If you don't believe in Evolution, then why do you drive an SUV?

[donquijote1954]

No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
on oil, which is the byproduct of animal species (which weren't saved
by Noah's Ark) and plants that lived hundreds of millions of years
ago, way before man, and, of course, way before the short-lived Earth
that the Bible tells us about...

"So given that oil is unique, precious and without serious
substitutes, and given that we use it as wastefully as water - which
will be the subject of another letter, oil must surely be a limitless
and renewable resource, more or less falling from the sky, or at least
welling up munificently underground, waiting to burst forth in black
plumes and fill our lives and SUVs with boundless and endless vigour.

Except of course, that like the tale of the bottomless wallet, this is
a piece of fiction. Oil obviously doesn't fall from the sky, but nor
does it endlessly well up from the ancient interior of the Earth. It
was created, in distinct, separate and rare bursts, under highly
unusual conditions in just a few places, over the last two hundred
million years. Moreover, most of it has long since leaked away or
become degraded and contaminated and very hard to recover. Meanwhile
the easy stuff which is left from these rare geological moments is
being used up at a simply colossal rate by humans everywhere, but most
of all by those of us in the world of hyper-consumption."

http://www.letterfromearth.org/index.php?letter=letterfromearth.01.v1-3

So, don't be a hypocrite and get your ass off that SUV because it runs
on Evolution itself. You belong on that donkey that Jesus rode. Or at
least GO AND RIDE A BIKE.

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

[Just A User]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
> on oil,

Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

[The immortal Khan]

"Just A User" > wrote in message
...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
>> on oil,
>
> Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
can still drive their cars....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6481029.stm
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4328.2580.0.0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/13/cncorn113.xml

and so on....

tik

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Just A User" > wrote in message
> ...
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
> >> No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
> >> on oil,
> >
> > Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.
>
> Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
> rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
> can still drive their cars....

Using corn as the source for ethanol is just an interim step to much
more economical sources, mainly high-cellulose items such as switch
grass, sawdust, etc.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Coyoteboy]

"Just A User" > wrote in message
...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
>> on oil,
>
> Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

Or used veg oil.

[Just A User]

Coyoteboy wrote:
> "Just A User" > wrote in message
> ...
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>> No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
>>> on oil,
>> Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.
>
> Or used veg oil.
>
>
I almost wonder if all the restaurants in the world that use veg. oil
were forced to turn in old oil how much /normal/ diesel could be saved.

[Stephen Harding]

The immortal Khan wrote:
> "Just A User" > wrote in message
>
>>donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>>No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
>>>on oil,
>>
>>Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.
>
>
> Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
> rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
> can still drive their cars....
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6481029.stm
> http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4328.2580.0.0
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/13/cncorn113.xml
>
> and so on....

I don't think it's possible to please some Green types with
any sort of technology.

Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.

Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
CO2.

I think the planet is doomed unless there is mass human
destruction!

Perhaps SUVs are actually doing Earth a favor?

They murder large numbers of other vehicle operators on
the road out of sheer joy of murder. We need even bigger
SUVs so they can take out buses and trains and even taxiing
airliners to eliminate large swaths of humanity in a single
"accident". By converting all our food grains to fuel to
run them, SUVs will destroy more of humanity from starvation
and disease!

Humans, BAD!
SUV, friend of Mother Earth!


SMH

[Jack May]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
news:u0ugj.2734$EN6.2224@trndny07...
> The immortal Khan wrote:
>> "Just A User" > wrote in message
>>>donquijote1954 wrote:

>
> I don't think it's possible to please some Green types with
> any sort of technology.
>
> Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
> their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
>
> Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
> CO2.

But the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor before it falls out of
the sky as potential fuel; rain. Water vapor will probably not effect
greenhouse problems very much.

So donquijote1954 is just showing off how little he knows about what is
happening in the world.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 7, 10:13 am, Just A User > wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
> > on oil,
>
> Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

Well then it's time we pull out of Iraq.

Still it's better to run on bananas than to run on corn. Bananas are
more efficient, and, of course, are more fun. ;)

[Red Cloud]

On Jan 7, 10:16 am, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> The immortal Khan wrote:
> > "Just A User" > wrote in message
>
> >>donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >>>No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
> >>>on oil,
>
> >>Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.
>
> > Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
> > rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
> > can still drive their cars....
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6481029.stm
> >http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4328.2580.0.0
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/13/cnc...
>
> > and so on....
>
> I don't think it's possible to please some Green types with
> any sort of technology.
>
> Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
> their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
>
> Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
> CO2.
>
> I think the planet is doomed unless there is mass human
> destruction!
>
> Perhaps SUVs are actually doing Earth a favor?
>
> They murder large numbers of other vehicle operators on
> the road out of sheer joy of murder. We need even bigger
> SUVs so they can take out buses and trains and even taxiing
> airliners to eliminate large swaths of humanity in a single
> "accident". By converting all our food grains to fuel to
> run them, SUVs will destroy more of humanity from starvation
> and disease!
>
> Humans, BAD!
> SUV, friend of Mother Earth!
>
> SMH

That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
culture. Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 7, 11:48*am, David Kerber > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> > "Just A User" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > donquijote1954 wrote:
> > >> No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
> > >> on oil,
>
> > > Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.
>
> > Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
> > rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
> > can still drive their cars....
>
> Using corn as the source for ethanol is just an interim step to much
> more economical sources, mainly high-cellulose items such as switch
> grass, sawdust, etc.

The more economical source is when they start running on bull ****.
Imagine all the crap cows leave behind, not to say what people say in
politics and organized religion.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 7, 1:16*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> The immortal Khan wrote:
> > "Just A User" > wrote in message
>
> >>donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >>>No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
> >>>on oil,
>
> >>Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.
>
> > Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
> > rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
> > can still drive their cars....
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6481029.stm
> >http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4328.2580.0.0
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/13/cnc....
>
> > and so on....
>
> I don't think it's possible to please some Green types with
> any sort of technology.
>
> Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
> their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
>
> Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
> CO2.
>
> I think the planet is doomed unless there is mass human
> destruction!
>
> Perhaps SUVs are actually doing Earth a favor?
>
> They murder large numbers of other vehicle operators on
> the road out of sheer joy of murder. *We need even bigger
> SUVs so they can take out buses and trains and even taxiing
> airliners to eliminate large swaths of humanity in a single
> "accident". *By converting all our food grains to fuel to
> run them, SUVs will destroy more of humanity from starvation
> and disease!
>
> Humans, BAD!
> SUV, friend of Mother Earth!

SUVs are the vehicles of salvation...

http://members.aol.com/ResurgenceCity/Blogpix/JHeaven.jpg

They will shuttle the Religious Right out of this planet when they
finally succeed in destroying it.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 7, 1:38 pm, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> donquijote1954 wibbled
>
> > So, don't be a hypocrite and get your ass off that SUV because it runs
> > on Evolution itself.
>
> Mine runs quite happily on Corn / Rapeseed / vegetable oil / diesel
> mix, thank you.

I bet they are even organic. Do you and your SUV share the same power
mix for breakfast?


>
> You belong on that donkey that Jesus rode. Or at
>
> > least GO AND RIDE A BIKE.
>
> I do. I also ride horses (and donkeys occasionally) and walk.


You can feed them the same power mix, I guess.

[George Conklin]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
...
> Red Cloud wrote:
>
> > That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
> > culture. Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
> > window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
> > to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
> > big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
> > why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
> > Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.
>
> Only missing thing photo Red Cloud tear in eye. HHT! SB
>
>
If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle. Too
many accidents per mile.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 7, 2:00*pm, Red Cloud > wrote:

> > Humans, BAD!
> > SUV, friend of Mother Earth!
>
> > SMH
>
> That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
> culture. *Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
> window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
> to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
> big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
> why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
> Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.-

I don't then why God chose this nation out of all others. Holland has
a much cleaner record, for example. This Jesus must have realized
that, "When in Rome, drive as the Romans"...

[donquijote1954]

Lions for lambs. The lion makes the sheep vote in a certain way, and
the sheep blindly follow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-vPl8aZ8kQ

Well, if Democrats don't cut it for you, at least vote for a real
tough Republican, one for tougher environmental controls like
Schwarzenegger...

Schwarzenegger defies Bush on warming
SAN FRANCISCO - Declaring climate change to be an indisputable threat,
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled a plan Wednesday to combat global
warming by setting goals for reducing California's emissions of
greenhouse gases.

"Today, California will be a leader in the fight against global
warming," Schwarzenegger told a United Nations conference on the
environment being held in San Francisco.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8072382/

[Stephen Harding]

Jack May wrote:
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
>>Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
>>their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
>>
>>Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
>>CO2.
>
> But the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor before it falls out of
> the sky as potential fuel; rain. Water vapor will probably not effect
> greenhouse problems very much.

I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
the earth was as hot as it has ever been.

ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
water vapor in the air (volcanoes? geothermal activity?).
Can't remember what the source of it was. Maybe just
evaporation from oceans.

At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
the humidity. Check out many of the tropical locations
of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.

Perhaps H2 powered SUVs will bring on a glacial cooling
period when all that SUV derived water vapor freezes
into snow and ice in Minnesota and Canada, feeding
glaciers and burying our cities!!!

Wow, those SUVs are really something, huh?


SMH

[Pat[_4_]]

>> No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
>> on oil,
>
> Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

No, at most there is only 15% ethanol mixed in with the gasoline.

[Stephen Harding]

Red Cloud wrote:

> That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
> culture. Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
> window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
> to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
> big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
> why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
> Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Me addicted American killer automobile consumer.

Me American psyche demand NASCAR killer Hummer making
lots noise!


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

George Conklin wrote:

> If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle. Too
> many accidents per mile.

Like how many?

Cite please.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> Lions for lambs. The lion makes the sheep vote in a certain way, and
> the sheep blindly follow.

Didn't know sheep voted.

What sort of bribes do the sheep get from the lions?
Extra grazing privileges? A higher percentage of
the wool trade? Outlawing of lamb chops?


SMH

[Brian Huntley]

On Jan 7, 1:16*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
> their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
>
> Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
> CO2.

Current gasoline-powered cars also produce water vapour - about 8
pound per US gallon of gas burned, I believe.

(It then condenses into ice right where I want to ride, apparently.)

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 7, 5:00*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
> > "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> >>Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
> >>their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
>
> >>Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
> >>CO2.
>
> > But the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor before it falls out of
> > the sky as potential fuel; rain. *Water vapor will probably not effect
> > greenhouse problems very much.
>
> I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
> the earth was as hot as it has ever been.
>
> ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
> water vapor in the air (volcanoes? *geothermal activity?).
> Can't remember what the source of it was. *Maybe just
> evaporation from oceans.
>
> At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
> water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
> the humidity. *Check out many of the tropical locations
> of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.
>
> Perhaps H2 powered SUVs will bring on a glacial cooling
> period when all that SUV derived water vapor freezes
> into snow and ice in Minnesota and Canada, feeding
> glaciers and burying our cities!!!
>
> Wow, those SUVs are really something, huh?
>
> SMH

I think the main contribution of the SUV is toward the male ego of the
American psyche. Perhaps like being a gladiator in Roman times.

Their only drawbacks is the gases they spew and the people they kill
on the roads, but those risks are greatly offset by their benefits.
Well, the Roman Circus had its losers too.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 7, 5:07*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> Red Cloud wrote:
> > That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
> > culture. *Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
> > window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
> > to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
> > big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
> > why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
> > Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.
>
> Me addicted American killer automobile consumer.
>
> Me American psyche demand NASCAR killer Hummer making
> lots noise!
>
> SMH

Yep, you must attend "SUV Anonymous," and promise to ride a bicycle,
at least when you go to church.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 7, 5:09*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
> > * If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle.. *Too
> > many accidents per mile.
>
> Like how many?
>
> Cite please.
>
> SMH

It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 7, 5:12*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > Lions for lambs. The lion makes the sheep vote in a certain way, and
> > the sheep blindly follow.
>
> Didn't know sheep voted.
>
> What sort of bribes do the sheep get from the lions?
> Extra grazing privileges? *A higher percentage of
> the wool trade? *Outlawing of lamb chops?
>
> SMH

The sheep provide good consumers, which keeps the Hungry Lion happy.

Well the sheep aren't actually happy, but they like suffering as a
sort of highway to heaven.

"HAPPY PEOPLE IS NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS"

In a consumeristic society the more people get sick, suffer, die, the
better it's for business.

For example, people who can't ride bikes in dangerous traffic become
couch potatoes, who soon become sick, then suffer and finally die. You
can see it everywhere: THE JUNK FOOD INDUSTRY getting kids addicted to
sweet, unhealthy stuff; THE ACCIDENT INDUSTRY that keeps people buying
ever bigger SUVs; THE WAR INDUSTRY that keeps conflicts among ethnics
and religions; THE OIL INDUSTRY that keeps adding to Global Warming as
if there were no tomorrow (there isn't, thanks to them); THE
HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY that benefits from sickness, obesity and mental
anxiety; THE RELIGIOUS INDUSTRY that makes sure you live in fear of a
loving God; and finally THE FUNERAL INDUSTRY that makes sure nothing
gets wasted.

[Jack May]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
news:Zhxgj.9242$Xo1.4668@trnddc06...
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
> the earth was as hot as it has ever been.
>
> ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
> water vapor in the air (volcanoes? geothermal activity?).
> Can't remember what the source of it was. Maybe just
> evaporation from oceans.
>
> At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
> water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
> the humidity. Check out many of the tropical locations
> of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.

From:

http://www.wxdude.com/humidity.html

Air can only hold 100% relative humidity. For rain the 100% relative
humidity is at the altitude where the rain is coming from, not the ground
where the humidity gage is normally. It takes some time for the 100%
humidity "mist" to form into drops which fall as rain. There are cases
where there can be super cooled water being more than 100%, but that is
rare.

So for all practical purposes vapor is not going to do much to increase
global warming because it will precipitate out as rain when it reaches 100%
humidity at some place in the atmosphere. Since we get rain now, the air is
often saturated at some place with the maximum moisture it can hold.

[donquijote1954]

The American psyche is something that the rest of the world doesn't
understand. It's a sort of vaudeville with SUVs and guns. A farse with
yellow ribbons...

