[MikeTV]

Have you heard about the Naked Bike Ride? Is anyone thinking of participating in today's event?

The purpose of the event is to:

• Protest against the global dependency on oil
• Curb car culture
• Obtain real rights for cyclists
• Demonstrate the vulnerability of cyclists on city streets
• Celebrate body freedom

Here is some further information:
http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/

The details of the London event are as follows:

Date: Saturday 9 June 2007
Time: 3pm assembly (for 3.30pm departure)
Location: Meet at Hyde Park Corner, north of the statue of Achilles.

Last year they had about 800 participants.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

[*]Protest against the global dependency on oil

Originally Posted by MikeTV

[*]Curb car culture

People like their cars. Otherwise they might choose bicycles.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

[*]Obtain real rights for cyclists

Many cyclists don't even have real lights!
And what about responsibilities? Like insurance, for example?

Originally Posted by MikeTV

[*]Demonstrate the vulnerability of cyclists on city streets

They are small, difficult to see, overtake on the inside 'illegally' and are near silent. What do you expect.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

[*]Celebrate body freedom

How about a naked steamroller day, same day, same route, same time?

[Stephen Wilde]

How about the carbon impact of all those unsaleable second hand bikes ?

They're rebicycleable so no problem.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

People like their cars. Otherwise they might choose bicycles.

How is that a counter? "I want to curb cigarette smoking." -- "People like to smoke, otherwise they'd quit."

Many cyclists don't even have real lights!
And what about responsibilities? Like insurance, for example?

Which are things that could certainly come about with increased rights. When I ride, I expect to be treated with respect. As a part of that expectation, I follow traffic laws, don't overtake cars on the inside, stop at traffic lights, etc. Expanding cyclists rights doesn't just mean educating drivers. It means educating cyclists as well.

They are small, difficult to see, overtake on the inside 'illegally' and are near silent. What do you expect.

So are walkers and joggers. Should they expect a low level of safety?

How about the carbon impact of all those unsaleable second hand bikes ?

That's obviously tongue-in-cheek, but I'm quite enjoying my second-hand bike. Originally built in the early 80s, it serves me quite well after a bit of cleaning and reconstruction.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by EricArk

How is that a counter? "I want to curb cigarette smoking." -- "People like to smoke, otherwise they'd quit."

Your premise is that people should quit driving? That it is akin to smoking? Interesting, I think I can see where this is going.

Originally Posted by EricArk

Which are things that could certainly come about with increased rights. When I ride, I expect to be treated with respect.

Good for you mate.

Originally Posted by EricArk

As a part of that expectation, I follow traffic laws, don't overtake cars on the inside, stop at traffic lights, etc.

Good, that should maximise you safety then, within the obvious limits of safety that riding on busy roads implies.

Originally Posted by EricArk

Expanding cyclists rights doesn't just mean educating drivers. It means educating cyclists as well.

Cyclists are difficult to see, often pay little respect to the rule of law, are near silent and have no crash worthiness. As a result, many will die each year.

Originally Posted by EricArk

So are walkers and joggers. Should they expect a low level of safety?

If they are using the road, then yes. It is my understanding that both walkers and joggers have a lower crash worthiness than motor vehicles.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

Your premise is that people should quit driving? That it is akin to smoking? Interesting, I think I can see where this is going.

Oh, come now. It was just an analogy. He made a statement about changing public perspective, and you offered "some people don't want to" as a counter-argument. Smoking was just the first thing in my head.

Cyclists are difficult to see, often pay little respect to the rule of law, are near silent and have no crash worthiness. As a result, many will die each year.

The first two need to be mitigated by cyclists. Visibility is easy to remedy, and I already addressed the respect for the law. Safety is a concern for auto drivers as well. But, auto safety is highly regulated and encouraged by the government, which helps mitigate the risks (while it is still quite potentially deadly).

The point isn't to force drivers to bend over backwards for cyclists. The point is to educate both parties and develop infrastructure (over time) in order to bring compromise.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by EricArk

Oh, come now. It was just an analogy.

Ok, but it wasn't a very good one mate

Originally Posted by EricArk

He made a statement about changing public perspective, …

No he didn’t.

Originally Posted by EricArk

…and you offered "some people don't want to" as a counter-argument. Smoking was just the first thing in my head.

Mike said that the purpose of the event was to ‘curb car culture’, along with others.
But like I say, many people like driving their cars, otherwise they might ride a bicycle. It’s a very simple observation, but quite pertinent.

Originally Posted by EricArk

The first two need to be mitigated by cyclists.

I agree.

Originally Posted by EricArk

Visibility is easy to remedy, and I already addressed the respect for the law.

Your adherence to the rule of law is admirable However, many cyclists do not share your respect for the highway code, and increase their risk of death on the road as a result.

Originally Posted by EricArk

Safety is a concern for auto drivers as well. But, auto safety is highly regulated and encouraged by the government, which helps mitigate the risks (while it is still quite potentially deadly).

In my view, the best way for a cyclist to increase their crash worthiness is to drive a car.

Originally Posted by EricArk

The point isn't to force drivers to bend over backwards for cyclists. The point is to educate both parties and develop infrastructure (over time) in order to bring compromise.

I don’t know what that means.


My point is that riding a bicycle on a busy road is inherently dangerous. Accept the risk or make another choice.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

Your adherence to the rule of law is admirable However, many cyclists do not share your respect for the highway code, and increase their risk of death on the road as a result.

That's just the way of things, though. It's not a reason to discourage riding. It's a reason to further educate bicyclists and drivers.

In my view, the best way for a cyclist to increase their crash worthiness is to drive a car.

My point is that riding a bicycle on a busy road is inherently dangerous. Accept the risk or make another choice.

Driving a car is (in the US, at least) more deadly than riding a
bike. I've been looking for numbers, but I haven't found a truly reliable study. They range from an even rate (per 1million miles) to cars being 5-6 times more deadly.

Crash worthiness isn't the same as risk of death and injury.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

I don’t know what that means.

I sort of veered off into my own opinions there. What I was saying is that I would like for a bicycle commute to be a more viable alternative to driving. Things like bike lanes and roads with shoulders would be the infrastructure and driver/cyclist education would cover things like visibility, obeying the law, and more.

[Stephen Wilde]

Nice idea in an ideal world but practicality has to come into it somewhere.

I like riding a bike and I'm sad it's so dangerous but the fact is that there are so many people who have to move about more than ever for various reasons.

To achieve what you want would be prohibitively expensive and disruptive for hardly any benefit in overall utility (that word again). Indeed for society as a whole your proposals although sounding attractive would yield huge negative utility.

Nice ideas. Not practical. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Nice idea in an ideal world but practicality has to come into it somewhere.

I like riding a bike and I'm sad it's so dangerous but the fact is that there are so many people who have to move about more than ever for various reasons.

To achieve what you want would be prohibitively expensive and disruptive for hardly any benefit in overall utility (that word again). Indeed for society as a whole your proposals although sounding attractive would yield huge negative utility.

Nice ideas. Not practical. Sorry.

Not practical? It's already a reality. Plenty of people commute on bikes. It's not 50/50 and I highly doubt it will ever be so. What are the numbers in China, I wonder? I say over time, because I believe it will occur over time. More roads, when built or rennovated, will have the added thought of bike commuters. Growing communities of cyclists will increase education among their peers.

I don't expect the government to pass legislation mandating that all roads have a shoulder X meters wide or that every road have a bike lane. There are many roads between two points, and part of being a traveler is choosing the best one. A cyclists incorporates things like elevation, safety, speed limit and others. For a car, it's typically just the quickest way, meaning speed limit, traffic stops, traffic volume, etc. The same roads don't have to have 100% usefulness and safety to both parties. That can occur sometimes, but it's not realistic to expect it all the time.

What am I trying to achieve that is prohibitively expensive? Education would probably be the most valuable change.

Cyclists understanding that riding on the sidewalk is dangerous. Riding too close to parked cars is dangerous. Passing on the right is insanely dangerous. Etc.

Auto drivers understanding that a bike moves faster than you think. Not to pass and immediately turn right. Don't open your door blindly. Etc.

Those bits of information would be a lot more valuable than a bike lane.

[Stephen Wilde]

Good lick with your dream. In principle I support it.

But do you realise how expensive it is to 'educate' anyone ?
Those who will not be educated will have to be coerced.
An entire new public sector organisation will be required nationwide just to make a start then it will find reasons to demand more resources in order to grow exponentially.

No more. Please.

Everyone in China is selling his mother to get a car. There are teams of car thieves and smugglers worldwide shipping to China to satisfy the demand !!

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Good lick with your dream. In principle I support it.

But do you realise how expensive it is to 'educate' anyone ?
Those who will not be educated will have to be coerced.
An entire new public sector organisation will be required nationwide just to make a start then it will find reasons to demand more resources in order to grow exponentially.

No more. Please.

Why does it need to be government mandated? Why can't it just consist of (already existing and growing) awareness groups? Can changes in the public mind only be made by legislation and government subsidization?

[Stephen Wilde]

If it's limited to volountary workers then no objection. Please proceed.

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

If it's limited to volountary workers then no objection. Please proceed.

I'm probably more left-leaning than some, but I'm not a fan of the government doing for us what we can do for ourselves.

[Stephen Wilde]

Nothing wrong with being left leaning. In some areas I am myself but you wouldn't think so from my posts.
It's authoritarians who are the problem.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by EricArk

Why does it need to be government mandated? Why can't it just consist of (already existing and growing) awareness groups? Can changes in the public mind only be made by legislation and government subsidization?

It would appear that many people think so. I do not.

And many 'awareness groups' appear to syphon of money from the government, which in reality means they forcibly remove money from the pockets of hard working mums and dads.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

It would appear that many people think so. I do not.

And many 'awareness groups' appear to syphon of money from the government, which in reality means they forcibly remove money from the pockets of hard working mums and dads.

I guess 'awareness groups' are different in the UK, or we're using the word to apply to different things. I'm just referring to groups of people who come together in order to spread the word about something. They form a website, they tell their coworkers, they buy ads on television. They can, of course, become monsters, but that's true of just about any gathering of people. I don't see how the possibility of an awareness group becoming a tax leech (can you name any I'd be familiar with?) detracts from the actual issue.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by EricArk

I guess 'awareness groups' are different in the UK, or we're using the word to apply to different things. I'm just referring to groups of people who come together in order to spread the word about something. They form a website, they tell their coworkers, they buy ads on television. They can, of course, become monsters, but that's true of just about any gathering of people. I don't see how the possibility of an awareness group becoming a tax leech (can you name any I'd be familiar with?) detracts from the actual issue.

Hi mate,

I didn't realise you were a friend from over the pond. I guess a lot of you guys think Blair is great. Behind the facade though, and behind the spin, we have a socialist government doing their best to relieve us of our freedoms and our pay packets. They do their best to hide it though, as they know full well that if the majority of the public knew, they'd be out on their ear.

All kinds of minority interest groups get public funding in the UK, too numerous to mention.

Cheers,

Damo

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

Hi mate,

I didn't realise you were a friend from over the pond. I guess a lot of you guys think Blair is great. Behind the facade though, and behind the spin, we have a socialist government doing their best to relieve us of our freedoms and our pay packets. They do their best to hide it though, as they know full well that if the majority of the public knew, they'd be out on their ear.

All kinds of minority interest groups get public funding in the UK, too numerous to mention.

Cheers,

Damo

Hrm, not sure how Blair entered the discussion, but oh well I'm not 100% up to speed with UK politics, but I've been under the impression that Blair was a sort of "bait and switch." Promising then utterly terrible.

We have "political action groups" here. I'm pretty sure they get the ability to have donations be tax-exempt, but I don't think they get public funding apart from grants.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by EricArk

Hrm, not sure how Blair entered the discussion, but oh well I'm not 100% up to speed with UK politics, but I've been under the impression that Blair was a sort of "bait and switch." Promising then utterly terrible.

We have "political action groups" here. I'm pretty sure they get the ability to have donations be tax-exempt, but I don't think they get public funding apart from grants.

Charities are tax exempt over here. But many minority interest groups get direct funding from the state, at least during the last ten years.

Sorry to introduce Blair into the conversion, but we get the impression from our state funded media (the BBC that is, don't pay for it you can go to prison), that Blair is loved in the States.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

Charities are tax exempt over here. But many minority interest groups get direct funding from the state, at least during the last ten years.

Sorry to introduce Blair into the conversion, but we get the impression from our state funded media (the BBC that is, don't pay for it you can go to prison), that Blair is loved in the States.

He's probably held in higher regard than our President, among those who know much about him. He also gets more facetime in our media due to the simple fact that he spends more time around Bush than any other world leader. I don't think many Americans know all that much about him. Mostly just: a)he's the Prime Minister of the UK (and very few of us understand how that works), b)he was friendly with both Clinton and Bush (so he must be moderate, right?? ) and c)he's on his way out because people are ****** at him. But, we assume that most of that anger is based on his involvement in Iraq. We're not that informed about the general goings-on in the UK.

Wow...I wanted to post to counter a generalization and I generalized my butt off.

[MikeTV]

Well...anyway...the naked bike ride is done now for another year, and by all accounts it was a huge success

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Well...anyway...the naked bike ride is done now for another year, and by all accounts it was a huge success

In what way mate?

[MikeTV]

Hilarity mainly, I think.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Hilarity mainly, I think.