert public funds to *your* favorite projects, like bikes, and you
publically scoff at laws and ordinances enacted to protect the public health, welfare
and safety. You believe that *your* view of the world is the only right view, and
you just can't stand it when people disagree with you. You get *so* angry that you
will stoop to the most egregious and despicable forms of harassment to try to silence
your critics. I know, I'm one of your victims, and I will *never forget* what you
did, or tried to do to me.
As for your face, Evan, I'll be in it for the foreseeable future. It's a dirty job,
but *somebody's* got to do it. That you don't like it lets me know I'm doing my job.
Get used to it.
Chris Pollard
Oh dear, on the rotary thread Scott agrees that there is too much asphalt
but says here that bicycles are not practical.
I have found that it is quicker to travel downtown at lunchtime on a
bicycle than go by car and it is far easier to park. Why then is this not
considered practical.
It is funny how the word "bicycle" provokes such fear in some people - a
threat to the American dream of owning a large gas-guzzling
car/pick-up/hummer as the symbol of having arrived. The fact that people
spend huge sums of money at health clubs to get sweaty and fit fo r an
hour a day instead of riding to work and saving money says that Boulder
council should have ordered the installation of showers and bike racks and
not parking lots.
Erik Johnson
> Given that fact, public money spent on accomodating bicyclists is money wasted on a
> few, elite and largely self-righteous riders for their pleasure and convienence, at
> the expense of the larger population who will continue to drive automobiles and who
> provide the lion's share of the tax money you want to plunder.
>
> Therefore, I object to spending *any* public money for accomodating such toys. This
> money would be better spent on *real* transportation alternatives, like the busses
> you suggest. I don't disagree with you on this point, only on the issue of bicycles.
A bit myopic for one of the great thinkers of boulder.general. I commuted almost
primarily by bicycle, snow or shine for five years. It worked great. Invariably
faster and more fun than the car. Obviously not for everyone, depending on family
size or need to carry more than a few pounds in cargo. Boulder is practically ideal
for bicycling... relatively small, usually sunny, lotsa bike paths and busses that
let you take bikes.
I think that bicycling is preferrable in many cases to the busses you support. You
set the schedule and the route. No worries if it gets late or you end up short on
change.
You make it sound like supporting bicycling as the viable means of transportation
that it *IS* for many is somehow expensive... compared to supporting cars and busses,
you must be kidding. You might note that many of the people who ride bicycles as
their primary form of transportation have cars and therefore contribute to the tax
base, and those that don't have cars... I'd rather them stay that way, wouldn't you?
And who buys and maintains the busses? Who buys and maintains the bicycles? Seems
you would be in favor of the bicycles, as people buy them for themselves... isn't
this preferable?
Sure there are cyclists who don't use bicycling as alternative transportation, and
are likely to drive their $UV around with the bike on the roof. But I see these
as the exception, not the norm. As for the rest of bicyclists... they are NOT few
(been to campus when school's in?), they are not elite (seems to me just the
opposite), and they aren't necessarily self-righteous (any more than the general
population of boulder). They are just people who get from point a to point b in
a relatively inexpensive and convenient self propelled manner using unpowered
vehicles that to them are not toys (though they can be:).
Times have changed, and I now live in the mountains and work out of my house. The
bike is getting a bit rusty, but then again, so is the car.
btw, I have never worn spandex... And I suspect that most who *commute* via bike
don't either.
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.html
Scott Weiser
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>Oh dear, on the rotary thread Scott agrees that there is too much asphalt
>but says here that bicycles are not practical.
Because it's true.
>I have found that it is quicker to travel downtown at lunchtime on a
>bicycle than go by car and it is far easier to park. Why then is this not
>considered practical.
Because only a very small percentage of people are physically capable of operating
bicycles at all, much less on a regular basis. Furthermore, most people need to
carry things like children, dogs, groceries, merchandise, potted plants and friends.
None of these things are practical, or even possible, on a bicycle.
During the winter, it's not possible to safely operate a bicycle during blizzards.
During the summer, a businessman in a suit would have to have it dry cleaned after
riding a couple of miles in 90 degree weather, and while spandex may be de-rigeur for
the bicycle crowd, it doesn't fit well in the business world. Furthermore, if you
want to *really* offend people, imagine me in spandex.
While it may be fun, and even "practical" to use a bike for in-town jaunts,
long-distance commuting by bicycle from the "affordable" "bedroom communities" takes
far too long to be practical.
>
>It is funny how the word "bicycle" provokes such fear in some people - a
>threat to the American dream of owning a large gas-guzzling
>car/pick-up/hummer as the symbol of having arrived. The fact that people
>spend huge sums of money at health clubs to get sweaty and fit fo r an
>hour a day instead of riding to work and saving money says that Boulder
>council should have ordered the installation of showers and bike racks and
>not parking lots.
It's not fear, it's disgust. The elitist, yuppie, politically-correct dogma of
trying to force people onto bicycles because a particular crowd thinks it's
"practical" disgusts me. The waste of taxpayer dollars and administrative time spent
by the various governmental bodies on bicycle issues disgusts me. The obstruction of
motor vehicle traffic to accomodate bicycles disgusts me. And the rude and dangerous
conduct of *some* bicyclists both on the paths and on the highways disgusts me.
Who the hell do you think you are to tell me how to spend my money, or how to get my
exercise, or what my mode of travel should be?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I were a lawyer, you'd be
Scott Weiser
Erik Johnson <er...@phidias.colorado.edu> wrote:
>A bit myopic for one of the great thinkers of boulder.general. I commuted almost
>primarily by bicycle, snow or shine for five years. It worked great. Invariably
>faster and more fun than the car. Obviously not for everyone, depending on family
>size or need to carry more than a few pounds in cargo. Boulder is practically ideal
>for bicycling... relatively small, usually sunny, lotsa bike paths and busses that
>let you take bikes.
Gee, thanks. I agree that Boulder is almost ideal for bicycling. It's because
hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been wasted just to give you, and a
very few others that feeling, at the expense of everyone else who can't or doesn't
want to ride a bike.
>I think that bicycling is preferrable in many cases to the busses you support. You
>set the schedule and the route. No worries if it gets late or you end up short on
>change.
Right. Those worries are replaced by the alternative worries of flats, broken
chains, sand, sweat, snow and those pesky pedestrians on the pathways. Add to that
the inability to carry any significant amount of cargo, and you limit the "practical"
use of bicycles to a small proportion of physically-fit, non-equipment carrying,
"dress-down" people. It's fine for you, and some others, but bicycling will *never*
be practical mass transit.
>
>You make it sound like supporting bicycling as the viable means of transportation
>that it *IS* for many is somehow expensive... compared to supporting cars and busses,
>you must be kidding. You might note that many of the people who ride bicycles as
>their primary form of transportation have cars and therefore contribute to the tax
>base, and those that don't have cars... I'd rather them stay that way, wouldn't you?
>And who buys and maintains the busses? Who buys and maintains the bicycles? Seems
>you would be in favor of the bicycles, as people buy them for themselves... isn't
>this preferable?
Proportionally, more tax money is spent per-capita on bicyclists than any other
group, and with little to show for it, mass-transportation wise.
An inefficient and unwise use of scarce resources.
>
>Sure there are cyclists who don't use bicycling as alternative transportation, and
>are likely to drive their $UV around with the bike on the roof. But I see these
>as the exception, not the norm. As for the rest of bicyclists... they are NOT few
>(been to campus when school's in?), they are not elite (seems to me just the
>opposite), and they aren't necessarily self-righteous (any more than the general
>population of boulder). They are just people who get from point a to point b in
>a relatively inexpensive and convenient self propelled manner using unpowered
>vehicles that to them are not toys (though they can be:).
Then they should be prepared to be tested, licensed, registered, taxed and expected
to obey the traffic laws just like any other method of transportation. As for
quantity, they do indeed constitute a small fraction of the population who get far
too much consideration from the city and county administration.
If bicycling is a legitimate form of mass transportation, then bicyclists should use
the established roadways just as everyone else does, and they must be expected to
operate safely with the flow of other traffic so as not to create blockages and
hazards. One could argue that horses are a "legitimate form of mass transportation",
after all, they were the *primary* means of transportation for centuries, but that
does not mean that we should change the speed limit to accomodate the horse riders to
the detriment of motor vehicle traffic.
Until you can keep up with vehicle traffic speeds *at all times*, uphill, downhill,
in city, out of town and on multi-lane highways, you need to be banned from the
highways as traffic hazards.
>Times have changed, and I now live in the mountains and work out of my house. The
>bike is getting a bit rusty, but then again, so is the car.
>
>btw, I have never worn spandex... And I suspect that most who *commute* via bike
>don't either.
Good for them, and you.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I were a lawyer, you'd be
Chris Pollard
: During the winter, it's not possible to safely operate a bicycle during blizzards.
: During the summer, a businessman in a suit would have to have it dry cleaned after
: riding a couple of miles in 90 degree weather, and while spandex may be de-rigeur for
: the bicycle crowd, it doesn't fit well in the business world. Furthermore, if you
: want to *really* offend people, imagine me in spandex.
: While it may be fun, and even "practical" to use a bike for in-town jaunts,
: long-distance commuting by bicycle from the "affordable" "bedroom communities" takes
: far too long to be practical.
: >
: >It is funny how the word "bicycle" provokes such fear in some people - a
: >threat to the American dream of owning a large gas-guzzling
: >car/pick-up/hummer as the symbol of having arrived. The fact that people
: >spend huge sums of money at health clubs to get sweaty and fit fo r an
: >hour a day instead of riding to work and saving money says that Boulder
: >council should have ordered the installation of showers and bike racks and
: >not parking lots.
As I said some people get really upset when you mention the word bicycle
-the ultimat threat to life as we know it.
Erik Johnson
> Because only a very small percentage of people are physically capable of operating
> bicycles at all, much less on a regular basis. Furthermore, most people need to
> carry things like children, dogs, groceries, merchandise, potted plants and friends.
> None of these things are practical, or even possible, on a bicycle.
Well, then you use a car. But when you don't have to carry all that stuff...
Nobody is saying that we should close all the roads and allow only bicycles (of
course you seem to be saying that we should close all the bike paths and allow
only cars).
> During the winter, it's not possible to safely operate a bicycle during blizzards.
You're far safer on a bike than in a car during blizzards. A bike accident during
a blizzard is akin to crashing while skiing. You pick up your bike and continue.
A car accident during a blizzard is still a car accident... expensive and potentially
deadly.
> During the summer, a businessman in a suit would have to have it dry cleaned after
> riding a couple of miles in 90 degree weather, and while spandex may be de-rigeur for
> the bicycle crowd, it doesn't fit well in the business world. Furthermore, if you
> want to *really* offend people, imagine me in spandex.
Okay so if you wear a suit, don't ride the bike. But don't stand in the heat waiting
for a bus. If you wear a suit, then you should drive around town with your air
conditioner on. But how many people are wearing suits in Boulder? Not that many. And
how many people who wear suits stop at the health club or play tennis on the way to or
from work or at lunch... somehow they cope with the sweat then. Perhaps they realized
that it is possible to change clothes and shower. They might even find that if they
commuted by bike, they could save some money by not renewing their health club membership.
> While it may be fun, and even "practical" to use a bike for in-town jaunts,
> long-distance commuting by bicycle from the "affordable" "bedroom communities" takes
> far too long to be practical.
So if you were stupid enough to buy a house in Rock Creek, drive. The bike won't work
for *everybody*, and nobody says it will. It does however work for a sufficient number
of people most of the time... but you don't seem to accept that.
> It's not fear, it's disgust. The elitist, yuppie, politically-correct dogma of
> trying to force people onto bicycles because a particular crowd thinks it's
> "practical" disgusts me. The waste of taxpayer dollars and administrative time spent
> by the various governmental bodies on bicycle issues disgusts me. The obstruction of
> motor vehicle traffic to accomodate bicycles disgusts me. And the rude and dangerous
> conduct of *some* bicyclists both on the paths and on the highways disgusts me.
Seems to me that all the elitist, yuppie folks are driving around in beemers, hummers,
and 4runners. And Scott, once again, nobody is forcing you to ride a bicycle. And with
the bike paths around town, the obstruction of motor vehicle traffic by bicycles is
minimized. And the rude and dangerous conduct of *some* automotists both on the roads
and on the highways disgusts me, but I won't hold it against their cars. A bicyclist is
far less obstructive than he would be if you put him in a car. Compare the relative sizes
and space consumed. Ever annoyed to find a bicycle parked in the parking space you wanted?
Ever annoyed to have a bicycle broken down in the middle of the road? Ever annoyed that
a bicycle parked to close so you couldn't get out? Ever annoyed that a bicycle insists on
driving 50mph in the left lane of the turnpike? Ever annoyed that a bicyclist has his
stereo on too loud, or has a noisy exhaust? Ever annoyed that a bicyclist has crashed into
your car doing thousands in damage or worse, killing your family? Ever annoyed at someone
whose posts on this subject are full of contradiction and whining? (but then annoying folks
is your favorite pastime).
> Who the hell do you think you are to tell me how to spend my money, or how to get my
> exercise, or what my mode of travel should be?
And who the hell are you to think that just because someone defended bicycling as a viable
form of transportation for themselves and others is telling you what to do? By all means
please spend your money as you please, please exercise or fail to as you please. Please
use whatever mode of travel you find most suitable. I think all anybody might be asking
of you is to respect their choices and modes of travel.
Erik Johnson
Scott Weiser wrote:
> Gee, thanks. I agree that Boulder is almost ideal for bicycling. It's because
> hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been wasted just to give you, and a
> very few others that feeling, at the expense of everyone else who can't or doesn't
> want to ride a bike.
> chains, sand, sweat, snow and those pesky pedestrians on the pathways. Add to that
> the inability to carry any significant amount of cargo, and you limit the "practical"
> use of bicycles to a small proportion of physically-fit, non-equipment carrying,
> "dress-down" people. It's fine for you, and some others, but bicycling will *never*
> be practical mass transit.
I think you simply need to look around you. Seems to me that far more people ride
bicycles to and fro than use the Hop. Now the Hop is considered a great success...
yet only a small minority of the people of Boulder use it. I also think that you
overestimate the expense of supporting bicycling as the viable form of transportation
that it is for many. I think that you also underestimate the amount of cargo a
determined individual can haul with a bicycle (I friend used to routinely load a full
tower computer into those little baby trailers).. And if we are talking about the use
of the bike for commuting... well, there usually isn't that much to haul other than
one's own bag of bones. I know more people who commute by bike than who commute by
car... would you prefer those people drive? The hops are already full quite often
during the school year... if you were to banish all those who bike to campus, there
wouldn't be room for them on the hop.
I'm not advocating that *you* use a bicycle... I am defending those who do. And if
the folks on bikes look physically fit to you, well they are probably fit for a reason.
I've probably chubbed up a tad since I stopped commuting by bike.
> Proportionally, more tax money is spent per-capita on bicyclists than any other
> group, and with little to show for it, mass-transportation wise.
I find that pretty hard to believe. Of course if there are as few bicyclists as you
insist there are, then that isn't saying much. Now I don't necessarily think that all
the money spent on the bicycle infrastructure has been warranted, neither do I think
that all the money spent on automotive infrastructure has been warrated either (goody,
13th and Canyon is *finally* concrete and a little bumpier than before).
> An inefficient and unwise use of scarce resources.
I'd surely hate to see all those bicyclists return to their cars...
> Then they should be prepared to be tested, licensed, registered, taxed and expected
> to obey the traffic laws just like any other method of transportation. As for
> quantity, they do indeed constitute a small fraction of the population who get far
> too much consideration from the city and county administration.
>
> If bicycling is a legitimate form of mass transportation, then bicyclists should use
> the established roadways just as everyone else does, and they must be expected to
> operate safely with the flow of other traffic so as not to create blockages and
> hazards. One could argue that horses are a "legitimate form of mass transportation",
> after all, they were the *primary* means of transportation for centuries, but that
> does not mean that we should change the speed limit to accomodate the horse riders to
> the detriment of motor vehicle traffic.
> Until you can keep up with vehicle traffic speeds *at all times*, uphill, downhill,
> in city, out of town and on multi-lane highways, you need to be banned from the
> highways as traffic hazards.
Bicyclists are *already* required to obey traffic laws on the public roadways. If they
don't, then take it up law enforcement officer. However considering the inability for
a bicyclist to hurt anyone but themselves, I think that your suggestion for testing
licensing, registering... is a bit absurd and extreme. Not to mention unenforcable.
First you insist that bicyclist should have to use the roads like everybody else. Then
you argue that argue that if they can't keep up with posted speed limits *at all times*
they shouldn't use the roads. Come on Scott, you can't have it both ways. I can't
imagine that you condone banning bikes... so the next best solution is bike paths/lanes.
I really don't think it costs the city much money to paint a stripe down the edge of the
road that designates a bike line. And the bike paths haven't been that expensive. Maybe
you're just annoyed that you can't drive on them?