"Stick Magnetic Ribbons on your SUV"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t4HOMduBO4&feature=related

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Red Cloud wrote:
>
> That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
> culture. Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
> window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
> to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
> big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
> why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
> Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

What, no "White Penis Power"?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[ilaboo[_2_]]

suv here in new york city are now a dead issue

what we now see are 1/2 ton 4 wheel drive pickups with double wheels in back
and passenger cabs
it really is depressing
i can now understand the phd physicist burning suv dealerships

i suspect after Katrina groups of people jsut killed the persons who totally
disrupted the ability to suvive--drink all teh water/ eat all the food freak
out becasue of no alcohol

etc
fwiw

peter

[ilaboo[_2_]]

"David

do you really believe that ther is enough biomass to feed
1/2 ton 4 wheel drive pickups?
i susspect they get about 6 miles a gallon when they lie about their gas
milage

fwiw
peter

[ilaboo[_2_]]

The more economical source is when they start running on bull ****.
Imagine all the crap cows leave behind, not to say what people say in
politics and organized religion.

politicians and lots of religious leaders only reflect the society as does
this usenet--so what do you expect?

fwiw
peter

[ilaboo[_2_]]

> I think the planet is doomed unless there is mass human
> destruction!
>
> Perhaps SUVs are actually doing Earth a favor?

steve
i hate to say this but i think you are right--sad for our children
i know of no answer and that includes getting human dna off this planet
life i know will go one and steve--that's what keeps me going in a dead
planet

peter

[ilaboo[_2_]]

I think the main contribution of the SUV is toward the male ego of the
American psyche. Perhaps like being a gladiator in Roman times.
i agree
you can now see it in 1/2 ton 4 wheel drive pickups here in the bronx
also if you can believe it--stretch humvees

peter

[ilaboo[_2_]]

They will shuttle the Religious Right out of this planet when they
finally succeed in destroying it.

its really not them
they jsut refect our society no more no less

peter

[Marc]

ilaboo wrote:
> The more economical source is when they start running on bull ****.
> Imagine all the crap cows leave behind, not to say what people say in
> politics and organized religion.
>
> politicians and lots of religious leaders only reflect the society as does
> this usenet--so what do you expect?
>

I expect correct netiquette and for a reply to contain some idea of what
is being replied to.

[ilaboo[_2_]]

> You belong on that donkey that Jesus rode.

it just amazes me the insight that you have!! your religious knowlege is
totally amazing!! you are making a major impact on our society!! you have
insight that takes my breath away

peter

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 8, 2:58*am, "T. Ling Yu" > wrote:
> Red Cloud > wrote :
>
> > Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.
>
> Why would you want to kill human being with your bike, RC.
> That's horrible!

When you are in an SUV you have POWER, power to kill power not to
kill. But you don't get all hung up about it. You treat power
casually, and keep chatting on your cell. It must look natural. You
barely notice those poor monkeys trying to survive in their little
bikes. Any death resulting from this must appear accidental.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 8, 6:54*am, "ilaboo" > wrote:
> suv here in new york city are now a dead issue
>
> what we now see are 1/2 ton 4 wheel drive pickups with double wheels in back
> and passenger cabs
> it really is depressing
> i can now understand the phd physicist burning suv dealerships
>
> i suspect after Katrina groups of people jsut killed the persons who totally
> disrupted the ability to suvive--drink all teh water/ eat all the food freak
> out becasue of no alcohol

What do they need SUVs in NYC for, to tame the Asphalt Jungle?

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 8, 9:22*am, "T. Ling Yu" > wrote:
> donquijote1954 > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 2:58*am, "T. Ling Yu" > wrote:
> >> Red Cloud > wrote
> >> innews:139ec435-3312-4ef6-be87-396fe
> > :
>
> >> > Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.
>
> >> Why would you want to kill human being with your bike, RC.
> >> That's horrible!
>
> > When you are in an SUV you have POWER, power to kill power not to
> > kill. But you don't get all hung up about it. You treat power
> > casually, and keep chatting on your cell. It must look natural. You
> > barely notice those poor monkeys trying to survive in their little
> > bikes. Any death resulting from this must appear accidental.
>
> But why cell phone keep get smaller? Stupid American must need
> to want desire fat-ass cellphone with more power, no?-

Well, that's coming soon...

http://www.txroadrunners.com/images/pics/funny5/BigNokiaCellPhone.jpg

You can take it right on the bed of this SUV...

http://www.marketingshift.com/2004/9/biggest-suv-navistar-international.cfm

[Just A User]

Pat wrote:
>>> No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
>>> on oil,
>> Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.
>
> No, at most there is only 15% ethanol mixed in with the gasoline.
>
>
wrong e85 is 85% ethanol

[donquijote1954]

This T-shirt is not for oil junkies...

http://www.zazzle.com/bike_for_peace_shirt-235671708848009326

[Stephen Harding]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Jan 7, 5:09 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
>>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>> If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle. Too
>>>many accidents per mile.
>>
>>Like how many?
>>
>>Cite please.
>>
>
> It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
> though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.

That's a fair point.

However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
such a view makes a convenient excuse.

Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
convenient!


SMH

[DennisTheBald]

I thought petroleum, and most hydrocarbons, was formerly primarily
plant matter that had been trapped in sediment and covered by oceans,
algae & stuff being the liquid petroleum and trees & stuff ending up
as coal... but this discounts the whole abiogenic petroleum theory.

I guess I'm not really sure where petroleum comes from, I suspect that
it had to be deposited in the sediment way long before there were such
things as dinosaurs (obviously the folks at Sinclair Oil co
disagree). I just could live with myself if I believed that I was
burning Fred's cute little Dino every time I lit the furnace.

I'm not sure I follow the assertion of hypocrisy either. I think that
people that don't believe that living things evolve believe that the
world has always been like it is now and don't really subscribe to
either the biogenic or abiogenic theory on the origin of petroleum...
God created it on the eighth day but it was not deemed noteworthy at
the time. But then I guess I'm a really bad representative of their
ideas & beliefs.

I don't think there's much debate about where the petroleum is going.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 8, 5:45*pm, DennisTheBald > wrote:
> I thought petroleum, and most hydrocarbons, was formerly primarily
> plant matter that had been trapped in sediment and covered by oceans,
> algae & stuff being the liquid petroleum and trees & stuff ending up
> as coal... but this discounts the whole abiogenic petroleum theory.
>
> I guess I'm not really sure where petroleum comes from, I suspect that
> it had to be deposited in the sediment way long before there were such
> things as dinosaurs (obviously the folks at Sinclair Oil co
> disagree). *I just could live with myself if I believed that I was
> burning Fred's cute little Dino every time I lit the furnace.
>
> I'm not sure I follow the assertion of hypocrisy either. *I think that
> people that don't believe that living things evolve believe that the
> world has always been like it is now and don't really subscribe to
> either the biogenic or abiogenic theory on the origin of petroleum...
> God created it on the eighth day but it was not deemed noteworthy at
> the time. *But then I guess I'm a really bad representative of their
> ideas & beliefs.
>
> I don't think there's much debate about where the petroleum is going.

Well, even if you concede that the origin or petroleum is
"mysterious," it's clear that it contradicts the Bible's account of a
recent creation. The dinosaurs too contradict the story of Noah's ark.
Why God wiped them out?

I think what it is that Christians are some monkeys that deny their
ancestry while behaving like simple predators. Actually they are
excellent survivors in this Darwinistic jungle where we live. But they
forget one lesson from evolution itself, something the dinosaurs were
too stupid to understand...

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin

[donquijote1954]

Another T-shirt not for oil junkies...

http://www.zazzle.com/no_gasno_problem_shirt-235183723244701428

[donquijote1954]

I hope those who drive SUVs will like the SUBs. Just kidding...

http://www.zazzle.com/bike_for_peace_shirt-235712478668290802

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 7, 5:42*pm, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Red Cloud wrote:
>
> >>> That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
> >>> culture. *Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's
> >>> just window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all
> >>> desire to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
> >>> big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
> >>> why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
> >>> Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.
>
> >> Only missing thing photo Red Cloud tear in eye. *HHT! *SB
>
> > *If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a
> > bicycle. *Too many accidents per mile.
>
> First of all, WHOOSH.
>
> Secondly, I'm well over 20,000 miles now, with zero accidents. *When should
> I start getting scared?!?
>
> Bill "now mountain biking is a far different story" S.-

Well, I can see you are a survivor. But when they invite people like
you to national TV, maybe many will imitate you. Monkey see monkey
do. ;)

The problem is nobody talks about heroes like you, while SUV
commercials flash every 5 minutes.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

ilaboo aka Peter Lener wrote:
> suv here in new york city are now a dead issue
>
> what we now see are 1/2 ton 4 wheel drive pickups with double wheels in back
> and passenger cabs...

Wrong. No such thing as a one-half (1/2) ton pick-up truck with dual
rear wheels in back. If it has dual rear wheels, it is either a one (1)
ton pickup or "commercial duty" pickup.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[Amy Blankenship]

"donquijote1954" > wrote in message
news:ccce08e9-4fd1-4ae6-8228-Well, I can see you are > Monkey see monkey do.
;)

I had sea monkeys when I was a kid...

[Amy Blankenship]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>> I had sea monkeys when I was a kid...
>
> Penicillin clear things up?

You only need that if you feed them too much. Clouds the water.

[Pat[_4_]]

>>>> No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
>>>> on oil,
>>> Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.


>> No, at most there is only 15% ethanol mixed in with the gasoline.
>>
>>
> wrong e85 is 85% ethanol

Well, then, the signs on the gas pumps are incorrect when they state: "May
contain up to 15% ethanol."

[nafuk]

On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> news:Zhxgj.9242$Xo1.4668@trnddc06...
>
> > Jack May wrote:
> >> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> > I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
> > the earth was as hot as it has ever been.
>
> > ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
> > water vapor in the air (volcanoes? *geothermal activity?).
> > Can't remember what the source of it was. *Maybe just
> > evaporation from oceans.
>
> > At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
> > water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
> > the humidity. *Check out many of the tropical locations
> > of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.
>
> From:
>
> http://www.wxdude.com/humidity.html
>
> Air can only hold 100% relative humidity. *For rain the 100% relative
> humidity is at the altitude where the rain is coming from, not the ground
> where the humidity gage is normally. *It takes some time for the 100%
> humidity "mist" to form into drops which fall as rain. *There are cases
> where there can be super cooled water being more than 100%, but that is
> rare.
>
> So for all practical purposes vapor is not going to do much to increase
> global warming because it will precipitate out as rain when it reaches 100%
> humidity at some place in the atmosphere. *Since we get rain now, the air is
> often saturated at some place with the maximum moisture it can hold.

There are three gases emitted by aircraft which contribute to global
warming: H2O, CO2 and NOx The most obvious is the water vapour which
forms condensation trails - clouds of frozen ice crystals. Since the
air in the upper troposphere (the level at which most commerical
planes fly) is naturally very dry, water vapour emitted by aircraft
can make a big difference. Sometimes the contrails cover the whole
sky. Have you ever wondered, why the sky is so much clearer in remoter
locations?

Although these contrails reflect a little sunlight away from earth,
they reflect back to earth much more invisible infra-red (heat)
radiation which would otherwise escape to space - and therefore they
have an overall warming effect. This is hard to measure accurately,
because the contrails eventually spread out and become
indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds.

Not all of the water vapour forms contrails, but water is itself a
"greenhouse gas" which also traps this outgoing infra-red radiation.
Each water molecule traps much more heat and also survives much longer
at this height than it would do at sea-level.

Jet-fuel - kerosene - is a mixture of substances produced by
distilling crude oil, which can be represented by C13H28. The chemical
equation for burning it is as follows:
2C13H28 + 40O2 =>26CO2 + 28H2O

So you can see, that for every 14 water molecules produced, the
aircraft must also emit 13 of CO2. This is also a greenhouse gas and
will stay in the atmosphere warming the earth for an average of 100
years, some of it for 1000s of years. There's no way that you can get
the energy from such fossil fuel without producing that much CO2. It's
not a by-product that can be "scrubbed" from the exhaust.

[Just A User]

Pat wrote:
>>>>> No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
>>>>> on oil,
>>>> Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.
>
>
>>> No, at most there is only 15% ethanol mixed in with the gasoline.
>>>
>>>
>> wrong e85 is 85% ethanol
>
> Well, then, the signs on the gas pumps are incorrect when they state: "May
> contain up to 15% ethanol."
>
>
Here is the wiki link :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 8, 9:05 pm, Peacemaker > wrote:
> god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
> God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
> Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.

That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.

It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
think.

I wonder though why God gave us a brain.

[donquijote1954]

What "Bike for Peace" is all about...

Well, I want to put together the idea behind the revolution (http://
atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana
+Revolution%21&l4=). There are two Bike for Peace, my own (http://
webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace) and somebody else's (http://
bikeforpeace.org). The two ideas are complementary, and my T-shirts as
a wearable banner (http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution) and
his stickers all are aimed at a more bicycle friendly world. No Mao,
Che or Chavez. Those are stupid lions hungry for power. The revolution
is about getting on a bike and making those tires revolve around its
axis.

Notice in his website this great story of how someone from Bike for
Peace did just that, from Couch Potato to Bicycle Commuter...

http://www.runmuki.com/commute/index.html

[DennisTheBald]

On Jan 9, 10:36 am, donquijote1954 >
wrote:
> I wonder though why God gave us a brain.

If we had been meant to use our brains they wouldn't have come packed
so well, up inside our hindquarters.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 9, 2:45*pm, DennisTheBald > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 10:36 am, donquijote1954 >
> wrote:
>
> > I wonder though why God gave us a brain.
>
> If we had been meant to use our brains they wouldn't have come packed
> so well, up inside our hindquarters.

"A brain is a terrible thing to waste," or something like that says
the slogan.

Cyclists though do have to use their brain in order to survive. SUV
drivers don't. In that they are similar to sheep...

(Would this fact make cyclists the black sheep? Maybe)

This comment is from actual sheep behavior...

Wait For Me
Sheep have a strong instinct to follow the leader. When one sheep
decides to go somewhere, the rest of the flock usually follows, even
if it is not a good decision. For example, if the lead sheep jumps
over a cliff, the others are likely to follow. Even from birth, lambs
are conditioned to follow the older members of the flock.
http://www.sheep101.info/flocking.html

From Jim Jones to some leaders we have today, they have understood how
to lead the sheep... into a cliff.

