Belt drive

On Thu, 02 May 2019 15:55:26 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-05-02 15:30, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2019 07:42:23 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-05-01 16:10, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2019 07:51:01 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-04-30 16:23, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:51:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

[...]


No, no, look at the positive side. I am getting free core muscle
training :-)

Or straining your back picking up the penny :-)


My lower back isn't that great but MTB riding actually helps it by
building up core muscle. Something none of the doctors ever told me.
Most likely they didn't even know such stuff.

Just about anything that exercises a muscle strengthens it. I suspect
that your doctor knew that.


No, I was told MTB riding is out. They also did not know that I had a
magnesium deficiency, all of them didn't. A CPA did. After his advice I
started taking supplement and that helped, big time.

And how did this CPA determine that you had a magnesium deficiency?
did he do tests?


He listened carefully to my description of all the symptoms, asking in
detail about my dietary habits, then he said that a magnesium deficiency
is quite likely. And bingo, he was correct. Now why didn't any of the
medical professionals ask those questions? Well, we all know why.

Very interesting. the standard indication of magnesium deficiencies
a

Deficiency of magnesium can cause tiredness, generalized weakness,
muscle cramps, abnormal heart rhythms, increased irritability of the
nervous system with tremors, paresthesias, palpitations, low potassium
levels in the blood, hypoparathyroidism which might result in low
calcium levels in the blood, chondrocalcinosis, spasticity and tetany,
migraines, epileptic seizures, basal ganglia calcifications and in
extreme and prolonged cases coma, intellectual disability or death.

Which of these were your symptoms?

It seems many medical doctors learn by rote and then whatever they
learned in school goes.

Of course they learn by rote. Just as you did.


I did not. In fact, I rarely went to the auditorium at the university.


... Watts are volts times
amps, or did you discover that by experiment and your name is "James"?


Practicing ham radio for the most part, building much of my gear. Also
by earning money on the side repairing TVs, radios, tape recorders,
two-ray radios and so on.

and this taught you what a Watt was?


Engineers who learned by rote usually can't think outside the box. I get
paid for doing just that.

Ridiculous. If you have never learned the basics of your trade,
whatever it may be, you will never be a success and you can't
possibly live long enough to learn all that by experience.

So yes, you do need to learn the basic underlying facts by rote.

He probably also knew that suggesting that you did bending and
stretching exercises every day was an example of futility on his part
as almost everyone will ignore any suggestion to do anything that
smacks of "work".

Well, no, the first three docs were in Germany and those guys generally
do not subscribe to a sedentary lifestyle. One actually suggested
swimming which was good advice though that doesn't do much for the back
muscles. At least not as much as MTB riding. My back muscles have become
almost rock-hard after five years of riding.

They would have become "rock hard" from lifting weights also. Did you
try that as part of a regimented exercise plan?


That is poison for someone with compromised L4,5,6 discs.

But you are arguing that eating magnesium has cured you and made you
"rock hard". Now you tell us that you have spinal disc problems. Are
you saying that magnesium cures disc problems... which are usually
considered mechanical problems? Does eating magnesium actually cure
spinal disc problems?


But this rock hardness must be a recent phenomena as it wasn't more
than a year ago that you wrote that you had to have a bike with rear
suspension because of your "bad back".


That's because of my damaged discs. Shocks are not good for those, hence
I need a FS MTB. Else I'd have to ride standing in the pedals much of
the time.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 02 May 2019 15:46:08 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-05-02 15:19, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2019 07:35:44 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-05-01 16:04, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2019 07:46:35 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-04-30 17:28, John B. wrote:
rOn Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:14:17 -0700, Joerg

[...]


I don't bomb downhill on the MTB anymore. Too old for that and seen too
many cases of the aftermath when it went wrong.

I do often get to 20mph on regular MTB trail sections and since we have
rocks embedded in the ground that's hard on the bike. Hence a FS MTB and
a home-built rack system because the commercial stuff ain't good.

