|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
When Cyclists Made Up an Entire Political Bloc
Back near the beginning of bicycles, a bicycle advocate wasn't seen as a "scold" (as one journalist who rode with Krygowski described him), and there were lots of them with considerable influence:
https://daily.jstor.org/when-cyclist...olitical-bloc/ Andre Jute At least we haven't had this discussion 29 times in the last ten years |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
When Cyclists Made Up an Entire Political Bloc
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
Back near the beginning of bicycles, a bicycle advocate wasn't seen as a "scold" (as one journalist who rode with Krygowski described him), and there were lots of them with considerable influence: https://daily.jstor.org/when-cyclist...olitical-bloc/ Andre Jute At least we haven't had this discussion 29 times in the last ten years Looks like it will be another 10 years of bovine regurgitations of iterative "thoughts" on helmets and separate facilities for cyclists. Andre Jute Not chewing the cud |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
When Cyclists Made Up an Entire Political Bloc
In the early days of cycling, it was the pastime of rich fux, which gave it a certain implied legitimacy. Then for a time, it was the leading edge of high tech, to the point that the US government opened a second patent office just to serve cycling-related patents. So when this coalition of rich fux and tech boffins (and folks who aspired to be them) asked for some decent pavement, we started to get decent pavement.
It was the moral equivalent of today's public resources being thrown around to develop 5G, or yesterday's public resources being squandered to subsidize jet travel or freeways or railroads. Then as now, the rich and influential can use other people's money to get what they want. Sometimes it works out for those who pay the cost, and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of Good Roads, I think it worked in favor of almost everybody. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
When Cyclists Made Up an Entire Political Bloc
On 6/23/2019 4:06 PM, Chalo wrote:
In the early days of cycling, it was the pastime of rich fux, which gave it a certain implied legitimacy. Then for a time, it was the leading edge of high tech, to the point that the US government opened a second patent office just to serve cycling-related patents. So when this coalition of rich fux and tech boffins (and folks who aspired to be them) asked for some decent pavement, we started to get decent pavement. It was the moral equivalent of today's public resources being thrown around to develop 5G, or yesterday's public resources being squandered to subsidize jet travel or freeways or railroads. Then as now, the rich and influential can use other people's money to get what they want. Sometimes it works out for those who pay the cost, and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of Good Roads, I think it worked in favor of almost everybody. I'm not sure I get your point. So far, there hasn't been serious consideration for publicly owned (or built) 5th generation telephone service. The shareholders[1] of the various providers/networks/operators have been willing to invest and they will either make or lose money. Like I care. Big misunderstandings abound after spectrum allocation (which has become an exemplar of dirty politics). The fast download protocols of 5G are not well suited to the current tower systems[2]. Comparable coverage would require some large increment of the present number of towers/repeaters. That is unlikely. More probably urban areas will rely more on WiFi fed by fiber and other pipes with lower coverage density as one leaves densely populated areas - just like now but a sharper curve to non-service. Do you know about a serious proposal to make a government built or operated network? [1] includes public employee and union pension funds, mutual funds and so on besides 'the evil rich' who worked hard and saved and old ladies who clip stock coupons - a nice cross section of America. [2] which in rural areas are as yet frequently ineffective for today's telephone formats. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
When Cyclists Made Up an Entire Political Bloc
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:16:01 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
So far, there hasn't been serious consideration for publicly owned (or built) 5th generation telephone service. Worse. It's been shot down by our Fearless Leader: "Trump says he opposes nationalizing U.S. 5G network" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wireless-trump/trump-says-he-opposes-nationalizing-u-s-5g-network-idUSKCN1RO1WC The shareholders[1] of the various providers/networks/operators have been willing to invest and they will either make or lose money. Like I care. You should care. If they lose money, or give the appearance of losing money, the government will surely apply the necessary corporate welfare to insure that they lose less money. The magic buzzwords are "rural broadband", which is FCC and congressional lingo for subsidizing the cellular providers: "A Team of Researchers Just Showed How the FCC Wastes Billions on Rural Broadband" https://www.insidesources.com/a-team-of-researchers-just-showed-how-the-fcc-wastes-billions-on-rural-broadband/ To the best of my knowledge, the only government money spent specifically for 5G is about $100 million/year by the NSF (National Science Fiasco) "Advanced Wireless Research @ NSF" https://www.nsf.gov/cise/advancedwireless/ "17 Companies Receive NSF Funding for 5G Services" (from 2016) https://www.rrmediagroup.com/News/NewsDetails/NewsID/14475 European seems to have their governments invest in 5G: "Public funding of 5G R&D, including trials" https://5gobservatory.eu/public-initiatives/public-funding-of-5g-rd-including-trials/ Big misunderstandings abound after spectrum allocation (which has become an exemplar of dirty politics). The term is "5G Hype". The problem isn't the hype, lies, distortions, and general lack of sanity. It's the various articles and YouTube videos claiming to