randya
12-08-09, 11:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oo6qhPLgW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZtUTk6Iz2E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZtUTk6Iz2E&feature=related
Vehicular Cycling (VC) - How to 'Copenhagenize' the USofA
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.Mos6502
12-08-09, 10:20 PM
Make the distances shorter and the weather nicer. Have you ever been to Europe? No matter how many nice pictures and videos get posted on the internet, the amount of bicycle use is insignificant compared to the automotive traffic almost everywhere. Many of those bicycle transportation rides are short enough to have been walked just as easily. These people are replacing walking and public transit, not driving.
There will never be any long term benefit to cycling by promoting it based on myth and fantasy.
I have (inlaws in Germany) and I saw more bicycles and mopeds out on the roads than I have ever seen in any city in the U.S. Have you ever been to Europe?
There will never be any long term benefit to cycling by promoting it based on myth and fantasy.
I have (inlaws in Germany) and I saw more bicycles and mopeds out on the roads than I have ever seen in any city in the U.S. Have you ever been to Europe?
danarnold
12-08-09, 10:40 PM
On another thread Bek posted that bicycledriving.org supported his 'general contentions.' Bek the champion of bike lanes, constantly claiming bike lanes are necessary to increase cycling.
Contrary to Bek's claim, they completely repudiate his philosophy:
"Increasing Use
The best way to increase bicycle use is to create a climate where bicyclists are considered by all to be legitimate users of any road and where bicycling is considered to be an activity with benefits far in excess of its risks. In fact, bicyclists are lawful road users and bicycling does have greater benefits than risks, at least for those who follow the rules for drivers of vehicles. It is public perception that needs to change.
The way to bring about this change in attitude is through public awareness programs, non-discriminatory laws, even-handed law enforcement, and good roads for cycling. For those who are inclined to try cycling, the most effective way to reduce fears and build confidence is to complete a course in bicycle driver training.
Most people bicycle either because they enjoy cycling or because other transportation options are much less convenient, considering both time and money. Because motoring is generally inexpensive and fast in North America, most people bicycle because they enjoy it. Where traffic is slow and parking difficult, as in some large urban centers, bicycling is often the fastest way to travel. Other than the fun and fitness benefits, the main reason to bicycle is to save money on parking costs, in those few places where there is a charge for parking.
The US Federal income tax code gives employers an almost irresistible incentive to offer valuable car parking space at no charge to the employee. Rarely do employers offer incentives of equivalent value to cycle to work. Reducing this inequality would almost certainly result in a large percentage increase in the number of people cycling to work in the United States.
We do not believe that striping bike lanes has had or will have a significant effect on increasing bicycle use in North America, contrary to the claims of their proponents. Most places with bike lanes already had many cyclists, prior to the bike lanes, often due to the presence of a university that does not offer free parking to students. Even in those places, most roads have no special bicycle facilities. For those who fear cycling on roads, a painted dividing line is hardly enough protection from the supposed dangers of overtaking traffic.
Constructing bike paths, on the other hand, seems to encourage non-bicyclists to bicycle. But it does so at the expense of reinforcing the belief that it is not safe to ride on ordinary roads. Many of those attracted by bike paths use a car to get to and from the path. Riding on bike paths provides almost no experience in the skills needed to ride in traffic. Therefore bicycle paths do little to foster bicycling as a mode of travel. Because the maximum safe travel speed on paths is so much lower than on roads, paths are a poor choice for fitness cycling as well.
Cycling is an inherently enjoyable activity, when the cyclist has at least a minimum amount of competence. No one need be or ought to be compelled to bicycle. Nor should anyone be dissuaded from bicycling due to prejudice, discrimination, or unfounded fear.
Contrary to Bek's claim, they completely repudiate his philosophy:
"Increasing Use
The best way to increase bicycle use is to create a climate where bicyclists are considered by all to be legitimate users of any road and where bicycling is considered to be an activity with benefits far in excess of its risks. In fact, bicyclists are lawful road users and bicycling does have greater benefits than risks, at least for those who follow the rules for drivers of vehicles. It is public perception that needs to change.
The way to bring about this change in attitude is through public awareness programs, non-discriminatory laws, even-handed law enforcement, and good roads for cycling. For those who are inclined to try cycling, the most effective way to reduce fears and build confidence is to complete a course in bicycle driver training.
Most people bicycle either because they enjoy cycling or because other transportation options are much less convenient, considering both time and money. Because motoring is generally inexpensive and fast in North America, most people bicycle because they enjoy it. Where traffic is slow and parking difficult, as in some large urban centers, bicycling is often the fastest way to travel. Other than the fun and fitness benefits, the main reason to bicycle is to save money on parking costs, in those few places where there is a charge for parking.
The US Federal income tax code gives employers an almost irresistible incentive to offer valuable car parking space at no charge to the employee. Rarely do employers offer incentives of equivalent value to cycle to work. Reducing this inequality would almost certainly result in a large percentage increase in the number of people cycling to work in the United States.
We do not believe that striping bike lanes has had or will have a significant effect on increasing bicycle use in North America, contrary to the claims of their proponents. Most places with bike lanes already had many cyclists, prior to the bike lanes, often due to the presence of a university that does not offer free parking to students. Even in those places, most roads have no special bicycle facilities. For those who fear cycling on roads, a painted dividing line is hardly enough protection from the supposed dangers of overtaking traffic.
Constructing bike paths, on the other hand, seems to encourage non-bicyclists to bicycle. But it does so at the expense of reinforcing the belief that it is not safe to ride on ordinary roads. Many of those attracted by bike paths use a car to get to and from the path. Riding on bike paths provides almost no experience in the skills needed to ride in traffic. Therefore bicycle paths do little to foster bicycling as a mode of travel. Because the maximum safe travel speed on paths is so much lower than on roads, paths are a poor choice for fitness cycling as well.
Cycling is an inherently enjoyable activity, when the cyclist has at least a minimum amount of competence. No one need be or ought to be compelled to bicycle. Nor should anyone be dissuaded from bicycling due to prejudice, discrimination, or unfounded fear.
Bekologist
12-08-09, 10:54 PM
yes, a vehicular cyclist would say that about the facilitated landscape, danarnold :rolleyes: and their views make them the laughing stocks at most any transportation conference.
they are mocked pretty heavily in the more civilized societies.
they are mocked pretty heavily in the more civilized societies.
danarnold
12-08-09, 11:21 PM
yes, a vehicular cyclist would say that about the facilitated landscape, danarnold :rolleyes: and their views make them the laughing stocks at most any transportation conference.
they are mocked pretty heavily in the more civilized societies.
This is really rich. YOU cited them as an authority that agreed with you. You now admit you they don't agree with you and now you want to mock them.
Someone is being mocked. :)
they are mocked pretty heavily in the more civilized societies.
This is really rich. YOU cited them as an authority that agreed with you. You now admit you they don't agree with you and now you want to mock them.
Someone is being mocked. :)
Bekologist
12-08-09, 11:28 PM
in regards to bicylclists being able to impede traffic, yes i can use a quote from their website in an erudite statement about the applicability of impeding laws.
this thread is about raising rider share in the USA, and at any transportation conference, the vehicular cyclists are the laughingstocks regarding their POV on infrastructure, pret much. you know that!
this thread is about raising rider share in the USA, and at any transportation conference, the vehicular cyclists are the laughingstocks regarding their POV on infrastructure, pret much. you know that!
danarnold
12-09-09, 08:06 AM
I know you have never made an 'erudite statement' and I suspect you are working to bring us mandatory bike lanes, if not get rid of road cycling altogether by urging cyclists to take absurd political stances, then yammering so annoyingly you make people disagree with you even on those rare occasions when they want to agree.
Bekologist
12-09-09, 08:08 AM
mandatory bikelanes STRAWMAN ALERT! bikelanes will always be a small minorty percent of any cities' roadways.
Any misleading statements about 'universal' or 'mandatory' bikelanes needs to be recognized as stuffed with straw and unrealistic.
ah, how to copenhagenize cities in the USA and bring greater ridership to our cities!
did you watch the NYC videos from streetfilms, danarnold?
Any misleading statements about 'universal' or 'mandatory' bikelanes needs to be recognized as stuffed with straw and unrealistic.
ah, how to copenhagenize cities in the USA and bring greater ridership to our cities!
did you watch the NYC videos from streetfilms, danarnold?
genec
12-09-09, 09:00 AM
On another thread Bek posted that bicycledriving.org supported his 'general contentions.' Bek the champion of bike lanes, constantly claiming bike lanes are necessary to increase cycling.
Contrary to Bek's claim, they completely repudiate his philosophy:
"Increasing Use
The best way to increase bicycle use is to create a climate where bicyclists are considered by all to be legitimate users of any road and where bicycling is considered to be an activity with benefits far in excess of its risks. In fact, bicyclists are lawful road users and bicycling does have greater benefits than risks, at least for those who follow the rules for drivers of vehicles. It is public perception that needs to change.
The way to bring about this change in attitude is through public awareness programs, non-discriminatory laws, even-handed law enforcement, and good roads for cycling. For those who are inclined to try cycling, the most effective way to reduce fears and build confidence is to complete a course in bicycle driver training.
Most people bicycle either because they enjoy cycling or because other transportation options are much less convenient, considering both time and money. Because motoring is generally inexpensive and fast in North America, most people bicycle because they enjoy it. Where traffic is slow and parking difficult, as in some large urban centers, bicycling is often the fastest way to travel. Other than the fun and fitness benefits, the main reason to bicycle is to save money on parking costs, in those few places where there is a charge for parking.
The US Federal income tax code gives employers an almost irresistible incentive to offer valuable car parking space at no charge to the employee. Rarely do employers offer incentives of equivalent value to cycle to work. Reducing this inequality would almost certainly result in a large percentage increase in the number of people cycling to work in the United States.
We do not believe that striping bike lanes has had or will have a significant effect on increasing bicycle use in North America, contrary to the claims of their proponents. Most places with bike lanes already had many cyclists, prior to the bike lanes, often due to the presence of a university that does not offer free parking to students. Even in those places, most roads have no special bicycle facilities. For those who fear cycling on roads, a painted dividing line is hardly enough protection from the supposed dangers of overtaking traffic.
Constructing bike paths, on the other hand, seems to encourage non-bicyclists to bicycle. But it does so at the expense of reinforcing the belief that it is not safe to ride on ordinary roads. Many of those attracted by bike paths use a car to get to and from the path. Riding on bike paths provides almost no experience in the skills needed to ride in traffic. Therefore bicycle paths do little to foster bicycling as a mode of travel. Because the maximum safe travel speed on paths is so much lower than on roads, paths are a poor choice for fitness cycling as well.
Cycling is an inherently enjoyable activity, when the cyclist has at least a minimum amount of competence. No one need be or ought to be compelled to bicycle. Nor should anyone be dissuaded from bicycling due to prejudice, discrimination, or unfounded fear.
Where ever that quote came from, the reality is that focus on cyclists as "drivers of vehicles" has not, in any location, resulted in a modal share of cyclists greater than 2%. Now this is not to say that training, increased public awareness and changing of the laws are a bad thing. But that expecting people to take up cycling because you tell them it is safe just ain't gonna work.
People have to believe they are safe... and riding a bike in amongst motor traffic does not foster that sense of safety.
Paths, and yes perhaps even bike lanes do start to encourage people to take up cycling. Now whether we need such infrastructure everywhere is debatable, but just as motorists expect well designed freeways, cyclists too should expect well designed infrastructure designed just for them.
Contrary to Bek's claim, they completely repudiate his philosophy:
"Increasing Use
The best way to increase bicycle use is to create a climate where bicyclists are considered by all to be legitimate users of any road and where bicycling is considered to be an activity with benefits far in excess of its risks. In fact, bicyclists are lawful road users and bicycling does have greater benefits than risks, at least for those who follow the rules for drivers of vehicles. It is public perception that needs to change.
The way to bring about this change in attitude is through public awareness programs, non-discriminatory laws, even-handed law enforcement, and good roads for cycling. For those who are inclined to try cycling, the most effective way to reduce fears and build confidence is to complete a course in bicycle driver training.
Most people bicycle either because they enjoy cycling or because other transportation options are much less convenient, considering both time and money. Because motoring is generally inexpensive and fast in North America, most people bicycle because they enjoy it. Where traffic is slow and parking difficult, as in some large urban centers, bicycling is often the fastest way to travel. Other than the fun and fitness benefits, the main reason to bicycle is to save money on parking costs, in those few places where there is a charge for parking.
The US Federal income tax code gives employers an almost irresistible incentive to offer valuable car parking space at no charge to the employee. Rarely do employers offer incentives of equivalent value to cycle to work. Reducing this inequality would almost certainly result in a large percentage increase in the number of people cycling to work in the United States.
We do not believe that striping bike lanes has had or will have a significant effect on increasing bicycle use in North America, contrary to the claims of their proponents. Most places with bike lanes already had many cyclists, prior to the bike lanes, often due to the presence of a university that does not offer free parking to students. Even in those places, most roads have no special bicycle facilities. For those who fear cycling on roads, a painted dividing line is hardly enough protection from the supposed dangers of overtaking traffic.
Constructing bike paths, on the other hand, seems to encourage non-bicyclists to bicycle. But it does so at the expense of reinforcing the belief that it is not safe to ride on ordinary roads. Many of those attracted by bike paths use a car to get to and from the path. Riding on bike paths provides almost no experience in the skills needed to ride in traffic. Therefore bicycle paths do little to foster bicycling as a mode of travel. Because the maximum safe travel speed on paths is so much lower than on roads, paths are a poor choice for fitness cycling as well.
Cycling is an inherently enjoyable activity, when the cyclist has at least a minimum amount of competence. No one need be or ought to be compelled to bicycle. Nor should anyone be dissuaded from bicycling due to prejudice, discrimination, or unfounded fear.
Where ever that quote came from, the reality is that focus on cyclists as "drivers of vehicles" has not, in any location, resulted in a modal share of cyclists greater than 2%. Now this is not to say that training, increased public awareness and changing of the laws are a bad thing. But that expecting people to take up cycling because you tell them it is safe just ain't gonna work.
People have to believe they are safe... and riding a bike in amongst motor traffic does not foster that sense of safety.
Paths, and yes perhaps even bike lanes do start to encourage people to take up cycling. Now whether we need such infrastructure everywhere is debatable, but just as motorists expect well designed freeways, cyclists too should expect well designed infrastructure designed just for them.
randya
12-21-09, 06:20 PM
It seems like some cyclists from the Netherlands are claiming Amsterdam has a much better environment for cycling than Copenhagen has, and cyling Copenhagen really isn't all it's cracked up to be....
The Truth About Copenhagen (http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2009/12/truth-about-copenhagen.html)
The Truth About Copenhagen (http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2009/12/truth-about-copenhagen.html)
SweetLou
12-21-09, 11:25 PM
"...if there is infrastructure in place that makes the bicycle the easiest and fastest tool to get from a to b, then a high rate of bicycle usage will follow."
"In the 1980s, when Copenhagen was experiencing a boom in bicycling, city officials worried that too many people were riding on the busy main streets. “They thought, we’ve got to stop that, it’s not safe.” Their solution was to direct bike traffic to the backstreet by building high-quality cycle tracks through neighborhoods."
"The problem was that the neighborhood routes meant people had to ride 10-15 minutes out of their way to get from a to b. The result? No one used them. “It was a flop. So, the city shrugged and went, ‘fine, we’ll put them on the main streets’”."
"The lesson is that planners should put bicycle infrastructure where people actually want to go, not where engineers think they should go."Don't these quotes actually conflict with each other? If cycling infrastructure leads to more cycling, then why were they not used? It seems like people didn't wake up and see the bike lanes and start to use them. They still rode on the busier streets. This kind of proves that cycling doesn't follow infrastructure, but that infrastructure follows cycling.
"In the 1980s, when Copenhagen was experiencing a boom in bicycling, city officials worried that too many people were riding on the busy main streets. “They thought, we’ve got to stop that, it’s not safe.” Their solution was to direct bike traffic to the backstreet by building high-quality cycle tracks through neighborhoods."
"The problem was that the neighborhood routes meant people had to ride 10-15 minutes out of their way to get from a to b. The result? No one used them. “It was a flop. So, the city shrugged and went, ‘fine, we’ll put them on the main streets’”."
"The lesson is that planners should put bicycle infrastructure where people actually want to go, not where engineers think they should go."Don't these quotes actually conflict with each other? If cycling infrastructure leads to more cycling, then why were they not used? It seems like people didn't wake up and see the bike lanes and start to use them. They still rode on the busier streets. This kind of proves that cycling doesn't follow infrastructure, but that infrastructure follows cycling.
cyclezealot
12-22-09, 12:48 AM
Not that I don't appreciate cycling infrastructure.. But, adding 10 to 15 minutes extra ride time to the commute. - what is the problem... I often add 10 to 15 extra miles by choice of course..
Pedaleur
12-22-09, 01:08 AM
It seems like some cyclists from the Netherlands are claiming Amsterdam has a much better environment for cycling than Copenhagen has, and cyling Copenhagen really isn't all it's cracked up to be....
The Truth About Copenhagen (http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2009/12/truth-about-copenhagen.html)
Heh. A cage match between the Danes and the Dutch...
From my casual observations, Amsterdam looked about as cycle friendly as Copenhagen -- paths with curbs and lots of traffic to avoid. There really isn't much space to build infrastructure in either. Haarlem was on par with Odense, which are roughly (?) the same sized cities (Also note that Odense has put more effort than Copenhagen into increasing cycling rates, with decent success.)
Where Holland wins is in more newly built up areas and between cities. Here there is room to build, and you will often see wide "bike highways" that parallel main roads or the train. Cycling from Amsterdam to Haarlem would be a joy, whereas the comparable Copenhagen to Roskilde doesn't look too inviting.
(This is from a "pro-infrastructure" perspective. Personally, I don't mind cycling on most of the roads, but children and many adults want the paths.)
The Truth About Copenhagen (http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2009/12/truth-about-copenhagen.html)
Heh. A cage match between the Danes and the Dutch...
From my casual observations, Amsterdam looked about as cycle friendly as Copenhagen -- paths with curbs and lots of traffic to avoid. There really isn't much space to build infrastructure in either. Haarlem was on par with Odense, which are roughly (?) the same sized cities (Also note that Odense has put more effort than Copenhagen into increasing cycling rates, with decent success.)
Where Holland wins is in more newly built up areas and between cities. Here there is room to build, and you will often see wide "bike highways" that parallel main roads or the train. Cycling from Amsterdam to Haarlem would be a joy, whereas the comparable Copenhagen to Roskilde doesn't look too inviting.
(This is from a "pro-infrastructure" perspective. Personally, I don't mind cycling on most of the roads, but children and many adults want the paths.)
SweetLou
12-22-09, 06:14 AM
Just because people want it, doesn't mean it makes sense. Especially when what they want is more dangerous even when they feel safer.
Roughstuff
12-28-09, 09:53 AM
Roughstuff continues to interpret the term luddite in entertaining ways.
I think he means people with whom he disagrees.;)
Nope....Luddites destroyed things (machines, looms to be specific ) which they felt threatened them, even if it meant they had to go back to the stone age. Similary, globalwarmingists want to destroy our economic system, even if means we have to go back to the stone age. The easiest way to destroy a luddite is to make him (or her...or her. or her...or her...lets not be sexist here!) practice what they preach. Thats wht it was so newsworthy that there was no cycling at Flopenhagen.
Foxnewsworthy, anyway.
roughstuff
I think he means people with whom he disagrees.;)
Nope....Luddites destroyed things (machines, looms to be specific ) which they felt threatened them, even if it meant they had to go back to the stone age. Similary, globalwarmingists want to destroy our economic system, even if means we have to go back to the stone age. The easiest way to destroy a luddite is to make him (or her...or her. or her...or her...lets not be sexist here!) practice what they preach. Thats wht it was so newsworthy that there was no cycling at Flopenhagen.
Foxnewsworthy, anyway.
roughstuff
danarnold
12-28-09, 10:52 AM
Nope....Luddites destroyed things (machines, looms to be specific ) which they felt threatened them, even if it meant they had to go back to the stone age. Similary, globalwarmingists want to destroy our economic system, even if means we have to go back to the stone age.
roughstuff
Tho your description of the Luddites is accurate (they were anti technology), your application to 'globalwarmingists' is particularly inapt. In fact you've basically turned that comparison on its head.
Those who deny global warming (I'm not going to address to what extent warming is due to industrialization) do so by simply ignoring facts and evidence because they do not want to accept the implications of the evidence or accept even the possibility of global warming. Like the Luddites they put their heads in the sand and try to talk from that posture. They are anti new technology, desperately clinging to the old fossil fuel technology (mainly oil and coal), in part because it serves their interests.
The Luddites did likewise because their jobs were threatened.
Sarah Palin's 'Drill baby Drill' is a great example.
They are against solar, wind, natural gas, and conservation and efficiency technologies, just as the Luddites were opposed to the newest technology of their time.
roughstuff
Tho your description of the Luddites is accurate (they were anti technology), your application to 'globalwarmingists' is particularly inapt. In fact you've basically turned that comparison on its head.
Those who deny global warming (I'm not going to address to what extent warming is due to industrialization) do so by simply ignoring facts and evidence because they do not want to accept the implications of the evidence or accept even the possibility of global warming. Like the Luddites they put their heads in the sand and try to talk from that posture. They are anti new technology, desperately clinging to the old fossil fuel technology (mainly oil and coal), in part because it serves their interests.
The Luddites did likewise because their jobs were threatened.
Sarah Palin's 'Drill baby Drill' is a great example.
They are against solar, wind, natural gas, and conservation and efficiency technologies, just as the Luddites were opposed to the newest technology of their time.
njkayaker
12-28-09, 11:26 AM
Similary, globalwarmingists want to destroy our economic system, even if means we have to go back to the stone age.
This represents a poor understanding of what was going on with the "luddites".
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
And people who want to maintain the status quo of our economy system being propped-up by cheap petroleum are blind to where that is leading us! And if you want to really put your money where your mouth is, move to West Virginia!
This represents a poor understanding of what was going on with the "luddites".
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
And people who want to maintain the status quo of our economy system being propped-up by cheap petroleum are blind to where that is leading us! And if you want to really put your money where your mouth is, move to West Virginia!
invisiblehand
12-28-09, 01:48 PM
Those who deny global warming (I'm not going to address to what extent warming is due to industrialization) do so by simply ignoring facts and evidence because they do not want to accept the implications of the evidence or accept even the possibility of global warming.
The recent Climategate renewed my interest in global warming science. Andrew Gelman's blog is probably the best "jump" point in my opinion. Below is a particularly interesting post.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/say_a_little_pr.html
I think that broadly characterizing "globalwarmingists" -- meaning people who believe in anthropological global warming -- as anti-growth or anti-technology is inaccurate. Although there are elements that fit the description.
As it pertains to cycling advocacy, I don't think that global warming is going to be a convincing argument in the long run. Quite simply, I don't think that it will do enough to warrant the effort. Nonetheless, there are plenty of other reasons to encourage alternative transportation.
The recent Climategate renewed my interest in global warming science. Andrew Gelman's blog is probably the best "jump" point in my opinion. Below is a particularly interesting post.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/say_a_little_pr.html
I think that broadly characterizing "globalwarmingists" -- meaning people who believe in anthropological global warming -- as anti-growth or anti-technology is inaccurate. Although there are elements that fit the description.
As it pertains to cycling advocacy, I don't think that global warming is going to be a convincing argument in the long run. Quite simply, I don't think that it will do enough to warrant the effort. Nonetheless, there are plenty of other reasons to encourage alternative transportation.
njkayaker
12-28-09, 01:49 PM
Don't these quotes actually conflict with each other? If cycling infrastructure leads to more cycling, then why were they not used? It seems like people didn't wake up and see the bike lanes and start to use them. They still rode on the busier streets. This kind of proves that cycling doesn't follow infrastructure, but that infrastructure follows cycling.
It looks like what happened is that appropriate infrastructure enhanced cycling. That is, the right infrastructure yielded more cycling.
What randya is saying (I think) is that they first put infrastructure where they where easy/cheap to install, not where they would be used. The idea is to build infrastructuer that aligns with human nature (ie, wanting to use the shortest/fastest route), not against it.
It looks like what happened is that appropriate infrastructure enhanced cycling. That is, the right infrastructure yielded more cycling.
What randya is saying (I think) is that they first put infrastructure where they where easy/cheap to install, not where they would be used. The idea is to build infrastructuer that aligns with human nature (ie, wanting to use the shortest/fastest route), not against it.
Roughstuff
12-29-09, 09:48 AM
.... (I'm not going to address to what extent warming is due to industrialization) .....
Please don't, since the evidence has been fabricated for decades.
roughstuff
Please don't, since the evidence has been fabricated for decades.
roughstuff
Roughstuff
12-29-09, 09:59 AM
This represents a poor understanding of what was going on with the "luddites".
I have to agree with you much on this point. Reading more about the luddites in the literature (LLLLL's), I was quite surprised to see how substantial a social movement they became. Even if Mr. Ludd kind of got dragged along for the ride. :)
I could move to West Virginia....some great cycling country. But here in my one room efficiency (about $35 a month for electricity on average, including heat) , walking to and from work each day (about 2 miles each way) and riding my bike out in the berkshire hills during nice weather, I already live so low on the hog I can see that corkscrew tail twisting in the wind.
roughstuff
roughstuff
I have to agree with you much on this point. Reading more about the luddites in the literature (LLLLL's), I was quite surprised to see how substantial a social movement they became. Even if Mr. Ludd kind of got dragged along for the ride. :)
I could move to West Virginia....some great cycling country. But here in my one room efficiency (about $35 a month for electricity on average, including heat) , walking to and from work each day (about 2 miles each way) and riding my bike out in the berkshire hills during nice weather, I already live so low on the hog I can see that corkscrew tail twisting in the wind.
roughstuff
roughstuff
Roughstuff
12-29-09, 10:01 AM
.....
I think that broadly characterizing "globalwarmingists" -- meaning people who believe in anthropological global warming -- as anti-growth or anti-technology is inaccurate. Although there are elements that fit the description.
......
Ayup and most of those 'elements' managed to show up in Flopenhagen. I noticed alot of them were riding bicycles...didn't you?
roughstuff
I think that broadly characterizing "globalwarmingists" -- meaning people who believe in anthropological global warming -- as anti-growth or anti-technology is inaccurate. Although there are elements that fit the description.
......
Ayup and most of those 'elements' managed to show up in Flopenhagen. I noticed alot of them were riding bicycles...didn't you?
roughstuff
danarnold
12-29-09, 10:04 AM
Please don't, since the evidence has been fabricated for decades.
roughstuff
Yeah, it's pretty hard to argue with FoxNews, Sarah Palin, and W. Bush. But those silly scientists keep putting facts out there anyway. From Wikipedia:
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]"
roughstuff
Yeah, it's pretty hard to argue with FoxNews, Sarah Palin, and W. Bush. But those silly scientists keep putting facts out there anyway. From Wikipedia:
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]"
njkayaker
12-29-09, 10:41 AM
I could move to West Virginia....some great cycling country.
There is some great cycling there. There is a lot that isn't so great. And the state is rife with environmental problems that effect many people who live there (and don't have the time or money to cycle for recreation).
There is some great cycling there. There is a lot that isn't so great. And the state is rife with environmental problems that effect many people who live there (and don't have the time or money to cycle for recreation).
Roughstuff
12-29-09, 11:01 AM
.... From Wikipedia:
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century....."
Wikipedia! hahahhahah....thanks..i was wondering where ya got your stuff. Mid 20th century? So all this is based on 50 years of data? The whole point of climategate is that this increase in temperature is a complete fabrication. Maybe 'scientists' addicted to government grants are comfortable 'hiding the decline, ' but there hasn't been any increase in temps for 12 (almost 13) years now, and it takes alot more than Fox to put that back in the henhouse.
Futhermore there have been surges in temperature in the past that had nothing to do with CO2 concentration and industrialization. CO2/Temperature graphs merely show correlations, not causal, relationships.
All those rioters and luddites in Flopenhagen were Fox news props, I take it?
Drill baby, drill! :)
roughstuff
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century....."
Wikipedia! hahahhahah....thanks..i was wondering where ya got your stuff. Mid 20th century? So all this is based on 50 years of data? The whole point of climategate is that this increase in temperature is a complete fabrication. Maybe 'scientists' addicted to government grants are comfortable 'hiding the decline, ' but there hasn't been any increase in temps for 12 (almost 13) years now, and it takes alot more than Fox to put that back in the henhouse.
Futhermore there have been surges in temperature in the past that had nothing to do with CO2 concentration and industrialization. CO2/Temperature graphs merely show correlations, not causal, relationships.
All those rioters and luddites in Flopenhagen were Fox news props, I take it?
Drill baby, drill! :)
roughstuff
Roughstuff
12-29-09, 11:04 AM
There is some great cycling there. There is a lot that isn't so great. And the state is rife with environmental problems that effect many people who live there (and don't have the time or money to cycle for recreation).
Much the same can be said for Mass. And the state is not only rife with environmental problems, but solutions to these environmental problems (such as Wind Farms off cape cod) seem to raise the Ire of dead senators.
roughstuff
Much the same can be said for Mass. And the state is not only rife with environmental problems, but solutions to these environmental problems (such as Wind Farms off cape cod) seem to raise the Ire of dead senators.
roughstuff
njkayaker
12-29-09, 01:13 PM
Much the same can be said for Mass. And the state is not only rife with environmental problems, but solutions to these environmental problems (such as Wind Farms off cape cod) seem to raise the Ire of dead senators.
roughstuff
No, what is going on now in West Virginia is different. Your "wind farm" example is a good illustration of that.
The whole point of climategate is that this increase in temperature is a complete fabrication.
No, the alleged, so-called "climategate" is, itself, an over-blown misreprestation of a relatively minor thing. Stop getting your news from idiots like Glenn Beck. If you have real information from credible sources, feel free to provide it.
All those rioters and luddites in Flopenhagen were Fox news props, I take it?
You where there and counted them yourself, I take it?
roughstuff
No, what is going on now in West Virginia is different. Your "wind farm" example is a good illustration of that.
The whole point of climategate is that this increase in temperature is a complete fabrication.
No, the alleged, so-called "climategate" is, itself, an over-blown misreprestation of a relatively minor thing. Stop getting your news from idiots like Glenn Beck. If you have real information from credible sources, feel free to provide it.
All those rioters and luddites in Flopenhagen were Fox news props, I take it?
You where there and counted them yourself, I take it?
invisiblehand
12-29-09, 01:27 PM
Ayup and most of those 'elements' managed to show up in Flopenhagen.
Only true with a very narrow definition of growth/technology.
I read through the notorious e-mails. It really is wildly overblown. I find it ironic that a class of skeptics enjoy cherry picking studies that allegedly cherry pick data.
Anyway, this is getting pretty far from cycling advocacy.
Only true with a very narrow definition of growth/technology.
I read through the notorious e-mails. It really is wildly overblown. I find it ironic that a class of skeptics enjoy cherry picking studies that allegedly cherry pick data.
Anyway, this is getting pretty far from cycling advocacy.
njkayaker
12-29-09, 01:32 PM
Only true with a very narrow definition of growth/technology.
I read through the notorious e-mails. It really is wildly overblown. I find it ironic that a class of skeptics enjoy cherry picking studies that allegedly cherry pick data.
Anyway, this is getting pretty far from cycling advocacy.
They aren't technically skeptics because they aren't open minded. The denialists are as dogmatic as people get.
Anyway, since they feel the need to exaggerate this fake "issue", their other "support" must be pretty-crappy.
I read through the notorious e-mails. It really is wildly overblown. I find it ironic that a class of skeptics enjoy cherry picking studies that allegedly cherry pick data.
Anyway, this is getting pretty far from cycling advocacy.
They aren't technically skeptics because they aren't open minded. The denialists are as dogmatic as people get.
Anyway, since they feel the need to exaggerate this fake "issue", their other "support" must be pretty-crappy.
Roughstuff
12-29-09, 01:52 PM
Only true with a very narrow definition of growth/technology.
I read through the notorious e-mails. It really is wildly overblown. I find it ironic that a class of skeptics enjoy cherry picking studies that allegedly cherry pick data.
Anyway, this is getting pretty far from cycling advocacy.
If you cherry pick, I cherry pick. Simple enough.
The focus on the data fabrication gets us off cycling, yes. But whether ya think Copenhagen was a success, a failure, or a good chewin' tobacca, cycling has enough virtues with its reduced environmental impact that we should encourage it.
By the way...does chewin' tobacca have a lower carbon footprint that burning it?
roughstuff
I read through the notorious e-mails. It really is wildly overblown. I find it ironic that a class of skeptics enjoy cherry picking studies that allegedly cherry pick data.
Anyway, this is getting pretty far from cycling advocacy.
If you cherry pick, I cherry pick. Simple enough.
The focus on the data fabrication gets us off cycling, yes. But whether ya think Copenhagen was a success, a failure, or a good chewin' tobacca, cycling has enough virtues with its reduced environmental impact that we should encourage it.
By the way...does chewin' tobacca have a lower carbon footprint that burning it?
roughstuff
njkayaker
12-29-09, 02:20 PM
If you cherry pick, I cherry pick. Simple enough.
No, you can't criticize people for lying (cherry picking is a form of) and also say lying is valid for your side. That's just stupid. Since you admit that the denialists are lying, you are also admitting they don't have an argument. (Why lie if your argument is valid?)
No, you can't criticize people for lying (cherry picking is a form of) and also say lying is valid for your side. That's just stupid. Since you admit that the denialists are lying, you are also admitting they don't have an argument. (Why lie if your argument is valid?)
danarnold
12-29-09, 04:12 PM
Wikipedia! hahahhahah....thanks..i was wondering where ya got your stuff. Mid 20th century? So all this is based on 50 years of data? The whole point of climategate is that this increase in temperature is a complete fabrication. Maybe 'scientists' addicted to government grants are comfortable 'hiding the decline, ' but there hasn't been any increase in temps for 12 (almost 13) years now, and it takes alot more than Fox to put that back in the henhouse.
Futhermore there have been surges in temperature in the past that had nothing to do with CO2 concentration and industrialization. CO2/Temperature graphs merely show correlations, not causal, relationships.
All those rioters and luddites in Flopenhagen were Fox news props, I take it?
Drill baby, drill! :)
roughstuff
Just so I understand your position on this, you are in the "Denier" camp in the blog InvisibleH cited? You believe industrialization has had zero effect on global warming? And you do get your information from Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and their brethren and cistern?
Futhermore there have been surges in temperature in the past that had nothing to do with CO2 concentration and industrialization. CO2/Temperature graphs merely show correlations, not causal, relationships.
All those rioters and luddites in Flopenhagen were Fox news props, I take it?
Drill baby, drill! :)
roughstuff
Just so I understand your position on this, you are in the "Denier" camp in the blog InvisibleH cited? You believe industrialization has had zero effect on global warming? And you do get your information from Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and their brethren and cistern?
invisiblehand
12-29-09, 05:30 PM
If you cherry pick, I cherry pick. Simple enough.
At least on this topic, you cherry pick 100% of the time and maybe the literature cherry picks 1% of the time. But I figure you are just trolling to get underneath someone's skin.
FWIW, there is a sizable group of people who believe in anthropological global warming but think that there are more productive measures than curtailing emissions. For instance, if you take estimates of the number of people who would suffer greatly -- say deaths -- from global warming and calculate how much it would cost to prevent those deaths from other means -- at least according to their calculations -- you can do so at a fraction of the cost.
At least on this topic, you cherry pick 100% of the time and maybe the literature cherry picks 1% of the time. But I figure you are just trolling to get underneath someone's skin.
FWIW, there is a sizable group of people who believe in anthropological global warming but think that there are more productive measures than curtailing emissions. For instance, if you take estimates of the number of people who would suffer greatly -- say deaths -- from global warming and calculate how much it would cost to prevent those deaths from other means -- at least according to their calculations -- you can do so at a fraction of the cost.
invisiblehand
12-29-09, 05:34 PM
They aren't technically skeptics because they aren't open minded. The denialists are as dogmatic as people get.
Anyway, since they feel the need to exaggerate this fake "issue", their other "support" must be pretty-crappy.
True.
No, you can't criticize people for lying (cherry picking is a form of) and also say lying is valid for your side. That's just stupid. Since you admit that the denialists are lying, you are also admitting they don't have an argument. (Why lie if your argument is valid?)
Also true.
Anyway, since they feel the need to exaggerate this fake "issue", their other "support" must be pretty-crappy.
True.
No, you can't criticize people for lying (cherry picking is a form of) and also say lying is valid for your side. That's just stupid. Since you admit that the denialists are lying, you are also admitting they don't have an argument. (Why lie if your argument is valid?)
Also true.
danarnold
12-29-09, 05:52 PM
It's been the decade of deception... and that's the title of an article in the Montreal Gazette, featuring Tiger Woods' deceptions.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/money/Decade+Deception/2381041/story.html
Fox et al. have figured out there's big money in lying.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/money/Decade+Deception/2381041/story.html
Fox et al. have figured out there's big money in lying.
Wogster
12-29-09, 09:18 PM
No, what is going on now in West Virginia is different. Your "wind farm" example is a good illustration of that.
No, the alleged, so-called "climategate" is, itself, an over-blown misreprestation of a relatively minor thing. Stop getting your news from idiots like Glenn Beck. If you have real information from credible sources, feel free to provide it.
You where there and counted them yourself, I take it?
All of the climate issues make one assumption, that without man's intervention the climate is a constant. However scientific research has shown it to be considerably warmer and cooler at different times. Technically we are in an ice age, something that would have been easy to figure if you would have been out in the -15℃ we had here last night. The earth gets warmer and cooler on a roughly 40,000 year cycle, the last time we were at the coldest part of this cycle was roughly 10,000 years ago. This means we are actually on the warming side of the cycle, even if we hadn't discovered a way to control fire, even if we had never discovered oil, it would still be getting warmer, by small amounts we are seeing. Glaciers would still be retreating and animal life would still need to adapt to different conditions.
Having said all that though, when you take millions of tonnes of toxic waste and dump it into the air and water, there has to be a price to pay. I don't think on a grand scale we are paying that price yet, but future generations will, and the later part of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century will be know as the most selfish time period in mans history. I could say more, but I have to go catch a bus to work.
No, the alleged, so-called "climategate" is, itself, an over-blown misreprestation of a relatively minor thing. Stop getting your news from idiots like Glenn Beck. If you have real information from credible sources, feel free to provide it.
You where there and counted them yourself, I take it?
All of the climate issues make one assumption, that without man's intervention the climate is a constant. However scientific research has shown it to be considerably warmer and cooler at different times. Technically we are in an ice age, something that would have been easy to figure if you would have been out in the -15℃ we had here last night. The earth gets warmer and cooler on a roughly 40,000 year cycle, the last time we were at the coldest part of this cycle was roughly 10,000 years ago. This means we are actually on the warming side of the cycle, even if we hadn't discovered a way to control fire, even if we had never discovered oil, it would still be getting warmer, by small amounts we are seeing. Glaciers would still be retreating and animal life would still need to adapt to different conditions.
Having said all that though, when you take millions of tonnes of toxic waste and dump it into the air and water, there has to be a price to pay. I don't think on a grand scale we are paying that price yet, but future generations will, and the later part of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century will be know as the most selfish time period in mans history. I could say more, but I have to go catch a bus to work.
danarnold
12-29-09, 09:53 PM
All of the climate issues make one assumption, that without man's intervention the climate is a constant. However scientific research has shown it to be considerably warmer and cooler at different times. Technically we are in an ice age, something that would have been easy to figure if you would have been out in the -15℃ we had here last night. The earth gets warmer and cooler on a roughly 40,000 year cycle, the last time we were at the coldest part of this cycle was roughly 10,000 years ago. This means we are actually on the warming side of the cycle, even if we hadn't discovered a way to control fire, even if we had never discovered oil, it would still be getting warmer, by small amounts we are seeing. Glaciers would still be retreating and animal life would still need to adapt to different conditions.
Having said all that though, when you take millions of tonnes of toxic waste and dump it into the air and water, there has to be a price to pay. I don't think on a grand scale we are paying that price yet, but future generations will, and the later part of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century will be know as the most selfish time period in mans history. I could say more, but I have to go catch a bus to work.
I don't know anyone who thinks weather is a constant... maybe Glenn Beck. Weather is very difficult to predict, as is climate change. The only constant is change. Depending on whose data you look at we are nearing historic highs. One of the websites that argues against the influence of man publishes data that suggests the planet hasn't been this warm for about 100,000 years. As you say, it's hard to conceive of the idea that we've pumped thousands of tons of junk into the air and that hasn't had some effect. It's also idiotic to claim we haven't had climate change and climate cycles long before man started to burn coal and oil.
The real danger is that things don't just warm up gradually at the same rate everywhere. We have more extremes and ocean warming increases hurricane formation.
Having said all that though, when you take millions of tonnes of toxic waste and dump it into the air and water, there has to be a price to pay. I don't think on a grand scale we are paying that price yet, but future generations will, and the later part of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century will be know as the most selfish time period in mans history. I could say more, but I have to go catch a bus to work.
I don't know anyone who thinks weather is a constant... maybe Glenn Beck. Weather is very difficult to predict, as is climate change. The only constant is change. Depending on whose data you look at we are nearing historic highs. One of the websites that argues against the influence of man publishes data that suggests the planet hasn't been this warm for about 100,000 years. As you say, it's hard to conceive of the idea that we've pumped thousands of tons of junk into the air and that hasn't had some effect. It's also idiotic to claim we haven't had climate change and climate cycles long before man started to burn coal and oil.
The real danger is that things don't just warm up gradually at the same rate everywhere. We have more extremes and ocean warming increases hurricane formation.
Bekologist
12-29-09, 11:42 PM
you can debate the scope of climate change all you want.
actually, please don't - in a thread about designing more bikeable american cityscapes.
Designing livable, bikeable roadscapes that are amenable to human scaled transportation, like the exemplar cycling cities of Europe, is quite a different issue.
Social ills, personal mobility, and energy independence are independent of the scourge of the 'global warming' debate :rolleyes: and still provide a very compelling rationale for the design of a more bikeable american roadscape.
actually, please don't - in a thread about designing more bikeable american cityscapes.
Designing livable, bikeable roadscapes that are amenable to human scaled transportation, like the exemplar cycling cities of Europe, is quite a different issue.
Social ills, personal mobility, and energy independence are independent of the scourge of the 'global warming' debate :rolleyes: and still provide a very compelling rationale for the design of a more bikeable american roadscape.
invisiblehand
12-30-09, 08:27 AM
All of the climate issues make one assumption, that without man's intervention the climate is a constant.
I think that the models accommodate natural changes in the environment. But the important difference is that they happen slowly relative to anthropological changes such that for all intents and purposes they are fixed.
I think that the models accommodate natural changes in the environment. But the important difference is that they happen slowly relative to anthropological changes such that for all intents and purposes they are fixed.
High Roller
12-30-09, 08:34 AM
Social ills, personal mobility, and energy independence are independent of the scourge of the 'global warming' debate :rolleyes: and still provide a very compelling rationale for the design of a more bikeable american roadscape.
Just when I was contemplating a new addition to my ignore list, you make an eloquent statement that I agree with. Darn you.
Just when I was contemplating a new addition to my ignore list, you make an eloquent statement that I agree with. Darn you.
njkayaker
12-30-09, 09:27 AM
All of the climate issues make one assumption, that without man's intervention the climate is a constant.
False. (This is a silly straw man arguement.)
However scientific research has shown it to be considerably warmer and cooler at different times. Technically we are in an ice age, something that would have been easy to figure if you would have been out in the -15℃ we had here last night. The earth gets warmer and cooler on a roughly 40,000 year cycle, the last time we were at the coldest part of this cycle was roughly 10,000 years ago. This means we are actually on the warming side of the cycle, even if we hadn't discovered a way to control fire, even if we had never discovered oil, it would still be getting warmer, by small amounts we are seeing. Glaciers would still be retreating and animal life would still need to adapt to different conditions.
Whether or not you agree, there are two parts to the GW issue: 1) increasing temperatures, 2) why the temperatures are increasing.
Of course, temperatures change (everybody knows that). There are two things, crucial things, that are different now than any time before. Do you know what they are? If you don't know what they are, then, if you disagree with GW or AGW, then you don't know what you are arguing against!
Having said all that though, when you take millions of tonnes of toxic waste and dump it into the air and water, there has to be a price to pay. I don't think on a grand scale we are paying that price yet, but future generations will, and the later part of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century will be know as the most selfish time period in mans history. I could say more, but I have to go catch a bus to work.
Yes, whether or not you agree with GW or AGW, there are other reasons not to use fuel at the rate we currently do. The motivation of the some of the "denialists" is to maintain the status quo and arguing against GW is a method for doing that.
There are actually a few legitimate climate researchers who have issues with AGW. The problem is that most of the AGW denialist stuff is from people who don't know what they are talking about and have no real credibility in anything (WAPO publishing denialist nonsense from Palin is one of many examples). If one was a true skeptic, one would also look at the quality of the stuff produced by the denialist camp (which overall looks very poor).
False. (This is a silly straw man arguement.)
However scientific research has shown it to be considerably warmer and cooler at different times. Technically we are in an ice age, something that would have been easy to figure if you would have been out in the -15℃ we had here last night. The earth gets warmer and cooler on a roughly 40,000 year cycle, the last time we were at the coldest part of this cycle was roughly 10,000 years ago. This means we are actually on the warming side of the cycle, even if we hadn't discovered a way to control fire, even if we had never discovered oil, it would still be getting warmer, by small amounts we are seeing. Glaciers would still be retreating and animal life would still need to adapt to different conditions.
Whether or not you agree, there are two parts to the GW issue: 1) increasing temperatures, 2) why the temperatures are increasing.
Of course, temperatures change (everybody knows that). There are two things, crucial things, that are different now than any time before. Do you know what they are? If you don't know what they are, then, if you disagree with GW or AGW, then you don't know what you are arguing against!
Having said all that though, when you take millions of tonnes of toxic waste and dump it into the air and water, there has to be a price to pay. I don't think on a grand scale we are paying that price yet, but future generations will, and the later part of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century will be know as the most selfish time period in mans history. I could say more, but I have to go catch a bus to work.
Yes, whether or not you agree with GW or AGW, there are other reasons not to use fuel at the rate we currently do. The motivation of the some of the "denialists" is to maintain the status quo and arguing against GW is a method for doing that.
There are actually a few legitimate climate researchers who have issues with AGW. The problem is that most of the AGW denialist stuff is from people who don't know what they are talking about and have no real credibility in anything (WAPO publishing denialist nonsense from Palin is one of many examples). If one was a true skeptic, one would also look at the quality of the stuff produced by the denialist camp (which overall looks very poor).
Bekologist
12-30-09, 09:29 AM
would you guys mind throwing something relevant to increasing ridership in american cities into your rants?
totally ignoring the scourge of the global warming debate, lets talk american bicycling ridership and how to go about building cities that naturally encourage double digit ridership.
seems a low goal to start, some exemplar cities in Europe approach or exceed 40 percent ridershare.
Consider the elderly and their needs for personal mobility in our 21st century autonomous culture. Conscript people in ailing health and fixed incomes to depend on an automobile for everyday needs? There are obvious and compelling pathways to improved social health, elderly independence, and mobility by encouraging bicycling in communities.
totally ignoring the scourge of the global warming debate, lets talk american bicycling ridership and how to go about building cities that naturally encourage double digit ridership.
seems a low goal to start, some exemplar cities in Europe approach or exceed 40 percent ridershare.
Consider the elderly and their needs for personal mobility in our 21st century autonomous culture. Conscript people in ailing health and fixed incomes to depend on an automobile for everyday needs? There are obvious and compelling pathways to improved social health, elderly independence, and mobility by encouraging bicycling in communities.
njkayaker
12-30-09, 09:40 AM
would you guys mind throwing something relevant to increasing ridership in american cities into your rants?
While this is a legitimate criticism, it is hypocritical coming from you.
While this is a legitimate criticism, it is hypocritical coming from you.
Bekologist
12-30-09, 09:42 AM
:rolleyes: care to discuss bicycling?
Roughstuff
12-30-09, 09:43 AM
At least on this topic, you cherry pick 100% of the time .....
FWIW, there is a sizable group of people who believe in anthropological global warming but think that there are more productive measures than curtailing emissions. ......
Well, I like using the tactics of my enemies against them as effectively as possible. Nothing cools off global warmingists faster than asking them to adapt the policies they suggest for others. Thats why I started my contributions to this thread by pointing out that NO ONE cycled to Copenhagen for the conference. On the other hand nothing gets globalwarmingists hotter (endless irony, there) than adapting their own techniques, and pointing out where they dropped 'evidence' when it no longer fit their pet agenda. A few years ago the Goricle-ers were all agog over rampaging hurricanes as evidence for Globalwarmingism. Now that we've had a few calm years in the Caribbean, this peice of evidence has been quietly dropped. The more time warmingists spend sniping and arguing with each other---Flopenhagen was a classic---the less time they have to spew their theories to clueless UN delegates.
You can tell the game is rigged when the goalposts keep moving. Globalwarmingists first suggested temperatures would rise so much all the ice would melt and the poor Statue of Liberty would be up to her neck in water. Now, the temperature rise is so small a few island monarchies in the Pacific might be up the creek without a paddle.
And yes...Lonborg has pointed out for years that the 'damage' done by global warming---the spread of malaria is one hobby horse global warmingists have ridden for years---could be eliminated at minimal cost. As an environmental economist, I can show you examples in the literature going back to the 1950s.
And how does this all relate to cycling? Anticar fossil fuel luddites have captured undue attention, thus destroying the goodwill cyclists have carefully gathered over the last few decades. Toadying to envirowhackos just makes it more difficult for reasonable cyclists to demonstrate how cycling is healthy, reduces congestion and pollutiion, and is enjoyable in its own right. Mazzholes who won't give an inch in the face of facts are hardly entitled to 3 feet at their 'beck' and call.
roughstuff
FWIW, there is a sizable group of people who believe in anthropological global warming but think that there are more productive measures than curtailing emissions. ......
Well, I like using the tactics of my enemies against them as effectively as possible. Nothing cools off global warmingists faster than asking them to adapt the policies they suggest for others. Thats why I started my contributions to this thread by pointing out that NO ONE cycled to Copenhagen for the conference. On the other hand nothing gets globalwarmingists hotter (endless irony, there) than adapting their own techniques, and pointing out where they dropped 'evidence' when it no longer fit their pet agenda. A few years ago the Goricle-ers were all agog over rampaging hurricanes as evidence for Globalwarmingism. Now that we've had a few calm years in the Caribbean, this peice of evidence has been quietly dropped. The more time warmingists spend sniping and arguing with each other---Flopenhagen was a classic---the less time they have to spew their theories to clueless UN delegates.
You can tell the game is rigged when the goalposts keep moving. Globalwarmingists first suggested temperatures would rise so much all the ice would melt and the poor Statue of Liberty would be up to her neck in water. Now, the temperature rise is so small a few island monarchies in the Pacific might be up the creek without a paddle.
And yes...Lonborg has pointed out for years that the 'damage' done by global warming---the spread of malaria is one hobby horse global warmingists have ridden for years---could be eliminated at minimal cost. As an environmental economist, I can show you examples in the literature going back to the 1950s.
And how does this all relate to cycling? Anticar fossil fuel luddites have captured undue attention, thus destroying the goodwill cyclists have carefully gathered over the last few decades. Toadying to envirowhackos just makes it more difficult for reasonable cyclists to demonstrate how cycling is healthy, reduces congestion and pollutiion, and is enjoyable in its own right. Mazzholes who won't give an inch in the face of facts are hardly entitled to 3 feet at their 'beck' and call.
roughstuff
Bekologist
12-30-09, 09:49 AM
And how does this all relate to cycling? Anticar fossil fuel luddites have captured undue attention, thus destroying the goodwill cyclists have carefully gathered over the last few decades. Toadying to envirowhackos just makes it more difficult for reasonable cyclists to demonstrate how cycling is healthy, reduces congestion and pollutiion, and is enjoyable in its own right. Mazzholes who won't give an inch in the face of facts are hardly entitled to 3 feet at their 'beck' and call.
roughstuff
:rolleyes:
"toadying to envirowhackos"? who, exactly, is doing this? are you describing the environmental movement broadly? the clean air act? the drive to regulate pollution in society?
who are these 'envirowhackos'? the mayors of New York City, Chicago, Boston, Seattle?
I don't see much of that really applying to cycling. there is a wide diversity of interests coming together to promote cycling in societies and in american cities in particular.
little of it has to do with 'environment' and most of it has to do with safe routes to school, increasing bicycle ridership generally by improving BLOS of road networks, and to benefit multifarious aspects of social health and mobility.
The EPA, independent of any concerns about bicycling, has determined an array of 'greenhouse gases' are detrimental to public health and the environment. these 'envirowackos', with their agenda, indicate clean alternatives to private gasoline vehicles.
All these factors are creating a confluence in planning for more amenable roadway bicycling in america.
roughstuff
:rolleyes:
"toadying to envirowhackos"? who, exactly, is doing this? are you describing the environmental movement broadly? the clean air act? the drive to regulate pollution in society?
who are these 'envirowhackos'? the mayors of New York City, Chicago, Boston, Seattle?
I don't see much of that really applying to cycling. there is a wide diversity of interests coming together to promote cycling in societies and in american cities in particular.
little of it has to do with 'environment' and most of it has to do with safe routes to school, increasing bicycle ridership generally by improving BLOS of road networks, and to benefit multifarious aspects of social health and mobility.
The EPA, independent of any concerns about bicycling, has determined an array of 'greenhouse gases' are detrimental to public health and the environment. these 'envirowackos', with their agenda, indicate clean alternatives to private gasoline vehicles.
All these factors are creating a confluence in planning for more amenable roadway bicycling in america.
Roughstuff
12-30-09, 10:00 AM
would you guys mind throwing something relevant to increasing ridership in american cities into your rants?
totally ignoring the scourge of the global warming debate, lets talk american bicycling ridership and how to go about building cities that naturally encourage double digit ridership.
seems a low goal to start, some exemplar cities in Europe approach or exceed 40 percent ridershare.
Consider the elderly and their needs for personal mobility in our 21st century autonomous culture. Conscript people in ailing health and fixed incomes to depend on an automobile for everyday needs? There are obvious and compelling pathways to improved social health, elderly independence, and mobility by encouraging bicycling in communities.
Well some of them HAVE been mentioned in this forum and in others similar to it, Bek.
(1) Better 'parking' and secure places for bicycles at work;
(2) Shower/gym facilities at work for cyclists to clean up and change when they arrive.
(3) Simply convincing folks that bicycles or walking are fine for short trips, which is an inordinate amount of car use.
(4) cash rebates to folks who bike and/or walk, if it can be demonstrated that such use reduces costs to municipalities. (might be hard to demonstrate, though).
I think alot of 'non-cycling' is just inertia. It becomes self fulfilling because as fewer people walk, the sidewalks are poorly maintained and not even included in new developments. Similarly, as fewer people bike, fewer people (motorists) realize the unique problems bikes have on our roadways.
roughstuff
totally ignoring the scourge of the global warming debate, lets talk american bicycling ridership and how to go about building cities that naturally encourage double digit ridership.
seems a low goal to start, some exemplar cities in Europe approach or exceed 40 percent ridershare.
Consider the elderly and their needs for personal mobility in our 21st century autonomous culture. Conscript people in ailing health and fixed incomes to depend on an automobile for everyday needs? There are obvious and compelling pathways to improved social health, elderly independence, and mobility by encouraging bicycling in communities.
Well some of them HAVE been mentioned in this forum and in others similar to it, Bek.
(1) Better 'parking' and secure places for bicycles at work;
(2) Shower/gym facilities at work for cyclists to clean up and change when they arrive.
(3) Simply convincing folks that bicycles or walking are fine for short trips, which is an inordinate amount of car use.
(4) cash rebates to folks who bike and/or walk, if it can be demonstrated that such use reduces costs to municipalities. (might be hard to demonstrate, though).
I think alot of 'non-cycling' is just inertia. It becomes self fulfilling because as fewer people walk, the sidewalks are poorly maintained and not even included in new developments. Similarly, as fewer people bike, fewer people (motorists) realize the unique problems bikes have on our roadways.
roughstuff
Seattle Forrest
04-02-10, 03:30 PM
Rather than ride to the start, they wanted to load their bikes in cars and take them to the site. This seemed natural to them and very odd to me.
It seems odd to me, too. But, as you say, cycling is a competitive sport, among other things. Maybe none of your friends wanted to be at a disadvantage by already having gone X miles before "the ride" starts.
At any rate, this is the culture we live in. I maintain that first we must change the culture, then the roadway will naturally adapt, rather than the other way around.
Because it has to be either/or... ;)
It seems odd to me, too. But, as you say, cycling is a competitive sport, among other things. Maybe none of your friends wanted to be at a disadvantage by already having gone X miles before "the ride" starts.
At any rate, this is the culture we live in. I maintain that first we must change the culture, then the roadway will naturally adapt, rather than the other way around.
Because it has to be either/or... ;)
danarnold
04-14-10, 07:38 PM
A. warming up is a good idea before competitive cycling
B. No one says it is 'either/or,' except maybe you.
When I say the culture must change first, that does not mean thought leaders cannot suggest infrastructure changes. But when big projects come to a vote, the mind set of the voters will tell. The whole idea of democracy rests on the premise that voters can be educated to make wise choices, rather than have those 'wise' choices forced upon them. Not that I'm claiming democracy is the best form of government, but it's sort of what we've got.
B. No one says it is 'either/or,' except maybe you.
When I say the culture must change first, that does not mean thought leaders cannot suggest infrastructure changes. But when big projects come to a vote, the mind set of the voters will tell. The whole idea of democracy rests on the premise that voters can be educated to make wise choices, rather than have those 'wise' choices forced upon them. Not that I'm claiming democracy is the best form of government, but it's sort of what we've got.
Bekologist
04-24-10, 09:01 AM
boston to begin charging to park cars in residential neighborhoods, and restrict parking on public streets in city in as part of multi-faceted improvements to boston's existing transportation network. Public health, greenhouse gas targets, an increase in livability all targeted by city hall thru restricting automobile mobility thru transportation planning.
(its interesting, Boston got 100,000 car owners in the city onboard with free, residential permits; now to be turning into paid permits, with steep increases for second permit per household. Hehehehe!!!)
Expect to see more cities in the USA begin to restrict the car. It will be very interesting to watch how NYC and Boston and Portland and San Francisco lead the country towards a new, 21st century american transportation paradigm.
(its interesting, Boston got 100,000 car owners in the city onboard with free, residential permits; now to be turning into paid permits, with steep increases for second permit per household. Hehehehe!!!)
Expect to see more cities in the USA begin to restrict the car. It will be very interesting to watch how NYC and Boston and Portland and San Francisco lead the country towards a new, 21st century american transportation paradigm.