Portland's Bridge Pedal Debacle

"John S." wrote in message
ups.com...

it is illegal for bicycles to be on a federal Interstate to begin with.
The
Bridge
Pedal takes place only by the consent of the DRIVERS and their CARS who
are the only LEGALLY authorized vehicles on that bridge. Bikers DO NOT
have the right to be on that bridge ONLY CARS, and they are there
because
WE LET THEM. Therefore it is extremely rude of them to try to drag the
event out all day long, which is what a few whiner bikers seem to be
trying
to do.

Utter nonsense. Bikes have an equal on that bridge right if the city
fathers say so and they did.


Yes, until 11:30am. If the city fathers were to try to shut that bridge
down
for the entire day I would think the federal highway adminstration would
probably take a dim view of Portland shutting down the major Interstate
between Seattle and San Francisco. Not that the city residents would
stand for it.

as car traffic. Most east side streets in Portland are 2 way not 1 way
making
a street shutdown have a lot more logistical problems.


Simple - you pick a few streets, give advance notice so people can
make alternate plans and then CLOSE THEM for the duration of the
race. It is not complex.


I think you need to look at a map of the city and of the route before
you make yourself look more silly.


On a saturday the disruption would be tolerable. Heck, quit whining,
get off "lard-ass" and enjoy a bike ride!


That is news to the city fathers who only permit such things on Sunday
mornings. (ie: a number of marathons are scheduled during the year
that use city streets, also Sunday morning)



I respectfully submit that as you clearly don't live here you don't have
any
idea what the hell your talking about.

Portland must feel that this race is important otherwise they would
have stopped it long ago. The solution is simple - some car drivers
are going to have give way for one morning out of 365 to make it work
properly.

Very few people work Sunday morning.

It is really no big deal - just grab another latte and read
the paper. Or make some plans that don't take you downtown. The
race is not being run for you benefit my friend. In NYC they give
advance notice and close down certain roadways and bridges. Same
thing can be easily done in Portland.


There's a lot more roads in NYC and alternate routes. Not so in Portland.
I'm afraid you don't realize how small Portland is compared to NYC.

Bicyclists do not pay road taxes (no fuel, you see) and someone who has
no car and only bikes basically pays nothing at all to support the road.
Granted, bikes have minimal wear on the road. However the roads must
be maintained due to weather damage and bikers don't pay for this.

Bicyclists are tolerated on the roads because although they do not pay
for upkeep, they reduce car traffic and thus congestion - this benefit is
offset by the cost of the rest of the car drivers of maintaining the road
for
the bicyclists. So it is somewhat an even trade for most roads. This
tradeoff does not exist for Interstate highways because Interstates are
not supposed to be congested, ever. (the fact that some are is simply
due to cities and states abrogating their responsibility to provide adequate
parallel roads to keep the freeways clear) So that is why bicycles aren't
allowed (this is a federal not state government rule) on Interstates.

This tradeoff does not give bicyclists the right to shut down a road to
cars, any more than it gives cars the right to shut down the roads to
bikes. That is why state highways (at least in Oregon) and all other
state roads do not prohibit bicycles on the road. To shut down roads
for this kind of event, the organizers REQUEST for the road to be
closed. It is not guarenteed that they will get a yes answer.

As for the race not being run for my benefit, your wrong on that as well.
One of the main charities is a medical charity (Providence Heart and
Vascular Institute)
that buys automatic defibrillators and donates them to public gathering
places. So that if someone like me has a heart attack I might get
zapped back to life with one. I also cannot stand lattes, what a gay drink
that is. I take my coffee black with no sugar.

Ted

Paul Borg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:46:11 -0700, Paul Berg wrote:

`
I had no problem viewing the images of Don Homuth's Datsun Z. And, a
right beauty it is too.

I have no idea what Steven's problem is. Or, should I said "problems
are".

`

I must say, trollish crossposting and posting binaries to text newsgroups
is pretty advanced for a webtv user.

~

I can't help it, if Paul BORG, is unable to do it.

Like I have said before, I'll post what I want, where I want and how I
want.

Now Master BORG, go out and have a nice day.

Paul Berg

~

On Aug 16, 5:53 am, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
"John S." wrote in message

ups.com...



it is illegal for bicycles to be on a federal Interstate to begin with.
The
Bridge
Pedal takes place only by the consent of the DRIVERS and their CARS who
are the only LEGALLY authorized vehicles on that bridge. Bikers DO NOT
have the right to be on that bridge ONLY CARS, and they are there
because
WE LET THEM. Therefore it is extremely rude of them to try to drag the
event out all day long, which is what a few whiner bikers seem to be
trying
to do.

Utter nonsense. Bikes have an equal on that bridge right if the city
fathers say so and they did.

Yes, until 11:30am. If the city fathers were to try to shut that bridge
down
for the entire day I would think the federal highway adminstration would
probably take a dim view of Portland shutting down the major Interstate
between Seattle and San Francisco. Not that the city residents would
stand for it.

as car traffic. Most east side streets in Portland are 2 way not 1 way
making
a street shutdown have a lot more logistical problems.

Simple - you pick a few streets, give advance notice so people can
make alternate plans and then CLOSE THEM for the duration of the
race. It is not complex.

I think you need to look at a map of the city and of the route before
you make yourself look more silly.



On a saturday the disruption would be tolerable. Heck, quit whining,
get off "lard-ass" and enjoy a bike ride!

That is news to the city fathers who only permit such things on Sunday
mornings. (ie: a number of marathons are scheduled during the year
that use city streets, also Sunday morning)





I respectfully submit that as you clearly don't live here you don't have
any
idea what the hell your talking about.

Portland must feel that this race is important otherwise they would
have stopped it long ago. The solution is simple - some car drivers
are going to have give way for one morning out of 365 to make it work
properly.

Very few people work Sunday morning.

It is really no big deal - just grab another latte and read
the paper. Or make some plans that don't take you downtown. The
race is not being run for you benefit my friend. In NYC they give
advance notice and close down certain roadways and bridges. Same
thing can be easily done in Portland.

There's a lot more roads in NYC and alternate routes. Not so in Portland.
I'm afraid you don't realize how small Portland is compared to NYC.

Bicyclists do not pay road taxes (no fuel, you see) and someone who has
no car and only bikes basically pays nothing at all to support the road.
Granted, bikes have minimal wear on the road. However the roads must
be maintained due to weather damage and bikers don't pay for this.

Bicyclists are tolerated on the roads because although they do not pay
for upkeep, they reduce car traffic and thus congestion - this benefit is
offset by the cost of the rest of the car drivers of maintaining the road
for
the bicyclists. So it is somewhat an even trade for most roads. This
tradeoff does not exist for Interstate highways because Interstates are
not supposed to be congested, ever. (the fact that some are is simply
due to cities and states abrogating their responsibility to provide adequate
parallel roads to keep the freeways clear) So that is why bicycles aren't
allowed (this is a federal not state government rule) on Interstates.

This tradeoff does not give bicyclists the right to shut down a road to
cars, any more than it gives cars the right to shut down the roads to
bikes. That is why state highways (at least in Oregon) and all other
state roads do not prohibit bicycles on the road. To shut down roads
for this kind of event, the organizers REQUEST for the road to be
closed. It is not guarenteed that they will get a yes answer.

As for the race not being run for my benefit, your wrong on that as well.
One of the main charities is a medical charity (Providence Heart and
Vascular Institute)
that buys automatic defibrillators and donates them to public gathering
places. So that if someone like me has a heart attack I might get
zapped back to life with one. I also cannot stand lattes, what a gay drink
that is. I take my coffee black with no sugar.

Ted

I don't get your diatribe at all. In your mind this has become some
sort of lopsided confrontation between bike riders who have no rights
but are attempting to usurp the natural god-given rights of automobile
drivers. You are beginning to concern me because you seem to feel
threatened by bike riders that are somehow persecuting car drivers in
a manner that no others can see.

It's really simple my friend. Portland wants to host a big big bike
ride one day a year. For Portland to successfully stage a big big
bike ride with thousands of bike riders of all abilities they will
have to dedicate some streets to bike riders for one day. And yes a
few car drivers in Portland will have to just suck it up for one day
and not drive certain streets while the big big bike ride is
underway. Consider it an opportunity to either get out and ride or
enjoy an extra latte.

You have apparently done extensive research into what drinks are "gay"
and "not gay". Please tell us what kinds of drinks are preferred by
gay people. And just so that you realize it, black coffee and even
blacker espresso is served in coffee bars frequented by all manner of
people, gay, straight, latin, english, french, tall, short, etc., etc.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:46:11 -0700, Paul Berg wrote:

`
I had no problem viewing the images of Don Homuth's Datsun Z. And, a
right beauty it is too.

I have no idea what Steven's problem is. Or, should I said "problems
are".

`

I must say, trollish crossposting and posting binaries to text newsgroups
is pretty advanced for a webtv user.

In article %6Nwi.509$1e.229@trndny06,
Lobby Dosser wrote:
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net wrote:

It's reasonably clear that it was consumption, as defined. It's not
at all clear that it was conspicuous, however.

You are, to my knowledge, the first person who ever made that
statement. It was her money, and if she wanted the car, she was more
than free to buy it.


Two people. Three cars. Conspicuous Consumption.

Two people with three beaters is not "Conspicuous Consumption". Two
people with one Porsche Cayenne and one Shelby Cobra IS "Conspicuous
Consumption".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Niobrara wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:

Two people. Three cars. Conspicuous Consumption.

Tax the mofos!

Sure. Special tax for anyone driving more than one car at once.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Niobrara wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:

Two people. Three cars. Conspicuous Consumption.

Tax the mofos!

Sure. Special tax for anyone driving more than one car at once.


`
I don't think I will ever have to pay such a tax. My legs and arms
aren't long enough to drive more than one car at a time.

`

On Aug 16, 12:00 pm, (Matthew T.
Russotto) wrote:
In article %6Nwi.509$1e.229@trndny06,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net wrote:

It's reasonably clear that it was consumption, as defined. It's not
at all clear that it was conspicuous, however.

You are, to my knowledge, the first person who ever made that
statement. It was her money, and if she wanted the car, she was more
than free to buy it.

Two people. Three cars. Conspicuous Consumption.

Two people with three beaters is not "Conspicuous Consumption". Two
people with one Porsche Cayenne and one Shelby Cobra IS "Conspicuous
Consumption".


Two people with three hybrids is "Conspricuous Consumption". Factor
in the enviromental cost to manufacture and distribute the additional
hybrid.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article %6Nwi.509$1e.229@trndny06,
Lobby Dosser wrote:
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net wrote:
It's reasonably clear that it was consumption, as defined. It's not
at all clear that it was conspicuous, however.

You are, to my knowledge, the first person who ever made that
statement. It was her money, and if she wanted the car, she was more
than free to buy it.

Two people. Three cars. Conspicuous Consumption.

Two people with three beaters is not "Conspicuous Consumption". Two
people with one Porsche Cayenne and one Shelby Cobra IS "Conspicuous
Consumption".


Bully for them too!

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Niobrara wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
Two people. Three cars. Conspicuous Consumption.
Tax the mofos!

Sure. Special tax for anyone driving more than one car at once.

The lieberal way!