|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
KingOfTheApes wrote:
Are you watching too many American shows? That may account for an excess in SUVs and gated communities. They are here everywhere, so they must mean something. It means they're a popular fashion accessory, not that you're living in a jungle. I used to date a US resident and visited many times so my outlook on the country isn't entirely confined to TV. "about the EU and gated communities. I have not seen one." So you didn't bother with the fact that I live around the corner from one? find... What I notice.. No trailer parks.. Trailer parks are often sub income and in a state of squalor.. It's rare to find such an invention thourghout the EU.. Instead you get much more in the way of traveller communities (aka gypsies), effectively the same but the trailers remain mobile and move from place to place. AFAICT far more of that in the EU than in the US. Why. For the most part, you go to the biggest towns we have extensively walked about town centers and not felt unsafe. Places such as Barcelona, you might find your pockets picked, but you are safe. So why a need for gated communities." The need is perception over reality. Not entirely unlike the need for bike paths, in that respect. Town centres is one think, sink areas in suburbs quite another. I can take you places in most towns in the UK where you won't feel safe. I wouldn't do that, simply because I wouldn't feel safe either. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
On Nov 21, 3:14*am, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote: Are you watching too many American shows? That may account for an excess in SUVs and gated communities. They are here everywhere, so they must mean something. It means they're a popular fashion accessory, not that you're living in a jungle. *I used to date a US resident and visited many times so my outlook on the country isn't entirely confined to TV. Well, again, you may have visited only the beautiful areas. "about the EU and gated communities. I have not seen one." So you didn't bother with the fact that I live around the corner from one? I'm not saying you are lying, but the UK is NOT continental Europe, and there seems to be a lot of resistance to the EU. Is my friend lying? find... What I notice.. No trailer parks.. Trailer parks are often sub income and in a state of squalor.. It's rare to find such an invention thourghout the EU.. Instead you get much more in the way of traveller communities (aka gypsies), effectively the same but the trailers remain mobile and move from place to place. *AFAICT far more of that in the EU than in the US. Why. For the most part, you go to the biggest towns we have extensively walked about town centers and not felt unsafe. Places such as Barcelona, you might find your pockets picked, but you are safe. So why a need for gated communities." The need is perception over reality. *Not entirely unlike the need for bike paths, in that respect. So Economic Apartheid is not a reality in America. Funny, there's even a book on the subject... Book Review: Economic Apartheid in America A startling new book by co-founders of United for a Fair Economy highlights the downfalls of an economic boom that has left millions of Americans behind. SocialFunds.com -- Concern about the South African practice of apartheid, forced segregation and discrimination against the black majority, sparked the growth of socially responsible investing in the 1970s and 1980s. A new book raises the specter of apartheid closer to home in the U.S., only this time the inequality is not based on race, but on income. http://www.socialfunds.com/news/arti...fArticleId=342 Town centres is one think, sink areas in suburbs quite another. *I can take you places in most towns in the UK where you won't feel safe. *I wouldn't do that, simply because I wouldn't feel safe either. Are the authorities so vigilant as they are toward terrorism? Perhaps they don't care, huh? |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
In article ,
Peter Clinch writes: Though I suspect the most important driver of changing attitudes will be the price if fuel going up, as that puts more peple on bikes. Drivers taking to bikes doesn't necessarily change attitudes. I think a lot of sidewalk riders are erstwhile drivers who used to yell: "Get on the [expletive] sidewalk" at adjacent cyclists. Drivers freshly upon bicycles will bring drivers' attitudes, P'sOV and styles to bear. They will behave as they previously desired & expected cyclists to behave, thinking they're doing the right things. It'll take them a while for them to realize they've been humbled. It'll take a while longer for them to realize they haven't been humbled at all. It'll take even longer for them to realize that while they haven't be humbled, they haven't necessarily been exalted -- they're just people among many, on the streets & roads of the world. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
KingOfTheApes wrote:
