Bicyclists - Best way to punish drivers who endanger you

Stephen Harding wrote:
> Preston Crawford wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've had
> > people ask me, when walking or skateboarding or biking, if I could
afford
> > a car. So there's bias number 1. Often people that drive everyone
assume
> > everyone else wants to do the same, so if they don't they must be
poor or
> > have too many DUIs or something. ...
>
> Agreed! You ride a bike (for transportation as opposed to
> recreation purposes) so you must be homeless, dirt poor or
> had your driver's license yanked (most likely DUI).


It used to be that our bike club volunteered to pick up litter along a
certain highway, and got our club name mentioned on signs saying "This
highway kept beautiful by the members of..."

I really didn't like that work. I did it only once. But I recall one
older couple in a Cadillac who were blaring the horn at us as they
drove by, obviously angry. The only explanation I can imagine is that
they thought we were all DUI violators.

It's a special case, I know, but it does indicate that if you're in
America and you're not inside a car, there "must" be something wrong
with you - at least, according to the people inside the tin boxes!

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Preston Crawford wrote:
>
> >
> > So move somewhere where the roads are easier to ride. Or get a
different
> > job. You aren't *forced* into where you live or where you work.
> >
> > Preston
>
> That's where you're wrong. If you are, say, an engineer, you live
where
> the companies are that employ engineers. If you'd rather continue
> working as an engineer than ride your bike to work, then you get a
car.
> Yeah, it's a "choice" of sorts, but not as much of one as you make
it
> sound.
>
> nate

It's also not as impossible as you make it sound!

I made the choice (previously described) when I took a job teaching
college. And there are a hell of a lot less places for an engineer
(like me) to teach college than to work in industry.

My graduates get jobs in everything from huge cities to tiny towns.
The number of engineers employed in small manufacturing firms is
tremendous, and that includes thousands of firms located in small
towns.

I've even got a few graduates working in companies in primarily Amish
areas. IOW, if one of my grads decided it was important to commute by
horse and buggy,
that wouldn't be impossible to achieve.

So while it may take more initiative and creativity than some people
have, the choices we're talking about _are_ possible. And smart people
make them, rather than just following the herd.

On 19 Feb 2005 09:59:06 -0800, wrote in message
.com>:

>Prostate problems of one type or another are pretty much
>guaranteed for American men, if they live long enough.

According to a surgeon I met through my work at US Surgical some years
back, the probability of prostate cancer in men, provided you live
long enough, is as close to 100% as makes no difference. And most of
those who contract the disease die of something else long before it
becomes a problem.

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

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:10:53 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote in message
>:

>Here in SoCal, Metrolink does allow bicycles, but only in a special
>space in certain cars AND there is only space for two bicycles; if you
>show up and those two spots are already full, tough noogies - you wait
>for the next train.

A buck says that folding bikes are exempt from that rule ;-)

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

Nate Nagel wrote:

> That's where you're wrong. If you are, say, an engineer, you live
> where the companies are that employ engineers. If you'd rather
> continue working as an engineer than ride your bike to work, then you
> get a car. Yeah, it's a "choice" of sorts, but not as much of one
> as you make it sound.

FWIW -- I've noticed more bike commuters at engineering companies than any other
type. These companies seem to be friendlier to bike commuters too, offering
shower/changing/locker facilities, secure bike parking, etc.

I once met a guy who commuted almost 30 miles each way to McDonnell-Douglas (now
Boeing) in Long Beach, CA. He said there were about 120 bike commuters at his
workplace, although he was definately the mileage champ.

Similarly, the Irvine Spectrum area in Orange County, CA, produces a steady
stream of bicyclists down Alton Pkwy every evening. While commuting to a
client's office there for three months, 14 miles each way from my home in Costa
Mesa, I met everyone from janitors to executives of global corporations in that
bike lane. Take away the car and cover the $200 coif with a helmet, and you
can't tell the difference until someone strikes up a conversation.

