SUV Protest

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michelle's saddle was stolen over a year ago.

Why don't you tell us the rest of the story -- that you're planning to give
it back when the smell wears off?

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:00:10 -0700,
<[email hidden]>, Dane Buson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In rec.bicycles.misc Zoot Katz said:

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:41:37 -0700, <[email hidden]>,

brink said:

or a bicyclist rides through wet cement on a sidewalk.

Try that one and get back to us.

I know of at least one person doing it.

http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/cement.html

Eric S. Sande's experience was quite different than that described in
your link. http://tinyurl.com/bnxs8

I've always heard that real men train on wet concrete.
--
zk

Bob the Cow said:

The "Universal Parking Regulation": If you put your four-way flashers on,
you can park wherever you wish.

Well the Honda Pilot that parked in the handicap space at my son's
school probably will not be doing that again, ever. One phone call was
all it took. It is a very expensive lesson.

SMS said:

Bob the Cow said:

The "Universal Parking Regulation": If you put your four-way
flashers on, you can park wherever you wish.

Well the Honda Pilot that parked in the handicap space at my son's
school probably will not be doing that again, ever. One phone call was
all it took. It is a very expensive lesson.

Bingo. That's the RIGHT way to deal with an a-hole (whether in an SUV or
hybrid or whatever).

Zoot Katz said:

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:40:01 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, irrelevant as ever,
"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> had to write:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah Bill, cars really do suck.

But you still use 'em. Puzzling.

I also use an Shop-Vac and an Electrolux.

You had a point?

That you'd look rather silly if you ranted and raved about Shop-Vacs and
Electroluxes (AND their users). That's all.

SMS said:

I once called the police to complain about the line of mini-vans and
SUVs parked in the bike lane near an elementary school, as parents
waited for school to let out. They wouldn't do anything, even though the
bike lane had "No Parking Any Time" signs. The explanation was that
those vehicles were not really parked, they were "paused." Meanwhile,
every bicyclist had to veer around these parked vehicles into the street.

I encounter the same issue frequently here (though most often there
really isn't a bike lane in front of the school).

Thing is, you don't really WANT to be riding along the curb when the
soccer moms (and dads I suppose) are picking the little darlings up...
you're MUCH better off out in traffic, at least in the traffic that I
encounter around schools here (mainly fairly small roads).

If you were riding along the curb, you'd have to worry about drivers
turning into you from the left, cutting you off with a right hook,
crossing in front of you from the school entrance, etc.

At least out in the road you can limit the directions they can hit you
- and if it's like any school I've seen for years, the speed limit is
only 15mph (generally pretty well obeyed), so you should be easily
able to flow with the "lesser traffic".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Claire Petersky said:

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Claire Petersky said:

How do you feel about people who damage everyone's (vs. "another person's)
property? After all, we all have a common share in the air we breathe.
There
are lots of people who damage it every day. Do you believe that, because
it
belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one? How do we go about dealing with
those who would damage, deface, or disable something that we all have a
share in?

I'm wondering how you're managing to post on the 'net without using
electricity.

Dear Mr. Hickey:

I was calling into question the poster's message of absolute condemnation of
someone who would damage other people's property. Quite often people who are
absolutists in the area of private property do not consider public goods to
belong to anyone, and therefore can be damaged and destroyed
indiscriminately.

My point is that you (and I) also "damage, deface, or disable" the
environment every day. I dare say you'd be upset if someone let all
the freon out of your air conditioner or perhaps reformatted your hard
drive as a protest against your electricity use.

Quoted message said:

The reality is, as other posters pointed out, private
property rights are not absolute. And it'd be nice if there were a greater
recognition of the value of public property in our society.

No argument there - but unfortunately this conversation is about a
bunch of sinners talking about how bad sinners are... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

SMS said:

Bob the Cow said:

The "Universal Parking Regulation": If you put your four-way
flashers on, you can park wherever you wish.

Well the Honda Pilot that parked in the handicap space at my son's
school probably will not be doing that again, ever. One phone call was
all it took. It is a very expensive lesson.

Bingo. That's the RIGHT way to deal with an a-hole (whether in an SUV or
hybrid or whatever).

Interesting lesson I learned from hanging out at traffic court in Ottawa
(helping friends fight a ticket; they won): at least in that venue,
almost every parking fine is cheaper than illegal use of a handicap
spot. If you can't find a spot and are desperate, double-park or park in
a no-parking zone before you use the handicap spot.

Not that the people in court who did misuse the handicap spot generated
much sympathy: it pretty much all came down to cases of laziness or
selfishness.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

Don Boring said:

Quoted message said:

The highways were
built, the neighborhoods were destroyed, the parking lots
built, the suburbs built as far as the eye can see. This
happened a long time ago.

That is correct. So we need to think
POST Apocalypse! Bikes WILL be the
future. When oil hits $10 a gallon OR LESS,
society will begin to crumble and bicycles will
be at a premium. And we need to be fit enough
to ride em when that day comes. Men, women,
children and old folks alike!

Huh. Bikes are the present. It's good to do so. Mercifully, it doesn't
have to be a political statement.

Dirty secret: it's often fun to commute by bike, it can be quicker, and
humans don't melt in the rain.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I am going to buy a quadracycle
and go CarFree before the [censored] comes down
so calamity will be no big deal and I will be ready.

It wouldn't hurt to learn how to grow a vegetable
garden either. FWIW.

Don Boring
Glendora, CA USA
"There is something wrong with a society that drives a car to work out in a
gym."

Bill Nye

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

jmt said:

Dear TK;

With the suv, the guns/dogs/coolers don't get wet, and are
accessible I suppose... Now, I like guns and dogs myself, but don't

^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

wanna pay the entry fee for the high privilege of That much convenience.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's basically what I mean; I don't think many people who
want or need a /working/ truck do :-) Most SUVs look to
me like glorified mini-buses, what with all that passenger
capacity. Who the heck wants to be an off-road bus driver?
Besides illegal immigrant smugglers, that is.

And if a 2WD P/U is good enough to go up a landfill's rough
access road, it's good enough for construction sites, etc.

And a big, open P/U truck box is plenty accessible. If ya
want dry, there are canopies.

Quoted message said:

I drive a PickEmUp truck too, ; )

I think the pickup truck tailgate might be one of the most
versatile inventions in modern history. The beauty of them
is: when open, they're usually at just the right height (for
a 5' 11" guy like myself, anyways.) Although I guess they might
really just be a carry-over from buckboard wagons. Nevertheless
I wouldn't be surprised if they were the inspiration for the
Black & Decker Workmate[tm] folding workbench (which incidentally,
is /not/ at just the right height [for a 5' 11" guy like myself,
anyways].)

For the record, like Zoot I disdain and decry the indiscriminate,
wasteful and careless use of private motor vehicles. But I allow
private working trucks provide a valuable service & benefit not
only to their owners, but others in general. After all, goods &
services gotta get to market somehow. As long as they're
used responsibly.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Hickey said:

SMS said:

I once called the police to complain about the line of mini-vans and
SUVs parked in the bike lane near an elementary school, as parents
waited for school to let out. They wouldn't do anything, even though the
bike lane had "No Parking Any Time" signs. The explanation was that
those vehicles were not really parked, they were "paused." Meanwhile,
every bicyclist had to veer around these parked vehicles into the street.

I encounter the same issue frequently here (though most often there
really isn't a bike lane in front of the school).

In Vancouver BC, the schools put self-standing signs
right out in the street that say to the effect:
"No Stopping
No Parking
No Picking up
No Dropping off"

and they're pretty much obeyed.

Quoted message said:

At least out in the road you can limit the directions they can hit you
- and if it's like any school I've seen for years, the speed limit is
only 15mph (generally pretty well obeyed),

I wish the same could be said for here. I think a lot of our
drivers actually speed up in school zones, 'cuz the absence of
stopped/parked/slow cars gives them a[n apparently] clear shot.
And if a bike rider is doing the school zone speed limit, the
car drivers still gotta speed up and pass them.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article <[email hidden]>,

Neil Brooks said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Neil Brooks said:

Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> wrote:

>In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I know, but it's *almost* virtually impossible to not live in a way
>> > that causes pollution. So it's not a matter of whether you do or not
>> > - it's simply a matter of how much (which was my point).
>> >
>> > I agree we should all do "as little damage as possible", but let's not
>> > delude ourselves into thinking that we're not part of the problem too.
>>
>> It's ludicrous to complain about someone using the internet to complain
>> about SUVs. Not all offenses are equal.
>>
>>
>> ISTR that someone made a famous comment on that over 2000 years ago:
>>
>> "But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother,
>> but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?"
>
>Well, Frank, the key here is that you may not have noticed, but there
>has been considerable complaint about the motes of one's brothers here,
>but very little attention to personal beams.
>
>I'd rather not talk about the evil that are SUVs, because I am
>suspicious that their recent pariah status has more to do with the
>visceral impression they make than their actual contribution to human
>sorrow. They are the largest private cars out there, so they have to
>bear the brut of the wrath that used to be reserved for minivans, giant
>station wagons, luxury sedans, etc.

Not sure that it's entirely a negative thing to ask people to evaluate
their choices where excess/status/prestige/masculinity do more to
drive their choice than does practicality/utility/need ... especially
when there's a clear connection between MPG and pollution (arguments
about global warming aside). A look at values is not always a bad
thing.

Good gravy! Are you sure? Are you really really sure? I am fascinated
that you know so much about the motivations of SUV owners around you.
Have you been poking through their garbage for under-shredded data?

Notice (or fail to notice) that I described a particular group of
people: those for whom excess/status/prestige/masculinity do more to
drive their choice than does practicality/utility/need. That's not
everybody ... but I bet it's certainly a big bunch of 'em.

You'd be surprised. I'm a bit of a lapsarian car/motorcycle fan, (got
into cycling, now it uses up all my spare money, so no more motorcycle),
and that means I do things like read car magazines, sit in cars, talk to
friends about cars, and why they bought cars, and so forth. One of those
people was my mother, a key figure in the purchase of my parents'
full-size extended-cab pickup (basically, a GMC Suburban with an open
back...did I say this already? I can't remember). A big visceral reason
for her preference for this truck over, say, a normal sedan was the
sightlines. You sit tall in a truck, you can see everything, it's a
commanding view, as they say. Even on those occasions when I have driven
larger vehicles, I noticed the same thing: it's pretty comfy up there,
you have an upright seating position, and you can see out nicely.

There's people who buy bloody Toyota Prisues for status reasons, and
given their expected cost savings versus the price premiums, a Prius is
pretty much always a status choice (okay, a kind-to-the-environment
choice, but I leave you to tell me which is more important to the
average hybrid-car owner) over a cheaper car.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The argument about MPG and pollution can be summed up thus: the United
States, by global standards, has relatively cheap gas, relatively
low-MPG cars, and relatively clean air. I suppose the long-term trend in
all three fields is positive, though I leave you to argue about which
direction would be a positive one for gas prices 🙂.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I scoff at your inability to convince office-mates to ride bicycles.
I ascribe it to an environmentally

You, uh, sort of trailed off there.

Neil, if you're going to keep up, you're going to have to learn
something: I'm scatterbrained. I started the ludicrous "you're an
environmental hazard because your co-workers don't ride" schtick up
here, and forgot about this loose thread when I moved it later.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>And so forth. One reason a lot of large SUVs get bought is because if
>you're into an activity that might involve pulling a trailer (horses,
>boats, camping, our bike club's youth development squad...) and there's
>more than two people in your family, SUVs are pretty much the only
>vehicle left that can handle both tasks with ease. Even in my family, my
>parents own a full-size 4x4 pickup, basically a Suburban with an open
>back, because it does regular duty as the prime mover for a ski boat.

I knew I already said that about my parents owning a truck...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While I agree with what you say, I also agree that it's really /not
that much/ of a sacrifice to pick hobbies without so much negative
consequence associated. Human powered activities, for example.
Mountain biking, rather than off-road motorcycling. Hiking, rather
than ATV'ing or 4-wheeling. Kayaking, rather than motorboating.
Bicycling, rather than driving.

I think once you're in the habit of picking other people's hobbies, you
might find out that it's "hiking, rather than MTBing," and "apartments,
rather than free-standing residences." The latter in each case is
demonstrably less environmentally friendly than the former, so it's just
a matter of picking poisons.

It's also a matter of low-hanging fruit/diminishing returns. If
/more/ people showed, directionally, /more/ concern (say, about the
impacts of their choices and actions on others and on the environment)
and /fewer/ people showed, directionally /less/ concern, some good
might come out of it, no?

I think it's quite possible to be environmentally concerned and also a
dirt-biker/ATVer/motorboater. Yes, there are overall-footprint issues,
and one does want to consider making these vehicles as friendly as
possible (which is already happening: the conventional two-stroke motor
is all but nonexistent on new motorcycles and boats, a casualty of
emissions regulations).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And of course, off-road motorcycling is an excellent alternative to
off-road 4x4ing, if you want to put it that way. If you're down on
recreational motor use, how are you on recreational air travel? Flying
to a vacation destination is pretty excessive in terms of fuel consumed
(not trivial, even on a commercial passenger flight: you'd be better
off, fuel-wise, driving in many cases), and can hardly be justified,
environmentally.

Your bicycles _are_ built locally, aren't they?

I jest, of course, and may not even have hit the mark with you. But give
me enough time and personal information, and I will audit your life and
recommend the things you should give up so you're as virtuous as I hope.

Back to my point ... when you're finished taking it to the extreme to
make yours: better today than yesterday. Better this year than last.
A little more aware than before. A little better about being part of
the solution and not part of the problem. That fairly well summarizes
my outlook on the thing. It's really fairly moderate, and really
fairly implementable.

Excellent ideas, more or less, with some perspective on how necessary
this stuff is. Nobody likes to talk about it, but the air quality in
most cities in the US (and Canada) is pretty good these days. Even a
nasty big old modern SUV is still far more emissions-friendly than
almost any car manufactured 25 years ago, and many cars newer than that.
The reason? catalytic converters and closed-loop fuel injection. The
former is pretty much strictly an environmental control, but the latter
is both an emissions reducer, a fuel-economy improver, and a performance
enhancer. Cars like the wildly overengined 2005 Chevrolet Corvette has
400 horsepower, making it pretty much the fastest Corvette ever
produced*, probably even beating such legendary, rarely-seen vehicles as
the L-88 and ZL-1 Corvettes of late sixties and early seventies. It also
meets all normal vehicle emissions standards, and gets 18/28
city/highway MPG. I am led to believe that a hot sixties muscle car
would probably get something like half as much gas mileage, and be
slower. This is progress on a dramatic scale.

*the exception is, of course, the LS7-equipped Corvette Z06, which has a
ludicrous 500 horsepower, making it capable of outrunning Dodge Vipers
and pretty much every other car that costs less than a nice house. It
gets 16/26 MPG according to the EPA. Prices start just under US$66,000,
and I suspect there's a lineup at the dealerships. I said I was a
lapsarian car nut, but apparently I'm relapsing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe. Maybe not. Getting people to evaluate their choices and
examine their values in subtle ways may have effect, too. I can tell
you that--as one of two bicycle commuters at my last job (150
employees)--three years later, I was one of two bicycle commuters.

Leading by example recruited exactly zero people. Can't say it's,
therefore, INeffective, but it certainly didn't seem very effective.

Aha! I knew I'd find something. I feel this failure of yours to convince
your co-workers, is a personal failing on your part. If I could convert
mine, I fail to see why you should do any less for your part. It's
probably due to your grating personality: have you considered therapy? I
wouldn't ordinarily recommend it over the internet, but in this case, I
can already see that your failure to modify your personality has cost
the environment too much already. And therapy, plus possibly some
medication, can do much to reduce destruction of things widely
considered to be the common good (poor interpersonal interactions, in
your case directly damaging the environment through your lack of
commuter conversions). Therapy increase mental fitness levels, reducing
overall health care costs, plus the associated environmental benefits in
your case.

Not at all sure where you were going with this, but can only imagine
that you amused yourself in the process ... and that's important ;-)

The serious point (honest, there was one!) was that it is easy for a
bunch of cyclists in a cycling newsgroup to decry cars in general and
SUVs in specific, because it's so much fun, and there's likely to be
little resistance. SUVs are a particular favourite whipping-boy these
days, and I would like those who enjoy the whipping to examine this
decision more closely, as I'm pretty sure they're not as evil as they're
made out to be.

More importantly, it ought to be recognized that there is a pretty early
diminishing-returns point in dealing with environmental conservation.
Indeed, in terms of saving lives, there are probably better places to
spend the world's time and money at the moment.

That's controversial to say, I know, but it ought to be pointed out.

To put it another way, it's possible to own an SUV (for whatever reason)
and still be a good person, both environmentally and on any other axis
you choose to list. I doubt it's a big impediment to entry into either
Heaven or the Worker's Paradise, but I may be wrong. and your point
about personal examination is a worthwhile one: a big reason I chimed in
here is I didn't see a lot of that going on (the beam in one's eye, as
it were).

Quoted message said:

Something about the people with whom I worked, the area in which I
live, the vehicular traffic in this area, the distance of /relatively
more/ affordable housing from the office, and the values of my
co-workers conspired to keep /any/ of them from gaining interest in
bicycle commuting to work.

[snip]

I deleted your interesting comments on health care and social
engineering not because they were wrong or annoying, but because I have
a cold and can't keep up 🙂. Really.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, if we can all get back to mote-checking, I'm going to go outside
and make tsking noises at all the people with higher BMIs than me for
using up all my public health care.

You can do that in Canada,

You can do that here, too. The actuarial tables derive health-care
costs by looking at large populations' health characteristics. We
still pay for the sins of others down here. Our lines are just
shorter ;-)

Ha ha. We have much to learn from you....

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

Zoot Katz said:

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:35:30 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, Neil Brooks

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Good gravy! Are you sure? Are you really really sure? I am fascinated
that you know so much about the motivations of SUV owners around you.
Have you been poking through their garbage for under-shredded data?

Notice (or fail to notice) that I described a particular group of
people: those for whom excess/status/prestige/masculinity do more to
drive their choice than does practicality/utility/need. That's not
everybody ... but I bet it's certainly a big bunch of 'em.

They're hopeless dupes and that's the way the industry likes them.
The largest advertisers in all mediums are purveyors of scuds. The
entire economy is geared toward flogging and maintaining that
soon-to-be obsolescent junk. GM makes more money from its credit
branch than its manufacturing branch. It's a house of cards. Too bad
that when if falls its negative impact will reach beyond those
willingly enslaved dupes.

That the auto industry likes to sell cars should surprise nobody. That
GM's finance arm is the profitable side of the business says more about
the car division's problems than anything else. Toyota is making an
awful lot of money in this business (and so is the Chrysler part of
DaimlerChrysler right now), and it's not because of Prius sales. It's
because Toyotas are really really good cars for the money and people buy
them like crazy without needing rebates to do so.

People are smarter than you think, Zoot. The most important effect of
car culture has been to increase the reach of average people. The best
meat in town is at Bonetti's Meats in Aldergrove. By bike, it would be
an all-day trip to get there and back with a load. My mother-in-law
would be unable to make the trip at all due to health limitations.

By car it's maybe 90 minutes round trip, and we do it about once a month
to pick up meat. I value tasty meat, and I value my time.

That and a hundred other reasons are why I own a car. We can hash it out
why I own a moderately expensive car, purchased used, but that's
essentially a disagreement that has as substantial a moral component as
the question about whether owning a really expensive home theatre setup
is a moral act. Or a nice bicycle. I have one of those, too, to go along
with several nasty bicycles, and a bad salvaging habit. (Just to be
clear, my home theatre setup cost more than my best bike, and less than
my car).

I'm pretty insane about use-of-car stuff: I make a really studious
attempt to avoid driving in rush-hour, I have a general policy of using
public transit to go downtown if I can (though I am usually convinced
otherwise when I have fellow-travelers along), and I avoid driving when
I know there is likely to be a traffic jam. It's still really nice to
own a car, though.

I'm not saying this as some sort of demented car-fan (I think; maybe I'm
brainwashed): I ride to work. My wife works close enough to home to
walk, now, and loves it. I have even been using my bike to ride to many
of my bike races this year, in old-school English fashion. I really,
really like bikes, as you well know. I own a ludicrous number, many
salvaged from garage sales and junk piles. I give them to friends when I
think they could use them, and it seems to work. Before I got married, I
didn't own a car. Ever. I had a succession of motorcycles, and rode
those everywhere.

But I still am quite happy to own a car. If I was still single, I might
not own one (I'd probably just get a bike again, though I might have a
car to...transport my race bike to races!). If I was the only one making
the decision, I might own a really cheap or really weird car. But I'm
happy with the car I have, which was not terribly cheap, and isn't that
weird.

It's okay to own cars,

-RjC.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Bob the Cow said:

"Nuck 'n Futz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whether it results in just minor property damage to your shiney scud
or death or injury to pedestrians and cyclists, about twenty percent
of you scud slaves prove it doesn't take backbone to be assholesl

No idea what that even means.

To interpret what he writes in RBM, you need to know that "Zoot Katz" is the
protagonist in a very imaginative if somewhat simplistic video game, where
he rides hither and yon on a bicycle, and is constantly doing battle with
his nemeses, people who drive cars. They drive as though they've been
pithed, and were it not for his sharp wits and quick reflexes, Zoot, his
pets and his friends would be flattened many times a day, and the "game"
would have been "over" long ago. He has all manner of pejorative nicknames
for people who drive cars, of which "scud slaves" and "cagers" are among the
mildest ones. Name-calling and vicarious letting down of tires is his only
defense against the evil Scud Slaves and Cagers who constantly imperil him.

"[censored]" is sort of a catch-all word for anybody who isn't Zoot Katz. So
you and I are "[censored]". Got that?

He's been playing this game a long time. He has all 100 high scores for the
game, and he is at the highest level. Nobody plays it as well as him, he's
a natural like the deaf, dumb and blind kid who sure played a mean pinball.

He has long since lost the most tenuous touch with reality.

I can't even imagine what it must be like to live with all that
self-inflicted rancor, anger, and bitterness. What a frightful world to
live in! I feel pretty sorry for him.

--

the black rose
Research Associate in the Field of Child Development and Human
Relations
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
2005 BOMs: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/blackrosequilts/my_photos

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

the black rose said:

Bob the Cow said:

"Nuck 'n Futz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> Whether it results in just minor property damage to your shiney
> scud or death or injury to pedestrians and cyclists, about twenty
> percent of you scud slaves prove it doesn't take backbone to be
> assholesl

No idea what that even means.

To interpret what he writes in RBM, you need to know that "Zoot
Katz" is the protagonist in a very imaginative if somewhat
simplistic video game, where he rides hither and yon on a bicycle,
and is constantly doing battle with his nemeses, people who drive
cars. They drive as though they've been pithed, and were it not for
his sharp wits and quick reflexes, Zoot, his pets and his friends
would be flattened many times a day, and the "game" would have been
"over" long ago. He has all manner of pejorative nicknames for
people who drive cars, of which "scud slaves" and "cagers" are among
the mildest ones. Name-calling and vicarious letting down of tires
is his only defense against the evil Scud Slaves and Cagers who
constantly imperil him. "[censored]" is sort of a catch-all word for
anybody who isn't Zoot
Katz. So you and I are "[censored]". Got that?

He's been playing this game a long time. He has all 100 high scores
for the game, and he is at the highest level. Nobody plays it as
well as him, he's a natural like the deaf, dumb and blind kid who
sure played a mean pinball. He has long since lost the most tenuous touch
with reality.

I can't even imagine what it must be like to live with all that
self-inflicted rancor, anger, and bitterness. What a frightful world
to live in! I feel pretty sorry for him.

Um, wow. I've had my share of tiffs with Zoot (included being attacked
personally for expressing political views that he...um, didn't like), but I
think you're overstating his "miserable persona" a bit. He's a left-wing,
anti-car nutjob, yes, but otherwise seems fairly normal. (I'll add a smiley
face here if really necessary!) He's nowhere near Vandemanesque in terms of
social dysfunctionality (IMO).

Bill "big words, no extra charge" S.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

People are smarter than you think, Zoot.

Nope.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article <[email hidden]>,

the black rose said:

I can't even imagine what it must be like to live with all that
self-inflicted rancor, anger, and bitterness. What a frightful world to
live in! I feel pretty sorry for him.

Lose a loved one (or two) to the selfish carelessness of
scud pilots, and then say all that.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:29:18 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:35:30 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, Neil Brooks

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Good gravy! Are you sure? Are you really really sure? I am fascinated
that you know so much about the motivations of SUV owners around you.
Have you been poking through their garbage for under-shredded data?

Notice (or fail to notice) that I described a particular group of
people: those for whom excess/status/prestige/masculinity do more to
drive their choice than does practicality/utility/need. That's not
everybody ... but I bet it's certainly a big bunch of 'em.

They're hopeless dupes and that's the way the industry likes them.
The largest advertisers in all mediums are purveyors of scuds. The
entire economy is geared toward flogging and maintaining that
soon-to-be obsolescent junk. GM makes more money from its credit
branch than its manufacturing branch. It's a house of cards. Too bad
that when if falls its negative impact will reach beyond those
willingly enslaved dupes.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0212.mencimer.html

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:29:18 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:35:30 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, Neil Brooks

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Good gravy! Are you sure? Are you really really sure? I am fascinated
that you know so much about the motivations of SUV owners around you.
Have you been poking through their garbage for under-shredded data?

Notice (or fail to notice) that I described a particular group of
people: those for whom excess/status/prestige/masculinity do more to
drive their choice than does practicality/utility/need. That's not
everybody ... but I bet it's certainly a big bunch of 'em.

They're hopeless dupes and that's the way the industry likes them.
The largest advertisers in all mediums are purveyors of scuds. The
entire economy is geared toward flogging and maintaining that
soon-to-be obsolescent junk. GM makes more money from its credit
branch than its manufacturing branch. It's a house of cards. Too bad
that when if falls its negative impact will reach beyond those
willingly enslaved dupes.

Hell, I'll paste the whole thing for Google posterity:

Bumper Mentality
A review of Keith Bradsher's High and Mighty: SUVs Buy the book

By Stephanie Mencimer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever wondered why sport utility vehicle drivers seem like
such [censored]? Surely it's no coincidence that Terry McAuliffe,
chairman of the Dem-ocratic National Committee, tours Washington in
one of the biggest SUVs on the market, the Cadillac Escalade, or that
Jesse Ventura loves the Lincoln Navigator. Well, according to New York
Times reporter Keith Bradsher's new book, High and Mighty, the
connection between the two isn't a coincidence. Unlike any other
vehicle before it, the SUV is the car of choice for the nation's most
self-centered people; and the bigger the SUV, the more of a jerk its
driver is likely to be.

According to market research conducted by the country's leading
automakers, Bradsher reports, SUV buyers tend to be "insecure and
vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and
uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their
driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and
self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors and
communities. They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social
than most Americans are. They tend to like fine restaurants a lot more
than off-road driving, seldom go to church and have limited interest
in doing volunteer work to help others."

He says, too, that SUV drivers generally don't care about anyone
else's kids but their own, are very concerned with how other people
see them rather than with what's practical, and they tend to want to
control or have control over the people around them. David Bostwick,
Chrysler's market research director, tells Bradsher, "If you have a
sport utility, you can have the smoked windows, put the children in
the back and pretend you're still single."

Armed with such research, automakers have, over the past decade,
ramped up their SUV designs to appeal even more to the "reptilian"
instincts of the many Americans who are attracted to SUVs not because
of their perceived safety, but for their obvious aggressiveness.
Automakers have intentionally designed the latest models to resemble
ferocious animals. The Dodge Durango, for instance, was built to
resemble a savage jungle cat, with vertical bars across the grille to
represent teeth and big jaw-like fenders. Bradsher quotes a former
Ford market researcher who says the SUV craze is "about not letting
anything get in your way, and at the extreme, about intimidating
others to get out of your way."

Not surprisingly, most SUV customers over the past decade hail from a
group that is the embodiment of American narcissism: baby boomers.
Affluent, and often socially liberal, baby boomers have embraced the
four-wheel-drive SUV as a symbol of their ability to defy the
conventions of old age, of their independence and "outdoorsiness,"
making the off-road vehicle a force to be reckoned with on the
American blacktop. But as Bradsher declares in his title, this baby
boomer fetish is considerably more harmful than the mere annoyance of
yet another Rolling Stones tour or the endless commercials for
Propecia. In their attempt to appear youthful and hip, SUV owners have
filled the American highways with vehicles that exact a distinctly
human cost, frequently killing innocent drivers who would have
survived a collision with a lesser vehicle. Bradsher quotes auto execs
who concede that the self-centered lifestyle of SUV buyers is apparent
in "their willingness to endanger other motorists so as to achieve
small improvements in their personal safety."

After covering the auto industry for six years, Bradsher is an
unabashed critic of sports-utility vehicles and the automakers that
continue to churn them out knowing full well the dangers they pose. He
doesn't equivocate in his feeling that driving an SUV is a deeply
immoral act that places the driver's own ego above the health and
safety of those around him, not to mention the health of the
environment. Ironically, and though most supposedly safety-conscious
owners don't realize it, SUVs even imperil those who drive them.

Road Rodeo

Ask a typical SUV driver why he drives such a formidable vehicle, and
he'll invariably insist that it's for safety reasons--the kids, you
know--not because he's too vain to get behind the wheel of a sissy
Ford Windstar. Automakers themselves know otherwise--their own market
research tells them so. But Bradsher makes painfully clear that the
belief in SUV safety is a delusion. For decades, automakers seeking to
avoid tougher fuel economy standards have invoked the fiction that the
bigger the car, the safer the passenger. As a result, most Americans
take it on faith that the only way to be safe on the highway is to be
driving a tank (or the next best thing--a Hummer). Bradsher shatters
this myth and highlights the strange disconnect between the perception
and the reality of SUVs.

The occupant death rate in SUVs is 6 percent higher than it is for
cars--8 percent higher in the largest SUVs. The main reason is that
SUVs carry a high risk of rollover; 62 percent of SUV deaths in 2000
occurred in rollover accidents. SUVs don't handle well, so drivers
can't respond quickly when the car hits a stretch of uneven pavement
or "trips" by scraping a guardrail. Even a small bump in the road is
enough to flip an SUV traveling at high speed. On top of that, SUV
roofs are not reinforced to protect the occupants against rollover;
nor does the government require them to be.

Because of their vehicles' size and four-wheel drive capability, SUV
drivers tend to overestimate their own security, which prompts many to
drive like maniacs, particularly in inclement weather. And SUV
drivers--ever image-conscious and overconfident--seem to hate seat
belts as much as they love talking on their cell phones while driving.
Bradsher reports that four-fifths of those killed in roll-overs were
not belted in, even though 75 percent of the general driving
population now buckles up regularly.

While failing to protect their occupants, SUVs have also made the
roads more dangerous for others. The "kill rate," as Bradsher calls
it, for SUVs is simply jaw-dropping. For every one life saved by
driving an SUV, five others will be taken. Government researchers have
found that a behemoth like the four-ton Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people
for every 1 million models on the road; by comparison, the Honda
Accord only kills 21. Injuries in SUV-related accidents are likewise
more severe.

Part of the reason for the high kill rate is that cars offer very
little protection against an SUV hitting them from the side--not
because of the weight, but because of the design. When a car is hit
from the side by another car, the victim is 6.6 times as likely to die
as the aggressor. But if the aggressor is an SUV, the car driver's
relative chance of dying rises to 30 to 1, because the hood of an SUV
is so high off the ground. Rather than hitting the reinforced doors of
a car with its bumper, an SUV will slam into more vulnerable areas and
strike a car driver in the head or chest, where injuries are more
life-threatening. But before you get an SUV just for defensive
purposes, think again. Any safety gains that might accrue are
cancelled out by the high risk of rollover deaths, which usually don't
involve other cars.

Ironically, SUVs are particularly dangerous for children, whose safety
is often the rationale for buying them in the first place. Because
these beasts are so big and hard to see around (and often equipped
with dark-tinted glass that's illegal in cars), SUV drivers have a
troubling tendency to run over their own kids. Just recently, in
October, a wealthy Long Island doctor made headlines after he ran over
and killed his two-year-old in the driveway with his BMW X5. He told
police he thought he'd hit the curb.

To illustrate the kind of selfishness that marks some SUV drivers,
Bradsher finds people who rave about how they've survived accidents
with barely a scratch, yet neglected to mention that the people in the
other car were all killed. (One such woman confesses rather chillingly
to Bradsher that her first response after killing another driver was
to go out and get an even bigger SUV.) The tragedy of SUVs is that
highway fatalities were actually in decline before SUVs came into
vogue, even though Americans were driving farther. This is true
largely for one simple reason: the seatbelt. Seatbelt usage rose from
14 percent in 1984 to 73 percent in 2001. But seatbelts aren't much
help if you're sideswiped by an Escalade, a prospect that looms yet
more ominously as SUVs enter the used-car market. Not surprisingly,
last year, for the first time in a decade, the number of highway
deaths actually rose.

No Roads Scholars Here

Bradsher blames government for failing to adequately regulate SUVs,
but doesn't fully acknowledge the degree to which it has encouraged
SUV production by becoming a major consumer of them. Law enforcement
and public safety agencies in particular seem enamored of the menacing
vehicles, a fact on proud display when officers finally apprehended
the alleged snipers in the Washington, D.C., area and transported them
to the federal courthouse in a parade of black Ford Explorers and
Expeditions. Judging from the number of official SUVs on the road
today, law enforcement officials--those most likely to know firsthand
the grisly effects of a rollover--are enthusiastic customers. Like the
rest of America, police departments seem to believe that replacing
safe, sturdy cars with SUVs is a good idea, though it's hard to
imagine a more dangerous vehicle for an officer conducting a
high-speed chase.

Government's taste for SUVs isn't limited to cops and firemen. There's
hardly a city in America where the mayor's chauffeured Lincoln Town
Car hasn't been replaced by an SUV. In Virginia, where state officials
recently discovered that SUVs were wrecking their efforts to meet
clean-air regulations, a few noted sheepishly that perhaps local
governments should sell their own fleets, which had ballooned to 250
in Fairfax County alone. (A Fairfax County official told The
Washington Post that public safety officials needed four-wheel drive
and large cargo spaces to transport extra people and emergency
equipment through snow or heavy rain--proof that even law enforcement
officials misunderstand SUV safety records.)

As Bradsher details, because of their weight, shoddy brakes, and
off-road tires, SUVs handle poorly in bad weather and have trouble
stopping on slick roads. What's more, they're generally so poorly
designed as not to be capable of carrying much cargo, despite the
space. A contributing factor in the Ford Explorer-Firestone tire
debacle was that drivers weren't told that their Explorers shouldn't
carry any more weight than a Ford Taurus. The extra weight routinely
piled in these big cars stressed the tires in a way that made them
fall apart faster and contributed to the spate of rollover deaths.

I have a hunch that government officials' justification for buying
SUVs is mostly a ruse for their real motivation, which is the same as
any other SUV owner's: image. Officials can safely load up their
fleets with leather-seated SUVs, whereas using taxpayer dollars to buy
themselves, say, a fleet of BMW coupes would get them crucified (even
though Detroit considers SUVs luxury vehicles and designs them
accordingly). Police departments may claim that they need an SUV to
accommodate SWAT teams or canine units, but there is no reason that
Sparky the drug dog wouldn't be just as comfortable in the back of a
nice safe Chevy Astrovan.

The same is true for nearly everyone who drives an SUV today. Of
course, not every SUV owner is gripped by insecurity and a death
wish--plenty of otherwise reasonable people seem to get seduced by
power and size (see sidebar). But if soccer moms and office-park dads
really need to ferry a lot of people around, they could simply get a
large car or a minivan, which Bradsher hails as a great innovation for
its fuel efficiency, safety, and lower pollution. (And minivans don't
have a disproportionately high kill rate for motorists or pedestrians
when they get into accidents.) According to industry market research,
minivan drivers also tend to be very nice people. Minivans are favored
by senior citizens and others (male and female, equally) who volunteer
for their churches and carpool with other people's kids. But that's
the problem. SUV owners buy them precisely because they don't want the
"soccer mom" stigma associated with minivans.

While Bradsher does a magnificent job of shattering the myths about
SUVs, he has a difficult time proposing a solution. Sport utility
vehicles have become like guns: Everyone knows they're dangerous, but
you can't exactly force millions of Americans to give them up
overnight. And because the SUV is single-handedly responsible for
revitalizing the once-depressed American auto industry, the economy is
now so dependent on their production that it would be nearly
impossible to get them off the road. Bradsher suggests regulating SUVs
like cars rather than as light trucks, so that they would be forced to
comply with fuel-efficiency standards and safety regulations. He also
proposes that the insurance industry stop shifting the high costs of
the SUV dangers onto car owners by raising premium prices for SUVs to
reflect the amount of damage they cause. But these ideas, commendable
though they are, fall short of a perfect answer.

Clearly, the best solution would be for Americans to realize the
danger of SUVs and simply stop buying them. Social pressure can be a
powerful determinant on car choices, as seen in Japan, the one country
where SUVs have not caught on because of cultural checks that
emphasize the good of the community over that of the individual. There
are signs that perhaps public sentiment is beginning to shift against
SUV drivers here, too, as activists have begun to leave nasty flyers
on SUV windshields berating drivers for fouling the environment and
other offenses. But for a true reckoning to take place, image-obsessed
Americans will need to fully understand the SUV's true
dangers--including to themselves--before they will willingly abandon
it to the junkyard. Spreading that message against the nation's
biggest advertiser--the auto industry--will be tough work. Drivers can
only hope that Bradsher's book will cut through the chatter.

Stephanie Mencimer is a contributing editor of The Washington Monthly.

Bill Sornson said:

the black rose wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't even imagine what it must be like to live with all that
self-inflicted rancor, anger, and bitterness. What a frightful world
to live in! I feel pretty sorry for him.

Um, wow. I've had my share of tiffs with Zoot (included being attacked
personally for expressing political views that he...um, didn't like), but I
think you're overstating his "miserable persona" a bit. He's a left-wing,
anti-car nutjob, yes, but otherwise seems fairly normal. (I'll add a smiley
face here if really necessary!) He's nowhere near Vandemanesque in terms of
social dysfunctionality (IMO).

Thing is, he's just as "effective" as Vandeman. I can't think of a
better way to mute the message of bicycles as transportation than to
do what Zoot does.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame