Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Comfort, safety and non-exposure to the elements would be three.
I'm easily amused but nothing makes me laugh more than seeing someone on a crotch rocket going to work, or back home, in an unexpected rainstorm. Makes splitting the lanes almost impossible.
You missed the point. We have safety standards and equipment in our automobiles to protect each other from the steel cages we drive in. Chicken and the egg syndrome. If our cars were made of styrofoam, we wouldn't have so many traffic deaths. Make sense?
Our vehicles didn't always weigh 4,000 lbs. Now because they are 4,000 lbs, we have to add more safety features to keep them safe, which adds to the size and weight. It is a paradox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
Then you're just an all around better human being and tough guy I guess. And incredibly closed minded for someone so young and lacking in life experience. Your user name is appropriate.
Happy motoring.
Call me what you like, but I'm being rational. Sorry for the bluntness. My opinion on the matter is straight forward.
People complain about the following:
1) Gas prices
2) Not having enough time to exercise
3) Not having enough time to eat healthy
4) Not enough money due to #1
5) How to lose weight due to #2 and #3
Yet, when the prospect of walking, running, or cycling to work is posed, suddenly it is a problem. Either of the three remedies those five points. But I'm just a young kid with no life experience
It has nothing to do with being a tough guy. Let's call it like it is. This is the p***ification of the 1st world.
You missed the point. We have safety standards and equipment in our automobiles to protect each other from the steel cages we drive in. Chicken and the egg syndrome. If our cars were made of styrofoam, we wouldn't have so many traffic deaths. Make sense?
Our vehicles didn't always weigh 4,000 lbs. Now because they are 4,000 lbs, we have to add more safety features to keep them safe, which adds to the size and weight. It is a paradox.
Call me what you like, but I'm being rational. Sorry for the bluntness. My opinion on the matter is straight forward.
People complain about the following:
1) Gas prices
2) Not having enough time to exercise
3) Not having enough time to eat healthy
4) Not enough money due to #1
5) How to lose weight due to #2 and #3
Yet, when the prospect of walking, running, or cycling to work is posed, suddenly it is a problem. Either of the three remedies those five points. But I'm just a young kid with no life experience
It has nothing to do with being a tough guy. Let's call it like it is. This is the p***ification of the 1st world.
You're not blunt you're stupid. That's blunt.
You have no clue what you're talking about most of the time, just your "opinions" and feelings.
You trade in stereotypes and memes with zero background knowledge. You think everyone should bike or whatever to work when there are millions for which that is not an option. You color anyone who drives as lazy, out of shape and fat.
I drive to work. I'm also 60 years old and if you followed me around on a half bad day I'd run your ass into the ground. On a really bad day you'd cry for your mother.
You have no clue what you're talking about most of the time, just your "opinions" and feelings.
You trade in stereotypes and memes with zero background knowledge. You think everyone should bike or whatever to work when there are millions for which that is not an option. You color anyone who drives as lazy, out of shape and fat.
I drive to work. I'm also 60 years old and if you followed me around on a half bad day I'd run your ass into the ground. On a really bad day you'd cry for your mother.
I'd suggest the first step is to breathe.
It is accurate to say that we are in a situation wherein our safety regs, the HMVSS, add weight (and complication) to deal with vehicles which have become larger and more massive (partly as a result of previous regs).
It is also accurate to say that we lead sedentary lives, absolutely and by comparison to previous decades. We sit at home, we sit at work, we sit in the car.
And this:
Quote:
People complain about the following:
1) Gas prices
2) Not having enough time to exercise
3) Not having enough time to eat healthy
4) Not enough money due to #1
5) How to lose weight due to #2 and #3
matches my experiences (which is, obviously, not proof of anything, just my experience)
Meanwhile, even in inclement weather, riding a bike or motorcycle doesn't have to be unpleasant. It will be, of course, if you dress inappropriately for the conditions. Cycle gear can be vented, allowing the right amount of air to come in for sweat to work effectively. It can also keep you dry in the rain.
Sure hours can change, but generally speaking there are minimum standards for operating times, and all of this info is readily available when you are moving in.
The only standards I have heard of for transit are minimum standards for farebox recovery, and standards for ridership. Routes get cancelled frequently.
RTD eyeing big cuts to trim 2009 budget : TheRocky.com: Denver News, Business, Homes, Jobs, Cars, & Information
**RTD makes route and schedule changes three times a year. . . . The package hits the town of Parker hard by eliminating the only frequent in-town services, the Route 410 from The Pinery to Lincoln Station and the on-demand Parker call-n-Ride bus. The 410 has 42 daily trips. . . . The town will have service only from the Route 153, the Chambers Road bus, which goes to or from Parker 15 times a day, and the Route P commuter bus to Denver, with seven morning and seven afternoon trips.**
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
What entitles people with families who find street parking "annoying" to get what they want over people like me who are single and don't find street parking annoying? Why is the former preference more valid than the latter?
The answer is it's not. The reasonable approach is to say "live and let live" rather than "my subjective lifestyle choice or nothing." You do that by lifting these regulations and allow the neighborhoods where there is a demand for density and walkability to grow that way, and for people who want off-street parking, there are plenty of areas where there are houses with garages and those aren't going away. You really think that if we lifted minimum parking regulations the suburbs would turn into Manhattan? Of course not. There will always be demand for cars and thus demand for houses with off-street parking.
Stop acting like your subjective preference that street parking is "annoying" is some objective truth that deserves government action. I love street parking. I will gladly park my car a block or two away if it means a neighborhood where less space is reserved for cars and more for things I actually want to walk to (and yes I do own a car, I just don't drive it all that often). But that is just MY OPINION. I don't support enshrining my opinion into law and banning off-street parking everywhere. That would be no more valid than if it was my opinion that I love free off-street parking, therefore everyone everywhere should be forced by law to have that.
I don't think anyone said anything about "annoying". Nice anti-family rant. You know, we family people have all been single at one time or another. You singles have never had a family of your own. In other words, you don't really understand families.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
1) Comfort is relative. In the sense of a car vs. bike, I equate "comfort" with laziness.
2) Safety with automobiles is hilarious. We have tens of thousands of traffic deaths per year due to the automobile. The solution is always to make them bigger and heftier, which means we need more safety features (thus weighing even more).
You see, if we all drove smaller vehicles (bikes, scooters, mopeds), we wouldn't have safety problems now would we?
3) Exposure to the elements? What elements?
Sun - wear sunscreen
Rain - wear a jacket
Cold - wear a jacket
When's the last time the 3 killed someone within 30 minutes?
Why is it funny? I laugh at overweight people in cars every day. If they got off their tails, they wouldn't be on blood pressure / cholesterol medication. They wouldn't make our tax dollars and health insurance premiums go up.
I don't split lanes with cars. It's actually illegal. I claim the whole lane. Cars go around me and on about their business.
Well, there ya go! The solution to all the health problems of the US is . . . biking! May you never have a blood pressure or cholesterol problem. Heredity plays a big role in cholesterol levels. Go ahead and keep making fun of people. You may have a "free-floating hostility" problem, which can contribute to heart disease.
But clearly that wasn't the right building for them. Their requirement was 2 parking spaces, and the building didn't have that available. That means it would be a perfect place for a one car couple, so what's wrong with that. Every apartment doesn't need to be for every possible use case.
Correct. And when they told the manager that, she suggested they sell one of their cars, rather than find a different apt. SHE wanted to rent out the apt.
1) Comfort is relative. In the sense of a car vs. bike, I equate "comfort" with laziness.
Yeah with respect to encounters between bikes and cars, the "lazy" car drivers tend to outlive the uncomfortable bike riders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
2) Safety with automobiles is hilarious. We have tens of thousands of traffic deaths per year due to the automobile. The solution is always to make them bigger and heftier, which means we need more safety features (thus weighing even more).