The point is, the bike isn't what's holding you back. Take charge and design
your life. No one's forcing you to accept the default settings. If you prefer
to drive that's fine. But stop the other excuses.

Matt O.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
> Does Metra allow you to bring your bike on board the trains?
>
Metra (Chicago area commuter trains) does not allow bikes at
any time.
The CTA (also known as the "L", or what in other cities is the
"subway") allows bicycles at non-rush hours, (rush hours are
Monday-Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.)
In the past few years, most buses have had bike racks
installed.

Preston Crawford wrote:

> On 2005-02-18, Nate Nagel > wrote:

>> No, you posted "can I recommend a bicycle." I was explaining why
>> that was unworkable for most people. They have to have a car
>> anyway, unless they live somewhere with decent public transportation
>> - so there's no additional cost involved except running cost
>> (30-something cents a mile was the federal rate, last time I filled
>> out an expense report with personal vehicle mileage on it) to use it
>> to commute to work, and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
>
> So the mere fact that you own a car makes it so you MUST use it?
> That's interesting logic. By that logic if I own two cars I should
> drive both every single day, otherwise it's a waste.
>
> I have a 99 Ford Taurus. It has 40,000 miles on it and it's been from
> Portland, Oregon to California 5 times and it's been to Idaho at
> least 4 times. You do the math. Take away the long trips and the car
> barely gets used. But it's not a waste. It's there if I need it. And
> for everything else there's my bike.

Preston,

If this is your use pattern, you ought to do the math on ownership vs. renting
occasionally. Of course this varies, but renting occasionally has worked out
well for me. I have a non-owner insurance policy for less than $10 a month
which covers all my liability. Credit cards covers the rest. So I don't have
to pay for coverage from the rental company. For local driving Enterprise has
great weekend deals for $10 a day. They'll pick you up at home, too. The only
caveat is a 150 mile per day limit. For longer trips just go to
Travelocity/Orbitz/etc. and see who has the best price for a particular trip.

I encourage you to figure out what that Taurus really costs you, including
purchase price, depreciation, insurance, gas, tires, other maintenance and
repair, etc., and really do the math. You might be surprised. I'm not telling
you to get rid of your car, but do the math as an interesting exercise.

One thing some people overlook is the practicality of a really cheap car, if
it's used only occasionally. If you're relying on your car to get to work every
day, you can't afford the risk of a breakdown -- so a newer (expensive) car
seems almost mandantory. But with occasional use you're not racking up the
mileage, so the probablility of a breakdown in any given time period is greatly
reduced. You also have more time between uses to do any necessary maintenance.
In turn this gives you more opportunity to shop around for best price/quality.

The cost of commuting often outweighs the difference in housing cost cited as
the reason for a long commute. But most people never actually do the math, or
even account for all their car's costs. There's no question that a more
expensive dwelling is a better investment than a depreciating automobile and its
associated costs.

Matt O.

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...

> If this is your use pattern, you ought to do the math on ownership vs.
renting
> occasionally.

Or flexcar -- I believe there's flexcar in Portland, where Preston lives.

http://www.flexcar.com/


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:24:08 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>The journey by bike and train takes the same time as it does by car
>and I can read a book on the train. Sometimes I drive - I hate it.
>The roads are full of people like Russotto.
>
>Guy

And they are full of assholes like guy. We prefer Russotto.

He understands that some people have a 5 mile commute, while others
have a 60 mile commute.

He also doesn't lie about how he can bile 25 miles as fast as he can
drive.

He also doesn't lie about how he can bike to the train, take it to
another town, and then walk/bike to work as fast as he could have
drove.

I am wondering, what do all the people on the train think of you being
a prick by bringing your bike onto the train, and for smelling like
you haven't showered in a month?

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:02:48 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>additional cost involved except running cost (30-something cents a mile
>was the federal rate, last time I filled out an expense report with

It is .405 a mile now!!