I'm not saying you are lying, but the UK is NOT continental Europe, and there seems to be a lot of resistance to the EU. Is my friend lying? I am saying you are confusing anecdotal data with useful statistical data. You quote anecdotes to support what you say, but my point in pushing an anecdote back is to show you anecdotes don't realluy mean much. But you appear to rely on them. "Here is a web log saying someone thinks such and such, so that proves it!" It doesn't. The need is perception over reality. Not entirely unlike the need for bike paths, in that respect. So Economic Apartheid is not a reality in America. Funny, there's even a book on the subject... er, what? I never said anything like that, so don't jump to such a conclusion. I said the /need/ for geted communities is largely one of perception. Which is nothing to do with economic apartheid. You really do need to stop and read what people write, rather than just ignoring what they write and printing something irrelevant you happen to want to say as an "answer". Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
In article ,
Peter Clinch writes: KingOfTheApes wrote: So Economic Apartheid is not a reality in America. Funny, there's even a book on the subject... er, what? I never said anything like that, so don't jump to such a conclusion. I said the /need/ for geted communities is largely one of perception. Which is nothing to do with economic apartheid. You really do need to stop and read what people write, rather than just ignoring what they write and printing something irrelevant you happen to want to say as an "answer". Hello Peter :-) Your debating adversary shall not heed your advice, for he is an anti-bicycling (upon public roads and streets) propagandist, through and through. I'm sure he does stop and read what people write/say, but changing the subject is one of his favourite tactics. It is futile to discuss his remarks & statements at the ostensible level. That just provides him with opportunities to spew more propaganda. I suggest aiming straight for the (metaphorical) heart or the brain. Commandant Klink here is simply out to dissuade people from riding upon public streets & roads and thereby requiring of drivers the effort of thought. His strategy is to frighten bicyclists "out of the ways" of drivers such as himself. It is time to deal with him at a strategic rather than a tactical level. Any effort to dumb-down operating a motor vehicle is pernicious. But that is his ultimate goal. His posting history proves that. Beware the fifth column. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
In article ,
Jens Müller writes: Tom Keats schrieb: In article , writes: On Nov 16, 1:08 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote: You can't dumb down a neighbourhood -- too much soap opera drama goin' on. I like that interpretation. With that in mind I'm a huge fan of these stylish big double chevron sharrows that are being installed in several cities. Encourage these neighbors to really get to know each other. Yeah, that sort of works. Except here in Vancouver there are very many traffic-engineering attempts to accomodate non-motorized traffic, and sometimes they conflict with each other. For example, we recently had sharrows installed along our Main Street. But at the same time, we have these pedestrian's sidewalk bulges at intersections. So from a rider's POV you're just riding along in a straight line in the safe zone, and suddenly the curb juts out at you, and you're squeezed between the motorized traffic and the curb. "safe zone"? If there is a sharrow, you would be before or after a car in a sequential queue, when riding properly. So how could you be "squeezed between the motorized traffic and the curb". On Vancouver's Main Street, these intersection sidewalk bulges jut out into the outside lane, thereby narrowing it. They narrow the outside (parking) lane almost twice as much as the parked cars do. A rider often has a long vehicle such as a bus or semi beside him/her, or just a big, long flow of cars, so moving into the adjacent inside lane is obviated, and your intentions to do so are instantaneously pre-emtped. Don'cha just hate being instantaneously pre-empted? That always happens at intersections. It's a Murphy's (Jenkinson's) Law thing. It's how life goes. Unfortunately. But that's what we're stuck with. Here's what our sidewalk intersection bulges look like: http://vancouver.ca/ENGSVCS/streets/admin/improvements/improvementTypes/bulges.htm I guess I'm making Vancouver's Main St sound ugly and dreadful. But it isn't. It really is quite navigable, and one of our best arterials upon which to ride. But it's a testing ground for civic engineers/planners/designers. There will come a day when Main St is absolutely perfect. Then some engineer/planner/ designer will come along, add something more, and ruin everything. I live in an area where so many experts are striving to determine what works best for everybody. I'm shrug blessed, I suppose. Along with everyone else on Main St. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