But you are just a thinking person, and don't want to be part of
collective suicide. You are the Black Sheep --and proud of it!
http://www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954/product/235821287705130969

[Pat[_4_]]

I'm just telling ya, that's what the signs say: Up to 15% ethanol.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> nafuk wrote:
>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:Zhxgj.9242$Xo1.4668@trnddc06...
>>>
>>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>>> I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
>>>> the earth was as hot as it has ever been.
>>>> ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
>>>> water vapor in the air (volcanoes? geothermal activity?).
>>>> Can't remember what the source of it was. Maybe just
>>>> evaporation from oceans.
>>>> At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
>>>> water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
>>>> the humidity. Check out many of the tropical locations
>>>> of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.
>>> From:
>>>
>>> http://www.wxdude.com/humidity.html
>>>
>>> Air can only hold 100% relative humidity. For rain the 100% relative
>>> humidity is at the altitude where the rain is coming from, not the
>>> ground where the humidity gage is normally. It takes some time for
>>> the 100% humidity "mist" to form into drops which fall as rain.
>>> There are cases where there can be super cooled water being more
>>> than 100%, but that is rare.
>>>
>>> So for all practical purposes vapor is not going to do much to
>>> increase global warming because it will precipitate out as rain when
>>> it reaches 100% humidity at some place in the atmosphere. Since we
>>> get rain now, the air is often saturated at some place with the
>>> maximum moisture it can hold.
>> There are three gases emitted by aircraft which contribute to global
>> warming: H2O, CO2 and NOx The most obvious is the water vapour which
>> forms condensation trails - clouds of frozen ice crystals. Since the
>> air in the upper troposphere (the level at which most commerical
>> planes fly) is naturally very dry, water vapour emitted by aircraft
>> can make a big difference. Sometimes the contrails cover the whole
>> sky. Have you ever wondered, why the sky is so much clearer in remoter
>> locations?
>>
>> Although these contrails reflect a little sunlight away from earth,
>> they reflect back to earth much more invisible infra-red (heat)
>> radiation which would otherwise escape to space - and therefore they
>> have an overall warming effect. This is hard to measure accurately,
>> because the contrails eventually spread out and become
>> indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds.
>>
>> Not all of the water vapour forms contrails, but water is itself a
>> "greenhouse gas" which also traps this outgoing infra-red radiation.
>> Each water molecule traps much more heat and also survives much longer
>> at this height than it would do at sea-level.
>>
>> Jet-fuel - kerosene - is a mixture of substances produced by
>> distilling crude oil, which can be represented by C13H28. The chemical
>> equation for burning it is as follows:
>> 2C13H28 + 40O2 =>26CO2 + 28H2O
>>
>> So you can see, that for every 14 water molecules produced, the
>> aircraft must also emit 13 of CO2. This is also a greenhouse gas and
>> will stay in the atmosphere warming the earth for an average of 100
>> years, some of it for 1000s of years. There's no way that you can get
>> the energy from such fossil fuel without producing that much CO2. It's
>> not a by-product that can be "scrubbed" from the exhaust.
>
> So...Al Gore should quit riding around in his 1970s-era Gulfstream? Don't
> hold your breath! (You'll just emit a greenhouse gas, anyway!)
>
> Bill "this **** would be really, really funny if it wasn't taken so really,
> really seriously by so really, really many" S.

I hope I am around long enough to laugh at the collapse of civilization.
Foolish humans need to be taught a harsh lesson to learn anything.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> On Jan 8, 9:05 pm, Peacemaker > wrote:
>> god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
>> God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
>> Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.
>
> That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.
>
> It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
> think.
>
> I wonder though why God gave us a brain.
>
But, at least at the end, God apologizes to creation for the inconvenience.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Pat wrote:
> I'm just telling ya, that's what the signs say: Up to 15% ethanol.

The fuel with up to fifteen (15) percent ethanol and the remaining
fractions derived from petroleum is being sold as "gasoline", not "E85".
"E85" is eighty-five (85) percent ethanol and fifteen percent petroleum
derivatives.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[Jack May]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> nafuk wrote:
>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:Zhxgj.9242$Xo1.4668@trnddc06...
>>>>
>>>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
really seriously by so really, really many" S.
>
> I hope I am around long enough to laugh at the collapse of civilization.
> Foolish humans need to be taught a harsh lesson to learn anything.

People learn the most by solving the problems that confront them. That is
exactly what we will be doing by developing alternative energy sources that
solve the greenhouse problem.

Almost nothing is learned by fantasizing punishment for people that don't
agree with you.

[Jack May]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 9:05 pm, Peacemaker > wrote:
>>> god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
>>> God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
>>> Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.
>>
>> That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.
>>
>> It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
>> think.
>>
>> I wonder though why God gave us a brain.
>>
> But, at least at the end, God apologizes to creation for the
> inconvenience.

Sounds like you don't understand evolution but believe in some undefined
creationism.

Our ability to be highly creative in our development of new capabilities
came from a genetic mutation about 55 thousand years ago.

That gene was propagated by evolution. It greatly increased the survivable
rate of people that had that genetic mutation.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> nafuk wrote:
>>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:Zhxgj.9242$Xo1.4668@trnddc06...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> really seriously by so really, really many" S.
>> I hope I am around long enough to laugh at the collapse of civilization.
>> Foolish humans need to be taught a harsh lesson to learn anything.
>
> People learn the most by solving the problems that confront them. That is
> exactly what we will be doing by developing alternative energy sources that
> solve the greenhouse problem.
>
> Almost nothing is learned by fantasizing punishment for people that don't
> agree with you.

Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
will solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
consequences, they learn nothing.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 9:05 pm, Peacemaker > wrote:
>>>> god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
>>>> God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
>>>> Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.
>>> That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.
>>>
>>> It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
>>> think.
>>>
>>> I wonder though why God gave us a brain.
>>>
>> But, at least at the end, God apologizes to creation for the
>> inconvenience.
>
> Sounds like you don't understand evolution but believe in some undefined
> creationism.
>
> Our ability to be highly creative in our development of new capabilities
> came from a genetic mutation about 55 thousand years ago.
>
> That gene was propagated by evolution. It greatly increased the survivable
> rate of people that had that genetic mutation.

WHooooooooooooooSH!

DON'T PANIC!

And remember to bring your towel.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[Just A User]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>> I'm just telling ya, that's what the signs say: Up to 15% ethanol.
>
> The fuel with up to fifteen (15) percent ethanol and the remaining
> fractions derived from petroleum is being sold as "gasoline", not "E85".
> "E85" is eighty-five (85) percent ethanol and fifteen percent petroleum
> derivatives.
>
Yes that's right, I thought that is what I said.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jack May" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> nafuk wrote:
>>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:Zhxgj.9242$Xo1.4668@trnddc06...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> really seriously by so really, really many" S.
>>
>> I hope I am around long enough to laugh at the collapse of civilization.
>> Foolish humans need to be taught a harsh lesson to learn anything.
>
> People learn the most by solving the problems that confront them. That is
> exactly what we will be doing by developing alternative energy sources
> that solve the greenhouse problem.

They sure as hell don't seem to learn anything by preventing problems!

[Jack May]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> nafuk wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>>>>>

>
> Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology will
> solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to make
a lot of money.

> People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
> consequences, they learn nothing.

Puritans are rather rare these days. Technology is a very large part of our
economy.

Sort of proves that punishment has not been very effective in society, but
making a lot of money with technology has been highly attractive and
effective.

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 10, 12:41 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> wrote:

> > Direct attacks on others' deeply held beliefs isn't funny, whether I share
> > them or not.
>
> But when those beliefs are used as cover for evil things then they are
> fair game.
>
> ------------------
>
> But you haven't attacked them as a cover for evil things. You've
> essentially said
>
> "All Christians drive SUV's"
> "SUV's are evil"
> "Therefore, all Christians are evil."
>
> Only you've managed to pad it out to make it much more offensive than that.-

No, I've said driving an SUV (1) is evil, which makes many Christians
evil doers, but not all. Everybody knows not all Christians drive
SUVs, and that many even ride bicycles. We know these get a ticket to
Heaven --if there's one.

(1) Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle, not the smaller utilitarian one.

But let's establish an EVIL RATING SCALE, where bicycling is a 1 and
SUVing is a 10, so we know who's who...

(add 5 point penalty for use of cell phones)

1 Bicycle
2 Public Transportation
3 Scooter
4
5 Small stickshift car
6
7 Minivan
8 Regular car
9 Utilitarian SUV
10 Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle

Then you add it all at the end of the week, and figure if you are on
your way to Hell or Heaven. A passing score would be 5 or below. For
example, if I used the car 3 times (24 points), but used the bicycle
10 times (10), and a scooter 9 times (27 points), I get a 61 point
total. So I divide it by the total trips (22) and get a final average
score of 2.7727. I'm not going to Hell!!!

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>> nafuk wrote:
>>>>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>
>> Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology will
>> solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.
>
> It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
> solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to make
> a lot of money.

More arrogance in believe that there will always be a technological
solution to the problem. Foolish human will learn otherwise during this
century.

>> People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
>> consequences, they learn nothing.
>
> Puritans are rather rare these days. Technology is a very large part of our
> economy.
>
> Sort of proves that punishment has not been very effective in society, but
> making a lot of money with technology has been highly attractive and
> effective.

Pride goes before the fall.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 10, 12:16 am, "Jack May" > wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> >> On Jan 8, 9:05 pm, Peacemaker > wrote:
> >>> god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
> >>> God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
> >>> Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.
>
> >> That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.
>
> >> It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
> >> think.
>
> >> I wonder though why God gave us a brain.
>
> > But, at least at the end, God apologizes to creation for the
> > inconvenience.
>
> Sounds like you don't understand evolution but believe in some undefined
> creationism.
>
> Our ability to be highly creative in our development of new capabilities
> came from a genetic mutation about 55 thousand years ago.
>
> That gene was propagated by evolution. It greatly increased the survivable
> rate of people that had that genetic mutation.

Have they isolated yet the religious gene? It must come from the "Homo
Ignoramus"...

Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new
study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade
with time.

Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour
was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But
more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised
apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a
person's religiousness.

But it is not clear how that contribution changes with age. A few
studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive
parents - show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and
behaviours of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes
play a small role in religiousness at that age.

Now, researchers led by Laura Koenig, a psychology graduate student at
the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US, have tried to tease
apart how the effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Their
study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors
become more important in determining how religious a person is, while
environmental factors wane.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/03/genes-contribut.html

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 10, 12:39*am, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>> nafuk wrote:
> >>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
> >>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> >>>>>news:Zhxgj.9242$Xo1.4668@trnddc06...
>
> >>>>>> Jack May wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> > really seriously by so really, really many" S.
> >> I hope I am around long enough to laugh at the collapse of civilization..
> >> Foolish humans need to be taught a harsh lesson to learn anything.
>
> > People learn the most by solving the problems that confront them. *That is
> > exactly what we will be doing by developing alternative energy sources that
> > solve the greenhouse problem.
>
> > Almost nothing is learned by fantasizing punishment for people that don't
> > agree with you.
>
> Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
> will solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.
>
> People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
> consequences, they learn nothing.

They only got to learn from history and see what happened in Easter
Island. The people there ended eating each other while their gods
watched indifferently...

"The people of Rapa Nui exhausted all possible resources, including
eating their own dogs and all nesting birds when finally there was
absolutely nothing left. All that was left were the stone giants who
symbolized the devouring of a whole island. The stone giants became
monuments where the islanders could keep faith and honour them in
hopes of a return. By the end, there were more than a thousand moai
(stone statues), which was one for every ten islanders (Wright, 2004).
When the Europeans arrived in the eighteenth century, the worst was
over and they only found one or two living souls per statue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island

Do religious people believe in history though?

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 10, 2:24*pm, "Jack May" > wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Jack May wrote:
> >> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>> nafuk wrote:
> >>>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> > Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology will
> > solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.
>
> It is a fact of life. *If there is a problem that people need to have
> solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to make
> a lot of money.
>
> > People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
> > consequences, they learn nothing.
>
> Puritans are rather rare these days. *Technology is a very large part of our
> economy.

But the solutions are right here right now. The bicycle is a reality,
and if it weren't for all that fear, millions would go out and ride
it.
>
> Sort of proves that punishment has not been very effective in society, but
> making a lot of money with technology has been highly attractive and
> effective.

It's all about money, not technology. The bicycle doesn't lend to
juicy contracts like the hydrogen car.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

donquijote1954 ??? wrote:
> On Jan 10, 12:16 am, "Jack May" > wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>> On Jan 8, 9:05 pm, Peacemaker > wrote:
>>>>> god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
>>>>> God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
>>>>> Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.
>>>> That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.
>>>> It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
>>>> think.
>>>> I wonder though why God gave us a brain.
>>> But, at least at the end, God apologizes to creation for the
>>> inconvenience.
>> Sounds like you don't understand evolution but believe in some undefined
>> creationism.
>>
>> Our ability to be highly creative in our development of new capabilities
>> came from a genetic mutation about 55 thousand years ago.
>>
>> That gene was propagated by evolution. It greatly increased the survivable
>> rate of people that had that genetic mutation.
>
> Have they isolated yet the religious gene? It must come from the "Homo
> Ignoramus"...

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[ZBicyclist]

donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> But let's establish an EVIL RATING SCALE, where bicycling is a 1 and
> SUVing is a 10, so we know who's who...
>
> (add 5 point penalty for use of cell phones)
>
> 1 Bicycle
> 2 Public Transportation
> 3 Scooter
> 4
> 5 Small stickshift car
> 6
> 7 Minivan
> 8 Regular car
> 9 Utilitarian SUV
> 10 Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle

Trolling should be on there somewhere, maybe as #6.


--
Mike Kruger
Gravity -- It's not just a good idea. It's the law.

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 2:24 pm, "Jack May" > wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Jack May wrote:
> >> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>> nafuk wrote:
> >>>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> > Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
> > will
> > solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.
>
> It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
> solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to
> make
> a lot of money.
>
> > People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
> > consequences, they learn nothing.
>
> Puritans are rather rare these days. Technology is a very large part of
> our
> economy.

But the solutions are right here right now. The bicycle is a reality,
and if it weren't for all that fear, millions would go out and ride
it.

The bike does not even remotely meet the needs of people in this society.
That is why it is a total failure in attracting people out of their cars.

>
> Sort of proves that punishment has not been very effective in society, but
> making a lot of money with technology has been highly attractive and
> effective.

It's all about money, not technology. The bicycle doesn't lend to
juicy contracts like the hydrogen car.

Nonsense. Its not all about money. It is all about the bicycle being a
total failure in meeting the needs of people.

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 12:39 am, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>> nafuk wrote:
> >>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
> >>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> >>>>>news:Zhxgj.9242$Xo1.4668@trnddc06...
>
> >>>>>> Jack May wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message


They only got to learn from history and see what happened in Easter
Island. The people there ended eating each other while their gods
watched indifferently...

"The people of Rapa Nui exhausted all possible resources, including
eating their own dogs and all nesting birds when finally there was
absolutely nothing left. All that was left were the stone giants who
symbolized the devouring of a whole island. The stone giants became
monuments where the islanders could keep faith and honour them in
hopes of a return. By the end, there were more than a thousand moai
(stone statues), which was one for every ten islanders (Wright, 2004).
When the Europeans arrived in the eighteenth century, the worst was
over and they only found one or two living souls per statue."

Total crap. Nothing you have said is even remotely relevant to the present

[Jack May]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>> nafuk wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>> Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
>>> will solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.
>>
>> It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
>> solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to
>> make a lot of money.
>
> More arrogance in believe that there will always be a technological
> solution to the problem. Foolish human will learn otherwise during this
> century.

Well we know what the solutions are now to handle the end of oil. Its just
a matter of doing the work and planning to make it happen. Nobody cares
about your masochistic approach since it is well know those approaches never
work.

>
> Pride goes before the fall.

We are talking about a lot of hard work and lot of money, not pride.

You are talking about sitting around and doing absolutely nothing and just
letting civilization collapse. That is the usual approach of highly
incompetent people and invariable leads to nothing working.

The world is not interested in your preaching of damnation and repentance.
You have absolutely nothing to offer.

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" > wrote in message
...
> On Jan 10, 12:16 am, "Jack May" > wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>> >> On Jan 8, 9:05 pm, Peacemaker > wrote:

>
> Have they isolated yet the religious gene? It must come from the "Homo
> Ignoramus"...

We know exactly which gene is the "Jesus gene " as it is sometimes called.
The mutation that caused it occurred between 20K and 25K years ago and
spread to many people.

