|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:10:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/15/2017 8:23 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:57:50 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary wrote: For your reference, records indicate that Jeff Liebermann wrote: The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is competition from automotive interests at all levels especially financial. No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time. Make bicycling an economical alternative to automobiles and cycling will magically become very popular (and probably taxed). I’d bet against that. Even if you gave free bikes to everyone who wanted one, most people would still prefer to sit on their ass in traffic and scream at other cars. It apparently is human nature to avoid undue effort. It is a very visible phenomena in developing countries. The poor walk - the economy improves a bit and they buy a bicycle. The economy improves a little more and it is a 90cc motorcycle and finally, within one person's lifetime, an automobile. You left out the final step: Then they buy a treadmill, or join a health club where they can "walk" indoors in one place. Of course. And, I might add it seems somewhat difficult to find a "health club" that will accept just any one. I went to one, oh maybe 2 km from the house, and asked about joining. Figured I could bike down get a workout and a shower and back home smelling all clean and perty. Yes Sir! We have the six month (pay in advance) option or the one year (pay in advance) "full membership. "Which would you prefer sir? And of course I'm sure that you understand that a personal trainer is extra. I mumbled something about, "maybe three days a week, work out with the free weights a little?" I was assured that they only had the very latest and specialized exercise machines here. To be honest, I'm not sure that the little girl at the counter quite understood the term "free weights", but after looking in the windows to the "exercise rooms" I realized I wouldn't fit in any way. All those people were wearing. at least, $200 of "exercise clothing" while my idea of "exercise clothes" is an old pair of shorts and a singlet. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA
For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:57:50 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary wrote: For your reference, records indicate that Jeff Liebermann wrote: The fundamental problem and major impediment to bicycling is competition from automotive interests at all levels especially financial. No, the real problem is that people (especially Americans) are now mostly fat and lazy. The one’s that do workout probably *drive* to a gym to do it! They don’t want to be cold or hot or wet when they travel. They want to go long distances in a short amount of time. I beg to differ. Excessive body mass and lack of motivation are certainly real problems. However, they are symptoms, not causes. I’m not sure it much matters. That simply *is* the landscape you’re dealing with, and thus a major part of the problem that needs to be solved. Besides, symptoms have a way of becoming causes of other illnesses. Obesity is a prime example. Take a giant step backwards and ask yourself why people are like that, and you'll probably discover a range of problems that if they can be solved, will also have a positive effect on obesity and motivation. But that doesn’t address the problem that bicycles *still* require effort to use and still expose you to weather. Most guys who wears a suit at work aren’t going to be keen on biking 15 miles in the rain, regardless of their fitness level. If we *really* take a big enough step backwards, we see all kinds of problems that are interconnected. We can’t just address a single issue and act like that is going to result in the widespread adoption of bicycling. For example, my neighbors teenage sons all ride bicycles, not because bicycles are cheap, but because they can't afford the insurance costs for even a shared automobile. But the real problem is that they still likely *want* a car, and probably will get one when they can afford one. If you want to see a real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt and/or adapt them. In other words, define the problem you're trying to solve first, and then talk about solutions. But we must also be aware we need to define a problem that people *want* to solve. In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably. Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change. But we appear to be living at a time where large numbers of people are rejecting objective reality and science. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA
On 8/16/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Landau wrote:
Can you ride your bicycle to synagogue on Shabbat? I don't think that riding it is carrying it, it's it carrying you, so #1 is not a concern. Also, if you haven't been riding, then it;'s not a weekday activity, so #3 is OK too. But if the chain breaks you're ****ed. 1) It is prohibited to carry objects in a public domain on Shabbat. Transporting an object by riding it is tantamount to carrying it. 2) Fixing a device on Shabbat is prohibited. If the bicycle breaks down, for example if the chain falls off, there is concern that the rider may fix it. 3) Riding a bike is considered a mundane weekday activity, one that we refrain from on Shabbat. FWIW, we have Amish areas not far from our home. I've learned that their rules vary from congregation to congregation. Some allow the use of bicycles; others forbid bicycles but allow push scooters, so you can see Amish scooting along highways. I was told of one congregation that allowed driving cars, so long as all the shiny bits on the car were painted black. Theology is complicated. Even the theology of bicycles. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA
On 8/16/2017 11:57 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
If you want to see a real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt and/or adapt them. But we must also be aware we need to define a problem that people *want* to solve. In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably. Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change. When comparing countries, it's good to remember that certain aspects of history are effectively irreversible. If the United States had been confined to an area the size of the Netherlands, we'd have the population density and short trip distances that do so much to enable bike transportation in northern Europe. We would also have been able to finance high quality mass transportation. But settlers here were given access to the width of a continent, with only a few inconvenient Native Americans in the way. The society immediately spread out, and there are still plenty of people who feel that if they can see the smoke from another's chimney, things are too crowded. The resulting low density and long travel distances severely limit bike transportation. And even certain bike enthusiasts are guilty of moving to communities way out in the sticks, then complaining that it's difficult to ride where they pretend they'd like to. Americans tend to want lots of space, so the density problem isn't going away. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:29:55 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped The resulting low density and long travel distances severely limit bike transportation. And even certain bike enthusiasts are guilty of moving to communities way out in the sticks, then complaining that it's difficult to ride where they pretend they'd like to. Americans tend to want lots of space, so the density problem isn't going away. -- - Frank Krygowski The size of Canada or the United States of America boggles the minds of many. To give some idea of the sizes of Canada and the United States of America let's look at ONE Canadian province = Ontario, Canada. Into this province you can fit ALL of France and ALL Germany and still have 67,725 square miles left over. Subtract the ENTIRE Netherlands 16,164 square miles and you still have 51,561 sqaure miles of Ontario, Canada in which to place other countries of your choice. You can help fill in that space by adding ALL of Lithuania at 25,174 square miles and ALL Latvia at 24,926 square miles and STILL have 1,461 square miles left over. That's why the populationdesities are not high enough in cities in orddrt o have a comprehensive bicycling only infrastructure. To top it off many bicycling infrastruction goals also includ make them MUPs rather than dedicated to bicycles. Often too those facilities will have ridicuously low bicycling maxinum speeds such as 20 kph (12.5 mph) which makes them nearly useless to dedicated bicycle commuters travelling any distance. This is NOT to mention the extremely poor even dangerous designs of most bicycling facilities. Cheers |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 1:07:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/16/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Landau wrote: Can you ride your bicycle to synagogue on Shabbat? I don't think that riding it is carrying it, it's it carrying you, so #1 is not a concern. Also, if you haven't been riding, then it;'s not a weekday activity, so #3 is OK too. But if the chain breaks you're ****ed. 1) It is prohibited to carry objects in a public domain on Shabbat. Transporting an object by riding it is tantamount to carrying it. 2) Fixing a device on Shabbat is prohibited. If the bicycle breaks down, for example if the chain falls off, there is concern that the rider may fix it. 3) Riding a bike is considered a mundane weekday activity, one that we refrain from on Shabbat. FWIW, we have Amish areas not far from our home. I've learned that their rules vary from congregation to congregation. Some allow the use of bicycles; others forbid bicycles but allow push scooters, so you can see Amish scooting along highways. I was told of one congregation that allowed driving cars, so long as all the shiny bits on the car were painted black. Theology is complicated. Even the theology of bicycles. https://swissmennonite.org//feature_...02/200211.html Floyd could ride a bike, but he had to get special dispensation to wear shorts. https://swissmennonite.org//feature_...02/200211.html I don't think he bothered getting permission for the drugs. -- Jay Beattie. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 5:34:04 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:29:55 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: Snipped The resulting low density and long travel distances severely limit bike transportation. And even certain bike enthusiasts are guilty of moving to communities way out in the sticks, then complaining that it's difficult to ride where they pretend they'd like to. Americans tend to want lots of space, so the density problem isn't going away. -- - Frank Krygowski The size of Canada or the United States of America boggles the minds of many. To give some idea of the sizes of Canada and the United States of America let's look at ONE Canadian province = Ontario, Canada. Into this province you can fit ALL of France and ALL Germany and still have 67,725 square miles left over. Subtract the ENTIRE Netherlands 16,164 square miles and you still have 51,561 sqaure miles of Ontario, Canada in which to place other countries of your choice. You can help fill in that space by adding ALL of Lithuania at 25,174 square miles and ALL Latvia at 24,926 square miles and STILL have 1,461 square miles left over. That's why the populationdesities are not high enough in cities in orddrt o have a comprehensive bicycling only infrastructure. To top it off many bicycling infrastruction goals also includ make them MUPs rather than dedicated to bicycles. Often too those facilities will have ridicuously low bicycling maxinum speeds such as 20 kph (12.5 mph) which makes them nearly useless to dedicated bicycle commuters travelling any distance. This is NOT to mention the extremely poor even dangerous designs of most bicycling facilities. I always point out that you can put The Netherlands in the lower right-hand corner of Oregon and nobody would notice, except a few cows. Eastern Oregon bike lane: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archive...n%20Desert.jpg -- Jay Beattie. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:20:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/15/2017 1:20 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: Bicycling is already an economical alternative to driving by at least an order of magnitude when comparing a mid-range bike with a mid-range car. Operating costs of a bike are a tiny fraction of the operating costs of a car, even when factoring the stupidly high prices of consumables like bike tires... What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so (I've been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really don't know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000? Economics are not really the carrot one might hope for. People do not make choices in an economically coherent fashion. I think you're using too restrictive a definition of "economic." Yours seems to be counting only dollars. But at least in some discussions "economics" is used to describe human behavior in response to benefits and detriments in general, not just when counting dollars. (The _Freakonomics_ series of books goes into this idea in detail.) OK, you make a good point. I was thinking strictly dollars. But a 20 minute drive to work versus an hour bike ride or a 1 1/2 hour bus ride has definite value that influences decisions. Or being able to bring home a week's work of groceries in one's car versus maybe a day or two by bike. If one lives in a compact city with broadly available bike infrastrucure- Copenhagen, for example- it changes those aspects of economics in ways that won't happen for many people in LA, Chicago, etc. While I'm staunchly in favor of bicycling, I think American society practically mandates owning an automobile, at least for well over 90% of households. I'll bicycle to the grocery store today, but I'll be making a 120 mile round trip in a few days, then a much longer round trip a few days after that. In each of those cases I know no practical alternative to driving the car. Yes, most Americans live in cities and most US cities are socially engineered to make it very difficult to live without a car. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:57:01 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote: For your reference, records indicate that Jeff Liebermann wrote: I beg to differ. Excessive body mass and lack of motivation are certainly real problems. However, they are symptoms, not causes. I’m not sure it much matters. That simply *is* the landscape you’re dealing with, and thus a major part of the problem that needs to be solved. Besides, symptoms have a way of becoming causes of other illnesses. Obesity is a prime example. It matters. Treating the root cause is far more effective than simply treating the symptoms. But that doesn’t address the problem that bicycles *still* require effort to use and still expose you to weather. Most guys who wears a suit at work aren’t going to be keen on biking 15 miles in the rain, regardless of their fitness level. Google images suggests otherwise: https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycling+business+suit&tbm=isch Incidentally, I have a photo somewhere, of my father on a skiing vacation somewhere in Germany in 1947. He's holding 7ft long wooden skis and wearing a wool suit and tie. Sports fashions have changed in the past and can change again. Cycling fashions are no different: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/da/9b/02/da9b02f6a34d7acf57e9f5106a931094.jpg If we *really* take a big enough step backwards, we see all kinds of problems that are interconnected. We can’t just address a single issue and act like that is going to result in the widespread adoption of bicycling. True, but you can identify these problems and concentrate on those that will have the greatest impact on cycling popularity. For example, taking on the automobile competition problem is much like banging your head against a wall where success is unlikely. However, if you pick the problems that can be solved, the chance of success is more likely and will certainly offer better use of taxpayers money and municipal resources. For example, my neighbors teenage sons all ride bicycles, not because bicycles are cheap, but because they can't afford the insurance costs for even a shared automobile. But the real problem is that they still likely *want* a car, and probably will get one when they can afford one. Replace "want" with "need". I need a car because I run a business that requires I drag around a fair quantity of tools and need to transport customers computahs. I've tried to do service calls on a bicycle and failed. I've also tried to do the same using municipal bus transport, which was even worse. If all I need to move was myself and a few tools, I could do it on a bicycle. The teenagers mentioned attend one of two local colleges. Both are about 15 miles away from home. They are riding bicycles effectively, but not when the weather fails to cooperate, where they switch to either public transport or getting a ride in someone's car. If we lived in a small town, where everything is fairly close, a bicycle would be practical. If the major facilities were farther away, the bicycle becomes less practical. If you want to see a real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt and/or adapt them. That's easy. Just apply government subsidies and tax incentives to any activity that is unpopular, impractical, or overly expensive. Maybe a tax break for NOT driving a car. Cycling Low cost or maybe free bicycles are a good start. Free parking. Free air for the tires. Free bicycle racks. Free bicycle lanes, lanes, and infrastructure. From the governments point of view, "We provide the infrastructure. You do the rest". However, these are all solutions being pounded being used to solve an unspecified problem. Perhaps it might be better to define the problem before blundering forward? In other words, define the problem you're trying to solve first, and then talk about solutions. But we must also be aware we need to define a problem that people *want* to solve. Read through the congressional record or the various state and local web piles for a rather large list of laws, most of which I neither understand or care about. The problems behind each of these laws are many and varied, few of which I care much about. Working in problems that "people" (which means "me") want to solve runs the risk of the non-problems becoming a NIMBY (not in my back yard) problem. For example, if you want to make cycling safe by adding a dedicated bicycle lane, how many automobile parking places can you remove before the residents riot? In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably. Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change. Sustainable for how long? Incentives paid by whom and to whom? Who's reality, yours or mine? Does align mean agree or a compromise? Once we get beyond the basic necessities (food, shelter, internet), things become rather more complexicated. But we appear to be living at a time where large numbers of people are rejecting objective reality and science. Sure. I've been thinking of joining them. It's so much easier to fabricate my own reality according to whatever I consider expedient, righteous, profitable, or politically useful. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Scope for a clear thinker in cycling: a lesson from the FDA
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:33:38 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote: Tim McNamara writes: [ ... ] The car I just bought listed at about 1/3 of the price I paid for my house in 1993. My house has appreciated (according to my property tax statement, which rivals Tolkien in the fantasy genre) to be worth three times what I paid for it; my car won't appreciate. I could buy about 6 of my very most expensive bike- which was a silly amount of money to spend- for the cost of my car. What's the average bike sold to consumers cost- about $500 or so (I've been out of the normal new bike market for decades, so I really don't know)? Versus the average car costing about $25,000? Economics are not really the carrot one might hope for. People do not make choices in an economically coherent fashion. Many people in the US literally don't care what their car costs, they only care about the monthly payment. An increasing number of cars are never paid off. This is, of course, insane, but that's how it is. A small increase in the cost of fuel, insurance, parking, or tolls is much more likely to lead to a change in behavior than a large increase in the cost of a new car. Huh. That's an interesting notion. I had not thought about it, because I don't do this myself, but many people only plan to own a car 2-4 years. Then they trade it in or sell it, getting a replacement vehicle. With that kind of approach, paying off the loan is moot. For that matter, leasing rather than buying is a viable option. I kept my first car 7 years (and it was totalled or I would have kept it longer), my second and third cars 13 years each (and the third car was 11 years old when I bought it). My fourth car was bought 2 years used and was a VW diesel, sold back to VW but I had been intending to keep that at least 10 years. Now I have a new replacement and expect to have that at least 10 years. That should get me to 68 at which point who knows what the car market is going to look like. I am hoping for a fully viable electric with five minute charging and a 400 mile range. I could get away with an electric car with a 65 mile range now for all my commuting needs, or a Chevy Volt. I thought real hard about that option. Or maybe I'll just ride my bike then. And not only does that approach apply to cars but also to houses (people often buy without the intent of making it their lifelong home, unlike my parents' generation or me) and to credit cards. Readily available debt changes the math a lot. Many/most business cannot survive without debt; farmers cannot survive without debt; perhaps half of Americans have credit card debt they will never pay off and will die owing tens of thousands of dollars. That's one of the three big looming economy killers: mass defaults in the housing loan market (again), credit card market and student loan market. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ducklings on their way to vehicular cycling lesson, note the helmets;sorry Duane | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 2 | April 16th 15 08:53 PM |
See-behind-your-head-a-scope | POHB | UK | 5 | December 22nd 07 09:31 PM |
Future transportation dreaming- extreme thinker? Tomorrows 'bents? | [email protected] | Recumbent Biking | 1 | February 8th 07 07:06 PM |
Future transportation dreaming- extreme thinker? Tomorrows 'bents? | [email protected] | Recumbent Biking | 0 | February 8th 07 05:29 AM |
FA: NEW VOLER PVC CYCLING RAIN JACKET clear xl | Bologna Sandwich | Marketplace | 0 | December 30th 06 11:24 PM |