's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Bicycles in the Media..(45 posts)

Bicycles in the Media..joe friday
Jan 8, 2004 4:19 PM
Are bikes presented as inferior transportation in the
media? i think so.

Comically--for lack of a word... I see soo many
ads depicting bike riding as one of the cool things a
person can do... by buying a new car!

Anybody else?
well, they are inferiorDougSloan
Jan 8, 2004 4:24 PM
I can't very well drive my wife, her mother, baby in a car seat, and all our stuff on a bike. I can't stay dry in the rain. I can't haul home 10 bags of groceries, etc.

For me, and 99.9% of Americans, I'd bet, bikes are not transporation. They are more like running shoes, just more complex and expensive (and fun).

Aren't they?czardonic
Jan 8, 2004 4:30 PM
In many cases, at least.

I think bikes are great for many things, but lets not pretend that grocery shopping for the average family, etc. are among them.

I think "ironically" is the appropriate word -- And it is true that many ads demonstrate the ease with which a given car can transport your bike. But again, how else are most people going to get their mountain bike to the mountains? That simply isn't an option for most.

In the end, independent of whether people think bikes are cool, not many view them as a viable alternative cars. This is reflected in the media.
Jan 8, 2004 6:54 PM
I have a bike set up just for grocery shopping. It's an old Peugeot ATB with full fenders, rack, and 2 of those fold-out wire baskets on the sides. I can carry 2-3 full bags of groceries on it.
I'm sure suburban America will soon beat a path to your door. nmczardonic
Jan 8, 2004 6:58 PM
aloof ignorance isn't anything new..joe friday
Jan 8, 2004 8:09 PM
for *many* of that 99.9% the cost of maintaining a car isn't really the best appropriation of their funds. But it's
all they know, and there is nothing providing an alternative
view. Now this is where the tambourines usually start to
rattle, i'd say if we didn't depend on such an oil economy
Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be a billionare, Saudi Arabia--
home of the highjackers--wouldn't be *a close ally*, and
the environment--not just above LA--would be a whole lot
cleaner. But aloof ignorance isn't anything new, and it's
things like 9/11 that *SHOULD* make people reconsider what
things really cost.
that's not itDougSloan
Jan 8, 2004 8:55 PM
That's a great opportunistic argument, but if we'd just loosen up the environmental extremism in the country we could have all the oil we need. You could equally argue that the "cost" of tree hugger extremism in the US is terrorism...

Extremism?? Great God a-mighty.OldEdScott
Jan 9, 2004 6:13 AM
I have simply GOT to hear your definition of 'environmental extremism!'

I'll happily concede that there are extreme environmentalists out there (Rush's beloved 'whackos') but I would be hard-pressed to ID any extremism (at least in the sense you mean) in the watered-down public policy that passes for 'environmental protection' these days.

There is, I admit, a healthy strain of ANTI-environment extremism incubating in the current White House. But I'm fairly sure that's not your reference.

So please do tell.
oil drillingDougSloan
Jan 9, 2004 7:26 AM
How about no drilling off shore in most places around the US and Alaska, to begin. Some want great portions of Alaska set aside as "pristine," for no good reason -- or at least without recognizing the real cost of doing so.

That's not even arguable.OldEdScott
Jan 9, 2004 7:45 AM
You either see the immense value of keeping pristine lands or you don't. It's like believing in God or not -- you'll never convince anyone intellectually.
Jan 9, 2004 8:17 AM
I do value park lands and not allowing unfettered destruction of the land. However, I see little value in keeping massive areas of land/sea "pristine" for no reason other than anthropomorphizing the land/Earth, thinking it can essentially feel the changes to it. Allow the drilling, but just control the changes, much like the Alaskan pipeline. People just get too extremist about these things.

This is not a matter of faith. I think, to pass laws restricting use of land, you really do need to make rationale, intellectual, factual arguments. Why should this be an exception to that general rule?

Lord, in my whole life I've neverOldEdScott
Jan 9, 2004 8:44 AM
anthropomorphized the earth, nor contended 'it can essentially feel the changes to it.' Where in the world do you get such notions? I don't know a soul who believes such things either. (Maybe some of czar's friends do. Next time the IMF meets, we'll go down and ask them). Otherwise, I'd have to say you've listened to Rush too much. Very few environmentalists are 'whackos.'

I DO, however, see value in wildness for the sake of wildness. Period. I see value in keeping vast tracts of land/sea pristine for the sake of keeping them pristine. Period. I see and feel that value without having or feeling the necessity for an intellectual justification. It is simply there, a reverence for Creation. And I think that's pretty close to faith as I understand it.

If you DON'T feel that, there's no argument I can make that will sway you. Therefore it's not arguable. I can argue specific policies and regulations and approaches for preserving the OTHER 99.99999 percent of the earth that is fair game for human use, if you want. But if you can't see wildness as a virtue sufficient unto itself with no need for further justification, I can't help you.
Lord, in my whole life I've neverSpoiler
Jan 9, 2004 10:00 AM
"Pristine" lands belong in the middle of cities, where people can enjoy them;)
Speaking as a human-hating planet-supremacist. . .czardonic
Jan 9, 2004 11:32 AM
. . .I would never anthropomorphize Earth.
One area where you're really talentedmoneyman
Jan 9, 2004 12:54 PM
In all seriousness, is your prose. I like your writing style, even though I don't agree much with its content.

Much appreciated. (nm)czardonic
Jan 9, 2004 1:06 PM
I tend to agree, it's much like an extravagant balloon. :) nmNo_sprint
Jan 9, 2004 2:06 PM
oil drillingpurplepaul
Jan 9, 2004 7:55 AM
You wouldn't be referring to the ban off Florida that happened under uber-enviro extremist Jeb Bush, would you?

And that crap about Alaska being the answer is hooey. It wouldn't power America for more than ten days.

Oil is bad for our nation and the faster we get on to a homegrown alternative the better. Wind power is the cheapest available power source, if you don't consider hydropower (just about all the good sites have been exploited), it's clean and it wouldn't give one dime to the middle east.

Solar is expensive, but some Italians recently found a way to make solar cells cheaper by a factor of 10 over the current technology. So, its time will come. And what could be better for our security than having millions of little power plants on every home rather than huge facilities that can be taken down with a single bomb or aircraft?

Conservatives are supposed to want to conserve. So how come all I hear from them is to enrich foreign countries for their oil or destroy our environment to get a little oil and then waste it all in unnecessarily inefficient SUV's?

How American is that?
Can't take that seriously53T
Jan 9, 2004 8:46 AM
I can't take any national energy position seriously if it fails to consider nucular power.
Wind power?TJeanloz
Jan 9, 2004 9:33 AM
A group of "conservationists" in Massachusetts are opposed to wind power because it makes their pristine seashore too ugly. They argue that we need wind power, just not near my beach...
And you would be agreeable toOldEdScott
Jan 9, 2004 9:41 AM
an oil rig in your back yard, should someone who owns the mineral rights beneath your property discover it? Doubtful you'd be pleased.

It's as easy to say: TJ argues we need oil, just not in his back yard.

Of COURSE people want to preserve pretty places. Where's the shock? Just because you don't like 'conservationists,' you weigh in with a wholly spurious criticism that demonstrates aboslutely nothing except your contempt for a group of fellow Americans.
If there's oil in the lot, throw a pump in thereTJeanloz
Jan 9, 2004 10:21 AM
I have nothing against "conservationists". I have something against people who say: "we need wind power" - but then complain and decide we don't need it when their front yard happens to be the best place for it. The question is, what place on Earth isn't beautiful (particularly when we're talking about seacoast)? I've been to ANWR, and I didn't think much of it - but it is "too beautiful" to drill. I do have contempt for people who advocate something but won't put their money where their mouths are.

The oil rights situation comes up quite a bit in Colorado and Wyoming, where most people unwittingly do not own the mineral rights beneath their homes. I'd have no problem with an oil rig in the adjacent lot.

I have no problem with conservationists. True conservationists would support a renewable energy source at a cost to their personal view. I would be damn proud to overlook a wind farm. I don't support people who call themselves "conservationist" at charity galas, and then get upset when somebody actually wants to conserve something.
Not "unwittingly"moneyman
Jan 9, 2004 10:28 AM
But not able to do anything about it, except purchase the rights from those who own them. In my little ol' cowtown, a major railroad has virtually all the mineral rights. Its highly unlikely, but if the UP decided that my 150' by 300' lot contained the next big find, they could pay me the trespass fee and move a drilling rig into my back yard. When the crude comes bubbling up, they get the money and I get a nice view of a pump.

I am willing to accept the risk. I have chosen not to pursue purchase of those rights.

In Colorado sprawl,TJeanloz
Jan 9, 2004 10:32 AM
In the Colorado front range sprawl, most of the huge developments don't sell the mineral rights - and most of the buyers are too naive to know that they might buy them.

A lot of people are pretty miffed when a derrick shows up in what they thought was their front lawn.
no surface rights, sometimesDougSloan
Jan 9, 2004 10:42 AM
You can mineral rights without surface rights. Not all the time, but sometimes.
Managing our resources has lead to terrorism??128
Jan 9, 2004 7:59 AM
Is this the 'real cost' you reference?

Seems a bit of a stretch. If anything it's more plausable that mismanaging 'their' oil lead to this terrorism.

Incidently I believe the ME oil situation needs strong domestic and foreign management.
Let's sharpen it: Driving cars led to 9/11.OldEdScott
Jan 9, 2004 9:48 AM
The logic is inescapable, eh?
by the same logic...DougSloan
Jan 9, 2004 10:20 AM
Having babies led to 9/11...
The subject was oilOldEdScott
Jan 9, 2004 10:40 AM
so I suppose babies who grow up to drive cars etc etc
oil did not cause 9/11, people did nmDougSloan
Jan 9, 2004 10:41 AM
Environmental whackos did. nmOldEdScott
Jan 9, 2004 10:52 AM
sure, as much as car drivers didDougSloan
Jan 9, 2004 12:29 PM
If not for environmental whackos, we'd have more abundant nuclear energy, more wind farms, more hydro-electric dams, more geothermal, and more domestic drilling. Preventing the adequate development of these resources is as much of a cause of foreign oil dependency (and therefore terrorism, right?) as using oil. They are both components of the same equation.

Res ipse loquitor. nmOldEdScott
Jan 9, 2004 12:41 PM
Jan 9, 2004 12:46 PM
So the "environmental whackos" are responsible for our energy policy now? Pray tell, why do we use so much oil?

The "environmental whacko" community, such as it is, would have us living by candle-light in yurts. Low impact, man! You gotta simplify.

A couple of rich Easterners complain about a windfarm. . .I guess the entire environmental community is nothing but a bunch of NIMBYs. There is simply no placating these people -- better to just ignore any concern even mildly associated with them.

Don't worry, Doug. Deep down we all know that the American Suburbanite contributes nothing to the world's problems.
sure, as much as car drivers didNo_sprint
Jan 9, 2004 2:14 PM
If not for the environmental whackos, many parts of the government wouldn't have money to exist. Much of it is just a veiled money making scheme. Manufacturing polluters simply pay their fee to the gov't. If the fees were high enough, companies wouldn't pay, they'd actually change their systems. Of course, the gov't won't let it come to that.
Jan 9, 2004 9:16 PM
Driving BIG f**king SUV's led to 9/11.
Jan 9, 2004 8:51 AM
Pristine, wild lands where fully 99.5% of them are essentially inaccessible to a very large majority of Americans, even though they are owned by all Americans. Yet when the issue of tranporting people into the 0.5% that is NOT quite so wild and pristine is debated, a great yowl comes from the environmentalist world claiming the intrusion will destroy the other 99.5%, which by any stretch of the imagination is ludicrous. What am I referring to? Something I have brought up several times in the recent past - snowmobiles in Yellowstone.

Or, for something even more extreme, how about trying to access a Wilderness Area using a non-motorized mechanical device, i.e., a mountain bike? The law doesn't allow it, and that is a direct result of the environmental extremists. Or how about looking at the Sierra Club's goal with regard to mountain bikes in general? Eliminate them from ALL federal lands! Isn't that extremism?

Extremism takes many shapes. While these examples may seem reasonable to you (and I don't know that) they are extreme reactions to me. We are not talking about extracting anything from these areas, but rather merely access to them by more than the hiking public.

Still on the snowmobile thing?czardonic
Jan 9, 2004 10:47 AM
One can only hope that these "extremists" will realize before it is too late that the land available for human uses is perilously inadequate.
I wish you would educate yourself on the whole debate...Brooks
Jan 9, 2004 3:00 PM
because this Yellowstone/snowmobile angle is getting tiresome.
I know plenty about the debatemoneyman
Jan 9, 2004 3:34 PM
Ed asked for examples of environmental extremism, I gave him an example. If you disagree with my opinion, so be it. If you are tired of reading about it, stop. Pretty simple.

Then respond like it...Brooks
Jan 9, 2004 4:19 PM
Your contention that "intrusion will destroy the other 99.5%" is the ludicrous statement. No environmentalist has ever made such a contention. The debate is about the ANIMALS that, because of water source, vegetation, and warmth do tend to stay near the roads (the 0.5%)during the harsh winters. I am quite sure that the rocks, trees, and geothermal features in the other 99.5% are not really harmed.

And if the snowmobile companies had delivered what they promised two years ago (cleaner, quieter machines) instead of the opposite, then there wouldn't be such a "stink" now.
It has not always been about the animalsmoneyman
Jan 9, 2004 9:48 PM
And if you thought about your statement, you would understand how misguided it was. If it was about the animals, then the cleaner machines would not really be a priority.

This is a problem that had been solved. The new machines ARE quieter and cleaner. All visitors must be accompanied by a licensed guide. They have to stay on the roads and not harass the animals. But, and this is to the point of OES's post, the environmentalists were not satisfied with that. They have to have total elimination of snowmobiles, not just the restriction. That, to me, is extremism, especially when a compromise solution had already been worked out. They chose to ignore it.

The animals don't stay near the roads because of "water source, vegetation, and warmth...." They stay near the roads because it is easier to get around on packed snow than in five feet of powder. And, if you have ever been to YNP in the winter, you would know that they are all "harsh."

Wrong again. Another example of the right wing not payingBrooks
Jan 12, 2004 9:17 AM
attention to the facts. Two-stroke snowmobiles burn about 50% of their fuel and the other 50% is spewed out. Oil and gas into the air, onto the snow, gets into the water. Kind of detrimental to the resource don't you think?

If you had been paying attention, you would know that the Bush Administration suspended Clinton's ban on snowmobiles for two years to give the industry a chance to make cleaner and quieter machines. The machines that were tested, provided by the manufacturers, came out WORSE than the machines of two years ago. So a ban on snowmobiles goes into effect. The problem has not been solved.

Yes, I have been in YNP in all times of the year. I stand by my statement about water source, vegetation and warmth. Have you ever seen the dead elk/bison/others in the thermal pools? The animals hang out there exactly for the reasons stated. The roads also happen to be at these prime locations. You are right that the animals use the snow-packed roads because its easier to get around. That might be the best reason to not allow vehicles into the park in the winter. The packed trails/roads lead out of the park and into the gunsights of hunters. I wouldn't have a problem leaving the park alone for the winter except to those on skis or snowshoes.
Jan 9, 2004 12:38 AM

Now that we've got Saddam, we're safe from Al Queda, aren't we??
Terrorists are. -NMjoe friday
Jan 8, 2004 8:16 PM