On Nov 22, 12:23*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article , * * * * Peter Clinch writes: Though I suspect the most important driver of changing attitudes will be the price if fuel going up, as that puts more peple on bikes. Drivers taking to bikes doesn't necessarily change attitudes. I think a lot of sidewalk riders are erstwhile drivers who used to yell: "Get on the [expletive] sidewalk" at adjacent cyclists. *Drivers freshly upon bicycles will bring drivers' attitudes, P'sOV and styles to bear. They will behave as they previously desired & expected cyclists to behave, thinking they're doing the right things. It'll take them a while for them to realize they've been humbled. It'll take a while longer for them to realize they haven't been humbled at all. It'll take even longer for them to realize that while they haven't be humbled, they haven't necessarily been exalted -- they're just people among many, on the streets & roads of the world. Either you are very DEEP, or you don't make sense at all. OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but what makes people ride sidewalks is how deadly roads are --or how they are perceived to be. But PERCEPTION IS REALITY, and nobody's doing a thing to change that perception, nor are the authorities cracking down on reckless drivers who terrorize cyclists. So what do you expect, cyclists to be stupid enough to ride among predatory drivers? |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
On Nov 22, 5:25*am, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote: I'm not saying you are lying, but the UK is NOT continental Europe, and there seems to be a lot of resistance to the EU. Is my friend lying? I am saying you are confusing anecdotal data with useful statistical data. *You quote anecdotes to support what you say, but my point in pushing an anecdote back is to show you anecdotes don't realluy mean much. *But you appear to rely on them. *"Here is a web log saying someone thinks such and such, so that proves it!" *It doesn't. I see, a definite connection. You live in Colombia, you need gated communities, you live in the UK or Europe, you don't, and you live in America, it's kind of in-between. In other words, the more civilized the society is, the less need for gated communities. Never saw any in Oslo or Canary Islands. The need is perception over reality. *Not entirely unlike the need for bike paths, in that respect. So Economic Apartheid is not a reality in America. Funny, there's even a book on the subject... er, what? *I never said anything like that, so don't jump to such a conclusion. *I said the /need/ for geted communities is largely one of perception. *Which is nothing to do with economic apartheid. You really do need to stop and read what people write, rather than just ignoring what they write and printing something irrelevant you happen to want to say as an "answer". Perception is reality, and reality makes perception. I'm sure you too have perceptions about life in Haiti, for example. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
On Nov 22, 1:18*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article , * * * * Peter Clinch writes: KingOfTheApes wrote: So Economic Apartheid is not a reality in America. Funny, there's even a book on the subject... er, what? *I never said anything like that, so don't jump to such a conclusion. *I said the /need/ for geted communities is largely one of perception. *Which is nothing to do with economic apartheid. You really do need to stop and read what people write, rather than just ignoring what they write and printing something irrelevant you happen to want to say as an "answer". Hello Peter :-) Your debating adversary shall not heed your advice, for he is an anti-bicycling (upon public roads and streets) propagandist, through and through. I'm sure he does stop and read what people write/say, but changing the subject is one of his favourite tactics. It is futile to discuss his remarks & statements at the ostensible level. *That just provides him with opportunities to spew more propaganda. *I suggest aiming straight for the (metaphorical) heart or the brain. Commandant Klink here is simply out to dissuade people from riding upon public streets & roads and thereby requiring of drivers the effort of thought. *His strategy is to frighten bicyclists "out of the ways" of drivers such as himself. *It is time to deal with him at a strategic rather than a tactical level. Any effort to dumb-down operating a motor vehicle is pernicious. *But that is his ultimate goal. His posting history proves that. Tom, I'm saying the WHOLE SYSTEM, down to the lack of space for cyclists and up to the gated communities, hints at a jungle where only the strongest survive. You get it, or playing dumb? Read this and see my solutions to this jungle... (Yes, bike facilities are in the program) COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE "Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both." -M.L. King A PROGRAM FOR A BETTER WORLD Why not build a new system? That offers PROSPERITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE and FREEDOM; that discards the defects of both Communism and Capitalism; and that places the system at the service of the human being, and not the other way around. Why not HUMANISM? Naturally, education and healthcare should be the maximum priorities; they should be free --or low cost, in the case of higher education-- and accessible to all. Likewise, culture and sports should have a high priority. The needs of women and children should receive special attention (for example, adopting the affordable daycares; in general, we would have much to learn from the Scandinavian model, though our policy should emphasize that of "teaching them how fish," not of "giving them the fish"). A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, that includes competition and cooperation, would create a healthy competition, and it would allow to satisfy the material and human needs of all. (In this way, the cooperatives would have to