For the safety of others, please keep off the highways

[Brent Hugh]

Some poor motorist who had to wait 5 seconds has posted her anti-bike
diatribe for your amusement.

Here is the link to the full article; below that is an excerpt:

http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972

--------------------

MORRISON: Beware of bicycles
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
By Joyce Morrison )

OPINION -- Beware of bicycles - they could be hazardous to your
health.

There are 55 bicycle trails in Illinois.

In fact, within "bicycle distance" of where we live is the Chain of
Rocks bridge. This bridge crosses the Mississippi River, which
connects the Illinois bicycle trail beginning at Pere Marquette State
Park near Grafton, Illinois, to the well-known Katy Trail in Missouri.
The Chain of Rocks Bridge was recently renovated especially for
pedestrians and bicycles and was paid for by we the taxpayers.

With that wonderful recreational provision, why would 4,500 bikers
(mainly from St. Louis) choose to make a 100 mile bike ride on roads
already heavy with tourist traffic that are two lane, curvy, hilly
roads under construction?

That is what Derry Brownfield of the Common Sense Coalition would call
"ignorance gone to seed."

Last Sunday on our way to church, we had the "privilege" of having our
patience tested. We were behind one batch of these bikers going up a
normally busy road with a steep winding hill, blind curves, no road
shoulder. And these bikers were not about to budge out of the way. To
top it off, the road was freshly milled in preparation for a new
surface.

To see these two wheelers peddling up the hill with rear ends stuck in
the air in tight fitting britches is a humorous sight. But it wouldn't
have been funny to have seen one stretched out along the road with
tire marks across him. These Sunday road warriors were literally
risking their lives to prove they had the right.

We were in our car. We had our seat belts on as required by the law -
our insurance and license fees were paid. We had paid fuel tax when we
purchased our gasoline. Now wouldn't you think that would give us a
bit of a priority?

What was that biker's investment that would give him the right to go
down the middle of the highway? Bikers have no license, no vehicle
insurance, no seat belts, no fuel tax. They are not making any
contribution into the local economy in the way of tourism dollars.
They had their own manned rest stops that furnished them with food and
water, and they certainly can't pack home much from the local shops on
the back of their bikes or in those tight britches.

. . .

Bicycles have been around for a long time and brought joy to many. If
used responsibly, a bicycle is a wonderful source of exercise and
recreation. But are we being prepared to be forced to use bicycles for
our major mode of transportation? Could it be this activity is
purposely being placed into an elitist status with no restrictions and
licensing in an effort to lure people into this mental mode?

If you are a biker, please ride responsibly on a trail that has been
provided for your entertainment, and for your own safety and the
safety of others, please keep off the highways.
--------------------


--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu

[Burn Gum! It Melts!]

>There are 55 bicycle trails in Illinois.

And how many roads are there in Illinois?

--

****** OSCAR THE GROUCH IS COOL!!! *******
* (And so is Men At Work! And Pete Rose!) *

I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative!
------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------

[The Causey Way]

"Brent Hugh" > wrote in message
om...
> Some poor motorist who had to wait 5 seconds has posted her anti-bike
> diatribe for your amusement.
>
> Here is the link to the full article; below that is an excerpt:
>
> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
>
> --------------------


Her bio at the end of the article says she's a chapter leader for Concerned
Women of America. I guess they needed something new to be concerned about,
now that the war in Iraq is (cough) over. And what's with the "tight shorts"
fixation? I think we all know the answer to that.

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!"

[The Causey Way]

Holy crap, I was going to write that lady in hopes of talking sense, but
further reading of that article reveals a truly warped mind:

"Are these groups really into recreation and exercise, or are they being
mentally trained for the Sustainable Communities where bicycles will be a
way of life? Automobiles are not popular in Sustainable Communities. They
may never be totally outlawed as people would protest too much, but they can
price the middle class out of affording a vehicle. If there is no gasoline,
or it is so expensive you cannot afford it, what good is the car? Only the
rich and elite would own and drive cars in a Sustainable Community.

Smart Growth, which passed in Illinois last year, is the design for
Sustainable Communities. This is where everything we need is stacked
together, and we can ride our bicycles and walk for most of our needs and
use mass transit for any other needed travel."


Jesus, people, get off those bikes before you're all turned into horrible,
environmentally responsible zombies!





"Brent Hugh" > wrote in message
om...
> Some poor motorist who had to wait 5 seconds has posted her anti-bike
> diatribe for your amusement.
>
> Here is the link to the full article; below that is an excerpt:
>
> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
>

[Peter Cole]

"Brent Hugh" > wrote in message
om...
> Some poor motorist who had to wait 5 seconds has posted her anti-bike
> diatribe for your amusement.
>
> Here is the link to the full article; below that is an excerpt:
>
> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972

> Bicycles have been around for a long time and brought joy to many. If
> used responsibly, a bicycle is a wonderful source of exercise and
> recreation. But are we being prepared to be forced to use bicycles for
> our major mode of transportation? Could it be this activity is
> purposely being placed into an elitist status with no restrictions and
> licensing in an effort to lure people into this mental mode?

I thought is was the typical, misinformed, logic-challenged, rant of an
indignant motorist until I got to the last paragraph, which I think reveals
pretty paranoid thoughts. Going to the original article, she raises the
specter of bicycles displacing (via conspiracy) automobile use by the
middle-class. Wacko! What kind of paper is that, anyway?

[Marianne Goodland]

CWA is a conservative fundamentalist organization, BTW. One of the Denver
papers quoted one of their leaders this morning railing against Bravo (the
cable TV network) for ruining the children of America with their two new gay
TV shows. CWA's website is says the group's intent is to put the bible into
all areas of public policy. Now my question is, how does riding a bicycle on
a publicly-paid for road fit in with that philosophy, since the author saw
fit to ID herself as a CWA member.

Marianne

"The Causey Way" <death@tospam> wrote in message
...
>
> "Brent Hugh" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Some poor motorist who had to wait 5 seconds has posted her anti-bike
> > diatribe for your amusement.
> >
> > Here is the link to the full article; below that is an excerpt:
> >
> > http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
> >
> > --------------------
>
>
> Her bio at the end of the article says she's a chapter leader for
Concerned
> Women of America. I guess they needed something new to be concerned about,
> now that the war in Iraq is (cough) over. And what's with the "tight
shorts"
> fixation? I think we all know the answer to that.
>
> "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!"
>
>

[Rich]

I want to go in the opposite direction. There should be a law that every
road in the US has at least a 2' sholder to walk, or bike on. In NJ I do a
lot of walking/riding on roads with no sholder at all. Even I you are in a
car-what happens if your car breaks down? Roads with no sholders are
extreamely dangerous.

[Mark Weaver]

"Pat" > wrote in message
-
>
> That whole diatribe made me want to puke! I didn't see the writer's
> credentials as part of the Concerned Women of America. It figures,
though.
> The whole article was nothing but elitist drivel typical of the far-right.

Drivel, yes. But this woman is no part of any elite. She lives in
downstate Illinois and in a state of constant resentment of Chicago and
those 'rich, liberal, elite, snotty' urban types from northern Illinois who
(in her mind) add insult to injury by coming downstate on the weekends to
ride their bikes and get in the way.

> What the? Don't Republicans ride bikes or is it only for us lower forms
of
> life?
>

No, nobody out there in the corn fields rides bikes (Republicans or
Democrats if there are any)--except maybe the kids who happen to live in
town.

I love the detail that she was on her way to church when the inspiration for
this rant struck her.

In her possible defense, though -- the other slow moving vehicles down there
that tend to obstruct traffic are tractors and combines. And the farmers
driving those will go to some trouble to get as far to the side as possible
and even pull over and stop to let cars around. I would hope bicyclists
would be equally courteous. There's no reason to have a long line of
frustrated drivers stuck behind you when pulling over for a couple of
seconds would save everybody a lot of frustration.

Mark

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

>
> I love the detail that she was on her way to church when the inspiration
for
> this rant struck her.
>
> In her possible defense, though -- the other slow moving vehicles down
there
> that tend to obstruct traffic are tractors and combines. And the farmers
> driving those will go to some trouble to get as far to the side as
possible
> and even pull over and stop to let cars around. I would hope bicyclists
> would be equally courteous. There's no reason to have a long line of
> frustrated drivers stuck behind you when pulling over for a couple of
> seconds would save everybody a lot of frustration.
>
> Mark

Pardon me if I misread the original post, but I thought it was one of those
sponsored rally-type rides that they were on. She did say that there were
4,500 of them. I just didn't like her snobby idea that all of them would
pull over just for her!

Pat

[Luigi de Guzman]

"Mark Weaver" > wrote in message news:

> In her possible defense, though -- the other slow moving vehicles down there
> that tend to obstruct traffic are tractors and combines. And the farmers
> driving those will go to some trouble to get as far to the side as possible
> and even pull over and stop to let cars around. I would hope bicyclists
> would be equally courteous. There's no reason to have a long line of
> frustrated drivers stuck behind you when pulling over for a couple of
> seconds would save everybody a lot of frustration.

pulling over every few seconds? How do you propose to get anywhere on a bike, then?

[Doug Huffman]

"...get anywhere on a bike...?" Bikes are toys. If you want to get
anywhere then drive an Stupid Unnecessary Vehicle. (OOoh, I can't believe
that I wrote that.)

Compare the coverage of the motorist mowing down twenty bicycles in Floriduh
with the eight dead and twentyish injured peds in Santa Monica Lewinsky
today.


"Luigi de Guzman" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mark Weaver" > wrote in message news:
>
> > In her possible defense, though -- the other slow moving vehicles down
there
> > that tend to obstruct traffic are tractors and combines. And the
farmers
> > driving those will go to some trouble to get as far to the side as
possible
> > and even pull over and stop to let cars around. I would hope bicyclists
> > would be equally courteous. There's no reason to have a long line of
> > frustrated drivers stuck behind you when pulling over for a couple of
> > seconds would save everybody a lot of frustration.
>
> pulling over every few seconds? How do you propose to get anywhere on a
bike, then?

[Chris Neary]

Don't tell her, but those cyclists were on their way to the secret black
helicopter base.

>"Are these groups really into recreation and exercise, or are they being
>mentally trained for the Sustainable Communities where bicycles will be a
>way of life? Automobiles are not popular in Sustainable Communities. They
>may never be totally outlawed as people would protest too much, but they can
>price the middle class out of affording a vehicle. If there is no gasoline,
>or it is so expensive you cannot afford it, what good is the car? Only the
>rich and elite would own and drive cars in a Sustainable Community.
>
>Smart Growth, which passed in Illinois last year, is the design for
>Sustainable Communities. This is where everything we need is stacked
>together, and we can ride our bicycles and walk for most of our needs and
>use mass transit for any other needed travel."
>
>
>Jesus, people, get off those bikes before you're all turned into horrible,
>environmentally responsible zombies!


Chris Neary


"Against stupidity even the gods struggle in vain" - Goethe

[Chalo]

"Peter Cole" > wrote:

> I thought is was the typical, misinformed, logic-challenged, rant of an
> indignant motorist until I got to the last paragraph, which I think reveals
> pretty paranoid thoughts. Going to the original article, she raises the
> specter of bicycles displacing (via conspiracy) automobile use by the
> middle-class. Wacko! What kind of paper is that, anyway?

Conservative, of course. And that old sow makes about as valid a case
as most conservatives these days.

Chalo Colina

[GABIKE]

>Conservative, of course. And that old sow makes about as valid a case
>as most conservatives these days.
>

Its not a conservative/libral issue. Being political requires thought of the
issues at hand, that article clearly showed no thought. I think the sight of
all the in shape men in front of her gave her a tingley sensation she hasent
felt in a while and since she cant "get any" she got frustrated. Did you see
her photo? Id bet she went to the pharmacy later that day to try to get some of
that viagra for her husband.

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

...
> >Conservative, of course. And that old sow makes about as valid a case
> >as most conservatives these days.
> >
>
> Its not a conservative/libral issue. Being political requires thought of
the
> issues at hand, that article clearly showed no thought. I think the sight
of
> all the in shape men in front of her gave her a tingley sensation she
hasent
> felt in a while and since she cant "get any" she got frustrated. Did you
see
> her photo? Id bet she went to the pharmacy later that day to try to get
some of
> that viagra for her husband.

Gabe


I agree it shouldn't be a conservative/liberal issue, but the case here is
that it was an outspoken conservative that took the time to write that
screed against cyclists. Can you imagine a liberal writing such a thing?

Pat in TX

[Brent Hugh]

(Brent Hugh) wrote in message >...
> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972

It gets better and better . . .

Joyce gives us this gem:

>I don't know about you, but our recreation and exercise is not
>paid for. For one thing, we have little time for recreation
>these days trying to earn enough to pay the taxes that pay
>for bike trails which bikers choose to avoid. Our exercise
>comes from our work.

This brings up a little fact dug up by Bob Foster, chair of the
Missouri Bicycle Federation: Joyce Morrison's husband, a farmer, has
received $125,000 in payments from the USDA over a five-year period.

For complete details, see
http://www.ewg.org/farm/farmerdetail.php?pid=AYOH9G4

Joyce Morrison--who portrays herself as a poor victim who has no time
for recreation because she is so busy working to pay her onerous load
of taxes--is actually a welfare queen who has almost certainly
received more in government subsidy payments than she has paid in
taxes over the last five years.

Now that you know that, go back and re-read her spew of righteous
indignation, all based on the "fact" that she is nothing but an
honest, hard-workin', God-fearin' citizen who's literally being EATEN
ALIVE by the high taxes the EVIL government is forcing her to pay.
And meanwhile being put upon by a bunch of freeloading bicyclists who
demand handout after handout and don't pay their fair share.

As you're reading, try--just try--to avoid breaking out in GALES of
laughter.

I mean, take your handout if you must. But afterwards you just
really, really, gotta lose the "I pay my fair share--get the
freeloading losers out of my way" diatribes . . .

--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu

[Zoot Katz]

17 Jul 2003 10:50:12 GMT,
>,
(GABIKE) wrote:

>>Conservative, of course. And that old sow makes about as valid a case
>>as most conservatives these days.
>>
>
>Its not a conservative/libral issue. Being political requires thought of the
>issues at hand, that article clearly showed no thought. I think the sight of
>all the in shape men in front of her gave her a tingley sensation she hasent
>felt in a while and since she cant "get any" she got frustrated. Did you see
>her photo? Id bet she went to the pharmacy later that day to try to get some of
>that viagra for her husband.

Or, maybe hubby was noticing some shapely feminine tush and that's why
she's so ****ed off.
--
zk

[James Hodson]

On 17 Jul 2003 11:47:18 -0700, (Brent Hugh) wrote:

(Brent Hugh) wrote in message >...
>> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
>
>It gets better and better . . .
>

An interesting little thread.

Presumably Joyce Morrison has fallen into the trap of thinking that
cyclists pay no taxes. I also assume that she, as an American, is at
least a little proud of Lance Armstrong's and his USPS team mates'
exploits of the last few years. Where does she think Lance trains? On
a rural path designed for picnickers?

There have been several news items recently on this side of the pond
stating that more and more of us are becomming obese, and that the
situation is far worse in the USA. I wonder how mnany of those c4,500
cyclists were overweight.

On a personal note: I am epileptic and am not allowed to drive. Would
Joyce Morrison wish to prevent me travelling around under my own steam
solely because of my disability?

Disconnected musing over.
James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Weaver wrote:
> ...
> No, nobody out there in the corn fields rides bikes (Republicans or
> Democrats if there are any)--except maybe the kids who happen to live in
> town....

I happen to know several Illinois farmers that ride bicycles. The
Illinois Farm Bureau even puts on a multi-day bike ride.
< http://www.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=6057 >

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Tom Sherman]

Fritz M wrote:
>
> I think it's a rural Illinois thing. When I lived in downstate Illinois
> it was the worst eight years of my life riding a bike....

I have never had any incidents with unfriendly motor vehicles while
riding in rural downstate Illinois, except near the fringes of the
cities where some luxury SUV owner take offense at anything that is in
front of them on the road.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Eric]

James Hodson > wrote in message >...
> On 17 Jul 2003 11:47:18 -0700, (Brent Hugh) wrote:
>
> (Brent Hugh) wrote in message >...
> >> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
> >
> >It gets better and better . . .
> >
>
> An interesting little thread.
>
> Presumably Joyce Morrison has fallen into the trap of thinking that
> cyclists pay no taxes. I also assume that she, as an American, is at
> least a little proud of Lance Armstrong's and his USPS team mates'
> exploits of the last few years. Where does she think Lance trains? On
> a rural path designed for picnickers?
>
> There have been several news items recently on this side of the pond
> stating that more and more of us are becomming obese, and that the
> situation is far worse in the USA. I wonder how mnany of those c4,500
> cyclists were overweight.
>
> On a personal note: I am epileptic and am not allowed to drive. Would
> Joyce Morrison wish to prevent me travelling around under my own steam
> solely because of my disability?
>
> Disconnected musing over.
> James

No, that's why we have the Segway!
Eric

[James Hodson]

On 20 Jul 2003 18:20:26 -0700, (Eric) wrote:

>No, that's why we have the Segway!
>

Hi Eric

I presume your tongue was firmly lodged in one of your cheeks.

By Segway, are you referring to one of those relatively unstable, slow
machines with two wheels, both of which are in the wrong place?

BTW, is there a "tongue in cheek" emoticon? ;-)

Regards
James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

[Hunrobe]

>"Pat"

wrote:

>I agree it shouldn't be a conservative/liberal issue, but the case here is
>that it was an outspoken conservative that took the time to write that
>screed against cyclists. Can you imagine a liberal writing such a thing?
>
>Pat in TX

As a matter of fact, one doesn't have to "imagine" a liberal espousing such a
ridiculous idea. Liberals voice equally silly positions on a variety of issues
every day. Can you say "victims of a vast right wing conspiracy"? Sure... I
knew you could. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Heather Noggle]

Unfortunately, I was unaware of this until last night, but I let her
have it. I'll post a few lines for you to decide whether or not to
continue reading.

---

Hans points us all to this illogical stockpot full of spurious
assertion stew by, sadly, a conservative in Illinois. I know, I know,
you say - is it possible for conservatives to argue illogically? Yes,
sadly, it is.

Joyce Morrison is ****ed. She's ****ed that the highways of Illinois
(HER highways, dammit) are are sometimes populated with, gasp,
CYCLISTS! Let's give her a moment in the sun, here, ladies and
gentlemen, before we break down to a proper paragraph-level fisking.

***
OPINION -- Beware of bicycles - they could be hazardous to your
health.

There are 55 bicycle trails in Illinois.

In fact, within "bicycle distance" of where we live is the Chain of
Rocks bridge. This bridge crosses the Mississippi River, which
connects the Illinois bicycle trail beginning at Pere Marquette State
Park near Grafton, Illinois, to the well-known Katy Trail in Missouri.
The Chain of Rocks Bridge was recently renovated especially for
pedestrians and bicycles and was paid for by we the taxpayers.

With that wonderful recreational provision, why would 4,500 bikers
(mainly from St. Louis) choose to make a 100 mile bike ride on roads
already heavy with tourist traffic that are two lane, curvy, hilly
roads under construction?
***

Okay. There's the argument. With all o' those trails, why are you on
the roads? First, Trailnet sponsors road rides. You know, sponsor,
with cars driving by periodically checking on the riders to ensure
they are all right. Second, because roads are for bicycles, also.
Third, what, silly, do you think all FIFTY-FIVE of those bicycle
trails are accessible by every citizen of Illinois/Missouri at all
times? Um, might I remind you that Illinois is a STATE. It is a state
of 57,918 sq.mi. You do the math.

Much, much more at http://angelweaving.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_angelweaving_archive.html#1058929164026 52749
(my website).

hln

[Steven Goodridge]

(Hunrobe) wrote in message >...
> >"Pat"
> wrote:
>
> >I agree it shouldn't be a conservative/liberal issue, but the case here is
> >that it was an outspoken conservative that took the time to write that
> >screed against cyclists. Can you imagine a liberal writing such a thing?
> >
> >Pat in TX
>
> As a matter of fact, one doesn't have to "imagine" a liberal espousing such a
> ridiculous idea. Liberals voice equally silly positions on a variety of issues
> every day. Can you say "victims of a vast right wing conspiracy"? Sure... I
> knew you could. ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt

I find both liberals and conservatives with anti-cyclist views find
their own way to attack cyclists. The conservatives in my region of
the country attack cyclists as an underclass undeserving of using
roadways that belong to payers of gas taxes, and espouse a might-makes
right philosophy. The liberals in my region claim that cyclists need
to be removed from the roadways for the cyclists' own protection from
reckless drivers, and because reckless drivers who swerve around
cyclists could hurt innocent people. And if a child on a tricycle
cannot operate safely on a major arterial, what right should an adult
have to bike there? What kind of elitist overclass are those "road
cyclists" anyway?

Protection of the right to travel should bridge current political
party differences, because this ideal goes back to even before the US
constitution, all the way to the time of the Magna Carta. The public
has a right to use its road system. Bicycling is an ordinary and
expected use of public ways; travel modes that create a greater
inherent danger to the public due to excess weight, size, or speed do
not gain priority over the more basic, affordable, inherently safe
modes. It takes neither liberal nor conservative leanings to
understand this.

-Steve Goodridge

[ed]

I have a drivers license too and pay fuel taxes when I drive. Don't I
get to use the road for my riding too? I commute to work by bike to
save some money and cut down on pollution. WHy can't you ride to
church by bike?




>...
> Some poor motorist who had to wait 5 seconds has posted her anti-bike
> diatribe for your amusement.
>
> Here is the link to the full article; below that is an excerpt:
>
> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
>
> --------------------
>
> MORRISON: Beware of bicycles
> Tuesday, July 15, 2003
> By Joyce Morrison )
>
> OPINION -- Beware of bicycles - they could be hazardous to your
> health.
>
> There are 55 bicycle trails in Illinois.
>
> In fact, within "bicycle distance" of where we live is the Chain of
> Rocks bridge. This bridge crosses the Mississippi River, which
> connects the Illinois bicycle trail beginning at Pere Marquette State
> Park near Grafton, Illinois, to the well-known Katy Trail in Missouri.
> The Chain of Rocks Bridge was recently renovated especially for
> pedestrians and bicycles and was paid for by we the taxpayers.
>
> With that wonderful recreational provision, why would 4,500 bikers
> (mainly from St. Louis) choose to make a 100 mile bike ride on roads
> already heavy with tourist traffic that are two lane, curvy, hilly
> roads under construction?
>
> That is what Derry Brownfield of the Common Sense Coalition would call
> "ignorance gone to seed."
>
> Last Sunday on our way to church, we had the "privilege" of having our
> patience tested. We were behind one batch of these bikers going up a
> normally busy road with a steep winding hill, blind curves, no road
> shoulder. And these bikers were not about to budge out of the way. To
> top it off, the road was freshly milled in preparation for a new
> surface.
>
> To see these two wheelers peddling up the hill with rear ends stuck in
> the air in tight fitting britches is a humorous sight. But it wouldn't
> have been funny to have seen one stretched out along the road with
> tire marks across him. These Sunday road warriors were literally
> risking their lives to prove they had the right.
>
> We were in our car. We had our seat belts on as required by the law -
> our insurance and license fees were paid. We had paid fuel tax when we
> purchased our gasoline. Now wouldn't you think that would give us a
> bit of a priority?
>
> What was that biker's investment that would give him the right to go
> down the middle of the highway? Bikers have no license, no vehicle
> insurance, no seat belts, no fuel tax. They are not making any
> contribution into the local economy in the way of tourism dollars.
> They had their own manned rest stops that furnished them with food and
> water, and they certainly can't pack home much from the local shops on
> the back of their bikes or in those tight britches.
>
> . . .
>
> Bicycles have been around for a long time and brought joy to many. If
> used responsibly, a bicycle is a wonderful source of exercise and
> recreation. But are we being prepared to be forced to use bicycles for
> our major mode of transportation? Could it be this activity is
> purposely being placed into an elitist status with no restrictions and
> licensing in an effort to lure people into this mental mode?
>
> If you are a biker, please ride responsibly on a trail that has been
> provided for your entertainment, and for your own safety and the
> safety of others, please keep off the highways.
> --------------------
>
>
> --Brent
> bhugh [at] mwsc.edu

[James Hodson]

On 23 Jul 2003 08:06:30 -0700, (Heather
Noggle) wrote:

[BIG SNIP]

>Third, what, silly, do you think all FIFTY-FIVE of those bicycle
>trails are accessible by every citizen of Illinois/Missouri at all
>times? Um, might I remind you that Illinois is a STATE. It is a state
>of 57,918 sq.mi. You do the math.
>

Hi Heather

Only 57,918 square miles, eh? According to MS Encarta 2002 England has
an area of 50,352 square miles and Great Britain covers a huge 88,753
square miles. Encarta shows Illinoi as having an area of 57,918 square
miles. Do we have the same source of information, Heather? :-)

BTW, Great Britain is that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland but without the Northern Ireland bit.

Fifty five cycle trails doesn't sound so many when put into this
context, does it?

IMO, Joyce Morrison is more than ****ed (****ed off, as I brought up
the subject of my little bit of the world); she has some extremely
strange ideas about the requirements of bike riders and her local
geography.

Regards
James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

[Paul Hamilton]

> Bicycles have been around for a long time and brought joy to many. If
> used responsibly, a bicycle is a wonderful source of exercise and
> recreation. But are we being prepared to be forced to use bicycles for
> our major mode of transportation? Could it be this activity is
> purposely being placed into an elitist status with no restrictions and
> licensing in an effort to lure people into this mental mode?

I am utterly fascinated by the idea of an activity with an "elitist
status" that, nevertheless, has no restrictions or licencing. Being
lured into a "mental mode" sounds amusing and harmless, although the
writer seems to have entirely too much experience with unusual "mental
modes."

Paul

[Michael]

I think the part about forcibly creating rail trails from abandoned rail
right of ways is the cause of her rant. Some one else posted a link showing
where her farmer husband gets money from the USDA for not planting (I may be
wrong, but that is what I think it said). Put the two together, they must
have had a old railroad track along their property which got turned into a
rail trail, so they didn't get the land so they could get more money not to
plant it.


"Heather Noggle" > wrote in message
om...
> Unfortunately, I was unaware of this until last night, but I let her
> have it. I'll post a few lines for you to decide whether or not to
> continue reading.
>
> ---
>
> Hans points us all to this illogical stockpot full of spurious
> assertion stew by, sadly, a conservative in Illinois. I know, I know,
> you say - is it possible for conservatives to argue illogically? Yes,
> sadly, it is.
>
> Joyce Morrison is ****ed. She's ****ed that the highways of Illinois
> (HER highways, dammit) are are sometimes populated with, gasp,
> CYCLISTS! Let's give her a moment in the sun, here, ladies and
> gentlemen, before we break down to a proper paragraph-level fisking.
>
> ***
> OPINION -- Beware of bicycles - they could be hazardous to your
> health.
>
> There are 55 bicycle trails in Illinois.
>
> In fact, within "bicycle distance" of where we live is the Chain of
> Rocks bridge. This bridge crosses the Mississippi River, which
> connects the Illinois bicycle trail beginning at Pere Marquette State
> Park near Grafton, Illinois, to the well-known Katy Trail in Missouri.
> The Chain of Rocks Bridge was recently renovated especially for
> pedestrians and bicycles and was paid for by we the taxpayers.
>
> With that wonderful recreational provision, why would 4,500 bikers
> (mainly from St. Louis) choose to make a 100 mile bike ride on roads
> already heavy with tourist traffic that are two lane, curvy, hilly
> roads under construction?
> ***
>
> Okay. There's the argument. With all o' those trails, why are you on
> the roads? First, Trailnet sponsors road rides. You know, sponsor,
> with cars driving by periodically checking on the riders to ensure
> they are all right. Second, because roads are for bicycles, also.
> Third, what, silly, do you think all FIFTY-FIVE of those bicycle
> trails are accessible by every citizen of Illinois/Missouri at all
> times? Um, might I remind you that Illinois is a STATE. It is a state
> of 57,918 sq.mi. You do the math.
>
> Much, much more at
http://angelweaving.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_angelweaving_archive.html#105892
916402652749
> (my website).
>
> hln

[James Hodson]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:01:46 GMT, "Michael"
> wrote:

>I think the part about forcibly creating rail trails from abandoned rail
>right of ways is the cause of her rant. Some one else posted a link showing
>where her farmer husband gets money from the USDA for not planting (I may be
>wrong, but that is what I think it said). Put the two together, they must
>have had a old railroad track along their property which got turned into a
>rail trail, so they didn't get the land so they could get more money not to
>plant it.
>

Hi Michael

Assuming that the USDA is the US Department of Agriculture then I have
have no sympathy with here whatsoever. A huge amount of the EU's
budget goes towards farming (the Comman Acrigultrural Policy or CAP)
and is, IMO, a huge waste of money. Subsidies are given to farmers for
leaving their fields fallow in the same way you mention above. Every
now and again the papers state how much per annum the "average family"
(whatever one of those is) pays in tax towards this scheme. Once in a
while, usually just before a meeting of the EU heads of state, Blair
(and his predecessors) says he will definitely negotiate a reduction
in the amount Britain pays towards this scheme. A few days later, Tony
returns from the heads of state meeting with ... wait for it ... no
change to the policy.

Anyway, Michael, anti-EU rant over!

Personally, I can see nothing wrong with the creation of bike paths
from disused railway lines. The forcible creation of those tracks may
well be a different matter. As always, the circumstances are
important.

There is only one similar train into bike path near me and it makes
for a very nice 30+ mile ride. OTOH, there is a nice series of A roads
(one grade of road below motorway/multi-lane highway) that goes
between the same points. There are also some pleasant country lanes
that cover the same route.

These days I prefer road riding to cycling on paths. Guess which route
I'd take?

End of a rant on a different topic. :-)

A final comment: I no longer drive a car but I can sympathise a little
with Ms Morrison. Comming across some 4,500 cyclists and not being
able to overtake them in a reasonable time could be frustrating,
especially if one has allowed a certain time for a journey. I believe
there is a proverb about - I can't think of it at this moment.

End of over-long post.
Regards
James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

[Hunrobe]

>"Pat"

wrote in part:

>Sure, liberals could say equally silly things, however, it is also
>ridiculous to say that when an avowed conservative,i.e., a member of a
>well-known right wing organization who uses that affiliation to give her
>statements credibility and weight, says something outrageous we should
>immediately say, "Well, liberals could also say something ridiculous if they
>would." No, a person's statements have to stand on their own---not with a
>"everybody does it!" excuse.

"Excuse"? I wasn't excusing her idiocy. I was merely answering your question-
"Can you imagine a liberal writing such a thing?"
There are stupid people of all political persuasions.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

> "Pat"

wrote in part:

>Uh, no, Bob, you weren't answering the question. You were deflecting my
>criticism of her by saying "anyone could have said that."
---- remainder snipped for brevity ----

I can't stop you from believing that I was trying to deflect your criticism of
the idiot that wrote that particular drivel anymore than you can stop me from
believing that there are stupid people scattered all over the political
spectrum. C'est la vie.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[James Hodson]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:23:46 -0500, "Pat" > wrote:

[SNIP]

>Whenever one of these
>projects is started, the landowners bring up hoary scare stories about
>"hobos" and "marauding bands of thieves" that would invariably descend upon
>the innocent landowners to rob them blind--and, using the trail, disappear
>into the big city from which they came. This, they claim, must be stopped
>before it begins! To arms! To arms! All of this is just bunkum!
>

Hi Pat

I'm not too surprised. I used to live in a village called Bramley in
the county of Surrey (southern England). Behind my house was a disused
railway track.

Several years ago, some time after I'd left the area, it was decided
to make this former train track into a cycle path. In fact, it's a
part of the cycle path I mentioned in my reply to Michael's post.
Although there had been a muddy non-cycle path along the same route
for some 25 years the locals only started complain once a change of
use had been suggested. In truth, there was no real change of use
involved at all as cyclists, walkers etc. had always used the track.

You will not be too astonished to hear that the same excuses about
"hobos" and "marauding bands of thieves" were put forward on this side
of the pond. (OK, maybe the word "hobo" wasn't used. Linguistic
differences!) Incidentally, none of the home owners actually owned
this path; it was just a strip of land behind their back gardens.

I understand that those once-complaining locals now quite like having
a cycle path nearby as its presence enhances the value of their
properties. Easy access to the countryside and all that.

Regards
James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> >Whenever one of these
> >projects is started, the landowners bring up hoary scare stories about
> >"hobos" and "marauding bands of thieves" that would invariably descend
upon
> >the innocent landowners to rob them blind--and, using the trail,
disappear
> >into the big city from which they came. This, they claim, must be
stopped
> >before it begins! To arms! To arms! All of this is just bunkum!
> >
>
> Hi Pat
>
> I'm not too surprised. I used to live in a village called Bramley in
> the county of Surrey (southern England). Behind my house was a disused
> railway track.
>
> Several years ago, some time after I'd left the area, it was decided
> to make this former train track into a cycle path. In fact, it's a
> part of the cycle path I mentioned in my reply to Michael's post.
> Although there had been a muddy non-cycle path along the same route
> for some 25 years the locals only started complain once a change of
> use had been suggested. In truth, there was no real change of use
> involved at all as cyclists, walkers etc. had always used the track.
>
> You will not be too astonished to hear that the same excuses about
> "hobos" and "marauding bands of thieves" were put forward on this side
> of the pond. (OK, maybe the word "hobo" wasn't used. Linguistic
> differences!) Incidentally, none of the home owners actually owned
> this path; it was just a strip of land behind their back gardens.
>
> I understand that those once-complaining locals now quite like having
> a cycle path nearby as its presence enhances the value of their
> properties. Easy access to the countryside and all that.
>
> Regards
> James


I have to tell you that the use of the word "hobo" seems to be confined to
the elderly in Texas. I have never heard this word used by a person under 75
years old. Most of the people fighting the "rails to trails" concept have
indeed been elderly--people who do not want change in any form. It's the
old "I've got mine" argument.

Pat in TX

[Fritz M]

"Pat" > wrote:

> I have to tell you that the use of the word "hobo" seems to be
> confined to the elderly in Texas.

You should work in a soup kitchen or men's shelter sometime. Most homeless
are not hobos but I've run across a few. Increased security at rail yards
because of the recent interest in terrorism has made life for hobos
increasingly difficult.

RFM
--
To reply, translate domain from l33+ 2p33|< to alpha.
4=a 0=o 3=e +=t

[C.K. Dexter Haven]

(Paul Hamilton) wrote in message >...
> >Could it be this activity is
> > purposely being placed into an elitist status with no restrictions and
> > licensing in an effort to lure people into this mental mode?
>
> I am utterly fascinated by the idea of an activity with an "elitist
> status" that, nevertheless, has no restrictions or licencing. Being
> lured into a "mental mode" sounds amusing and harmless, although the
> writer seems to have entirely too much experience with unusual "mental
> modes."
>
> Paul

Average road bike: $500
Average SUV: $25,000

Wonder how her definition of "elite" goes?

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

>
> > I have to tell you that the use of the word "hobo" seems to be
> > confined to the elderly in Texas.
>
> You should work in a soup kitchen or men's shelter sometime. Most
homeless
> are not hobos but I've run across a few. Increased security at rail yards
> because of the recent interest in terrorism has made life for hobos
> increasingly difficult.
>
> RFM

I'm not saying that "hobos" don't exist, but it seems to me that younger
people call them "homeless" men instead of using the word "hobo." Wasn't
"hobo" a word for a rootless man who would work off and on while traveling
around by rail? Other words I hear the elderly use are "doper" for somebody
smoking marijuana, or "druggie" for someone using illegal drugs. My M-I-L
won't take any strong pain killers for her degenerative disc disease because
she "doesn't want my friends to know I'm a druggie!" So, she suffers in
pain instead.

Pat in TX

[ThreeLeggedDog]

Has anyone responded to this article in the same publication?

[Sorni]

"ThreeLeggedDog" > wrote in message
om...

> Has anyone responded to this article in the same publication?

What article? What publication?!?

Fan of Attribution Bill

[James Hodson]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:02:26 -0500, "Pat" > wrote:

>I'm not saying that "hobos" don't exist, but it seems to me that younger
>people call them "homeless" men instead of using the word "hobo." Wasn't
>"hobo" a word for a rootless man who would work off and on while traveling
>around by rail? Other words I hear the elderly use are "doper" for somebody
>smoking marijuana, or "druggie" for someone using illegal drugs. My M-I-L
>won't take any strong pain killers for her degenerative disc disease because
>she "doesn't want my friends to know I'm a druggie!" So, she suffers in
>pain instead.
>

I feel sorry for your M-I-L, Pat. Having said that, I tend to avoid
pain killers but for a different reason. I'd probably end up taking
them for the rest of my life if I started now.

Quite a few years ago, in my nice, quiet and reasonably genteel town,
without thinking I asked a middle aged lady where I could buy some
drugs. Needless to say, she was a little shocked. I actually meant to
ask her where was the nearest pharmacy as I needed to get my latest
dose of anti-convulsant medication. My doctor had just given me a
prescription.

Note to self: "Engage brain before opening mouth." I've been telling
myself that for years :-)

From this side of the pond I'd always thought of a hobo as a homeless,
free-spitited person who travels around in boxcars.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

[Brent Hugh]

(Brent Hugh) wrote in message >...
> Some poor motorist who had to wait 5 seconds has posted her anti-bike
> diatribe for your amusement.
>
> Here is the link to the full article; below that is an excerpt:
>
> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972

Apparently replies to the original article have been pouring in from
all over the world. They have published a selection of them at


http://www.illinoisleader.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=7123
http://illinoisleader.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=7141

Quite amusing reading . . .

--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Brent Hugh) writes:
> (Brent Hugh) wrote in message >...
>> Some poor motorist who had to wait 5 seconds has posted her anti-bike
>> diatribe for your amusement.
>>
>> Here is the link to the full article; below that is an excerpt:
>>
>> http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
>
> Apparently replies to the original article have been pouring in from
> all over the world. They have published a selection of them at
>
>
> http://www.illinoisleader.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=7123
> http://illinoisleader.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=7141
>
> Quite amusing reading . . .

It is, at that.

I especially liked the Jim Deere/Pana one. I think Guy Chapman
(Hi, Guy!) would get a kick out of it, too. "Beware of Positive
Journalism." Heh!


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca