Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed

On 10/23/2013 9:56 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-24-2013, 00:52, Jay Beattie wrote:
could have said anything and been revered by the natives

When I was tezching electronics, I used to make up joke answers to
questions--till I realized people were actually taking them as real
answers and passing them on!

When I was doing some FAE training I made up a data sheet for a fake
product, the Odor I/O, which was a companion product to the Super I/O
which I was the AE for. It was just serious enough that many people
believed it. Suggested uses included being able to send smells to
someones computer, generate smells in supermarkets to drive sales of
specific food items, and using it in movie theaters. There was visual
smell editor included called "SmellView." Since all the money is in
selling supplies, the real revenue was from selling refills of the smell
cartridges.

I was ahead of my time http://www.scentsciences.com/.

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:52:13 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

Try your presentation in front of a bunch of people who ride everyday, or like Dan, hundreds of miles a week. They will be more critical of black and white rules. You should expect a more critical response from this group.

1) Dan will be critical of nearly anything I say, and will be undiplomatic in the extreme in the process.

2) When teaching cycling or almost anything else (engineering, music, mechanical work) there need to be _some_ black and white rules. I imagine the same is true in law. But nearly all of what I've taught in those areas has been not black and white rules, but explanations of the best way to do something, and why.

Dan, of course, accepts NO black and white rules. He's described his riding style often enough. Nonetheless, I have taught and will continue to teach that one should not ride drunk, facing traffic, with no lights at night, doing wheelies through intersections, etc. The reasons why take only the briefest time to explain to most people.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:42:40 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:52:13 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

Try your presentation in front of a bunch of people who ride everyday, or like Dan, hundreds of miles a week. They will be more critical of black and white rules. You should expect a more critical response from this group.

1) Dan will be critical of nearly anything I say,

Lets review this thread:

Frank has 9 posts in the thread before I post addressing something else
altogether.

Frank has 21 posts in before I added my 2nd - still nothing to do with
anything he has said.

Frank has 28 posts in and I'm still leaving him alone.

Then Frank veers into his pet peeve with:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.bicycles.tech/KgT4IkSjLSY/xTfrdBuDZtwJ

.... plainly implicating me personally (and later confirm with names).

I challenged this affront, whereupon he activates the usual formula of
duck, dodge and cover, publicly flay a strawman dunce, and puff himself
up. It's aggravating in the extreme, so...

... and will be undiplomatic in the extreme in the process.


di·plo·ma·cy
: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact

My point about the public schools and your spiel was that you'd
really have to softpedal the "grow some balls" and "helmeteer" stuff.
I know you can, but it sticks in your craw.


2) When teaching cycling or almost anything else (engineering, music, mechanical work) there need to be _some_ black and white rules. I imagine the same is true in law. But nearly all of what I've taught in those areas has been not black and white rules, but explanations of the best way to do something, and why.


Value laden. It's why you say, "some students will fail"; because
of course of it couldn't have been the teacher who failed. They're
just "unwilling to learn", "beyond hope", etc.


Dan, of course, accepts NO black and white rules.

True enough (I just don't see things all black or all white); though
I do operate from many firm principles.

He's described his riding style often enough.

You frequently reference "adult cycling". The adult distinction
perplexes me.

Nonetheless, I have taught and will continue to teach that one should not ride drunk,


So that's not what you meant by adult cycling. Hmmm... does it involve
sexual situations?

... facing traffic,

You're bound to have to face traffic at some point. I guess you mean
something else.

... with no lights at night,

Or lights that aren't German.

... doing wheelies through intersections,

*What* have you got against wheelies?

... etc. The reasons why take only the briefest time to explain to most people.


Explaining is one thing; understanding another.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:52:55 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 10/24/2013 7:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:27:41 -0700, Dan
wrote:

Phil W Lee writes:

Dan considered Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:37:43
-0700 the perfect time to write:

Dan writes:

Frank Krygowski writes:

snip


Why so few proposals for learning to ride well, as a cheaper and better alternative?

Because transportation bicycling in most of the USA is a fringe
activity; and what is the point of rider education if there are
no riders to educate?

I'm still all for it being available anyway, and when *other*
approaches (i.e. facilities) increases interest in transportation
bicycling, such education should be a prominent piece of the
equation.

snip

Yes, doing it for transportation is fringe.

snip

What you're proposing instead is to first spend untold billions to transform the infrastructure of America, by adding weird bike ghettos, all the while maintaining the myth that one can't ride safely without those ghettos... and THEN you want to start educating cyclists! I can't imagine how you pretend that strategy isn't completely backwards!