Chris Pollard
E.4...@phidias.colorado.edu>
:
Distribution:
I wonder if people like Scott realise that they have been taken for a ride
by the car companies. Scott has become convinced that unlike the
multitudes in Holland, China and several other bicycling countries people
can no longer move more than a few feet under their own power.
The car companies have to make more and more money each year so they have
made us addicted to buying ever more expensive and complicated devices.
They would have you believe that you are not "whole" unless you are in a
car. WHere does it say also that to be a business man you have to wear a
suit? This is another of those BS rules that society got from the Victorians.
People were perfectly capable of riding bikes in the past and they can now
- its just that the car companies would lose badly if they did.
I did not see any answer to the question "Why are people prepared to pay
big money to get hot and sweaty at a "health club" but can't ride to
work". This is is rather like the farmer on NPR who couldn't pay people
to help him harvest his crop - because they were all too tired after
paying to work out at the health club.
It is interesting to see how big business can manipulate peoples beliefs -
rather like power lawn mowers - they are now so big and cost reduced that
a manual push mower is faster quieter and cheaper and less effort to push.
Doug McKnight
A small part of Scott's vitriolic anti-bicycle post was:
>use of bicycles to a small proportion of physically-fit, non-equipment carrying,
>"dress-down" people. It's fine for you, and some others, but bicycling will *never*
>be practical mass transit.
Isn't that a rather blinkered parochial view. Bicycling *is* practical
mass transit in some less auto-centric parts of the world.
Douglas
matthew conroy
In article <4p2rr7$r...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Erik Johnson <er...@phidias.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>>Bicyclists are *already* required to obey traffic laws on the public roadways. If they
>>don't, then take it up law enforcement officer. However considering the inability for
>>a bicyclist to hurt anyone but themselves, I think that your suggestion for testing
>>licensing, registering... is a bit absurd and extreme. Not to mention unenforcable.
>
>easily be fatal to the pedestrian. Bike/ped collisions happen all the time, and it's
>one of my principle complaints about bikes using the pathways as commuting corridors,
>which is not their intended purpose.
>
Can anyone give a reference to a bike/ped collision which
resulted in serious injury (for the pedestrian) ?
Clearly, such injury is possible, but I have never heard of
any in Boulder, let alone a fatality.
Even collisions that resulted in no injuries might be interesting
to hear about.
By the way, 35 MPH is _very_ fast, and is rarely attained
anywhere on the creek path, as far as I can tell. An injury could probably
be quite serious at 15 MPH - no need to exaggerate.
matt
Scott Weiser
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>As I said some people get really upset when you mention the word bicycle
>-the ultimat threat to life as we know it.
>
No, just an eliminatable annoyance and waste of taxpayer funds....
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I were a lawyer, you'd be
Scott Weiser
Erik Johnson <er...@phidias.colorado.edu> wrote:
>I think you simply need to look around you. Seems to me that far more people ride
>bicycles to and fro than use the Hop. Now the Hop is considered a great success...
>yet only a small minority of the people of Boulder use it. I also think that you
>overestimate the expense of supporting bicycling as the viable form of transportation
>that it is for many.
*Every* time the city or county builds or rebuilds a roadway now, it adds "bicycle
lanes" (wide shoulders) to the roadway. This costs more for right-of-way purchases,
asphalt, grading, plowing and cleaning. How many umpteen hundreds of thousands of
dollars were spent on the specially-protected lane up Boulder Canyon to Sunshine,
where the bikes are directed onto one of the most dangerous bike/auto roads I have
ever seen.
How much staff and representative time is wasted each year dealing with bikes and
bike problems, how much enforcement time? A lot.
An utter waste of money as a sop to political correctness.
> I think that you also underestimate the amount of cargo a
>determined individual can haul with a bicycle (I friend used to routinely load a full
>tower computer into those little baby trailers).. And if we are talking about the use
>of the bike for commuting... well, there usually isn't that much to haul other than
>one's own bag of bones.
How do you know? I know people who take bags of paperwork home every day, not to
mention computers, sales kits, products and whatnot. Sure, you *can* haul stuff in a
bike trailer, but how many people *will*? Very few *ever* will, which is what makes
bikes a non-starter as viable mass-transit.
> I know more people who commute by bike than who commute by
>car... would you prefer those people drive? The hops are already full quite often
>during the school year... if you were to banish all those who bike to campus, there
>wouldn't be room for them on the hop.
Then run more Hop's.
>
>I'm not advocating that *you* use a bicycle... I am defending those who do. And if
>the folks on bikes look physically fit to you, well they are probably fit for a reason.
>I've probably chubbed up a tad since I stopped commuting by bike.
I'm not demanding that you *not* use a bike, only that our elected representatives
stop spending money on bike projects, particularly when they claim moral victory over
transportation problems by doing so. Bike projects are *not* mass-transit solutions,
they are politically-correct pork "feel-good" projects of little impact other than
economic.
>> Proportionally, more tax money is spent per-capita on bicyclists than any other
>> group, and with little to show for it, mass-transportation wise.
>
>I find that pretty hard to believe. Of course if there are as few bicyclists as you
>insist there are, then that isn't saying much. Now I don't necessarily think that all
>the money spent on the bicycle infrastructure has been warranted, neither do I think
>that all the money spent on automotive infrastructure has been warrated either (goody,
>13th and Canyon is *finally* concrete and a little bumpier than before).
There may be *masses* of bicyclists, but of them, only a very small percentage of
*bicyclists* are "commuting" and therefore substituting bicycle use for auto use.
The vast majority are recreational bicyclists who drive to work and bike when they
play.
>
>> An inefficient and unwise use of scarce resources.
>
>I'd surely hate to see all those bicyclists return to their cars...
They probably do, quite often. Still, I agree that anyone who *does* commute by
bicycle is to be lauded for their dedication and effort, but they don't deserve to
have the masses of money we spend on bike projects spent on them.
>
>> Then they should be prepared to be tested, licensed, registered, taxed and expected
>> to obey the traffic laws just like any other method of transportation. As for
>> quantity, they do indeed constitute a small fraction of the population who get far
>> too much consideration from the city and county administration.
>>
>> If bicycling is a legitimate form of mass transportation, then bicyclists should use
>> the established roadways just as everyone else does, and they must be expected to
>> operate safely with the flow of other traffic so as not to create blockages and
>> hazards. One could argue that horses are a "legitimate form of mass transportation",
>> after all, they were the *primary* means of transportation for centuries, but that
>> does not mean that we should change the speed limit to accomodate the horse riders to
>> the detriment of motor vehicle traffic.
>
>> Until you can keep up with vehicle traffic speeds *at all times*, uphill, downhill,
>> in city, out of town and on multi-lane highways, you need to be banned from the
>> highways as traffic hazards.
>
>Bicyclists are *already* required to obey traffic laws on the public roadways. If they
>don't, then take it up law enforcement officer. However considering the inability for
>a bicyclist to hurt anyone but themselves, I think that your suggestion for testing
>licensing, registering... is a bit absurd and extreme. Not to mention unenforcable.
Oh really? Ever been run into by a bicyclist going 35 MPH while walking? It can
easily be fatal to the pedestrian. Bike/ped collisions happen all the time, and it's
one of my principle complaints about bikes using the pathways as commuting corridors,
which is not their intended purpose.
But bicyclists cause far more damage and problems than just on the paths. I have
only *rarely* seen a bicyclist who could operate on the roadways for more than about
a block without violating at least a couple of traffic regulations.
The problem is that autos are licensed, and must prominently display registration
tags which identify the owner of the vehicle. Drivers must be trained, tested and
licensed, and their *privilege* to operate a motor vehicle on the public streets can
be revoked for excessive infractions.
Bicycles, on the other hand, are neither registered nor licensed, and are quite
utterly unidentifiable from the enforcement standpoint. They have no visible
registration tags which would allow a pedestrian or vehicle operator who witnesses a
traffic infraction to provide the police so the owner can be tracked down and
contacted. Bicycle operators need not be tested on their knowledge of traffic laws,
and no summons issued can be counted against their *privilege* of operating a bicycle
on the public highways. They also pay no ownership or use taxes to help defray the
costs of enforcement and accomodation.
Bicyclists *often* operate in violation, particularly at night, where they are
usually unmarked and unlighted, and constitute a serious hazard to drivers.
>First you insist that bicyclist should have to use the roads like everybody else. Then
>you argue that argue that if they can't keep up with posted speed limits *at all times*
>they shouldn't use the roads. Come on Scott, you can't have it both ways. I can't
>imagine that you condone banning bikes... so the next best solution is bike paths/lanes.
Why not? Why should I compromise traffic safety and efficient use of the road system
to accomodate what is mostly a recreational pursuit? No one would tolerate lowering
the speed limit to accomodate horseback riders using the "full lane", so why should
we tolerate having to dodge bicyclists who can't or won't travel at a safe and
reasonable traffic speed?
I do indeed condone banning bikes on the public roadways where the speed limit is
higher than 25 MPH and where no *separate* bicycle path or lane currently exists.
Such lanes must run the *entire length* of the "bicycle-permitted" segment, with NO
"neck downs" or places where the lane "disappears", like Valmont between 55th and
Indian Road. I also condone banning *any* form of bicycle race, tour or competition
which takes place on public roadways where bicyclists ride more than one abreast
outside of a designated bicycle lane, particularly and explicitly any cross-country
mass bicycle tour on narrow rural and mountain roads.
I also demand that *no* further bicycle accomodation projects be paid for by highway
user funds or funds allocated for transportation projects. Any bicycle accomodations
should be paid for *by bicyclists*, and by bicyclists alone, through user taxes,
ownership and registration fees and taxes and excise taxes on bicycles and
accessories.
I also want bicyclists tested, registered and licensed, with points for violations
assess against their privilege to operate a bicycle *or* motor vehicle on the public
highways.
>I really don't think it costs the city much money to paint a stripe down the edge of the
>road that designates a bike line. And the bike paths haven't been that expensive. Maybe
>you're just annoyed that you can't drive on them?
No, I'm annoyed that *I* had to pay for the extra cost of building the widened
roadways in the first place and the extra maintenance costs associated with the
widened roadway like sweeping and plowing. The white line must be painted anyway, so
I don't mind paying for it.
Scott Weiser
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>E.4...@phidias.colorado.edu>
>:
>Distribution:
>I wonder if people like Scott realise that they have been taken for a ride
>by the car companies. Scott has become convinced that unlike the
>multitudes in Holland, China and several other bicycling countries people
>can no longer move more than a few feet under their own power.
Uh huh. And the per-capita income in China is??? China can (must) get along with
bicycles because it is a mostly rural, agrarigran culture in which people seldom
travel far from their home villages, and have no need to.
>The car companies have to make more and more money each year so they have
>made us addicted to buying ever more expensive and complicated devices.
>They would have you believe that you are not "whole" unless you are in a
>car. WHere does it say also that to be a business man you have to wear a
>suit? This is another of those BS rules that society got from the Victorians.
"Addicted" to cars? Har har. And you may consider suits to be BS, but I'll bet you
don't have a job which gets you above the poverty line either. BS it may be, but
it's the *boss's* BS, and he who signs the paychecks makes the rules.
>
>People were perfectly capable of riding bikes in the past and they can now
>- its just that the car companies would lose badly if they did.
No, it's because people can't get from Denver to Boulder comfortably and swiftly on a
bicycle. And they can't carry cargo on one either.
>
>I did not see any answer to the question "Why are people prepared to pay
>big money to get hot and sweaty at a "health club" but can't ride to
>work". This is is rather like the farmer on NPR who couldn't pay people
>to help him harvest his crop - because they were all too tired after
>paying to work out at the health club.
Your question is so silly it deserves no answer. And what would *you* know about
harvesting crops, how to do it, or what it costs.
>It is interesting to see how big business can manipulate peoples beliefs -
>rather like power lawn mowers - they are now so big and cost reduced that
>a manual push mower is faster quieter and cheaper and less effort to push.
Then go right ahead and push it.
Scott Weiser
do...@sashimi.colorado.edu (Doug McKnight) wrote:
>
>A small part of Scott's vitriolic anti-bicycle post was:
>
>
>>"dress-down" people. It's fine for you, and some others, but bicycling will *never*
>>be practical mass transit.
>
>
>mass transit in some less auto-centric parts of the world.
Which doesn't mean that it is practical *here*. It's a common error to assume that a
cultural habit which works in one culture will automatically applicable to another
culture.
Scott Weiser
sa...@colorado.edu (Sam Weaver) wrote:
>
>--> "sw" == Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>Scott, in general you're being pretty extreme and unreasonable with
>your generalizations on this thread. Examples follow:
But of course, it's a polemic, what did you expect?
>sw> Because only a very small percentage of people are physically
>sw> capable of operating bicycles at all, much less on a regular
>sw> basis.
>
>This smacks of total fabrication. Define "very small" and "at all."
>I'd say 80% of the entire population of Boulder County can operate a
>bike at all.
I'd say, at a guess, that 60% can't physically do so for various reasons of health,
age or disability, and that the other 35% don't care to. Perhaps some scholar out
there has hard numbers on the last "bike to work" day results.
>
>sw> Furthermore, most people need to carry things like children, dogs,
>sw> groceries, merchandise, potted plants and friends.
>
>This is true, while
>
>sw> None of these things are practical, or even possible, on a
>sw> bicycle.
>
>This is hogwash. Friends ride their own bikes, as do many choldren
>who are not in carriers or bike seats. Even back in the 70's in
>Tennessee of all places, I have great memories of tooling around
>behind Mom and Dan in kiddie seats on bikes. Backpacks carry
>reasonable amounts of groceries and merchandise.
Uh, huh. Right. Sure, you can pull a freight train with a bicycle if you try *real*
hard, but who wants to? Only a very small proportion of the general population,
that's who. And how many of those trips were business, trade, errand or
commute-specific? Not many I bet. I suspect most of them were recreational trips.
If not, I still maintain that your experiences are an abberation and are
statistically insignificant.
>
>sw> During the summer, a businessman in a suit would have to have it
>sw> dry cleaned after riding a couple of miles in 90 degree weather,
>sw> and while spandex may be de-rigeur for the bicycle crowd, it
>sw> doesn't fit well in the business world.
>
>Said businessman would be a bad business partner if he wasn't smart
>enough to wear appropriate clothes for what he was doing. Changing at
>the office is not such a biggie.
It is to most people, who can't afford to maintain a separate wardrobe at home and
the office. Further, how do you deal with the "eau de road-warrior" factor? Not
every office provides shower facilities. This also means that one must be at work
much earlier, so one can shower and change before the working day starts, which
increases commute times and hassle factor. Sure, it can be done, some people do it,
and I applaud them for doing so, but as a practical mass-transit alternative, it's
preposterous.
>sw> It's not fear, it's disgust. The elitist, yuppie,
>sw> politically-correct dogma of trying to force people onto bicycles
>sw> because a particular crowd thinks it's "practical" disgusts me.
>
>Incentives and encouragement are not force. Accomodating multiple
>modes is not force. You exaggerate, eh? Tarring all cyclists with
>your "politically-correct" brush is just an attempt to frame the
>argument in extreme terms so you can rant. Why bother?
True, but it certainly has spiced things up again, hasn't it? Even Evan's back in
tip top form.
However, "accomodating multiple modes" with *my* tax money most certainly "force",
turning parking spaces into bike lanes so bicyclists won't have to go a half a block
east is "force". Deliberately discommoding auto drivers to accomodate bicyclists is
"force".
>sw> The waste of taxpayer dollars and administrative time spent by the
>sw> various governmental bodies on bicycle issues disgusts me. The
>sw> obstruction of motor vehicle traffic to accomodate bicycles
>sw> disgusts me.
>
>Many would say the same about cars, and there are extremists in that
>camp too.
Too true.
>sw> And the rude and dangerous conduct of *some* bicyclists both on
>sw> the paths and on the highways disgusts me.
>
>Me, too. Doesn't make bicycling as a form of transportation wrong.
No, not wrong, just inefficient and ineffective as *mass* transportation, and
therefore not worth the investment of public monies.
>sw> Who the hell do you think you are to tell me how to spend my
>sw> money, or how to get my exercise, or what my mode of travel should
>sw> be?
>
>Do whatever you want with your time. If there is a constituency of
>taxpayers, like myself, that wants bike paths, though, we expect to be
>heard as well. And external effects of all modes of travel need to be
>internalized.
But of course. And I likewise reserve the right to be a curmudgeon and disagree with
you.
>
>And I hope you either go 65mph in the left lane of the Turnpike these
>days, or else get over to the right, now that the law favors a higher
>speed. Or else you're breaking THE LAW.
I'm *delighted* to go 65 in the left lane. I'm also *delighted* to block the
assholes who will now insist on going *85* MPH because it's not the speed, it's the
fact that they *just can't stand* to be behind somebody else.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I were a lawyer, you'd be
Bill Cox x2181
: Can anyone give a reference to a bike/ped collision which
: resulted in serious injury (for the pedestrian) ?