clarify the situation by adding additional hype. The fast download protocols of 5G are not well suited to the current tower systems[2]. Comparable coverage would require some large increment of the present number of towers/repeaters. That is unlikely. More probably urban areas will rely more on WiFi fed by fiber and other pipes with lower coverage density as one leaves densely populated areas - just like now but a sharper curve to non-service. I presume you're talking about the 24-38GHz mmWave frequencies. Using the rather hastily thrown together hardware available at trade shows, the usable range is about 1500 ft. That puts the 5G small cell poles about 3000 ft apart, or about 4 poles per square mile. However, that assume line of sight with no obstructions. My guess(tm) is more like 9 poles per square mile. For example, the City of Portland OR is 145 square miles, which would require at least 1,350 5G poles to cover. I'll round up to 1500 poles. However, the number of poles is not the problem. It's the backhaul from the poles to various hubs and exchange points that's the real problem. If 5G is going to deliver very low latency and gigabit bandwidth, then the backhaul must be fiber optic run some form of DWDM (Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing) to allow daisy chaining). Making that work is where much of the research money is currently being spent. DWDM hardware is very expensive. For example, the cost of urban dark fiber is about $400 - $1,000 /mile/month. Do you know about a serious proposal to make a government built or operated network? "Here's What You Need To Know About That 'Nationalized 5G' Proposal" http://fortune.com/2018/01/30/national-security-council-nationalized-5g-proposal/ "FCC Creates $20 Billion Rural Broadband Fund" https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2019/04/fcc-creates-20-billion-rural-broadband-fund/156307/ Note the tag line "rural broadband", which should offer a clue as to how the money will be spent and how much good it will do. None of the telecoms like the idea of a government run 5G network, even though they're the likely candidates for building such a network. Oddly, the winning contractor would likely have included AT&T[1], which is currently in the process of laying everyone off and outsourcing everything to contractors: "Trump administration's idea for government-built 5G network met with loud resistance from U.S. telecoms" https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/01/29/trump-administration-considering-government-takeover-5-g-network-report-says/1074159001/ So, what duz this have to do with cycling and political blocs? Probably nothing. There's far more political and financial pressure behind 5G than there ever will be for cycling infrastructure. Worse, I can't think of a way to improve the situation for cycling. Methinks the best that can be done is to sell the cycling vote to the highest bidder, and take whatever crumbs they can offer if elected. [1] AT&T is currently building and managing the national first responder radio network (FirstNet): https://about.att.com/story/2019/fn_expands_coverage.html https://www.firstnet.com -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
When Cyclists Made Up an Entire Political Bloc
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 14:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote: In the early days of cycling, it was the pastime of rich fux, which gave it a certain implied legitimacy. Then for a time, it was the leading edge of high tech, to the point that the US government opened a second patent office just to serve cycling-related patents. So when this coalition of rich fux and tech boffins (and folks who aspired to be them) asked for some decent pavement, we started to get decent pavement. It was the moral equivalent of today's public resources being thrown around to develop 5G, or yesterday's public resources being squandered to subsidize jet travel or freeways or railroads. Then as now, the rich and influential can use other people's money to get what they want. Sometimes it works out for those who pay the cost, and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of Good Roads, I think it worked in favor of almost everybody. That makes a nice story but I did research the subject at some length and yes, cyclists did complain loudly about the rough roads but the real reason for making smooth roads in the U.S. was due to the rapid growth of automobile ownership in the early years of the 20th century. https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of...-roads-4077442 As for bicycles being used by the rich, I believe that exactly the opposite is correct as the tremendous growth in bicycle use in the very late 1800's and early 1900's must have been largely a growth in use by the middle class. In fact I would suggest that "rich folks" as a class were probably among the lowest participants in the cycling craze. After all, one had the coachman and a horse and carriage, why would one want to ride a bicycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_boom https://patch.com/minnesota/southwes...e-of-the-1890s -- cheers, John B. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
When Cyclists Made Up an Entire Political Bloc
On 6/23/2019 7:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 14:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Chalo wrote: In the early days of cycling, it was the pastime of rich fux, which gave it a certain implied legitimacy. Then for a time, it was the leading edge of high tech, to the point that the US government opened a second patent office just to serve cycling-related patents. So when this coalition of rich fux and tech boffins (and folks who aspired to be them) asked for some decent pavement, we started to get decent pavement. It was the moral equivalent of today's public resources being thrown around to develop 5G, or yesterday's public resources being squandered to subsidize jet travel or freeways or railroads. Then as now, the rich and influential can use other people's money to get what they want. Sometimes it works out for those who pay the cost, and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of Good Roads, I think it worked in favor of almost everybody. That makes a nice story but I did research the subject at some length and yes, cyclists did complain loudly about the rough roads but the real reason for making smooth roads in the U.S. was due to the rapid growth of automobile ownership in the early years of the 20th century. https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of...