No, I'm not saying withhold the education until then. I *said* when
interest in transportation bicycling does increase, then education
would be a *prominent* piece of the equation.


Your question was not, "Should we educate cyclists?" Your question
was, "Why so few proposals... as alternative [to facilities]?" My
answer addressed your question.

(Facilities are primarily about transportation bicycling. I think
most recreational bicyclists avoid places where there is any level
of motor traffic that would warrant any facility - _unless there is
a facility there_. Facilities are proven to increase transportation
*and* recreational bicycling. *Nothing* wrong with education, but
who are you going to educate? And don't for a second think they're
going to let you in the public schools with your bareheaded, really
quite safe, VC gospel

Why on earth not?
We've done exactly that here in the UK.
Nationwide.


I am all for bicycling as a regular part of the public
school curriculum and experince; but can you imagine
_Frank's spiel_? Understand that I think he makes a lot
of sense. Degrees of it in the mix - truth and facts and
all that. But his spiel as presented here? There'd be
lynch mobs and rioting at the school board meeting.

- though I think you've got a *lot* of the
perspective that's needed *within* that "vision", but you just can't
go in there and have kids telling their parents, "But Mr. Krygowski
*said* I should take the lane and that helmets are a scam." :-)

Then the parents learn too - that the person cycling along in the
middle of a narrow lane isn't doing it to be obstructive, but because
it's safer that way, and they think that cyclist may be /their/ kid,
or at least one of his classmates.

I can't say that I know what it's like in The Netherlands
or even the UK, but I have the impression that Holland has
it right.

Especially if they are getting the same message on billboards, or
served up via google ads based on the google determined facts of their
location and the fact that they are a motorist.
So instead of getting all offended, and brush passing, or brake
testing that cyclist, they treat them with some respect.


Butts on bikes - lots and lots of butts on bikes. That is
what will bring them around. The writing on the wall that
the car culture's time has passed.

Win-win, as they say.

I think Holland has done it.

I'm not sure it is going to work.

If I remember my teens correctly the driving urge was WOMEN (and how
to get them). Granted this was long before the invention of the birth
control pills and as a result women were actually pretty difficult to
get, but we talked about it a lot :-)

But, as I remember it, the thought of getting a girl on a bicycle to
seduce her was pretty far from anyone's mind. It was usually more of,
"if I can get the Old Man to let me use the car Saturday night..."
Even in those innocent days I think most of us realized that you can
catch more "flies" with four wheels then you can with two :-)



lol. I think you just put your finger on the real motivation for the
car culture.

Of course. Unless the mankind has changed its ways the main drive in
the young vigorous male is SEX! SEX! More SEX!

After all, Mother Nature doesn't care about purple panties she cares
about propagation of the species.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:51:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:42:40 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:52:13 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

Try your presentation in front of a bunch of people who ride everyday, or like Dan, hundreds of miles a week. They will be more critical of black and white rules. You should expect a more critical response from this group.

1) Dan will be critical of nearly anything I say,

Lets review this thread:

Frank has 9 posts in the thread before I post addressing something else
altogether.

Frank has 21 posts in before I added my 2nd - still nothing to do with
anything he has said.

Frank has 28 posts in and I'm still leaving him alone.

Then Frank veers into his pet peeve with:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.bicycles.tech/KgT4IkSjLSY/xTfrdBuDZtwJ

... plainly implicating me personally (and later confirm with names).

I challenged this affront, whereupon he activates the usual formula of
duck, dodge and cover, publicly flay a strawman dunce, and puff himself
up. It's aggravating in the extreme, so...

... and will be undiplomatic in the extreme in the process.


di·plo·ma·cy
: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact

My point about the public schools and your spiel was that you'd
really have to softpedal the "grow some balls" and "helmeteer" stuff.
I know you can, but it sticks in your craw.


2) When teaching cycling or almost anything else (engineering, music, mechanical work) there need to be _some_ black and white rules. I imagine the same is true in law. But nearly all of what I've taught in those areas has been not black and white rules, but explanations of the best way to do something, and why.


Value laden. It's why you say, "some students will fail"; because
of course of it couldn't have been the teacher who failed. They're
just "unwilling to learn", "beyond hope", etc.


Dan, of course, accepts NO black and white rules.

True enough (I just don't see things all black or all white); though
I do operate from many firm principles.

He's described his riding style often enough.

You frequently reference "adult cycling". The adult distinction
perplexes me.

Nonetheless, I have taught and will continue to teach that one should not ride drunk,


So that's not what you meant by adult cycling. Hmmm... does it involve
sexual situations?

... facing traffic,

You're bound to have to face traffic at some point. I guess you mean
something else.

... with no lights at night,

Or lights that aren't German.

... doing wheelies through intersections,

*What* have you got against wheelies?

... etc. The reasons why take only the briefest time to explain to most people.


Explaining is one thing; understanding another.

What puzzles me is "Don't American kids learn to ride a bike as part
of growing up? Do they now have to go to school to learn to ride a
bicycle?

The mind boggles. Are there now schools to teach kids to climb trees?
Throw stones, play marbles, run about and holler and shout?

Is "effete" a word?
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. writes:

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:51:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:42:40 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:52:13 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

Try your presentation in front of a bunch of people who ride everyday, or like Dan, hundreds of miles a week. They will be more critical of black and white rules. You should expect a more critical response from this group.

1) Dan will be critical of nearly anything I say,

Lets review this thread:

Frank has 9 posts in the thread before I post addressing something else
altogether.

Frank has 21 posts in before I added my 2nd - still nothing to do with
anything he has said.

Frank has 28 posts in and I'm still leaving him alone.

Then Frank veers into his pet peeve with:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.bicycles.tech/KgT4IkSjLSY/xTfrdBuDZtwJ

... plainly implicating me personally (and later confirm with names).

I challenged this affront, whereupon he activates the usual formula of
duck, dodge and cover, publicly flay a strawman dunce, and puff himself
up. It's aggravating in the extreme, so...

... and will be undiplomatic in the extreme in the process.


di·plo·ma·cy
: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact

My point about the public schools and your spiel was that you'd
really have to softpedal the "grow some balls" and "helmeteer" stuff.
I know you can, but it sticks in your craw.


2) When teaching cycling or almost anything else (engineering, music, mechanical work) there need to be _some_ black and white rules. I imagine the same is true in law. But nearly all of what I've taught in those areas has been not black and white rules, but explanations of the best way to do something, and why.


Value laden. It's why you say, "some students will fail"; because
of course of it couldn't have been the teacher who failed. They're
just "unwilling to learn", "beyond hope", etc.


Dan, of course, accepts NO black and white rules.

True enough (I just don't see things all black or all white); though
I do operate from many firm principles.

He's described his riding style often enough.

You frequently reference "adult cycling". The adult distinction
perplexes me.

Nonetheless, I have taught and will continue to teach that one should not ride drunk,


So that's not what you meant by adult cycling. Hmmm... does it involve
sexual situations?

... facing traffic,

You're bound to have to face traffic at some point. I guess you mean
something else.

... with no lights at night,

Or lights that aren't German.

... doing wheelies through intersections,

*What* have you got against wheelies?

... etc. The reasons why take only the briefest time to explain to most people.


Explaining is one thing; understanding another.

What puzzles me is "Don't American kids learn to ride a bike as part
of growing up? Do they now have to go to school to learn to ride a
bicycle?

The mind boggles. Are there now schools to teach kids to climb trees?
Throw stones, play marbles, run about and holler and shout?

American kids don't do those things much anymore. They play video
games and take their prescribed Adderall.

--

Phil W Lee writes:

Dan considered Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:27:41
-0700 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee writes:

Dan considered Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:37:43
-0700 the perfect time to write:

Dan writes:

Frank Krygowski writes:

snip


Why so few proposals for learning to ride well, as a cheaper and better alternative?

Because transportation bicycling in most of the USA is a fringe
activity; and what is the point of rider education if there are
no riders to educate?

I'm still all for it being available anyway, and when *other*
approaches (i.e. facilities) increases interest in transportation
bicycling, such education should be a prominent piece of the
equation.

snip

Yes, doing it for transportation is fringe.

snip

What you're proposing instead is to first spend untold billions to transform the infrastructure of America, by adding weird bike ghettos, all the while maintaining the myth that one can't ride safely without those ghettos... and THEN you want to start educating cyclists! I can't imagine how you pretend that strategy isn't completely backwards!


No, I'm not saying withhold the education until then. I *said* when
interest in transportation bicycling does increase, then education
would be a *prominent* piece of the equation.


Your question was not, "Should we educate cyclists?" Your question
was, "Why so few proposals... as alternative [to facilities]?" My
answer addressed your question.