However, we were talking about road bike tires here and there I always
go full close tilt unless I am distracted. For example by aerobatics up
in the sky on Friday. That was worth seeing.

Full means a speed that I can hold for an hour or two, not a speed where
my tongue hangs on the handlebar after 10mins. IOW the speed tat gives
me the best time from A to Z, not just from A to B.

Hmmm... I've always thought "full speed" was the speed you reached
when that big, bad, dog, came rushing out of the drive with dinner on
his mind.

My experiences have been that one can reach some astonishingly high
speeds in that event :-)


Depends on how you are with dogs. The last (really big) one which looked
similar to an Anatolian Shepherd eventually stopped growling at me,
sniffed my hand and then licked it.

My MTB buddy had an event of the other kind. Instead of a dog a redneck
came running out of a shed, all angry, hollering obscenities, rifle in
hand. That warranted a very speedy departure.

Seriously? Or perhaps a better question was "what was your buddy doing
to cause some farmer to come roaring out of a shed with a gun"?
"hollering obscenities"?


He was merely following singletrack. We had a similar case here on the
El Dorado trail (MTB, hike and horse singletrack) where a landowner was
of the opinion that the 100 year old right-of-way does not apply near
his ranch. He kept the rifle on the rack though but rolled tree stumps
into the path with stern no-trespass warnings tacked on. When I reported
that I was told "Yeah, this guy is a bit belligerent, be careful when
you encounter him".

But, you are living in California where not that long go a guy used a
saw to attack bicyclists who he didn't want to access a trail.

But perhaps more to the point is there actually a legal right of way
over that prosperity?


There is. More than 100 years old.

I agree that in Great Briton there is a law that provided right of way
over routes that have been used for a millennium. But is there such a
law in California? I did a quick search and I can find no such law.

There are various types of easements, rights to cross a property, but
they are quire specific and can, for instance, allow foot traffic but
disallow bicycle traffic. Or in the example used, only applicable when
it rains.


... The fact that people have been crossing a
property may, or may not denote a right to continue to cross that
property. I know that in New Hampshire the fact that there is a road
or path across privately owned land exists does not denote a right to
use that road or path. There was a rather famous case in the town I
grew up in where the owner of a piece of land closed a road leading to
the Town's water reservoir over an argument with the Roads department.
No problem, public domain, benefit of the majority, etc. But when it
got down to a trial it was discovered that there is no "right", in New
Hampshire, to cross private property. In each case an "easement" must
exist to allow a "right" to exist to cross said property.


This easement is in place almost since Wyatt Earp roamed the lands. It
is a railroad right of way which extends well beyond that singletrack.
This is why the farm and ranch fences are 50 yards or so from the
tracks. This rancher thought he could claw that all back by force and
without legal right. He seems to have sobered up about it, or maybe just
got old and frail.

But a railroad "right of way" is, in simple terms land that the
railroad company has been given or has purchased, and, as you say, may
be much wider than that needed for the tracks. If the "right of way"
is no longer used you need to determine what was the final disposition
of the property. Does someone own it? Did it revert to the State and
if so what has the state done with it?

Simply saying "Oh! That was a railroad right of way and I can ride my
bicycle on it" may well not be correct :-)

Also, that is such a remote stretch of trail that I have never seen
trash or remnants of homeless camps. In fact, it is rare to see any
human being out there.


I used to go "prospecting" up in the mountains along the Yuba Rivers,
not that far from you, and I never had anyone come roaring out of a
shed after me. Of course I didn't go tromping through anyone's cash
crop, leave gates open, or any of the other foolishness that others
might do. And, if I did meet someone I used to stop, introduce myself,
tell them what I was doing "in this God Forsaken place" and even chat
a bit before I moved on.

Out here folks are more social. I was stopped by a guy when I realized
that I was indeed trespassing. The private property sign had fallen off
and no fence. After a brief chat he became friendly and even shared some
history about the old steam engine parts strewn across his property from
the gold rush days. Later I understoof why he was initially gruff. He
had a lot of squatters messing up his property in the past and the
clean-ups cost him serious money.

A great many people get upset about people just assuming a "right" to
go on their property and in nearly all cases it is because of the
actions of those people, not because the land owner is a miserable
scrooge.


Yes, a certain kind of people. It's not just squatters, also druggies
and careless people who leave a lot of trash behind or worst case a fire.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:16:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2019 15:46:08 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-05-02 15:19, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2019 07:35:44 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-05-01 16:04, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2019 07:46:35 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-04-30 17:28, John B. wrote:
rOn Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:14:17 -0700, Joerg

[...]


I don't bomb downhill on the MTB anymore. Too old for that and seen too
many cases of the aftermath when it went wrong.

I do often get to 20mph on regular MTB trail sections and since we have
rocks embedded in the ground that's hard on the bike. Hence a FS MTB and
a home-built rack system because the commercial stuff ain't good.

However, we were talking about road bike tires here and there I always
go full close tilt unless I am distracted. For example by aerobatics up
in the sky on Friday. That was worth seeing.

Full means a speed that I can hold for an hour or two, not a speed where
my tongue hangs on the handlebar after 10mins. IOW the speed tat gives
me the best time from A to Z, not just from A to B.

Hmmm... I've always thought "full speed" was the speed you reached
when that big, bad, dog, came rushing out of the drive with dinner on
his mind.

My experiences have been that one can reach some astonishingly high
speeds in that event :-)


Depends on how you are with dogs. The last (really big) one which looked
similar to an Anatolian Shepherd eventually stopped growling at me,
sniffed my hand and then licked it.

My MTB buddy had an event of the other kind. Instead of a dog a redneck
came running out of a shed, all angry, hollering obscenities, rifle in
hand. That warranted a very speedy departure.

Seriously? Or perhaps a better question was "what was your buddy doing
to cause some farmer to come roaring out of a shed with a gun"?
"hollering obscenities"?


He was merely following singletrack. We had a similar case here on the
El Dorado trail (MTB, hike and horse singletrack) where a landowner was
of the opinion that the 100 year old right-of-way does not apply near
his ranch. He kept the rifle on the rack though but rolled tree stumps
into the path with stern no-trespass warnings tacked on. When I reported
that I was told "Yeah, this guy is a bit belligerent, be careful when
you encounter him".

But, you are living in California where not that long go a guy used a
saw to attack bicyclists who he didn't want to access a trail.

But perhaps more to the point is there actually a legal right of way
over that prosperity?


There is. More than 100 years old.

I agree that in Great Briton there is a law that provided right of way
over routes that have been used for a millennium. But is there such a
law in California? I did a quick search and I can find no such law.

There are various types of easements, rights to cross a property, but
they are quire specific and can, for instance, allow foot traffic but
disallow bicycle traffic. Or in the example used, only applicable when
it rains.


... The fact that people have been crossing a
property may, or may not denote a right to continue to cross that
property. I know that in New Hampshire the fact that there is a road
or path across privately owned land exists does not denote a right to
use that road or path. There was a rather famous case in the town I
grew up in where the owner of a piece of land closed a road leading to
the Town's water reservoir over an argument with the Roads department.
No problem, public domain, benefit of the majority, etc. But when it
got down to a trial it was discovered that there is no "right", in New
Hampshire, to cross private property. In each case an "easement" must
exist to allow a "right" to exist to cross said property.


This easement is in place almost since Wyatt Earp roamed the lands. It
is a railroad right of way which extends well beyond that singletrack.
This is why the farm and ranch fences are 50 yards or so from the
tracks. This rancher thought he could claw that all back by force and
without legal right. He seems to have sobered up about it, or maybe just
got old and frail.

But a railroad "right of way" is, in simple terms land that the
railroad company has been given or has purchased, and, as you say, may
be much wider than that needed for the tracks. If the "right of way"
is no longer used you need to determine what was the final disposition
of the property. Does someone own it? Did it revert to the State and
if so what has the state done with it?

Simply saying "Oh! That was a railroad right of way and I can ride my
bicycle on it" may well not be correct :-)

Also, that is such a remote stretch of trail that I have never seen
trash or remnants of homeless camps. In fact, it is rare to see any
human being out there.


I used to go "prospecting" up in the mountains along the Yuba Rivers,
not that far from you, and I never had anyone come roaring out of a
shed after me. Of course I didn't go tromping through anyone's cash
crop, leave gates open, or any of the other foolishness that others
might do. And, if I did meet someone I used to stop, introduce myself,
tell them what I was doing "in this God Forsaken place" and even chat
a bit before I moved on.

Out here folks are more social. I was stopped by a guy when I realized
that I was indeed trespassing. The private property sign had fallen off
and no fence. After a brief chat he became friendly and even shared some
history about the old steam engine parts strewn across his property from
the gold rush days. Later I understoof why he was initially gruff. He
had a lot of squatters messing up his property in the past and the
clean-ups cost him serious money.

A great many people get upset about people just assuming a "right" to
go on their property and in nearly all cases it is because of the
actions of those people, not because the land owner is a miserable
scrooge.


Yes, a certain kind of people. It's not just squatters, also druggies
and careless people who leave a lot of trash behind or worst case a fire..
--
cheers,

John B.

If you head south out of Cambridge, Ontario on highway 24 there are two ex railroads. The one on the left was the Lake Erie and Northern Electric Railway and is now a rail-trail. The ex railway on the right of the highway has been swallowed up by the various land owners along its route and is all private property.

I know a number of bicyclists who have no respect for PRIVATE PROPERTY and/or NO TRESPASSING signs. One fellow I left when he insisted on riding up a private road. Evidently he later got caught a fair piece up that road and was charged with trespassing. Now in t he USA wherein a number of people have guns and seem to be looking for a reason to use them; it might be quite dangerous to someone who ignores Private Property and/or No trespassing signs.

Cheers

On 5/2/2019 5:46 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-05-02 15:19, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2019 07:35:44 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

On 2019-05-01 16:04, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2019 07:46:35 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

On 2019-04-30 17:28, John B. wrote:
rOn Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:14:17 -0700, Joerg

[...]


I don't bomb downhill on the MTB anymore. Too old for
that and seen too
many cases of the aftermath when it went wrong.

I do often get to 20mph on regular MTB trail sections
and since we have
rocks embedded in the ground that's hard on the bike.
Hence a FS MTB and
a home-built rack system because the commercial stuff
ain't good.

However, we were talking about road bike tires here
and there I always
go full close tilt unless I am distracted. For
example by aerobatics up
in the sky on Friday. That was worth seeing.

Full means a speed that I can hold for an hour or
two, not a speed where
my tongue hangs on the handlebar after 10mins. IOW
the speed tat gives
me the best time from A to Z, not just from A to B.

Hmmm... I've always thought "full speed" was the speed
you reached
when that big, bad, dog, came rushing out of the drive
with dinner on
his mind.

My experiences have been that one can reach some
astonishingly high
speeds in that event :-)


Depends on how you are with dogs. The last (really big)
one which looked
similar to an Anatolian Shepherd eventually stopped
growling at me,
sniffed my hand and then licked it.

My MTB buddy had an event of the other kind. Instead of
a dog a redneck
came running out of a shed, all angry, hollering
obscenities, rifle in
hand. That warranted a very speedy departure.

Seriously? Or perhaps a better question was "what was
your buddy doing
to cause some farmer to come roaring out of a shed with
a gun"?
"hollering obscenities"?


He was merely following singletrack. We had a similar
case here on the
El Dorado trail (MTB, hike and horse singletrack) where a
landowner was
of the opinion that the 100 year old right-of-way does
not apply near
his ranch. He kept the rifle on the rack though but
rolled tree stumps
into the path with stern no-trespass warnings tacked on.
When I reported
that I was told "Yeah, this guy is a bit belligerent, be
careful when
you encounter him".

But, you are living in California where not that long go a
guy used a
saw to attack bicyclists who he didn't want to access a
trail.

But perhaps more to the point is there actually a legal
right of way
over that prosperity?


There is. More than 100 years old.


... The fact that people have been
crossing a
property may, or may not denote a right to continue to
cross that
property. I know that in New Hampshire the fact that there
is a road
or path across privately owned land exists does not denote
a right to
use that road or path. There was a rather famous case in
the town I
grew up in where the owner of a piece of land closed a
road leading to
the Town's water reservoir over an argument with the Roads
department.
No problem, public domain, benefit of the majority, etc.
But when it
got down to a trial it was discovered that there is no
"right", in New
Hampshire, to cross private property. In each case an
"easement" must
exist to allow a "right" to exist to cross said property.


This easement is in place almost since Wyatt Earp roamed the
lands. It is a railroad right of way which extends well
beyond that singletrack. This is why the farm and ranch
fences are 50 yards or so from the tracks. This rancher
thought he could claw that all back by force and without
legal right. He seems to have sobered up about it, or maybe
just got old and frail.

Also, that is such a remote stretch of trail that I have
never seen trash or remnants of homeless camps. In fact, it
is rare to see any human being out there.


I used to go "prospecting" up in the mountains along the
Yuba Rivers,
not that far from you, and I never had anyone come
roaring out of a
shed after me. Of course I didn't go tromping through
anyone's cash
crop, leave gates open, or any of the other foolishness
that others
might do. And, if I did meet someone I used to stop,
introduce myself,
tell them what I was doing "in this God Forsaken place"
and even chat
a bit before I moved on.

Out here folks are more social. I was stopped by a guy
when I realized
that I was indeed trespassing. The private property sign
had fallen off
and no fence. After a brief chat he became friendly and
even shared some
history about the old steam engine parts strewn across
his property from
the gold rush days. Later I understoof why he was
initially gruff. He
had a lot of squatters messing up his property in the
past and the
clean-ups cost him serious money.

A great many people get upset about people just assuming a
"right" to
go on their property and in nearly all cases it is because
of the
actions of those people, not because the land owner is a
miserable
scrooge.


Yes, a certain kind of people. It's not just squatters, also
druggies and careless people who leave a lot of trash behind
or worst case a fire.


Wyatt Earp. from Iowa, lived in Kansas, Arizona mostly and
most notably, briefly in SF then Alaska, Nevada and finally
SoCal where he died. Nowhere near Cameron Park.

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

On 5/2/2019 8:32 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

If you head south out of Cambridge, Ontario on highway 24 there are two ex railroads. The one on the left was the Lake Erie and Northern Electric Railway and is now a rail-trail. The ex railway on the right of the highway has been swallowed up by the various land owners along its route and is all private property.

We currently have a fairly hot controversy over this issue. Our longest
rail-trail (something like 70 miles, I think) has a gap of maybe 5 miles
where riders must take to a parallel road. That's a classic farm road
that has a traffic count of about 800 vehicles per day, roughly the same
as the street I live on.

The local metropark system dearly wants to build that 5 mile section of
trail completely off-road. So they've entered eminent domain proceedings
against the landowners. Those people (fewer than a dozen, I'm sure) say
the trail will split their property in two; and that besides, it's their
property! If they don't want to sell an easement, they shouldn't have to.

I agree heartily. ISTM the county (or whoever) could simply pave that
parallel road and it would be perfect riding for any cyclist but the
excessively timid. To please more timid cyclists, I suppose they could
widen the road and add bike lanes, but it would be silly for the low
traffic level.

I know the most timid cyclists would still be displeased, because they
never want automobile tires to touch the surface they ride upon. But
they should be forced to somehow grow a pair.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/2/2019 7:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/2/2019 8:32 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

If you head south out of Cambridge, Ontario on highway 24
there are two ex railroads. The one on the left was the
Lake Erie and Northern Electric Railway and is now a
rail-trail. The ex railway on the right of the highway has
been swallowed up by the various land owners along its
route and is all private property.

We currently have a fairly hot controversy over this issue.
Our longest rail-trail (something like 70 miles, I think)
has a gap of maybe 5 miles where riders must take to a
parallel road. That's a classic farm road that has a traffic
count of about 800 vehicles per day, roughly the same as the
street I live on.

The local metropark system dearly wants to build that 5 mile
section of trail completely off-road. So they've entered
eminent domain proceedings against the landowners. Those
people (fewer than a dozen, I'm sure) say the trail will
split their property in two; and that besides, it's their
property! If they don't want to sell an easement, they
shouldn't have to.

I agree heartily. ISTM the county (or whoever) could simply
pave that parallel road and it would be perfect riding for
any cyclist but the excessively timid. To please more timid
cyclists, I suppose they could widen the road and add bike
lanes, but it would be silly for the low traffic level.

I know the most timid cyclists would still be displeased,
because they never want automobile tires to touch the
surface they ride upon. But they should be forced to somehow
grow a pair.


Unfortunately we now have neither hope nor law:
https://ij.org/case/kelo/

One might add common sense to our many losses.

The otherwise unknown Calgacus said it well, "They make a
desert and call it peace."

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

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:22:00 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/2/2019 7:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/2/2019 8:32 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

If you head south out of Cambridge, Ontario on highway 24
there are two ex railroads. The one on the left was the
Lake Erie and Northern Electric Railway and is now a
rail-trail. The ex railway on the right of the highway has
been swallowed up by the various land owners along its
route and is all private property.

We currently have a fairly hot controversy over this issue.
Our longest rail-trail (something like 70 miles, I think)
has a gap of maybe 5 miles where riders must take to a
parallel road. That's a classic farm road that has a traffic
count of about 800 vehicles per day, roughly the same as the
street I live on.

The local metropark system dearly wants to build that 5 mile
section of trail completely off-road. So they've entered
eminent domain proceedings against the landowners. Those
people (fewer than a dozen, I'm sure) say the trail will
split their property in two; and that besides, it's their
property! If they don't want to sell an easement, they
shouldn't have to.

I agree heartily. ISTM the county (or whoever) could simply
pave that parallel road and it would be perfect riding for
any cyclist but the excessively timid. To please more timid
cyclists, I suppose they could widen the road and add bike
lanes, but it would be silly for the low traffic level.

I know the most timid cyclists would still be displeased,
because they never want automobile tires to touch the
surface they ride upon. But they should be forced to somehow
grow a pair.


Unfortunately we now have neither hope nor law:
https://ij.org/case/kelo/

One might add common sense to our many losses.

The otherwise unknown Calgacus said it well, "They make a
desert and call it peace."

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

There's a family just out of town who were threatened with expropriation to make way for a bypass road. The father said he came to Canada from a communist country because he thought they'd be free and free from such things. To say he's vastly disappointed would be a colossal understatement.

Whilst we lived in Toronto Canada our house was expropriated to make way for a laneway in a new development. Neat that you can buy something that you work a great many years to pay for and have a government simply take it away. Sure they pay you something for it but not nearly enough to buy similar elsewhere.

Cheers

On Wed, 01 May 2019 07:28:51 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Hmmm... I've always thought "full speed" was the speed you reached
when that big, bad, dog, came rushing out of the drive with dinner on
his mind.

My experiences have been that one can reach some astonishingly high
speeds in that event :-)

I was once attacked by an entire pack of neglected dogs. It didn't
take much effort to outrun them -- they chose to attack at the top of
two miles of steep downhill.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Thu, 02 May 2019 20:22:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/2/2019 7:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/2/2019 8:32 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

If you head south out of Cambridge, Ontario on highway 24
there are two ex railroads. The one on the left was the
Lake Erie and Northern Electric Railway and is now a
rail-trail. The ex railway on the right of the highway has
been swallowed up by the various land owners along its
route and is all private property.

We currently have a fairly hot controversy over this issue.
Our longest rail-trail (something like 70 miles, I think)
has a gap of maybe 5 miles where riders must take to a
parallel road. That's a classic farm road that has a traffic
count of about 800 vehicles per day, roughly the same as the
street I live on.

The local metropark system dearly wants to build that 5 mile
section of trail completely off-road. So they've entered
eminent domain proceedings against the landowners. Those
people (fewer than a dozen, I'm sure) say the trail will
split their property in two; and that besides, it's their
property! If they don't want to sell an easement, they
shouldn't have to.

I agree heartily. ISTM the county (or whoever) could simply
pave that parallel road and it would be perfect riding for
any cyclist but the excessively timid. To please more timid
cyclists, I suppose they could widen the road and add bike
lanes, but it would be silly for the low traffic level.

I know the most timid cyclists would still be displeased,
because they never want automobile tires to touch the
surface they ride upon. But they should be forced to somehow
grow a pair.


Unfortunately we now have neither hope nor law:
https://ij.org/case/kelo/

One might add common sense to our many losses.

The otherwise unknown Calgacus said it well, "They make a
desert and call it peace."

Actually I believe that the correct translation is "they make a
solitude and call it peace". But Calgacus was in modern terms a Scot
those good folk who had been raiding into what became England as far
back as history records. Very much a case of a pot calling a kettle
black.

But the so called speech was actually written by Tacitus and only
attributed to Calgacus.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 2 May 2019 18:49:03 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:22:00 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/2/2019 7:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/2/2019 8:32 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

If you head south out of Cambridge, Ontario on highway 24
there are two ex railroads. The one on the left was the
Lake Erie and Northern Electric Railway and is now a
rail-trail. The ex railway on the right of the highway has
been swallowed up by the various land owners along its
route and is all private property.

We currently have a fairly hot controversy over this issue.
Our longest rail-trail (something like 70 miles, I think)
has a gap of maybe 5 miles where riders must take to a
parallel road. That's a classic farm road that has a traffic
count of about 800 vehicles per day, roughly the same as the
street I live on.

The local metropark system dearly wants to build that 5 mile
section of trail completely off-road. So they've entered
eminent domain proceedings against the landowners. Those
people (fewer than a dozen, I'm sure) say the trail will
split their property in two; and that besides, it's their
property! If they don't want to sell an easement, they
shouldn't have to.

I agree heartily. ISTM the county (or whoever) could simply
pave that parallel road and it would be perfect riding for
any cyclist but the excessively timid. To please more timid
cyclists, I suppose they could widen the road and add bike
lanes, but it would be silly for the low traffic level.

I know the most timid cyclists would still be displeased,
because they never want automobile tires to touch the
surface they ride upon. But they should be forced to somehow
grow a pair.


Unfortunately we now have neither hope nor law:
https://ij.org/case/kelo/

One might add common sense to our many losses.

The otherwise unknown Calgacus said it well, "They make a
desert and call it peace."

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

There's a family just out of town who were threatened with expropriation to make way for a bypass road. The father said he came to Canada from a communist country because he thought they'd be free and free from such things. To say he's vastly disappointed would be a colossal understatement.

Whilst we lived in Toronto Canada our house was expropriated to make way for a laneway in a new development. Neat that you can buy something that you work a great many years to pay for and have a government simply take it away. Sure they pay you something for it but not nearly enough to buy similar elsewhere.

Cheers

We had a similar case when they built a town airport, Some trees in a
field at the end of the runway. But in that case they paid the owner
the value of the trees as sawn lumber.
--
cheers,

John B.