: Clearly, such injury is possible, but I have never heard of
: any in Boulder, let alone a fatality.
: Even collisions that resulted in no injuries might be interesting
: to hear about.
: By the way, 35 MPH is _very_ fast, and is rarely attained
: anywhere on the creek path, as far as I can tell. An injury could probably
: be quite serious at 15 MPH - no need to exaggerate.
: matt
Actually, on monday (June 3), one of my wife's co-workers was
walking home from work, and was struck by someone on a
bike. She was thrown ~14 feet, and, as of late Tuesday, had
not regained consciousness. I was told that she was taken to
Denver by Flight for Life (the accident occurred in Longmont).
Apparently, the person who was riding the bike abandoned their
bike and left the scene of the accident. My wife, who drove
by the scene moments before the accident, saw a guy on a bike
with a hockey stick (!) sticking up a couple of feet above his
head, and who seemed to be concentrating more on avoiding
tree branches and the like than on watching where he was going.
Last I heard, the police had a suspect, but no arrests had
been made. Please note that I was not a witness - the above
description is what I heard. If anyone has more details, or
was a witness, I would appreciate hearing from you.
Don't get me wrong - I'm an avid cyclist, and I agree that
this sort of serious collision is somewhat rare. But, you
did ask for references.
=Bill=
Erik Johnson
> *Every* time the city or county builds or rebuilds a roadway now, it adds "bicycle
> lanes" (wide shoulders) to the roadway. This costs more for right-of-way purchases,
> asphalt, grading, plowing and cleaning. How many umpteen hundreds of thousands of
> dollars were spent on the specially-protected lane up Boulder Canyon to Sunshine,
> where the bikes are directed onto one of the most dangerous bike/auto roads I have
> ever seen.
I really don't see that roads with bike lines are any wider than roads without. Care
to give some examples of where that extra 2ft on each side of the road resulted in
having to buy more land?
As for the path in Boulder Canyon, that leads to 4mile Canyon, not Sunshine. And that
path is always packed, not only with people who road their bikes or walked up it, but
also with people who drove up to the big pullout a mile or so up the canyon. It is
getting used by people, and keeps the bikes out of your way. So what is the beef?
> How much staff and representative time is wasted each year dealing with bikes and
> bike problems, how much enforcement time? A lot.
A lot less than is spent dealing with cars, car problems and enforcement time. A lot
less than is spent dealing with alcohol problems, noise pollution, or any of a myriad
of other problems.
> An utter waste of money as a sop to political correctness.
Foolish beyond belief! Nothing to do with 'political correctness', everything to do
with support a segment of the population's desire to use *their* bicycle as an alternative
to the auto.
> > I think that you also underestimate the amount of cargo a
> >determined individual can haul with a bicycle (I friend used to routinely load a full
> >tower computer into those little baby trailers).. And if we are talking about the use
> >of the bike for commuting... well, there usually isn't that much to haul other than
> >one's own bag of bones.
>
> How do you know? I know people who take bags of paperwork home every day, not to
> mention computers, sales kits, products and whatnot. Sure, you *can* haul stuff in a
> bike trailer, but how many people *will*? Very few *ever* will, which is what makes
> bikes a non-starter as viable mass-transit.
And you think the bus is preferrable to the bike? The cargo capacity of a person on a
bike is greater than the capacity of a person on foot and bus. Obviously there are times
when a car is *necessary* (I don't head out to price club on my bike). And conversely,
there are times when the car is not *necessary*. And believe it or not Scott, there are
many who see the distinction, and choose the vehicle for the task accordingly.
> > I know more people who commute by bike than who commute by
> >car... would you prefer those people drive? The hops are already full quite often
> >during the school year... if you were to banish all those who bike to campus, there
> >wouldn't be room for them on the hop.
> Then run more Hop's.
Hmmm... and you are trying to save money? How much does a hop bus cost to purchase,
maintain, insure? How much does it cost to administer the system, pay the drivers?
I'm all for the Hop, but it is not the ONLY solution to the multifacetted transportation
problem. Running more Hops wouldn't pull people off of their bikes, especially if you
need to go somewhere the Hop doesn't go, or carry more than you could in the Hop. And
you complain about bikes getting in your way... you see Hop busses as less of an obstacle?
> I'm not demanding that you *not* use a bike, only that our elected representatives
> stop spending money on bike projects, particularly when they claim moral victory over
> transportation problems by doing so. Bike projects are *not* mass-transit solutions,
> they are politically-correct pork "feel-good" projects of little impact other than
> economic.
I'd be pretty pissed if the representatives that I vote for where to stop spending the
pittance on bikes that they do. Remember, you aren't the only voter out there. Take
the time sometime to count the number of people who go down a given bit of bikepath.
Now figure the impact they would have if they were in cars... you will quickly see that
bikes are *part* of the solution.
What's next Scott? Tear up all sidewalks because those pesky pedestrians are unlicensed,
and not paying their fair share of taxes, and besides you can't walk to Denver or carry
much cargo... and the jaywalking! Besides there are far more sidewalks than bikepaths.
Maybe we should outlaw cars because they can't carry as much cargo as trucks? Maybe
we should outlaw wheeled vehicles because airplanes carry even more cargo, travel farther
faster, and don't require money wasting roads... and besides, you can't drive to Hawaii.
Perhaps Scott, you should simply let people choose the form of transportation that suits
their needs (for various speeds, distances, costs, cargo capacity, need to look cool),
instead of writing off anyone who chooses a different mode of transportation as spandex
wearing politically correct elites. Aren't you the one who claims to be libertarian (I
could be getting you confused with someone else in the newsgroup)... doesn't that take
the stance that society is served based when individuals are free to make there own
decisions? btw, you aren't the only one who pays taxes, and are surely in the minority
on this issue of bicycling (remember that we currently live in a mostly Democratic
society... not a Scott propelled despotism)
> There may be *masses* of bicyclists, but of them, only a very small percentage of
> *bicyclists* are "commuting" and therefore substituting bicycle use for auto use.
> The vast majority are recreational bicyclists who drive to work and bike when they
> play.
I think that you are making an unsupported assertion. Walk through campus... those
people didn't ride there for FUN. And what if someone is having more fun than you
commuting by bike, do you hold it against them? I see far more people on bikes in
boulder who are pretty obviously trying to get somewhere, and not out for just the
fun of it. And so what if someone is riding their bike as play... Living in the
mountains, I see tons of cars and motorcycles (far more than bicycles) toodling
around on the weekend just for the fun of it. And believe my, they are far more
obstructive and annoying than their bicyclist counterparts.
> They probably do, quite often. Still, I agree that anyone who *does* commute by
> bicycle is to be lauded for their dedication and effort, but they don't deserve to
> have the masses of money we spend on bike projects spent on them.
Seems a bit contrary to any form of common sense.
> Oh really? Ever been run into by a bicyclist going 35 MPH while walking? It can
> easily be fatal to the pedestrian. Bike/ped collisions happen all the time, and it's
> one of my principle complaints about bikes using the pathways as commuting corridors,
> which is not their intended purpose.
No, I've never had this happen or heard of it happening. But by your logic, it would
be the obstructive, too slow pedestrian's fault. Hmm, are you referring to "bike"
pathways? If so, then it seems to me that it is the pedestrian that is using the
space for the inintended purpose of walking. Besides, I imagine far more bicyclists
and pedestrians are hit and killed by cars, but I don't see you seeking to limit the
activities of automotists as you are for bicyclists.
> But bicyclists cause far more damage and problems than just on the paths. I have
> only *rarely* seen a bicyclist who could operate on the roadways for more than about
> a block without violating at least a couple of traffic regulations.
Then complain that the cops aren't enforcing the law.
> The problem is that autos are licensed, and must prominently display registration
> tags which identify the owner of the vehicle. Drivers must be trained, tested and
> licensed, and their *privilege* to operate a motor vehicle on the public streets can
> be revoked for excessive infractions.
> Bicycles, on the other hand, are neither registered nor licensed, and are quite
> utterly unidentifiable from the enforcement standpoint. They have no visible
> registration tags which would allow a pedestrian or vehicle operator who witnesses a
> traffic infraction to provide the police so the owner can be tracked down and
> contacted. Bicycle operators need not be tested on their knowledge of traffic laws,
> and no summons issued can be counted against their *privilege* of operating a bicycle
> on the public highways. They also pay no ownership or use taxes to help defray the
> costs of enforcement and accomodation.
What about pedestrians and roller bladers? Shall we test and license them as well? They
are constantly breaking laws, such as jaywalking, littering and loitering. To me the line
is drawn where the activity can adversely affect the life of others. And I really don't
think you have the statistics to back the assertion that bicyclists do any statistically
relevant damage to the life and property of others.
> Bicyclists *often* operate in violation, particularly at night, where they are
> usually unmarked and unlighted, and constitute a serious hazard to drivers.
No, these bicyclists constitue a serious hazard to themselves. I really don't think
you can name an instance where a motorist was killed by a negligent bicyclist.
> Why not? Why should I compromise traffic safety and efficient use of the road system
> to accomodate what is mostly a recreational pursuit? No one would tolerate lowering
> the speed limit to accomodate horseback riders using the "full lane", so why should
> we tolerate having to dodge bicyclists who can't or won't travel at a safe and
> reasonable traffic speed?
So you insist that bikes are travelling at 35mph on the bike paths endangering pedestrians.
But then they can't keep up with traffic in Boulder... in most of Boulder, especially the
central parts the speed limits are at or less than 35mph? Perhaps these bicyclists are
keeping you from speeding? Or perhaps you randomly pick numbers and 'facts' out of the
air to support your tenuous position. At least you could try to make up facts and numbers
that don't contradict prior statements.
> I do indeed condone banning bikes on the public roadways where the speed limit is
> higher than 25 MPH and where no *separate* bicycle path or lane currently exists.
But yet you want to get rid of those separate paths and lanes. Pretty convenient.
I propose that we ban ALL vehicles from the roads that cannot maintain the speed limit.
Sure would make driving in the Canyon a lot easier. Of course neither of my cars might
then be allowed on the highways that have the new speed limit.
> Such lanes must run the *entire length* of the "bicycle-permitted" segment, with NO
> "neck downs" or places where the lane "disappears", like Valmont between 55th and
> Indian Road. I also condone banning *any* form of bicycle race, tour or competition
> which takes place on public roadways where bicyclists ride more than one abreast
> outside of a designated bicycle lane, particularly and explicitly any cross-country
> mass bicycle tour on narrow rural and mountain roads.
Wow, what great racing this would be... it is illegal to pass anyone.
> I also demand that *no* further bicycle accomodation projects be paid for by highway
> user funds or funds allocated for transportation projects. Any bicycle accomodations
> should be paid for *by bicyclists*, and by bicyclists alone, through user taxes,
> ownership and registration fees and taxes and excise taxes on bicycles and
> accessories.
And is there an added tax on training wheels?
> I also want bicyclists tested, registered and licensed, with points for violations
> assess against their privilege to operate a bicycle *or* motor vehicle on the public
> highways.
And all this added administration will be cheap?
> No, I'm annoyed that *I* had to pay for the extra cost of building the widened
> roadways in the first place and the extra maintenance costs associated with the
> widened roadway like sweeping and plowing. The white line must be painted anyway, so
> I don't mind paying for it.
Don't these wider roadways make it easier for you to navigate with your wider vehicle?
I think that you are incorrect in your assumption that roadways are indeed made much
wider to accomodate bicycles and that this is expensive. Many roads in town are wide
to accomodate parked traffic. Many rural roads are wide to accomodate a paved break
down area. Highways are wider to accomodate emergency vehicles and break down vehicles.
If a bicyclist benefits from any of this, it is more of a side effect.
If commuting bicyclists are such a minority, why is it Scott that you are the only
person in this newsgroup who seems to hold such views on bicycling. I see many people
refuting your mostly absurd and Weisercentric views. Note that this is an invitation
for anyone against bicycling as an alternative form of transportation to speak up.
Shane Castle
In boulder.general, Warner Losh<i...@rover.village.org> wrote:
>In article <4p34f1$6...@lace.colorado.edu>
con...@euclid.Colorado.EDU (matthew conroy) writes:
>>Can anyone give a reference to a bike/ped collision which
>>resulted in serious injury (for the pedestrian) ?
[ example deleted ]
>Given that this happened just two days ago, I find it hard to believe
>that more incidents such as this haven't happened in Boulder county.
I know of one person who was struck by a bicycle last year and suffered
a broken collarbone and a damaged elbow as a result. ER costs,
painkiller and muscle relaxant prescriptions, and severely restricted
use of the arm on that side for several months.
Someone, maybe police or Sheriff's Dept, might have some real statistics
on these encounters, but only if a police report is generated.
>Free to a good home: 100,000 miller moths. Must promise not to breed them.
I have some I'd like to get rid of, too.
--
Shane Castle | "Perfection, then, is finally achieved, not
Boulder County Info Svcs | when there is nothing left to add, but when
Boulder CO USA | there is nothing left to take away."
| - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Warner Losh
In article <4p34f1$6...@lace.colorado.edu> con...@euclid.Colorado.EDU (matthew conroy) writes:
>Can anyone give a reference to a bike/ped collision which
>resulted in serious injury (for the pedestrian) ?
On June 3, 1996 one mountain bike struck a friend of mine in Longmont
while she was a pedestrian on the bike path. This friend is now in
the ICU unit of sweedish medical center and will be for the rest of
the week and will be in the hospital for another two plus has some PT
to look forward to. The bike in question struck her, knocked her 16
feet causing brain trama bad enough she had to be transferred to the
trama care ward at Sweedish from the Longmont hospital. The bicylcist
is evidentally in the longmont hospital as well, but his/her
condiition and identity are not known at this time.
Given that this happened just two days ago, I find it hard to believe
that more incidents such as this haven't happened in Boulder county.
I have no news sources that I can point you at. All of my information
comes directly from the doctors at sweedish, the police in Longmont,
etc via a freind I've known for 11 years, since it is this person's
SO. Some of the information is directly from the doctors w/o any
third party conveying it.
The information in this post is as of 7pm last night. I have no new
news today, but there were some conflicting reports on the extent of
the cyclist's injuries. My friend's injuries are very real and very
life threatening.
Warner
--
Warner Losh i...@village.org
Eric Robison
Warner Losh (i...@rover.village.org) wrote:
:>In article <4p34f1$6...@lace.colorado.edu> con...@euclid.Colorado.EDU (matthew conroy) writes:
:>>Can anyone give a reference to a bike/ped collision which
:>>resulted in serious injury (for the pedestrian) ?
:>
:>On June 3, 1996 one mountain bike struck a friend of mine in Longmont
:>while she was a pedestrian on the bike path.
It's actually a sidewalk, but in Longmont you're lucky to have a paved
sidewalk, and real bike paths don't really exist. They just pass out
maps that show many of the sidewalks also being used for bikes.
:>the ICU unit of sweedish medical center and will be for the rest of
:>the week and will be in the hospital for another two plus has some PT
:>to look forward to. The bike in question struck her, knocked her 16
:>feet causing brain trama bad enough she had to be transferred to the
:>trama care ward at Sweedish from the Longmont hospital.
Let's not forget the skull fracture the SOB inflicted on her.
:>Given that this happened just two days ago, I find it hard to believe
:>that more incidents such as this haven't happened in Boulder county.
I think they probably happen fairly often, but never get much
publicity, even if they get reported to the police. Neither the Daily
Camera or the Longmont paper ran anything more about this than the
ambulance call log. Apparently people almost being killed by
bicyclists isn't news. Certainly reporting it in Boulder wouldn't be
politically correct, unless the cyclist was smoking at the time.
Another incident of this type that I personally witnessed involved one
cyclist running over another that had stopped off the path. The
vicitm got minor leg and head injuries, and was unable to ride her
bike. No police or ambulance involved, although there were a number
of witnesses. The victim had to be driven home, as she couldn't walk.
:>Free to a good home: 100,000 miller moths. Must promise not to breed them.
OK, but you'll have to spay and neuter them first.
--
| Eric Robison
| er...@clue.com
| Think of it as evolution in action
Eric Robison
Eric Robison (er...@chaos.clue.com) wrote:
:>Warner Losh (i...@rover.village.org) wrote:
:>:>In article <4p34f1$6...@lace.colorado.edu> con...@euclid.Colorado.EDU (matthew conroy) writes:
:>:>>Can anyone give a reference to a bike/ped collision which
:>:>>resulted in serious injury (for the pedestrian) ?
:>:>
:>:>On June 3, 1996 one mountain bike struck a friend of mine in Longmont
:>:>while she was a pedestrian on the bike path.
I hate to follow up my own post, but this might be interesting to some:
(typos mine. ericr)
Longmont Times-Call, Wednesday 5, 1996, page A3
Pedestrian hurt in crash with bike
Longmont - A 21-year-old Longmont woman was in serious condition in
the intensive care unit this morning at Swedish Medical Center in
Denver after she was hit by a bicyclist and thrown 16 feet.
