How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

max > wrote in
ink.net:

> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>> Bikes cause roughly 800 fatalities per year in the US. Motor vehicles
>> cause around 35,000 to 40,000.
>>
>> Bicyclists suffer less than 1% of the fatal head injuries in America.
>> Motor vehicle occupants are roughly 50% of those victims.
>
> Frank has a point.
>
> The reason, which most people seem incapable of actually articulating,
> that cycling has so much fewer fatal injuries is that the total system
> energy available is dramatically lower.
>
> For example, a bike-bike collision has roughly 1/500th (0.2%) the total
> system energy (not including the 40 gallons of flaming gasoline!) of a
> car-car collision, (200# cyclists @15 mph vs. 3000# cars @ 40 mph).
>
> .max
>

Perhaps more due to bicycling is less common than people driving autos,not
"energy-related".
way.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>Instead, pavement engineers
>commonly accept that pavement damage is related to total weight, with
>damage much more than proportional to weight.

Really? So that's why no pavement engineer cares how many axles a
truck has, or the load distribution among those axles is, or how many
tires on each axle? Oh, wait, they do.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>> No;users pay,plain and simple.
>>
>
>Where, other than interstate highways, do the users pay 100% of the
>costs?
>
>Nowhere.

Pennsylvania, for all state maintained roadways.

Most places, once you work through the fancy accounting that transfers
road money elsewhere then partially makes up for it by transferring
other money into the roads.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article . net>,
max > wrote:
>
>The reason, which most people seem incapable of actually articulating,
>that cycling has so much fewer fatal injuries is that the total system
>energy available is dramatically lower.
>
>For example, a bike-bike collision has roughly 1/500th (0.2%) the total
>system energy (not including the 40 gallons of flaming gasoline!) of a
>car-car collision, (200# cyclists @15 mph vs. 3000# cars @ 40 mph).

Bicyclist logic is so weird. Bicyclists think picking out particular
differences in two scenarios somehow proves something, when they
haven't accounted for all the OTHER differences. For instance, all
the inanimate metal available to ABSORB the energy of the collision.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto > wrote in message
...
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting
practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.

This makes no sense at all.

In article >,
Matthew > wrote:
>
>Matthew Russotto > wrote in message
...
>> --
>> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting
>practices can
>> result in a fully-depreciated one.
>
>This makes no sense at all.

You've never considered the economics of leftovers?

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:47:15 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:


>> But I'm sure not
>> waiting in line with cars. That's half the fun of biking in the big
>> city.
>
>My fun is moving fast enough that I can use any lane of my choosing.
>

I've always that driving in Manhattan is more akin to water flowing in
a pipe than driving in lanes. A big consideration is that most of the
streets are one way. So you always try to flow away from the side that
might turn.

I do not feel safe biking at the speed of cars. Frankly, I don't like
going over 20mph on my bike, which I rarely manage to reach. Pothole,
pedestrian, cab, messenger. Nope, too much chance of going flying.

The lights are timed for cars, not me. If I don't take move past cars
when they're stopped and ease through red lights then a one hour
commute is going to take at least half an hour longer.

I have never seen a bike waiting in a line of cars in Manhattan, or
anywhere else in NYC for that matter.

Jim Yanik wrote:

> 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.
>

Tell you what Jim. Use your superior intellect and argumentative
abilities and convince the motorist legislators (that should be easy
since as motorists they should share your views about bicyclists) in
your state to institute users fees for bicyclists. When that occurs,
you'll have vindication and can feel good about your efforts and you
won't feel slighted.

Until then, I and others bicyclists will freely use the roads.

If you had any real sense, you'd reject those hideous restrictions on
motoring and join the ranks of the free.

Wayne

In article >, says...

>I'd say, "Now at least you're equally qualified to be here -- provided
>you follow the rules like the rest of us do. Such as letting us pass
>if you're not going to go as fast as we want to!"

Sure. Move over to the next lane and pass. Just like it says in the
book you were supposed to read when you got your license.
----------------
Alex

In article >, .
says...

>well,it certainly is not hate of bicyclists per se. Only when they are
>using roads and slowing down traffic(which they DO do).

How about when you slow down traffic?
-------------
Alex