Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Nice, dude. On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:32 PM, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > I was very fortunate (thank you, God -- I got in thanks to > near-subprime-standards at the beginning of the crest of the R E boom) > to find a small duplex in a modestly high end infill project, and this > just before the developers realized that they could get much more for > their lots than they charged me. Just shy of $145 in fall, 2003; > appraised at $251 in October of '08 when I foolishly but very > fortunately refinanced (1/4% higher!) to live off cashout while > getting out of insurance (gag) and into resumes (smaller gag) -- and > this area has maintained most of its value despite the real estate > slump. I have all my commercial needs within 1/2 mile (grocery, 1/4 > mile, Starbuck's, 1/8 mile, gymn, across street, etc etc) but bosque > within literally a stone's throw for hiking and major N-S bike path > within 1/2 mile. I am also 8 miles from daughter downtown and 8 miles > from age'd mother in other direction. When I commuted, I'd ride the 15 > miles to work and bus 1/2 way back. Now I bike to Mom's (11 miles by > bike unless I take the heavily traffik'd 8 mile route). Bikram's yoga > is halfway (bike route) between Mom and Me, restaurants galore within > 5 mile radius, etc. The key is river and trees, which the bosque has > -- imagine a 1/2 mile wide ribbon of green on each side of the RG in a > high desert landscape. > > But even I put on about 4 or 5 K miles last year, mostly for daughter > and mother -- ex has typical suburban ideas about location and > transport. > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM, cyclotour...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> On Jan 27, 11:02 am, bfd wrote: >>> On Jan 25, 10:56 am, "cyclotour...@gmail.com" >>> wrote:> Car-free and car-light are two different things, and both >>> > commendable!!! I doubt I will ever be car-free, but every year I try >>> > to drive less and less. It's fun, saves money, gives me great >>> > "parking", a little exercise, doesn't fund Islamic extremists. All my >>> > local errands are done on foot or bike. Luckily I live in a place >>> > where I can do that. >>> >>> I think your last statment is the key - live in a place where you can >>> do local errands, either by bike or walking. Unfortunately, most >>> Americans don't live near places to do local stuff and have no choice >>> but to drive. I know this is supposedly changing with the popularity >>> of "density housing" and living near "transit hubs," but let's face >>> it, most Americans believe in owning a home in the suburbs where they >>> have a white picket fence, the schools are good and its quiet. Hard to >>> get those things living in "the city." >>> >>> My buddy recently started a family and decided to buy a house out in >>> the suburbs. He and his wife drive everywhere. He complains about >>> "filling up" a couple of times a week. He also complains about not >>> having time to "go to the gym," and don't even start about the "cost >>> of parking." Of course, he goes on to brag about how quiet it is >>> where he lives, the lack of "riff raffs" living in his area, and the >>> greatest of the local public school. >>> He knows I commute to work by bike and rags on me about "growing up," >>> "being out in the elements," (while he's nice a cozy in his car with >>> the heater turned up, and my favorite, that "the War is Over!" - >>> implying that my riding is nothing more than being fugal, no make that >>> CHEAP! I laugh it off as his being jealous as I am saving money ; >>> being green - as I'm not using any gas and nor adding to the >>> pollution; and basically the have a reduced stress level as riding >>> helps burn it off. I'm probably preaching to the choir, but who has >>> it better? >>> >>> Note, I do own two cars, including a 21 year old BMW that is just fun >>> to drive and definitely have to use my cars as I have two young girls >>> and an elderly mom to transport. But, my commute is for me and I'm >>> glad to have the option to ride! Good Luck! >> >> Trust me, I know I'm lucky. But it's by choice, too. We have a >> smaller, older house, without the modern amenities. Wouldn't change >> it for a house in the burbs for anything (and couldn't afford a house >> in the city). Tuesday the fam walked downtown for pizza and beer. >> Tonight I meet up up with friends to do a bicycle kitchen at our >> weekly farmer's market. But I work a half hour away by car including >> drop off at school and/or daycare depending on the day. No getting >> around that for me. The trick for me is finding an older town, >> established prior to WWII. That gives you a walkable/living scale. >> Not too big, not too small said Goldilocks. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.c
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
I was very fortunate (thank you, God -- I got in thanks to near-subprime-standards at the beginning of the crest of the R E boom) to find a small duplex in a modestly high end infill project, and this just before the developers realized that they could get much more for their lots than they charged me. Just shy of $145 in fall, 2003; appraised at $251 in October of '08 when I foolishly but very fortunately refinanced (1/4% higher!) to live off cashout while getting out of insurance (gag) and into resumes (smaller gag) -- and this area has maintained most of its value despite the real estate slump. I have all my commercial needs within 1/2 mile (grocery, 1/4 mile, Starbuck's, 1/8 mile, gymn, across street, etc etc) but bosque within literally a stone's throw for hiking and major N-S bike path within 1/2 mile. I am also 8 miles from daughter downtown and 8 miles from age'd mother in other direction. When I commuted, I'd ride the 15 miles to work and bus 1/2 way back. Now I bike to Mom's (11 miles by bike unless I take the heavily traffik'd 8 mile route). Bikram's yoga is halfway (bike route) between Mom and Me, restaurants galore within 5 mile radius, etc. The key is river and trees, which the bosque has -- imagine a 1/2 mile wide ribbon of green on each side of the RG in a high desert landscape. But even I put on about 4 or 5 K miles last year, mostly for daughter and mother -- ex has typical suburban ideas about location and transport. On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM, cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Jan 27, 11:02 am, bfd wrote: >> On Jan 25, 10:56 am, "cyclotour...@gmail.com" >> wrote:> Car-free and car-light are two different things, and both >> > commendable!!! I doubt I will ever be car-free, but every year I try >> > to drive less and less. It's fun, saves money, gives me great >> > "parking", a little exercise, doesn't fund Islamic extremists. All my >> > local errands are done on foot or bike. Luckily I live in a place >> > where I can do that. >> >> I think your last statment is the key - live in a place where you can >> do local errands, either by bike or walking. Unfortunately, most >> Americans don't live near places to do local stuff and have no choice >> but to drive. I know this is supposedly changing with the popularity >> of "density housing" and living near "transit hubs," but let's face >> it, most Americans believe in owning a home in the suburbs where they >> have a white picket fence, the schools are good and its quiet. Hard to >> get those things living in "the city." >> >> My buddy recently started a family and decided to buy a house out in >> the suburbs. He and his wife drive everywhere. He complains about >> "filling up" a couple of times a week. He also complains about not >> having time to "go to the gym," and don't even start about the "cost >> of parking." Of course, he goes on to brag about how quiet it is >> where he lives, the lack of "riff raffs" living in his area, and the >> greatest of the local public school. >> He knows I commute to work by bike and rags on me about "growing up," >> "being out in the elements," (while he's nice a cozy in his car with >> the heater turned up, and my favorite, that "the War is Over!" - >> implying that my riding is nothing more than being fugal, no make that >> CHEAP! I laugh it off as his being jealous as I am saving money ; >> being green - as I'm not using any gas and nor adding to the >> pollution; and basically the have a reduced stress level as riding >> helps burn it off. I'm probably preaching to the choir, but who has >> it better? >> >> Note, I do own two cars, including a 21 year old BMW that is just fun >> to drive and definitely have to use my cars as I have two young girls >> and an elderly mom to transport. But, my commute is for me and I'm >> glad to have the option to ride! Good Luck! > > Trust me, I know I'm lucky. But it's by choice, too. We have a > smaller, older house, without the modern amenities. Wouldn't change > it for a house in the burbs for anything (and couldn't afford a house > in the city). Tuesday the fam walked downtown for pizza and beer. > Tonight I meet up up with friends to do a bicycle kitchen at our > weekly farmer's market. But I work a half hour away by car including > drop off at school and/or daycare depending on the day. No getting > around that for me. The trick for me is finding an older town, > established prior to WWII. That gives you a walkable/living scale. > Not too big, not too small said Goldilocks. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Pa
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Probably speaks more to starting a family than anything else. That too will pass like anything else, and he'll enjoy it in the meantime. On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, bfd wrote: > > > On Jan 25, 10:56 am, "cyclotour...@gmail.com" > wrote: >> Car-free and car-light are two different things, and both >> commendable!!! I doubt I will ever be car-free, but every year I try >> to drive less and less. It's fun, saves money, gives me great >> "parking", a little exercise, doesn't fund Islamic extremists. All my >> local errands are done on foot or bike. Luckily I live in a place >> where I can do that. >> > I think your last statment is the key - live in a place where you can > do local errands, either by bike or walking. Unfortunately, most > Americans don't live near places to do local stuff and have no choice > but to drive. I know this is supposedly changing with the popularity > of "density housing" and living near "transit hubs," but let's face > it, most Americans believe in owning a home in the suburbs where they > have a white picket fence, the schools are good and its quiet. Hard to > get those things living in "the city." > > My buddy recently started a family and decided to buy a house out in > the suburbs. He and his wife drive everywhere. He complains about > "filling up" a couple of times a week. He also complains about not > having time to "go to the gym," and don't even start about the "cost > of parking." Of course, he goes on to brag about how quiet it is > where he lives, the lack of "riff raffs" living in his area, and the > greatest of the local public school. > He knows I commute to work by bike and rags on me about "growing up," > "being out in the elements," (while he's nice a cozy in his car with > the heater turned up, and my favorite, that "the War is Over!" - > implying that my riding is nothing more than being fugal, no make that > CHEAP! I laugh it off as his being jealous as I am saving money ; > being green - as I'm not using any gas and nor adding to the > pollution; and basically the have a reduced stress level as riding > helps burn it off. I'm probably preaching to the choir, but who has > it better? > > Note, I do own two cars, including a 21 year old BMW that is just fun > to drive and definitely have to use my cars as I have two young girls > and an elderly mom to transport. But, my commute is for me and I'm > glad to have the option to ride! Good Luck! > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
city life isn't necessarily so bad for families. I raised mine here in SF, and everything has turned out quite well, so far (knock on wood). Both did attend Catholic schools, however. Anyway, each son met and married a "city" girl, and we adore both. In fact, one of my daughters-in-law never had a driver's license until they bought their first home out of the city. She always walked or took transit. Neither family can afford to buy a home in SF, or I believe they would. They all love the city, and spend a good deal of time over here. One advantage to growing up in acity is that one's world view seems a bit keener. One develops a certian sense of reality and becomes fairly savvy early on. That helps when dealing with the real world. I hope all of our 5 grandkids will have that quality view of life. From: bfd To: RBW Owners Bunch Sent: Thu, January 27, 2011 11:02:02 AM Subject: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 On Jan 25, 10:56 am, "cyclotour...@gmail.com" wrote: > Car-free and car-light are two different things, and both > commendable!!! I doubt I will ever be car-free, but every year I try > to drive less and less. It's fun, saves money, gives me great > "parking", a little exercise, doesn't fund Islamic extremists. All my > local errands are done on foot or bike. Luckily I live in a place > where I can do that. > I think your last statment is the key - live in a place where you can do local errands, either by bike or walking. Unfortunately, most Americans don't live near places to do local stuff and have no choice but to drive. I know this is supposedly changing with the popularity of "density housing" and living near "transit hubs," but let's face it, most Americans believe in owning a home in the suburbs where they have a white picket fence, the schools are good and its quiet. Hard to get those things living in "the city." My buddy recently started a family and decided to buy a house out in the suburbs. He and his wife drive everywhere. He complains about "filling up" a couple of times a week. He also complains about not having time to "go to the gym," and don't even start about the "cost of parking." Of course, he goes on to brag about how quiet it is where he lives, the lack of "riff raffs" living in his area, and the greatest of the local public school. He knows I commute to work by bike and rags on me about "growing up," "being out in the elements," (while he's nice a cozy in his car with the heater turned up, and my favorite, that "the War is Over!" - implying that my riding is nothing more than being fugal, no make that CHEAP! I laugh it off as his being jealous as I am saving money ; being green - as I'm not using any gas and nor adding to the pollution; and basically the have a reduced stress level as riding helps burn it off. I'm probably preaching to the choir, but who has it better? Note, I do own two cars, including a 21 year old BMW that is just fun to drive and definitely have to use my cars as I have two young girls and an elderly mom to transport. But, my commute is for me and I'm glad to have the option to ride! Good Luck! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
You are absolutely correct, Michael. well said! From: Michael Richters To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, January 26, 2011 9:28:03 PM Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 Perhaps it isn't fair to nitpick Grant Peterson on this, given that I'm generally with him on the spirit of his message, but I seem to have a disagreement with one detail or another of almost all of his points in that post. First -- The Idaho Vehicle Code does not permit cyclists to treat red lights as stop signs. The "rolling stop" is only allowed with stop signs, not traffic signals. At a red light, cyclists are required to stop, then yield to all other traffic before proceeding through the intersection (unless turning right, in which case they aren't required to stop). See: http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH7SECT49-720.htm I think his comparison to the Netherlands is apt (bikes given priority at intersections), but only as a government policy matter. Watching quite a few videos from David Hembrow and others, it seems that it's the cycle path that's given priority, rather than the cyclist. This is just my perception, but I really think it's an important distinction -- the cyclist isn't sharing the road with the motorist (or the pedestrian), so the question of "fairness" is quite different. Second -- On the issue of cyclists complaining about scofflaw cyclists ruining the reputation of the group, I think he hasn't (or hadn't) really thought it through completely. Motorists do complain about the stupid/unlawful things that other motorists do, but they don't often follow up with the "you'll spoil it for the rest of us" argument -- because they are not a group struggling for acceptance. They don't really see themselves as a group at all. But some of them see cyclists as a group, all alike, all miscreants. And some of them get road rage, and take it out on the nearest offender, even if that "offender" is not violating any laws. Grant argues that since motorists can distinguish between good and bad motorists, they should be able to do the same for cyclists. This is the wrong comparison, though -- even disregarding the differences between majority and minority groups, we should compare motorists' ideas about cyclists to cyclists' views about motorists. I've heard plenty of improper generalizations in both directions. Only a few really believe those generalizations, but only one of those two groups is operating a deadly weapon. (Also, in North America, the percentage of cyclists who are not motorists is vanishingly small, whereas the percentage of motorists who aren't cyclists is huge. Particularly if you count only those who ride on streets with cars.) Third -- At least a few people do, in fact, give up their cars "because they're green". That may not be the only reason, but that's the number one reason that my family did so. It's certainly not guilt-avoidance, either (though I think he's splitting hairs with that argument; it can be both guilt-avoidance and "greenness"). We've made a lot of changes to our lives with the goal of minimizing our negative impact on the planet, but only if those things also improve our lives in some way. Riding bicycles instead of driving has had a host of benefits for us, but that doesn't mean that those benefits were the "real reason" we stopped using the car. It certainly saves us money, but we've made other changes for the "green" reason which have increased our costs (though startlingly few). In spirit, I think it's a good argument, though. Certainly where I live right now, it would be silly to try to convince people to give up their cars. But I do try to convince people that riding a bike for transportation and errands is safe enough, and more fun and more healthy than driving a car. I doubt I've gotten very far, though -- taking the kids to school/daycare in a bakfiets in the dead of winter in Winnipeg probably ruins my credibility when I tell them it's fun. --Mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Perhaps it isn't fair to nitpick Grant Peterson on this, given that I'm generally with him on the spirit of his message, but I seem to have a disagreement with one detail or another of almost all of his points in that post. First -- The Idaho Vehicle Code does not permit cyclists to treat red lights as stop signs. The "rolling stop" is only allowed with stop signs, not traffic signals. At a red light, cyclists are required to stop, then yield to all other traffic before proceeding through the intersection (unless turning right, in which case they aren't required to stop). See: http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH7SECT49-720.htm I think his comparison to the Netherlands is apt (bikes given priority at intersections), but only as a government policy matter. Watching quite a few videos from David Hembrow and others, it seems that it's the cycle path that's given priority, rather than the cyclist. This is just my perception, but I really think it's an important distinction -- the cyclist isn't sharing the road with the motorist (or the pedestrian), so the question of "fairness" is quite different. Second -- On the issue of cyclists complaining about scofflaw cyclists ruining the reputation of the group, I think he hasn't (or hadn't) really thought it through completely. Motorists do complain about the stupid/unlawful things that other motorists do, but they don't often follow up with the "you'll spoil it for the rest of us" argument -- because they are not a group struggling for acceptance. They don't really see themselves as a group at all. But some of them see cyclists as a group, all alike, all miscreants. And some of them get road rage, and take it out on the nearest offender, even if that "offender" is not violating any laws. Grant argues that since motorists can distinguish between good and bad motorists, they should be able to do the same for cyclists. This is the wrong comparison, though -- even disregarding the differences between majority and minority groups, we should compare motorists' ideas about cyclists to cyclists' views about motorists. I've heard plenty of improper generalizations in both directions. Only a few really believe those generalizations, but only one of those two groups is operating a deadly weapon. (Also, in North America, the percentage of cyclists who are not motorists is vanishingly small, whereas the percentage of motorists who aren't cyclists is huge. Particularly if you count only those who ride on streets with cars.) Third -- At least a few people do, in fact, give up their cars "because they're green". That may not be the only reason, but that's the number one reason that my family did so. It's certainly not guilt-avoidance, either (though I think he's splitting hairs with that argument; it can be both guilt-avoidance and "greenness"). We've made a lot of changes to our lives with the goal of minimizing our negative impact on the planet, but only if those things also improve our lives in some way. Riding bicycles instead of driving has had a host of benefits for us, but that doesn't mean that those benefits were the "real reason" we stopped using the car. It certainly saves us money, but we've made other changes for the "green" reason which have increased our costs (though startlingly few). In spirit, I think it's a good argument, though. Certainly where I live right now, it would be silly to try to convince people to give up their cars. But I do try to convince people that riding a bike for transportation and errands is safe enough, and more fun and more healthy than driving a car. I doubt I've gotten very far, though -- taking the kids to school/daycare in a bakfiets in the dead of winter in Winnipeg probably ruins my credibility when I tell them it's fun. --Mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Nah that won't happen. Income will go up, inflation will go nuts and all will be relative. We'll pay more yes, and we'll deal with it. I run a svc company w/ a fleet of 30 +/- vehicles. If fuel goes up, my rates will go up, and on and on. Folks will say, "well we just will use someone else" That someone else will pay the same for fuel as I'm paying. If it gets too expensive, then we'll go out of business. If I end up living in a refrigerator box under a bridge somewhere, but we stop dumping all these dollars into oil, and war, etc., I'll be happy. And I'm a Reagan-ite! That last bit is not to bring politics into this, but just to frame my comments. Despite my conservative leanings, I'm still anti-oil, anti-war (mostly, but I still give mightily to support these kids that volunteer to go in harm's way). The point is, if it happens? We'll just adapt. Look at that old CTC 1950's video from England. No car's hardly. That's OK by me. RGZ On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:23 AM, JoelMatthews wrote: >> That being said, there are a lot more factors, incentives, and >> advantages about commuting by bicycle in a place like Holland and it's >> easy to see why we can't have that here. > > With Chinese and Indian fuel consumption pushing gas prices up, it > will not be long before U.S. prices are within spitting distance of > the Netherlands'. Overall U.S. population density is lower than the > Netherlands. But more than half of the U.S. population are in its 10 > largest metropolitan areas. > > Long and short, if we do not find solutions soon, the car dependant > among us are going to be paying more than half their income on fuel. > > On Jan 21, 9:12 am, jlvota wrote: >> What you have to consider about Holland is that gasoline there is the >> equivalent of around $7.91/gallon (one of the highest in Europe) and >> they have a much different tax system that allows massive funding to >> public transit. They have a progressive income tax rate that peaks at >> 52% (down from 60% a few years ago), a corporate tax that peaks at >> 25.5% and a "sales" tax that peaks at 19%. >> >> That being said, there are a lot more factors, incentives, and >> advantages about commuting by bicycle in a place like Holland and it's >> easy to see why we can't have that here. >> >> On Jan 19, 7:26 am, newenglandbike wrote: >> >> >> >> > Wow, that's a good read. "Cars and bikes both are vehicles, in the >> > same way that a Glock and a Squirtgun are both guns" is a kind of >> > potent analogy right now, however imprecise analogies may be. >> >> > The point about bicycle culture/laws in Holland, and the reasonability >> > of incentives for commuting in a safe, non-polluting manner is >> > something that's resonated with me for a long time. Sometimes I long >> > to move to a place like that, but then I wonder why shouldn't I just >> > try to be be more active in trying to help change happen here, which >> > i'm woefully not and just riding a bike doesn't really do >> > anything. It seems futile riding a bike for 'green' reasons, or >> > because you think it's right thing to do-- even if you do it for those >> > reasons-- and it's easy to end up suppressing frustration at the >> > status quo, but reading stuff like this always brings it back to the >> > surface, which is probably a good thing. um I doubt that makes any >> > sense. which means it's probably too early for me to be typing right >> > now. yesterday's ride home west of boston was a slush-ice >> > nightmare. Thank god for studded tires but even they were out of >> > their league. we were expecting some weather, but if i knew it >> > would be that bad I would've stayed home. >> >> > On Jan 18, 7:23 pm, James Warren wrote: >> >> > > There's an interesting editorial on rivbike right now about how bikes >> > > aren't the same as cars. >> >> > > It reminds me of something I often remember when teaching students: the >> > > idea that doing what's right and fair for a kid is sometimes not the >> > > same thing for any two given kids. >> >> > > -Jim W.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
RE: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
It's interesting. It's not Riv-specific in any way. But fire away. -Original Message- From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com [mailto:rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of robert zeidler Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:36 PM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 This is a fantastic discussion!! No one is calling any names, and we are orbiting around the bicycle in our discussion. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Allingham II, Thomas J wrote: > This thread seems to be veering off into political debate that may be seen by > some (me, for example) as outside the scope of the group. > > -Original Message- > From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > [mailto:rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > zeidler.rob...@gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:05 PM > To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 > > Send it into space. > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: Seth Vidal > Sender: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:12:21 > To: > Reply-To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Leslie wrote: >> IMHO, the biggest problem is, it's cheaper to get more uranium than >> it is to reprocess the spent fuel. They 'could' reprocess it, and >> recover, maybe upwards of 75%, for further use as nuclear fuel; it >> just costs more than getting more. So, they end up w/ quantities >> of spent fuel, that has to be put somewhere. That's the issue. >> Unless they can figure out how to convert that into stable arborium >> for Kevlar, or something else useful, instead of sitting around in >> glass or being shipped off to Yucca Mtn, well... >> > > the book "The world without us" by Alan Weisman: > > http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html > > has a compelling chapter on the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and > other toxic chemicals. > > The paragraphs on the linguists required to label the 'danger areas' > with adequate warnings so that > any intelligent life 1 years from now will know to stay away is > fascinating. > > Well worth your time to read the book. > > -sv > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > > > > -- > > > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you > that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained > in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, > for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal > Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) > promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters > addressed herein. > > > > This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the > addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or > confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this > email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. > If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) > 735-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any > email) and any printout thereof. > > Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their > professional qualifications will be provided upon request. > > ==
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
This is a fantastic discussion!! No one is calling any names, and we are orbiting around the bicycle in our discussion. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Allingham II, Thomas J wrote: > This thread seems to be veering off into political debate that may be seen by > some (me, for example) as outside the scope of the group. > > -Original Message- > From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > [mailto:rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > zeidler.rob...@gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:05 PM > To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 > > Send it into space. > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: Seth Vidal > Sender: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:12:21 > To: > Reply-To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Leslie wrote: >> IMHO, the biggest problem is, it's cheaper to get more uranium than it >> is to reprocess the spent fuel. They 'could' reprocess it, and >> recover, maybe upwards of 75%, for further use as nuclear fuel; it >> just costs more than getting more. So, they end up w/ quantities of >> spent fuel, that has to be put somewhere. That's the issue. Unless >> they can figure out how to convert that into stable arborium for >> Kevlar, or something else useful, instead of sitting around in glass >> or being shipped off to Yucca Mtn, well... >> > > the book "The world without us" by Alan Weisman: > > http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html > > has a compelling chapter on the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and > other toxic chemicals. > > The paragraphs on the linguists required to label the 'danger areas' > with adequate warnings so that > any intelligent life 1 years from now will know to stay away is > fascinating. > > Well worth your time to read the book. > > -sv > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > > > > -- > > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you > that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained > in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, > for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal > Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) > promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters > addressed herein. > > > > This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the > addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or > confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this > email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. > If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) > 735-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any > email) and any printout thereof. > > Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their > professional qualifications will be provided upon request. > > == > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@go
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Why are you trying to make Xenu mad at us? On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:04 PM, wrote: > Send it into space. > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: Seth Vidal > Sender: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:12:21 > To: > Reply-To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Leslie wrote: > > IMHO, the biggest problem is, it's cheaper to get more uranium than it > > is to reprocess the spent fuel. They 'could' reprocess it, and > > recover, maybe upwards of 75%, for further use as nuclear fuel; it > > just costs more than getting more.So, they end up w/ quantities of > > spent fuel, that has to be put somewhere. That's the issue. Unless > > they can figure out how to convert that into stable arborium for > > Kevlar, or something else useful, instead of sitting around in glass > > or being shipped off to Yucca Mtn, well... > > > > the book "The world without us" by Alan Weisman: > > http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html > > has a compelling chapter on the long-term storage of spent nuclear > fuel and other toxic chemicals. > > The paragraphs on the linguists required to label the 'danger areas' > with adequate warnings so that > any intelligent life 1 years from now will know to stay away is > fascinating. > > Well worth your time to read the book. > > -sv > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA *...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from improving their taste than from improving their performance.* - RTMS -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
RE: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