Katherine Wilson was in the crosswalk at Colorado Highway 119 and
South Sunset Street, waiting for the light to change when she was
struck by cyclist Nancy Lynn Ero of Longmont.
Police said Wilson waited until the light turned red before she
began to cross the street.
Both Wilson and Ero were taken to Longmont United Hospital, but
Wilson was later transported to Swedish Medical Center with head
injuries.
No one has been charged.
-30-
Scott Weiser
See, I told you so.....
Scott Weiser
sw...@boco.co.gov (Shane Castle) wrote:
>
>>Free to a good home: 100,000 miller moths. Must promise not to breed them.
>
Yes, but all those *itty-bitty* vasectomies and tubal ligations.....
Scott Weiser
Erik Johnson <er...@phidias.colorado.edu> wrote:
>I really don't see that roads with bike lines are any wider than roads without. Care
>to give some examples of where that extra 2ft on each side of the road resulted in
>having to buy more land?
It's not two feet, it's more like 12 - 15 feet. About 3 - 4 feet extra for asphalt
*on each side*, for 6 - 8 feet total extra width at a minimum, plus the standard
shoulder, which is usually widened somewhat where possible.
And 6-8 feet of extra asphalt plus all the base work is *not* cheap, because the bike
section must be built to the same weight-capacity standards as the rest of the road.
I don't have the figures, but it's a *lot* of money cumulatively.
>
>As for the path in Boulder Canyon, that leads to 4mile Canyon, not Sunshine. And that
>path is always packed, not only with people who road their bikes or walked up it, but
>also with people who drove up to the big pullout a mile or so up the canyon. It is
>getting used by people, and keeps the bikes out of your way. So what is the beef?
Bikes should be kept out of my way without spending hundreds of thousands to do it.
A simple ordinance banning them from the streets and highways might cost a few
thousand, and once done, costs very little, what with fines and fees for violations.
>
>> How much staff and representative time is wasted each year dealing with bikes and
>> bike problems, how much enforcement time? A lot.
>
>A lot less than is spent dealing with cars, car problems and enforcement time. A lot
>less than is spent dealing with alcohol problems, noise pollution, or any of a myriad
>of other problems.
So what? It's wasted money if the goal is mass transportation, which is what
everybody likes to claim it is.
>
>> An utter waste of money as a sop to political correctness.
>
>Foolish beyond belief! Nothing to do with 'political correctness', everything to do
>with support a segment of the population's desire to use *their* bicycle as an alternative
>to the auto.
Too much money for too small a segment for too little result and too much
interference with *legitimate* mass transportation programs.
>> How do you know? I know people who take bags of paperwork home every day, not to
>> mention computers, sales kits, products and whatnot. Sure, you *can* haul stuff in a
>> bike trailer, but how many people *will*? Very few *ever* will, which is what makes
>> bikes a non-starter as viable mass-transit.
>
>And you think the bus is preferrable to the bike? The cargo capacity of a person on a
>bike is greater than the capacity of a person on foot and bus. Obviously there are times
>when a car is *necessary* (I don't head out to price club on my bike). And conversely,
>there are times when the car is not *necessary*. And believe it or not Scott, there are
>many who see the distinction, and choose the vehicle for the task accordingly.
But of course. Nonetheless, what I am saying is that *most* people will *never* use
bikes for routine transportation because of these problems. Therefore bicycles are
merely an alternative for a few people, and not worth the time and money being spent
on them as a part of *transportation planning*.
>> Then run more Hop's.
>
>Hmmm... and you are trying to save money? How much does a hop bus cost to purchase,
>maintain, insure? How much does it cost to administer the system, pay the drivers?
A lot. How much do they collect in fares and tax monies to pay those expenses.?
>I'm all for the Hop, but it is not the ONLY solution to the multifacetted transportation
>problem. Running more Hops wouldn't pull people off of their bikes, especially if you
>need to go somewhere the Hop doesn't go, or carry more than you could in the Hop. And
>you complain about bikes getting in your way... you see Hop busses as less of an obstacle?
Yes, because they run on predicable schedules, on designated routes, at specific
times, in a particular manner, and they *keep up* with the rest of traffic when
driving, they don't obstruct it as bicyclists do far too often.
>
>> I'm not demanding that you *not* use a bike, only that our elected representatives
>> stop spending money on bike projects, particularly when they claim moral victory over
>> transportation problems by doing so. Bike projects are *not* mass-transit solutions,
>> they are politically-correct pork "feel-good" projects of little impact other than
>> economic.
>
>I'd be pretty pissed if the representatives that I vote for where to stop spending the
>pittance on bikes that they do. Remember, you aren't the only voter out there. Take
>the time sometime to count the number of people who go down a given bit of bikepath.
>Now figure the impact they would have if they were in cars... you will quickly see that
>bikes are *part* of the solution.
For a very few people, under very special circumstances. Not worth it.
>What's next Scott? Tear up all sidewalks because those pesky pedestrians are unlicensed,
>and not paying their fair share of taxes, and besides you can't walk to Denver or carry
>much cargo... and the jaywalking! Besides there are far more sidewalks than bikepaths.
Nope, because pedestrians don't by and large, walk down the center of the driving
lane demanding that I slow down and drive behind them, and they don't run down other
pedestrians and put them in intensive care when walking on the pathways.
>Maybe we should outlaw cars because they can't carry as much cargo as trucks? Maybe
>we should outlaw wheeled vehicles because airplanes carry even more cargo, travel farther
>faster, and don't require money wasting roads... and besides, you can't drive to Hawaii.
Maybe we should. I've *always* been of the opinion that a driver's license should be
as hard to get as a pilot's license. It sure would get a lot of idiots off the
roads, leaving them to those of us who are qualified.
>
>Perhaps Scott, you should simply let people choose the form of transportation that suits
>their needs (for various speeds, distances, costs, cargo capacity, need to look cool),
>instead of writing off anyone who chooses a different mode of transportation as spandex
>wearing politically correct elites.
People can choose any form of transportation they want, I don't give a damn as long
as they don't expect *me* to pay for it if it's other than standard motor vehicle
highway funding, and as long as they stay the hell out of my way when doing so.
>Aren't you the one who claims to be libertarian (I
>could be getting you confused with someone else in the newsgroup)...
Yes, you are confused. I might have some Libertarian beliefs, but I'm not a party
member.
>doesn't that take
>the stance that society is served based when individuals are free to make there own
>decisions? btw, you aren't the only one who pays taxes, and are surely in the minority
>on this issue of bicycling (remember that we currently live in a mostly Democratic
>society... not a Scott propelled despotism)
"Surely in the minority"? Oh please. What's the ratio of regular bicycle commuters
to motor vehicle operators?
As for Democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Big
difference. And you are, of course, quite free to disagree with me, even though
you're wrong. That's the essence of our society, you get to try to convince people
you are right, I get to try the same.
>
>> There may be *masses* of bicyclists, but of them, only a very small percentage of
>> *bicyclists* are "commuting" and therefore substituting bicycle use for auto use.
>> The vast majority are recreational bicyclists who drive to work and bike when they
>> play.
>
>I think that you are making an unsupported assertion. Walk through campus... those
>people didn't ride there for FUN.
You damned near *can't* walk through campus *because* of the bicyclists, why do you
think the CU Police spend so much on dismount zone enforcement. Bike/ped
confrontations are quite common up there, I know, I used to work there.
> And what if someone is having more fun than you
>commuting by bike, do you hold it against them? I see far more people on bikes in
>boulder who are pretty obviously trying to get somewhere, and not out for just the
>fun of it.
Fine by me, just don't ask me to pay for it, and don't get in my way.
> And so what if someone is riding their bike as play... Living in the
>mountains, I see tons of cars and motorcycles (far more than bicycles) toodling
>around on the weekend just for the fun of it. And believe my, they are far more
>obstructive and annoying than their bicyclist counterparts.
So what? They are trained, tested, licensed and registered, bicycles are not.
>
>> They probably do, quite often. Still, I agree that anyone who *does* commute by
>> bicycle is to be lauded for their dedication and effort, but they don't deserve to
>> have the masses of money we spend on bike projects spent on them.
>
>Seems a bit contrary to any form of common sense.
I disagree. Seems quite sensible to me.
>
>> Oh really? Ever been run into by a bicyclist going 35 MPH while walking? It can
>> easily be fatal to the pedestrian. Bike/ped collisions happen all the time, and it's
>> one of my principle complaints about bikes using the pathways as commuting corridors,
>> which is not their intended purpose.
>
>No, I've never had this happen or heard of it happening. But by your logic, it would
>be the obstructive, too slow pedestrian's fault. Hmm, are you referring to "bike"
>pathways? If so, then it seems to me that it is the pedestrian that is using the
>space for the inintended purpose of walking. Besides, I imagine far more bicyclists
>and pedestrians are hit and killed by cars, but I don't see you seeking to limit the
>activities of automotists as you are for bicyclists.
See the other messages in this thread for the latest incident of bicycle hit-and-run.
As for the pedestrians speed, vehicle operators, both bicycles and motor vehicles
must *always* yeild the right of way to pedestrians.
As for bicyclists being hit and killed by cars, that is *exactly* the reason they
need to be banned from the highways. They are *unsafe* to operate on public roadways
where the speed and mass differentials are so great, and the roadways are so
unsuitable for such mixed use.
>
>> But bicyclists cause far more damage and problems than just on the paths. I have
>> only *rarely* seen a bicyclist who could operate on the roadways for more than about
>> a block without violating at least a couple of traffic regulations.
>
>Then complain that the cops aren't enforcing the law.
They try, but usually the bicyclists try (successfully) to elude them, and when a cop
takes the perfectly reasonable step of sticking a baton in the spokes of an eluder,
he gets fired for it. Of course the most important thing is that unlike cars, there
is really no way to accurately identify an offender unless you can physically
restrain them. You can't simply "take down the license" and give it and a
description of the rider to the police and have them make out a summons for you to
sign, which they will serve on the offender, as you can with a motor vehicle. This
is my complaint; if bicyclists want to use the roadways like other vehicles, then
they should be trained, tested licensed registered and identified just like other
vehicles.
>
>
>What about pedestrians and roller bladers? Shall we test and license them as well? They
>are constantly breaking laws, such as jaywalking, littering and loitering. To me the line
>is drawn where the activity can adversely affect the life of others. And I really don't
>think you have the statistics to back the assertion that bicyclists do any statistically
>relevant damage to the life and property of others.
What about them? I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about bicyclists. As for
rollerbladers, they should be flat banned on any public way whatsoever, period, no
exceptions.
>
>> Bicyclists *often* operate in violation, particularly at night, where they are
>> usually unmarked and unlighted, and constitute a serious hazard to drivers.
>
>No, these bicyclists constitue a serious hazard to themselves. I really don't think
>you can name an instance where a motorist was killed by a negligent bicyclist.
No, but I do know of several incidents where drivers ended up in Boulder creek
because they tried to *avoid* a bicyclist. Nonetheless, they *do* cause property
damage when the carcass hits the hood and windshield, and the blood and bits of brain
are *so* hard on the paint.
>
>> Why not? Why should I compromise traffic safety and efficient use of the road system
>> to accomodate what is mostly a recreational pursuit? No one would tolerate lowering
>> the speed limit to accomodate horseback riders using the "full lane", so why should
>> we tolerate having to dodge bicyclists who can't or won't travel at a safe and
>> reasonable traffic speed?
>
>So you insist that bikes are travelling at 35mph on the bike paths endangering pedestrians.
>But then they can't keep up with traffic in Boulder... in most of Boulder, especially the
>central parts the speed limits are at or less than 35mph? Perhaps these bicyclists are
>keeping you from speeding? Or perhaps you randomly pick numbers and 'facts' out of the
>air to support your tenuous position. At least you could try to make up facts and numbers
>that don't contradict prior statements.
I never said that *some* bicyclists can't keep up, just that most *don't*. And the
ones, in my experience, who are most dangerous on the paths *are* the ones who like
to race about like they were at the Olympic finals, who can easily hit 35.
>> I do indeed condone banning bikes on the public roadways where the speed limit is
>> higher than 25 MPH and where no *separate* bicycle path or lane currently exists.
>
>But yet you want to get rid of those separate paths and lanes. Pretty convenient.
>I propose that we ban ALL vehicles from the roads that cannot maintain the speed limit.
>Sure would make driving in the Canyon a lot easier. Of course neither of my cars might
>then be allowed on the highways that have the new speed limit.
No, not "get rid of", just "stop building new ones". Money spent is gone, I just
don't want to waste any more money on bicycle accomodations.
>> I also demand that *no* further bicycle accomodation projects be paid for by highway
>> user funds or funds allocated for transportation projects. Any bicycle accomodations
>> should be paid for *by bicyclists*, and by bicyclists alone, through user taxes,
>> ownership and registration fees and taxes and excise taxes on bicycles and
>> accessories.
>
>And is there an added tax on training wheels?
You bet! And children under 16 would be banned from operating on any street.
>
>> I also want bicyclists tested, registered and licensed, with points for violations
>> assess against their privilege to operate a bicycle *or* motor vehicle on the public
>> highways.
>
>And all this added administration will be cheap?
Nope, but the bikers will pay for it just like motor vehicle operators do.
>
>> No, I'm annoyed that *I* had to pay for the extra cost of building the widened
>> roadways in the first place and the extra maintenance costs associated with the
>> widened roadway like sweeping and plowing. The white line must be painted anyway, so
>> I don't mind paying for it.
>
>Don't these wider roadways make it easier for you to navigate with your wider vehicle?
No, because it's illegal for me to operate to the right of the white line, no matter
how wide my vehicle is. BTW, a HUMMER is no wider than a dually pickup truck, and
narrower than most big delivery trucks.
>I think that you are incorrect in your assumption that roadways are indeed made much
>wider to accomodate bicycles and that this is expensive. Many roads in town are wide
>to accomodate parked traffic. Many rural roads are wide to accomodate a paved break
>down area. Highways are wider to accomodate emergency vehicles and break down vehicles.
Wrong. In the past the "paved break down area" was unpaved, and was called the
shoulder. Now, we pave them as bicycle lanes, and we add an unpaved shoulder for
vehicle parking *too*.
>If a bicyclist benefits from any of this, it is more of a side effect.
If it were true, I'd agree, but it's not.
>
>If commuting bicyclists are such a minority, why is it Scott that you are the only
>person in this newsgroup who seems to hold such views on bicycling. I see many people
>refuting your mostly absurd and Weisercentric views. Note that this is an invitation
>for anyone against bicycling as an alternative form of transportation to speak up.
Because this is the People's Republic of Boulder, and the Net is strongly liberal in
it's leaning. That's why I bother to post at all, to balance some of the often
excessive liberal twaddle which flows through here.
As for my views, hey, it's just a newsgroup discussion, and I'm here for education
and entertainment, and my purpose is to stimulate discussion in an often barren
wasteland of for sale ads and job announcments.
Works too, doesn't it?
Scott Weiser
er...@chaos.clue.com (Eric Robison) wrote:
>Another incident of this type that I personally witnessed involved one
>cyclist running over another that had stopped off the path. The
>vicitm got minor leg and head injuries, and was unable to ride her
>bike. No police or ambulance involved, although there were a number
>of witnesses. The victim had to be driven home, as she couldn't walk.
The Boulder Police Department *refuses* to even *investigate* bike/bike or bike/ped
accidents because they don't include motor vehicles. Only if a registered motor
vehicle is involved will they even respond an officer.
Seems bikes aren't considered "vehicles" for the purposes of matching funds, so why
investigate such accidents.
Pretty rotten policy, if you ask me.
Chris Pollard
Kevin Rooney (76631...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: Cycling is a serious part of transportation in 1st world Amsterdam
: and Copenhagen - which have similar values to what Boulder claims
: to believe in.
Yes but they don't have to widen the roads because nobody drives Hummers.
The roads were fine for normal vehicles until the Hummer mosters arrived.
SO actually Scott is getting a good deal - all those bike riders who paid
their taxes on their vehicles that are sitting in the driveway not wearing
out the road - out there riding their bikes NOT wearing out the road so
that Hummer drivers can go blazing past in four wheel drive with a full
set of studs tearing up the road.
Kevin Rooney
Scott Weiser
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>Kevin Rooney (76631...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
>: Cycling is a serious part of transportation in 1st world Amsterdam
>: to believe in.
>The roads were fine for normal vehicles until the Hummer mosters arrived.
>SO actually Scott is getting a good deal - all those bike riders who paid
>their taxes on their vehicles that are sitting in the driveway not wearing
>out the road - out there riding their bikes NOT wearing out the road so
>that Hummer drivers can go blazing past in four wheel drive with a full
>set of studs tearing up the road.
>
Yeah, yeah, right....Go ahead, eat your heart out. Save up your nickles and dimes
and *you* can have one too!
Go ahead, admit it, you'd like to have one. I know it's a dirty little secret you
keep tucked way down in the blackness at the bottom of your heart, but it's there,
isn't it? Sure it is.
