"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 46

02-07-2007, 05:25 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put
>>>> a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The
>>>> other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and
>>>> try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG.
>>> I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the
>>> verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a
>>> flat highway). Interested in taking that bet?
>> I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics
>> leaves a lot to be desired.
>
> OK, so this is easy money for you. $1000? $10,000? All you gotta do
> is take a stock Falcon and get 40mpg out of it at highway speed
> (65mph) on level ground with no wind, by modifying the drive ratio in
> the differential.
>
> Or maybe you'd just be contributing to my retirement. ;-)
>
> Just how SURE are you? Enough to put money on it?
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

First I have to find a project car. It should be easy to get 40 MPG
since I got 38 out of a 1961 Rambler, which was an aerodynamic brick.
Got any old cars with a 3 on the tree?
Bill Baka

02-07-2007, 05:29 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]lid wrote in part:
>
>Whatever works for you. When I am driving, I don't have time nor
>appropriate facilities to evaluate the reasons for the risk they
>present, nor is it germane. There are far too many drivers repeatedly
>and consistently "making a mistake". Those drivers rely on my assumption
>that they are (pick one or more: stupid, psycho, emotionally unfit,
>inexperienced, inebriated, etc., etc., etc.) to avoid the collisions
>which their (pick one or more: neglect, distraction, aggression, etc.,
>etc., etc.) would otherwise cause.
>
>Practically every police agency in the nation has data indicating that
>almost *all* vehicular "accidents" (GOD, I HATE that term) are
>AVOIDABLE.
>
>That means that when "accidents" happen, they happen because drivers
>don't want to avoid them. Ergo, most "accidents" happen because the
>driver at fault wishes, at some level, for them to happen.

I think not wishing these mishaps to occur so much as thinking that the
odds of losing are 1 in a million but that is for actions so common that
the total sum committed by a slightly-worse-than-average driver is a
goodly fraction of a million - that means good chance of a serious
screwup sometime in the offending driver's life!

It does not help much that traffic law enforcement is all to often
all-too-lousy. Also, jurors often allow that "accidents happen",
especially when someone on a bike gets hit.

Another factor is "playing chicken". For one thing, under law in
Pennsylvania, one is required to yield right of way to a bully that is
supposed to yield right-of-way to you according to PA vehicle code if
doing so avoids a crash. I think the main solution is better traffic law
enforcement, and having the cops taking advantage of the fact that it is
not illegal to issue speeding tickets in a manner discriminating against
those who are bullies on the road.

Until then, the road is a jungle!

- Don Klipstein ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

02-07-2007, 05:46 PM

In article <45ca0bfa$0$5056$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Wayne Pein wrote:
>Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So is farm equipment,
>>
>> Right - in rural areas, possibly, but they're not even common there.
>>
>>> leaf collection tractors,
>
>> What the hell are those?
>
>My town picks up leaves for about two months using a tractor pulling a
>vacuum bin.
>>
>>> garbage trucks, and an assortment of stopped or slow traffic,
>>> including bicycles.
>>
>> Fortunately, I live in a town that is very biker friendly. They have
>> their lane, I have mine.
>
>Oh no, here we go again! "Giving" cyclists their own lane is like
>putting American Indians on their own reservations. It's really being
>friendly to motorists.

How then do you rate what all has happened to the West Philadelphia
portion of Walnut Street?

That street used to have 3 lanes, except 4 during evening rush hour,
all westbound. The street is one way westbound with the right curb lane
in the past being a traffic lane during evening rush as opposed to being a
parking lane.

Now the curb lane is a parking lane 24/7. The next-rightmost lane is
now a bike lane. The remaining two traffic lanes got widened (the
previously designated lanes were on the narrow side) due to one traffic
lane being restricted to bikes.

So now that the parking got increased at a time when Phi8ladelphia
decided to tolerate double parking, the bike lane sometimes has cars
parked on it.

Despite that double parking issue, I do see Walnut St still becoming
more favorable to cyclists than it used to be, and a lot less friendly to
motorists than it used to be.
Cyclists merely have to beware of Philadelphia motorists that need some
traffic tickets issued against them for theit all-too-often right-turn
practice to be to lane-shifting onto the bike lane when approaching a
righjt turn (permitted if yielding to cyclists) but not signalling the
right turn until departing rightward or about to depart rightward from the
bike lane! (The late start of signalling is a bad move - PA law requires
starting a turn signal at least 100 feet before turning, with an exemption
of using less warning when necessary and the extent necessary to avoid
confusion as to where the turn will occur - such as when a driveway exists
close to an intersection. Lane changes by moving vehicles also need to be
signalled - that is not done even by some of the minority of Philly
drivers that properly signal turns! Exiting a parking lane does not have
a 100 foot warning requirement since the vehicle must move from the
parking lane to a traffic lane in much less distance, but the need to
signal remains and all too many Philly drivers don't do that one either!)

- Don Klipstein ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

02-07-2007, 05:57 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]lid wrote:

> In article <45ca61f7$0$16965$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:
>
>
>>More on drivers out to kill and collide with others!
>
>
> It reflects the reality of the bloodstained public highways and byways
> in the United States. Most of those big brown splotches on the pavement
> are not from oil leaks.

It reflects your distorted fantasy!
>
>
>>Yes, there are a very few psychotics out there.
>
>
> Very few. What does that have to do with the fact that all studies and
> data show that driving mishaps are among the leading cause of
> unnecessary deaths and crippling injuries in the United States today?

What does mishaps have to do with your assertion that drivers are trying
to kill each other?
>
>
>>Am I going to assume they are after me?No. Should anybody assume
>>that? No.
>
>
> If you are using public roads, yes. That's where the fatalities and the
> injuries and the massive property damage occur.

So? By people trying to do it?

>
>
>>If you did, then you'd have to yield inappropriately at every
>>junction out of fear that the boogey man had finally found you.
>
>
> Your premise is faulty. That any other driver on the road is a potential
> killer is a *fact*, regardless of intent. It does not lead inevitably to
> the behavior you describe.
>

Is this guy for real? YOU are the one trying to say that drivers are
trying to kill other people.

Wayne

02-07-2007, 06:07 PM

Don Klipstein wrote:

> In article <45ca0ec4$0$28112$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Wayne Pein wrote:

>>Further, a short haul transit system will have ancillary vehicles,
>>usually using gasoline, that merely shuttle bus drivers around for
>>transfers. If this is factored into system economy it is reduced quite a
>>bit more.
>
>
> You got any figures by how much?

No, but it can be calculated by individual transit system.

>
>
>>It is also important to realize that not every transit
>>passenger is a converted car driver. Many short haul transit trips are
>>would-be pedestrians and bicyclists who have been lured into being
>>chauffered motorists.
>
>
> So if someone changes from walking to work to using a vehicle to save
> time, why is it so bad for that vehicle to be a bus?

It supports an energy intensive system.

You want them to
> drive cars or SUVs instead?

What if the paradigm was low power electric vehicles? Not as good as
human power, but better than your scenario.

I like bikes, but push too hard to push too
> many people onto bikes (or make too many motorists slow down too much for
> anything) and see what politicians can run on at election time!

Although I'm a bicycling proponent, I don't push to get people on bikes.
One either likes it or not. I try to empower people to be the engine.
Chauffered motorists they are not.

Wayne

02-07-2007, 06:19 PM

Fred G. Mackey wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> My town picks up leaves for about two months using a tractor pulling a
>> vacuum bin.
>>
>
> Ever heard of a rake?

Why are you such a confrontational jerk about something you apparently
know nothing about? Why don't you come to Chapel Hill, NC in the fall
and work for Public Works picking up hundreds, perhaps thousands of tons
of leaves from the roadside with a rake?

>
>>>
>>
>> Oh no, here we go again! "Giving" cyclists their own lane is like
>> putting American Indians on their own reservations. It's really being
>> friendly to motorists.
>>
>
> The cyclists apparently love it and why wouldn't they? They have plenty
> of room to cycle without having to slap cars that pass too closely.

Why don't I have to slap cars that pass too closely when I ride everyday
for 20 years without bike lanes? What makes bicyclists and motorists so
inept in your city that this would occur without bike lanes?

Wayne

02-07-2007, 06:22 PM

Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>>
>>>> leaf collection tractors,
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> What the hell are those?
>>
>>
>> My town picks up leaves for about two months using a tractor pulling
>> a vacuum bin.

> Ever heard of a rake?

Much cheaper to use the automated system.
>
>>>
>>
>> Oh no, here we go again! "Giving" cyclists their own lane is like
>> putting American Indians on their own reservations. It's really being
>> friendly to motorists.
>>
>
> The cyclists apparently love it and why wouldn't they? They have
> plenty of room to cycle without having to slap cars that pass too
> closely.
>
>
>> Wayne

02-07-2007, 06:22 PM

Don Klipstein wrote:

> In article <45ca61f7$0$16965$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Wayne Pein wrote:
>

>>Wayne
>>Paranoia will destroy ya.
>
>
> Just because you are not paranoid does not mean that nobody is out to
> get you, let alone that nobody "plays chicken" on the road or that nobody
> is incompentent, for example not having all parts of the brain seeing a
> 2-wheeler until after impact.
>

I've taken the effort to understand how to ride proficiently and reduce
my risks. Have you?

Wayne

02-07-2007, 06:36 PM

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:09:01 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>>
>>>> leaf collection tractors,
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> What the hell are those?
>>
>>
>> My town picks up leaves for about two months using a tractor pulling a
>> vacuum bin.
>>
>
>Ever heard of a rake?
>
real clever, apparently there are no leafy trees where you live, in my
town they take tons of leaves off the streets every fall. it takes 2
crews about 4 to 5 weeks to do the job, if they used only a rake it
would be a never ending year round job

02-07-2007, 07:22 PM

I think the problem might be too that the driver does not get hurt even if
your broadsided in a small car. People astonishingly do not get hurt.
Usually you hear on TV where the drunk causing the accident lived but
everyone in the victim vehicle did not. And look at race car drivers.
Unless, the car is burned up they come out of somersaults with nary a
bruise.
Now everyone having air bags they get even more brave I suppose.
Do they have air bags for the pedestrians and would be victims on cars yet.
Not that any one cares about people "that" much. : )

SN