A March on Washington... on Bicycle?

"KingOfTheApes" wrote in message
...
[...]
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. Actually, I
think they mean the same as in Mexico or Costa Rica...

Yes, I think it does mean the same thing. As civilization breaks down, those
with the wherewithal seek safety above all else. They will not only move to
gated communities, but they will fortify their homes with walls in the end.
Go to any third world country and you will see what I mean.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:

Now the question is how many decades we will take to make drivers, who
are used to the law of the jungle, more civilized?

It takes time, but it can (and does) happen. For example, not too
long ago in the UK "one for the road" was perfectly acceptable
amongst the general population. Nowadays drink driving is a pretty
major no-no for the general public.

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.

That's what I've observed for myself. That the thing that really
motivates most poeple is when the cost to their pocketbook rises. This
is especially true if it's a rapid rise. Inconveinence in the form of
traffic jams, poor parking and other things help also. But cost seems
to be a big driver (no pun intended) of people's change in behaviour.

--
Dane Buson -
"Never draw fire; it irritates the people around you."

On Nov 20, 2:24*pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Clinch wrote:

KingOfTheApes wrote:

Now the question is how many decades we will take to make drivers, who
are used to the law of the jungle, more civilized?

It takes time, but it can (and does) happen. *For example, not too
long ago in the UK "one for the road" was perfectly acceptable
amongst the general population. *Nowadays drink driving is a pretty
major no-no for the general public.

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.

That's what I've observed for myself. *That the thing that really
motivates most poeple is when the cost to their pocketbook rises. *This
is especially true if it's a rapid rise. *Inconveinence in the form of
traffic jams, poor parking and other things help also. *But cost seems
to be a big driver (no pun intended) of people's change in behaviour.


Yeah, that's why I get so depressed... the price of oil is going
down.

But then I remember that we are in the middle of a huge economic
crisis and that the Big Three are trying to survive after producing so
many fat SUVs, and finally I get happy.

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/

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?

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

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/

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

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

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?