It is a guess of what it does. It seems to allow leaders to manipulate the
thinking of large groups of people. Very useful in saying we are good,
those people are bad, follow me to kill all those bad people.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>> nafuk wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
>>>> will solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.
>>> It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
>>> solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to
>>> make a lot of money.
>> More arrogance in believe that there will always be a technological
>> solution to the problem. Foolish human will learn otherwise during this
>> century.
>
> Well we know what the solutions are now to handle the end of oil. Its just
> a matter of doing the work and planning to make it happen. Nobody cares
> about your masochistic approach since it is well know those approaches never
> work.

These solutions are not going to produce a decent quality of life for 7+
billion people. Even with slowing population growth, ecological collapse
is practically inevitable.

>> Pride goes before the fall.
>
> We are talking about a lot of hard work and lot of money, not pride.

No, it is pride that blinds you to the limitations of foolish humans.

> You are talking about sitting around and doing absolutely nothing and just
> letting civilization collapse. That is the usual approach of highly
> incompetent people and invariable leads to nothing working.

No I am not. Try to improve your reading comprehension.

> The world is not interested in your preaching of damnation and repentance.
> You have absolutely nothing to offer.

And the world needs more figurative ostriches like Jack May? Stick your
head in the sand of blind faith in miracles.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> "donquijote1954" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Jan 10, 12:16 am, "Jack May" > wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 8, 9:05 pm, Peacemaker > wrote:
>
>> Have they isolated yet the religious gene? It must come from the "Homo
>> Ignoramus"...
>
> We know exactly which gene is the "Jesus gene " as it is sometimes called.
> The mutation that caused it occurred between 20K and 25K years ago and
> spread to many people.
>
> It is a guess of what it does. It seems to allow leaders to manipulate the
> thinking of large groups of people. Very useful in saying we are good,
> those people are bad, follow me to kill all those bad people.

Anyone who believes anything a "leader" says without independent
verification is a fool.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 10, 10:20*pm, "Jack May" > wrote:
> "donquijote1954" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jan 10, 12:39 am, Tom Sherman >
> wrote:
>
> > Jack May wrote:
> > > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > >>> nafuk wrote:
> > >>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
> > >>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> > >>>>>news:Zhxgj.9242$Xo1.4668@trnddc06...
>
> > >>>>>> Jack May wrote:
> > >>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> They only got to learn from history and see what happened in Easter
> Island. The people there ended eating each other while their gods
> watched indifferently...
>
> "The people of Rapa Nui exhausted all possible resources, including
> eating their own dogs and all nesting birds when finally there was
> absolutely nothing left. All that was left were the stone giants who
> symbolized the devouring of a whole island. The stone giants became
> monuments where the islanders could keep faith and honour them in
> hopes of a return. By the end, there were more than a thousand moai
> (stone statues), which was one for every ten islanders (Wright, 2004).
> When the Europeans arrived in the eighteenth century, the worst was
> over and they only found one or two living souls per statue."
>
> Total crap. *Nothing you have said is even remotely relevant to the present

Sure? The same pattern of behavior will bring you the same result.
Overhunting will lead to your own starvation.

NOT WARS, LIES OR GODS WILL SAVE YOU!

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 10, 10:27*pm, "Jack May" > wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jack May wrote:
> >> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Jack May wrote:
> >>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>>>> nafuk wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> >>> Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
> >>> will solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.
>
> >> It is a fact of life. *If there is a problem that people need to have
> >> solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to
> >> make a lot of money.
>
> > More arrogance in believe that there will always be a technological
> > solution to the problem. Foolish human will learn otherwise during this
> > century.
>
> Well we know what the solutions are now to handle the end of oil. * Its just
> a matter of doing the work and planning to make it happen. * *Nobody cares
> about your masochistic approach since it is well know those approaches never
> work.
>
>
>
> > Pride goes before the fall.
>
> We are talking about a lot of hard work and lot of money, not pride.
>
> You are talking about sitting around and doing absolutely nothing and just
> letting civilization collapse. * That is the usual approach of highly
> incompetent people and invariable leads to nothing working.
>
> The world is not interested in your preaching of damnation and repentance.
> You have absolutely nothing to offer.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah, you got much to offer: WWII or Global Warming or Armageddon. I
love your hopeful choices! :(

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 10, 10:17*pm, "Jack May" > wrote:
> "donquijote1954" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jan 10, 2:24 pm, "Jack May" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Jack May wrote:
> > >> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > >>>> nafuk wrote:
> > >>>>> On 7 Jan, 22:56, "Jack May" > wrote:
> > >>>>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> > > Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
> > > will
> > > solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.
>
> > It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
> > solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to
> > make
> > a lot of money.
>
> > > People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
> > > consequences, they learn nothing.
>
> > Puritans are rather rare these days. Technology is a very large part of
> > our
> > economy.
>
> But the solutions are right here right now. The bicycle is a reality,
> and if it weren't for all that fear, millions would go out and ride
> it.
>
> The bike does not even remotely meet the needs of people in this society.
> That is why it is a total failure in attracting people out of their cars.

And you speak for THE PEOPLE...

Have you noticed how much kids enjoy bicycling? Yeah, play and fun is
natural to the human being, before you dumb him into driving car.

You know how many millions of adults would welcome cycling to rescue
them from the idiotic couch potato life? How nice would be to attract
millions of people to bicycles and other transportation options out
there. They would socialize and have fun for one. Not to say they
would get rid of that fat couch potato ass.

>
>
>
> > Sort of proves that punishment has not been very effective in society, but
> > making a lot of money with technology has been highly attractive and
> > effective.
>
> It's all about money, not technology. The bicycle doesn't lend to
> juicy contracts like the hydrogen car.
>
> Nonsense. *Its not all about money. *It is all about the bicycle being a
> total failure in meeting the needs of *people.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Get a guitar and sing along... ;)

Money lyrics
This money I made up when I was ten
Now I'm singing it once more again
It's something pure and innocent
I wanna go back in time
When all that mattered was
The music I made

AND IF YOU WANT TO SURVIVE
IN THIS JUNGLE WE'RE IN
You better tell the truth
At least to yourself
Whatever it is that you do
It will come right back to you
So don't you dare to put your
Conscience on the shelf

Now it's all about money
All about cash and getting paid
I don't wanna go on this way
Now it's all about money
All about sex, and getting laid
It doesn't matter what you say

There's so many people out there
Thinkin' only of cash
Makin' music they really despise
And I can never say
I haven't done it myself
But it's time to get away
From those lies

And if you want to survive
In this jungle that we're in
Whatever it is that you do
It will come right back to you

[Tom Keats]

In article <t%Ngj.4940$O97.2830@trndny01>,
Stephen Harding > writes:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 5:09 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>
>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle. Too
>>>>many accidents per mile.
>>>
>>>Like how many?
>>>
>>>Cite please.
>>>
>>
>> It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
>> though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.
>
> That's a fair point.
>
> However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
> not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
> such a view makes a convenient excuse.
>
> Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
> convenient!

And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
have to be such a big deal.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[George Conklin]

"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
> In article <t%Ngj.4940$O97.2830@trndny01>,
> Stephen Harding > writes:
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
> >> On Jan 7, 5:09 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> >>
> >>>George Conklin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a
bicycle. Too
> >>>>many accidents per mile.
> >>>
> >>>Like how many?
> >>>
> >>>Cite please.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
> >> though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.
> >
> > That's a fair point.
> >
> > However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
> > not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
> > such a view makes a convenient excuse.
> >
> > Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
> > convenient!
>
> And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
> a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
> one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
> neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
> have to be such a big deal.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom

In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings at
work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the year.
Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
locker rooms too.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ...
>> And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
>> a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
>> one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
>> neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
>> have to be such a big deal.
>>
> In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings at
> work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the year.
> Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
> locker rooms too.

Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
parking, when the externalities are accounted for.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Jack May]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> George Conklin wrote:
>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
>> ...

> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.

A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they want to
hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are still
installed these days for people that exercise at work.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>
>> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
>> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
>
> A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they want to
> hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are still
> installed these days for people that exercise at work.
>
Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?

If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
more commuter cyclists.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Jack May]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>

> Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
>
> If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
> more commuter cyclists.

People are paying the true cost of motor vehicles. People pay for the
"free" parking with reduced income. It is probably a small percentage of
their income.

How about the transit users paying off the true cost transit. That is a
very large percentage of the income of most users. The true cost is
typically shown to be the equivalent of a luxury car every year. Few car
owners pay anywhere near that amount each year.

Let me repeat for the people the "just don't get it". People don't use
transit because its slow speed with lots of delays. Transit costs so much
in dollar equivalents of time that people can not afford it.

Transit is just a completely stupid, incompetent approach for 21st Century
society.

Ho
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
> - A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>
>> Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
>>
>> If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
>> more commuter cyclists.
>
> People are paying the true cost of motor vehicles. People pay for the
> "free" parking with reduced income. It is probably a small percentage of
> their income.
>
Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
it is hidden in other expenses. Therefore, they do not make the sensible
economic decisions, since their information is faulty.
>
> How about the transit users paying off the true cost transit. That is a
> very large percentage of the income of most users. The true cost is
> typically shown to be the equivalent of a luxury car every year. Few car
> owners pay anywhere near that amount each year.
>
If personal motor vehicle owners had to pay the true cost up front in
use taxes, the ridership of transit would be high enough for it to be
more efficient, especially once people started abandoning inefficient
outer suburban and exurban living in "McMansions".
>
> Let me repeat for the people the "just don't get it". People don't use
> transit because its slow speed with lots of delays. Transit costs so much
> in dollar equivalents of time that people can not afford it.
>
And commuting in urban areas by large personal motor vehicles does not
involve slow speeds and lots of delays? On what planet is this?
>
> Transit is just a completely stupid, incompetent approach for 21st Century
> society.
>
The stupid approach is thinking that putting everyone in a 2 to 4 ton
box by themselves is a good and/or sustainable idea.
>
> Ho
>
What does urban prostitution have to do with this?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"George Conklin" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings
> at
> work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
> year.
> Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
> locker rooms too.
>
You don't have to bike EVERY trip in order to help the environment and our
oil situation.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Jack May" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>
>> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
>> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
>
> A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they want
> to hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are
> still installed these days for people that exercise at work.
Your "very few" is actually a rather large number in Portland, OR.

[George Conklin]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> ...
> >> And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
> >> a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
> >> one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
> >> neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
> >> have to be such a big deal.
> >>
> > In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings
at
> > work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
year.
> > Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
> > locker rooms too.
>
> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.

So who gets free parking? And those externalities are infinite if you
are one of those bicycle militants.

[George Conklin]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >
> >> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
> >> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
> >
> > A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they
want to
> > hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are
still
> > installed these days for people that exercise at work.
> >
> Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
>
> If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
> more commuter cyclists.
>
You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a one
and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
exhausted to boot.

[George Conklin]

"Jack May" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jack May wrote:
> >> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> George Conklin wrote:
> >>>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>
>
> > Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
> >
> > If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
> > more commuter cyclists.
>
> People are paying the true cost of motor vehicles. People pay for the
> "free" parking with reduced income. It is probably a small percentage of
> their income.
>
> How about the transit users paying off the true cost transit. That is a
> very large percentage of the income of most users. The true cost is
> typically shown to be the equivalent of a luxury car every year. Few car
> owners pay anywhere near that amount each year.
>
> Let me repeat for the people the "just don't get it". People don't use
> transit because its slow speed with lots of delays. Transit costs so much
> in dollar equivalents of time that people can not afford it.
>
> Transit is just a completely stupid, incompetent approach for 21st Century
> society.
>
>

Transit is speedy compared a bicycle. But bicycles may cost less.

[George Conklin]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message

> Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
> it is hidden in other expenses.

The true cost of riding a bicycle is huge, and hidden by nonsense posted
here.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:20:40 -0800, "Baxter"
> wrote:

>You don't have to bike EVERY trip in order to help the environment and our
>oil situation.
>

Right on!

I commute on a regular basis (140+ round trips last year!) and do as
many trips as I can by bike. I also work part time at a bicycle shop,
where I teach safe riding and bicycle care clinics. I also belong and
participate in several advocacy groups.

Along with all that, I live in an area that gets significant snowfall,
and then enjoys frozen slush and run-off. My morning commute is in
the dark 4-5 months of the year. I drive at the extreme cold ends of
the local climate. I have no problem riding in a warm rain, but pass
on cold and rain. I ride in cold and dark, but adding the third
dimension of ice puts me in the car.

Bicycle militants turn more people off than they convert to the joys
of riding for actual transportation.

People just need to ride when they can, and extol the virtues of
riding with purpose to encourage others. People willingly join like
minded people, and they move away from extremists.

[Jym Dyer]

>> Very few people ride a bike to work
> Your "very few" is actually a rather large number in Portland, OR.

=v= In San Francisco and New York City, as well.
<_Jym_>

[Amy Blankenship]

"George Conklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>
>> Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
>> it is hidden in other expenses.
>
> The true cost of riding a bicycle is huge, and hidden by nonsense posted
> here.

True. If more people biked more, the medical industry could potentially
lose millions.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>
>> Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
>> it is hidden in other expenses.
>
> The true cost of riding a bicycle is huge, and hidden by nonsense posted
> here.
>
Now that is just being silly. How does riding a bicycle impose huge
costs, especially compared to the individual motor vehicle?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
>>>> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
>>> A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they
> want to
>>> hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are
> still
>>> installed these days for people that exercise at work.
>>>
>> Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
>>
>> If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
>> more commuter cyclists.
>>
> You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a one
> and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
> several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
> exhausted to boot.
>
Nonsense. Riding a bicycle is fun! Regular exercise makes a person LESS
tired.

Get out of your cage!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> ...
>>>> And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
>>>> a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
>>>> one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
>>>> neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
>>>> have to be such a big deal.
>>>>
>>> In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings
> at
>>> work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
> year.
>>> Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
>>> locker rooms too.
>> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
>> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
>
> So who gets free parking? And those externalities are infinite if you
> are one of those bicycle militants.
>
Every place I have ever worked at has had an employee parking lot.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"George Conklin" > writes:
>
> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article <t%Ngj.4940$O97.2830@trndny01>,
>> Stephen Harding > writes:
>> > donquijote1954 wrote:
>> >> On Jan 7, 5:09 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>George Conklin wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a
> bicycle. Too
>> >>>>many accidents per mile.
>> >>>
>> >>>Like how many?
>> >>>
>> >>>Cite please.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
>> >> though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.
>> >
>> > That's a fair point.
>> >
>> > However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
>> > not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
>> > such a view makes a convenient excuse.
>> >
>> > Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
>> > convenient!
>>
>> And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
>> a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
>> one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
>> neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
>> have to be such a big deal.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>
> In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings at
> work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the year.

I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.

With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
than if I'd walked.

I don't need a shower. I'm a warehouse worker.
I'm gonna get sweaty anyways, unloading shipments
in marine containers from China to provide people
like you with your cheap crap.

> Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
> locker rooms too.

People who ride to jobs where they need to be fresh
simply keep their fresh clothes at their worksites.
And they don't need a full-on shower. A quick refresher
at the washroom sink does the trick, perhaps along with
an application of their pit-stick of choice.

It's really easy and do-able.

Ride past the gas station you usualy stop at, and
thumb your nose at 'em. Maybe even give 'em a
Flatbush cheer, while sticking your thumbs in your
ears and waving all your fingers at 'em.

If you can ride no-handed.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Tadej Brezina]

George Conklin wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
>>more commuter cyclists.
>
> You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a one
> and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
> several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
> exhausted to boot.

1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
confused reasoning!
2. What you may consider as a alleged loss of work time, others would
consider in gained life-time due to increased physical fitness.
3. If one needs 1.5 hours by bike for the distance you commute by car in
0.25 hours, one should get his/her ass on a bike as quick as possible!
(An estimated - high! - avg. commuting speed of 50km/h makes 12.5km,
makes slightly above 8km/h avg. bike speed if traveled by bike in 1.5h)

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" > writes:

> Bicycle militants turn more people off than they convert to the joys
> of riding for actual transportation.

???

I don't think I've ever met a bicycle militant.
I've met lots of car militants, though.

I've even had a number of car militants aim at me, not
only while I was awheel, but also while I was afoot.

If there actually /are/ bicycle militants, car militants
are better-armed, just like the guys who shot the
war-protesting students at Kent State.

Car militants are a bunch of dangerous, self-centred,
anti-social mutton-heads.

Much more so than any bicycle militant ever could be.

Car militants turned me off of the notion of ever driving.

I guess it's just not in me to dive into a waller 'cuz
I covet the hawgs.

Anyways, "bicycle militant" is as oxymoronic as
"B'hai'an militant."

There /are/ anti-car militants who suggest bicycles as
an alternative form of transportation. But that's an
horse of a different colour. And I'll bet dollars to
donut holes a bunch of 'em don't even ride, or otherwise
put their money where their mouth is.


peace out,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Tadej Brezina]

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article >,
> "George Conklin" > writes:
>
>>"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article <t%Ngj.4940$O97.2830@trndny01>,
>>>Stephen Harding > writes:
>>>
>>>>donquijote1954 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jan 7, 5:09 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a
>>
>>bicycle. Too
>>
>>>>>>>many accidents per mile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Like how many?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cite please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
>>>>>though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.
>>>>
>>>>That's a fair point.
>>>>
>>>>However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
>>>>not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
>>>>such a view makes a convenient excuse.
>>>>
>>>>Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
>>>>convenient!
>>>
>>>And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
>>>a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
>>>one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
>>>neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
>>>have to be such a big deal.
>>>
>>>
>>>cheers,
>>>Tom
>>
>>In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings at
>>work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the year.
>
>
> I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.
>
> With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
> than if I'd walked.
>
> I don't need a shower. I'm a warehouse worker.
> I'm gonna get sweaty anyways, unloading shipments
> in marine containers from China to provide people
> like you with your cheap crap.
>
>
>>Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
>>locker rooms too.
>
>
> People who ride to jobs where they need to be fresh
> simply keep their fresh clothes at their worksites.
> And they don't need a full-on shower. A quick refresher
> at the washroom sink does the trick, perhaps along with
> an application of their pit-stick of choice.
>
> It's really easy and do-able.
>
> Ride past the gas station you usualy stop at, and
> thumb your nose at 'em. Maybe even give 'em a
> Flatbush cheer, while sticking your thumbs in your
> ears and waving all your fingers at 'em.
>
> If you can ride no-handed.

I guess it's not that risky riding free-handed if George's avg. cycling
speed is 8km/h!*) ;-)

Tadej
*) See previous message in this thread!
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[Tadej Brezina]

George Conklin wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
>>it is hidden in other expenses.
>
>
> The true cost of riding a bicycle is huge, and hidden by nonsense posted
> here.

What do YOU consider huge? Bigger or still smaller than that of other
means of transport like private cars, public transport, etc.?

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Tadej Brezina wrote:
> ...
> 3. If one needs 1.5 hours by bike for the distance you commute by car in
> 0.25 hours, one should get his/her ass on a bike as quick as possible!
> (An estimated - high! - avg. commuting speed of 50km/h makes 12.5km,
> makes slightly above 8km/h avg. bike speed if traveled by bike in 1.5h)

Well, I used to have a 25 km commute, with an average speed of over 90
kph, but that is unusual.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tadej Brezina]

Tom Sherman wrote:

> Tadej Brezina wrote:
>
>> ...
>> 3. If one needs 1.5 hours by bike for the distance you commute by car
>> in 0.25 hours, one should get his/her ass on a bike as quick as possible!
>> (An estimated - high! - avg. commuting speed of 50km/h makes 12.5km,
>> makes slightly above 8km/h avg. bike speed if traveled by bike in 1.5h)
>
>
> Well, I used to have a 25 km commute, with an average speed of over 90
> kph, but that is unusual.

Door to door?
In a city or agglomeration?
At usual commuting times?

That is really fairly unusal!
Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Tadej Brezina wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Tadej Brezina wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> 3. If one needs 1.5 hours by bike for the distance you commute by car
>>> in 0.25 hours, one should get his/her ass on a bike as quick as
>>> possible!
>>> (An estimated - high! - avg. commuting speed of 50km/h makes 12.5km,
>>> makes slightly above 8km/h avg. bike speed if traveled by bike in 1.5h)
>>
>>
>> Well, I used to have a 25 km commute, with an average speed of over 90
>> kph, but that is unusual.
>
> Door to door?
> In a city or agglomeration?
> At usual commuting times?
>
> That is really fairly unusal!
>
I lived very near an interchange to a controlled access highway, and
work was also very near an interchange. For most of the trip my speed
was in the 105 to 115 kph range.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[George Conklin]

"Amy Blankenship" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "George Conklin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> >
> >> Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
> >> it is hidden in other expenses.
> >
> > The true cost of riding a bicycle is huge, and hidden by nonsense posted
> > here.
>
> True. If more people biked more, the medical industry could potentially
> lose millions.
>
>

Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are dangerous on
a per-mile basis.

[George Conklin]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Jack May wrote:
> >>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> George Conklin wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of
"free"
> >>>> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
> >>> A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they
> > want to
> >>> hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are
> > still
> >>> installed these days for people that exercise at work.
> >>>
> >> Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
> >>
> >> If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a
lot
> >> more commuter cyclists.
> >>
> > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
one
> > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
> > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
> > exhausted to boot.
> >
> Nonsense. Riding a bicycle is fun! Regular exercise makes a person LESS
> tired.
>
> Get out of your cage!

Exercise is supposed to make you tired.

[George Conklin]

"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
...
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> >>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
> >>more commuter cyclists.
> >
> > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
one
> > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
> > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
> > exhausted to boot.
>
> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> confused reasoning!

If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income. Otherwise,
you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
forth. It is a very important issue.

[George Conklin]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> ...
> >>>> And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
> >>>> a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
> >>>> one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
> >>>> neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
> >>>> have to be such a big deal.
> >>>>
> >>> In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the
buildings
> > at
> >>> work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
> > year.
> >>> Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
> >>> locker rooms too.
> >> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
> >> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
> >
> > So who gets free parking? And those externalities are infinite if
you
> > are one of those bicycle militants.
> >
> Every place I have ever worked at has had an employee parking lot.

Many such lots are NOT free. They charge employees to come to work, thus
taking back their wage.

[George Conklin]

"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "George Conklin" > writes:
> >
> > "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article <t%Ngj.4940$O97.2830@trndny01>,
> >> Stephen Harding > writes:
> >> > donquijote1954 wrote:
> >> >> On Jan 7, 5:09 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>George Conklin wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a
> > bicycle. Too
> >> >>>>many accidents per mile.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Like how many?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Cite please.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be
real
> >> >> though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.
> >> >
> >> > That's a fair point.
> >> >
> >> > However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
> >> > not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
> >> > such a view makes a convenient excuse.
> >> >
> >> > Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
> >> > convenient!
> >>
> >> And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
> >> a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
> >> one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
> >> neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
> >> have to be such a big deal.
> >>
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Tom
> >
> > In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings
at
> > work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
year.
>
> I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.
>
> With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
> than if I'd walked.
>

If you used raingear around here, you would arrive at work even more
soaked through and you would need to wash the raingrear to get the sweat
out.


> I don't need a shower. I'm a warehouse worker.
> I'm gonna get sweaty anyways, unloading shipments
> in marine containers from China to provide people
> like you with your cheap crap.
>
> > Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
> > locker rooms too.
>
> People who ride to jobs where they need to be fresh
> simply keep their fresh clothes at their worksites.
> And they don't need a full-on shower. A quick refresher
> at the washroom sink does the trick, perhaps along with
> an application of their pit-stick of choice.
>
> It's really easy and do-able.
>
> Ride past the gas station you usualy stop at, and
> thumb your nose at 'em. Maybe even give 'em a
> Flatbush cheer, while sticking your thumbs in your
> ears and waving all your fingers at 'em.
>
> If you can ride no-handed.
>
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> I'm really at:
> tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Amy Blankenship]

"George Conklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> ...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>> >>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a
>> >>lot
>> >>more commuter cyclists.
>> >
>> > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
> one
>> > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
>> > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
>> > exhausted to boot.
>>
>> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>> confused reasoning!
>
> If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income.
> Otherwise,
> you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> forth. It is a very important issue.

If you die early because you're a big fat blob, not only do you lose any
time you could have spent fixing the house, etc., but your family loses your
future earnings and has to pay to bury you (assuming that death is instant
and you don't spend 6 months in the hospital---if that is the case then it
will be even more expensive).

[Amy Blankenship]

"George Conklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> ...

>> > In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the
>> > buildings
> at
>> > work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
> year.
>>
>> I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.
>>
>> With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
>> than if I'd walked.
>>
>
> If you used raingear around here, you would arrive at work even more
> soaked through and you would need to wash the raingrear to get the sweat
> out.

When I was a student at Mississippi State University, the only
transportation I had the first year I lived off campus was a bike. I had
the same concerns, but I found after a few months that I was fit enough for
my normal commute and I didn't get sweaty anymore, even when it was hot.
Mississippi, even North Mississippi, tends to be warmer than North Carolina.

-Amy

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> ...
> > George Conklin wrote:
> >
> > > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> > >>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
> > >>more commuter cyclists.
> > >
> > > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
> one
> > > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
> > > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
> > > exhausted to boot.
> >
> > 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> > billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> > confused reasoning!
>
> If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income. Otherwise,
> you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> forth. It is a very important issue.

I'd rather spend that time on my bike than fixing the house or mowing
the lawn, so I actually come out ahead...

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[George Conklin]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Amy Blankenship" > wrote in message
> > . ..
>
> >> If more people biked more, the medical industry could
> >> potentially lose millions.
>
> > Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are
> > dangerous on a per-mile basis.
>
> LOL Good one! LOL
>
>

When you get hurt, stop laughing.

[George Conklin]

"Amy Blankenship" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "George Conklin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> >> >>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a
> >> >>lot
> >> >>more commuter cyclists.
> >> >
> >> > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into
a
> > one
> >> > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are
wasting
> >> > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
> >> > exhausted to boot.
> >>
> >> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> >> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> >> confused reasoning!
> >
> > If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income.
> > Otherwise,
> > you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> > forth. It is a very important issue.
>
> If you die early because you're a big fat blob, not only do you lose any
> time you could have spent fixing the house, etc., but your family loses
your
> future earnings and has to pay to bury you (assuming that death is instant
> and you don't spend 6 months in the hospital---if that is the case then it
> will be even more expensive).
>
>
Riding a bicycle to work is not the solution to life's problems. It just
adds another one.

[George Conklin]

"David Kerber" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > George Conklin wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> > > >>If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a
lot
> > > >>more commuter cyclists.
> > > >
> > > > You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into
a
> > one
> > > > and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are
wasting
> > > > several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at
work
> > > > exhausted to boot.
> > >
> > > 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> > > billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> > > confused reasoning!
> >
> > If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income.
Otherwise,
> > you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> > forth. It is a very important issue.
>
> I'd rather spend that time on my bike than fixing the house or mowing
> the lawn, so I actually come out ahead...

No, you have to hire someone to do that, so riding your bicycle costs you a
fortune.

[George Conklin]

"Amy Blankenship" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "George Conklin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> > In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the
> >> > buildings
> > at
> >> > work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of
the
> > year.
> >>
> >> I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.
> >>
> >> With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
> >> than if I'd walked.
> >>
> >
> > If you used raingear around here, you would arrive at work even more
> > soaked through and you would need to wash the raingrear to get the sweat
> > out.
>
> When I was a student at Mississippi State University, the only
> transportation I had the first year I lived off campus was a bike. I had
> the same concerns, but I found after a few months that I was fit enough
for
> my normal commute and I didn't get sweaty anymore, even when it was hot.
> Mississippi, even North Mississippi, tends to be warmer than North
Carolina.
>
> -Amy
>
>
Even the fit sweat.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> > > > 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> > > > billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> > > > confused reasoning!
> > >
> > > If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income.
> Otherwise,
> > > you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> > > forth. It is a very important issue.

No, it's not. If I'm getting my exercise time in on my way to work, I
actually come out ahead since I'm getting dual use of my time (getting
to work, and getting my aerobic miles in), instead of spending 25
minutes each way in the car, and then needing to go out for a ride after
I get home.


> >
> > I'd rather spend that time on my bike than fixing the house or mowing
> > the lawn, so I actually come out ahead...
>
> No, you have to hire someone to do that, so riding your bicycle costs you a
> fortune.

Hardly; it just gets put off until later. BTW, if you're so anti-
bicycling, why are you posting in a bicycling forum?


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Jack May]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
...
> George Conklin wrote:
>> "Amy Blankenship" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>
>>> If more people biked more, the medical industry could
>>> potentially lose millions.
>
>> Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are
>> dangerous on a per-mile basis.
>
> LOL Good one! LOL

LOL at what, your total ignorance of accident rates for bikes?

[Jack May]

"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
...
> George Conklin wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message

>
> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
> confused reasoning!

Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
determining how people value their time.

[Jack May]

"Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
...
>>> Very few people ride a bike to work
>> Your "very few" is actually a rather large number in Portland, OR.
>
> =v= In San Francisco and New York City, as well.

Jym always being the dishonest person carefully cherry picking examples that
are false for most people.

[Stephen Harding]

Jack May wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
>
>>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>>"Amy Blankenship" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>If more people biked more, the medical industry could
>>>>potentially lose millions.
>>
>>>Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are
>>>dangerous on a per-mile basis.
>>
>>LOL Good one! LOL
>
> LOL at what, your total ignorance of accident rates for bikes?

Are these accident rate reports you read produced by people who
don't like bicycles?

Comparing accident rates on a per mile basis between car and
bike definitely inserts a bias against bicycles.

You need to determine accidents on a per hour basis. That way,
exposure to accident possibilities is equalized.

A motorist can't have an car accident in his living room watching
TV because he covered the 20 miles to the beer store in in 30
minutes while the bicyclist is still out on the road, facing the
possibility of accident for an additional 30 minutes.

