California: Bicycle Recycling Program proposed by assemblywoman

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Ken Marcet wrote:

[Snipped]

Ken,

Why do I get the feeling that you spend a lot of time searching the
Internet for cycling related articles?


Because uncle Tom, sometimes I have nothing better to do with my time, and I
like to read some of the replies these kind of postings get. As far as I
know it is NOT illegal, perhaps annoying, but not illegal!

Ken

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Ken Marcet wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Ken Marcet wrote:

[Snipped]

Ken,

Why do I get the feeling that you spend a lot of time searching the
Internet for cycling related articles?



Because uncle Tom, sometimes I have nothing better to do with my time, and I
like to read some of the replies these kind of postings get. As far as I
know it is NOT illegal, perhaps annoying, but not illegal!

I think you are suffering with an obsession for bicycles! Next you will
be posting over a thousand messages per year to Usenet cycling groups.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Ken Marcet wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Ken Marcet wrote:

[Snipped]

Ken,

Why do I get the feeling that you spend a lot of time searching the
Internet for cycling related articles?



Because uncle Tom, sometimes I have nothing better to do with my time,
and I
like to read some of the replies these kind of postings get. As far as I
know it is NOT illegal, perhaps annoying, but not illegal!

I think you are suffering with an obsession for bicycles! Next you will
be posting over a thousand messages per year to Usenet cycling groups.

Perhaps you are correct about being obsessed, but there are much worse
things to be obsessed with! And in my defense, there are times when I won't
post a message for weeks! And I seems to see a lot of postings by you so I
don't think you have to much room to talk!!

Ken

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Ken Marcet wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Ken Marcet wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Ken Marcet wrote:

[Snipped]

Ken,

Why do I get the feeling that you spend a lot of time searching the
Internet for cycling related articles?



Because uncle Tom, sometimes I have nothing better to do with my time,

and I

like to read some of the replies these kind of postings get. As far as I
know it is NOT illegal, perhaps annoying, but not illegal!

I think you are suffering with an obsession for bicycles! Next you will
be posting over a thousand messages per year to Usenet cycling groups.


Perhaps you are correct about being obsessed, but there are much worse
things to be obsessed with! And in my defense, there are times when I won't
post a message for weeks! And I seems to see a lot of postings by you so I
don't think you have to much room to talk!!

Ken,

We seem to have a misunderstanding here. I was well aware that I posted
over 2000 messages to Usenet cycling forums in calendar year 2004, which
is why I mentioned posting thousands of messages per year and put a
smiley emoticon at the end of the sentence.

My original post was intended to be humorous, and not an attack. I
certainly had no intent to cause offense.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Ken Marcet wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Ken Marcet wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Ken Marcet wrote:

[Snipped]

Ken,

Why do I get the feeling that you spend a lot of time searching the
Internet for cycling related articles?



Because uncle Tom, sometimes I have nothing better to do with my time,

and I

like to read some of the replies these kind of postings get. As far as
I
know it is NOT illegal, perhaps annoying, but not illegal!

I think you are suffering with an obsession for bicycles! Next you will
be posting over a thousand messages per year to Usenet cycling groups.



Perhaps you are correct about being obsessed, but there are much worse
things to be obsessed with! And in my defense, there are times when I
won't
post a message for weeks! And I seems to see a lot of postings by you so
I
don't think you have to much room to talk!!

Ken,

We seem to have a misunderstanding here. I was well aware that I posted
over 2000 messages to Usenet cycling forums in calendar year 2004, which
is why I mentioned posting thousands of messages per year and put a
smiley emoticon at the end of the sentence.

My original post was intended to be humorous, and not an attack. I
certainly had no intent to cause offense.

My bad, I didn't see the smiley! Over 2000!?! WOW! I know it haven't posted
nearly that many this year! So far anyway.
Ken


--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:10:36 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

According to Karnette, more than 250,000 bicycles are disposed of each
year
statewide at a cost of about $3.50 per bicycle. Fewer than 3,000 of those
bicycles are recycled.

"If we are able to reuse or recycle even half of those, we would save
about
600 cubic feet of landfill each year," she added.

OK, let me get this straight. We're spending how much time & money on
hearings to push a bill that will require a bunch of paperwork and other
hassles in order to save a chunk of land that's LESS THAN 10 FEET
SQUARE???!!!

If that's not a mistake, this is an absurd waste of time & money. We should
be more concerned with reducing the amount of thrown-away packaging that's
part of our everyday purchases.

600 cubic feet? It's just got to be a misprint.

Another poster pointed out, that's about 8.33 inch^3 per bike. Since that's only
enough volume for about 35 ounces of steel we know it won't quite work. On the
other hand if we double or even treble or quadruple the allowance of volume per
bike we still have an entirely non-threatening amount of land being dedicated to
waste bikes.

Here's the really, really stupid part: All of us on this group know that vast
numbers of bikes are pitched out each year LONG before they have lost their
utility and value. Many bikes are thrown out that a lot of us would happily pay
money for. So if someone dumps a bike without regard for our 10 - 25 - 50
dollars why would he collect this "deposit."

IOW it is simply a tax and based on the absurd premise that bikes are a
significant waste disposal issue.

Ron

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:10:36 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:


OK, let me get this straight. We're spending how much time & money on
hearings to push a bill that will require a bunch of paperwork and other
hassles in order to save a chunk of land that's LESS THAN 10 FEET
SQUARE???!!!

If that's not a mistake, this is an absurd waste of time & money. We should
be more concerned with reducing the amount of thrown-away packaging that's
part of our everyday purchases.

600 cubic feet? It's just got to be a misprint.

Mike,

Think of it this way; a bike thief can get $3 for turning in any bike,
even some trashy old Huffy. Same for new OCLV Trek. Hey, easy
pickings, guaranteed $3. I see the theft rate going up since there
will be a state sponsored drop-off and payment system. Suspect that
the theft rate will drop the further one gets from the recycling
center ;-)

- rick

As with the bottle fee, this one also will not be redeemed
by most people who discard bicycles.

=v= Bottle fees are a pretty good deal, actually. In other
states, the fees are higher than California's and people *do*
redeem them better. Overall it saves money because there's less
broken glass and trash to clean off the roads -- and bicyclists
benefit from this more than most.
_Jym_