BTW, in a HUMMER, you don't need no stinking studs.
Scott Weiser
Kevin Rooney <76631...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Cycling is a serious part of transportation in 1st world Amsterdam
>and Copenhagen - which have similar values to what Boulder claims
>to believe in.
This ain't either place, and just what are these "Boulder" values? Which particular
"Boulder"?
Certainly not *my* Boulder.
Chris Pollard
Thats one of the problems of the Internet - you never really know who you
are talking to.
Why would somebody who spendsa lot of time designing ultra low drag
vehicles ever want to possess a vehicle that is probably the most draggy
fuel inefficient private passenger vehicle on the planet.
Maybe just to remind me how bad one can get - but then I have a rule -
never buy a Chrysler/American Motors product.
Doug McKnight
stuff about 4wd chewing roads deleted
|>
|> Yeah, yeah, right....Go ahead, eat your heart out. Save up your nickles and dimes
|> and *you* can have one too!
|>
|> Go ahead, admit it, you'd like to have one. I know it's a dirty little secret you
|> keep tucked way down in the blackness at the bottom of your heart, but it's there,
|> isn't it? Sure it is.
|>
|> BTW, in a HUMMER, you don't need no stinking studs.
|>
Is this because HUMMERS are driven by people who are so important
that they can suspend the laws of physics? What nonsense.
Cerberus Nabokov
Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[deletia]
>BTW, in a HUMMER, you don't need no stinking studs.
Actually, my understanding is that real studs don't need a stinking
HUMMER, 'cause they have a penis of their own and don't need a
substitute.
cheers,
cey
--
Cerberus Nabokov cnab...@netone.com
Marc DeAntoni
Scott Weiser wrote:
>
> No, it's because only idiots need studs in the first place, on *any* car. All studs
> do is give you a false sense of security and cause you to be a worse driver on ice
> than you normally would be. HUMMER's don't need studs because the have full-time
> 4WD and Zexel-Torsen torque-biasing differentials along with 37 inch 12.5 inch wide
> tires and 16 inches of ground clearance, but mostly because the kind of people who
> generally drive HUMMERs *know* how to drive them, in all weathers, on any kind of
> terrain or road surface, and they know enough to *slow down* and drive sensibly on
> ice and snow.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Scott Weiser
I just talked to my brother in the SEALs - he says hummers are sluggish
and slow compared to his toyota 4x4 - but boy does he get to shoot some
big guns - I bet your jealous now!
matthew conroy
In article <4p5uan$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Erik Johnson <er...@phidias.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>> I really don't think
>>you can name an instance where a motorist was killed by a negligent bicyclist.
>
>No, but I do know of several incidents where drivers ended up in Boulder creek
>because they tried to *avoid* a bicyclist.
>
I'd love to hear the details of such events (dates, names, locations, etc.
if possible).
And I'm still interested in hearing about bike/ped collisions - so
far only one (as far as I could tell from the varied reports)
has been mentioned.
Anyone?
matt
Scott Weiser
cnab...@netone.com (Cerberus Nabokov) wrote:
>Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>[deletia]
>
>>BTW, in a HUMMER, you don't need no stinking studs.
>
>Actually, my understanding is that real studs don't need a stinking
>HUMMER, 'cause they have a penis of their own and don't need a
>substitute.
Your understanding, Cerberus, is, as usual, faulty.
The truth of the matter is that men who feel compelled comment about the size of
other men's sex organs in public discussion forums not dedicated to that purpose are
actually trying to compensate for their own inadaquacies by utilizing approximately
50% of the wit normally available to rational human adults.
Scott Weiser
da...@advtech.uswest.com (David Ensign) wrote:
>In article <4p8gch$1...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> This ain't either place, and just what are these "Boulder" values? Which particular
>> "Boulder"?
>>
>> Certainly not *my* Boulder.
>
>city of Boulder seem to like the bike lanes just fine. I say spend more of
>Scott's money on bike lanes! The more of Scott's money we can extort for
>bike lanes, the better off we all will be.
>
>Repent, ye addicts of petroleum and polluters of the air.
>
If you really think so, then you won't mind putting it to a *statewide* vote, now
will you. After all, it's not just the cities, or just Boulder that have to pay.
If you win, we keep spending money on bike programs as we have been.
If I win, bikes are banned from the highways altogether.
Sound fair?
Scott Weiser
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>Thats one of the problems of the Internet - you never really know who you
>are talking to.
>
>Why would somebody who spendsa lot of time designing ultra low drag
>vehicles ever want to possess a vehicle that is probably the most draggy
>fuel inefficient private passenger vehicle on the planet.
Perhaps because somebody needs to haul 4000 lbs of cargo off-road? Or perhaps
because somebody needs to be able to navigate through the worst off-road terrain
imaginable in order to find the victims of aircraft crashes? Or perhaps someone
needs to be able to drive in any weather conditions? Or maybe someone needs to tow
at 14600 lbs GCWR. Or any of a number of other possible explanations.
Or maybe you just *want* one. You don't need to explain or apologize to me or anyone
else. Neither do I. I'ts a free country, and you can buy and use a Greyhound bus or
a Peterbuilt semi if you want or need one. Or not.
>Maybe just to remind me how bad one can get - but then I have a rule -
>never buy a Chrysler/American Motors product.
HUMMERs are manufactured by AM General, which is not associated with American Motors.
Scott Weiser
do...@sashimi.colorado.edu (Doug McKnight) wrote:
>stuff about 4wd chewing roads deleted
>
>|>
>|> Yeah, yeah, right....Go ahead, eat your heart out. Save up your nickles and dimes
>|> and *you* can have one too!
>|>
>|> Go ahead, admit it, you'd like to have one. I know it's a dirty little secret you
>|> keep tucked way down in the blackness at the bottom of your heart, but it's there,
>|> isn't it? Sure it is.
>|>
>|>
>
>that they can suspend the laws of physics? What nonsense.
No, it's because only idiots need studs in the first place, on *any* car. All studs
do is give you a false sense of security and cause you to be a worse driver on ice
than you normally would be. HUMMER's don't need studs because the have full-time
4WD and Zexel-Torsen torque-biasing differentials along with 37 inch 12.5 inch wide
tires and 16 inches of ground clearance, but mostly because the kind of people who
generally drive HUMMERs *know* how to drive them, in all weathers, on any kind of
terrain or road surface, and they know enough to *slow down* and drive sensibly on
ice and snow.
--
Vivian
In <4pb64u$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Scott Weiser
<Scott....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>cnab...@netone.com (Cerberus Nabokov) wrote:
>>Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>[deletia]
>>HUMMER, 'cause they have a penis of their own and don't need a
>>substitute.
>Your understanding, Cerberus, is, as usual, faulty.
>The truth of the matter is that men who feel compelled comment about
>the size of other men's sex organs in public discussion forums not
>dedicated to that purpose are actually trying to compensate for their
>own inadaquacies by utilizing approximately 50% of the wit normally
>available to rational human adults.
>Scott Weiser
BTW, for the purposes of further elucidation, may I please add that
Mr. Weiser's laudable modesty is exceeded only by his education,
intelligence, class and taste.
Vivian
;)
--
___________________________________________________________
"Words form the thread on which we string our experiences."
- Aldous Huxley
David Ensign
In article <4p8gch$1...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> This ain't either place, and just what are these "Boulder" values? Which particular
> "Boulder"?
>
> Certainly not *my* Boulder.
Maybe not in your unincorporated Boulder County, but the majority of us in the
city of Boulder seem to like the bike lanes just fine. I say spend more of
Scott's money on bike lanes! The more of Scott's money we can extort for
bike lanes, the better off we all will be.
Repent, ye addicts of petroleum and polluters of the air.
d.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Ensign U S WEST Advanced Technologies
4001 Discovery Drive Suite 320 Boulder, CO 80303
(303) 541-7034 (voice) (303) 541-6773 (fax) da...@advtech.uswest.com
Doug McKnight
In article <4pb5rk$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
|> do...@sashimi.colorado.edu (Doug McKnight) wrote:
|> >stuff about 4wd chewing roads deleted
|> >
|> >|>
|> >|> BTW, in a HUMMER, you don't need no stinking studs.
|> >|>
|> >
|> >Is this because HUMMERS are driven by people who are so important
|> >that they can suspend the laws of physics? What nonsense.
|>
|> No, it's because only idiots need studs in the first place, on *any* car. All studs
|> do is give you a false sense of security and cause you to be a worse driver on ice
|> than you normally would be. HUMMER's don't need studs because the have full-time
|> 4WD and Zexel-Torsen torque-biasing differentials along with 37 inch 12.5 inch wide
|> tires and 16 inches of ground clearance, but mostly because the kind of people who
|> generally drive HUMMERs *know* how to drive them, in all weathers, on any kind of
|> terrain or road surface, and they know enough to *slow down* and drive sensibly on
|> ice and snow.
|>
You are wrong. It is easy to postulate a driveway (for example)
which is covered in smooth wet ice and is sufficiently steep
that no amount of limited slip diffs, traction control (clearance,
power, gearing, etc) can get you up. Tell me how, in such circumstances,
the self-confessed superior skills of the HUMMER driver will help.
The limitation, in this case, is simply the interface between the
vehicle and the road. Using studs can change this limitation and
hence allow the slope to be negotiated.
This argument is very clear to people who understand very basic
dynamics. It is possible that you don't have any education in
these matters and are, therefore, laboring under misconceptions
about what your car can do.
douglas
Marc DeAntoni
Doug McKnight wrote:
>
> A small part of Scott's vitriolic anti-bicycle post was:
>
> >use of bicycles to a small proportion of physically-fit, non-equipment carrying,
> >"dress-down" people. It's fine for you, and some others, but bicycling will *never*
> >be practical mass transit.
>
> Isn't that a rather blinkered parochial view. Bicycling *is* practical
> mass transit in some less auto-centric parts of the world.
>
> Douglas
I think he meant people who do not burst out in sweat at the mere
thought of exersize and do not have to carry rifles to defend themselves
from the constant threat of armed marauders and secret government
forces.
Marc DeAntoni
BowmanRay wrote:
>
> Hmmm. The initial topic seems to have been forgotten - apparently
> overwhelmed by far more important topics like Hummers and Penises. Guess
> I will look some where else for something worth reading.I understand AOL has some really exciting internet features - you could
start there (NI)
Scott Weiser
Marc DeAntoni <ma...@netone.com> wrote:
>I just talked to my brother in the SEALs - he says hummers are sluggish
>and slow compared to his toyota 4x4 - but boy does he get to shoot some
>big guns - I bet your jealous now!
He must be driving the 3 speed 6.2 L diesel which is most common in the military.
The later models, and all commercial models 1994 and after have the 4 speed overdrive
4L80E tranny and the GM 6.5L engine. Plus, they now offer the 6.5 turbodiesel. Mine
is Whipple supercharged, which gives me back sea-level power plus a little, and
actually reduces the emissions. I just had it tested, and the standard for boosted
engines is 35% opacity, mine came in at 2%. Pretty darn good.
It does help to have that nifty TOW launcher on top, and I am indeed jealous. It
must be nice to drive one you don't have to pay for.
Ask him if he knows about the differential lockup technique called "brake modulation"
and it's relationship to snapped half-shafts. If he doesn't, let me know, I have
some info he will appreciate.
Scott Weiser
do...@sashimi.colorado.edu (Doug McKnight) wrote:
>In article <4pb5rk$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>|> do...@sashimi.colorado.edu (Doug McKnight) wrote:
>|> >stuff about 4wd chewing roads deleted
>|> >
>|> >|>
>
>
>|> >|> BTW, in a HUMMER, you don't need no stinking studs.
>|> >|>
>|> >
>|> >Is this because HUMMERS are driven by people who are so important
>|> >that they can suspend the laws of physics? What nonsense.
>|>
>|> No, it's because only idiots need studs in the first place, on *any* car. All studs
>|> do is give you a false sense of security and cause you to be a worse driver on ice
>|> than you normally would be. HUMMER's don't need studs because the have full-time
>|> 4WD and Zexel-Torsen torque-biasing differentials along with 37 inch 12.5 inch wide
>|> tires and 16 inches of ground clearance, but mostly because the kind of people who
>|> generally drive HUMMERs *know* how to drive them, in all weathers, on any kind of
>|> terrain or road surface, and they know enough to *slow down* and drive sensibly on
>|> ice and snow.
>|>
>
>
>You are wrong. It is easy to postulate a driveway (for example)
>which is covered in smooth wet ice and is sufficiently steep
>that no amount of limited slip diffs, traction control (clearance,
>power, gearing, etc) can get you up. Tell me how, in such circumstances,
>the self-confessed superior skills of the HUMMER driver will help.
>
>The limitation, in this case, is simply the interface between the
>vehicle and the road. Using studs can change this limitation and
>hence allow the slope to be negotiated.
Ever heard of a winch? And if I can't get up it in a HUMMER without studs, I'm
willing to bet that you can't get up it in a typical sedan with two studded tires.
Nonetheless, the point is that one should not be driving on a steep driveway covered
with "smooth wet ice" *at all*, even in a vehicle with studs. Studs add only minor
amounts of traction on ice, and, as I said, they simply give the driver a false sense
of invincibility. I have seen more vehicles with studded tires in the ditches than
most other kinds because drivers think that having studs equals being able to drive
the posted speed limit in rotten weather. It's exactly the same argument made
against 4wd vehicles, in that too many drivers forget that four wheel drive doesn't
mean four wheel stop.
>
>This argument is very clear to people who understand very basic
>dynamics. It is possible that you don't have any education in
>these matters and are, therefore, laboring under misconceptions
>about what your car can do.
Actually, I have a great deal of experience in such matters, and have spent my share
of time in the ditch in a car with studded tires, so I know exactly what I am talking
about. I'll pit my true locked-differential all-wheel drive HUMMER against any
two-wheel drive sedan with studs with great pleasure. And if you like, I'll take you
up Lefthand Canyon sometime and show you what I'm talking about.
I suspect that perhaps *you* are the one laboring under misconceptions. Have you
ever even been inside a HUMMER? If you haven't been to Moab at least once in a
HUMMER, then I *know* you are ignorant of its capabilities. I was.
Iain Mannix
I
> >|> No, it's because only idiots need studs in the first place, on *any*
car. All studs
> >|> do is give you a false sense of security
(HMV discussion deleted.....)
If studs are so lame, why do winter rally cars use them? Ice racers? I
dont know about this "if you're cool, you don't need studs" discussion. I
use studs on my car, a low clearance FWD car, have been stuck once (in a
parking lot at Copper during a big storm) and the only thing I have slid
off the road was my Jeep CJ-5 with 33x12.5" BFG All terrains with no
studs. The notion that studs do not greatly increase traction is flawed.
Alas, I must be an idiot, I use studs.........
Mannix
BowmanRay
Scott Weiser
Since you have nothing constructive, or de-constructive to say, please
do.
Try the library, it's mostly inoffensive and you won't really have to
think or debate, you can just stare at the ceiling and read old copies of
Motor Trend and Life.
You really don't need that brain anyway, apparantly.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I was a laywer, you'd be
Cerberus Nabokov
Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Your understanding, Cerberus, is, as usual, faulty.
Why, thank, you, Scott I, consider that, a, compliment coming, from,
you.
>The truth of the matter is that men who feel compelled comment about the size of
>other men's sex organs in public discussion forums not dedicated to that purpose
I wasn't talking about men's "size," I was talking about yours. Quite a
different thing. But anyway, ya got me. I'm mortified by your witty yet
rational comeback.
You have to admit it's a huge part of your personality, Scott (the
HUMMER, I mean). I'm constantly amazed how you're always posting about
it.
The topic is speed limits. Scott talks about his HUMMER.
The topic is smoking. Scott talks about his HUMMER.
The topic is traffic circles. Scott talks about his HUMMER.
The topic ic bicycles. Scott talks about his HUMMER.
Strangely enough, most people don't have so much of their lives wrapped
up into whatever chunk of metal they happen to drive. Either owning a
HUMMER is just an unbelievably intense experience, or there isn't all
that much going on in your life to compete. I know what my guess is.
> are
>actually trying to compensate for their own inadaquacies by utilizing approximately
>50% of the wit normally available to rational human adults.
The topic is <whatever>. Scott insists that he's witty and that everyone
else is not.
You silly man, I thought you were taking a long usenet vacation this
summer.....?
Scott Weiser
The streets are no place for racing, therefore you don't need studs,
which absolutely *destroy* the pavement at an astounding rate. You see,
dweebs who need studs to get around in the winter aren't usually smart
enough to take them off in the summer, or in the winter when there's no
snow around, so they just tear up the roads and *reduce* their
dry=pavement coefficient of friction, making them *less* safe *because*
of the studs. Lazy twits.
If you are a responsible stud-user, and have a separate set of wheels and
tires with the studs which you *only* put on when there is snow/ice ON
THE ROADS, and take them off again immediately when things get plowed,
then please accept my apologies for characterizing you as an idiot and a
dweeb. If not, then you are both.
