"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 16

02-04-2007, 03:05 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
says...
> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
> >> Don Klipstein wrote:
> >>
> >>> What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting
> >>> bike users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels that
> >>> I think are no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!
> >>
> >> There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's
> >> people who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way.
> >
> > I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
> > number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
> > traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the
> > curb. No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough
> > space to pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is
> > probably already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody,
> > and most bicyclists stay off such roads.
>
> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.

Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?

--
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

02-04-2007, 03:08 PM

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You must have cheap electricity then, because here in California we
>>>>>>>> start at about 15 cent per Kw/hour, then if we dare to go over 500 KwH
>>>>>>>> the rate jumps to nearly 20 cents per Kw/hour.
>>>>>>>> We don't call PG&E Pacific Gouge and Extortion for nothing.
>>>>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>>>>> That *still* doesn't make solar electricity generation economic.
>>>>>> One major investment versus paying and paying....
>>>>>> Kind like renting a house versus buying.
>>>>>> Good solar panels will last over 20 years and if you buy now you will
>>>>>> not be stuck with the ever increasing rates.
>>>>> They *still* don't make economic sense.
>>>> It doesn't make economic sense but but more of a global less CO2 sense.
>>> The best way to reduce CO2 emissions is to use energy more efficiently rather
>>> than find highly expensive new ways to make more.
>>
>> The best way would actually be "BIRTH CONTROL". Less people using
>> electricity.
>
> You have an aversion to using energy efficiently ? It does seem to be the 'American
> way' it has to be said.
>
>
>> Simple, but nobody wants to hear about that solution.
>
> Because it's not going to happen. It would be a generation before it had any
> meaningful effect anyway.

I'm just wishing it would happen voluntarily, if possible. More people
use more power. I do feel sorry for the starving kids in Africa, but
they tend to have more and more children to replace the ones who died
for lack of food. We can't solve that problem and as the mortality rate
goes down the consumption goes up.
Catch-22.
Bill Baka
>
> Graham
>

02-04-2007, 03:11 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> says...
>> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>> Don Klipstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting
>>>>> bike users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels that
>>>>> I think are no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!
>>>> There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's
>>>> people who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way.
>>> I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
>>> number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
>>> traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the
>>> curb. No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough
>>> space to pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is
>>> probably already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody,
>>> and most bicyclists stay off such roads.
>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>
> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
> less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?
>
I don't know about you but having cars whiffing by me at 65 MPH is not
my idea of a fun ride. It's more of a death wish than I have. In
California you will get a ticket. States may vary but I think common
sense should be applied.
Bill Baka

02-04-2007, 03:33 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>> Don Klipstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting
>>>>> bike users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels
>>>>> that I think are no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's
>>>> people who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
>>> number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes
>>> of traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and
>>> the curb. No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't
>>> enough space to pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane,
>>> which is probably already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for
>>> everybody, and most bicyclists stay off such roads.
>>
>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>
> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
> less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?

Interstates aint freeways.

02-04-2007, 03:50 PM

The Real Bev wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's
>> people who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way.
>
>
> I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
> number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
> traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the curb.
> No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough space to
> pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is probably
> already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody, and most
> bicyclists stay off such roads.
>

If such a road is said to be unfriendly, it is to motorists who must
wait. Waiting is not dangerous. Being incompetent and moving into the
adjacent lane when there is not room is. However, this is not a typical
mechanism of collision.

A 2 ft wide bicycle fits just fine no matter how narrow the lane. A
bicycle driver need only ride right in the center of the lane. The roads
are full of slow vehicles such as stopped busses, motor vehicles
completely stopped at stop lights, parked delivery vehicles, front
loaders, bicycles, etc. Motorists can deal with it.

Wayne

02-04-2007, 03:54 PM

The Real Bev wrote:

> I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
> number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
> traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the curb.
> No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough space to
> pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is probably
> already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody, and most
> bicyclists stay off such roads.
>

It's interesting how motorists incriminate themselves by claiming that
slow traffic, and specifically bicycle traffic, causes the danger. As a
motorist, I don't have a problem with slow traffic such as bicycles,
front loaders, stopped busses, cars and delivery vehicles. I think
incompetent motorists should just not drive.

Wayne

02-04-2007, 04:03 PM

Rod Speed wrote:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>>> Don Klipstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting
>>>>>> bike users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels
>>>>>> that I think are no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!
>>>>> There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's
>>>>> people who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either
>>>>> way.
>>>> I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
>>>> number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes
>>>> of traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and
>>>> the curb. No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't
>>>> enough space to pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane,
>>>> which is probably already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for
>>>> everybody, and most bicyclists stay off such roads.
>>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
>> less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?
>
> Interstates aint freeways.
>
>

Actually many of them are.

02-04-2007, 04:05 PM

Rod Speed wrote:
>
> Interstates aint freeways.
>
>

Tell us, what is the difference between I-405 in LA and a freeway? How
about I-880 in the Bay Area?

02-04-2007, 04:06 PM

Rod Speed wrote:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
>> less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?
>
> Interstates aint freeways.

They are in the USA.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-04-2007, 04:09 PM

The Real Bev wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>>>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>>> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
>>> less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?
>>
>> Interstates aint freeways.
>
> They are in the USA.
>

So how will welfare boy reply to this obvious fact? The paper bag bot?
The flushing bot? My guess is "bull****", his standard auto response
when the facts fail him.