Re: If you don't believe in Evolution, then why do you drive an SUV?

Tom Sherman

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:478b1a13$0$11610$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
>>>> more commuter cyclists.
>>> You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a
> one
>>> and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
>>> several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
>>> exhausted to boot.
>> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>> confused reasoning!
>
> If you bill by the hour, then loss of time is loss of income. Otherwise,
> you lose time you could spend fixing the house, mowing the lawn, and so
> forth. It is a very important issue.
>
butbutbut, riding a bicycle is more fun than all those other possible
activities!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Sherman

Pat Who? wrote:
> ...
> George, I seldom defend the bikers but you need to take into account
> more things than just transportation when you look at biking....

PLEASE, we are CYCLISTS.

"Bikers" ride noisy, smelly machines powered by infernal (sic) combustion.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Keats

In article <13omovrd6f61t6d@corp.supernews.com>,
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9jremf.321.ln@vcn.bc.ca...

>> > In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings
> at
>> > work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the
> year.
>>
>> I bet I live in a wetter climate than you.
>>
>> With my riding raingear on, I stay much drier
>> than if I'd walked.
>>
>
> If you used raingear around here, you would arrive at work even more
> soaked through and you would need to wash the raingrear to get the sweat
> out.

Not necessarily. One just needs the right kind of raingear.
And it doesn't have to be expensive GoreTex stuff.

It's all about ventilation. And fenders, preferably
w/ at least a front mudflap.

A pair of cheap cordura hiking gaiters does wonders
for keeping lower legs dry. A proper cycling rain
cape provides "protection" from rain while allowing
huge volumes of ventilation. Fashion toeclip cozies
out of strips of inner tube, and your feet & shoes
stay not only nice 'n dry, but warm, too, 'cuz they
serve as fairings to keep the wind off yer li'l toesies.

Please, no more canards. I grow weary of shooting
ducks down. Got any valid arguments?


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Jack May

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
news:478bf803$0$22609$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
>>>>> message
>> That's not very fair!
>
> Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT with
> which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis." (No
> mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although they were included in
> the preceding context.) They are not.

Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
data and shows the data says:

http://www.rockandwater.net/piperma...une/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."

Tom Sherman

Jack May wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:478bf803$0$22609$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>> That's not very fair!
>> Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT with
>> which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis." (No
>> mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although they were included in
>> the preceding context.) They are not.
>
> Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
> so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
> data and shows the data says:
>
> http://www.rockandwater.net/piperma...une/000605.html
>
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
> the rates for car occupants."
>
Get rid of the excessive number of automobiles and light trucks, and the
death rate for cyclists would plummet.

Get rid of bicycles, and the death rate for motorists would not be
measurably affected.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Amy Blankenship

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mIydnRUzYO0xHRDanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:478bf803$0$22609$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>> That's not very fair!
>>
>> Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT with
>> which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis." (No
>> mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although they were included in
>> the preceding context.) They are not.
>
> Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any data
> so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that actually has
> data and shows the data says:
>
> http://www.rockandwater.net/piperma...une/000605.html
>
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly
> exceed
> the rates for car occupants."

But the majority of bike fatalities are CAUSED by car occupants. The
reverse is not true.

Bill Sornson

Jack May wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:478bf803$0$22609$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>> That's not very fair!
>>
>> Just to help everyone out (esp. the moron May), the actual STATEMENT
>> with which I took issue was "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile
>> basis." (No mention of or comparison to cars in sight, although
>> they were included in the preceding context.) They are not.
>
> Well Bill Sornson the retard just loves to make statement without any
> data so with his ignorance he can attack people. A person that
> actually has data and shows the data says:
>
> http://www.rockandwater.net/piperma...une/000605.html
>
> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly
> exceed the rates for car occupants."

LOL You STILL can't read and I *just explained* it to you! (Hint II: The
original statement was, "Bicycles are dangerous on a per-mile basis."
Period. (Of course they're more dangerous than CARS on that basis; that was
NOT what the statement said.)

HTH yet again.

Bill "someone else 'splain it to the Moron May please" S.

Tadej Brezina

Jack May wrote:

> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:478b1a13$0$11610$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>
>>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>>billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>>confused reasoning!
>
> Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
> determining how people value their time.

Yeah, your often repeated sermon.
But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
Conk said:
"... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."

His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
wage rates".

*) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.


--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

Jack May

"Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:478dd176$0$28520$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
> Jack May wrote:
>
>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>> news:478b1a13$0$11610$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>
>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>>>billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>>>confused reasoning!
>>
>> Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
>> determining how people value their time.
>
> Yeah, your often repeated sermon.

And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
exists.

> But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
> Conk said:
> "... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
> standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
> productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."
>
> His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
> wage rates".
>
> *) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
> fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
> cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.

Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
riding a bicycle. With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.

Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.

Tom Sherman

Jack May wrote:
> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:478dd176$0$28520$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>
>>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>>> news:478b1a13$0$11610$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>>
>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> 1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>>>> billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>>>> confused reasoning!
>>> Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
>>> determining how people value their time.
>> Yeah, your often repeated sermon.
>
> And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
> exists.
>
>> But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
>> Conk said:
>> "... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
>> standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
>> productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."
>>
>> His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
>> wage rates".
>>
>> *) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
>> fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
>> cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.
>
> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
> riding a bicycle. With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
> safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.
>
> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
> in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
> problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.
>
If a person does not enjoy cycling, they are morally and intellectually
defective.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Jack May

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmmc65$i0k$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>> news:478dd176$0$28520$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>>>> news:478b1a13$0$11610$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>>>
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message


> If a person does not enjoy cycling, they are morally and intellectually
> defective.

I enjoy exersize on my Olympic size trampoline more than exersize on my
bike. The trampoline produces a lot more thrills.

That said, this spring I expect to buy a recumbent bike with a clear plastic
"roof" which cuts drag. I bike on a paved path along the SF Bay shoreline
which is across the street from the area where I live.

The problem with a bike has been the high winds that rip down the bay and
make biking less than enjoyable at times. The advantage to a bike is that
it gets you out among people. There are a lot of people using the path
along the bay.

Tom Sherman

Jack May wrote:
> ...
> That said, this spring I expect to buy a recumbent bike with a clear plastic
> "roof" which cuts drag. I bike on a paved path along the SF Bay shoreline
> which is across the street from the area where I live....
>
Birk Butterfly? Go-One?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tadej Brezina

Jack May wrote:

> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:478dd176$0$28520$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>
>>Jack May wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>>>news:478b1a13$0$11610$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>>
>>>
>>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>1. Since when does the alleged loss of "time" is being changed by the
>>>>billing rate? Time is time. That's not even backwards, that's totally
>>>>confused reasoning!
>>>
>>>Since the Economics professor at UC Berkley got his Nobel prize for
>>>determining how people value their time.
>>
>>Yeah, your often repeated sermon.
>
>
> And a sermon people love to ignore in the fantasy world they like to believe
> exists.
>
>
>>But at least try to think of the original statement logically.
>>Conk said:
>>"... Turning a 15 minute commute into a one and half hour commute at
>>standard wage rates means that you are wasting several hours per day of
>>productive work time, and you arrive at work exhausted to boot."
>>
>>His allegedly "wasted productive time" *) is not a function of "standard
>>wage rates".
>>
>>*) Only considering a very narrow economical view, leaving personal
>>fitness, transport safety (increasing cyclist safety with increasing
>>cyclist numbers), ecological issues and others due to cycling aside.
>
>
> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
> riding a bicycle.

I do not know the statistics for the US.
In my country, and I guess it's not any different in other European
countries, the death and injury rate of cycling is almost below the
classical margin of measureability. And those few fatalities that occur
on bikes are practically never 'alone accidents' but cyclist hit by cars
due to bad infrastructure design (namely separated cycle paths at
intersections).
So your statement is irrelvant quality and quantity-wise.

> With more riders and fewer vehicles, maybe it would be
> safer for bike riders, but probably not certain at this point.

Definitly certain at this, although I do only have the corresponding
inquiries in paper at hand, not on a website.
Increased number of cyclists decreases cycling risks.

> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are small
> in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
> problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.

Wow, honestly Jack, I've read many statements from you that I do
disagree strongly with. A lot of them I would even consider as utter
nonsense, as proven by many others on these boards often. But the above
is the peak of nonsense so far! Ridiculous!

As you consider yourself as a guy with technological insight: How's the
relationship in energy consumption ratio of additional energy needed for
moving human body and bicycle one one hand side and on the other of
moving 1000+ kg of vehicle and one human body on average?
One or two (maybe even three) orders of magnitude?

Consider that the energy in excess that is consumed (=eaten) by the
average westerner, lead by the north americans, and is not used for
locomotion but is accumulated as body fat, also due to horrible lack of
body movement, would easily support cycling for many hours a day.

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

Jack May

"Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:478f1a24$0$10578$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
> Jack May wrote:
>
>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>> news:478dd176$0$28520$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>
>>>Jack May wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>>>>news:478b1a13$0$11610$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
>> riding a bicycle.
>
> I do not know the statistics for the US.
> In my country, and I guess it's not any different in other European
> countries, the death and injury rate of cycling is almost below the
> classical margin of measureability.

Extremely unlikely!

And those few fatalities that occur
> on bikes are practically never 'alone accidents' but cyclist hit by cars
> due to bad infrastructure design (namely separated cycle paths at
> intersections).
> So your statement is irrelvant quality and quantity-wise.

That is how lies are fabricated. That is not how accident and death rates
are compiled.

I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. I
guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a lot
people seem to have no memory capability. At times I feel I will soon need
to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
nothing.

http://www.rockandwater.net/piperma...une/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."

>
>> Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
>> extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are
>> small in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the
>> world wide problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.
>
> Wow, honestly Jack, I've read many statements from you that I do disagree
> strongly with. A lot of them I would even consider as utter nonsense, as
> proven by many others on these boards often. But the above is the peak of
> nonsense so far! Ridiculous!

You can not make such a statement just looking at how much energy the body
uses to power the bike. Not only are my statements rational, they are
part of normal research these days. Your statement is nonsense and
ridiculous by the standards of energy research these days.
>
> As you consider yourself as a guy with technological insight: How's the
> relationship in energy consumption ratio of additional energy needed for
> moving human body and bicycle one one hand side and on the other of moving
> 1000+ kg of vehicle and one human body on average?
> One or two (maybe even three) orders of magnitude?

I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes roughly
ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of energy.
For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient small
car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
drop down into the range of other cars.

These type calculations are commonly done for example to show why it takes
more oil energy to produce ethanol than the energy we get from ethanol.