BTW, ice racers race on *ice*, usually frozen lakes, not the highways.
Scott Weiser
cnab...@netone.com (Cerberus Nabokov) wrote:
>Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Your understanding, Cerberus, is, as usual, faulty.
>
>Why, thank, you, Scott I, consider that, a, compliment coming, from,
>you.
I'll be happy to compliment you in like fashion quite often.
>
>>The truth of the matter is that men who feel compelled comment about the size of
>>other men's sex organs in public discussion forums not dedicated to that purpose
>
>I wasn't talking about men's "size," I was talking about yours. Quite a
>different thing. But anyway, ya got me. I'm mortified by your witty yet
>rational comeback.
How would you know? Ever met me? I think not. You're just posting
not-particularly-interesting flame bait.
>You have to admit it's a huge part of your personality, Scott (the
>HUMMER, I mean). I'm constantly amazed how you're always posting about
>it.
>
>The topic is speed limits. Scott talks about his HUMMER.
Wrong.
>The topic is smoking. Scott talks about his HUMMER.
Wrong.
>The topic is traffic circles. Scott talks about his HUMMER.
Wrong.
>The topic ic bicycles. Scott talks about his HUMMER.
Wrong.
As per usual, you are busily performing a personal, optical colo-rectal
inspection. You might note that any discussion of my HUMMER is *always*
instigated by someone other than myself. In fact, I never even mentioned that I
owned one until I was "Ravitzed" here. Once the cat was out of the bag, there was
little reason to try and stuff it back in. But I don't mention it unless someone
else does. However, I'm quite happy to discuss it with anyone who cares to do so.
>Strangely enough, most people don't have so much of their lives wrapped
>up into whatever chunk of metal they happen to drive. Either owning a
>HUMMER is just an unbelievably intense experience, or there isn't all
>that much going on in your life to compete. I know what my guess is.
How would you know? Did you do a survey of "most people"? I suggest you turn to
rec.autos.4x4 before you make more of a fool of yourself for an answer.
It's pretty intense though. So what? It's my hobby, and I enjoy it. Don't you
like to discuss your hobbies with interested persons?
Oh, wait, I forgot, you can discuss them with *yourself*, you dog you.....What
happens when you can't agree with yourself, do you punch yourself out?
Or perhaps there aren't any interested persons.....or you don't have any
hobbies....pity.
>> are
>>actually trying to compensate for their own inadaquacies by utilizing approximately
>>50% of the wit normally available to rational human adults.
>
>The topic is <whatever>. Scott insists that he's witty and that everyone
>else is not.
Well, I may or may not be witty, but you certainly are not. Netwits are easy to
recognize, and I spied you out immediately.
>You silly man, I thought you were taking a long usenet vacation this
>summer.....?
Fooled ya.
Chris Pollard
: >Strangely enough, most people don't have so much of their lives wrapped
: >up into whatever chunk of metal they happen to drive. Either owning a
: >HUMMER is just an unbelievably intense experience, or there isn't all
: >that much going on in your life to compete. I know what my guess is.
: How would you know? Did you do a survey of "most people"? I suggest you turn to
n: rec.autos.4x4 before you make more of a fool of yourself for an answer.
: It's pretty intense though. So what? It's my hobby, and I enjoy it. Don't you
: like to discuss your hobbies with interested persons?
SO the Hummer isn't really for any real purpose except your hobby and you
have the nerve to belittle cyclists riding in spandex for fun! Gosh it's
good that we have such environmentally sensitive people such as Scott
around to remind us of car companies gone mad.
Iain Mannix
> The streets are no place for racing,
Correct, but my point is not that streets are racetracks, but that what
works on the racetrack will undoubtedly work on the street - rally cars
will see everything from pavement to ice in winter events - they need the
most traction possible, so they use heavily studded tires. For optimum
winter traction, studs are a good thing - even on packed snow (not ice)
they make a noticeable difference.
therefore you don't need studs,
Interesting way of looking at things. If this discussion were of race
tires, I'd agree. It is not. No, one might not NEED studs, as they might
opt for the Bridgestone Blizzak (a studless tire which grips as well as a
studded tire on ice, so they say...they use a soft, porous outer layer of
rubber which wears out too fast for my pocketbook). I'd say studs are a
good idea here in Boulder, as we seem to not know how to plow a road, and
the roads get pretty icy pretty fast here - I've lived in several snowy
climes, BTW, and only Lake Tahoe is worse, but considering the amount of
snow they get, I guess it's OK. They have chain laws there...what do you
think of them? Chains don't work either, right? They simply close the
interstates to non-chain equipped vehicles to increase revenue, right?
> which absolutely *destroy* the pavement at an astounding rate.
Debateable, but I'd look at the other side too - why would Colorado allow
them if they (the DOT) did not think that studs increase safety enough to
offset the damaging factors? I know the DOT is not everyone's favorite
organization, but they might know a little about cars, snow, and
accidents. It is legal to leave them on year round here, while most
other snowy states require you take them off after a certain date - April
in Vermont, where I lived a few years ago, April in Utah, unless you work
in the mountains, when the date is May1, (lived there, too, it snows
sometimes:). Do you really think that you know that much more about studs
than the DOTs of snowy states?
You see,
> dweebs who need studs to get around in the winter aren't usually smart
> enough to take them off in the summer,
That is ridiculous, also consider that the tires wear out a lot faster on
dry pavement.....
or in the winter when there's no
> snow around,
Unrealistic. How many times have you woken up to snow when none is
predicted? Or six inches when flurries are predicted? Or, of course,
none when a foot is predicted.....
so they just tear up the roads and *reduce* their
> dry=pavement coefficient of friction, making them *less* safe *because*
> of the studs. Lazy twits.
I won't disagree that they are not as sticky as a studless tire, but
comparing apples to apples will reveal that the same tire with and without
studs have almost the same grip. A snow tire, let's say a Gislaved
NordFrost II, is a soft sidewall tire with soft rubber and tall squirmy
knobs. The tire has little traction to begin with - if you load up the
tire in a corner, it slips fairly quickly, with or without studs. Now,
most people who have a set of studs and a set of summer tires do not use
the same tire - most will have a set of all seasons for the summer,
studded snows for the winter. An all season tire will grip better than a
true snow tire every time. Also, I found my Gislaveds to be fairly decent
dry tires, even in the tiny size I use - 155/70-13. I can corner on them
at speeds considerably above the marked caution signs. They stick pretty
well, and are predictable. I'd personally speculate that a driver who
gets into trouble because he or she overdrives a snow tire would be in
nearly the same trouble if he or she were on all seasons. Speculation, of
course, and arguing the inverse would also be speculation.
>
> If you are a responsible stud-user, and have a separate set of wheels and
> tires with the studs which you *only* put on when there is snow/ice ON
> THE ROADS, and take them off again immediately when things get plowed
That is unreasonable, for reasons mentioned above. Think about it.
> then please accept my apologies for characterizing you as an idiot and a
> dweeb. If not, then you are both.
Heh, I'd expect nothing more from you! I have several sets of tires, and
no, I don't use my studs in the summer.
>
> BTW, ice racers race on *ice*, usually frozen lakes, not the highways.
Right you are, but, they are looking for the most traction, which is
attainable through studded tires. Blizzaks are fast for ice racing, which
the fast drivers use in the studless classes, but the studded classes are
considerably faster. A VW Corrado driver won the SCCA winter ice events
in CSprings using Blizzaks by a margin of 3 seconds or so (an eternity in
racing) but had he been in the studded class with the Blizzaks, he would
have been mid pack - he is a very good driver, but the tire choice is only
a small part of the equation. I have used studded tires, non-studded
snows, all season tires, and big old Jeep tires (BFG A/T) and none grip
like studs. I drive an old Rabbit, and on a snowy, icy trip to the
mountains, I'll take my little Rabbit with studs over anything I've
driven, short of an Audi Quattro with studs. I routinely see tough guy
4x4s slipping and sliding their way to the hills, where my Rabbit sticks
like glue. I know, your Hummer is amazing, but as far as traction (not
clearance) goes, I'd bet that my Rabbit will stick better on studs than
your Hummer on the Goodyear whatevers that come on it - if you're around
next winter, let's get together at an ice race and let the clocks tell the
tale. Up for it? C'mon, your big old military vehicle must be able to
smoke my little rabbit.......heh, I almost wish the lakes were still
frozen. My Rabbit would smoke that thing on an autocross course, too. On
snow tires. Studs and all, reducing my traction to nil. With 120
horsepower, even! You're pretty cool, Scott, you should work for the
DOTand set things straight. OK, gotta go, you've given me something to do
this morning!
Have a good day, Mannix
Bret Wade
Scott Weiser (Scott....@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Or maybe you just *want* one. You don't need to explain or apologize to me or anyone
: else. Neither do I. I'ts a free country, and you can buy and use a Greyhound bus or
: a Peterbuilt semi if you want or need one. Or not.
You can even ride a bicycle if you want or need to. Or not.
Bret Wade
Scott Weiser
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>SO the Hummer isn't really for any real purpose except your hobby and you
>have the nerve to belittle cyclists riding in spandex for fun! Gosh it's
>good that we have such environmentally sensitive people such as Scott
>around to remind us of car companies gone mad.
No, you misconstrue. *Talking* about and *working* on my HUMMER is my hobby. It's
definately a business vehicle, and a darn good one at that. If you can provide
another vehicle which meets the HUMMER's specs and my mission requirements and is
more "environmentally friendly", I'll buy it.
And yes, I do have the nerve to belittle spandex clad cyclists who ride on the
roads for "fun". It's not the "fun" part to which I object, it's the lack of any
income, licensing, registration or training, coupled with the inordinate amounts of
public money spent to accomodate such leeches on society for no particularly good
reason.
Everybodys entitled to have fun, and they can do it on the roads if they obey the
law and pay their way, as I do.
You have some nerve to imply that anyone who buys or uses a car is some kind of
earth-destroying troll. Autos are a part of our society, and they are neither good
nor bad, they just are. The facts are that our society is what it is primarily
*because* of our excellent transportation system, and I, for one, make no apologies
about using it. Sure, there are problems with air pollution and fossil fuel
depletion, but the benefits gained by being able to travel convienently are far and
away much more desireable than the anti-technology Luddite mind-set of your ilk.
There are ways to solve the problems associated with vehicles, but sociey is not
willing to give up the benefits to do so. So what? Society has every right to
determine it's course, and it' will eventually pay the price for squandering it's
resources. Eventually all the fossil fuels will run out, and *then* people will
have to address the problem of how to get around without gasoline.
Which is just fine with me. People should reap what they have sown. And I'll be
right there reaping along with you. You place far too much value on the "quality"
of our life in the present day. We can't "save the planet", we can't even begin
to. All we can do is make self-righteous noises about being "environmentalists"
while we sip our lattes at Starbuck's, dressed in our Nikes and our Spandex, with
our Rockhopper's propped up against the rail after a fine day of destroying
vegetation and increasing erosion up in the mountains. The planet will get along
just fine no matter what we do, and it will likely take measures to eliminate us as
an annoying pest.
We are the merest blip in the line of history, and *nothing* we can do to the
planet, *including killing off all life through nuclear war* means a damn in the
long run. The planet will just go right on spinning, and eventually something else
will evolve....or not. Big deal, we wipe ourselves and everything else out. We
won't be missed in the cosmic scheme of things, and it's hubris of the first water
to even imply that human beings are of any importance whatsoever to the future of
the galaxy and universe. We are less than nothing, and we deserve everything we
get, in full measure.
If you want to return to foot travel and buggy whips, go to Pennsylvania and join
an Amish commune. Until you *completely stop* using *any* kind of motorized
transport whatsoever, including busses, trucks, cars and planes, and *all* the
products which you buy which are *delivered* to you by such vehicles, like the
aforesaid coffee and clothing, not to mention the food you eat and the water you
drink, you are nothing more than a silly hypocrite.
For that matter, you need to stop using your computer, and your bike, because the
"pollution" involved in making them, and making them work, destroys your
credibility. In fact, you ought to go live in a cave and dress in deer skin, that
way you will be living in harmony with nature.....Oh, wait, you can't wear deer
skin, because those poor little deer have "rights" and you can't kill one.
I guess you'll have to run around naked and eat nuts and berries. That ought to be
a treat! Oh, wait, you can't eat nuts and berries, because plants have "rights",
and besides, they aren't there for *your* consumption, they are there for
*everyone* to enjoy, as they drive by on the eroded, rutted trail on their
Rockhoppers.
I guess you'll have to sit naked in a meadow and swat mosquitoes till you starve to
death. Oh, wait, you can't swat mosquitoes, because they have "rights", after
all, they are just looking for a meal too.
Tell you what, just to put you out of our misery quickly, I'll donate a gallon of
gasoline and you can do the "monk thing", that way you won't be consuming any
more resources or violating anything's "rights". Oh, wait, I can't, if you torch
yourself, you'll be violating the *air pollution* regulations with your emissions.
Darn. Now what do you do?
Why don't you just jump down off your high-wheeler and stop trying to claim moral
superiority just because you can ride a bicycle. You're just as guilty of "crimes
against nature" as I ever will be.
Scott Weiser
do...@sashimi.colorado.edu (Doug McKnight) wrote:
>|> Ever heard of a winch? And if I can't get up it in a HUMMER without studs, I'm
>|> willing to bet that you can't get up it in a typical sedan with two studded tires.
>|>
>
>Of course I've heard of a winch. Why bring that up?
>And why are you now comparing your hummer to a sedan with two
>studded tires? If you recall you said that a hummer didn't need
>studs because of limited slip diffs, lockout, big wheels etc.
>I gave a situation where studs do make a difference. I didn't
>compare a 2wd equipped with studs against a 4wd with no studs.
Of *course* studs make a difference, I never implied that they didn't. It's that
very difference which makes them both unsafe and undesireable. Drivers who use studs
tend to believe that just because they have studs, they can ignore poor road
conditions and drive like maniacs on ice and snow. Drivers who don't use studs
recognize dangerous conditions and *slow down* or even avoid driving altogether, in
order to remain safe. Studs only provide a false sense of security, which leads to
more accidents resulting from poor judgement and poor driving skills. The whole
point is that if you can't safely negotiate the roadways without studs, having studs
only makes your travel *more dangerous* to everyone. Four-wheel-drive vehicles have
a substantial benefit over two wheel drive for obvious reasons. HUMMERs have yet
more advantages because they have *true* 4 wheel locked drive, whereas most "4wd
SUV's" are actually 2 wheel drive, one front, one rear, unless they have lockers,
which are not usually standard equipment.
Now there is the argument which says that inexperienced 4wd drivers are more likely
to end up in the ditch because they forget that 4 wheel drive does not mean 4 wheel
stop. This is true, and I won't dispute it, but the key is "inexperienced drivers",
not whether or not the vehicle is 2 or 4 wheel drive.
>
>
>|> Nonetheless, the point is that one should not be driving on a steep driveway covered
>|> with "smooth wet ice" *at all*, even in a vehicle with studs. Studs add only minor
>
>Why not? as long as it's safe.
Because it's probably NOT safe. You just think it is because you can manage to claw
your way up it with studs.
>
>|> amounts of traction on ice, and, as I said, they simply give the driver a false sense
>|> of invincibility. I have seen more vehicles with studded tires in the ditches than
>
>I'm not talking about how people drive. I was refuting your point
>about hummers not requiring studs because of the type of transmission,
>ground clearance and wheels etc. they have.
They *don't* require studs because of all of those things. That and driving skill
and knowledge.
>
>|> most other kinds because drivers think that having studs equals being able to drive
>|> the posted speed limit in rotten weather. It's exactly the same argument made
>|> against 4wd vehicles, in that too many drivers forget that four wheel drive doesn't
>|> mean four wheel stop.
>|> >
>|> >This argument is very clear to people who understand very basic
>|> >dynamics. It is possible that you don't have any education in
>|> >these matters and are, therefore, laboring under misconceptions
>|> >about what your car can do.
>|>
>|> Actually, I have a great deal of experience in such matters, and have spent my share
>|> of time in the ditch in a car with studded tires, so I know exactly what I am talking
>
>Did you drive into the ditch by accident? What is it about that incident
>which makes you think I am wrong?
When I was young and foolish, I too though that studs were the panacea for winter
driving. I was disabused of this notion, and I now recognize that studs provide a
false sense of security and invincibility, not unlike the complaint made about
inexperienced 4wd drivers. I now simply drive more slowly and carefully as the
weather worsens, and when it gets bad enough that I can't get through it in the
HUMMER, I seriously consider if I *absolutely have* to make the trip. If I do, I
then chain up all four wheels and try again. If I still can't make it, I call for a
snow machine.
>|> I suspect that perhaps *you* are the one laboring under misconceptions. Have you
>|> ever even been inside a HUMMER? If you haven't been to Moab at least once in a
>|> HUMMER, then I *know* you are ignorant of its capabilities. I was.
