How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
should be removed from the road.
>
> Ya know, maybe this should be extended to other facets of life. I pay a
> lot of money in taxes. I should be able to shove those who pay less than
> me out of my way. That would be well over 50% of the population. Life
> would be so much easier that way. It would make paying the taxes worth
> it.

If you shove me out of the way in error, can
I get a tax refund?

Brent P wrote:

> The court decision was that IL government agencies did not have to make a
> road suitable for bicyclists. Thusly, that court decision is an arguement
> for NO TAXES, because there is no requirement that the roads be
> maintained in any shape or form suitable for bicycling.

Interesting.

The US paved road system was actually initially undertaken as
a response to demands from...bicyclists in the late 1880's and
1890's.

Bicycling became immensely popular at that time, with bicycle
clubs sprouting up everywhere. It was also cheap transportation
and fast local transport. But paved roads were required to
further bicycle use.

Of course cars came in around 1900 and took over the impetus to
developing a paved road network, but it largely began under
pressure from bicyclists.


SMH

Mon, 23 May 2005 20:30:48 -0700,
>, nobody, Scott en Aztlán
> guessed wrong again:

>Lemme guess: FREDs drive SCUDs, right?

Wrong.

FREDs are more highly evolved than scud jockeys.
At least FREDs ride bicycles. They just look poor compared to Fabrizio
so he wishes they'd drive and become nobodies instead.
--
zk

On 23 May 2005 15:59:16 -0700, wrote in message
.com>:

>But, to assume you're talking about just "pressure" (not "pressure per
>unit area"), I have seen no evidence that pavement damage is
>significantly related to pressure. Instead, pavement engineers
>commonly accept that pavement damage is related to total weight, with
>damage much more than proportional to weight.

I think it's the cube of axle weight, isn't it? Something like that,
anyway.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 23 May 2005 15:59:16 -0700, wrote in message
> .com>:
> ... Instead, pavement engineers
> >commonly accept that pavement damage is related to total weight,
with
> >damage much more than proportional to weight.
>
> I think it's the cube of axle weight, isn't it? Something like that,
> anyway.

ISTR it was a higher power than the cube, perhaps the sixth power.
However, any such simple function is going to be a pretty crude
approximation. For example, I'd expect the relationship to be
different for different types of soil, substrate, pavement, traffic
volume, etc etc.

But it's certain that vehicle weight makes a tremendous difference, and
that "pressure" matters much, much less than weight.

- Frank Krygowski

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
>
> Ah, so FREDs are the guys who ride bikes but don't wear spandex?
>

With all due respect to the inimitable Fabrizio:

When you find a cyclist who is as arrogant and conceited as, say, Scott
en Aztlan, that cyclist will sometimes use the term "Fred" for a less
fashionable cyclist.

However, even a guy like Fabs will feel some slight sympathy for a
Fred. Not so for a scud jockey.

Hope this helps. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Wayne Pein > wrote in
. com:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein > wrote in
>> . com:
>>
>>
>>>C. E. White wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the motorist are paying for it. I don't think bicyclist
>>>>should be run off the road. However, I do think they need
>>>>stop pretending that they "own" the road.
>>>
>>>Of course, bicycle driver DO own the roads to the same extent that
>>>motorists own the roads.
>>
>>
>> Except that auto users pay user fees,and bicyclists do not pay any user
>> fees for their bicycles.The fact that they pay for their autos does not
>> exclude them from paying for a MOTORcycle,but they expect it for their
>> bicycles.
>
> Since legislators are themselves motorists, there must be a good reason
> they impose this penalty on themselves. But you don't have to go along
> with it. Protest by not driving a motor vehicle. If you don't like your
> user fee, don't pay it.
>
> Wayne
>

I have no problem with paying a user fee for my road vehicles;it's the
bicyclists that have a problem with it.
They want to keep their unfair exclusion.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

max > wrote in
ink.net:

> In article >,
> Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>> Except that auto users pay user fees,and bicyclists do not pay any user
>> fees for their bicycles.The fact that they pay for their autos does not
>> exclude them from paying for a MOTORcycle,but they expect it for their
>> bicycles.
>
> put up or shut up: how much for a bike?
>
> Defend your position: what is the fact-based analysis by which you
> derived the above number?
>
>
>
> .max
>

What's the "fact-based analysis" that the DMVs used to come up with their
minimum fee for motor vehicles or motorcycles? There probably is not any.
But still no reason to exclude bicycles.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> Tollroads are "pay extra for extra convenience" roads.
>
> Wrong. In IL, required roads are toll roads. They aren't extra
> convenience.

Yes,they are;you want to use them,you pay,or find another way.
There ARE other routes,just not as convenient or speedy.

>They are roads needed because of growth in the area.
> However because downstaters somehow think their measely contribution
> to state taxes would actually be used in northern part of the state,
> they were made tollroads which opened a huge new area of corruption
> and theft.
>
>> Auto operators pay for the convenience of using public roads,but
>> bicyclists do not pay,and expect the use for free.
>
> Bicyclists didn't require the heavy roadbed and pavement. Feel free
> not to build it.

Not about building,its about USAGE. Use it,pay a fee.
>
>>> It's not a special exemption for bicycle users. It's special
>>> requirements for motor vehicle users. The roads have existed for
>>> thousands of years.
>
>> Not those in the United States. We've only been around for about
>> 200some years.
>
> Roads, trails, etc have existed in the united states for 1000s of
> years, it just wasn't the untied states the entire time.
>
>> Parking is OFF-road,and usually on private property;thus not
>> applicable.Nice try.
>
> Haven't lived in the big city or even a reasonably sized suburb have
> you? Practically every town around here has a giant parking lot
> and/or a large parking structure just for train commuters alone.

Often,such parking is privately owned,too.
and then any bike racks are provided for FREE. More freebies.
I've never seen a pay-bike rack.


>
> And then there is the big city, where street parking is in such high
> demand that people get territorial about it. In chicago you need
> neighborhood permits to park on the street (generally the cost of the
> sticker and proof of residence) because the neighborhood folk somehow
> think that they can reserve street parking for only those that live in
> that neighborhood.
>
>

That seems to be more of the "USE it,PAY for using it" concept.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Stephen Harding > wrote in
news:%%zke.18593$4d6.7622@trndny04:

> Brent P wrote:
>
>> The court decision was that IL government agencies did not have to
>> make a road suitable for bicyclists. Thusly, that court decision is
>> an arguement for NO TAXES, because there is no requirement that the
>> roads be maintained in any shape or form suitable for bicycling.
>
> Interesting.
>
> The US paved road system was actually initially undertaken as
> a response to demands from...bicyclists in the late 1880's and
> 1890's.
>
> Bicycling became immensely popular at that time, with bicycle
> clubs sprouting up everywhere. It was also cheap transportation
> and fast local transport. But paved roads were required to
> further bicycle use.
>
> Of course cars came in around 1900 and took over the impetus to
> developing a paved road network, but it largely began under
> pressure from bicyclists.
>
>
> SMH
>
>

Can you name any roads built back then expressly for bicyclists?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net