(Facilities are primarily about transportation bicycling. I think
most recreational bicyclists avoid places where there is any level
of motor traffic that would warrant any facility - _unless there is
a facility there_. Facilities are proven to increase transportation
*and* recreational bicycling. *Nothing* wrong with education, but
who are you going to educate? And don't for a second think they're
going to let you in the public schools with your bareheaded, really
quite safe, VC gospel

Why on earth not?
We've done exactly that here in the UK.
Nationwide.


I am all for bicycling as a regular part of the public
school curriculum and experince; but can you imagine
_Frank's spiel_? Understand that I think he makes a lot
of sense. Degrees of it in the mix - truth and facts and
all that. But his spiel as presented here? There'd be
lynch mobs and rioting at the school board meeting.

There are a few grumpers and the occasional hold-out local council,
but none of the lynch mobs or rioting that you predict.

Well, the thing is, public perception that bicycling on
roads is insanely dangerous truly is widespread here -
ubiquitous if not quite universal. I have expounded on
my idea of how to fix it, and ISTM there's only one way:
Get people on bikes; and then they'll see for themselves.

Lynch mobs and rioting was a bit of hyperbole. Suffice
it to say in all honesty there would be at least an
uproar. Any defender of "really quite safe and no
helmets needed" would be the oddball.


- though I think you've got a *lot* of the
perspective that's needed *within* that "vision", but you just can't
go in there and have kids telling their parents, "But Mr. Krygowski
*said* I should take the lane and that helmets are a scam." :-)

Then the parents learn too - that the person cycling along in the
middle of a narrow lane isn't doing it to be obstructive, but because
it's safer that way, and they think that cyclist may be /their/ kid,
or at least one of his classmates.

I can't say that I know what it's like in The Netherlands
or even the UK, but I have the impression that Holland has
it right.

And where do you think they started from?

Well, they're a more sensible lot to begin with, but my
understanding is they put the brakes on the car culture.

(Not that any car culture was ever of any scale like ours in
the US, or that it was ever allowed to gain much of a foothold
in The Netherlands. It's going to be quite a problem here, and
I don't really expect any revolutionary change. It's why
shoehorning facilities in here and there can't solve all the
problems, and create some new ones; but they *do* get butts on
bikes, and that's where the inertia for culture change comes.)


Especially if they are getting the same message on billboards, or
served up via google ads based on the google determined facts of their
location and the fact that they are a motorist.
So instead of getting all offended, and brush passing, or brake
testing that cyclist, they treat them with some respect.


Butts on bikes - lots and lots of butts on bikes. That is
what will bring them around. The writing on the wall that
the car culture's time has passed.

Win-win, as they say.

I think Holland has done it.

Holland is only one region of the Netherlands.
You don't refer to the whole of the Netherlands as Friesland, do you,
over there in Texas ;-)

Thank you for telling me - I honestly didn't know. I've never
been east of the Rocky Mountains in my whole life.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:46:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:51:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:42:40 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:52:13 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

Try your presentation in front of a bunch of people who ride everyday, or like Dan, hundreds of miles a week. They will be more critical of black and white rules. You should expect a more critical response from this group.

1) Dan will be critical of nearly anything I say,

Lets review this thread:

Frank has 9 posts in the thread before I post addressing something else
altogether.

Frank has 21 posts in before I added my 2nd - still nothing to do with
anything he has said.

Frank has 28 posts in and I'm still leaving him alone.

Then Frank veers into his pet peeve with:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.bicycles.tech/KgT4IkSjLSY/xTfrdBuDZtwJ

... plainly implicating me personally (and later confirm with names).

I challenged this affront, whereupon he activates the usual formula of
duck, dodge and cover, publicly flay a strawman dunce, and puff himself
up. It's aggravating in the extreme, so...

... and will be undiplomatic in the extreme in the process.


di·plo·ma·cy
: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact

My point about the public schools and your spiel was that you'd
really have to softpedal the "grow some balls" and "helmeteer" stuff.
I know you can, but it sticks in your craw.


2) When teaching cycling or almost anything else (engineering, music, mechanical work) there need to be _some_ black and white rules. I imagine the same is true in law. But nearly all of what I've taught in those areas has been not black and white rules, but explanations of the best way to do something, and why.


Value laden. It's why you say, "some students will fail"; because
of course of it couldn't have been the teacher who failed. They're
just "unwilling to learn", "beyond hope", etc.


Dan, of course, accepts NO black and white rules.

True enough (I just don't see things all black or all white); though
I do operate from many firm principles.

He's described his riding style often enough.

You frequently reference "adult cycling". The adult distinction
perplexes me.