be efficient, while the capitalist enterprises would have to be more humane; we would have much to learn from the Israeli kibbutz [non- profit cooperatives]; and from the industrial cooperatives of Mondragon, in the Basque Country [a "workers capitalism"].) We should seek full employment (for instance, by creating jobs in the construction of the transportation infrastructure, and a 30 hour workweek should be enough). Public transportation should be A1. (The city of Curitiba, in Brazil, offers us a functional model of transportation; bicycle lanes should be implemented along all major streets.) Our roads, where the Law of the Jungle rules, should be made safer, say by enforcing passing on the left only. The homeless, who have been pushed into our better parks, should be incorporated into light but necessary duties, say picking up litter in exchange for shared apartments and a minimum wage --there should be no homeless. (Again, Curitiba is a model on this.) Junk food should have a warning label (just like cigarettes), particularly the one destined to children, and also be taxed to subsidize healthy alternatives. Housing should be available at popular prices. (Prefabricated multifamily units can help accomplish this; the movement of "New Urbanism" can provide them with a sense of community and quality of life, say by having abundant green areas.) Public corruption should be treated as "public enemy No.1." TV and radio should be independent of Big Business and the State. (This is due to two reasons: culturally, because the ratings make bad programs become "good"... for business; and, politically, because whoever has power over the media... will be in power; however, people should be able to watch anything on video and cable; the BBC offers us and example of an independent media.) The "Free Press" should be democratized, so that, among other things, the censorship of the opinions of the public is eradicated. Politicians should live in the worst of the area they represent, so they know its problems. And politics should become cheaper to avoid its control by powerful groups (for example, offering free time on TV to the candidates; we would have much to learn from the political model of Switzerland [in particular, its political decentralization and its opportunity to "vote with your feet" between cantons]). Nevertheless, we should never follow neither anything nor anyone blindly. And, of course, everything can be improved. Something to think about: While the prohibition of drugs has been largely ineffective and costly (in money, prison overpopulation, crime), regulated legalization --like that of Holland-- can be a better solution to both addiction and crime. And living free from fear of crime should be treated as a basic need of society. The final form of this system would be determined by the acceptance of the people themselves: Each and everyone of these proposals should be submitted to referendum. And, the basis of everything else: We should learn to live, not FROM, but WITH Nature. This would amount to COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE… |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
I am convinced bicycling is not safe
In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes: On Nov 22, 12:23*am, (Tom Keats) wrote: In article , * * * * Peter Clinch writes: Though I suspect the most important driver of changing attitudes will be the price if fuel going up, as that puts more peple on bikes. Drivers taking to bikes doesn't necessarily change attitudes. I think a lot of sidewalk riders are erstwhile drivers who used to yell: "Get on the [expletive] sidewalk" at adjacent cyclists. *Drivers freshly upon bicycles will bring drivers' attitudes, P'sOV and styles to bear. They will behave as they previously desired & expected cyclists to behave, thinking they're doing the right things. It'll take them a while for them to realize they've been humbled. It'll take a while longer for them to realize they haven't been humbled at all. It'll take even longer for them to realize that while they haven't be humbled, they haven't necessarily been exalted -- they're just people among many, on the streets & roads of the world. Either you are very DEEP, or you don't make sense at all. OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but what makes people ride sidewalks is how deadly roads are --or how they are perceived to be. You just love to scare riders off the roads. That's your goal, your objective. Matthew 7:16 But PERCEPTION IS REALITY, and nobody's doing a thing to change that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sometimes you're almost funny. perception, nor are the authorities cracking down on reckless drivers who terrorize cyclists. So what do you expect, cyclists to be stupid enough to ride among predatory drivers? Your propaganda rhetoric is so ridiculously over the top. But keep trying. You no doubt will, anyway. http://bicyclesafe.com/ http://www.dot.state.pa.us/BIKE/WEB/safety.htm http://bccc.bc.ca/bikesafety/index.htm -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tom Danielson March 13 1978 - March 13 2008 | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | March 13th 08 09:31 AM |
Mt. Washington BC | nrkist | Unicycling | 4 | August 28th 05 11:21 PM |
Washington Post: A Rough Ride for Schwinn Bicycle | Ed | General | 12 | December 12th 04 04:24 AM |