-roads-4077442 As for bicycles being used by the rich, I believe that exactly the opposite is correct as the tremendous growth in bicycle use in the very late 1800's and early 1900's must have been largely a growth in use by the middle class. In fact I would suggest that "rich folks" as a class were probably among the lowest participants in the cycling craze. After all, one had the coachman and a horse and carriage, why would one want to ride a bicycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_boom https://patch.com/minnesota/southwes...e-of-the-1890s -- cheers, John B. Rider reports of the era extolled the bicycle's main virtue to the greater unwashed, that being travel without an actual (expensive) horse: https://www.alibris.com/How-I-Learne...964?matches=22 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
When Cyclists Made Up an Entire Political Bloc
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 20:46:08 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/23/2019 7:58 PM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 14:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Chalo wrote: In the early days of cycling, it was the pastime of rich fux, which gave it a certain implied legitimacy. Then for a time, it was the leading edge of high tech, to the point that the US government opened a second patent office just to serve cycling-related patents. So when this coalition of rich fux and tech boffins (and folks who aspired to be them) asked for some decent pavement, we started to get decent pavement. It was the moral equivalent of today's public resources being thrown around to develop 5G, or yesterday's public resources being squandered to subsidize jet travel or freeways or railroads. Then as now, the rich and influential can use other people's money to get what they want. Sometimes it works out for those who pay the cost, and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of Good Roads, I think it worked in favor of almost everybody. That makes a nice story but I did research the subject at some length and yes, cyclists did complain loudly about the rough roads but the real reason for making smooth roads in the U.S. was due to the rapid growth of automobile ownership in the early years of the 20th century. https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of...-roads-4077442 As for bicycles being used by the rich, I believe that exactly the opposite is correct as the tremendous growth in bicycle use in the very late 1800's and early 1900's must have been largely a growth in use by the middle class. In fact I would suggest that "rich folks" as a class were probably among the lowest participants in the cycling craze. After all, one had the coachman and a horse and carriage, why would one want to ride a bicycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_boom https://patch.com/minnesota/southwes...ycle-craze-of- the-1890s -- cheers, John B. Rider reports of the era extolled the bicycle's main virtue to the greater unwashed, that being travel without an actual (expensive) horse: https://www.alibris.com/How-I-Learne...e-Reflections- of-an-Influential-19th-Century-Woman-Frances-Elizabeth-Willard/ book/3009964?matches=22 For an Australian Bicycle History, Jim Fitzpatrick wrote "The Bicycle and The Bush" about the common mans use of bicycles outside towns. Massive number of labourers moved about during the various seasons. Sadly, t never made it on line. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
When Cyclists Made Up an Entire Political Bloc
The Good Roads movement started in the 1870s, when cars weren't even a carcinogenic toxin in their daddy's eye.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
When Cyclists Made Up an Entire Political Bloc
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 20:37:38 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote: The Good Roads movement started in the 1870s, when cars weren't even a carcinogenic toxin in their daddy's eye. The Good Roads Movement was officially founded in May 1880 and in 1892 began publishing Good Roads Magazine.You can read volume I at https://tinyurl.com/y6cy4cxm And, the Model T Ford was first offered in 1909 when 10,666 were produced and by 1916 some 501,462 were produced. The following year some 735,020 the volume continued to increase until 1923 when 2,011,125 were sold. During the period of 1909 - 1916 some 1,315,849 Fords were on the road and by 1926 some 10,306,075 Model T Fords had been marketed.. Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 created the Federal-Aid Highway Program. This funded state highway agencies so they could make road improvements. In 1909 there were 305,950 registered privately owned motor vehicles in the U.S. In 1916 there were 3,367,889 and by 1926 there were 19,267,967. In terms of population, in 1909 there was 1 motor vehicle per every 296 individuals, in 1916 1 per every 30 and by 1926 there was one privately owned motor vehicle for every six people in the U.S. Do you really believe that cyclists were the determining factor in the building of better roads? -- cheers, John B. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fewer cyclists would be killed if cars were made safer. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 19 | May 24th 11 11:27 PM |
How can the roads be made safer for cyclists? BBC R4 12 middday | Squashme | UK | 3 | April 19th 11 05:12 PM |
NYT Article: Police Surveillance of Cyclists as Political Dissidents | Elisa Francesca Roselli | General | 160 | January 2nd 06 09:41 PM |
NYT Article: Police Surveillance of Cyclists as Political Dissidents | Elisa Francesca Roselli | UK | 125 | January 1st 06 10:41 AM |
Still We Ride: A31 Bike Bloc [BNC] | TIME'S UP! (via Jym Dyer) | Social Issues | 4 | August 31st 04 07:53 PM |