Nonetheless, I have taught and will continue to teach that one should not ride drunk,


So that's not what you meant by adult cycling. Hmmm... does it involve
sexual situations?

... facing traffic,

You're bound to have to face traffic at some point. I guess you mean
something else.

... with no lights at night,

Or lights that aren't German.

... doing wheelies through intersections,

*What* have you got against wheelies?

... etc. The reasons why take only the briefest time to explain to most people.


Explaining is one thing; understanding another.

What puzzles me is "Don't American kids learn to ride a bike as part
of growing up? Do they now have to go to school to learn to ride a
bicycle?

The mind boggles. Are there now schools to teach kids to climb trees?
Throw stones, play marbles, run about and holler and shout?

American kids don't do those things much anymore. They play video
games and take their prescribed Adderall.


I've heard of Hadacol, but what is Adderall?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 01:36:13 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Dan considered Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:27:41
-0700 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee writes:

Dan considered Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:37:43
-0700 the perfect time to write:

Dan writes:

Frank Krygowski writes:

snip


Why so few proposals for learning to ride well, as a cheaper and better alternative?

Because transportation bicycling in most of the USA is a fringe
activity; and what is the point of rider education if there are
no riders to educate?

I'm still all for it being available anyway, and when *other*
approaches (i.e. facilities) increases interest in transportation
bicycling, such education should be a prominent piece of the
equation.

snip

Yes, doing it for transportation is fringe.

snip

What you're proposing instead is to first spend untold billions to transform the infrastructure of America, by adding weird bike ghettos, all the while maintaining the myth that one can't ride safely without those ghettos... and THEN you want to start educating cyclists! I can't imagine how you pretend that strategy isn't completely backwards!


No, I'm not saying withhold the education until then. I *said* when
interest in transportation bicycling does increase, then education
would be a *prominent* piece of the equation.


Your question was not, "Should we educate cyclists?" Your question
was, "Why so few proposals... as alternative [to facilities]?" My
answer addressed your question.

(Facilities are primarily about transportation bicycling. I think
most recreational bicyclists avoid places where there is any level
of motor traffic that would warrant any facility - _unless there is
a facility there_. Facilities are proven to increase transportation
*and* recreational bicycling. *Nothing* wrong with education, but
who are you going to educate? And don't for a second think they're
going to let you in the public schools with your bareheaded, really
quite safe, VC gospel

Why on earth not?
We've done exactly that here in the UK.
Nationwide.


I am all for bicycling as a regular part of the public
school curriculum and experince; but can you imagine
_Frank's spiel_? Understand that I think he makes a lot
of sense. Degrees of it in the mix - truth and facts and
all that. But his spiel as presented here? There'd be
lynch mobs and rioting at the school board meeting.

There are a few grumpers and the occasional hold-out local council,
but none of the lynch mobs or rioting that you predict.

- though I think you've got a *lot* of the
perspective that's needed *within* that "vision", but you just can't
go in there and have kids telling their parents, "But Mr. Krygowski
*said* I should take the lane and that helmets are a scam." :-)

Then the parents learn too - that the person cycling along in the
middle of a narrow lane isn't doing it to be obstructive, but because
it's safer that way, and they think that cyclist may be /their/ kid,
or at least one of his classmates.

I can't say that I know what it's like in The Netherlands
or even the UK, but I have the impression that Holland has
it right.

And where do you think they started from?

Especially if they are getting the same message on billboards, or
served up via google ads based on the google determined facts of their
location and the fact that they are a motorist.
So instead of getting all offended, and brush passing, or brake
testing that cyclist, they treat them with some respect.


Butts on bikes - lots and lots of butts on bikes. That is
what will bring them around. The writing on the wall that
the car culture's time has passed.

Win-win, as they say.

I think Holland has done it.

Holland is only one region of the Netherlands.
You don't refer to the whole of the Netherlands as Friesland, do you,
over there in Texas ;-)


"Over here in Texas" you used to sell "Lone Star Beer - a dollar a
pitcher; Foreign Brands $1.50". Foreign brands being Schlitz,
Budwiser, etc. :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, October 25, 2013 5:15:34 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:46:43 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

snip


bicycle?

The mind boggles. Are there now schools to teach kids to climb trees?
Throw stones, play marbles, run about and holler and shout?

American kids don't do those things much anymore. They play video
games and take their prescribed Adderall.

I've heard of Hadacol, but what is Adderall?

http://www.huxley.net/soma/somaquote.html

Oooo... "The Cost of Stability":

http://somaweb.org/w/sub/BNW_CostOfStability.html