Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)

Zoot Katz

wrote in part:


Even when we have public transportation in place, people don't want to use
it. Look at the failure of the BART system, or the more recent light-rail
system in Dallas.

This is a situation of media created and pervasively reinforced
cultural bias. Cars got popular when the population became hypnotised
by television.

The popularity of cars predates television Zoot. Heck, they wrote *songs* about
"my merry Oldsmobile" decades before the first television broadcast. Private
transportation in the form of automobiles is almost universally preferred to
public transportation exactly because it *is* in one sense, private. No need to
adjust one's schedule to a train or bus schedule, just drive there yourself.
Yes, you'll have to allow for traffic conditions but at least if you get stuck
sitting in a traffic jam you get to decide who is sitting in your car next to
you. Buses and trains don't pick you up at your door and take you directly to
your destination and back again without stopping every few blocks to pick up
yet another stranger.
Figure out a way to change all that and maybe then public transportation will
become the preferred choice instead of what it currently is for most people,
either a joyless necessity or a last resort.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

11 Nov 2003 07:16:11 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

This is a situation of media created and pervasively reinforced
cultural bias. Cars got popular when the population became hypnotised
by television.

The popularity of cars predates television Zoot. Heck, they wrote *songs* about
"my merry Oldsmobile" decades before the first television broadcast.

True enough. The fashionable 'modernists' of the time abandoned their
bicycles when cars came along.

Private
transportation in the form of automobiles is almost universally preferred to
public transportation exactly because it *is* in one sense, private.


The sense that it's private is what conflicts with the reality of it
having a genuine impact on public space. That sense of exclusive
entitlement causes problems for everybody.

No need to
adjust one's schedule to a train or bus schedule, just drive there yourself.
Yes, you'll have to allow for traffic conditions but at least if you get stuck
sitting in a traffic jam you get to decide who is sitting in your car next to
you. Buses and trains don't pick you up at your door and take you directly to
your destination and back again without stopping every few blocks to pick up
yet another stranger.

Cars often can't take you directly to your destination because you
can't find parking. As for picking up strangers, drivers won't often
even share their cars with people they do know.

Figure out a way to change all that and maybe then public transportation will
become the preferred choice instead of what it currently is for most people,
either a joyless necessity or a last resort.

I believe that when public transportation becomes more convenient than
cars, it will be a better system to use. This is partly achieved by
the inconvenience inherent in automobiles when they all try occupying
the same space. Space that sits dead and vacant and unused during much
of the day. Why have twelve lanes of cars when three lanes for trains
would move more people per hour? There are several successful cities
with well developed and historically well used transit systems.
We've seen that more roads don't improve traffic flow. It just means
that more cars will use them. Making driving less convenient can be
accomplished by more constructive means than building bigger roads.

The language you use to describe transit users is interesting because
it resonates with the typical, culturally ingrained a-priori bias.

A car manufacturer's ad in a local paper got them both royally reamed.
The quarter page photo was the front of a #14 Vancouver bus with the
destination placard reading "CREEPS and WEIRDOS"
Apologies were issued and that ad campaign was dropped.

An societal attitude adjustment, that we'll never get from television,
is required before one can accept the benefits inherent in a safe,
clean, and convenient public transit system.
--
zk

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:20:58 -0800, Zoot Katz
wrote:
, Rick Onanian
Zoot, it sounds to me like you dislike the culture and the legal
system, as well as the masses, in your country. That's a lot to
dislike and still stay. What's so compelling about it that you stay
despite those major issues?

It's the only English speaking city in the top three worldwide. And
it's a nicer climate than other possible contenders in the top ten.

Is that how you choose your location? By what's most popular or
rated best? Okay, well, whatever works for you is great for you.

Vancouver is developing a transportation infrastructure that, by
officially adopted policy, prioritised pedestrian and bicycle
amenities, public transit, and the movement of goods ahead of private
automobiles. The regional district and outlying towns are adopting
plans limiting sprawl. There's constantly work to be done toward that
end and it's the citizens' responsibility to create the reality.

Sounds like it fits you a lot better than you've previously implied.
Maybe instead of arguing that every place should be exactly the
same, you could say "Hey Kevan and Chalo, the water's fine, come on
in!". They might like it there in your enlightened city. The city
will undoubtedly become a shining example of how it can be done, and
others will follow.

How's the weather there? Here in Rhode Island, winter has begun; it
is 22 degrees f in the morning (-5.5 c). www.weather.com says you
had a _low_ of 45 degrees yesterday...sounds nice.

So what if we're also known as 'la-la-land'.

I've never heard of that; if somebody asked me where 'la-la-land'
was, I'd guess Southern California.
--
Rick Onanian

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:43:50 -0500, "frkrygowHALTSPAM"
wrote:
I understand that everybody who buys a pickup just knows they'll need to
haul two tons of stuff weekly.

I don't know about everybody else, but I did need to haul at least
1200 pounds of materials yesterday.

But in _real_ life, a light duty trailer
is a perfectly workable solution to almost all hauling needs. It's just

It's a perfectly dangerous solution (from a cyclist's point of view,
anyway) to ask the masses to drag trailers. They can barely deal
with the difference in handling between a truck and a compact car;
they certainly can't safely pilot three axles and a pivot point. We
have (gasp!) kids almost getting hurt when they jump their bike onto
somebody's hood (bonnet for those of you across the pond), that's
how dangerous these car drivers are without trailers; I can only
imagine how dangerous they are with trailers.

Of course, that doesn't matter to you; everybody should do
everything exactly the way you do it.
--
Rick Onanian

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:54:13 -0600, Kevan Smith
wrote:
Aw, geez, Smith, now you're gonna get an "equal rights for animals"
thread started...

Nah, animals will never be treated as equals.

Not as long as they're made of meat, anyway.
--
Rick Onanian

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:43:50 -0500, "frkrygowHALTSPAM"
wrote:
I understand that everybody who buys a pickup just knows they'll need to
haul two tons of stuff weekly.

I don't know about everybody else, but I did need to haul at least
1200 pounds of materials yesterday.

But in _real_ life, a light duty trailer
is a perfectly workable solution to almost all hauling needs. It's just

It's a perfectly dangerous solution (from a cyclist's point of view,
anyway) to ask the masses to drag trailers. They can barely deal
with the difference in handling between a truck and a compact car;
they certainly can't safely pilot three axles and a pivot point. We
have (gasp!) kids almost getting hurt when they jump their bike onto
somebody's hood (bonnet for those of you across the pond), that's
how dangerous these car drivers are without trailers; I can only
imagine how dangerous they are with trailers.

Having driven all of them at various times, the difference in handling
between a full-size truck (F-150 equivalent) and a compact car is much
bigger than between the car without a trailer and the car with a
trailer, especially when it comes to judging clearances and turning
radii. The acceleration and braking are worse for the small car with
a trailer, but that isn't as big of a safety issue for bikes as the
clearance and turning problems.


....

Rick Onanian

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:42:32 -0800, Zoot Katz
wrote:
Cars often can't take you directly to your destination because you
can't find parking. As for picking up strangers, drivers won't often
even share their cars with people they do know.

Maybe so in cities. Where I come from, there's ample parking almost
anywhere you go. Sometimes, gasp, you have to walk a hundred
meters in to Wal Mart from the parking lot because all the spaces up
front have been taken. It's still a whole lot closer than the train
gets.

Figure out a way to change all that and maybe then public transportation will
become the preferred choice instead of what it currently is for most people,
either a joyless necessity or a last resort.

I believe that when public transportation becomes more convenient than
cars, it will be a better system to use. This is partly achieved by

No ****, sherlock. That's why cars are so popular. That's like
saying "I believe that when healthy food tastes better and is more
convenient, it will become more popular than insert meat, junk
food, or fast food here".

Yes, we might all find some benefit from eating organic vegan health
food diets and riding bicycles and buses everywhere, but that
doesn't make it right for everybody.

There are several successful cities
with well developed and historically well used transit systems.

Sounds like the perfect place for people who like to be in a city
and carless.

An societal attitude adjustment, that we'll never get from television,
is required before one can accept the benefits inherent in a safe,
clean, and convenient public transit system.

Okay...so you're saying it's effectively impossible. Agreed.
--
Rick Onanian

Zoot Katz

wrote:

The popularity of cars predates television Zoot. Heck, they wrote *songs*
about
"my merry Oldsmobile" decades before the first television broadcast.

True enough. The fashionable 'modernists' of the time abandoned their
bicycles when cars came along.

Private
transportation in the form of automobiles is almost universally preferred to
public transportation exactly because it *is* in one sense, private.


The sense that it's private is what conflicts with the reality of it
having a genuine impact on public space. That sense of exclusive
entitlement causes problems for everybody.

No need to
adjust one's schedule to a train or bus schedule, just drive there yourself.
Yes, you'll have to allow for traffic conditions but at least if you get
stuck
sitting in a traffic jam you get to decide who is sitting in your car next
to
you. Buses and trains don't pick you up at your door and take you directly
to
your destination and back again without stopping every few blocks to pick up
yet another stranger.

Cars often can't take you directly to your destination because you
can't find parking. As for picking up strangers, drivers won't often
even share their cars with people they do know.

Figure out a way to change all that and maybe then public transportation
will
become the preferred choice instead of what it currently is for most people,
either a joyless necessity or a last resort.

I believe that when public transportation becomes more convenient than
cars, it will be a better system to use. This is partly achieved by
the inconvenience inherent in automobiles when they all try occupying
the same space. Space that sits dead and vacant and unused during much
of the day. Why have twelve lanes of cars when three lanes for trains
would move more people per hour? There are several successful cities
with well developed and historically well used transit systems.
We've seen that more roads don't improve traffic flow. It just means
that more cars will use them. Making driving less convenient can be
accomplished by more constructive means than building bigger roads.

The language you use to describe transit users is interesting because
it resonates with the typical, culturally ingrained a-priori bias.

A car manufacturer's ad in a local paper got them both royally reamed.
The quarter page photo was the front of a #14 Vancouver bus with the
destination placard reading "CREEPS and WEIRDOS"
Apologies were issued and that ad campaign was dropped.

An societal attitude adjustment, that we'll never get from television,
is required before one can accept the benefits inherent in a safe,
clean, and convenient public transit system.
--
zk

Zoot, this may surprise you but I'd like to see public transportation become
more popular and "user-friendly". There is hope that, at least in large,
densely populated urban centers, that it can happen. I wouldn't count on
television or mass media to help accomplish that though, not because I think
television executives are predisposed to favor cars over mass transit but
because bringing about societal change is not the media's goal nor should it
be.

Media reflects society, not the other way around. Television can reinforce
pre-existing attitudes and opinions but it really doesn't create them. Take for
instance those car ads that you've condemned here before. On an emotional level
all those ads try to appeal to a basic human desire- to possess status.
Different people define status differently. Ads for a stripped down economy car
try to appeal to the consumer's desire to be thought of as wiser than the next
person. Ads for sports cars try to appeal to a desire to appear youthful and
well, racy. Ads for light trucks try to appeal to a rugged, macho self-image.
Ads for luxury cars try to appeal to a sense of self-importance and self-worth.
That all those different vehicles are purchased doesn't mean that the ads
effectively controlled the consumer. Ads are like the sauce on an entree. At a
restaurant some people order the raspberry glazed duck because they like
raspberries but most order it simply because they like duck. The glaze is just
an added attraction.

BTW, since I didn't describe transit users at all I have no idea how you arrive
at your conclusion that my non-existent description "resonates with the
typical, culturally ingrained, a priori bias". I characterized the use of mass
transit as "a joyless necessity or a last resort"
*in the eyes of most of those users*.
Certainly there are those that ride buses because they dislike driving but for
most riders it really is a second choice. I've heard many people say, "I'm
riding the bus while I save to buy a car.". I've never heard anyone say, "I'm
selling my car so I can buy a bus pass.". If simply observing that makes me
culturally biased then I guess I'm guilty.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:22:07 -0500, David Kerber
wrote:
It's a perfectly dangerous solution (from a cyclist's point of view,
anyway) to ask the masses to drag trailers. They can barely deal
with the difference in handling between a truck and a compact car;
they certainly can't safely pilot three axles and a pivot point. We
have (gasp!) kids almost getting hurt when they jump their bike onto
somebody's hood (bonnet for those of you across the pond), that's
how dangerous these car drivers are without trailers; I can only
imagine how dangerous they are with trailers.

Having driven all of them at various times, the difference in handling
between a full-size truck (F-150 equivalent) and a compact car is much
bigger than between the car without a trailer and the car with a
trailer, especially when it comes to judging clearances and turning
radii. The acceleration and braking are worse for the small car with
a trailer, but that isn't as big of a safety issue for bikes as the
clearance and turning problems.

I, too, have driven both. I regularly drive a full size truck, and
I went on vacation with a Pontiac Grand Am towing a 12' freshwater
boat. That was a great vacation. I went to the middle of nowhere
in Maine in september a few years back. It was quiet and the small
town folk were so pleasant. The fishing was good, too -- I actually
_caught_ fish!

You may be right for short trailers and long trucks. However, a
utility trailer which actually has any utility, vs. a
standard-length full-size truck (regular cab + 8' bed or extended
cab + short bed), is not as maneuverable as the truck. However,
that's not the issue for bikes either.

The issue is the inattentive drivers. It's easy to forget that
you've got a trailer, unless it's terribly overloading your car. In
this thread, it has been proposed that drivers who hurt somebody,
regardless of fault, and without due process, should lose their
license forever, because they are typically careless and
inattentive. What do you think happens with the trailer?

Driving with a trailer requires additional skills and habits, and
extra attention. Driving a pickup truck requires modification of
existing skills and habits.

I would not feel safe out on a bicycle if every pickup on the road
were replaced by compact cars with trailers. I just don't have the
confidence in other drivers for that; they're bad enough with a
trailerless compact car.
--
Rick "Wants to go back to Stratton, Maine" Onanian

Rick Onanian wrote:

I would not feel safe out on a bicycle if every pickup on the road
were replaced by compact cars with trailers. I just don't have the
confidence in other drivers for that; they're bad enough with a
trailerless compact car.

You miss the main point.

There would never be a need for every pickup to be replaced by a car
with a trailer, precisely because the hauling capacity of most pickups
is rarely used. At least, that's what I've seen whenever and wherever
I've looked.

Most pickups are empty. When they're not, their cargo would usually fit
in the back of a small station wagon. The trailer would have to handle
only the few times the load is truly large. For most people, it's silly
to choose a truck over a car and a trailer.

And, FWIW, I've long found pickup drivers to be more of a problem than
compact car drivers. Perhaps it has something to do with the ads. You
know - muscled construction workers, scowling cowboys, "When you see
this truck in your mirror, you'd better pull over" and so on. Macho
bull****. It sells to the Walter Mitty types, who then go out and play
tough guy.

--
Frank Krygowski