HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ncherry@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (neil j.cherry)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:33:53 GMT

In article <9=gnj0c.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <sandrock.715040040@leo> sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:
>>>As for punishing people who use cars - damn straight!  They do not pay for
>>>the damage they are causing.
>
	[...]
>
>In other words, automobiles don't coincide with what _you_ think
>is important.

So have we come to conclusions yet? I think basicly I'm seeing a trend towards
I don't want to pay for something I don't do. (At least within limits). This
stuff really confuses me!

(Sarcasm on!)
I think what we ought to do is make all the fat people in big expensive cars
that turn on their car, drive to the end of the driveway get their mail and
drive back to the top of their driveway, ride a plastic narrow racing seated
stationary bike attached to an alky powered 455 500hp dragster motor running
at full speed! And make them pay for it!
(Sarcasm off!)

I have alot of problems with taxation, not so much the tax but the political
body who runs it. Most politicians are concerned about their party and not
about the poeple who they are supposed to work for. Maybe we should tax the
politicians! I have no answers, but I'd be willing to back logical ideas.

NJC

PS If you want real action get involved and you'll find with help you can make
a difference.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: morris@samson.bnr.ca (Morris Bernstein)
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Reply-To: bnrmtl\!morris@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research Montreal, Canada.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 21:38:02 GMT

In article <schinder.715365481@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov> schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>In <1SEP199208502942@xenon.arc.nasa.gov> laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (Soren LaForce) writes:
>
>>In article <12hnx0_.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes...
...
>
>>The real problem I see with wrong side riding is that you are going
>>to appear where you have NO business being.  I mean, forget the law, car
>>drivers just aren't expecting you at intersections, driveways, etc.
>
>Exactly.

Amen.

The city where I live (Montreal) recently set up two-way bike lane
(well, two lanes for the terminally pedantic) on a one-way street (de
Maisoneuve).  It's completely legal in this case, but the path is so
new that most local drivers haven't internalized the change.  I had a
near misses with another cyclist when I was riding on a street
crossing the path.  I usually drive/ride more defensively than this,
but it was an easy mistake to make (does this sentence sound
defensive?).

When I take my bike to work, I go parallel to this path on a much
busier street (Sherbrooke) one block over.  I'm much more comfortable
keeping up with the rush-hour traffic (the lights are synchronized to
40 km/h) on the busy street than riding this narrow bike path.

But I'm not completely against bike paths.  We have a nice route
(along the Lachine canal) which I take when I want to go a longer way
home.  It's completely segregated (?) from traffic and from all but
the most die-hard pedestrians.  It's a really nice ride on weekdays
and early weekend mornings.

Weekend afternoons on nice days are another story.  The path gets
really crowded and you _have_ to slow down.  It's a good time to have
a nice relaxing ride with my (much slower) wife.


Morris
--
Morris Bernstein		 phone:	(514) 765-8275
Bell Northern Research Ltd. 	 fax:	(514) 765-0500
worldnet: bnrmtl!morris@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
"Knowlege is a mind-expanding drug."
From: sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:46:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: leo.sandrock.715452399
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes...
>> 
>>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.

I checked a couple of running books, such as Jim Fixx's Book On Running,
and found that they do strongly recommend running/jogging *against*
traffic for reasons of safety. The only exception mentioned was the case
of a blind curve, when the recommendation was to run on the outside of
the curve rather than the inside, regardless of traffic direction.

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: sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:54:51 GMT

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

>sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:
>>
>>Americans seem to have extremely poor cardiovascular health overall, and one
>>reason is surely our over-reliance on the auto to get everywhere.

>It's nice of you to decide what America's health and welfare should be.

Hey, I think people should be healthy. Radical concept, I'll agree! ;-)

>>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.

>Yes indeed we sure see _your_ point. If you don't like, no-one should
>like it. Screw everyone else's freedoms because you have the inside
>line on truth.

That's exactly the attitude I see many people taking: *IIIII* want to get
my kicks zooming around the lake, and the heck with how anyone else feels
about it. The heck with *their* rights to enjoy the beauty and tranquility
of the natural environment. One person can destroy the enjoyment of many
other people, but, hey, this is AMERICA, I got my RIGHTS!! It used to
work that way with cigarette smoking in public too, but fortunately we
wised up enough to put the kibosh on that nonsense.

Many Americans seem to feel they have the RIGHT to despoil the natural
environment, and they can get quite indignant if anyone suggests otherwise.

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: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Pickup Truck Gets Revenge in a Civilized Fashion
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:38:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.193520.1916@adobe.com> byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer) writes:
>
>But, I must admit, when I'm feeling *really* nasty, I'll
>just *slowly* ride over a 101 overpass at 5:30pm and wave
>at all the silly cagers down below.

Yes, what a great feeling.  (And the cagers believe that line from
the car ads that "cars are freedom"!  Funny how the ads always
show cars zooming on wide open roads, never idling in traffic...)