1. Bikes always lose regardless.
2. There are plenty of cars made smaller - usually hyped by urbanists. They might get better gas mileage but are typically no match for traditional vehicles in an accident. BTW the "bigger and heftier" is not necessarily the cause for more safety features.
3. Accidents are going to happen just from sheer numbers of people not "due to the automobile".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
You see, if we all drove smaller vehicles (bikes, scooters, mopeds), we wouldn't have safety problems now would we?
The people driving smaller vehicles would still have accidents - just as they did when they drove larger vehicles.
You seem to completely ignore vehicle functionality. Bikes, scooters, and mopeds don't meet functional requirements for other households - and it is their individual choice not yours.
As far as the "we" is concerned, you also wouldn't be able to haul groceries, take or pickup kids from school, attend various events (school-related or otherwise), or transport other people or things around. Kinda difficult to haul much in the way of materials around on your scooter.
Well, there ya go! The solution to all the health problems of the US is . . . biking! May you never have a blood pressure or cholesterol problem. Heredity plays a big role in cholesterol levels. Go ahead and keep making fun of people. You may have a "free-floating hostility" problem, which can contribute to heart disease.
It is a start. It might help our overweight population burn off some calories. It isn't my fault most of the country is fat and constantly makes excuses for not being able to lose weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Yeah with respect to encounters between bikes and cars, the "lazy" car drivers tend to outlive the uncomfortable bike riders.
Incorrect. Cycling is no less safe than driving statistically. When one considers the health costs, cycling is considerably "safer" than driving in a car. Drivers have higher rates of obesity and inhale more exhaust fumes. If your argument is... car + bicycle = dead bicycle than sure.. but most cycling crashes don't involve car-bicycle conflicts. They are usually the cyclist falling off his bike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
1. Bikes always lose regardless.
Like I said, have fun inhaling fumes and suffering from high blood pressure due to road rage. Maybe spending 2 hours in your car every day will help the back problems too
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
2. There are plenty of cars made smaller - usually hyped by urbanists. They might get better gas mileage but are typically no match for traditional vehicles in an accident. BTW the "bigger and heftier" is not necessarily the cause for more safety features.
3. Accidents are going to happen just from sheer numbers of people not "due to the automobile".
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
The people driving smaller vehicles would still have accidents - just as they did when they drove larger vehicles.
Think my argument through logically. If there were 50 million bikes on the road instead of 50 million cars, there would still be plenty of accidents. The consequences of those accidents would be less fatalities, due to less mass riding around. Our cars are 4,000 lb steel cages to protect ourselves from other 4,000 lb steel cages. Hence, the chicken and egg syndrome. If the car's frame was made of styrofoam, we would also have less fatalities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
You seem to completely ignore vehicle functionality. Bikes, scooters, and mopeds don't meet functional requirements for other households - and it is their individual choice not yours.
As far as the "we" is concerned, you also wouldn't be able to haul groceries, take or pickup kids from school, attend various events (school-related or otherwise), or transport other people or things around. Kinda difficult to haul much in the way of materials around on your scooter.
Why wouldn't you?
More excuses. Kids have a pair of legs too. Never heard of bike trailers or tandem bikes?
The manners in which Americans use personal vehicles (then ***** about health problems) is a self-inflicted problem. Then we beg oil companies to keep gas prices low, and cities to create 12 lane highways.
All health problems in the US are NOT caused by cars.
True. But they are not wholly without guilt, and we must consider the amount of time we spend sitting in them, and the side-effects of being near an arterial or highway. And, frankly, the more we build for them, the more time we spend in them, as we make them the de facto most convenient way to do even basic tasks.
Smarter policies would build for a wider variety of modes as makes sense for that context and, as a result, we would use cars less often, for a plurality of trips instead of most or all.
Last edited by darkeconomist; 07-24-2014 at 01:39 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
