Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

[donquijote1954]

Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
drivers.

It's very fitting what this quote applies to frequent flyers...

"Such wanton disregard for the environment must become as socially
unacceptable as drunk driving."

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1152757.0.0.php

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION? ;)
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
> their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
> what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
> scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
> drivers.

I have never had tinted windows, but I think they want them for privacy.
Maybe the built in TV sets and GPS screens need to block the light for the
best picture. I know the sunlight often makes it hard for me to read a GPS
screen.

There are regulations at least in California limiting the darkness of the
side front windows so that the police can look in. The last I saw, the
average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
introduction of SUV's. Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with
decent gas mileage.

> It's very fitting what this quote applies to frequent flyers...

Frequent flyers are usually doing it for business reasons. Almost all of
them would prefer to cut their amount of flying, but can't without losing
business.

Travel in general is a function of the strength of the economy. So to have
lots of jobs, travel is needed.

Trying to same energy with bike or what ever is a dead end non-solution
anyway. The oil will still run out even if you use less of it. The only
real solution is the development of new alternative energy sources.

[John Everett]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:43:57 -0800 (PST), donquijote1954
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
>misanthropism?

I find the tinted windows in my SUV (Mercedes-Benz ML 320) do a
pretty good job of hiding the fact that I'm hauling my bikes, which
are standing upright in the back courtesy of a Bike-Tight Glider
Board.


--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

[drydem]

On Dec 10, 5:43 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
> their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
> what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
> scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
> drivers.
>


SUV
------
Beyond few select hybrid SUVs, e.g. Ford Escape Hybrid, all SUVs are
gas guzzlers.

Tinted windows
----------------------
Tinted windows on motor vehicles have two purposes of
which the main use is privacy. A secondary purpose in
temperate regions when the vehicle is equiped with
an air conditioner is to make it easier for the air conditioner
to cool the vehicle. Certain states have laws restricting
the level darkness/opaqueness of a tinted windshield
but these laws are rarely enforced. When I was growing
up tinted windshields was either associated with
secret agents and drug dealers - however, today
in the Washington DC area - tinted windows are very
commone - especially on SUVs. With respect to
the driver's intentions, many cars also have
tinted windows - such that the driver is not visible from
the outside. In certain areas, that means if the
police stops a car with tinted windows rolled up
the officer will have his side arm drawn until the
driver rolls down the window. Drivers who act
suspiciously or too quickly as the roll down their
tinted windows might invoke an officer to think of
firing his side arm. So drivers with tinted windows
should acted very slowly and cautiously as the
roll down their tinted windows for the police officer
- better yet drivers with tinted windows might
consider rolling down their tinted windows on
the drivers door before the police officer arrives
to the side of their car. With vehicles where one
can't see the driver because of tinted windows, the
vehicle's size, or other obstructions - other drivers must
judge another vehicle's intentions by how it is being
driven ( its direction, speed, lights, position in the
road). As the roadways become more congested,
there is a greater likelihood the roadway will see
more aggressive driving as well as drivers who
ignore safety and local traffic laws. Safe driving
means watching out for everyone and everything
out on the road - be the sane or insane.

Biking
--------
When I was young I tried to get to my high
school using my bike along the main major
road in my neighborhood but I got ran off the
road by speeding cars. I also got killed trying
to do that - so I never tried it again. In
those days, the shoulder of the road was
a rough gravelly surface such that a bike
at any speed would tip over if one tried
to ride over it ( there was no such thing as
a mountain bike in those days). At the time,
there weren't any bike paths along any of
the major roadways and the shoulders
were unusable for biking. The lanes in the
roadway were not wide enough to accomodate
bikes or pedestrians an the rushing oncoming
motor vehicles. At one time, I missed the last
bus to my home and I had to walk home
on the side of the road at night to get home
as I was walking home some of the cars almost hit
me. A police officer came by later that night
and gave me a lift home that night - because
someone had called the police - citing I was
a road hazard. Today my area has a bike/pedestrian
pathway along the major roads and road shoulders
are a smooth surface - so its actually safer to
walk or bike along the road. However, motorized bikes
need to be able to go at about 50 mph at certain
times to keep up with the traffic on some parts
of the major roadway - so scooters are not
viable option in my area if you want to go
on the major roadways. Other problems with
biking is that the local shopping centers prohibit bikes
(as well as skateboards, roller skates, etc)
The owner of the local shopping center told me
that he prohibits the use of bikes on his
property due to insurance reasons.
So the only place in the center of town with
a bike rack to park your bike is the local public library.

[David L. Johnson]

Jack May wrote:


> The last I saw, the
> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> introduction of SUV's.

You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.

> Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with
> decent gas mileage.

So, with fancy technology a bigger-than-sane car can get half the
mileage as my old '94 Honda Civic CX (40 mpg -- really). Such advancement.

--

David L. Johnson

I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our
educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely,
if not entirely, the use of textbooks
-- Thomas Edison, 1922

[Pat]

On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> > misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
> > their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
> > what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
> > scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
> > drivers.
>
> I have never had tinted windows, but I think they want them for privacy.
> Maybe the built in TV sets and GPS screens need to block the light for the
> best picture. I know the sunlight often makes it hard for me to read a GPS
> screen.
>
> There are regulations at least in California limiting the darkness of the
> side front windows so that the police can look in. The last I saw, the
> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> introduction of SUV's. Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with
> decent gas mileage.
>
> > It's very fitting what this quote applies to frequent flyers...
>
> Frequent flyers are usually doing it for business reasons. Almost all of
> them would prefer to cut their amount of flying, but can't without losing
> business.
>
> Travel in general is a function of the strength of the economy. So to have
> lots of jobs, travel is needed.
>
> Trying to same energy with bike or what ever is a dead end non-solution
> anyway.

The oil will still run out even if you use less of it. The only
> real solution is the development of new alternative energy
sources.

Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it will
get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices get
higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes take over
the demand.

As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable. At
some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a matter of
time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive oil will sit
in the ground.

[George Conklin]

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b6udncRXnuuQQMDanZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> > misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
> > their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
> > what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
> > scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
> > drivers.
>
> I have never had tinted windows, but I think they want them for privacy.
> Maybe the built in TV sets and GPS screens need to block the light for the
> best picture. I know the sunlight often makes it hard for me to read a
GPS
> screen.
>
> There are regulations at least in California limiting the darkness of the
> side front windows so that the police can look in. The last I saw, the
> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> introduction of SUV's. Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with
> decent gas mileage.
>
> > It's very fitting what this quote applies to frequent flyers...
>
> Frequent flyers are usually doing it for business reasons. Almost all of
> them would prefer to cut their amount of flying, but can't without losing
> business.
>
> Travel in general is a function of the strength of the economy. So to
have
> lots of jobs, travel is needed.
>
> Trying to same energy with bike or what ever is a dead end non-solution
> anyway. The oil will still run out even if you use less of it. The only
> real solution is the development of new alternative energy sources.
>
>

NC has laws on tinted windows and they must pass inspection, be they on cars
or trucks.

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> > misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
> > their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
> > what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
> > scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
> > drivers.
>
> I have never had tinted windows, but I think they want them for privacy.
> Maybe the built in TV sets and GPS screens need to block the light for the
> best picture. I know the sunlight often makes it hard for me to read a GPS
> screen.

Maybe they are watching movies while they drive. Who knows what's
going on in there besides the cell phones being permanently attached
to their ears.

>
> There are regulations at least in California limiting the darkness of the
> side front windows so that the police can look in. The last I saw, the
> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> introduction of SUV's. Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with
> decent gas mileage.

Decent gas mileage but still deadly to other people.

>
> > It's very fitting what this quote applies to frequent flyers...
>
> Frequent flyers are usually doing it for business reasons. Almost all of
> them would prefer to cut their amount of flying, but can't without losing
> business.

I'm not picking on them, but I think the article talks about those who
do it casually or unnecessarily.
-
>
> Travel in general is a function of the strength of the economy. So to have
> lots of jobs, travel is needed.

I'm sure some of that travel to China could be avoided if we kept our
jobs here. Merchant ships I'm sure are a problem.

BUT THIS IS "THE ISSUE"...

>
> Trying to same energy with bike or what ever is a dead end non-solution
> anyway. The oil will still run out even if you use less of it. The only
> real solution is the development of new alternative energy sources.

You are just repeating what the "Supreme Leader" says: The solution is
into high tech, which is coming soon...

Well, sorry to tell him we have the technology now and it's not high
tech.

Scooters get 80MPG, and don't add to traffic congestion.

Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
safer roads...

1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.

2- They are healthy, so we keep the Medical Industry on a diet.

3- They are here now, not sometime in the future.

[Jack May]

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote in message
news:qb2dnaqZgKcacsDanZ2dnUVZ_oimnZ2d@ptd.net...
> Jack May wrote:
>
>
>> The last I saw, the average MPG did not change over the last couple of
>> decades with the introduction of SUV's.
>
> You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They are
> classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
>> Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with decent gas mileage.
>
> So, with fancy technology a bigger-than-sane car can get half the mileage
> as my old '94 Honda Civic CX (40 mpg -- really). Such advancement.

It looks like the EPA adjusted MPG report includes SUVs (light trucks) and
the average fuel economy has been steady at about 20 MPG. I don't think it
is just reporting CAFE data

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r07008.pdf

See pages i and ii with a graph of cars, trucks, and both on page iii

[John Everett]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
<david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:

>Jack May wrote:
>
>
>> The last I saw, the
>> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
>> introduction of SUV's.
>
>You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
>specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
>are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.

Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.


--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

[Jack May]

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:bba85911-23b6-46c3-b13b-3714915e9e6a@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it will
> get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices get
> higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes take over
> the demand.
>
> As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable. At
> some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a matter of
> time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive oil will sit
> in the ground.

Certainly true.

There are reports though that we are late already and the alternative energy
sources will not be ramped up in time. Of course shortages will cause a lot
of alternative fuel production to ramp up quickly. Maybe we will make the
transition by the thinnest of margins without shutting down the US economy.
It will be a cliff hanger.

[Jym Dyer]

> It looks like the EPA adjusted MPG report includes SUVs
> (light trucks) and the average fuel economy has been
> steady at about 20 MPG.

=v= Of course we've just gone though a decade and a half
of inaccurately-higher and misleadingly-improving ratings
along with marketing campaigns praising these SUVs to the
skies.
<_Jym_>

[David L. Johnson]

Jack May wrote:
> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote in message
> news:qb2dnaqZgKcacsDanZ2dnUVZ_oimnZ2d@ptd.net...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The last I saw, the average MPG did not change over the last couple of
>>> decades with the introduction of SUV's.
>> You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
>> specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They are
>> classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>>
>>> Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with decent gas mileage.
>> So, with fancy technology a bigger-than-sane car can get half the mileage
>> as my old '94 Honda Civic CX (40 mpg -- really). Such advancement.
>
> It looks like the EPA adjusted MPG report includes SUVs (light trucks) and
> the average fuel economy has been steady at about 20 MPG. I don't think it
> is just reporting CAFE data

What the EPA report includes is one thing, the requirement was for the
CAFE to rise to something like 27mpg by the early years of this century
(or late in the previous one). The US car makers managed this by
classifying many cars as "light trucks", exempting them from the
requirements. And it's not just Hummers that were suddenly declared
trucks in order to help the CAFE numbers, but also the PT cruiser,
Subaru Outback, and a slew of other cars. That's why you see a rise of
% of light-duty vehicles being called "trucks", from 19% to 49%. It
ain't that we're all moving back to the farm. And to suggest that the
public just wanted these trucks rather than cars is also specious.
Marketing created the desire for suburbanites to suddenly want to drive
a truck to work.

I love the screaming headlines in the report, though: "Highlight #1:
Fuel Economy Increases in 2005 and 2006 Reverse the Long-Term Trend of
Declining Fuel Economy From 1987 Through 2004." According to their own
data, the average fuel economy from 1997 to 2007 increased from 20.1 to
20.2 mpg. Impressive.

To get back to the original point, indeed the average fuel economy,
among cars and trucks, has decreased since 1987. This is despite the
much-hyped hybrids, which caused only a minor bump, not close to
bringing us back to the conservation "peak" of the late 80s.

The data of the mid-70s is also skewed by the way in which Detroit dealt
with pollution requirements at that time. Engines were de-tuned to not
produce too much of the emissions that were being tested for. Looking a
the graph from this report you see a huge jump in fuel economy when
catalytic converters finally took over.

--

David L. Johnson

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NNCdnXuRqORghcPanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:bba85911-23b6-46c3-b13b-3714915e9e6a@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it will
>> get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices get
>> higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes take over
>> the demand.
>>
>> As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable. At
>> some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a matter of
>> time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive oil will sit
>> in the ground.
>
> Certainly true.
>
> There are reports though that we are late already and the alternative
> energy sources will not be ramped up in time. Of course shortages will
> cause a lot of alternative fuel production to ramp up quickly. Maybe we
> will make the transition by the thinnest of margins without shutting down
> the US economy. It will be a cliff hanger.

The thing is, if we insist on developing and traveling in the most wasteful
manner possible, the sheer amount that will have to be produced to fill the
gap will be much larger. If we can do some things now to rein in our own
wastefulness, the task will be much easier.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <NNCdnXuRqORghcPanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:bba85911-23b6-46c3-b13b-3714915e9e6a@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> ..
> > On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.
> >> com...
> > Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it
> > will get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices
> > get higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes
> > take over the demand.
> >
> > As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable.
> > At some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a
> > matter of time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive
> > oil will sit in the ground.
>
> Certainly true.
>
> There are reports though that we are late already and the alternative
> energy sources will not be ramped up in time. Of course shortages
> will cause a lot of alternative fuel production to ramp up quickly.
> Maybe we will make the transition by the thinnest of margins without
> shutting down the US economy. It will be a cliff hanger.

Nope, it's too late. The window of opportunity is closed. Oil wars are
the trend of the future. Buckle up. The US economy will be ****ed
beyond all recognition. But it it's any consolation, so will the
Chinese economy.

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 12:54 am, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu>
wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
> > "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu> wrote in message
> >news:qb2dnaqZgKcacsDanZ2dnUVZ_oimnZ2d@ptd.net...
> >> Jack May wrote:
>
> >>> The last I saw, the average MPG did not change over the last couple of
> >>> decades with the introduction of SUV's.
> >> You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> >> specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They are
> >> classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
> >>> Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with decent gas mileage.
> >> So, with fancy technology a bigger-than-sane car can get half the mileage
> >> as my old '94 Honda Civic CX (40 mpg -- really). Such advancement.
>
> > It looks like the EPA adjusted MPG report includes SUVs (light trucks) and
> > the average fuel economy has been steady at about 20 MPG. I don't think it
> > is just reporting CAFE data
>
> What the EPA report includes is one thing, the requirement was for the
> CAFE to rise to something like 27mpg by the early years of this century
> (or late in the previous one). The US car makers managed this by
> classifying many cars as "light trucks", exempting them from the
> requirements.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but
what they conceal is vital." ~Aaron Levenstein

So the real issue is what's hidden behind that loophole. They
classified them as "light trucks" so the statistics showed what they
wanted to show.

So "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and
statistics."

[Jack May]

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13lt840t6rjhbb0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:b6udncRXnuuQQMDanZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>
> NC has laws on tinted windows and they must pass inspection, be they on
> cars
> or trucks.

So does California. The law is not enforced much because it requires the
police to measure the percent of light passing through the window. Police
seldom carry the measurement device.

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 10, 10:21 pm, Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeW...@nc.rr.com> wrote:

> All right, I'll see your Republican member of the optomirists board and
> raise you one Ted (hic)Kennedy who killed a girl and then ran and hid,
> unlike Mr. Vellanoweth.-

He was a young man back then.

Anyway I do a Google search for "road safety" and all the returns are
from other countries, where they already have better safety.

I wonder when it will become an issue in the national elections.
Probably Republicans (and Democrats) will flunk the test...


Premier launches Christmas Road Safety Campaign

(Media-Newswire.com) - Premier Anna Bligh has urged all Queenslanders
to make staying alive their priority, as millions of people hit the
nation's roads over the Christmas holiday period.

Launching the Christmas Road Safety Campaign with police on the Gold
Coast yesterday, Ms Bligh said motorists must take responsibility for
their actions, if they are going to make it home safely in the New
Year.

"2007 has been a shocking year on Queensland roads, with 342 lives
already lost - 33 more than this time last year," Ms Bligh said.

"At this rate the annual road toll is likely to be the highest in a
decade, since the road toll reached 360 in 1997.

http://media-newswire.com/release_1058561.html

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68c91fbe-86ba-4673-82a1-d83c43d63ad8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> Scooters get 80MPG, and don't add to traffic congestion.

Something is not a solution unless a lot of people use it. Scooters will
never be used by more than a very few people, Scooters are a non-solution.

>
> Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> safer roads...
>
> 1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.
>
> 2- They are healthy, so we keep the Medical Industry on a diet.
>
> 3- They are here now, not sometime in the future.

Since the food used to power bikes is air shipped from all over the world,
it is an energy hog.

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 11:03 am, Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 10:13 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> > safer roads...
>
> Tard.
> Bicycles cannot replace the auto.
> They certainly cannot replace trucks, buses, planes, and trains.
> Do the math.
>
> Only lib-tards celebrate stupidity.
> You should toast yourself, you ignorant ****-wit.

What's wrong with the idea of HAVING OPTIONS? Or do you want an
America where all drive SUVs?

Buses suck and trains stink, so what's the option?

For your information, most trips by car take only a few miles, and
that you can do in a bike. Unless you are one of those fat lazy SUV
driving couch potatos.

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:728274c0-7e4f-4cb4-bbb1-a4837579b1aa@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 11:03 am, Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 10:13 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
>> > safer roads...
>>
>> Tard.
>> Bicycles cannot replace the auto.
>> They certainly cannot replace trucks, buses, planes, and trains.
>> Do the math.
>>
>> Only lib-tards celebrate stupidity.
>> You should toast yourself, you ignorant ****-wit.
>
> What's wrong with the idea of HAVING OPTIONS? Or do you want an
> America where all drive SUVs?

The problem with options is that Government often spends far more money than
can be justified to support those options.

Even after the California legislator gutted transit funds in the budget this
year, the Bay Area is still spending two thirds of it transportation funds
for four and a half percent of the travelers and only a third of its money
on the 90% plus of travelers using personal vehicle.

The increase of funds for personal vehicles if from the $40B bonds the
voters approved to partially repair the damage done to California by the
foolish spending on transit over the last decades.

Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't understand
that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
any real value.

[Tom Sherman]

donquijote1954 who??? wrote:
> ...
> Buses suck....

Indeed. The low pressure zone behind a city bus is great for drafting -
30+ mph speeds are not too hard for extended distances. Wheeeeeeeee!!!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 12:13 pm, John Everett
<jevere...@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:43:57 -0800 (PST), donquijote1954
>
> <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> >misanthropism?
>
> I find the tinted windows in my SUV (Mercedes-Benz ML 320) do a
> pretty good job of hiding the fact that I'm hauling my bikes, which
> are standing upright in the back courtesy of a Bike-Tight Glider
> Board.

At least that's an smart and smaller SUV. I'm talking about Supersized
Unnecessary Vehicles here.

[David Kerber]

In article <pehtl3tqjiddlqu9qmojn1aavc4oif7tvt@4ax.com>, jeverett3
@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>
> >Jack May wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The last I saw, the
> >> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> >> introduction of SUV's.
> >
> >You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> >specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
> >are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
> Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.

The other big reason there are so many SUV's on the road is the federal
tax break for "business" use of large vehicles. I put business in
quotes because the test you need to pass to call it business use on your
taxes doesn't amount to a whole lot more than driving it to work (a
little more, but not a lot).

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[George Conklin]

"John Everett" <jeverett3@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote in message
news:pehtl3tqjiddlqu9qmojn1aavc4oif7tvt@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>
> >Jack May wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The last I saw, the
> >> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> >> introduction of SUV's.
> >
> >You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> >specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
> >are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
> Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.
>
No, it was assumed that trucks did different work from commuter cars.

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 12:16 pm, John Everett
<jevere...@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
>
> <david.john...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> >Jack May wrote:
>
> >> The last I saw, the
> >> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> >> introduction of SUV's.
>
> >You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> >specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
> >are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
> Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.

The skeptical would say it was intended. I'm one.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <pehtl3tqjiddlqu9qmojn1aavc4oif7tvt@4ax.com>,
John Everett <jeverett3@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>
> >Jack May wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The last I saw, the average MPG did not change over the last
> >> couple of decades with the introduction of SUV's.
> >
> >You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> >specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist.
> >They are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE
> >statistics.
>
> Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.

Hardly. The real unintended consequence is the slow-motion collapse of
the Big Three due to their failure to perceive reality for what it is.
It may be too late for them. What's your excuse?

[Jack May]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.21c89335d39af0fe989bcd@news.conversent.ne t...
> In article <pehtl3tqjiddlqu9qmojn1aavc4oif7tvt@4ax.com>, jeverett3
> @sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
>> <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Jack May wrote:

> The other big reason there are so many SUV's on the road is the federal
> tax break for "business" use of large vehicles. I put business in
> quotes because the test you need to pass to call it business use on your
> taxes doesn't amount to a whole lot more than driving it to work (a
> little more, but not a lot).

Yes, that tax break is very large. Just for the record I do not own or
drive an SUV

[George Conklin]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.21c89335d39af0fe989bcd@news.conversent.ne t...
> In article <pehtl3tqjiddlqu9qmojn1aavc4oif7tvt@4ax.com>, jeverett3
> @sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> > <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Jack May wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> The last I saw, the
> > >> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> > >> introduction of SUV's.
> > >
> > >You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> > >specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
> > >are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
> >
> > Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.
>
> The other big reason there are so many SUV's on the road is the federal
> tax break for "business" use of large vehicles. I put business in
> quotes because the test you need to pass to call it business use on your
> taxes doesn't amount to a whole lot more than driving it to work (a
> little more, but not a lot).
>

People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and Japan were
so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.

[neil0502@yahoo.com]

On Dec 11, 9:30 am, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
> In article <pehtl3tqjiddlqu9qmojn1aavc4oif7...@4ax.com>, jeverett3
> @sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
>
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> > <david.john...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>
> > >Jack May wrote:
>
> > >> The last I saw, the
> > >> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> > >> introduction of SUV's.
>
> > >You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> > >specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
> > >are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
> > Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.
>
> The other big reason there are so many SUV's on the road is the federal
> tax break for "business" use of large vehicles. I put business in
> quotes because the test you need to pass to call it business use on your
> taxes doesn't amount to a whole lot more than driving it to work (a
> little more, but not a lot).


Be fair.

That tax break would only cover a vehicle up to $106,000.

I mean ... what does THAT get you, anyway....

[George Conklin]

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VaqdnZWlbKSRTcPanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:728274c0-7e4f-4cb4-bbb1-a4837579b1aa@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 11, 11:03 am, Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 11, 10:13 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> >> > safer roads...
> >>
> >> Tard.
> >> Bicycles cannot replace the auto.
> >> They certainly cannot replace trucks, buses, planes, and trains.
> >> Do the math.
> >>
> >> Only lib-tards celebrate stupidity.
> >> You should toast yourself, you ignorant ****-wit.
> >
> > What's wrong with the idea of HAVING OPTIONS? Or do you want an
> > America where all drive SUVs?
>
> The problem with options is that Government often spends far more money
than
> can be justified to support those options.
>
> Even after the California legislator gutted transit funds in the budget
this
> year, the Bay Area is still spending two thirds of it transportation funds
> for four and a half percent of the travelers and only a third of its money
> on the 90% plus of travelers using personal vehicle.
>
> The increase of funds for personal vehicles if from the $40B bonds the
> voters approved to partially repair the damage done to California by the
> foolish spending on transit over the last decades.
>
> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't
understand
> that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
> stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
> any real value.
>
>

But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally, culturally
and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are isolated, lonely and,
yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VaqdnZWlbKSRTcPanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com. ..

> The increase of funds for personal vehicles if from the $40B bonds the
> voters approved to partially repair the damage done to California by the
> foolish spending on transit over the last decades.

I don't think ripping all the roads out would completely repair all the
damage done by them. But I don't see what connection that would have to
transit.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <VaqdnZWlbKSRTcPanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:

> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:728274c0-7e4f-4cb4-bbb1-a4837579b1aa@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
> ...
> > What's wrong with the idea of HAVING OPTIONS? Or do you want an
> > America where all drive SUVs?
>
> The problem with options is that Government often spends far more
> money than can be justified to support those options.
>
> Even after the California legislator gutted transit funds in the
> budget this year, the Bay Area is still spending two thirds of it
> transportation funds for four and a half percent of the travelers and
> only a third of its money on the 90% plus of travelers using personal
> vehicle.
>
> The increase of funds for personal vehicles if from the $40B bonds
> the voters approved to partially repair the damage done to California
> by the foolish spending on transit over the last decades.
>
> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't
> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
> too few people to be of any real value.

Better that than the brain-dead notion you espouse, that trillions of
dollars should be spent subsidizing the use of one car for every
commuter.

Now, you're right in that the quixotic one is a ****wit, but don't join
him in the ranks of ****wits.

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:

> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't understand
> that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
> stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
> any real value.-

What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid of
the competition?

[George Conklin]

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9_6dnU_239jTTMPanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13lt840t6rjhbb0@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:b6udncRXnuuQQMDanZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> >>
> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > NC has laws on tinted windows and they must pass inspection, be they on
> > cars
> > or trucks.
>
> So does California. The law is not enforced much because it requires the
> police to measure the percent of light passing through the window. Police
> seldom carry the measurement device.
>
>

This is done in NC at inspection time for an extra fee.

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 12:25 pm, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 5:39 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> > misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
> > their isolation from others causes a lot of problems.
>
> And yet a new SUV pollutes much less than any car that more than
> probably 5 or 6 years old.
>
> Apparently you think the height of a vehicle affects its emission
> amount. Strange.

We are talking two issues: POLLUTION & SAFETY. And they are not any
safer to others with tinted windows, massive chassis, and raised
bumpers. Oh, and STUPID DRIVERS.

[George Conklin]

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gbmdnXNj9_OASMPanZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:68c91fbe-86ba-4673-82a1-d83c43d63ad8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >>
news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Scooters get 80MPG, and don't add to traffic congestion.
>
> Something is not a solution unless a lot of people use it. Scooters will
> never be used by more than a very few people, Scooters are a
non-solution.
>
> >

Scooters most certainly add to traffic congestion. They take up a slot
in the highway just like a car would, and they often go slower making
themselves a botheration.


> > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> > safer roads...
> >
> > 1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.
> >
> > 2- They are healthy, so we keep the Medical Industry on a diet.
> >
> > 3- They are here now, not sometime in the future.
>
> Since the food used to power bikes is air shipped from all over the world,
> it is an energy hog.
>
>

[David Kerber]

In article <gbmdnXNj9_OASMPanZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
jack.may@comcast.net says...
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:68c91fbe-86ba-4673-82a1-d83c43d63ad8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Scooters get 80MPG, and don't add to traffic congestion.
>
> Something is not a solution unless a lot of people use it. Scooters will
> never be used by more than a very few people, Scooters are a non-solution.

But they COULD be a great solution for many people if their 2-stroke
engines didn't emit so much air pollution. If they had 4-stroke
engines, or more sophisticated 2-stroke ones, they would be a viable
option for many people for many months of the year.

>
> >
> > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> > safer roads...
> >
> > 1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.
> >
> > 2- They are healthy, so we keep the Medical Industry on a diet.
> >
> > 3- They are here now, not sometime in the future.
>
> Since the food used to power bikes is air shipped from all over the world,
> it is an energy hog.

Almost no food is shipped by air except in emergencies (famine relief,
etc). It's too expensive for the volumes needed.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Dec 11, 1:21 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> > safer roads...
>
> > 1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.
>
> > 2- They are healthy, so we keep the Medical Industry on a diet.
>
> > 3- They are here now, not sometime in the future.
>
> Since the food used to power bikes is air shipped from all over the world,
> it is an energy hog.

Oh? Well, show us the data, please.

Keep in mind, the bicycle is the most efficient means of
transportation on the planet. The increase in human metabolic energy
for riding (vs. just sitting is minimal. Take that into account when
you provide your numbers, please.

So again: Got data?

- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

In article <gbmdnXNj9_OASMPanZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:

> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:68c91fbe-86ba-4673-82a1-d83c43d63ad8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com
> ...
> > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> > safer roads...
> >
> > 1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.
> >
> > 2- They are healthy, so we keep the Medical Industry on a diet.
> >
> > 3- They are here now, not sometime in the future.
>
> Since the food used to power bikes is air shipped from all over the
> world, it is an energy hog.

Not if you shop with a modicum of awareness. It's easy to minimize the
foods you buy from other parts of the world, and it's easy to buy
(relatively) local. Well, at least if your grocery store is also paying
a modicum of attention. Fortunately mine does (currently all the food
in my fridge, with the exception of condiments, was produced within 200
miles of my home).

[Jym Dyer]

Jack May is an idiot, Exhibit #35214:

> Since the food used to power bikes is air shipped from
> all over the world, it is an energy hog.

=v= SUV-drivers abstain from eating, of course.
<_Jym_>

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 1:36 pm, "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:VaqdnZWlbKSRTcPanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:728274c0-7e4f-4cb4-bbb1-a4837579b1aa@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 11, 11:03 am, Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On Dec 11, 10:13 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> > >> > safer roads...
>
> > >> Tard.
> > >> Bicycles cannot replace the auto.
> > >> They certainly cannot replace trucks, buses, planes, and trains.
> > >> Do the math.
>
> > >> Only lib-tards celebrate stupidity.
> > >> You should toast yourself, you ignorant ****-wit.
>
> > > What's wrong with the idea of HAVING OPTIONS? Or do you want an
> > > America where all drive SUVs?
>
> > The problem with options is that Government often spends far more money
> than
> > can be justified to support those options.
>
> > Even after the California legislator gutted transit funds in the budget
> this
> > year, the Bay Area is still spending two thirds of it transportation funds
> > for four and a half percent of the travelers and only a third of its money
> > on the 90% plus of travelers using personal vehicle.
>
> > The increase of funds for personal vehicles if from the $40B bonds the
> > voters approved to partially repair the damage done to California by the
> > foolish spending on transit over the last decades.
>
> > Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't
> understand
> > that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
> > stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
> > any real value.
>
> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally, culturally
> and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are isolated, lonely and,
> yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.-

I haven't said you were drunk. You are worse than drunk when you use a
cell phone at the wheel.

And you are ADDICTED... to oil.

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
>> too few people to be of any real value.
>
> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.

Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!

Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"Advertising may be described as the science of arresting human
intelligence long enough to get money from it." -Stephen Leacock

[Tom Sherman]

George Conklin wrote:
> "John Everett" <jeverett3@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote in message
> news:pehtl3tqjiddlqu9qmojn1aavc4oif7tvt@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
>> <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The last I saw, the
>>>> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
>>>> introduction of SUV's.
>>> You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
>>> specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
>>> are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>> Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.
>>
> No, it was assumed that trucks did different work from commuter cars.

Assumption made after the "Big 3" lobbyists stuffed the
congress-critters' campaign coffers with cash!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 1:37 pm, "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.21c89335d39af0fe989bcd@news.conversent.ne t...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <pehtl3tqjiddlqu9qmojn1aavc4oif7...@4ax.com>, jeverett3
> > @sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
> > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> > > <david.john...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>
> > > >Jack May wrote:
>
> > > >> The last I saw, the
> > > >> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> > > >> introduction of SUV's.
>
> > > >You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> > > >specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
> > > >are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
> > > Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.
>
> > The other big reason there are so many SUV's on the road is the federal
> > tax break for "business" use of large vehicles. I put business in
> > quotes because the test you need to pass to call it business use on your
> > taxes doesn't amount to a whole lot more than driving it to work (a
> > little more, but not a lot).
>
> People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and Japan were
> so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.-

People were VERY happy with Japanese imports until the Big Three
figured they couldn't compete unless they created a different beast.
And there we go: "Frankenstein on Wheels."

[Tim McNamara]

In article <13ltm67ri3di1f3@corp.supernews.com>,
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:

> People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and Japan were
> so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.

Yeah, that's why those miserable small cars outsell SUVs and the Big
Three are sucking sewage. But no, blame it on the unions! Yeah, that's
the ticket!

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 1:39 pm, "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:gbmdnXNj9_OASMPanZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:68c91fbe-86ba-4673-82a1-d83c43d63ad8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > Scooters get 80MPG, and don't add to traffic congestion.
>
> > Something is not a solution unless a lot of people use it. Scooters will
> > never be used by more than a very few people, Scooters are a
> non-solution.
>
> Scooters most certainly add to traffic congestion. They take up a slot
> in the highway just like a car would, and they often go slower making
> themselves a botheration.

That's only because SUVs go TOO FAST, like they own the road, you know.

[DougC]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Dec 11, 12:13 pm, John Everett
> <jevere...@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote:
>> I find the tinted windows in my SUV (Mercedes-Benz ML 320) do a
>> pretty good job of hiding the fact that I'm hauling my bikes, which
>> are standing upright in the back courtesy of a Bike-Tight Glider
>> Board.
>
> At least that's an smart and smaller SUV. I'm talking about Supersized
> Unnecessary Vehicles here.

Sure, you know waste when you see it, and it's something that other
people do. I understand perfectly.

-------

I would rather just see fuel prices rise, myself. It would encourage
conservation at all levels. After all, what good is it for a person to
trade-in a huge SUV for a tiny car, and then have to drive the tiny car
as many trips to move what they were using the SUV for? Unless they
should have to get permission from YOU to pick a big car, and if that's
the case, go eat a ****.

It's rather like the problem with low-flow toilets: if you just have to
flush them multiple times to do the job, then what was the point?

------

I'm just waiting to catch some Earth-First fruitcake messing with my
SUV. They're going to feel pretty guilty as they're "wasting some of the
Earth's precious resources" down at the hospital emergency room.
~

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0539ddc-d54a-4b51-97a2-541d0a89de74@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 1:36 pm, "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:VaqdnZWlbKSRTcPanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:728274c0-7e4f-4cb4-bbb1-a4837579b1aa@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 11, 11:03 am, Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On Dec 11, 10:13 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> > >> > safer roads...
>
> > >> Tard.
> > >> Bicycles cannot replace the auto.
> > >> They certainly cannot replace trucks, buses, planes, and trains.
> > >> Do the math.
>
> > >> Only lib-tards celebrate stupidity.
> > >> You should toast yourself, you ignorant ****-wit.
>
> > > What's wrong with the idea of HAVING OPTIONS? Or do you want an
> > > America where all drive SUVs?
>
> > The problem with options is that Government often spends far more money
> than
> > can be justified to support those options.
>
> > Even after the California legislator gutted transit funds in the budget
> this
> > year, the Bay Area is still spending two thirds of it transportation
> > funds
> > for four and a half percent of the travelers and only a third of its
> > money
> > on the 90% plus of travelers using personal vehicle.
>
> > The increase of funds for personal vehicles if from the $40B bonds the
> > voters approved to partially repair the damage done to California by the
> > foolish spending on transit over the last decades.
>
> > Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't
> understand
> > that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than
> > main
> > stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be
> > of
> > any real value.
>
> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
> culturally
> and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are isolated, lonely
> and,
> yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.-

I haven't said you were drunk. You are worse than drunk when you use a
cell phone at the wheel.

And you are ADDICTED... to oil.

No we want the capability to be free to travel so we can have higher paying
jobs than people that are mobility limited. Besides the alternative fuels
are being developed by people that drive, not by the poor that use
alternative transportation.

Alternative fuels will insure that we continue our freedom of travel and to
have higher paying jobs which are not necessarily in range of alternative
transportation options,

So as usual you have it backwards. Alternative transportation is of little
importance where alternative fuels are of critical importance.

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 4:15 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
> >> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
> >> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
> >> too few people to be of any real value.
>
> > But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
> > culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
> > isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.
>
> Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
> transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
> desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
>
> Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!

No way, in this Darwinistic world bigger is better. Riding a bike/
scooter would be more sexy (at least people see you) if it weren't for
the second class label put on them.

[George Conklin]

"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message
news:38b335-5a6.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
> >> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
> >> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
> >> too few people to be of any real value.
> >
> > But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
> > culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
> > isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.
>
> Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
> transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
> desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
>
> Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!
>

Such people also enjoy sleeping on the subway cars, since it gives them
extra warmth on a cold night.

[Tom Sherman]

Dane Buson wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
>>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
>>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
>>> too few people to be of any real value.
>> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
>> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
>> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.
>
> Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
> transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
> desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
>
> Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!
>
Recumbent bicycle riders are NOT fabulous. For that, we are grateful.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Jack May]

"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message
news:38b335-5a6.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
>>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
>>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
>>> too few people to be of any real value.
>>
>> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
>> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
>> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.
>
> Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
> transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
> desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
>
> Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!

Actually research is clear that people that don't use cars tend to be
poorer, less educated, and less socially connected. Being poorer makes you
less sexually desirable and tends to result in being less fit.

[Jack May]

"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:1BD7j.27824$rc2.14904@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:VaqdnZWlbKSRTcPanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> The increase of funds for personal vehicles if from the $40B bonds the
>> voters approved to partially repair the damage done to California by the
>> foolish spending on transit over the last decades.
>
> I don't think ripping all the roads out would completely repair all the
> damage done by them. But I don't see what connection that would have to
> transit.

The connection is extremely easy to see even by California politicians. The
large amount of money spent on transit over the last few decades starved the
roads resulting in a crumbling of the infrastructure and increased
congestion.

The funds spent on transit over the past decades, as usual, did nothing to
solve our transportation problems.

[George Conklin]

"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:HpE7j.28018$rc2.25932@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:NNCdnXuRqORghcPanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> >
> > "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> > news:bba85911-23b6-46c3-b13b-3714915e9e6a@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>
news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it will
> >> get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices get
> >> higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes take over
> >> the demand.
> >>
> >> As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable. At
> >> some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a matter of
> >> time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive oil will sit
> >> in the ground.
> >
> > Certainly true.
> >
> > There are reports though that we are late already and the alternative
> > energy sources will not be ramped up in time. Of course shortages will
> > cause a lot of alternative fuel production to ramp up quickly. Maybe we
> > will make the transition by the thinnest of margins without shutting
down
> > the US economy. It will be a cliff hanger.
>
> The thing is, if we insist on developing and traveling in the most
wasteful
> manner possible, the sheer amount that will have to be produced to fill
the
> gap will be much larger. If we can do some things now to rein in our own
> wastefulness, the task will be much easier.
>
>

The saved oil will be happily used in India and China.

[Jack May]

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-E9DD49.17412111122007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <VaqdnZWlbKSRTcPanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:728274c0-7e4f-4cb4-bbb1-a4837579b1aa@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
>> ...

> Better that than the brain-dead notion you espouse, that trillions of
> dollars should be spent subsidizing the use of one car for every
> commuter.

The problem is that very little was spent on roads resulting in decaying
roads and increased congestion. The money spent on transit did nothing to
improve transportation. Alternative transportation has proven to be a big
problem, not a solution.

Those problems caused by foolish transit spending resulted in the voters
approving the $40B in bonds.

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 6:43 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <NNCdnXuRqORghcPanZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> >news:bba85911-23b6-46c3-b13b-3714915e9e6a@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> > ..
> > > On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.
> > >> com...
> > > Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it
> > > will get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices
> > > get higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes
> > > take over the demand.
>
> > > As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable.
> > > At some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a
> > > matter of time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive
> > > oil will sit in the ground.
>
> > Certainly true.
>
> > There are reports though that we are late already and the alternative
> > energy sources will not be ramped up in time. Of course shortages
> > will cause a lot of alternative fuel production to ramp up quickly.
> > Maybe we will make the transition by the thinnest of margins without
> > shutting down the US economy. It will be a cliff hanger.
>
> Nope, it's too late. The window of opportunity is closed. Oil wars are
> the trend of the future. Buckle up. The US economy will be ****ed
> beyond all recognition. But it it's any consolation, so will the
> Chinese economy.-

Yep, that's the way to go. And the last chapter of the war will be the
one between China and America.

[George Conklin]

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-963322.17434711122007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <NNCdnXuRqORghcPanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> > news:bba85911-23b6-46c3-b13b-3714915e9e6a@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> > ..
> > > On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.
> > >> com...
> > > Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it
> > > will get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices
> > > get higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes
> > > take over the demand.
> > >
> > > As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable.
> > > At some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a
> > > matter of time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive
> > > oil will sit in the ground.
> >
> > Certainly true.
> >
> > There are reports though that we are late already and the alternative
> > energy sources will not be ramped up in time. Of course shortages
> > will cause a lot of alternative fuel production to ramp up quickly.
> > Maybe we will make the transition by the thinnest of margins without
> > shutting down the US economy. It will be a cliff hanger.
>
> Nope, it's too late. The window of opportunity is closed. Oil wars are
> the trend of the future. Buckle up. The US economy will be ****ed
> beyond all recognition. But it it's any consolation, so will the
> Chinese economy.

Why don't you buy the mule your grandfather rode and solve all the
world's problems?

[Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <NNCdnXuRqORghcPanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>> news:bba85911-23b6-46c3-b13b-3714915e9e6a@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>> On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.
>>>> com...
>>> Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it
>>> will get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices
>>> get higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes
>>> take over the demand.
>>>
>>> As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable.
>>> At some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a
>>> matter of time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive
>>> oil will sit in the ground.
>> Certainly true.
>>
>> There are reports though that we are late already and the alternative
>> energy sources will not be ramped up in time. Of course shortages
>> will cause a lot of alternative fuel production to ramp up quickly.
>> Maybe we will make the transition by the thinnest of margins without
>> shutting down the US economy. It will be a cliff hanger.
>
> Nope, it's too late. The window of opportunity is closed. Oil wars are
> the trend of the future. Buckle up. The US economy will be ****ed
> beyond all recognition. But it it's any consolation, so will the
> Chinese economy.

The foolish and puny humans will have their comeuppance for their
arrogance and faith based beliefs within the next century. If the human
race is lucky, 5% will survive into the 22nd Century.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[George Conklin]

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-9ED7FF.17470811122007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <13ltm67ri3di1f3@corp.supernews.com>,
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and Japan were
> > so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.
>
> Yeah, that's why those miserable small cars outsell SUVs and the Big
> Three are sucking sewage. But no, blame it on the unions! Yeah, that's
> the ticket!

Your complaint was that there are too many SUVs. Now you say there are not.
In fact, people don't like those miserable small cars.

[George Conklin]

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-EBBC16.17500111122007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <gbmdnXNj9_OASMPanZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:68c91fbe-86ba-4673-82a1-d83c43d63ad8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com
> > ...
> > > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> > > safer roads...
> > >
> > > 1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.
> > >
> > > 2- They are healthy, so we keep the Medical Industry on a diet.
> > >
> > > 3- They are here now, not sometime in the future.
> >
> > Since the food used to power bikes is air shipped from all over the
> > world, it is an energy hog.
>
> Not if you shop with a modicum of awareness. It's easy to minimize the
> foods you buy from other parts of the world, and it's easy to buy
> (relatively) local. Well, at least if your grocery store is also paying
> a modicum of attention. Fortunately mine does (currently all the food
> in my fridge, with the exception of condiments, was produced within 200
> miles of my home).

If you are eating fruits and veggies all year round you are not growing
it in the winter.

[Tom Sherman]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't understand
>> that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
>> stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
>> any real value.-
>
> What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid of
> the competition?

Bicycle lanes are a horrible idea - I go out of my way to avoid streets
with them when I am riding one of my bicycles (or trike). Why should
cyclists be expected to use second class ghetto facilities, while
leaving the "real" road to the cagers?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a278e94f-7753-46cd-910b-df5d271a3481@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:

> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't
> understand
> that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
> stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
> any real value.-

What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid of
the competition?

For example a bike path bridge over a major road or freeway is over $3M.
Bike paths are a fairly high percentage of transportation spending in the SF
Bay Area.

Bike use is down in the noise for commuting to and from work. It is not
real competition to anything. That is the problem with transportation
advocates. They seldom understand the tradeoff of money and usefulness.

[Tom Sherman]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-9ED7FF.17470811122007@news.iphouse.com...
>> In article <13ltm67ri3di1f3@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and Japan were
>>> so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.
>> Yeah, that's why those miserable small cars outsell SUVs and the Big
>> Three are sucking sewage. But no, blame it on the unions! Yeah, that's
>> the ticket!
>
> Your complaint was that there are too many SUVs. Now you say there are not.
> In fact, people don't like those miserable small cars.

Oh, bollocks! I have to drive pick-up trucks for work and they are quite
lousy to drive and uncomfortable compared to my Honda Civic, which gets
a real world 35+ mpg in urban driving.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Tim McNamara]

In article <13lufuvghjm4m2e@corp.supernews.com>,
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-9ED7FF.17470811122007@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article <13ltm67ri3di1f3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and
> > > Japan were so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.
> >
> > Yeah, that's why those miserable small cars outsell SUVs and the
> > Big Three are sucking sewage. But no, blame it on the unions!
> > Yeah, that's the ticket!
>
> Your complaint was that there are too many SUVs. Now you say there
> are not. In fact, people don't like those miserable small cars.

Toyota and Honda wouldn't be eating Detroit's lunch if that was true.

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 8:57 pm, "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>
> news:timmcn-9ED7FF.17470811122007@news.iphouse.com...
>
> > In article <13ltm67ri3di...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and Japan were
> > > so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.
>
> > Yeah, that's why those miserable small cars outsell SUVs and the Big
> > Three are sucking sewage. But no, blame it on the unions! Yeah, that's
> > the ticket!
>
> Your complaint was that there are too many SUVs. Now you say there are not.
> In fact, people don't like those miserable small cars.

It's not that people don't like them, it's that people feel terrorized
in them, the danger coming from SUVs.

[Jym Dyer]

George Conklin is an idiot, Exhibit #35234:

> Why don't you buy the mule your grandfather rode and
> solve all the world's problems?

=v= My grandfather rode a streetcar to work, actually.
<_Jym_>

[Amy Blankenship]

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13lug3ceafp4677@corp.supernews.com...

> Why don't you buy the mule your grandfather rode and solve all the
> world's problems?

Certainly you could make a mint by being able to display the world's oldest
mule.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <13lug3ceafp4677@corp.supernews.com>,
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-963322.17434711122007@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article <NNCdnXuRqORghcPanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> > > news:bba85911-23b6-46c3-b13b-3714915e9e6a@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.
> > > com. ..
> > > > On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > >> message
> > > >>
> > > >> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegro
> > > >> ups. com...
> > > > Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually
> > > > it will get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As
> > > > prices get higher, substitutes become economical. Then the
> > > > substitutes take over the demand.
> > > >
> > > > As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more
> > > > viable. At some point they will take over and replace oil.
> > > > It's just a matter of time. Meanwhile, the last of the
> > > > prohibitively expensive oil will sit in the ground.
> > >
> > > Certainly true.
> > >
> > > There are reports though that we are late already and the
> > > alternative energy sources will not be ramped up in time. Of
> > > course shortages will cause a lot of alternative fuel production
> > > to ramp up quickly. Maybe we will make the transition by the
> > > thinnest of margins without shutting down the US economy. It
> > > will be a cliff hanger.
> >
> > Nope, it's too late. The window of opportunity is closed. Oil
> > wars are the trend of the future. Buckle up. The US economy will
> > be ****ed beyond all recognition. But it it's any consolation, so
> > will the Chinese economy.
>
> Why don't you buy the mule your grandfather rode and solve all the
> world's problems?

LOL! One grandfather was a banker and drove Caddies, the other was a VP
of a division of General Motors... and also drove Caddies. My family is
not exactly a paragon of greenie thinking...

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 8:59 pm, "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>
> news:timmcn-963322.17434711122007@news.iphouse.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <NNCdnXuRqORghcPanZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@comcast.com>,
> > "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> > >news:bba85911-23b6-46c3-b13b-3714915e9e6a@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> > > ..
> > > > On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.
> > > >> com...
> > > > Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it
> > > > will get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices
> > > > get higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes
> > > > take over the demand.
>
> > > > As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable.
> > > > At some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a
> > > > matter of time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive
> > > > oil will sit in the ground.
>
> > > Certainly true.
>
> > > There are reports though that we are late already and the alternative
> > > energy sources will not be ramped up in time. Of course shortages
> > > will cause a lot of alternative fuel production to ramp up quickly.
> > > Maybe we will make the transition by the thinnest of margins without
> > > shutting down the US economy. It will be a cliff hanger.
>
> > Nope, it's too late. The window of opportunity is closed. Oil wars are
> > the trend of the future. Buckle up. The US economy will be ****ed
> > beyond all recognition. But it it's any consolation, so will the
> > Chinese economy.
>
> Why don't you buy the mule your grandfather rode and solve all the
> world's problems?-

Even better, the ass Jesus rode.

[Amy Blankenship]

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13lug51p7hlck91@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-EBBC16.17500111122007@news.iphouse.com...
>> In article <gbmdnXNj9_OASMPanZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:68c91fbe-86ba-4673-82a1-d83c43d63ad8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com
>> > ...
>> > > Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
>> > > safer roads...
>> > >
>> > > 1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.
>> > >
>> > > 2- They are healthy, so we keep the Medical Industry on a diet.
>> > >
>> > > 3- They are here now, not sometime in the future.
>> >
>> > Since the food used to power bikes is air shipped from all over the
>> > world, it is an energy hog.
>>
>> Not if you shop with a modicum of awareness. It's easy to minimize the
>> foods you buy from other parts of the world, and it's easy to buy
>> (relatively) local. Well, at least if your grocery store is also paying
>> a modicum of attention. Fortunately mine does (currently all the food
>> in my fridge, with the exception of condiments, was produced within 200
>> miles of my home).
>
> If you are eating fruits and veggies all year round you are not growing
> it in the winter.

In my part of the country, you can in fact grow fruit and veggies all year
round. In many others, you can certainly grow them most of the year and
store them for the rest.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <13lug51p7hlck91@corp.supernews.com>,
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-EBBC16.17500111122007@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article <gbmdnXNj9_OASMPanZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Since the food used to power bikes is air shipped from all over
> > > the world, it is an energy hog.

No one pointed out the refutation to this, which is that bicyclists eat
barely more than the sedentary road hogs in their SUVs... to judge from
appearances, the bicyclists may eat substantially less. On the relative
scale, bicycle usage consumes a fraction of the energy of driving a car.
Of course, the mathematics of the thing make this necessary. A 25 pound
bike can move a 250 pound human with ease, but a car performing the same
function weighs roughly 1300 to 7000 pounds. The vast majority of the
energy used in driving a car goes to just moving the car around. It
will take a minimum of 50 times as much energy to drive a car a mile as
to ride a bike the same distance (~280 times as much energy in the case
of a Hummer).

> > Not if you shop with a modicum of awareness. It's easy to minimize
> > the foods you buy from other parts of the world, and it's easy to
> > buy (relatively) local. Well, at least if your grocery store is
> > also paying a modicum of attention. Fortunately mine does
> > (currently all the food in my fridge, with the exception of
> > condiments, was produced within 200 miles of my home).
>
> If you are eating fruits and veggies all year round you are not
> growing it in the winter.

There is an amazing invention that maybe you haven't heard of yet. It's
called "refrigeration." This permits the storage of fresh food for long
periods of time, especially if frozen. There are also other startling
technologies called "canning" and "pickling" that permit long term
storage of fruits and vegetables. These amazing developments allow my
wife and I to enjoy locally produced food year round. :-) But of
course we are not purists. I buy bananas sometimes, occasionally mangos
and avocados. I eat salmon sometimes (local trout more often, but
sometimes salmon is what you want). And of course when you eat in
restaurants it's a crapshoot, although many of the local restaurants
have local sources for meats and vegetables. I haven't eaten in a
McDonald or Burger King in 15 years or more.

In our case, we buy locally produced food whenever we can. Even the
beer we drink is usually brewed locally, although the same cannot be
said for most of the wine and all of the Scotch. There is no locally
made Scotch. We all have our failings... I think I'll have a little
Caol Ila none the less. Slainte!

[Bentracer and Bentrider]

On Dec 11, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
> > In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
> >>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
> >>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
> >>> too few people to be of any real value.
> >> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
> >> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
> >> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.
>
> > Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
> > transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
> > desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
>
> > Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!
>
> Recumbent bicycle riders are NOT fabulous. For that, we are grateful.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

TOM SHERNAN you are DRUNK

[Tim McNamara]

In article <fjnibk$qcn$7@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't
> >> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
> >> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry
> >> far too few people to be of any real value.-
> >
> > What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid
> > of the competition?
>
> Bicycle lanes are a horrible idea - I go out of my way to avoid
> streets with them when I am riding one of my bicycles (or trike). Why
> should cyclists be expected to use second class ghetto facilities,
> while leaving the "real" road to the cagers?

While I agree- sharing the road is a simple enough notion that requires
only a modicum of skill and alertness on the parts of all road users and
incurs no additional costs to the taxpayers- the average cager is
terrified to be out in traffic on their bike. They know that everybody
else drives as badly as they do. Bike lanes help cajole some of the
cagers out of their cars and on to bikes.

[Pat]

On Dec 11, 9:51 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't understand
> >> that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
> >> stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
> >> any real value.-
>
> > What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid of
> > the competition?
>
> Bicycle lanes are a horrible idea - I go out of my way to avoid streets
> with them when I am riding one of my bicycles (or trike). Why should
> cyclists be expected to use second class ghetto facilities, while
> leaving the "real" road to the cagers?

There's no problem with bikes sharing lanes with traffic ... just a
long as you can keep up with it. I'll give you a friendly wave when I
see you tooling down the expressway on your bike at 70mph. And I hope
those wind blasts from tractor trailers don't bother you too much. I
know they bother me on my 800 lb motorcycle but I wouldn't imaging
they would bother a bicyclist too much.

>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 9:51 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Having options i