If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KGW Portland)   State Rep. thinks that heavy breathing caused by cycling leads to global warming. Kittens sigh in relief   (kgw.com) divider line 168
    More: Fail, Northwest, bike shop, cultural bias, KGW  
•       •       •

8993 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2013 at 7:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-03 04:08:10 PM

LavenderWolf: Grow and bury trees. Trees suck up a lot of carbon, and if you ensure the tree doesn't rot or burn above ground, CO2 sequestered. Obviously some will seep out, but that's why you just keep doing it. It's not like trees are a finite resource - you can just keep growing 'em.


It has the potential to work, although it sounds like an energy-intensive solution to me. Has the benefit that you can do it anywhere -- you're not limited to capturing CO2 at its source. But you'd have to bury a LOT of trees very deep. Seems like it would involve untenable amounts of energy.
 
2013-03-03 05:18:04 PM
We had to license our bicycles in Hawaii. I'm not sure why more states don't require it. It really does make sense and it is fair for all parties.

They get a bit of revenue to help with maintenance like painting lines on bike lanes etc. The bicycles are registered so theft is easier to deal with because people actually have their serial numbers (most folks don't bother for some reason and get pissy when their shiat is unrecoverable) and gee, by insisting on licensing, you force people to acknowledge the laws regarding helmets (if there are any local ones) riding on sidewalks etc. so they can't claim ignorance and you get clean revenue.

You also mitigate some of the animosity non-cyclists and cyclists feel because things are a bit more "fair" then it comes to paying for things like road maintenance etc.

Lets just licence bikes for 10 bucks a year or even two and call it good.
 
2013-03-03 05:20:41 PM

Kensey: Repo Man: You consider a $500.00 bicycle a luxury? How many decades has it been since you've shopped for a bicycle?

Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.


My Kikapu has about 1200 in Luxury built in thank you very much.
 
2013-03-03 06:05:34 PM

thamike: FloydA: thamike: [i105.photobucket.com image 350x241]

What the hell?

Not kidding.  Google "Alfred Hamilton Billboard" or "Chehalis Billboard" for more interesting examples.

It wasn't the hatred that was shocking so much as the assumption that Mexico doesn't compete in the Olympics.


Eh, 1 gold, 3 silver, 3 bronze in 2012? They DON'T compete in the Olympics. Hell, Azerbaijan creamed them. And how many Azerbaijani medalists can *you* name without the Googles?
 
2013-03-03 07:44:17 PM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


Bikes take less space to drive and I couldn't imagine the amount of bike traffic you'd need to ever wear out a road. Couple this with less of a need to plan the routes due to speed limit considerations and the overall package is far in favor of bikes. Not only that, it takes far less petroleum to build and service bikes. I recall reading the same or some other study making the same claims, but there is a net positive for bikes in terms of long-term CO2 expenditures. If we really want to go with CO2 taxes (which I could go either way for non-industrial usage) cars should see a big tax, beyond the measly gasoline tax.

My city is getting more bicycle-friendly, but it's still not there. I'd be in favor of a license if I knew it was going to go toward improving and expanding the bike lanes, and I wouldn't drive it much more than just to work (next door) and to the convenience store down the street. Then again, the roads we have expanded for bike lanes are poorly done, and I don't expect the asphalt to last too long.
 
2013-03-04 12:22:22 AM
Kensey:Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.

Any new bike that is going to get you any decent distance and not fall to pieces in a month or two is going to run you at least $700.
 
2013-03-04 01:36:09 AM
An indirect tax on breathing.   *blink*

i48.tinypic.com
Oh, Republicans!  Always coming up with new ways to make my head asplode.
 
2013-03-04 03:19:05 AM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


What about people who consume the extra calories, then drive instead of running or bicycling?
 
2013-03-04 03:21:21 AM

pciszek: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

What about people who consume the extra calories, then drive instead of running or bicycling?


They're fat.
 
2013-03-04 04:38:34 AM

untaken_name: pciszek: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

What about people who consume the extra calories, then drive instead of running or bicycling?

They're fat.


not necessarily, they could be purging
 
2013-03-04 05:06:58 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: untaken_name: pciszek: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

What about people who consume the extra calories, then drive instead of running or bicycling?

They're fat.

not necessarily, they could be purging


Good point. Horrible mental image, but good point.
 
2013-03-04 07:45:58 AM
i26.photobucket.com
And its a great way to kill the planet...
 
2013-03-04 07:50:09 AM
fortunately running is ok
 
2013-03-04 01:13:36 PM

johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.


Agreed. I wouldn't mind paying taxes for better bike lanes.
 
2013-03-04 02:13:27 PM

BradleyUffner: Kensey:Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.

Any new bike that is going to get you any decent distance and not fall to pieces in a month or two is going to run you at least $700.


So a $370 Trek is significantly worse quality than the $300 1994 Diamondback that I used for three years and sold for a decent price?
 
2013-03-04 02:17:56 PM

Kensey: BradleyUffner: Kensey:Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.

Any new bike that is going to get you any decent distance and not fall to pieces in a month or two is going to run you at least $700.

So a $370 Trek is significantly worse quality than the $300 1994 Diamondback that I used for three years and sold for a decent price?


Oops, I linked the wrong bike up top.  This is the one I was looking at.
 
2013-03-04 02:28:56 PM
Kensey:So a $370 Trek is significantly worse quality than the $300 1994 Diamondback that I used for three years and sold for a decent price?

The first bike I bought as an adult was a $350 Diamondback mountain bike.  The rear axle broke twice and the frame was bent within 1.5 years (professionally repaired each time).  I never did anything remotely "mountain" with it; the closest being some gravel paved rail trails.  The vast majority of use was on nice paved streets.  The 3 $700+ bikes I've bought since have all seen FAR more daily use and have each been in perfect working order for at least 3 years each.
 
2013-03-04 10:10:21 PM
What a blithering dolt. Double castrate him.
 
Displayed 18 of 168 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report