That's not very fair!


SMH

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>>> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of
> "free"
>>>>>> parking, when the externalities are accounted for.
>>>>> A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they
>>> want to
>>>>> hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are
>>> still
>>>>> installed these days for people that exercise at work.
>>>>>
>>>> Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
>>>>
>>>> If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a
> lot
>>>> more commuter cyclists.
>>>>
>>> You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
> one
>>> and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
>>> several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
>>> exhausted to boot.
>>>
>> Nonsense. Riding a bicycle is fun! Regular exercise makes a person LESS
>> tired.
>>
>> Get out of your cage!
>
> Exercise is supposed to make you tired.
>
Physically, maybe. Mentally, no.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> ...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>>> If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
>>>> more commuter cyclists.
>>> You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
> one
>>> and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
>>> several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
>>> exhausted to boot.
>> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>> confused reasoning!
>
> If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income. Otherwise,
> you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> forth. It is a very important issue.
>
butbutbut, riding a bicycle is more fun than all those other possible
activities!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Pat]

On Jan 14, 8:26 am, "George Conklin" > wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
>
>
> > "George Conklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>
> > >> Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
> > >> it is hidden in other expenses.
>
> > > The true cost of riding a bicycle is huge, and hidden by nonsense posted
> > > here.
>
> > True. If more people biked more, the medical industry could potentially
> > lose millions.
>
> Broken legs would make up the difference quickly. Bicycles are dangerous on
> a per-mile basis.

George, I seldom defend the bikers but you need to take into account
more things than just transportation when you look at biking. Not
only does it provide the utility of transportation but it also
provides the moral superiority of know you commute by bike as well as
some health and fitness benefits. Stop living in a disjoint world.

Biking is a combo activity that is part utilitarian and part
recreational. It is hard to make value judgments about recreation.
Take something like snowboarding, for example. It's high injury per
mile, but people go out of their way to do it. All transportation
should be that way !!!

Look at sex. That's another activity with almost no utilitarian
benefits (and I've go teenagers, so don't tell me that kids are a
benefit) and it is "dangerous on a per-mile basis" but if the junk
emails that I get are any indication, it seems like a lot of people
are involved in it.

[Pat]

On Jan 13, 11:49 am, "George Conklin" > wrote:
> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > In article <t%Ngj.4940$O97.2830@trndny01>,
> > Stephen Harding > writes:
> > > donquijote1954 wrote:
> > >> On Jan 7, 5:09 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> > >>>George Conklin wrote:
>
> > >>>> If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a
> bicycle. Too
> > >>>>many accidents per mile.
>
> > >>>Like how many?
>
> > >>>Cite please.
>
> > >> It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
> > >> though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.
>
> > > That's a fair point.
>
> > > However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
> > > not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
> > > such a view makes a convenient excuse.
>
> > > Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
> > > convenient!
>
> > And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
> > a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
> > one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
> > neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
> > have to be such a big deal.
>
> > cheers,
> > Tom
>
> In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings at
> work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the year.
> Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
> locker rooms too.

But George, IIRC you work at a college. You have showers in the
buildings at work. Besides, without one you've be just another smelly
guy on campus -- like that's any big deal.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Pat Who? wrote:
> ...
> George, I seldom defend the bikers but you need to take into account
> more things than just transportation when you look at biking....

PLEASE, we are CYCLISTS.

"Bikers" ride noisy, smelly machines powered by infernal (sic) combustion.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Jym Dyer]

>> Exercise is supposed to make you tired.
> Physically, maybe. Mentally, no.

=x= Clearly, George Conklin has opted for mental tiredness.
As a way of life.
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

> I'll bet dollars to donut holes a bunch of 'em don't even
> ride, or otherwise put their money where their mouth is.

=v= You were right-on until you threw this unsubstantiated
nonsense into the mix.
<_Jym_>

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"George Conklin" > writes:
>
> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> ...

>> > In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings
> at
>> > work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
> year.
>>
>> I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.
>>
>> With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
>> than if I'd walked.
>>
>
> If you used raingear around here, you would arrive at work even more
> soaked through and you would need to wash the raingrear to get the sweat
> out.

Not necessarily. One just needs the right kind of raingear.
And it doesn't have to be expensive GoreTex stuff.

It's all about ventilation. And fenders, preferably
w/ at least a front mudflap.

A pair of cheap cordura hiking gaiters does wonders
for keeping lower legs dry. A proper cycling rain
cape provides "protection" from rain while allowing
huge volumes of ventilation. Fashion toeclip cozies
out of strips of inner tube, and your feet & shoes
stay not only nice 'n dry, but warm, too, 'cuz they
serve as fairings to keep the wind off yer li'l toesies.

Please, no more canards. I grow weary of shooting
ducks down. Got any valid arguments?


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Jack May]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>> That's not very fair!
>
> Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT with
> which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis." (No
> mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although they were included in
> the preceding context.) They are not.

Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
data and shows the data says:

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>> That's not very fair!
>> Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT with
>> which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis." (No
>> mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although they were included in
>> the preceding context.) They are not.
>
> Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
> so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
> data and shows the data says:
>
> http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
>
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
> the rates for car occupants."
>
Get rid of the excessive number of automobiles and light trucks, and the
death rate for cyclists would plummet.

Get rid of bicycles, and the death rate for motorists would not be
measurably affected.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jack May" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>> That's not very fair!
>>
>> Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT with
>> which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis." (No
>> mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although they were included in
>> the preceding context.) They are not.
>
> Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
> so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
> data and shows the data says:
>
> http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
>
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly
> exceed
> the rates for car occupants."

But the majority of bike fatalities are CAUSED by car occupants. The
reverse is not true.

[Tadej Brezina]

Jack May wrote:

> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>
>
>>1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>>billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>>confused reasoning!
>
> Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
> determining how people value their time.

Yeah, your often repeated sermon.
But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
Conk said:
"... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."

His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
wage rates".

*) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.


--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[Jack May]

"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:
>
>> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>>>billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>>>confused reasoning!
>>
>> Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
>> determining how people value their time.
>
> Yeah, your often repeated sermon.

And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
exists.

> But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
> Conk said:
> "... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
> standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
> productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."
>
> His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
> wage rates".
>
> *) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
> fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
> cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.

Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
riding a bicycle. With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.

Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.

[Jym Dyer]

> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
> riding a bicycle.

=v= Numbers? Sources?

> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider.

=v= Numbers? Sources?
<_Jym_>

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>
>>> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>>>> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>>>> confused reasoning!
>>> Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
>>> determining how people value their time.
>> Yeah, your often repeated sermon.
>
> And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
> exists.
>
>> But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
>> Conk said:
>> "... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
>> standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
>> productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."
>>
>> His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
>> wage rates".
>>
>> *) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
>> fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
>> cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.
>
> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
> riding a bicycle. With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
> safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.
>
> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
> in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
> problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.
>
If a person does not enjoy cycling, they are morally and intellectually
defective.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Jack May]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message


> If a person does not enjoy cycling, they are morally and intellectually
> defective.

I enjoy exersize on my Olympic size trampoline more than exersize on my
bike. The trampoline produces a lot more thrills.

That said, this spring I expect to buy a recumbent bike with a clear plastic
"roof" which cuts drag. I bike on a paved path along the SF Bay shoreline
which is across the street from the area where I live.

The problem with a bike has been the high winds that rip down the bay and
make biking less than enjoyable at times. The advantage to a bike is that
it gets you out among people. There are a lot of people using the path
along the bay.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> ...
> That said, this spring I expect to buy a recumbent bike with a clear plastic
> "roof" which cuts drag. I bike on a paved path along the SF Bay shoreline
> which is across the street from the area where I live....
>
Birk Butterfly? Go-One?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tadej Brezina]

Jack May wrote:

> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jack May wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>>>>billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>>>>confused reasoning!
>>>
>>>Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
>>>determining how people value their time.
>>
>>Yeah, your often repeated sermon.
>
>
> And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
> exists.
>
>
>>But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
>>Conk said:
>>"... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
>>standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
>>productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."
>>
>>His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
>>wage rates".
>>
>>*) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
>>fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
>>cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.
>
>
> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
> riding a bicycle.

I do not know the statistics for the US.
In my country, and I guess it's not any different in other European
countries, the death and injury rate of cycling is almost below the
classical margin of measureability. And those few fatalities that occur
on bikes are practically never 'alone accidents' but cyclist hit by cars
due to bad infrastructure design (namely separated cycle paths at
intersections).
So your statement is irrelvant quality and quantity-wise.

> With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
> safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.

Definitly certain at this, although I do only have the corresponding
inquiries in paper at hand, not on a website.
Increased number of cyclists decreases cycling risks.

> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
> in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
> problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.

Wow, honestly Jack, I've read many statements from you that I do
disagree strongly with. A lot of them I would even consider as utter
nonsense, as proven by many others on these boards often. But the above
is the peak of nonsense so far! Ridiculous!

As you consider yourself as a guy with technological insight: How's the
relationship in energy consumption ratio of additional energy needed for
moving human body and bicycle one one hand side and on the other of
moving 1000+ kg of vehicle and one human body on average?
One or two (maybe even three) orders of magnitude?

Consider that the energy in excess that is consumed (=eaten) by the
average westerner, lead by the north americans, and is not used for
locomotion but is accumulated as body fat, also due to horrible lack of
body movement, would easily support cycling for many hours a day.

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[Jym Dyer]

> I enjoy exersize on my Olympic size trampoline more
> than exersize on my bike.

=x= Your spelling is in greater need of exorcising.
<_Jym_>

[Jack May]

"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:
>
>> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Jack May wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
>> riding a bicycle.
>
> I do not know the statistics for the US.
> In my country, and I guess it's not any different in other European
> countries, the death and injury rate of cycling is almost below the
> classical margin of measureability.

Extremely unlikely!

And those few fatalities that occur
> on bikes are practically never 'alone accidents' but cyclist hit by cars
> due to bad infrastructure design (namely separated cycle paths at
> intersections).
> So your statement is irrelvant quality and quantity-wise.

That is how lies are fabricated. That is not how accident and death rates
are compiled.

I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. I
guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a lot
people seem to have no memory capability. At times I feel I will soon need
to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
nothing.

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."

>
>> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
>> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are
>> small in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the
>> world wide problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.
>
> Wow, honestly Jack, I've read many statements from you that I do disagree
> strongly with. A lot of them I would even consider as utter nonsense, as
> proven by many others on these boards often. But the above is the peak of
> nonsense so far! Ridiculous!

You can not make such a statement just looking at how much energy the body
uses to power the bike. Not only are my statements rational, they are
part of normal research these days. Your statement is nonsense and
ridiculous by the standards of energy research these days.
>
> As you consider yourself as a guy with technological insight: How's the
> relationship in energy consumption ratio of additional energy needed for
> moving human body and bicycle one one hand side and on the other of moving
> 1000+ kg of vehicle and one human body on average?
> One or two (maybe even three) orders of magnitude?

I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes roughly
ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of energy.
For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient small
car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
drop down into the range of other cars.

These type calculations are commonly done for example to show why it takes
more oil energy to produce ethanol than the energy we get from ethanol.

[Pat]

On Jan 17, 8:04*pm, "Jack May" > wrote:
> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jack May wrote:
>
> >> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>>Jack May wrote:
>
> >>>>"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>>>>George Conklin wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> >> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
> >> riding a bicycle.
>
> > I do not know the statistics for the US.
> > In my country, and I guess it's not any different in other European
> > countries, the death and injury rate of cycling is almost below the
> > classical margin of measureability.
>
> Extremely unlikely!
>
> And those few fatalities that occur
>
> > on bikes are practically never 'alone accidents' but cyclist hit by cars
> > due to bad infrastructure design (namely separated cycle paths at
> > intersections).
> > So your statement is irrelvant quality and quantity-wise.
>
> That is how lies are fabricated. *That is not how accident and death rates
> are compiled.
>
> I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. * I
> guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a lot
> people seem to have no memory capability. *At times I feel I will soon need
> to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
> nothing.
>
> http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
>
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
> the rates for car occupants."
>
>
>
> >> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
> >> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. * Riders are
> >> small in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the
> >> world wide problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.
>
> > Wow, honestly Jack, I've read many statements from you that I do disagree
> > strongly with. A lot of them I would even consider as utter nonsense, as
> > proven by many others on these boards often. But the above is the peak of
> > nonsense so far! Ridiculous!
>
> You can not make such a statement just looking at how much energy the body
> uses to power the bike. * * Not only are my statements rational, they are
> part of normal research these days. *Your statement is nonsense and
> ridiculous by the standards of energy research these days.
>
>
>
> > As you consider yourself as a guy with technological insight: How's the
> > relationship in energy consumption ratio of additional energy needed for
> > moving human body and bicycle one one hand side and on the other of moving
> > 1000+ kg of vehicle and one human body on average?
> > One or two (maybe even three) orders of magnitude?
>
> I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. * It takes roughly
> ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
> Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of energy.
> For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient small
> car. * For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
> drop down into the range of other cars.
>
> These type calculations are commonly done for example to show why it takes
> more oil energy to produce ethanol than the energy we get from ethanol.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think one can ever accurately estimate the MPG of a bike for a
number of reasons. First off, there are tremendous substitutions that
you'd have to look at. For example, if a biker bikes to work and then
doesn't drive to the gym to work out, can you count the gasoline
saving of not going to the gym toward's the bike's total? For the
car, do you add in the energy to actually drive the car? That
requires some level of exertion. Or do you count the car-energy and
subtract it from the bike energy because you'd be using that energy
anyway. If you are biking to work instead of taking the bus, what
about the bus' energy. The bus went anyway so maybe the bike is just
plain wasting energy because the bus going on no matter what.

No matter how you frame your model, someone else can frame it
differently and be just as legitimate. This goes back to a concept
that George can never understand -- you can use the data and frame the
question in any number of ways and get any number of equally logical
(and "good") results. There is no one, right answer.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> ...
> I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. I
> guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a lot
> people seem to have no memory capability. At times I feel I will soon need
> to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
> nothing.
>
> http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
>
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
> the rates for car occupants."....
>
But you are missing something important. Throw out accidents involving
children, drunks on bicycles, wrong way cyclists, sidewalk cyclists,
etc. I think you will find that the fatality rate for experienced
commuter cyclists is less than 10% (and probably closer to 1% if you
believe Forester) of that of people on bicycles (POBs) in general, on a
per mile basis.

Riding as a VEHICULAR CYCLIST is NOT dangerous, relative to other
activities. Riding as a doofus is dangerous.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[George Conklin]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:
> > ...
> > I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. I
> > guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a
lot
> > people seem to have no memory capability. At times I feel I will soon
need
> > to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
> > nothing.
> >
> > http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
> >
> > "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly
exceed
> > the rates for car occupants."....
> >
> But you are missing something important. Throw out accidents involving
> children, drunks on bicycles, wrong way cyclists, sidewalk cyclists,
> etc. I think you will find that the fatality rate for experienced
> commuter cyclists is less than 10% (and probably closer to 1% if you
> believe Forester) of that of people on bicycles (POBs) in general, on a
> per mile basis.
>
> Riding as a VEHICULAR CYCLIST is NOT dangerous, relative to other
> activities. Riding as a doofus is dangerous.

What nonsense. For autos, throw out drunk drivers, fatalities of
pedestrians, wrong-way drivers and everyone else you want, and consider only
"experienced drivers commuting to work," and voila, what do you have? FRAUD.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
>
> I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes roughly
> ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
> Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of energy.
> For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient small
> car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
> drop down into the range of other cars.

So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to account
for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.

After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:

According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
your math is rather off...

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 18, 12:07*am, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
> > ...
> > I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. * I
> > guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a lot
> > people seem to have no memory capability. *At times I feel I will soon need
> > to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
> > nothing.
>
> >http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
>
> > "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
> > the rates for car occupants."....
>
> *>
> But you are missing something important. Throw out accidents involving
> children, drunks on bicycles, wrong way cyclists, sidewalk cyclists,
> etc. I think you will find that the fatality rate for experienced
> commuter cyclists is less than 10% (and probably closer to 1% if you
> believe Forester) of that of people on bicycles (POBs) in general, on a
> per mile basis.
>
> Riding as a VEHICULAR CYCLIST is NOT dangerous, relative to other
> activities. Riding as a doofus is dangerous.

Drivers present a clear and real threat to bikes, particularly when
they don't pay attention to driving. And you only need *one* stupid
driver to make you lose that *one* life you've got. The first step in
gaining cyclists' confidence would be to BAN CELL PHONES and ENFORCE
RIGHT LANE 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT. Oh, and put cameras and bicycle signs
everywhere.

Meanwhile I'll be riding this...

http://www.kmart.com/shc/s/p_10151_10104_9990000092164911P?vName=Gifts&cName=Teenage+Girl

Of course, these issues will addressed by some presidential candidate
in the year 2088 --if WWIII allows. ;)

[thejen12[_2_]]

On Jan 16, 2:47*pm, "Jack May" > wrote:

>
> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. * Riders are small
> in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
> problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.- Hide quoted text -
>
This is funny! Are you saying that car drivers eat less than bike
riders? Believe me, I've seen some drivers that can really "put it
away" at the table. Or do you live in some alternative universe where
everyone is allotted a certain number of calories per day and that's
all they get? Cool! I know some people who need to move there....

Jenn

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. I
>>> guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a
> lot
>>> people seem to have no memory capability. At times I feel I will soon
> need
>>> to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
>>> nothing.
>>>
>>> http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
>>>
>>> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly
> exceed
>>> the rates for car occupants."....
>> >
>> But you are missing something important. Throw out accidents involving
>> children, drunks on bicycles, wrong way cyclists, sidewalk cyclists,
>> etc. I think you will find that the fatality rate for experienced
>> commuter cyclists is less than 10% (and probably closer to 1% if you
>> believe Forester) of that of people on bicycles (POBs) in general, on a
>> per mile basis.
>>
>> Riding as a VEHICULAR CYCLIST is NOT dangerous, relative to other
>> activities. Riding as a doofus is dangerous.
>
> What nonsense. For autos, throw out drunk drivers, fatalities of
> pedestrians, wrong-way drivers and everyone else you want, and consider only
> "experienced drivers commuting to work," and voila, what do you have? FRAUD.
>
I guess this needs some explanation. I CAN control HOW I ride, and
thereby greatly reduce MY risk while cycling. That, of course, is what
is of real interest (Duh).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 18, 9:21*pm, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Jack May wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. * I
> >>> guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a
> > lot
> >>> people seem to have no memory capability. *At times I feel I will soon
> > need
> >>> to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
> >>> nothing.
>
> >>>http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
>
> >>> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly
> > exceed
> >>> the rates for car occupants."....
>
> >> But you are missing something important. Throw out accidents involving
> >> children, drunks on bicycles, wrong way cyclists, sidewalk cyclists,
> >> etc. I think you will find that the fatality rate for experienced
> >> commuter cyclists is less than 10% (and probably closer to 1% if you
> >> believe Forester) of that of people on bicycles (POBs) in general, on a
> >> per mile basis.
>
> >> Riding as a VEHICULAR CYCLIST is NOT dangerous, relative to other
> >> activities. Riding as a doofus is dangerous.
>
> > * What nonsense. *For autos, throw out drunk drivers, fatalities of
> > pedestrians, wrong-way drivers and everyone else you want, and consider only
> > "experienced drivers commuting to work," and voila, what do you have? FRAUD.
>
> I guess this needs some explanation. I CAN control HOW I ride, and
> thereby greatly reduce MY risk while cycling. That, of course, is what
> is of real interest (Duh).
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
> - A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But how do we tame the jungle out there?

Yesterday I was about to cross the street at the corner as a
pedestrian, when I heard the blast of a car and turned around... It
was a Mercedes with a lion saying, "Out of my way, stupid monkey," and
he just turned at supersonic speeds.

Now let me go to put together my stationary bike. Sad America, sad.
The law of the jungle still rules on our roads, and it makes us feel
terrorized.

[Tadej Brezina]

Jack May wrote:

> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jack May wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jack May wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
>>>riding a bicycle.
>>
>>I do not know the statistics for the US.
>>In my country, and I guess it's not any different in other European
>>countries, the death and injury rate of cycling is almost below the
>>classical margin of measureability.
>
> Extremely unlikely!

Maybe in 'your world'.
As a matter of fact thats status quo.

>> And those few fatalities that occur
>>on bikes are practically never 'alone accidents' but cyclist hit by cars
>>due to bad infrastructure design (namely separated cycle paths at
>>intersections).
>>So your statement is irrelvant quality and quantity-wise.
>
> That is how lies are fabricated. That is not how accident and death rates
> are compiled.

No lies, probably just not fitting into your concept. Or not valid for
the US, but not a law of nature. Probably just a bad transport system
habitat for cyclist.

> I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. I
> guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a lot
> people seem to have no memory capability. At times I feel I will soon need
> to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
> nothing.
> http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
> the rates for car occupants."

Maybe in the US, matter of fact, in Austria - which is definitely not a
cycling friendly country in comparison to NL or DK it is definitely
(national statistics bureau and national transport safety agency data,
EU comission data) the opposite is true by a rate of 1 to 4 on a death
per trip basis.

>>>Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
>>>extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are
>>>small in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the
>>>world wide problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.
>>
>>Wow, honestly Jack, I've read many statements from you that I do disagree
>>strongly with. A lot of them I would even consider as utter nonsense, as
>>proven by many others on these boards often. But the above is the peak of
>>nonsense so far! Ridiculous!
>
> You can not make such a statement just looking at how much energy the body
> uses to power the bike. Not only are my statements rational, they are
> part of normal research these days. Your statement is nonsense and
> ridiculous by the standards of energy research these days.

Definitely not, as the same principle applies, see below.

>>As you consider yourself as a guy with technological insight: How's the
>>relationship in energy consumption ratio of additional energy needed for
>>moving human body and bicycle one one hand side and on the other of moving
>>1000+ kg of vehicle and one human body on average?
>>One or two (maybe even three) orders of magnitude?
>
> I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy.

Yeah, so how much crude oil (fossil fuels) do you use more to produce
the more food if more people would cycle?
How much? Please do not, as you are on the spear-head of energy research
is that in comparison to fossil fuel burned by cars?

> It takes roughly
> ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
> Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of energy.
> For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient small
> car.

Complete bull****.
Let's do one estimation.
The human's base energy consumption is a function of the person, so
let's leave that aside, as we consider the same person driving and cycling.
An estimated avg. gasoline consumption by the car is abt. 8 l/100km.
Gasolin comes in at abt. 32 MJ/l.
The additional energy consumption by the human body for car driving is
given *) between 5.9 and 13.4 kJ/min
Cyclists' energy is: 19.7 kJ/min for 15 km/h and 32.8 kJ/min for 20km/h
(Conk use appropriate smaller numbers!)
Now lets take a route length of 100 km.

Car: 8 l * 32 MJ/l = 256,000 kJ/100km

Driver: let's estimate we are driving at an avg. speed of 50 km/h, that
needs us 2 hours for the distance.
120 min * (13,4 + 5,9) / 2 = 1,158 kJ/100km

Cyclist: 100 km / 20 km/h = 5 h = 300 min
300 min * 32,8 kJ/min = 9,840 kJ/100km

Cyclist: 9,840 KJ/100km
Driver plus car: 257,158 KJ/km
That's 1 to 26.

So now you are trying to tell us, that the additional 17 KJ/min that the
cyclist uses additionally to the driver increases the food-production
induced fossil energy use by as much as 25 times!??

That's ridiculiousness V2.0!

*) german classic of ergonometrics: (Hetinger, Kaminsky, Schmalle 1981)

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[Tadej Brezina]

> Complete bull****.
> Let's do one estimation.
> The human's base energy consumption is a function of the person, so
> let's leave that aside, as we consider the same person driving and cycling.
> An estimated avg. gasoline consumption by the car is abt. 8 l/100km.
> Gasolin comes in at abt. 32 MJ/l.
> The additional energy consumption by the human body for car driving is
> given *) between 5.9 and 13.4 kJ/min
> Cyclists' energy is: 19.7 kJ/min for 15 km/h and 32.8 kJ/min for 20km/h
> (Conk use appropriate smaller numbers!)
> Now lets take a route length of 100 km.
>
> Car: 8 l * 32 MJ/l = 256,000 kJ/100km
>
> Driver: let's estimate we are driving at an avg. speed of 50 km/h, that
> needs us 2 hours for the distance.
> 120 min * (13,4 + 5,9) / 2 = 1,158 kJ/100km
>
> Cyclist: 100 km / 20 km/h = 5 h = 300 min
> 300 min * 32,8 kJ/min = 9,840 kJ/100km
>
> Cyclist: 9,840 KJ/100km
> Driver plus car: 257,158 KJ/km

Typo!
That should mean:
"Driver plus car: 257,159 KJ/100km"

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[Tadej Brezina]

David Kerber wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>>I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes roughly
>>ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
>>Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of energy.
>>For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient small
>>car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
>>drop down into the range of other cars.
>
>
> So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
> would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
> oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to account
> for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
> gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
>
> After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
>
> According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
> BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
> 252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
> gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
> for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
> 10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
> to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
> your math is rather off...

Hey don't be so hard on Jack, he's just doing calculations according to
"normal research these days"!

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[George Conklin]

"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
. ..
> David Kerber wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> >>I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes
roughly
> >>ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
> >>Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of
energy.
> >>For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient
small
> >>car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
> >>drop down into the range of other cars.
> >
> >
> > So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
> > would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
> > oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to account
> > for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
> > gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
> >
> > After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
> >
> > According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
> > BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
> > 252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
> > gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
> > for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
> > 10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
> > to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
> > your math is rather off...
>
> Hey don't be so hard on Jack, he's just doing calculations according to
> "normal research these days"!
>
> Tadej

Part of smart growth buildings these days in the USA is to include
showers, clothes washing services and chaning rooms in eco-smart buildings
so bike riders can enter the business world in proper clothing. Europe has
many fewer hot days than we do in the southern part of the USA.

[Jack May]

"David Kerber" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> says...
to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
>
> After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
>
> According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
> BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
> 252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
> gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
> for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
> 10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
> to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
> your math is rather off...

It has been some time since I have revisited the subject of how much oil
(not gasoline as you mistakenly used), but here some recent data.

http://www.energybulletin.net/5045.html

"However, transport energy consumption is also significant, and if included
in these ratios would mean that the ratio would decrease further. For
example, when iceberg lettuce is imported to the UK from the USA by plane,
the energy ratio is only 0.00786. In other words 127 calories of energy
(aviation fuel) are needed to transport 1 calorie of lettuce across the
Atlantic. If the energy consumed during lettuce cultivation, packaging,
refrigeration, distribution in the UK and shopping by car was included, the
energy needed would be even higher. Similarly, 97 calories of transport
energy are needed to import 1 calorie of asparagus by plane from Chile, and
66 units of energy are consumed when flying 1 unit of carrot energy from
South Africa."

One example in the same paper of the amount of processing done for food is:

"Just how energy inefficient the food system is can be seen in the crazy
case of the Swedish tomato ketchup. Researchers at the Swedish Institute for
Food and Biotechnology analysed the production of tomato ketchup (2). The
study considered the production of inputs to agriculture, tomato cultivation
and conversion to tomato paste (in Italy), the processing and packaging of
the paste and other ingredients into tomato ketchup in Sweden and the retail
and storage of the final product. All this involved more than 52 transport
and process stages."

"The aseptic bags used to package the tomato paste were produced in the
Netherlands and transported to Italy to be filled, placed in steel barrels,
and then moved to Sweden. The five layered, red bottles were either produced
in the UK or Sweden with materials form Japan, Italy, Belgium, the USA and
Denmark. The polypropylene (PP) screw-cap of the bottle and plug, made from
low density polyethylene (LDPE), was produced in Denmark and transported to
Sweden. Additionally, LDPE shrink-film and corrugated cardboard were used to
distribute the final product. Labels, glue and ink were not included in the
analysis."


Claiming that a bicycle is efficient in oil use is a real stretch to say the
least

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jack May" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Kerber" > wrote in message
> t...
>> In article >,
>> says...
> to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
>>
>> After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
>>
>> According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
>> BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
>> 252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
>> gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
>> for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
>> 10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
>> to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
>> your math is rather off...
>
> It has been some time since I have revisited the subject of how much oil
> (not gasoline as you mistakenly used), but here some recent data.
>
> http://www.energybulletin.net/5045.html
>
> "However, transport energy consumption is also significant, and if
> included in these ratios would mean that the ratio would decrease further.
> For example, when iceberg lettuce is imported to the UK from the USA by
> plane, the energy ratio is only 0.00786. In other words 127 calories of
> energy (aviation fuel) are needed to transport 1 calorie of lettuce across
> the Atlantic. If the energy consumed during lettuce cultivation,
> packaging, refrigeration, distribution in the UK and shopping by car was
> included, the energy needed would be even higher. Similarly, 97 calories
> of transport energy are needed to import 1 calorie of asparagus by plane
> from Chile, and 66 units of energy are consumed when flying 1 unit of
> carrot energy from South Africa."
>
> One example in the same paper of the amount of processing done for food
> is:
>
> "Just how energy inefficient the food system is can be seen in the crazy
> case of the Swedish tomato ketchup. Researchers at the Swedish Institute
> for Food and Biotechnology analysed the production of tomato ketchup (2).
> The study considered the production of inputs to agriculture, tomato
> cultivation and conversion to tomato paste (in Italy), the processing and
> packaging of the paste and other ingredients into tomato ketchup in Sweden
> and the retail and storage of the final product. All this involved more
> than 52 transport and process stages."
>
> "The aseptic bags used to package the tomato paste were produced in the
> Netherlands and transported to Italy to be filled, placed in steel
> barrels, and then moved to Sweden. The five layered, red bottles were
> either produced in the UK or Sweden with materials form Japan, Italy,
> Belgium, the USA and Denmark. The polypropylene (PP) screw-cap of the
> bottle and plug, made from low density polyethylene (LDPE), was produced
> in Denmark and transported to Sweden. Additionally, LDPE shrink-film and
> corrugated cardboard were used to distribute the final product. Labels,
> glue and ink were not included in the analysis."
>
>
> Claiming that a bicycle is efficient in oil use is a real stretch to say
> the least

It looks to me like you're the one who is stretching, since the energy cost
of sending iceberg lettuce to the UK from the US is irrelevant to the
discussion. It's already been established that the biking situation in the
UK and Europe is substantially different to that here. It is, however, a
great argument for buying your produce from local suppliers, something
people who are riding bikes because they are concerned about the environment
are more likely to do than people who don't think much about their
environmental impact at all (and thus are more likely to drive).

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> David Kerber wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes
> roughly
>>>> ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
>>>> Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of
> energy.
>>>> For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient
> small
>>>> car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
>>>> drop down into the range of other cars.
>>>
>>> So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
>>> would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
>>> oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to account
>>> for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
>>> gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
>>>
>>> After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
>>>
>>> According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
>>> BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
>>> 252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
>>> gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
>>> for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
>>> 10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
>>> to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
>>> your math is rather off...
>> Hey don't be so hard on Jack, he's just doing calculations according to
>> "normal research these days"!
>>
>> Tadej
>
> Part of smart growth buildings these days in the USA is to include
> showers, clothes washing services and chaning rooms in eco-smart buildings
> so bike riders can enter the business world in proper clothing. Europe has
> many fewer hot days than we do in the southern part of the USA.
>
You will want a shower after riding a bicycle in the upper Midwest on a
summer day.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Jack May wrote:
> "David Kerber" > wrote in message
> t...
>> In article >,
>> says...
> to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
>> After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
>>
>> According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
>> BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
>> 252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
>> gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
>> for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
>> 10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
>> to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
>> your math is rather off...
>
> It has been some time since I have revisited the subject of how much oil
> (not gasoline as you mistakenly used), but here some recent data.
>
> http://www.energybulletin.net/5045.html
>
> "However, transport energy consumption is also significant, and if included
> in these ratios would mean that the ratio would decrease further. For
> example, when iceberg lettuce is imported to the UK from the USA by plane,
> the energy ratio is only 0.00786. In other words 127 calories of energy
> (aviation fuel) are needed to transport 1 calorie of lettuce across the
> Atlantic. If the energy consumed during lettuce cultivation, packaging,
> refrigeration, distribution in the UK and shopping by car was included, the
> energy needed would be even higher. Similarly, 97 calories of transport
> energy are needed to import 1 calorie of asparagus by plane from Chile, and
> 66 units of energy are consumed when flying 1 unit of carrot energy from
> South Africa."
>
> One example in the same paper of the amount of processing done for food is:
>
> "Just how energy inefficient the food system is can be seen in the crazy
> case of the Swedish tomato ketchup. Researchers at the Swedish Institute for
> Food and Biotechnology analysed the production of tomato ketchup (2). The
> study considered the production of inputs to agriculture, tomato cultivation
> and conversion to tomato paste (in Italy), the processing and packaging of
> the paste and other ingredients into tomato ketchup in Sweden and the retail
> and storage of the final product. All this involved more than 52 transport
> and process stages."
>
> "The aseptic bags used to package the tomato paste were produced in the
> Netherlands and transported to Italy to be filled, placed in steel barrels,
> and then moved to Sweden. The five layered, red bottles were either produced
> in the UK or Sweden with materials form Japan, Italy, Belgium, the USA and
> Denmark. The polypropylene (PP) screw-cap of the bottle and plug, made from
> low density polyethylene (LDPE), was produced in Denmark and transported to
> Sweden. Additionally, LDPE shrink-film and corrugated cardboard were used to
> distribute the final product. Labels, glue and ink were not included in the
> analysis."
>
>
> Claiming that a bicycle is efficient in oil use is a real stretch to say the
> least
>
What is the ratio of oil required to produce a bicycle and get it to the
LBS compared to the amount of oil required to produce a SUV and get it
to the dealer's lot?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tadej Brezina]

Jack May wrote:

> "David Kerber" > wrote in message
> t...
>
>>In article >,
says...
>
> to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
>
>>After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
>>
>>According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
>>BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
>>252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
>>gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
>>for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
>>10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
>>to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
>>your math is rather off...
>
>
> It has been some time since I have revisited the subject of how much oil
> (not gasoline as you mistakenly used), but here some recent data.
>
> http://www.energybulletin.net/5045.html
>
> "However, transport energy consumption is also significant, and if included
> in these ratios would mean that the ratio would decrease further. For
> example, when iceberg lettuce is imported to the UK from the USA by plane,
> the energy ratio is only 0.00786. In other words 127 calories of energy
> (aviation fuel) are needed to transport 1 calorie of lettuce across the
> Atlantic. If the energy consumed during lettuce cultivation, packaging,
> refrigeration, distribution in the UK and shopping by car was included, the
> energy needed would be even higher. Similarly, 97 calories of transport
> energy are needed to import 1 calorie of asparagus by plane from Chile, and
> 66 units of energy are consumed when flying 1 unit of carrot energy from
> South Africa."
>
> One example in the same paper of the amount of processing done for food is:
>
> "Just how energy inefficient the food system is can be seen in the crazy
> case of the Swedish tomato ketchup. Researchers at the Swedish Institute for
> Food and Biotechnology analysed the production of tomato ketchup (2). The
> study considered the production of inputs to agriculture, tomato cultivation
> and conversion to tomato paste (in Italy), the processing and packaging of
> the paste and other ingredients into tomato ketchup in Sweden and the retail
> and storage of the final product. All this involved more than 52 transport
> and process stages."
>
> "The aseptic bags used to package the tomato paste were produced in the
> Netherlands and transported to Italy to be filled, placed in steel barrels,
> and then moved to Sweden. The five layered, red bottles were either produced
> in the UK or Sweden with materials form Japan, Italy, Belgium, the USA and
> Denmark. The polypropylene (PP) screw-cap of the bottle and plug, made from
> low density polyethylene (LDPE), was produced in Denmark and transported to
> Sweden. Additionally, LDPE shrink-film and corrugated cardboard were used to
> distribute the final product. Labels, glue and ink were not included in the
> analysis."

How's that Jack, endlessly posting irrelvant stuff in the
"Götterdämmerung" of denial?

1. As everyone, cyclist and driver may be eating food either transhipped
globally or produced organically and locally, your hidden attempt to
assign the energy intensive food solely to teh cyclist is as childish as
pre-puberty can get.
Still I would recommend to consume locally grown organic food.

2. Of course the bicycle production is not free of energy use and
emissions. Nobody who wants to be taken seriously, claims that. Cars do
get painted either, get zink coats, use a biblical mixture of materials,
etc.
So simply due to the at least fifty times higher mass (a generous 1000kg
for a car and a bad 20 kg for a bike), the impact ecological rucksack of
a car at stage of production end is again by orders of magnitude higher
than a car.

> Claiming that a bicycle is efficient in oil use is a real stretch to say the
> least

Jack, as usually, you are right!
Bicycles have no chance in comparison to walking regarding their
ecological impact.
Your original claim, that bicycles might be as low in energy consumption
as cars is a masterpiece of ridiculousness - making intelligent design
seem respectable in comparison.

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[Tadej Brezina]

George Conklin wrote:

> "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>David Kerber wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes
>
> roughly
>
>>>>ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
>>>>Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of
>
> energy.
>
>>>>For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient
>
> small
>
>>>>car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
>>>>drop down into the range of other cars.
>>>
>>>
>>>So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
>>>would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
>>>oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to account
>>>for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
>>>gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
>>>
>>>After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
>>>
>>>According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
>>>BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
>>>252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
>>>gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
>>>for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
>>>10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
>>>to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
>>>your math is rather off...
>>
>>Hey don't be so hard on Jack, he's just doing calculations according to
>>"normal research these days"!
>>
>>Tadej
>
>
> Part of smart growth buildings these days in the USA is to include
> showers, clothes washing services and chaning rooms in eco-smart buildings
> so bike riders can enter the business world in proper clothing. Europe has
> many fewer hot days than we do in the southern part of the USA.

Nice post Conk, nevertheless wrong location of the thread.
Yes you are probably true regarding moist and heat in the south. But
please do not compare apples and pears. Europe is not of singular
dimension, it has quite a respectable N-S extension and has very hot
places in the south too.
So compare e.g. New Orleans to Napoli or Boston to Hamburg.

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[Tadej Brezina]

Tadej Brezina wrote:

> Jack May wrote:
>
>> "David Kerber" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>
>>
>> to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
>>
>>> After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
>>>
>>> According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
>>> BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
>>> 252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
>>> gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
>>> for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
>>> 10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
>>> to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
>>> your math is rather off...
>>
>>
>>
>> It has been some time since I have revisited the subject of how much
>> oil (not gasoline as you mistakenly used), but here some recent data.
>>
>> http://www.energybulletin.net/5045.html
>>
>> "However, transport energy consumption is also significant, and if
>> included in these ratios would mean that the ratio would decrease
>> further. For example, when iceberg lettuce is imported to the UK from
>> the USA by plane, the energy ratio is only 0.00786. In other words 127
>> calories of energy (aviation fuel) are needed to transport 1 calorie
>> of lettuce across the Atlantic. If the energy consumed during lettuce
>> cultivation, packaging, refrigeration, distribution in the UK and
>> shopping by car was included, the energy needed would be even higher.
>> Similarly, 97 calories of transport energy are needed to import 1
>> calorie of asparagus by plane from Chile, and 66 units of energy are
>> consumed when flying 1 unit of carrot energy from South Africa."
>>
>> One example in the same paper of the amount of processing done for
>> food is:
>>
>> "Just how energy inefficient the food system is can be seen in the
>> crazy case of the Swedish tomato ketchup. Researchers at the Swedish
>> Institute for Food and Biotechnology analysed the production of tomato
>> ketchup (2). The study considered the production of inputs to
>> agriculture, tomato cultivation and conversion to tomato paste (in
>> Italy), the processing and packaging of the paste and other
>> ingredients into tomato ketchup in Sweden and the retail and storage
>> of the final product. All this involved more than 52 transport and
>> process stages."
>>
>> "The aseptic bags used to package the tomato paste were produced in
>> the Netherlands and transported to Italy to be filled, placed in steel
>> barrels, and then moved to Sweden. The five layered, red bottles were
>> either produced in the UK or Sweden with materials form Japan, Italy,
>> Belgium, the USA and Denmark. The polypropylene (PP) screw-cap of the
>> bottle and plug, made from low density polyethylene (LDPE), was
>> produced in Denmark and transported to Sweden. Additionally, LDPE
>> shrink-film and corrugated cardboard were used to distribute the final
>> product. Labels, glue and ink were not included in the analysis."
>
>
> How's that Jack, endlessly posting irrelvant stuff in the
> "Götterdämmerung" of denial?
>
> 1. As everyone, cyclist and driver may be eating food either transhipped
> globally or produced organically and locally, your hidden attempt to
> assign the energy intensive food solely to teh cyclist is as childish as
> pre-puberty can get.
> Still I would recommend to consume locally grown organic food.
>
> 2. Of course the bicycle production is not free of energy use and
> emissions. Nobody who wants to be taken seriously, claims that. Cars do
> get painted either, get zink coats, use a biblical mixture of materials,
> etc.
> So simply due to the at least fifty times higher mass (a generous 1000kg
> for a car and a bad 20 kg for a bike), the impact ecological rucksack of
> a car at stage of production end is again by orders of magnitude higher
> than a car.

"... higher than a bicycle."
T.
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
>
> Claiming that a bicycle is efficient in oil use is a real stretch to say the
> least

The examples you list are rather extreme cases, however. If you eat
stuff that isn't grown on another continent, and/or is packaged near
where it's picked, those numbers change rather dramatically.

However, you were the one who stated a 10:1 ratio between food energy
and oil energy, so that's the number I used, and a bike comes out ahead
using that number and just the gasoline energy that the car consumes
directly. If you take into consideration the energy used to produce and
transport your car's gasoline to travel that 30 miles, the car comes out
even worse, and the other externalities which are higher for cars than
for bikes (road wear and resulting maintenance, etc), it comes out even
worse.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[George Conklin]

"Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
...
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > "Tadej Brezina" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> >>David Kerber wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> says...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes
> >
> > roughly
> >
> >>>>ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
> >>>>Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of
> >
> > energy.
> >
> >>>>For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient
> >
> > small
> >
> >>>>car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent
MPG
> >>>>drop down into the range of other cars.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
> >>>would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
> >>>oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to
account
> >>>for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
> >>>gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
> >>>
> >>>After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
> >>>
> >>>According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
> >>>BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
> >>>252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
> >>>gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So
accepting
> >>>for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
> >>>10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline
energy
> >>>to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
> >>>your math is rather off...
> >>
> >>Hey don't be so hard on Jack, he's just doing calculations according to
> >>"normal research these days"!
> >>
> >>Tadej
> >
> >
> > Part of smart growth buildings these days in the USA is to include
> > showers, clothes washing services and chaning rooms in eco-smart
buildings
> > so bike riders can enter the business world in proper clothing. Europe
has
> > many fewer hot days than we do in the southern part of the USA.
>
> Nice post Conk, nevertheless wrong location of the thread.
> Yes you are probably true regarding moist and heat in the south. But
> please do not compare apples and pears. Europe is not of singular
> dimension, it has quite a respectable N-S extension and has very hot
> places in the south too.
> So compare e.g. New Orleans to Napoli or Boston to Hamburg.

New York is really opposite Madrid on the maps.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
>
> Jack, as usually, you are right!
> Bicycles have no chance in comparison to walking regarding their
> ecological impact.

Overall impact, possibly, but in just energy consumption terms, cycling
is much more efficient than walking.

> Your original claim, that bicycles might be as low in energy consumption
> as cars is a masterpiece of ridiculousness - making intelligent design
> seem respectable in comparison.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Tadej Brezina]

>>> Part of smart growth buildings these days in the USA is to include
>>> showers, clothes washing services and chaning rooms in eco-smart
> buildings
>>> so bike riders can enter the business world in proper clothing. Europe
> has
>>> many fewer hot days than we do in the southern part of the USA.
>> Nice post Conk, nevertheless wrong location of the thread.
>> Yes you are probably true regarding moist and heat in the south. But
>> please do not compare apples and pears. Europe is not of singular
>> dimension, it has quite a respectable N-S extension and has very hot
>> places in the south too.
>> So compare e.g. New Orleans to Napoli or Boston to Hamburg.
>
> New York is really opposite Madrid on the maps.

I was thinking more climate-wise, not latitude-wise.
T.
--
Frauen sind als Gesprächspartner nun einmal interessanter,
weil das Gespräch nicht beendet ist, wenn nichts sinnvolles mehr zu
sagen ist.
<David Kastrup in d.t.r>