>|>
>
>I have never been in the inside of a hummer. I have no interest in
>the inside of a hummer. I do know that, independent of what it is like
>to be inside a hummer, its behaviour will sometimes be limited by the
>interface to the road (even at Moab, though not helped by studs there...).
Well duh.
>
>Forgetting distractions like false sense of security etc. you must
>agree that under certain conditions your hummer would benefit from
>studded tires. The best the transmission can ever do is to allow
>you to maximize the use of the availble grip.
But the questions are would I benefit from studs, would society benefit from me using
studs, and is travel in weather conditions which would require me to have studs a
wise idea.
I don't mean to argue physics with you, and freely admit that studs on ice are
"better" than no studs in the pure coefficient of thrust department, but it's a more
complex issue than mere physics. If physics were the guiding principle, then we'd
all be driving D-9 Cat dozers in the winter.
Scott Weiser
man...@nederland.colorado.edu (Iain Mannix) wrote:
>
>> The streets are no place for racing,
>
>Correct, but my point is not that streets are racetracks, but that what
>works on the racetrack will undoubtedly work on the street - rally cars
>will see everything from pavement to ice in winter events - they need the
>most traction possible, so they use heavily studded tires. For optimum
>winter traction, studs are a good thing - even on packed snow (not ice)
>they make a noticeable difference.
Oh please! Give me a BREAK! Ice racers use studs upwards of an inch long, is
that what you're suggesting? Formula race cars use "slicks" on the track, is
that what you're suggesting? Rally cars need *universal* traction, which means
that they have to plan for the worst-case sceneario of ice slicks, and they
have to put up with the *lack* of traction on dry pavement in order to be able
to meet the time/distance schedules.
You are not on any such timetable, nor is anyone else, with the possible
exception of emergency vehicles, which, you'll note, *do not* use studded
tires, even in the worst weather. They use an innovation called "tire chains",
which they put on when the road conditions dictate they are absolutely
necessary, and then they *take them back off again* when conditions improve.
Studs may indeed "improve" snow and ice traction, which is exactly why they
should be outlawed. When the weather is rotten, if you need studs to get
around, you shouldn't be out on the roads in the first place, because the very
fact that you need them demonstrates your inability to driver properly and
safely in winter conditions.
But it's not the snow/ice driving that's the problem, it's the fact that people
with studded tires are too lazy and too stupid to *take them off* when the
roads dry out, and so they drive blithely around wearing out the roadways with
the carbide-tipped studs, costing the rest of us outrageous amounts of money to
fix up after them. I don't recall the exact figure, but research indicates
that the use of studded tires on dry pavement increases road wear by *many
times* the figure for standard rubber tires.
>
> therefore you don't need studs,
>
>Interesting way of looking at things. If this discussion were of race
>tires, I'd agree. It is not. No, one might not NEED studs, as they might
>opt for the Bridgestone Blizzak (a studless tire which grips as well as a
>studded tire on ice, so they say...they use a soft, porous outer layer of
>rubber which wears out too fast for my pocketbook). I'd say studs are a
>good idea here in Boulder, as we seem to not know how to plow a road, and
>the roads get pretty icy pretty fast here - I've lived in several snowy
>climes, BTW, and only Lake Tahoe is worse, but considering the amount of
>snow they get, I guess it's OK. They have chain laws there...what do you
>think of them? Chains don't work either, right? They simply close the
>interstates to non-chain equipped vehicles to increase revenue, right?
Wrong.
I'm actually in favor of the city, county and state simply *stopping* plowing
and sanding of roads altogether. All it is is a waste of taxpayer money which
allows a bunch of idiots who should'nt be driving in the first place to speed
around like they were on a track at Daytona on the ice and snow, thereby
endangering the rest of us.
Those of us who know how to drive in the snow don't need plows or sand. If
things get really tough, we chain up.
Your comments about chains are a crock.
>
>> which absolutely *destroy* the pavement at an astounding rate.
>
>Debateable, but I'd look at the other side too - why would Colorado allow
>them if they (the DOT) did not think that studs increase safety enough to
>offset the damaging factors? I know the DOT is not everyone's favorite
>organization, but they might know a little about cars, snow, and
>accidents. It is legal to leave them on year round here, while most
>other snowy states require you take them off after a certain date - April
>in Vermont, where I lived a few years ago, April in Utah, unless you work
>in the mountains, when the date is May1, (lived there, too, it snows
>sometimes:). Do you really think that you know that much more about studs
>than the DOTs of snowy states?
Because the politicans don't want to offend the voters by implying that a large
proportion of winter drivers are incompetent idiots. And the road damage issue
is hardly debatable, it's well established fact, it's just that, once again,
the politicians have directed the DOT to accept the damage as a political cost
of staying in office.
>
> You see,
>> dweebs who need studs to get around in the winter aren't usually smart
>> enough to take them off in the summer,
>
>That is ridiculous, also consider that the tires wear out a lot faster on
>dry pavement.....
Then why do I see so many idiots driving around with studs on in June?
>
>
>
> or in the winter when there's no
>> snow around,
>
>Unrealistic. How many times have you woken up to snow when none is
>predicted? Or six inches when flurries are predicted? Or, of course,
>none when a foot is predicted.....
Life's a bitch, isn't it? Ever heard of a lug wrench and a jack? Nobody said
it was easy.
>
> so they just tear up the roads and *reduce* their
>> dry=pavement coefficient of friction, making them *less* safe *because*
>> of the studs. Lazy twits.
>
>I won't disagree that they are not as sticky as a studless tire, but
>comparing apples to apples will reveal that the same tire with and without
>studs have almost the same grip.
Complete and utter baloney. Studded tires will slide *long* before unstudded
tires will on dry pavement. Just ask any State Trooper. They love to look at
the "cat-scratches" in the pavement indicating where the studded-tired vehicle
slid off the turn in the canyon.
(snippage)
I'd personally speculate that a driver who
>gets into trouble because he or she overdrives a snow tire would be in
>nearly the same trouble if he or she were on all seasons. Speculation, of
>course, and arguing the inverse would also be speculation.
Probably, because anyone who uses studs doesn't know enough about driving in
*any* weather to be allowed to use the roadways.
>
>>
>> If you are a responsible stud-user, and have a separate set of wheels and
>> tires with the studs which you *only* put on when there is snow/ice ON
>> THE ROADS, and take them off again immediately when things get plowed
>
>That is unreasonable, for reasons mentioned above. Think about it.
Hey, I *have* though about it, extensively, and I chose to ensure that I could
drive safely in all weathers without having to use studs. If I can't get
through in the HUMMER, then I'll chain up all 4 wheels and try again. If I
still can't make it, I'll be staying home or trying out the snowshoes.
Your inconvienence does not trump my wallet. You don't get to tear the roads
up 8 months of the year just so you don't have to get down on your knees and
chain up when you *really* need to.
>
>> then please accept my apologies for characterizing you as an idiot and a
>> dweeb. If not, then you are both.
>
>Heh, I'd expect nothing more from you! I have several sets of tires, and
>no, I don't use my studs in the summer.
Good for you. Now all we have to do is teach you to drive properly in the
winter, and you can easily dispense with the studs altogether.
>> BTW, ice racers race on *ice*, usually frozen lakes, not the highways.
>
>Right you are, but, they are looking for the most traction, which is
>attainable through studded tires.
If you want the "most traction", then get a snow machine with tracks.
The point is that ice racers don't have to give a damn about chopping up the
ice or their studs, as long as they last the race. Highway drivers have other
considerations, like mixed road conditions and road wear.
>I know, your Hummer is amazing, but as far as traction (not
>clearance) goes, I'd bet that my Rabbit will stick better on studs than
>your Hummer on the Goodyear whatevers that come on it - if you're around
>next winter, let's get together at an ice race and let the clocks tell the
>tale. Up for it? C'mon, your big old military vehicle must be able to
>smoke my little rabbit.......heh, I almost wish the lakes were still
>frozen. My Rabbit would smoke that thing on an autocross course, too. On
>snow tires. Studs and all, reducing my traction to nil. With 120
>horsepower, even! You're pretty cool, Scott, you should work for the
>DOTand set things straight. OK, gotta go, you've given me something to do
>this morning!
Tell you what, I'll race you on ice if you'll race me in Moab, or Baja, or
Paris-Dakar.
I *really* want to see you negotiate Nosedive, Upchuck and White-knuckle Hill
in your Rabbit.
Scott Weiser
support your sport unless you are willing to get tested, licensed
registered and taxed, just like I do.
Doug McKnight
In article <4pdqun$2...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
|> do...@sashimi.colorado.edu (Doug McKnight) wrote:
|> >In article <4pb5rk$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Scott Weiser <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
|> >|> do...@sashimi.colorado.edu (Doug McKnight) wrote:
|> >|> >stuff about 4wd chewing roads deleted
|> >|> >
|> >|> >|>
|> >
|> >
|> >|> >|> BTW, in a HUMMER, you don't need no stinking studs.
|> >|> >|>
|> >|> >
|> >|> >Is this because HUMMERS are driven by people who are so important
|> >|> >that they can suspend the laws of physics? What nonsense.
|> >|>
|> >|> than you normally would be. HUMMER's don't need studs because the have full-time
|> >|> 4WD and Zexel-Torsen torque-biasing differentials along with 37 inch 12.5 inch wide
|> >|> tires and 16 inches of ground clearance, but mostly because the kind of people who
|> >|> generally drive HUMMERs *know* how to drive them, in all weathers, on any kind of
|> >|> terrain or road surface, and they know enough to *slow down* and drive sensibly on
|> >|> ice and snow.
|> >|>
|> >
|> >
|> >You are wrong. It is easy to postulate a driveway (for example)
|> >which is covered in smooth wet ice and is sufficiently steep
|> >that no amount of limited slip diffs, traction control (clearance,
|> >power, gearing, etc) can get you up. Tell me how, in such circumstances,
|> >the self-confessed superior skills of the HUMMER driver will help.
|> >
|> >The limitation, in this case, is simply the interface between the
|> >vehicle and the road. Using studs can change this limitation and
|> >hence allow the slope to be negotiated.
|>
|> willing to bet that you can't get up it in a typical sedan with two studded tires.
|>
Of course I've heard of a winch. Why bring that up?
And why are you now comparing your hummer to a sedan with two
studded tires? If you recall you said that a hummer didn't need
studs because of limited slip diffs, lockout, big wheels etc.
I gave a situation where studs do make a difference. I didn't
compare a 2wd equipped with studs against a 4wd with no studs.
|> Nonetheless, the point is that one should not be driving on a steep driveway covered
|> with "smooth wet ice" *at all*, even in a vehicle with studs. Studs add only minor
Why not? as long as it's safe.
|> amounts of traction on ice, and, as I said, they simply give the driver a false sense
|> of invincibility. I have seen more vehicles with studded tires in the ditches than
I'm not talking about how people drive. I was refuting your point
about hummers not requiring studs because of the type of transmission,
ground clearance and wheels etc. they have.
|> most other kinds because drivers think that having studs equals being able to drive
|> the posted speed limit in rotten weather. It's exactly the same argument made
|> against 4wd vehicles, in that too many drivers forget that four wheel drive doesn't
|> mean four wheel stop.
|> >
|> >This argument is very clear to people who understand very basic
|> >dynamics. It is possible that you don't have any education in
|> >these matters and are, therefore, laboring under misconceptions
|> >about what your car can do.
|>
|> Actually, I have a great deal of experience in such matters, and have spent my share
|> of time in the ditch in a car with studded tires, so I know exactly what I am talking
Did you drive into the ditch by accident? What is it about that incident
which makes you think I am wrong?
|> about. I'll pit my true locked-differential all-wheel drive HUMMER against an
y
|> two-wheel drive sedan with studs with great pleasure. And if you like, I'll take you
|> up Lefthand Canyon sometime and show you what I'm talking about.
|>
|> I suspect that perhaps *you* are the one laboring under misconceptions. Have you
|> ever even been inside a HUMMER? If you haven't been to Moab at least once in a
|> HUMMER, then I *know* you are ignorant of its capabilities. I was.
|>
I have never been in the inside of a hummer. I have no interest in
the inside of a hummer. I do know that, independent of what it is like
to be inside a hummer, its behaviour will sometimes be limited by the
interface to the road (even at Moab, though not helped by studs there...).
Forgetting distractions like false sense of security etc. you must
agree that under certain conditions your hummer would benefit from
studded tires. The best the transmission can ever do is to allow
you to maximize the use of the availble grip.
douglas
|> --
|> Regards,
|>
|> Scott Weiser
|> ******
|> "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
|> friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
|> ******
|> The opinions expressed are my own. If I were a lawyer, you'd be
Iain Mannix
In article <4pj37p$2...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Scott Weiser
<Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> You are not on any such timetable, nor is anyone else, with the possible
> exception of emergency vehicles, which, you'll note, *do not* use studded
> tires,
2 cases I can think of - Stratton VTs ambulance and the cop cars in
Lyndonville both use studs.
even in the worst weather. They use an innovation called "tire chains",
> which they put on when the road conditions dictate they are absolutely
> necessary, and then they *take them back off again* when conditions improve.
>
> Studs may indeed "improve" snow and ice traction, which is exactly why they
> should be outlawed. When the weather is rotten, if you need studs to get
> around, you shouldn't be out on the roads in the first place, because
the very
> fact that you need them demonstrates your inability to driver properly and
> safely in winter conditions.
So, lifejackets should be outlawed as that would indicate an inability to swim?
>
> But it's not the snow/ice driving that's the problem, it's the fact that
people
> with studded tires are too lazy and too stupid to *take them off* when the
> roads dry out, and so they drive blithely around wearing out the
roadways with
> the carbide-tipped studs, costing the rest of us outrageous amounts of
money to
> fix up after them. I don't recall the exact figure, but research indicates
> that the use of studded tires on dry pavement increases road wear by *many
> times* the figure for standard rubber tires.
Big deal, it's a road, and I've paid my share:). Oh, I ride bikes, too,
Scott! LOts of them, for fun, for commuting, etc.....
>
> >
>
> I'm actually in favor of the city, county and state simply *stopping* plowing
> and sanding of roads altogether. All it is is a waste of taxpayer money
which
> allows a bunch of idiots who should'nt be driving in the first place to speed
> around like they were on a track at Daytona on the ice and snow, thereby
> endangering the rest of us.
Are you saying the Hummer is unsafe?
>
> Those of us who know how to drive in the snow don't need plows or sand. If
> things get really tough, we chain up.
>
> Your comments about chains are a crock.
As are yours about studs (that's the point, einstein...)
>
> >
>
> Because the politicans don't want to offend the voters by implying that
a large
> proportion of winter drivers are incompetent idiots. And the road
damage issue
> is hardly debatable, it's well established fact, it's just that, once again,
> the politicians have directed the DOT to accept the damage as a
political cost
> of staying in office.
Oh yeah.......that must be it.
>
> >
> > You see,
> >> dweebs who need studs to get around in the winter aren't usually smart
> >> enough to take them off in the summer,
> >
> >That is ridiculous, also consider that the tires wear out a lot faster on
> >dry pavement.....
>
> Then why do I see so many idiots driving around with studs on in June?
Not sure - makes me wonder too.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > or in the winter when there's no
> >> snow around,
> >
> >Unrealistic. How many times have you woken up to snow when none is
> >predicted? Or six inches when flurries are predicted? Or, of course,
> >none when a foot is predicted.....
>
> Life's a bitch, isn't it? Ever heard of a lug wrench and a jack?
Nobody said
> it was easy.
Yup. Have one in my car right now - a real floor jack, not some schwazoo
factory jack.
>
> >
> > so they just tear up the roads and *reduce* their
> >> dry=pavement coefficient of friction, making them *less* safe *because*
> >> of the studs. Lazy twits.
> >
> >I won't disagree that they are not as sticky as a studless tire, but
> >comparing apples to apples will reveal that the same tire with and without
> >studs have almost the same grip.
>
> Complete and utter baloney. Studded tires will slide *long* before unstudded
> tires will on dry pavement. Just ask any State Trooper. They love to
look at
> the "cat-scratches" in the pavement indicating where the studded-tired
vehicle
> slid off the turn in the canyon.
Not baloney. If you blame every accident on the equipment, you've a
problem. Take the hummer - if you're a lame off road driver, you'll not
do so well. I drove a fairly tricked out CJ-5 before the Hummer was
available to the public, I've driven in MOab, the Rubicon (among other
Tahoe drives), and lots of places on the east coast. I drove one of those
things before you even knew what it was. Oh yes, I did.....I lived in
Harvard MA, next to the now defunct Fort Devens, and they have had them
for about 10 years. The military version is a slug, but it'll go
anywhere. Anyhow, my ppoint is this - you talk of being a great driver,
yet you assume that studs are the culprit in accidents.
>
> (snippage)
>
> I'd personally speculate that a driver who
> >gets into trouble because he or she overdrives a snow tire would be in
> >nearly the same trouble if he or she were on all seasons. Speculation, of
> >course, and arguing the inverse would also be speculation.
