- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jeremy Clarkson explores the modern fascination with bicycle lanes
Posted on 8/12/19 at 8:51 am to ItNeverRains
Posted on 8/12/19 at 8:51 am to ItNeverRains
quote:
Your hobby would be a waste of money to 99.5% of the taxpayers.
They should buy bikes and join us then
1
Posted on 8/12/19 at 8:55 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
That takes away space from motor vehicles and requires lower speed limits adjacent to it
boo hoo
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:10 am to Draconian Sanctions
I’m glad you enjoy driving slower and having more congestion on your commute, but I don’t.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:24 am to biohzrd
quote:Staunch Brexit opponent who publicly campaigned against it. You might want to cancel the tailor.
Have Mr. Clarkson fitted for his jacket.
ETA: But a brilliant humorist and comedian. Top Gear is one of my all-time favorite shows. I wish Jezza was a bit less of a cock IRL instead of getting cancelled for punching a producer over a cold meal.
This post was edited on 8/12/19 at 9:41 am
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:29 am to weagle99
Sounds like the same radical shite that plagues every nation. There’s just no room for compromising or finding the middle ground these days. You either have to be wanting to do away with vehicles and revert back to horse and buggy and bicycles for transportation or bikers need to completely frick off. Does it always have to be one or the other? I just don’t get it. I’m not necessarily one of those people with an aversion to change, nor am I one in favor of tearing down everything and going back to the Stone Age, but I just find it counter productive when radicals on either side of issues like this try to change the world or stay permanently fixed in one position for all of eternity. I think the reason these things become so divisive is because nobody is capable anymore of finding a middle ground apparently. fricking radicals are the real enemy of us all.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:34 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Your hobby would be a waste of money to 99.5% of the taxpayers.
They should buy bikes and join us then
This narcissistic response is exactly why 99.5% of taxpayers correctly view cyclists as petty twats.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:44 am to ItNeverRains
I was going to stay out of this thread because I've been a bike commuter in a big east coast city, it was awesome. At the time I wouldn't have been able to afford to drive to work, simply due to the cost of parking.
Anyway, what!!!
Was that $15 million the cost of the entire project??? No way 1/4 mile road expansion is that expensive unless you are building in downtown New York or LA.
Anyway, what!!!
quote:
The cost to the developer was $15,000,000.00. A single turn lane is pretty close to a bike lane in both directions. But the developer will recoup the costs associated. He has many company and private vehicles he was already paying all the above but still incurred the cost for his endeavor.
Was that $15 million the cost of the entire project??? No way 1/4 mile road expansion is that expensive unless you are building in downtown New York or LA.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:47 am to tigahbruh
quote:
This narcissistic response is exactly why 99.5% of taxpayers correctly view cyclists as petty twats.
Advocating for not spending millions of taxpayer dollars for a hobby less than 0.5% of the population indulge in is narcissism?
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:48 am to NOLALGD
quote:
Was that $15 million the cost of the entire project??? No way 1/4 mile road expansion is that expensive unless you are building in downtown New York or LA.
Nashville
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:50 am to ItNeverRains
No he’s saying the fact that the 0.5% want the other 99.5% to conform to them is narcissism
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:51 am to ItNeverRains
quote:
Advocating for not spending millions of taxpayer dollars for a hobby less than 0.5% of the population indulge in is narcissism?
Think of the bigger picture. Why wouldn't you want more people cycling, if the facilities allow for it? Roads with bike lanes allow for vehicular and bike traffic. Wouldn't you want more people getting off their fat asses and biking to work, school, stores, etc. in addition to as a hobby?
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:53 am to Oilfieldbiology
whats your commute? No bike lanes on the interstate for me so
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:57 am to Salmon
quote:
I enjoy the OT constantly complaining about everyone being too fat while simultaneously complaining about people being active
I don't mind people riding bikes. I just don't think every single road in existence should be tax payer funded exercise locations. There should be designated roads where it is allowed, at best.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:59 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
s. I just don't think every single road in existence should be tax payer funded exercise locations. There should be designated roads where it is allowed, at best.
seems like that is what is happening, no?
Posted on 8/12/19 at 10:02 am to Salmon
quote:
seems like that is what is happening, no?
I seem to remember someone getting killed on Perkins Road in an area that a bike should never have been. Yet there was such an uproar from the biking apologists.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 10:04 am to lsu13lsu
maybe if people had designated areas to ride they wouldn't have to ride on roads with vehicles
Posted on 8/12/19 at 10:04 am to Draconian Sanctions
Interstate followed by two lane highways or parish owned roads. Having cyclist requires you to slow down so as to not hit them which then causes the accordion effect that leads to traffic jams.
They can’t ride on the sidewalks as they are not pedestrians, just a vehicle doing between 8-15 mph during rush hour traffic
They can’t ride on the sidewalks as they are not pedestrians, just a vehicle doing between 8-15 mph during rush hour traffic
Posted on 8/12/19 at 10:08 am to Oilfieldbiology
I have no clue who this dude is, but I like him. Unfortunately, he will probably be put in jail for speaking out against the muslim mayor.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 10:15 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Think of the bigger picture. Why wouldn't you want more people cycling, if the facilities allow for it? Roads with bike lanes allow for vehicular and bike traffic. Wouldn't you want more people getting off their fat asses and biking to work, school, stores, etc. in addition to as a hobby?
Because it’s not realistic or cost effective, even though it may feel good. If you want exercise, you can get a used stationary bike for under $50 bucks and hookup a tv to the travel channeland cycle across the world in the comfort of your own home. Fat lazy people won’t become hard working skinny people because we spend billions of tax dollars trying. Progressives have done this for decades.
That said, if your muni has the reserve and voters want it, go for it. We just took the main throughway in our neighborhood from 4 lanes to 2 lanes to add a cycling lane and a walking path. I voted for it. Why? Because it slowed down traffic
Posted on 8/12/19 at 10:23 am to ItNeverRains
quote:
That said, if your muni has the reserve and voters want it, go for it.
This is all we're asking for. Give us a route to take with lanes, protected if possible. No one's saying build a bike lane on every road in the country. Just get a few connected for us and most of us will choose the safer route.
quote:
Fat lazy people won’t become hard working skinny people because we spend billions of tax dollars trying.
Fat and lazy people won't, but your average people might. The university of Colorado did a study on it:
quote:
Researchers looked through 13 years of data from 12 large U.S. cities with high-bicycling mode shares, including Denver, Dallas, Portland, Ore., and Kansas City, Mo. During those years, the United States saw a 51% increase in bicycling to work and the number of protected bike lanes double each year starting in 2009. In a longitudinal study, the researchers investigated over 17,000 fatalities and 77,000 severe injuries.
They also found an increase in cyclists but a decrease in fatal crashes:
quote:
they found that safer cities aren't due to the increase in cyclists, but the infrastructure built for them -- specifically, separated and protected bike lanes. They found that bicycling infrastructure is significantly associated with fewer fatalities and better road-safety outcomes.
Portland, Ore., saw the biggest increase. Between 1990 and 2010, city's bicycle mode share increased from 1.2% to 6%; over the same period, the road fatality rate dropped by 75%. With added bike lanes, fatal crash rates dropped in Seattle (-60.6%), San Francisco (-49.3%), Denver (-40.3%) and Chicago (-38.2%), among others.
ETA: Also, we don't build everything for speed. Otherwise roads would all be straight and have no speed limit. We build for a combination of safety and speed, and safety for cyclists is a part of that. Just like safety for pedestrians and motorists is a part.
This post was edited on 8/12/19 at 10:26 am
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News