How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

Jim Yanik .> writes:

> 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.

You don't really worry about this stuff do you? I hope you are just
playing a kook on usenet, right?

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> 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.

:-) Oh wait, we've got a poster who never passed a physics class!

If you're interested in finding the pressure that the vehicle puts on
the road, you can use a pocket tool: a tire pressure gage. Ignoring
the slight effect of tire sidewall stiffness, if you have (say) 35 psi
in your tires, your vehicle applies 35 psi to the pavement under each
tire. This is true whether you have one wheel, four wheels or
sixteen. How could it be otherwise?

Multiple axles primarily benefit the truck's structure, plus help the
truck meet detail requirements for safe loads on bridges. See
http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/0/b6...b?OpenDocument
for a little on this.

It may be that adding a load bearing axle can reduce pressure on the
highway substrate, down at a depth of several feet, and this might have
some benefit for the highway. But any such effect goes away at any
"normal" vehicle weight. It's obviously no issue with cars; Hummers
aren't required to have multiple axles. It's clearly no issue with
bikes, where the total weight is so low that the pressure field
dissipates just a few inches down into the asphalt.

Again, if this were not so, you'd see regulations against wearing high
heels in crosswalks; or alternately, you'd see evidence of severe
crosswalk damage due to stylish women.

You can prove me wrong by providing photos of crosswalks crumbled by
high heeled shoes. Or sections of roadways showing damage that is
clearly due to wear caused by bicycles, not other vehicles.

- Frank Krygowski

In article > ,
Wayne Pein > writes:

> If you had any real sense, you'd reject those hideous restrictions on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's a big "if".

> motoring and join the ranks of the free.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (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.

That definition then defines all roads as "extra convenience"

>>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.

Find a road "usage" fee in IL for anything. There isn't one. It's just
your semantics.

I paid the IL 'use' tax on my bicycle when I bought it.

>>> 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.

Often, the auto parking is free. The ones I know of are free for autos
outside of M-F working hours. I've never paid to park my car in those
lots because I am not there durring the hours where they charge.


>> 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.

No, it's about keeping other people out of the neighborhood. People in
neighborhood B pay the same as those in neighborhood A, but they cannot
park in each other's neighborhood. It's about reserving space.

In article >, dgk wrote:

> 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 accelerate faster than most drivers, but will get passed mid block even
if I am at or exceeding the posted speed limit unless the shear number of
cars prevents it.

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

I haven't been the only one around here.

In article >,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> 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.

Calculating the energy of deformation seemed a little ott, and
irrelevant to the simple comparison of relative energy scales.

Blow it out you ass.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> 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.

I'll bet not. DOT admin, state patrol costs, etc. And the indirect
costs are not even imagined.

> 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.

Not.

E.P.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
> 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.


Talk about weird logic. From the stats presented in this thread, it
seems that cars would need a heck of a lot more absorbant metal to be
able to approach the safety record of bicycles. All that and riding in
a hostile environment. Your attitude must spring from envy.

E.P.

In article . net>,
max > wrote:

not hitting quite the right note ...

> In article >,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Calculating the energy of deformation seemed a little ott, and
> irrelevant to the simple comparison of relative energy scales.
>
> Blow it out you ass.

Let me rephrase: "then why are people so horribly mangled and killed in
car accidents?"

Blow it out you ass as in: puhleese, at least try.

Alex Rodriguez > wrote in
:

> 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
>
>

I don't slow it down like bicycles do.(I'm usually on the high side of the
speed limit)
I move my GSR along quickly enough,and I'm no sloth driver,either.
And headwind or road slope does not affect me like they do a pedalist.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net