HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cabizon@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (THOMAS BIZON)
Subject: Re: rough road + procrastination = road rash
Summary: poor maintenance leads to crash
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: handlebar, crash, damn oil trucks
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  4 Sep 1992 13:29 EST  

>My Cateye Vectra is now wireless.  This may be the most costly item
>of all.  Any success out there splicing the leads for this?
>  
>Gordon L. Powell, Jr. '89            glp7584@zeus.tamu.edu (VMS on VAX 9000)
>Aero Engr  Texas A&M Univ.           gordon@aero.tamu.edu (D. U. on S. C.)
>Oh well, some people can flame in a nitrogen environment.--Les Earnest
> 

I had a broken wire with my Vetta C-2 and spliced it back together.
With my Vetta, there were two conductors in each of the small cables,
kinda similiar to a coax cable.  The first wire was housed as normal 
small guage wire which could be stripped and rejoined.  The second 
wire was uninsulated except for the outer casing.  Both of the wires
need to be rejoined.  Be careful when you put it back together that 
the wires do not short (ie keep them well insulated).  A bit of solder 
will also help to keep the wires from separating.

Tom 
       _   __o
     ___  `\<,
       -  O/ O

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: tims@cci632.cci.com (Tim Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Reply-To: tims@cci.com (Tim Sullivan)
Organization: Computer Consoles, Inc.  Rochester, NY
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:29:11 GMT


d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se (Hans Lindberg) wrote this about "Riding on the 
wrong side":
>
>Bunch of pros and cons bla bla...
>
>Honestly guys, I can't believe anyone would actually ride against the traffic
>to "be on the safe side" :) so to speak. The concept is so utterly stupid.
>Would you also suggest that a skilled motorbike rider should ride on the
>wrong side so he can avoid all other potential killers trying to run him down.
>Riding a bicycle on the wrong side would just create dangerour situations.
>Consider meeting a car and a lawbiding biker at the same time. Should
>you go to the left or to the right of the aproaching biker, and how will
>he know what you are to chose? 
>

	Utterly stupid?  Yes, it is, but people do it all the time.  Last night
	I encountered two bike riders in less than a mile on the wrong side of
	the road.

	The first was a woman out for a "casual bike ride" (her words).  We were
	traveling in the same direction on opposite sides of the road.  Just
	as we were opposite each other there were cars passing in both
	directions.  This was certainly a more dangerous situation than need be,
	and I am sure that the car drivers felt a bit of anxiety and a bit of
	resentment toward cyclist because of it.

	The second was a man riding a very beat up mountain bike toward me, on
	the same side of the road.  We went through several iterations of 
	"should I go right or left" before I went to the outside and he went to
	the inside.

	I spoke firmly, but politely (I hope) to both people.  I explained how
	it is safer to ride legally with traffic, and I gave each of them the
	"Share the Road" pamphlet published by New York state, which has all of
	the state laws that apply to bicyclist and drivers interaction with
	bicyclist.  I think they understood as they both treated me politely
	and began riding on the correct side of the road.  As best I could tell,	neither discarded the pamphlet, although the woman commented that she
	did not have anywhere to keep the book.

	Like others who have posted here recently, I have made rude comments to
	some who endanger themselfs and me by riding on the wrong side of the
	road.  However, I feel much better about the interaction I had with
	the two people I met last evening, and hopefully they will be more
	positively affected and educated than if I had made some crass remark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Sullivan
tims@cci.com
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: rough road + procrastination = road rash
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:29:03
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: glp7584@tamuts.tamu.edu's message of Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:50:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.235033.6450@tamsun.tamu.edu> glp7584@tamuts.tamu.edu (Gordon Lee Powell Jr) writes:

   My Cateye Vectra is now wireless.  This may be the most costly item
   of all.  Any success out there splicing the leads for this?

I had a wire break (on a Rhode Gear machine) when my pump fell off and
cut it (and almost jammed the rear wheel, but only brushed the spokes).
It's tricky but doable -- some solder, maybe a small piece of PC board,
and just be careful.  You can probably find someone who knows how to
wire things up (just find an EE around).
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: corbettm@leonardo.cs.curtin.edu.au (Michael Corbett)
Subject: Re: Gas Taxes etal....
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:24:03 GMT

ncherry@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (neil j.cherry) writes:

[Amoung other things]

>                                                         A politician is a
>person whos job it is to make the majority of the people happy. I personally
>think most politicians are power hungry money grubbers.

I would say that as (like you say) most politions are power hungry that the
first sentence should be more like.

    A politician is a person whos job it is to make the majority of the people
    more happy than other politcians.

But then again.... Who cares?

--
{           Michael Corbett             | TIME: Natures way of         .__o  }
{      corbettm@cs.curtin.edu.au        | stopping everything from   _-\_<,  }
{ If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.| happening at once.        (*)/'(*) }
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:26:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.7wdntwa.tomk
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <51170@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>> 	In todays New York Times (8/27/92) there is an article decribing how
>> 	Motorola and Amtech Corp. are teaming up to create a radio controlled
>> 	toll collection system that will charge tolls against a credit or debit
>> 	card.
>
>Why do we go to all this trouble?  There are ways of getting around these
>tolls (the easiest is to just add to congestion on nearby non-toll roads).
>Just do a nice, hefty gas tax.  Then you don't need the bucks to put in
>some sort of expensive toll-collection system.  Gas is already lightly
>taxed, so the entire system for that exists and is paid for.

Why don't we just tax everyone 100% of their income and then
there won'[t be any of these stupid arguments.

The facts are that taxation is already way too high. Companies
and jobs are fleeing the United States and the gap between the
haves and have-nots is widening. But, hell, I don'[t suppose any
of that is half as important as punishing people who use cars.
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: locher@iastate.edu (Robert C Locher)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:58:09 GMT


madine@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.) writes:

>> Common untruth held by many parents, who then pass it to their kids:
>> bicycles should ride against traffic.  Why?  Because they can see the
>> cars coming.  Of course, nobody thinks of things like closing speed.

>A common "untruth" debunked by an also common, but also "un-true"
>premise.  Of course, (lower) closing speed is not a valid argument
>for riding with traffic.

Huh?  This doesn't take a rocket engineer to figure out.  Say you're
riding 15 mph, and the traffic is going 45.  If you're on the WRONG side
of the street, your closing speed is 60.  If you're on the RIGHT side,
your closing speed is 30.  Now kinetic energy is proportional to the
square of the velocity, so if you're on the WRONG side of the street,
and you get in an accident, you've got FOUR !!! times as much energy to
absorb than if you had been on the RIGHT side of the street.

The only possible argument for riding in the lane of oncoming traffic is
that you can see, and presumably do something about, the car that is
about to hit you.  The way I see it, there isn't much I can do to avoid
an accident with a motorist that doesn't see me.  If they are going to
sideswipe me into a parked car, I won't have any more ability to avoid
the accident than if I had seen them about to do it.

By the way, if you are hiking along a road, it is proper to walk on the
side opposing traffic, because the closing speeds are nearly the same
either way.  And I think a pedestrian has much more ability to get out
of the way.

If you disagree with me, by all means, present your argument.  Don't
just say the other person's argument isn't valid.

                                - Rob
From: Dave Snyder <davesnyder@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 01 Sep 92 12:19 PDT
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: 
Nf-ID: #R:locher.715121889@pv1648.vincent.:-1087874833:cdp:1702500004:000:198
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!davesnyder    Sep  1 12:19:00 1992


I can't help but add that yesterday (two days after a copy
gave me a ticket for running a red light!), I saw two cops on
bicycles riding the wrong way on the street. I shoulda yelled
at 'em.

/dave

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:53:22 GMT

In <sandrock.715378486@leo> sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:

>scott@cs.rochester.edu (Michael Scott) writes:

>>In article <13823@chalmers.se> d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se (Hans Lindberg) writes:
>>| 
>>| Honestly guys, I can't believe anyone would actually ride against the traffic
>>| to "be on the safe side" :) so to speak. The concept is so utterly stupid.

>>But it's true.  Lots of people here ride against traffic.
>>I think once upon a time somebody here taught kids to ride that way --
>>the police, maybe, or the public schools -- under the misconception that
>>it was safer.

>Maybe this idea derives from the admonition for hikers and joggers to
>travel against traffic for safety. I'm not saying that cyclists should
>do this, but as a runner, it's my preferred method in the absence of
>sidewalks. But then I can easily move to safety should an auto approach
>too close for comfort!

What do running magazines have to say about this?  I'd suspect that
running with traffic would be slightly safer, and I see runners around
here about equally likely to run with traffic as against it.

>Mark Sandrock
>-- 
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:51:02 GMT

Thomas H. Kunich writes

> Actually, the idea behind this string is that one group wishes to
> control another group. Just another historical objective of people
> who believe that they have 'the' answer.

Quite correct.  The auto industry and the oil industry wish to continue
controlling the rest of us by having us pay them through the inappropriate
taxes we have currently.

Some of us want to simply end that control by moving the tax to
someplace where the consumer could regain self-control of his/her
expenditures, stopping the current gouging and subsidization that
he/she has no power to prevent.

--
Scott Byer                             NeXTMail: byer@mv.us.adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:14:00 GMT

stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

>As for punishing people who use cars - damn straight!  They do not pay for
>the damage they are causing.  They're out there driving foul-smelling,
>mega-polluting, gas-guzzling old heaps and are directly responsible for
>traffic congestion, greenhouse effect, smog, ozone depletion ...

>A gas tax discourages abuse of a valuable resource, discourages pollution,
>discourages frivolous driving trips, discourages high-speed driving,
>discourages dependence on foreign oil.  It encourages fuel efficiency,
>proper car maintainance, good driving, exercise (walking or cycling
>for short trips), mass transit, alternative energy.  These are all
>good things agreed on by the vast majority of people.

I tend to agree with this. It struck me as somewhat ironic, not to mention
hypocritical, that the one time I heard the Prez call for conservation was
when he happened to be up at Kennebunkport zooming around on his speedboat.
(Another case of "read my lips" it seems.)

Americans seem to have extremely poor cardiovascular health overall, and one
reason is surely our over-reliance on the auto to get everywhere.

Re speedboats, I feel even more strongly. Cars serve a good purpose, but
speeding around the lake is nothing but cheap thrills, in my opinion. (I
sail, in case you haven't guessed.) The noise and smell spoils the tran-
quility of the region for everyone else, but hey, we're talking big bucks
here for equipment and fees, etc.

I'd like to see the gas tax raised. Heard that this was part of Perot's
economic platform -- but I wouldn't expect it from Bush anyway.

Mark Sandrock
-- 
UIUC Chemical Sciences Computer Ctr.	  "You not only improve in physical
505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801	   fitness by running but [in] your
Email: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu	   character as well." --Zatopek
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:08:39 GMT

In <1992Sep2.173449.10789@u.washington.edu> roberth@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Harrison) writes:

>>>>In article <12hnx0_.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes...
>>>>> 
>>>>>Furthermore, there were on the order of 850 fatalities each year
>>>>>from bicycle accidents vs. the 50,000 per year in auto accidents.

>In article <1SEP199216330749@xenon.arc.nasa.gov> laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (Sor
>en LaForce) writes:
>>Third, all else being equal, cars are operated under much worse conditions
>>than are bikes.  I really hate to ride in the rain, snow, etc.  So
>>I don't.  I do drive then, tho'.  What I'm getting at here is that one 
>>(not this one anyway) would expect more car fatalities due to the dissimilar
>>useage patterns.
>>
>What Soren is pointing out is that these statistics don't really reflect a
>given individual's safety.  Though this cuts both ways:  we don't let children
>drive cars.  When I look at the 850 bike deaths I wonder how many were

In fact, we do.  The legal driving age is 16 in the states I've lived
in.  Still legally children.

>children, how many were adults riding at night without lights, how many
>were...  With cars we know that half the fatalities were caused by drunk
>drivers, with a healthy portion of that half presumably being the drivers
>themselves.  If I eliminate these sorts of risks from my life which is
>safer?  The statistics will never tell us.

>I feel the same way about bike paths.  Some people have written here that
>bike paths are the most dangerous place to ride:  I believe that this is
>a misuse of statistics.  Rather say that there are more inexperienced
>and foolish riders on the bike paths who are more likely to have accidents
>that someone confident enough to ride on the roads.  I have no doubt
>that a good bike path is safer than the road for a careful rider.

Is your "no doubt" based on fact or fear?  I have "no doubt", for
example, that I'd be safer riding on four lane Atherton Road up near
State College, PA (where I spend most weekends now) than on the
sidewalk "bike path" (there's a *tree* growing in the middle of it at
one point) with cars constantly careening across without looking (to
be fair, without being able to look because of the construction) for
cyclists.  These things are situational, and it depends a great deal
on the construction of the "path".  I've "no doubt" that safe
bicycling facilities *can* be built, but given that some states allow
localities to coerce people to ride on dangerous sidewalks merely by
putting up green signs, what kind of facilities are you going to get?
I've "no doubt" that a competent adult cyclist is safer on the roads
(where he can be seen by motorists doing normal traffic scanning) than
on almost any "bike path" in the US, but I'm willing to be convinced
otherwise by data.

--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: ncherry@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (neil j.cherry)
Subject: Gas Taxes etal....
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:56:40 GMT

The subject of taxation is getting a little off the subject of Bikes.soc
but it might help (or hinder) that the members of this group seem to view
things in very clear cut way. That is our first mistake. A politician is a
person whos job it is to make the majority of the people happy. I personally
think most politicians are power hungry money grubbers. Sorta like many
lawyers I've met. Now on to the taxes, I would love to see my tax money go
to where I want it. I wnat to help those who need help and are willing to
eventually help themselves. But the fact of the matter is that politicians
only look out for themselves. Raising taxes meant to fund a certain project
won't help. The politicians will leech the money and put it into another
project. Ex. NJ just cut the budget and had to layoff about 5000 state
employees. At the same time they ordered $500K worth of artwork to decorate
a new building. They knew that people would be layed off and they still ordered
the artwork. I hate stupidity, therefore I hate politicians. Any politicians
out there better watch out I've had it up to here and I care about my state
nad my country. And I'm going to tell you where to go with my votes.

Oops I'm rambling, sorry.

NJC
From: jrdodd@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:24:20 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand


	What makes you think these cyclists are on the wrong side?
	from down here,  *everyone* in North America seems to be on the
wrong side!

	Jonathan.
From: d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se (Hans Lindberg)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:13:18 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

scott@cs.rochester.edu (Michael Scott) writes:

>In article <13823@chalmers.se> d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se (Hans Lindberg) writes:
>| 
>| Bunch of pros and cons bla bla...
>| 
>| Honestly guys, I can't believe anyone would actually ride against the traffic
>| to "be on the safe side" :) so to speak. The concept is so utterly stupid.

>But it's true.  Lots of people here ride against traffic.
>I think once upon a time somebody here taught kids to ride that way --
>the police, maybe, or the public schools -- under the misconception that
>it was safer.
>-- 
>Michael L. Scott
Tell me about it! I know they do, I moonlight as Taxidriver (legit,
of course) and I've seen more than anyone should have to. When it
comes to riding on the wrong side, I find that most kamikazes here in
Sweden do that out of lazyness and lack of wits. One of the more common
scenes are as follows: A bikerider aproaches an x intersection planning to
turn left and finds that the lights turn red. He then simply crosses to
the left side of the road,continues with his left turn alongside the
sidewalk on the wrong side and gets back to the right side by crossing
at the zebra crossing. I doubtt thats done with safety in mind... I seldom
see bikers contiously riding on the wrong side though. But I've never
heard of anyone being told or taught to ride against traffic here in
Sweden though. There is a rather dangerous trend herein Sweden to be
more or less reckless, maybe to give a cool impression, I don't know. 
It seems to be majorly uncool to use or even have light on the bike.
Reflectors also are majorly uncool. This trend came alongside the trendy
MTBs which by their style and perfomance alone incourage wreckless riding as
the riders often haven't seen a dirt road on a picture and do their stuff
on whatever obstacle they can find. The Police don't give shit. I guess
it's just up to us drivers to wipe of the blood of the hoods of our
cars our selves. I hate to see a perfectly good bike go to waste though:-).
There! I just had to that out of my system ;-I .

PS Does anyone have an extra roadbike to donate? I just found
a metal fatigue crack in one of the frame tubes on mine... And I
thought Vitus 888 was quality, OK it's 10 years, so what...?
Happy riding!
 Hans Lindberg 
A
A
A
A
From: sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:13:05 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>In article <JOEH.92Sep3150948@ami.sps.mot.com> joeh@ami.sps.mot.com (Joe Hollinger) writes:
>>
>>Actually, the idea behind gasoline taxes is correction of market
>>failure, not necessarily revenue generation. The thought is that
>>people should be forced to account for the damage that they do;
>>otherwise the market encourages behaviors that are economically
>>inefficient. 

>Actually, the idea behind this string is that one group wishes
>to control another group. Just another historical objective of
>people who believe that they have 'the' answer.

But which group are you referring to?  It seems to me that those who
wish to engage in a particular activity, e.g., driving a car or speeding
around a lake in a powerboat, are themselves exercising a form of "control"
over their environment, making the environment unsuitable for many other
alternate forms of usage. The desire to at least make people financially
responsible for the full consequences of their choices seems only fair...

Mark Sandrock
-- 
UIUC Chemical Sciences Computer Ctr.	  "You not only improve in physical
505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801	   fitness by running but [in] your
Email: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu	   character as well." --Zatopek
Xref: sparky rec.bicycles:22021 rec.bicycles.tech:157