This thread seems to be veering off into political debate that may be seen by some (me, for example) as outside the scope of the group. -Original Message- From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com [mailto:rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of zeidler.rob...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:05 PM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 Send it into space. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Seth Vidal Sender: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:12:21 To: Reply-To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Leslie wrote: > IMHO, the biggest problem is, it's cheaper to get more uranium than it > is to reprocess the spent fuel. They 'could' reprocess it, and > recover, maybe upwards of 75%, for further use as nuclear fuel; it > just costs more than getting more. So, they end up w/ quantities of > spent fuel, that has to be put somewhere. That's the issue. Unless > they can figure out how to convert that into stable arborium for > Kevlar, or something else useful, instead of sitting around in glass > or being shipped off to Yucca Mtn, well... > the book "The world without us" by Alan Weisman: http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html has a compelling chapter on the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and other toxic chemicals. The paragraphs on the linguists required to label the 'danger areas' with adequate warnings so that any intelligent life 1 years from now will know to stay away is fascinating. Well worth your time to read the book. -sv -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thereof. Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon request. == -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Send it into space. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Seth Vidal Sender: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:12:21 To: Reply-To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Leslie wrote: > IMHO, the biggest problem is, it's cheaper to get more uranium than it > is to reprocess the spent fuel. They 'could' reprocess it, and > recover, maybe upwards of 75%, for further use as nuclear fuel; it > just costs more than getting more. So, they end up w/ quantities of > spent fuel, that has to be put somewhere. That's the issue. Unless > they can figure out how to convert that into stable arborium for > Kevlar, or something else useful, instead of sitting around in glass > or being shipped off to Yucca Mtn, well... > the book "The world without us" by Alan Weisman: http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html has a compelling chapter on the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and other toxic chemicals. The paragraphs on the linguists required to label the 'danger areas' with adequate warnings so that any intelligent life 1 years from now will know to stay away is fascinating. Well worth your time to read the book. -sv -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Leslie wrote: > IMHO, the biggest problem is, it's cheaper to get more uranium than it > is to reprocess the spent fuel. They 'could' reprocess it, and > recover, maybe upwards of 75%, for further use as nuclear fuel; it > just costs more than getting more. So, they end up w/ quantities of > spent fuel, that has to be put somewhere. That's the issue. Unless > they can figure out how to convert that into stable arborium for > Kevlar, or something else useful, instead of sitting around in glass > or being shipped off to Yucca Mtn, well... > the book "The world without us" by Alan Weisman: http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html has a compelling chapter on the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and other toxic chemicals. The paragraphs on the linguists required to label the 'danger areas' with adequate warnings so that any intelligent life 1 years from now will know to stay away is fascinating. Well worth your time to read the book. -sv -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
A lump of uranium goes a long way Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: newenglandbike Sender: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 05:19:40 To: RBW Owners Bunch Reply-To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 The developed world's been enjoying incredibly cheap energy courtesy of the Carboniferous Period for the past 150 years.The entire economy of the developed world is completely, inextricably, irrefutably based upon it.Fossil fuel deposits are kind of solar energy stored in battery cells- but think solar power, compressed & concentrated over ~100 million of years. Incredibly potent. It's been stored there waiting to be exploited for another 300 million years, like a tycoon's fortune willed to a lucky grandchild.The thing is, we've been pissing through it, just like a rich kid squandering the family's wealth.Now some are betting that technology is going to magically save us from the coming energy crisis. But that kind of thinking is like the rich kid, realizing he's all but chewed through his entire inheritance, deciding to head to Las Vegas in a panic and betting the remainder at the roulette table. Modern solar technology is great but it won't fill the fuel tank of the modern world.There is no watt-per-watt replacement for fossil fuels, specifically coal, oil and methane. Nothing that matches the net energy gain of extracting the concentrated/compressed sunlight artifact from the earth and burning it. Once these potent energy sources are gone, they are gone, and subsequent generations will be left holding the bag in the form of a more barren, more contaminated, less bio-diverse world.Civilization and it's energy consumption will gradually downsize as fossil fuels are depleted. It won't be the first time the pinnacle of civilization has ebbed. It's happened all over the world, again and again, often for the same reason- depleted resources.The vast technological advancements of the past century+ were made possible by the easy extraction and combustion of fossil fuels, and the maintenance of these technologies is totally dependent on a steady supply of this cheap energy. Reduced dependence on this energy is not going to be made possible by increasing our need for it by increasing our initiative to develop new exotic technologies. It's like a drug addict trying to ease the desire for drugs by taking more drugs. Environmental concern is a compelling reason to walk or ride a bike, even if choosing to do so for enjoyment is probably more common. The fact is, reducing fossil fuel consumption while maintaining our economy is a hard if not impossible dilemma we're facing.Maybe you won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, but to me, it's a matter of which side of a hard problem you chose to live your life. On Jan 20, 12:48 am, William wrote: > "B) I concur w/ Robert Z, wind/solar can't handle the load until some > great extraordinary development in battery technology comes along. " > > Not so fast.concentrating solar thermal breaks that misconceived > limitation of solar. The sun heats up a reservoir of working fluid. > The hot working fluid runs a steam generator turbine just like a > combustion based power plant. In many cases the power plants > connected to solar thermal arrays are regular power plants that had > run on combustion. Those power plants run 24/7, even though the sun > is only up 10 hours a day. We need a lot of those plants to make a > big dent, but zero battery technology is needed to make that work. > They are approaching the magical "dollar a watt" price point for that > technology. When that happens, China tips to solar because then it's > cheaper than building more coal plants, and then everything > changes. > > On Jan 19, 7:52 pm, Leslie wrote: > > > Oi! Lots of thoughts > > > A) I applaud anyone who can commute via their Rivendell. > > Unfortunately for me, it's 40 mi from driveway to parking lot one > > way... I just can't commute by bike. I do carpool; so, four of us > > make the trip together, instead of each of us in four > > automobiles. (And whilst the obvious reply might be to either > > move to closer to work, or change to a job closer to home, neither of > > those ideas work: I don't want to live near where I work, and there's > > not as good of a job near home. Maybe one day, but, not at this > > time.) > > > B) I concur w/ Robert Z, wind/solar can't handle the load until some > > great extraordinary development in battery technology comes along. > > However, I would like to make a comment along the lines of using the > > non-renewable resources: petroleum has far greater uses than being > > put into gas tanks, IMHO. Medicines that are petrochemical-based, > > lubricants, etc. (bicycle tires!); it's a shame that so much is used > > as fuel, instead of conserved for its
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Problem is, a good size plant covers approx 7,000 acres. Everybody has a bitch when putting one up. I make my own electricity (36 p.v. panels, grid-tied), and heat my own hot water (2 glycol filled , roof-mounted panels), and the utility buys up what O over produce, but only to a point. If the credit gets too large it just gets cancelled out and the clocks reset. Nukes (for now) are the best answer. They have their issues, but are really the best solution for the next 30 years. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:48 AM, William wrote: > "B) I concur w/ Robert Z, wind/solar can't handle the load until some > great extraordinary development in battery technology comes along. " > > Not so fast.concentrating solar thermal breaks that misconceived > limitation of solar. The sun heats up a reservoir of working fluid. > The hot working fluid runs a steam generator turbine just like a > combustion based power plant. In many cases the power plants > connected to solar thermal arrays are regular power plants that had > run on combustion. Those power plants run 24/7, even though the sun > is only up 10 hours a day. We need a lot of those plants to make a > big dent, but zero battery technology is needed to make that work. > They are approaching the magical "dollar a watt" price point for that > technology. When that happens, China tips to solar because then it's > cheaper than building more coal plants, and then everything > changes. > > On Jan 19, 7:52 pm, Leslie wrote: >> Oi! Lots of thoughts >> >> A) I applaud anyone who can commute via their Rivendell. >> Unfortunately for me, it's 40 mi from driveway to parking lot one >> way... I just can't commute by bike. I do carpool; so, four of us >> make the trip together, instead of each of us in four >> automobiles. (And whilst the obvious reply might be to either >> move to closer to work, or change to a job closer to home, neither of >> those ideas work: I don't want to live near where I work, and there's >> not as good of a job near home. Maybe one day, but, not at this >> time.) >> >> B) I concur w/ Robert Z, wind/solar can't handle the load until some >> great extraordinary development in battery technology comes along. >> However, I would like to make a comment along the lines of using the >> non-renewable resources: petroleum has far greater uses than being >> put into gas tanks, IMHO. Medicines that are petrochemical-based, >> lubricants, etc. (bicycle tires!); it's a shame that so much is used >> as fuel, instead of conserved for its other uses. Coal, is going to >> remain the baseload power source for the forseeable future in this >> country; half the electricity in the US is derived from such; unless >> we give up big-screen TV's, air-conditioning, electric heat, ipods, >> eliminate electric cars instead of having more of them, etc., the >> demand for coal will only rise. Yes, nuclear would be the only real >> alternative to coal for electricity, but politics will have to shift >> significantly first. Even if all electricity was produced through >> methods other than coal, though, coal would still be in demand for >> steel production (converted into coke), as chemical basestocks (the >> same way petrochemicals are), etc. (Disclosure: I'm a coal >> reclamation geologist, FWIW...) >> >> Think of it this way: our steel Rivendells: steel is an alloy of iron >> and carbon, the carbon is from coke, which is produced from coal. >> Without coal, we wouldn't have our Rivendells... >> >> C) I encourage recycling; we need less going into landfills. But >> even if you recycle nothing else, recycle aluminum (cans, non- >> Rivendell bicycles, Land Rovers, etc). The amount of electricity >> needed in the electrolysis process to convert bauxite into metallic >> aluminum is immense; so much electricity is saved simply by keeping >> the aluminum already made in the loop. >> >> D) Hope this doesn't step on toes, come across as preachy, etc. Not >> intended to; I realize internet musings often don't convey the visual/ >> audible nuances that we intend to be inferred >> >> -L > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Freedom. Choices. We have them - use them. I looked for a job that I could commute to, and I live in the city. I'm in a smaller house than I could get if I wanted to drive 30+ miles to work. I made this lifestyle decision because it's right for me, and I'm modeling a healthy biking lifestyle to my daughter. I would hate for her to be afraid to ride on the city streets, and feel like she has to get suckered into paying for the car lifestyle based on needless fear. I love bike commuting, but it's not for the weak of heart or mind. You have to take chances and enjoy the outdoor element and inherent danger of riding with cars around (don't be afraid of riding in the street - it's fun!) It is definitely greener than driving - no doubt. If you commute by bike, don't argue it's not green, sheesh. I have a truck, but put gas in it every other month. Someone else can support the oil barons because they have to be in climate control continuously. Inevitably, we will all find a better fuel through necessity, and the power structure will migrate. I hope some of us will still be riding lugged steel bikes. If you want to play biking as a "sport" or diet, that's great too, we all love bikes here, I hope. Brian Hanson Seattle On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Ray Shine wrote: > You're very right, Sean. My comment was to back-up Kelly regarding the > "green" benefits gained by many cyclists that are cancelled by the drive to > and from the event or ride. Of course I realize that cycling can often be > impractical and/or dangerous. Many times I have cycled from my home to the > home of a family member in a nearby city for a family function, and returned > home in the evening with my wife and with the bike in the back of the auto. > I wasn't riding there to be "green." I was just riding. I know that is how > most folks cycle. The number of folks who commute by bike (as I do) are a > small fraction of the nation's total number of cyclists. I see that more > because of the good fortune of my living and work situation as much as > anything I have done to establish that sort of commuting life style. And > then there are all of those folks with young children, such as my son's own > young families. I would be very anxious, if not irritated, if I were to hear > that one of my son's allowed one of my five grandchildren (range 2 thru 8) to > hop on there little bikes and go riding along a busy city street! I would > absolutely discourage that, and instead recommend that they transport the > family bikes by auto to the nearest bike path to do the rides. Of course I > would do that! Such activities aren't "green." They're just family outings; > plenty good enough in my book. > > From: Sean Whelan > To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 9:53:13 AM > Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 > > At least they are riding bikes and interested in bikes. While most of us on > this list use our bikes for everything from fast brevets to grocery runs and > commuting, that is not the case for everyone. There are numerous reasons why > someone might choose to rack a bike and drive it to an off-road spot and > ride. It may not be right for you and for me, and it might not be > environmentally defensible, but I'd much rather have them riding a bike after > a short drive, than just deciding to "go for a drive" up to Pt. Reyes or > something. > > When I first started riding again after many years off the bike, I was really > afraid to ride in traffic. I would drive my bike to a bike path and ride, > then drive home. I knew it was a bit ridiculous, but that is the place where > I was in terms of my comfort level, fitness level and confidence. Several > years later, I am more in line with the majority of folks here. I commute to > work as often as the weather and business commitments allow. I ride to run > errands in the neighborhood and I seem to only rack the bike on a car when a > group of us carpool to a century or other organized ride in the region. > > At least those folks are spending money at bike shops / on bike stuff. My > local bike shop doesn't carry many of the things that I want, but I email the > owner and he orders it in for me rather than having me just order it from > someone in the interwebs. It works for both of us, and he pays his mortgage > selling plenty of those fancy dual suspension mountain bikes. > > All biking is good biking in some way... > > Cheers, > Sean > > --- On Wed, 1/19/11, Ray Shine wrote: > > From: Ray Shine > Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 > To: rbw-
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
RoadbikeRider recommends: exhale more forcefully than inhale...but it doesn't make much difference in the long run... http://www.roadbikerider.com/463.htm#TRY *7. TRY THIS ON YOUR NEXT RIDE * * Breathe out hard, breathe in easy.* Here's a technique we learned from an Olympic road champion, *Alexi Grewal*. Try it when climbing a long hill. When you're working hard, it's natural to put the emphasis on inhaling lots of air. Instead, emphasize exhaling. Blow the air out aggressively, then let your lungs refill passively. * Why? Two reasons.* First, it gives you better air exchange. By emptying your lungs on each breath, they can take in more energy-producing oxygen. Second, long exhales stop you from panting inefficiently. When climbing, try breathing out fully for two counts (pedal strokes). Then let your lungs refill on the next two counts. This sets up a pedaling rhythm that puts you in control on long hills. This breathing technique may feel awkward at first. But stick with it. Before long it'll seem a lot more natural. Then when you start getting gassed on a hill, switch to it and feel your effort become smoother and easier. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:14 PM, cyclotourist wrote: > But did you inhale? > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Bill Gibson wrote: > >> although I think I did once, or twice, in the 1970's... >> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > -- Bill Gibson Tempe, Arizona, USA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
But did you inhale? On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Bill Gibson wrote: > although I think I did once, or twice, in the 1970's... > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Rolling stop/Idaho stop/California stop at stopsigns and...traffic lights. If there's any traffic at all, I respect lighted signals. If it's 3:00 AM and nothing has happened for 2 cycles of the light, and the detection loop isn't recognizing my existence, I'll tell the judge that the light malfunctioned. I enjoy my pathetic attempts at momentary trackstands at stop signs in the middle of nowhere, especially because it confuses the cagers who are approaching. Around here, no one seems to have any trackstanding skills, so it really is a powerful mojo on the poor distracted motorists. If there is any traffic at a stop sign competing for the intersection, I stop and put the foot down. And I look them in the eye. Then I raise my hand and point forcefully into the future, and charge across the intersection with vigor. To leave no doubt who is in charge of the commons at that moment. I go, and do not look back. So far, I have prevailed. But with a partner, or (gosh, it's been too long) in a group, I may roll past with the unlit stop sign with caution. But, no, I will not cross the light signal, even in a group, although I think I did once, or twice, in the 1970's... On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, robert zeidler wrote: > No complaints, life has been very, very good to me. > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:40 PM, robert zeidler > > wrote: > >> Well then you obviously are flush and for that I congratulate you. > >> > > > > Robert, > > You've just talked about buying multiple bikes on this list I think > > you can't protest too much about your taxes. > > > > -sv > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- Bill Gibson Tempe, Arizona, USA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
No complaints, life has been very, very good to me. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:40 PM, robert zeidler > wrote: >> Well then you obviously are flush and for that I congratulate you. >> > > Robert, > You've just talked about buying multiple bikes on this list I think > you can't protest too much about your taxes. > > -sv > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:40 PM, robert zeidler wrote: > Well then you obviously are flush and for that I congratulate you. > Robert, You've just talked about buying multiple bikes on this list I think you can't protest too much about your taxes. -sv -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Well then you obviously are flush and for that I congratulate you. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Scott G. wrote: > > > On Jan 19, 9:14 am, robert zeidler BTW, the > reason the Euro's >> can put money into bike lanes, alt trans projects, etc., is because >> they don't have much of a defense budget-we do that for them!!! > > I am pleased to pay for the European defense, Militarism is to Europe > as > alcohol is to alcoholics. > A reporter asked Ghandi what he thought of European Civilization, > he said "I think it would be a good idea" > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
You're very right, Sean. My comment was to back-up Kelly regarding the "green" benefits gained by many cyclists that are cancelled by the drive to and from the event or ride. Of course I realize that cycling can often be impractical and/or dangerous. Many times I have cycled from my home to the home of a family member in a nearby city for a family function, and returned home in the evening with my wife and with the bike in the back of the auto. I wasn't riding there to be "green." I was just riding. I know that is how most folks cycle. The number of folks who commute by bike (as I do) are a small fraction of the nation's total number of cyclists. I see that more because of the good fortune of my living and work situation as much as anything I have done to establish that sort of commuting life style. And then there are all of those folks with young children, such as my son's own young families. I would be very anxious, if not irritated, if I were to hear that one of my son's allowed one of my five grandchildren (range 2 thru 8) to hop on there little bikes and go riding along a busy city street! I would absolutely discourage that, and instead recommend that they transport the family bikes by auto to the nearest bike path to do the rides. Of course I would do that! Such activities aren't "green." They're just family outings; plenty good enough in my book. From: Sean Whelan To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 9:53:13 AM Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 At least they are riding bikes and interested in bikes. While most of us on this list use our bikes for everything from fast brevets to grocery runs and commuting, that is not the case for everyone. There are numerous reasons why someone might choose to rack a bike and drive it to an off-road spot and ride. It may not be right for you and for me, and it might not be environmentally defensible, but I'd much rather have them riding a bike after a short drive, than just deciding to "go for a drive" up to Pt. Reyes or something. When I first started riding again after many years off the bike, I was really afraid to ride in traffic. I would drive my bike to a bike path and ride, then drive home. I knew it was a bit ridiculous, but that is the place where I was in terms of my comfort level, fitness level and confidence. Several years later, I am more in line with the majority of folks here. I commute to work as often as the weather and business commitments allow. I ride to run errands in the neighborhood and I seem to only rack the bike on a car when a group of us carpool to a century or other organized ride in the region. At least those folks are spending money at bike shops / on bike stuff. My local bike shop doesn't carry many of the things that I want, but I email the owner and he orders it in for me rather than having me just order it from someone in the interwebs. It works for both of us, and he pays his mortgage selling plenty of those fancy dual suspension mountain bikes. All biking is good biking in some way... Cheers, Sean --- On Wed, 1/19/11, Ray Shine wrote: >From: Ray Shine >Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 >To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com >Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 12:09 PM > > >You hit the nail on the head, Kelly, and you are spot-on correct. I am always >amused and annoyed at the same time on my weekend rides into Marin County from >San Francisco. It's very common to see the full suspension MTB folks drive >across the bridge and park near Mike's Bikes, take their expensive MTB off the >trunk rack, then go tackle the trails on Mt. Tam. I know they are from the >city >(just 8 miles away) because of the residential parking permits on the bumpers >of >their cars. I also get a laugh out of the carbon road riders who will haul >the >bike over White's Hill on the back of their SUV, then park on the other side >and >tear off a fast ride out around Nicasio reservoir and back to the car. I see >this sort of canceling out thing most, however, with the MTB riders. I >suppose >they would offer as a justification that the bike's tires don't do well on >paved >roads, or some such. > > > > > > From: Kelly Sleeper >To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com >Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 7:10:53 AM >Subject: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 > > >and then there is organized bike rides that have 100's of people driving many >miles to ride a bike a short distance then drive back home. In St Louis, Mo >Trailnet has one of these type rides weekly. I would wager a single weekend >ride here wipes out
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
But bear in mind that however, whenever, wherever, whatever they ride It's a free country. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Ray Shine wrote: > You hit the nail on the head, Kelly, and you are spot-on correct. I am > always amused and annoyed at the same time on my weekend rides into Marin > County from San Francisco. It's very common to see the full suspension MTB > folks drive across the bridge and park near Mike's Bikes, take their > expensive MTB off the trunk rack, then go tackle the trails on Mt. Tam. I > know they are from the city (just 8 miles away) because of the residential > parking permits on the bumpers of their cars. I also get a laugh out of the > carbon road riders who will haul the bike over White's Hill on the back of > their SUV, then park on the other side and tear off a fast ride out around > Nicasio reservoir and back to the car. I see this sort of canceling out > thing most, however, with the MTB riders. I suppose they would offer as a > justification that the bike's tires don't do well on paved roads, or some > such. > > > > From: Kelly Sleeper > To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 7:10:53 AM > Subject: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 > > and then there is organized bike rides that have 100's of people driving > many miles to ride a bike a short distance then drive back home. In St > Louis, Mo Trailnet has one of these type rides weekly. I would wager a > single weekend ride here wipes out all the progress the comuters make in one > day. Not saying don't comute, just saying I don't see cycling as green. It's > entertainment for most folks or exercise but also an excuse / reason to > drive thier cars many more miles. > > Cycling has many uses and is wonderful .. but riding just for green reasons > is or would be weak for me. I ride because I like riding. > > Kelly > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Well put Jim. I've read that speech a bunch of times and it's chilling that a product of a military academy (one of the finest educations one can have) would warn us of this impending threat. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:01 PM, CycloFiend wrote: > on 1/19/11 8:04 AM, JoelMatthews at joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: >>> Cycling has many uses and is wonderful .. but riding just for green reasons >>> is or would be weak for me. I ride because I like riding. >> >> I got rid of my car for green reasons. I certainly enjoy riding my >> bike. > > And I didn't really read anything in the article that said those were > mutually exclusive. The main point seemed to be that the people who would > adopt cycling because of green-ness alone are more of an outlier. Getting > people to act on goals which potentially play out over generations is not > easy. It's not the "wiring" we've demonstrated, historically. > > Monday was the 50th anniversary of Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial > Complex" farewell address speech, the bulk of which is way OT, but there's > always been a part of that I've kept written down: > > "Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we > peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must > avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and > convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the > material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their > political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all > generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow." > > I quote that here to recognize that we still have that challenge before us. > An adversarial relationship to those who are not in agreement with us, or > acting the way we feel they should, does little to move things toward the > greater good. > > It's always about the ride. About exuding the spirit of why we ride. That > is what we share implicitly and overtly when we show up at work or the store > astride a bicycle. You never know who it will affect or how. > > - J > > > -- > Jim Edgar > cyclofi...@earthlink.net > > Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com > Current Classics - Cross Bikes > Singlespeed - Working Bikes > > > > "You must be the change you want to see in the world." > Mahatma Gandhi > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
on 1/19/11 9:25 AM, JoelMatthews at joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: > I am very much aware my decision process on this makes me an outlier. And I wholeheartedly applaud your efforts and actions, Joel. Full stop. - J -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com Current Classics - Cross Bikes Singlespeed - Working Bikes Gallery updates now appear here - http://cyclofiend.blogspot.com "That which is overdesigned, too highly specific, anticipates outcome; the anticipation of outcome guarantees, if not failure, the absence of grace." William Gibson - "All Tomorrow's Parties" -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
y'all might consider working to realize sunday streets- / ciclovia-style street closures in your cities on the weekends. it's a great way to illustrate the potential for alternative use of our public street space. I know this happens in many places already, but i think it's one of our better chances to show folks, especially those unable to imagine things otherwise, the vibrant possibilities inherent in truly multi-modal urban areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciclov%C3%ADa http://sundaystreetssf.com/ http://www.streetfilms.org/thousands-play-in-oaklands-streets-at-the-first-ever-oaklavia/ ~erik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
At least they are riding bikes and interested in bikes. While most of us on this list use our bikes for everything from fast brevets to grocery runs and commuting, that is not the case for everyone. There are numerous reasons why someone might choose to rack a bike and drive it to an off-road spot and ride. It may not be right for you and for me, and it might not be environmentally defensible, but I'd much rather have them riding a bike after a short drive, than just deciding to "go for a drive" up to Pt. Reyes or something. When I first started riding again after many years off the bike, I was really afraid to ride in traffic. I would drive my bike to a bike path and ride, then drive home. I knew it was a bit ridiculous, but that is the place where I was in terms of my comfort level, fitness level and confidence. Several years later, I am more in line with the majority of folks here. I commute to work as often as the weather and business commitments allow. I ride to run errands in the neighborhood and I seem to only rack the bike on a car when a group of us carpool to a century or other organized ride in the region. At least those folks are spending money at bike shops / on bike stuff. My local bike shop doesn't carry many of the things that I want, but I email the owner and he orders it in for me rather than having me just order it from someone in the interwebs. It works for both of us, and he pays his mortgage selling plenty of those fancy dual suspension mountain bikes. All biking is good biking in some way... Cheers, Sean --- On Wed, 1/19/11, Ray Shine wrote: From: Ray Shine Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 12:09 PM You hit the nail on the head, Kelly, and you are spot-on correct. I am always amused and annoyed at the same time on my weekend rides into Marin County from San Francisco. It's very common to see the full suspension MTB folks drive across the bridge and park near Mike's Bikes, take their expensive MTB off the trunk rack, then go tackle the trails on Mt. Tam. I know they are from the city (just 8 miles away) because of the residential parking permits on the bumpers of their cars. I also get a laugh out of the carbon road riders who will haul the bike over White's Hill on the back of their SUV, then park on the other side and tear off a fast ride out around Nicasio reservoir and back to the car. I see this sort of canceling out thing most, however, with the MTB riders. I suppose they would offer as a justification that the bike's tires don't do well on paved roads, or some such. From: Kelly Sleeper To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 7:10:53 AM Subject: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 and then there is organized bike rides that have 100's of people driving many miles to ride a bike a short distance then drive back home. In St Louis, Mo Trailnet has one of these type rides weekly. I would wager a single weekend ride here wipes out all the progress the comuters make in one day. Not saying don't comute, just saying I don't see cycling as green. It's entertainment for most folks or exercise but also an excuse / reason to drive thier cars many more miles. Cycling has many uses and is wonderful .. but riding just for green reasons is or would be weak for me. I ride because I like riding. Kelly -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
You hit the nail on the head, Kelly, and you are spot-on correct. I am always amused and annoyed at the same time on my weekend rides into Marin County from San Francisco. It's very common to see the full suspension MTB folks drive across the bridge and park near Mike's Bikes, take their expensive MTB off the trunk rack, then go tackle the trails on Mt. Tam. I know they are from the city (just 8 miles away) because of the residential parking permits on the bumpers of their cars. I also get a laugh out of the carbon road riders who will haul the bike over White's Hill on the back of their SUV, then park on the other side and tear off a fast ride out around Nicasio reservoir and back to the car. I see this sort of canceling out thing most, however, with the MTB riders. I suppose they would offer as a justification that the bike's tires don't do well on paved roads, or some such. From: Kelly Sleeper To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 7:10:53 AM Subject: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 and then there is organized bike rides that have 100's of people driving many miles to ride a bike a short distance then drive back home. In St Louis, Mo Trailnet has one of these type rides weekly. I would wager a single weekend ride here wipes out all the progress the comuters make in one day. Not saying don't comute, just saying I don't see cycling as green. It's entertainment for most folks or exercise but also an excuse / reason to drive thier cars many more miles. Cycling has many uses and is wonderful .. but riding just for green reasons is or would be weak for me. I ride because I like riding. Kelly -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
on 1/19/11 8:04 AM, JoelMatthews at joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: >> Cycling has many uses and is wonderful .. but riding just for green reasons >> is or would be weak for me. I ride because I like riding. > > I got rid of my car for green reasons. I certainly enjoy riding my > bike. And I didn't really read anything in the article that said those were mutually exclusive. The main point seemed to be that the people who would adopt cycling because of green-ness alone are more of an outlier. Getting people to act on goals which potentially play out over generations is not easy. It's not the "wiring" we've demonstrated, historically. Monday was the 50th anniversary of Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" farewell address speech, the bulk of which is way OT, but there's always been a part of that I've kept written down: "Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow." I quote that here to recognize that we still have that challenge before us. An adversarial relationship to those who are not in agreement with us, or acting the way we feel they should, does little to move things toward the greater good. It's always about the ride. About exuding the spirit of why we ride. That is what we share implicitly and overtly when we show up at work or the store astride a bicycle. You never know who it will affect or how. - J -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com Current Classics - Cross Bikes Singlespeed - Working Bikes "You must be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Actually I do ride year round but most people "put 'em away". Starting over every spring like we used to do in the 70's, sucks big-time. Every season has it's joys and pitfalls. It's always worth it as long as you don't finish a ride in an ambulance. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:39 AM, newenglandbike wrote: > > On Jan 19, 9:14 am, robert zeidler wrote: >> Living where I live in New England, cycling year round is impractical, > > > > I live in New England and bicycle year round; lots of people do. Not > saying your business makes it possible with all that travel, but it's > possible (and practical) for lots of people. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
One can only try. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:24 AM, jim phillips wrote: > Robert, very nicely put. I agree with everything you said. But, we won't > use up all the "dino" fuel until long after you and I are gone. > > jimP > >> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:14:04 -0500 >> Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 >> From: zeidler.rob...@gmail.com >> To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com >> >> Living where I live in New England, cycling year round is impractical, >> plus for my business, I have to be places, sometimes from Boston, to >> Hartford, to Brattlebor all in the same day. >> >> To that end, I needed to able to carry things, people, plow my >> driveway when needed etc., So I dive a 4 dr Dodge diesel pick-up. >> Earlier in it's life I was able to buy B100 (pure veg diesel fuel), >> and in colder whether, down to around 30 deg, I'd run B-20 (20% of >> same). Below that only traeted fuel will work w/o the dreaded gelling >> that occurs. >> >> A funny thing started coming to my attention. Every time the price of >> "dino" diesel went up, Bio-fuels went up so they were always slightly >> higher. When I asked why, my Bio-fuel dealer told me that the state >> Dept of Consumer Protection (or whomever) had mandated this so that >> bio-fuels didn't get "a competitive advantage"(!). I gave up at that >> point. I commute (35 miles one-way) when I can, drive when I need to >> and do what's necessary to make a living. >> >> I've spent time in Evanston IL, just off the Red Line (I think) and >> never drove anywhere, even caught the train out to O'hare. Pretty >> nice but that will never, ever happen in this day of NIMBY. People >> won't allow it. But if not for that system, those residents would be >> driving also, without a doubt. >> >> As stated in another thread, I'm hoping I see the day when there is no >> more fuel oil, coal etc., available-use it all up as fast as you can, >> be glutenous in your consumption. We'll then get nukes, and >> everything will be electric. Without those reliable sources of power, >> which solar/wind will never provide, we >> re screwed anyway. That goes for the rest of the world. Nobody in a >> developing country thinks about 50 years down the road, that's a >> luxury we have in the U.S., Europe, etc. BTW, the reason the Euro's >> can put money into bike lanes, alt trans projects, etc., is because >> they don't have much of a defense budget-we do that for them!!! Think >> about it, U.S. bases all over Europe, and trust me, the governments >> want us there to do that heavy lifting. >> >> Lastly, so there is no confusion, I respect the gentleman's right to >> follow his conscience. He is free and right to do so, as long as what >> he does, does not pee in the water upstream from where others drink. >> >> Sorry, a bit long. >> >> RGZ >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM, JoelMatthews >> wrote: >> > Liked the editorial, but disagree with one of GP's points. >> > >> > I gave up cars completely and flying for all but work and emergencies >> > 6 years ago because they are such wasteful modes of transit. To me it >> > is a green choice. I realize my actions mean very little with most >> > here in Chicago wtill in cars and O'Hare handling so much unnecessary >> > flying. >> > >> > I believe my choices are the correct ones. So I follow my conscious, >> > whether it fixes the planet or not. >> > >> > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, newenglandbike wrote: >> >> Wow, that's a good read. "Cars and bikes both are vehicles, in the >> >> same way that a Glock and a Squirtgun are both guns" is a kind of >> >> potent analogy right now, however imprecise analogies may be. >> >> >> >> The point about bicycle culture/laws in Holland, and the reasonability >> >> of incentives for commuting in a safe, non-polluting manner is >> >> something that's resonated with me for a long time. Sometimes I long >> >> to move to a place like that, but then I wonder why shouldn't I just >> >> try to be be more active in trying to help change happen here, which >> >> i'm woefully not and just riding a bike doesn't really do >> >> anything. It seems futile riding a bike for 'green' reasons, or >> >> because you think it's right thing to do-- even if you do it for those >> >
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Chill my brother The oil lobby has obviously earned it's money. It sucks but it's a reality of life everywhere on this planet. My second comment is actually a vote of support for you not a criticism. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:38 AM, JoelMatthews wrote: >> Dept of Consumer Protection (or whomever) had mandated this so that >> bio-fuels didn't get "a competitive advantage"(!). . > > Any support for this, other than a comment by someone with a financial > stake in keeping the prices higher? > >> Lastly, so there is no confusion, I respect the gentleman's right to >> follow his conscience. He is free and right to do so, as long as what >> he does, does not pee in the water upstream from where others drink. > > How can that even be a worry based on my comments? There is no way my > decision to give up a car in Chicago (and btw, I have a 15 minute bike > ride to the CTA train here on the Northwest Side of the city) has a > negative impact on any car drivers. On the other hand, whether one > accepts climate change or not, there can be no argument fossil fuel > use has a far reaching negative impact. Is your point peeing upstream > only matters when the pee-er is in the decided minority? > > On Jan 19, 8:14 am, robert zeidler wrote: >> Living where I live in New England, cycling year round is impractical, >> plus for my business, I have to be places, sometimes from Boston, to >> Hartford, to Brattlebor all in the same day. >> >> To that end, I needed to able to carry things, people, plow my >> driveway when needed etc., So I dive a 4 dr Dodge diesel pick-up. >> Earlier in it's life I was able to buy B100 (pure veg diesel fuel), >> and in colder whether, down to around 30 deg, I'd run B-20 (20% of >> same). Below that only traeted fuel will work w/o the dreaded gelling >> that occurs. >> >> A funny thing started coming to my attention. Every time the price of >> "dino" diesel went up, Bio-fuels went up so they were always slightly >> higher. When I asked why, my Bio-fuel dealer told me that the state >> Dept of Consumer Protection (or whomever) had mandated this so that >> bio-fuels didn't get "a competitive advantage"(!). I gave up at that >> point. I commute (35 miles one-way) when I can, drive when I need to >> and do what's necessary to make a living. >> >> I've spent time in Evanston IL, just off the Red Line (I think) and >> never drove anywhere, even caught the train out to O'hare. Pretty >> nice but that will never, ever happen in this day of NIMBY. People >> won't allow it. But if not for that system, those residents would be >> driving also, without a doubt. >> >> As stated in another thread, I'm hoping I see the day when there is no >> more fuel oil, coal etc., available-use it all up as fast as you can, >> be glutenous in your consumption. We'll then get nukes, and >> everything will be electric. Without those reliable sources of power, >> which solar/wind will never provide, we >> re screwed anyway. That goes for the rest of the world. Nobody in a >> developing country thinks about 50 years down the road, that's a >> luxury we have in the U.S., Europe, etc. BTW, the reason the Euro's >> can put money into bike lanes, alt trans projects, etc., is because >> they don't have much of a defense budget-we do that for them!!! Think >> about it, U.S. bases all over Europe, and trust me, the governments >> want us there to do that heavy lifting. >> >> Lastly, so there is no confusion, I respect the gentleman's right to >> follow his conscience. He is free and right to do so, as long as what >> he does, does not pee in the water upstream from where others drink. >> >> Sorry, a bit long. >> >> RGZ >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM, JoelMatthews wrote: >> > Liked the editorial, but disagree with one of GP's points. >> >> > I gave up cars completely and flying for all but work and emergencies >> > 6 years ago because they are such wasteful modes of transit. To me it >> > is a green choice. I realize my actions mean very little with most >> > here in Chicago wtill in cars and O'Hare handling so much unnecessary >> > flying. >> >> > I believe my choices are the correct ones. So I follow my conscious, >> > whether it fixes the planet or not. >> >> > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, newenglandbike wrote: >> >> Wow, that's a good read. "Cars and bikes both are vehicles, in the >> >> same way that a Glock and a Squirtgun are both guns" is a kind of >> >> potent analogy right now, however imprecise analogies may be. >> >> >> The point about bicycle culture/laws in Holland, and the reasonability >> >> of incentives for commuting in a safe, non-polluting manner is >> >> something that's resonated with me for a long time. Sometimes I long >> >> to move to a place like that, but then I wonder why shouldn't I just >> >> try to be be more active in trying to help change happen here, which >> >> i'm woefully not and just riding a bike doesn't really do >> >> anything. It seems futile ridi
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
It could be argued that some of us have organized our lives around having to drive everywhere, 30-mile (or more) one-way commutes, living in places where transportational cycling is simply too difficult or dangerous, etc. That's the arrangement that many people choose for various reasons, and that's their business, but my priority is to be able to walk or bicycle to work, to get groceries, and for my general transportation. I live in a great cycling town (Minneapolis), and I figured out how to have my work and home be less than half a mile apart with the route between being quiet residential streets. I love to ride my bike and to walk, but driving causes me stress, and it's expensive: gas, insurance, maintenance, parking, etc, etc. For me, the "green" choice is a no-brainer, though truth be told, I hardly ever think about the green-ness of it anymore. I don't even recycle. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
The best post of this thread! I agree: if it's not fun, why do it? Too much modern neo-puritanism out there already. Tho' kudos to those who ride in snow and *enjoy* it. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Kelly Sleeper wrote: > and then there is organized bike rides that have 100's of people driving > many miles to ride a bike a short distance then drive back home. In St > Louis, Mo Trailnet has one of these type rides weekly. I would wager a > single weekend ride here wipes out all the progress the comuters make in one > day. Not saying don't comute, just saying I don't see cycling as green. It's > entertainment for most folks or exercise but also an excuse / reason to > drive thier cars many more miles. > > Cycling has many uses and is wonderful .. but riding just for green reasons > is or would be weak for me. I ride because I like riding. > > Kelly > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
RE: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Robert, very nicely put. I agree with everything you said. But, we won't use up all the "dino" fuel until long after you and I are gone. jimP > Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:14:04 -0500 > Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18 > From: zeidler.rob...@gmail.com > To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > > Living where I live in New England, cycling year round is impractical, > plus for my business, I have to be places, sometimes from Boston, to > Hartford, to Brattlebor all in the same day. > > To that end, I needed to able to carry things, people, plow my > driveway when needed etc., So I dive a 4 dr Dodge diesel pick-up. > Earlier in it's life I was able to buy B100 (pure veg diesel fuel), > and in colder whether, down to around 30 deg, I'd run B-20 (20% of > same). Below that only traeted fuel will work w/o the dreaded gelling > that occurs. > > A funny thing started coming to my attention. Every time the price of > "dino" diesel went up, Bio-fuels went up so they were always slightly > higher. When I asked why, my Bio-fuel dealer told me that the state > Dept of Consumer Protection (or whomever) had mandated this so that > bio-fuels didn't get "a competitive advantage"(!). I gave up at that > point. I commute (35 miles one-way) when I can, drive when I need to > and do what's necessary to make a living. > > I've spent time in Evanston IL, just off the Red Line (I think) and > never drove anywhere, even caught the train out to O'hare. Pretty > nice but that will never, ever happen in this day of NIMBY. People > won't allow it. But if not for that system, those residents would be > driving also, without a doubt. > > As stated in another thread, I'm hoping I see the day when there is no > more fuel oil, coal etc., available-use it all up as fast as you can, > be glutenous in your consumption. We'll then get nukes, and > everything will be electric. Without those reliable sources of power, > which solar/wind will never provide, we > re screwed anyway. That goes for the rest of the world. Nobody in a > developing country thinks about 50 years down the road, that's a > luxury we have in the U.S., Europe, etc. BTW, the reason the Euro's > can put money into bike lanes, alt trans projects, etc., is because > they don't have much of a defense budget-we do that for them!!! Think > about it, U.S. bases all over Europe, and trust me, the governments > want us there to do that heavy lifting. > > Lastly, so there is no confusion, I respect the gentleman's right to > follow his conscience. He is free and right to do so, as long as what > he does, does not pee in the water upstream from where others drink. > > Sorry, a bit long. > > RGZ > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM, JoelMatthews wrote: > > Liked the editorial, but disagree with one of GP's points. > > > > I gave up cars completely and flying for all but work and emergencies > > 6 years ago because they are such wasteful modes of transit. To me it > > is a green choice. I realize my actions mean very little with most > > here in Chicago wtill in cars and O'Hare handling so much unnecessary > > flying. > > > > I believe my choices are the correct ones. So I follow my conscious, > > whether it fixes the planet or not. > > > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, newenglandbike wrote: > >> Wow, that's a good read."Cars and bikes both are vehicles, in the > >> same way that a Glock and a Squirtgun are both guns" is a kind of > >> potent analogy right now, however imprecise analogies may be. > >> > >> The point about bicycle culture/laws in Holland, and the reasonability > >> of incentives for commuting in a safe, non-polluting manner is > >> something that's resonated with me for a long time. Sometimes I long > >> to move to a place like that, but then I wonder why shouldn't I just > >> try to be be more active in trying to help change happen here, which > >> i'm woefully not and just riding a bike doesn't really do > >> anything. It seems futile riding a bike for 'green' reasons, or > >> because you think it's right thing to do-- even if you do it for those > >> reasons-- and it's easy to end up suppressing frustration at the > >> status quo, but reading stuff like this always brings it back to the > >> surface, which is probably a good thing.um I doubt that makes any > >> sense. which means it's probably too early for me to be typing right > >> now. yesterday's ride home west of boston
Re: [RBW] Re: Rivbike Editorial of Jan. 18
Living where I live in New England, cycling year round is impractical, plus for my business, I have to be places, sometimes from Boston, to Hartford, to Brattlebor all in the same day. To that end, I needed to able to carry things, people, plow my driveway when needed etc., So I dive a 4 dr Dodge diesel pick-up. Earlier in it's life I was able to buy B100 (pure veg diesel fuel), and in colder whether, down to around 30 deg, I'd run B-20 (20% of same). Below that only traeted fuel will work w/o the dreaded gelling that occurs. A funny thing started coming to my attention. Every time the price of "dino" diesel went up, Bio-fuels went up so they were always slightly higher. When I asked why, my Bio-fuel dealer told me that the state Dept of Consumer Protection (or whomever) had mandated this so that bio-fuels didn't get "a competitive advantage"(!). I gave up at that point. I commute (35 miles one-way) when I can, drive when I need to and do what's necessary to make a living. I've spent time in Evanston IL, just off the Red Line (I think) and never drove anywhere, even caught the train out to O'hare. Pretty nice but that will never, ever happen in this day of NIMBY. People won't allow it. But if not for that system, those residents would be driving also, without a doubt. As stated in another thread, I'm hoping I see the day when there is no more fuel oil, coal etc., available-use it all up as fast as you can, be glutenous in your consumption. We'll then get nukes, and everything will be electric. Without those reliable sources of power, which solar/wind will never provide, we re screwed anyway. That goes for the rest of the world. Nobody in a developing country thinks about 50 years down the road, that's a luxury we have in the U.S., Europe, etc. BTW, the reason the Euro's can put money into bike lanes, alt trans projects, etc., is because they don't have much of a defense budget-we do that for them!!! Think about it, U.S. bases all over Europe, and trust me, the governments want us there to do that heavy lifting. Lastly, so there is no confusion, I respect the gentleman's right to follow his conscience. He is free and right to do so, as long as what he does, does not pee in the water upstream from where others drink. Sorry, a bit long. RGZ On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM, JoelMatthews wrote: > Liked the editorial, but disagree with one of GP's points. > > I gave up cars completely and flying for all but work and emergencies > 6 years ago because they are such wasteful modes of transit. To me it > is a green choice. I realize my actions mean very little with most > here in Chicago wtill in cars and O'Hare handling so much unnecessary > flying. > > I believe my choices are the correct ones. So I follow my conscious, > whether it fixes the planet or not. > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, newenglandbike wrote: >> Wow, that's a good read. "Cars and bikes both are vehicles, in the >> same way that a Glock and a Squirtgun are both guns" is a kind of >> potent analogy right now, however imprecise analogies may be. >> >> The point about bicycle culture/laws in Holland, and the reasonability >> of incentives for commuting in a safe, non-polluting manner is >> something that's resonated with me for a long time. Sometimes I long >> to move to a place like that, but then I wonder why shouldn't I just >> try to be be more active in trying to help change happen here, which >> i'm woefully not and just riding a bike doesn't really do >> anything. It seems futile riding a bike for 'green' reasons, or >> because you think it's right thing to do-- even if you do it for those >> reasons-- and it's easy to end up suppressing frustration at the >> status quo, but reading stuff like this always brings it back to the >> surface, which is probably a good thing. um I doubt that makes any >> sense. which means it's probably too early for me to be typing right >> now. yesterday's ride home west of boston was a slush-ice >> nightmare. Thank god for studded tires but even they were out of >> their league. we were expecting some weather, but if i knew it >> would be that bad I would've stayed home. >> >> On Jan 18, 7:23 pm, James Warren wrote: >> >> >> >> > There's an interesting editorial on rivbike right now about how bikes >> > aren't the same as cars. >> >> > It reminds me of something I often remember when teaching students: the >> > idea that doing what's right and fair for a kid is sometimes not the same >> > thing for any two given kids. >> >> > -Jim W.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- You