>
> Probably, because anyone who uses studs doesn't know enough about driving in
> *any* weather to be allowed to use the roadways.
Really. Pretty interesting. So what you're saying is that I don't know
enough about driving in *any* weather because I use studs? Hmmmmm. I
must be lucky, I'm currently in 4th place overall in DSP, an SCCA class
for SoloII driving - largely skill/driver input. I doubt you could teach
me a damn thing about driving, and if you could, I'd gladly listen.
Driving has always been a hobby of mine, whether it be rock crawling or
time trialing - I must need to go to the Weiser Institute of
Driving........heh, how am I doing so well? Maybe ALL SCCA people don't
know how to drive, yeah, that's it, we all suck, the good drivers are out
there driving hummers around. A cop showed up at our last event - his
fastest lap time (let him drive, pretty funny), was a 59.xxx - my lowly
rabbit with pathetic old me got a 52.534. Hmmmmm, the cop guy must really
suck - or wait, he was being safe. Oh yeah, that's it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> If you are a responsible stud-user, and have a separate set of wheels and
> >> tires with the studs which you *only* put on when there is snow/ice ON
> >> THE ROADS, and take them off again immediately when things get plowed
> >
> >That is unreasonable, for reasons mentioned above. Think about it.
>
> Hey, I *have* though about it, extensively, and I chose to ensure that I
could
> drive safely in all weathers without having to use studs. If I can't get
> through in the HUMMER, then I'll chain up all 4 wheels and try again. If I
> still can't make it, I'll be staying home or trying out the snowshoes.
>
> Your inconvienence does not trump my wallet. You don't get to tear the roads
> up 8 months of the year just so you don't have to get down on your knees and
> chain up when you *really* need to.
Well, put some energy into changing the law! Not everyone wants to drive
something like you have just to get around in the snow.
>
> >
> >> then please accept my apologies for characterizing you as an idiot and a
> >> dweeb. If not, then you are both.
> >
> >Heh, I'd expect nothing more from you! I have several sets of tires, and
> >no, I don't use my studs in the summer.
>
> Good for you. Now all we have to do is teach you to drive properly in the
> winter, and you can easily dispense with the studs altogether.
I keep forgeting that I'm a bad driver -- lucky too, I ski 35+ days a
year, never been in a snow related wreck..........
>
> >> BTW, ice racers race on *ice*, usually frozen lakes, not the highways.
> >
> >Right you are, but, they are looking for the most traction, which is
> >attainable through studded tires.
>
> If you want the "most traction", then get a snow machine with tracks.
Clever.
>
> The point is that ice racers don't have to give a damn about chopping up the
> ice or their studs, as long as they last the race. Highway drivers have
other
> considerations, like mixed road conditions and road wear.
>
> >I know, your Hummer is amazing, but as far as traction (not
> >clearance) goes, I'd bet that my Rabbit will stick better on studs than
> >your Hummer on the Goodyear whatevers that come on it - if you're around
> >next winter, let's get together at an ice race and let the clocks tell the
> >tale. Up for it? C'mon, your big old military vehicle must be able to
> >smoke my little rabbit.......heh, I almost wish the lakes were still
> >frozen. My Rabbit would smoke that thing on an autocross course, too. On
> >snow tires. Studs and all, reducing my traction to nil. With 120
> >horsepower, even! You're pretty cool, Scott, you should work for the
> >DOTand set things straight. OK, gotta go, you've given me something to do
> >this morning!
>
> Tell you what, I'll race you on ice if you'll race me in Moab, or Baja, or
> Paris-Dakar.
>
> I *really* want to see you negotiate Nosedive, Upchuck and White-knuckle Hill
> in your Rabbit.
Ok, so let's examine the validity of this - I offer to have you engage in
an activity that your vehicle is not well suited to, but it could
physically negotiate the courses, and you counter with something like
that? Grow up! My offer is serious (I know...so's yours), I'd like to
time trial on an ice course with you. I really do, deflate your ego a
bit. You would not damage your vehicle in doing that, either. You and I
both know that a Rabbit could not *get* to white knuckle. Not without
damage anyhow. I've driven the above in y CJ, not that big of a deal in
something designed for it. How about Malibu Grand Prix? We could do
that......see who's faster there? Well, I'm out of here - do you do
anything to further your beliefs? I mean, do you work for the government
or engage in some sort of activism? You should. You might be good at it
in a Limbaugh kind of way. Seriously! OK, have a great day, Mannix
Iain Mannix
In article <4pj47h$2...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Scott Weiser
<Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So, possibly an "experienced" driver who knows the limitations of studs is
safer?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >|> Nonetheless, the point is that one should not be driving on a steep
driveway covered
> >|> with "smooth wet ice" *at all*, even in a vehicle with studs. Studs
add only minor
> >
> >Why not? as long as it's safe.
>
> Because it's probably NOT safe. You just think it is because you can
manage to claw
> your way up it with studs.
What if he is doing it for fun, a la white knuckle hill? Is the kind of
off roading you do safe? Who cares if it is safe? My safety is not your
concern. Yours is not mine. If you want to do something that I consider
unsafe, I won't be stopping you! Have a great time. Sigh........you do
realize, scotty, that the exact same argument can be made against 4 wheel
drive vehicles - yes, safer, but ineperienced drivers attain a false sense
of security, blah blah blah.......ok, enough of that. Which Hummer do you
have? Tell me about it, privately if you want - not kidding, I'm
interested. Au revoir, Mannix
Scott Weiser
man...@nederland.colorado.edu (Iain Mannix) wrote:
>> Now there is the argument which says that inexperienced 4wd drivers are
>more likely
>> to end up in the ditch because they forget that 4 wheel drive does not
>mean 4 wheel
>> stop. This is true, and I won't dispute it, but the key is
>"inexperienced drivers",
>> not whether or not the vehicle is 2 or 4 wheel drive.
>
>So, possibly an "experienced" driver who knows the limitations of studs is
>safer?
Possibly. Or at least "as safe". But I'm discussing "average" drivers.
>> Because it's probably NOT safe. You just think it is because you can
>manage to claw
>> your way up it with studs.
>
>
>What if he is doing it for fun, a la white knuckle hill? Is the kind of
>off roading you do safe? Who cares if it is safe? My safety is not your
>concern. Yours is not mine. If you want to do something that I consider
>unsafe, I won't be stopping you! Have a great time. Sigh........you do
>realize, scotty, that the exact same argument can be made against 4 wheel
>drive vehicles - yes, safer, but ineperienced drivers attain a false sense
>of security, blah blah blah.......ok, enough of that. Which Hummer do you
>have? Tell me about it, privately if you want - not kidding, I'm
>interested. Au revoir, Mannix
We are not discussion safety off road, we are discussing safety on the public highways,
with the average driver being the standard of comparison, not expert drivers from any
school.
I do indeed object most forcefully to anyone engaging in unsafe driving on the highways.
I also object to unnecessary regulation of off-road and sport driving which does not
take place on the public highways. I do *not* advocate unsafe driving *anywhere*, but
there are unsafe drivers and then there are calculated *risks*, which are two completely
different things. When one chooses to risk one'sself (and one's vehicle) in an
environment where the unknowing general public is not put at hazard, I have little
objection.
But that's not the focus of the discussion.
Scott Weiser
man...@nederland.colorado.edu (Iain Mannix) wrote:
>In article <4pj37p$2...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Scott Weiser
><Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>
>> You are not on any such timetable, nor is anyone else, with the possible
>> exception of emergency vehicles, which, you'll note, *do not* use studded
>> tires,
>
>2 cases I can think of - Stratton VTs ambulance and the cop cars in
>Lyndonville both use studs.
Neither of which are here in Colorado. Still, you do have a point, some
emergency equipment may use studs, but I don't know of any local agencies in
Colorado which do.
The point, however is still valid. Nobody *needs* studs, they just *want* studs.
>So, lifejackets should be outlawed as that would indicate an inability to swim?
Non sequitur.
>
>
>>
>> But it's not the snow/ice driving that's the problem, it's the fact that
>people
>> with studded tires are too lazy and too stupid to *take them off* when the
>> roads dry out, and so they drive blithely around wearing out the
>roadways with
>> the carbide-tipped studs, costing the rest of us outrageous amounts of
>money to
>> fix up after them. I don't recall the exact figure, but research indicates
>> that the use of studded tires on dry pavement increases road wear by *many
>> times* the figure for standard rubber tires.
>
>Big deal, it's a road, and I've paid my share:). Oh, I ride bikes, too,
>Scott! LOts of them, for fun, for commuting, etc.....
But when you use studs on anything but snowpack or ice, you are *using* more than
your "share". That's the point. Just like bicycles.
>
>
>>
>> >
>
>>
>> I'm actually in favor of the city, county and state simply *stopping* plowing
>> and sanding of roads altogether. All it is is a waste of taxpayer money
>which
>> allows a bunch of idiots who should'nt be driving in the first place to speed
>> around like they were on a track at Daytona on the ice and snow, thereby
>> endangering the rest of us.
>
>Are you saying the Hummer is unsafe?
Huh? Non sequitur.
>> Those of us who know how to drive in the snow don't need plows or sand. If
>> things get really tough, we chain up.
>>
>> Your comments about chains are a crock.
>
>As are yours about studs (that's the point, einstein...)
Well, we agree on that at least.
>
>>
>> >
>> Complete and utter baloney. Studded tires will slide *long* before unstudded
>> tires will on dry pavement. Just ask any State Trooper. They love to
>look at
>> the "cat-scratches" in the pavement indicating where the studded-tired
>vehicle
>> slid off the turn in the canyon.
>
>Not baloney. If you blame every accident on the equipment, you've a
>problem. Take the hummer - if you're a lame off road driver, you'll not
>do so well. I drove a fairly tricked out CJ-5 before the Hummer was
>available to the public, I've driven in MOab, the Rubicon (among other
>Tahoe drives), and lots of places on the east coast. I drove one of those
>things before you even knew what it was. Oh yes, I did.....I lived in
>Harvard MA, next to the now defunct Fort Devens, and they have had them
>for about 10 years. The military version is a slug, but it'll go
>anywhere. Anyhow, my ppoint is this - you talk of being a great driver,
>yet you assume that studs are the culprit in accidents.
I don't blame "every accident" on the equipment. It's not the equipment at all,
in fact, it's the driver. One (as you so adroitly demonstrate) can operate a car
wearing studs safely year-round, but the average driver (which you appear not to
be) is at a much higher risk of loss-of-traction accidents on dry pavement with
studs because the average driver forgets that he has them, and tends to overdrive
the vehicle.
The *cause* of the accident, as in almost every case, is driver error. The
*contributing factor* in the accident is the studs. Since it's possible to
eliminate the contributing factor quite easily and with plenty of justification
and little adverse impact to the public safety, it should be done. Just ban
studs. Or at least ban them on dry pavement. (at any time of year)
Driver skill can compensate for many problems, but driver skill is far from being
ubiquitious, just ask Evan....
>
>> (snippage)
>>
>> I'd personally speculate that a driver who
>> >gets into trouble because he or she overdrives a snow tire would be in
>> >nearly the same trouble if he or she were on all seasons. Speculation, of
>> >course, and arguing the inverse would also be speculation.
>>
>> Probably, because anyone who uses studs doesn't know enough about driving in
>> *any* weather to be allowed to use the roadways.
>
>
>Really. Pretty interesting. So what you're saying is that I don't know
>enough about driving in *any* weather because I use studs? Hmmmmm. I
>must be lucky, I'm currently in 4th place overall in DSP, an SCCA class
>for SoloII driving - largely skill/driver input. I doubt you could teach
>me a damn thing about driving, and if you could, I'd gladly listen.
>Driving has always been a hobby of mine, whether it be rock crawling or
>time trialing - I must need to go to the Weiser Institute of
>Driving........heh, how am I doing so well? Maybe ALL SCCA people don't
>know how to drive, yeah, that's it, we all suck, the good drivers are out
>there driving hummers around. A cop showed up at our last event - his
>fastest lap time (let him drive, pretty funny), was a 59.xxx - my lowly
>rabbit with pathetic old me got a 52.534. Hmmmmm, the cop guy must really
>suck - or wait, he was being safe. Oh yeah, that's it.
Well, very interesting resume. My congratulations on your excellent times. As
you might know, there are usually exceptions to the rule. It would appear that
you are the exception. Which does not render the rule invalid.
>> Your inconvienence does not trump my wallet. You don't get to tear the roads
>> up 8 months of the year just so you don't have to get down on your knees and
>> chain up when you *really* need to.
>
>Well, put some energy into changing the law! Not everyone wants to drive
>something like you have just to get around in the snow.
Pity about that.
As for changing the law, such changes start with public dialogs and debate on the
merits of the issue. Which, I think, is what we are doing right now.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> then please accept my apologies for characterizing you as an idiot and a
>> >> dweeb. If not, then you are both.
>> >
>> >Heh, I'd expect nothing more from you! I have several sets of tires, and
>> >no, I don't use my studs in the summer.
>>
>> Good for you. Now all we have to do is teach you to drive properly in the
>> winter, and you can easily dispense with the studs altogether.
>
>I keep forgeting that I'm a bad driver -- lucky too, I ski 35+ days a
>year, never been in a snow related wreck..........
If you are such a good driver, why do you need to use studs? Perhaps you're just
lucky. Still, the issue to me is that studs are unnecessary in all but the most
unusual and extreme conditions, and that the damage they cause to the roadways,
and the false sense of security which they give the average driver, far outweigh
the convienence of the added traction during the relatively few times when such
traction is absolutely necessary. I prefer that people drive within the
limitations of their vehicles *without studs*, learn to drive in bad weather in a
correct and safe manner, and carry chains for those once-in-a-decade times when
they must absolutely travel in the worst conditions. This will save the
taxpayers a significant amount of money in road maintenance, and it will
hopefully keep a few more of the unskilled winter drivers off the streets when
they shouldn't be there in the first place.
>
>
>>
>> >> BTW, ice racers race on *ice*, usually frozen lakes, not the highways.
>> >
>> >Right you are, but, they are looking for the most traction, which is
>> >attainable through studded tires.
>>
>> If you want the "most traction", then get a snow machine with tracks.
>
>Clever.
And true.
>> Tell you what, I'll race you on ice if you'll race me in Moab, or Baja, or
>> Paris-Dakar.
>>
>> I *really* want to see you negotiate Nosedive, Upchuck and White-knuckle Hill
>> in your Rabbit.
>
>
>Ok, so let's examine the validity of this - I offer to have you engage in
>an activity that your vehicle is not well suited to, but it could
>physically negotiate the courses, and you counter with something like
>that? Grow up! My offer is serious (I know...so's yours), I'd like to
>time trial on an ice course with you. I really do, deflate your ego a
>bit. You would not damage your vehicle in doing that, either. You and I
>both know that a Rabbit could not *get* to white knuckle. Not without
>damage anyhow. I've driven the above in y CJ, not that big of a deal in
>something designed for it. How about Malibu Grand Prix? We could do
>that......see who's faster there? Well, I'm out of here - do you do
>anything to further your beliefs? I mean, do you work for the government
>or engage in some sort of activism? You should. You might be good at it
>in a Limbaugh kind of way. Seriously! OK, have a great day, Mannix
I'm not adverse to getting an education from an expert. I never claimed I was
perfect. In fact, it sounds like fun, if it's meant in fun. But my challenge
was by way of demonstrating that "specialization" of any sort kind of narrows the
acceptable missions. You may well be an expert ice racer, I am not. But I am a
very skilled off-road driver, with a vehicle "specialized" for that purpose.
A HUMMER is not a suitable closed-course race vehicle because of, obviously, it's
size and mass. Certainly a rabbit will be able to negotiate tight corners at
higher speeds, just as a formula racer is better at 200 MPH banked curves.
If you could develop some kind of "handicapping" system to adjust actual times
for the vehicle size and weight differences, it might be a true test.
Still, come next winter, drop me a line and we'll see what we can do. My only
true worry is dropping the HUMMER through the ice. Not a pleasant thought.
As for activisim, thank you for the compliment. I am indeed involved in issues
which I find important. Many of them are discussed here, and elsewhere on the
Net. This is quite an important medium, perhaps the most fundamental change in
politics and society ever, and my participation here is meant to stimulate
thought, disscussion, argument and debate on a wide variety of subjects with the
express purpose of broadening the horizons and stirring the flames of passion in
people who far too often only lurk silently and don't get involved in the
betterment of society and humankind.
It works too. Had I not been so provocative, you and I would never have met, and
what might become a fruitful relationship would never have happened.
In fact, it was in this particular medium, because of my provocative and erudite
style, that one very important and special person found *me*, which has
completely turned my life upside down, beyond any expectation. There's a lot of
dross out there, but true gold *can* be found, if one searches for it....and
sometimes even if one does not search for it, so I don't regret a single word I
have written here, it's been nothing but pure pleasure for me.