But you don't want to stay up there too long - all that pollution
won't do your lungs any good (doesn't do their lungs any good either,
but what do THEY use their lungs for anyway?)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - BNR don't bike
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: joeh@ami.sps.mot.com (Joe Hollinger)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: none
	<1992Aug29.001326.16446@u.washington.edu> <cagnw1d.tomk@netcom.com>
Distribution: na
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:16:16

In article <cagnw1d.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>   If youwant to know the _major_ polution hazard in the world just
>   try thinking the next time you flush! Or use the washing machine.
>   Or wash your hands. 

This is absolute b.s. Unless your body is producing some pretty
sensational waste products, there is simply no comparison between the
cost and danger associated with automotive produced pollution and
those contained in domestic waste. The fact is that domestic sewage
can be effectively treated by low cost, low technology methods
(bacteria eats it, after all). Can you say the same thing about
automotive emissions?
From: Center for Conservation Biology <conbio@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:20 PDT
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: 
Nf-ID: #R:locher.715121889@pv1648.vincent.:-1087874833:cdp:1702500003:000:612
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!conbio    Aug 31 15:20:00 1992



As a bicyclist who also occasionally drives a car, I feel
compelled to point out that riding on the wrong side of
the road (i.e. opposing traffic) is (1) not what drivers
EXPECT to see on the road but also (2) against the traffic code
and a citable traffic violation.  A friend of mine was actually
cited by a policeperson for riding on the wrong side of a road
which lacked bike lanes.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
Kathy Switky
CONBIO@igc   *or*   KRSWIT@leland.stanford.edu

Rsometimes we live no particular way but our own...S
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Xref: sparky rec.bicycles.soc:85 nyc.general:105 ny.general:290
From: eravin@panix.com (Ed Ravin)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc,nyc.general,ny.general
Subject: Manhattan Parking Garages With Bicycle Parking
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:00:18 GMT
Organization: Transportation Alternatives

Manhattan Garages with Bicycle Parking Facilities

Municipal Garages -- bike racks are within view of attendant's booths
1 Police Plaze (underground garage)
53rd St between 8th Ave / Broadway
Essex Street (Rivington / Grand? better info forthcoming)

Private Garages -- thanks to an effort by Transportation Alternatives and
the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs, a trial program is underway where
bicycle parking is available at private garages.  Some of these garages
charge up to $2.50 per day for parking, others are free.  Call Square Parking
(212 247 3261) or Rudin Management (212 644 8544) for details.

Open Now
---------
839 6th Ave (29th / 30th Streets)
30 Park Ave (36th St)
345 Park Ave (52nd St)

Open After Labor Day, 1992
--------------------------
112 W 25th St (6th Ave)
330 W 44th St (8th / 9th Ave)
810 7th Ave (52nd St)
1 West End Ave (60th St)

Transportation Alternatives is NYC's environmental transportation
advocacy group, focusing on bicycling, auto-reduction, and improvement
of mass transit.  For sample copies of our two newsletters, "NY City Cyclist"
and "Auto-Free Press", send 52 cents in stamps to Transportation Alternatives,
92 St Marks Place, New York, NY 10009.  You can also send email to
transalt@igc.org or eravin@panix.com, or call (212) 475-4600.
-- 
Ed Ravin            | I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology
eravin@panix.com    | where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature
philabs!trintex!elr | returned to our mammal brothers and sisters,
+1 914 993 4737     | and all watched over by machines of loving grace
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: jennings@lhotse.stortek.com (Jeff Jennings)
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Organization: Storage Tek
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:16:11 GMT

Paul J. Schinder (schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: I wouldn't be so sure if I were you.  The average car in the US is
: used for around 10000 miles a year.  If the average bike goes only 200
: miles it's within a factor of 50.

This is true for an average car and an average bike.  However, the discussion
was about "Total" miles for cars vs. bikes.  The above comparison only 
remains valid if the number of cars is roughly the same as the number of
bikes.  Somehow, I don't think this is true.

This doesn't make your conclusion invalid.  For instance, if there were 10 times
as many cars as bikes, but each bike travelled 2000 miles per year, your
conclusion would be justified.  It's the ratio of the total miles travelled, not
the ratio of the averages, that is important.

- jeff

--
Jeff Jennings              | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
Jeff_Jennings@stortek.com  | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
Storage Technology         | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
Iceberg - LSVL 2A          | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
From: roberth@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Harrison)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:46:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep3.204634.4199
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep3.154300.16289@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> madine@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.173449.10789@u.washington.edu>, roberth@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Harrison) writes:
>> ....  I have no doubt
>> that a good bike path is safer than the road for a careful rider.
>> 
>
>Only as long as the careful rider rides around in circles on a fully
>separated "bikepath".
>
>What you didn't consider was the increase in danger to the bikepath cyclist
>(of any level of experience) presented by the intersection of 
>bikepaths with roadways.  These intersections include driveways and  parking
>lot entrances as well as the roadway itself.  Bicycle ROAD
>accident statistics have been analyzed with the experience of the bicycle
>operator normalized out.  They show that intersections are
>where nearly all the motor vehicle-bicycle accidents occur.
>
>Bikepaths are by design only helpful in reducing the motor vehicle-overtaking-
>and-striking-bicycle accident.  In retun for this pitiful safety improvement,
>bikepaths do at best nothing to reduce the exposure of cyclists to
>intersections.  More usually, bikepaths add MORE intersections; 
>bypass relatively safe road/road intersections in favor of a grossly unsafe
>bikepath/road intersection; and often mislead bicycle operators into
>making grossly unsafe maneuvers.

I've taken some heat from a few respondents on this point.  I just want to
point out that I did say "a GOOD bikepath".  I guess we are blessed here
in Seattle--a lot of our paths run along lakes or rivers, minimizing the
need for too many intersections.  Though there are sections of biketrails
I avoid.
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (Soren LaForce)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:50:00 GMT

In article <schinder.715380802@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>, schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes...
>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:
>>>| 

bandwidth reduction.

> 
>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.
> 


When I was in high school, my drivers ed teacher had worked for the Kansas
highway dept.  They had done a study of car-pedistrian accidents.  He
claimed that it was about 50-50, walking with and against traffic.  I 
was somewhat sceptical, since it was "obvious" to me that seeing the 
oncomming traffic "had" to be safer.  What he pointed out was that when 
a car pulls out of a driveway, they look left not right, because there
is no traffic (except for pedistrians walking into traffic) from the
right.  The two seemed to just about cancel out (in Kansas 30 years
ago).


--Soren            laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Subject: Shoreline Overpass Opening Event
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:34:11 GMT


Anyone in the South Bay...

What:  "Grand Opening" of Shoreline/101 Overpass
Where: Shoreline over 101 in Mountain View
When:  Friday, September 25 at 9:45 a.m.
Why:   To "celebrate" the opening of the "new & improved"
       overpass.  A *great* photo-opportunity for
       bicycle commuting.

Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC) would like 
as many bike commuters as possible to show up for 
the opening of the rebuilt Shoreline/101 overpass. 
 While the new structure may be somewhat safer for 
bikes than the old one, there still appear to be 
several safety improvements that could be made 
(example: dashed bike lanes between thru and exit 
lanes to allow thru cyclists to safely change 
lanes).  A large cyclist turnout at this event 
(you don't have to stay long) would help SVBC's 
efforts to secure these additional safety 
improvements.

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roberth@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Harrison)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:34:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep2.173449.10789
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>>>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
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.

"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics"  (Mark Twain,
probably not the exact quote, but the right sense)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: woycke@smiley.mitre.org (Daniel Woycke)
Subject: Re: Welcome to rec.bicycles.soc
Summary: Sociopaths 
Keywords: Soc, Sociopaths
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:23:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.053138.15536@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest) writes:
>I'm pleased to see that this group is alive and well.
>Here is the charter, in case you don't remember.
>
>rec.bicycles.soc: Social issues, cycling transportation advocacy,
>laws, conduct of riders and drivers; road hazards such as potholes,
>dogs, and sociopaths.
>
>--
>Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
>Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
>UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

So, thats what it stands for... rec.bicycles.soc(iopaths)... :)

Thank you,

Daniel W. Woycke             |"I went out drinking with Thomas 
The MITRE Corporation	     |Paine..." -- Billy Bragg
7525 Colshire Drive (MS Z213)|"But I am still thirsty..."
McLean, VA   22102           |-- Arrested Development
woycke@mitre.org, woycke@smiley.mitre.org
From: Dave Snyder <davesnyder@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:55 PDT
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: 
Nf-ID: #R:locher.715121889@pv1648.vincent.:-1087874833:cdp:1702500002:000:378
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!davesnyder    Aug 29 21:55:00 1992


To me, the biggest argument against riding on the wrong side of
the road is that the wrong-way rider endangers *other cyclists.*

When a wrong-way rider comes straight at me in the curb lane, I'm forced
to swerve into the car traffic lane, or just be confused and perhaps 
run into the cyclist, which would be no fun at all.

Wrong way riders endanger other cyclists.

/dave
,.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:21:38 GMT


Joe Hollinger wrote:
>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 gasoline taxes is to generate revenue to
build more roads so that there will be more motor vehicles so that
the whole petroleum/motor vehicle business can get larger.  If the
purpose were *really* to compensate for the motor vehicle
infrastructure and environmental damage, gas taxes would be several
dollars per gallon.

Now Tom 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.

Yes, but the group in control is not the one that Tom seems to have in
mind -- it is the petroleum/motor vehicle establishment that calls the
shots and has been doing so for the last 60+ years.

--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: joeh@ami.sps.mot.com (Joe Hollinger)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: none
	<1vln1f-.tomk@netcom.com>
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:09:48

In article <1vln1f-.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>   In article <mellon.715392976@pepper> mellon@iti.org (Ted Lemon) writes:
>   >
>   >Actually, the tax rate in the U.S. is lower than in any other
>   >industrialized nation.
>
>   Is this suppose to give us the idea that we can stand yet more taxation?
>   I don't notice businesses in Great Britain nor France doing so hot with
>   their massive taxation.

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. Gas tax forces polluters to pay for the damage that they
do, therefor they factor in the cost of those damages when they make
decisions such as how far to live from work and what kind of car to
buy. You don't have to increase the overall tax burden to get the
desired effect either. Revenue that would have been raised in income
tax can be generated as gas tax.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc