Depaving?

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by cfsmtb, Dec 19, 2005.

  1. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    Depaving? WTF is that? Digging up the driveway? Interested, then read on,


    ****

    On Depaving
    http://www.smmirror.com/Volume1/issue51/on_depraving.html


    Today's anxiety over higher gasoline prices is not an issue for those who choose to not own a car. Not only is the car-free sector of the U.S. population panic-free over high gas prices, but car-less folk may be enviable for their greater enjoyment of their community.

    Activists and planners are also beginning to make urban areas more friendly to walking and biking. Trains running on cleaner, renewable energy are also a possibility if public spending priorities shifted away from driving.

    Such land use and transportation measures along with car-free living need to be considered at a time when road rage is on the rise, with or without gas price jumps. And, oil is a dwindling resource. Perhaps the most immediate detrimental effect of oil is from one product, asphalt: pavement has encroached on our living space so as to raise urban temperatures while stealing both farmland and wildlife habitat.

    Band-aid solutions are many, but the movement for sustainability has a sophisticated vision that has wide appeal, if we can slow down and take a look around. Los Angeles can learn from other cities, such as Portland, Oregon. There activists recently succeeded in having a city ordinance passed to allow every intersection to be traffic-calmed so as to become a neighborhood's social hub. Corner kiosks and street parties will start to decrease the urge to drive for distant needs and thrills.

    Believers in the car-free lifestyle are often opponents of urban sprawl -- more freeways, wider avenues, bigger parking lots. To compensate for the struggle and bad news associated with more sprawl and worsening traffic, car-free folk happily get daily exercise walking and biking. And, not having to support a car leads to greater financial freedom: on average, Californians spend around $13,000 per registered vehicle annually. If that doesn't bother you, realize that a pedestrian actually goes just as fast as any motorist. How is that? Do the arithmetic: if all the hours to earn the money to buy the car, to pay for repairs and the insurance and fuel, and the time sitting in traffic and finding the car in some huge parking lot, and all other time-consuming car activities are considered, and the total hours are divided into the annual miles driven, the average North American is proven to be going only five miles per hour.

    Depaving is another important pastime. People with pickup trucks are welcome to participate, by bringing sledge hammers, picks and shovels, and hauling away rubble. For my driveway, we made attractive landscaping walls with the concrete pieces. It's great to free the soil to grow flowers, vegetables and trees--it cools the atmosphere and empowers a human being in this megacorporate-dominated world. Grow some food by liberating the land.

    Why rely on Safeway, et al, who in turn depend on diesel fueled trucks? Car-free activists were delighted with the WTO protest in Seattle last fall, as streets were taken over by people for a change. The next time these people take over the streets, they might have a depaving party a la "Reclaim the Streets," of British contemporary lore.

    Car-free Americans may actually be more concerned about oil than the typical TV-watching commuter. This is because most of them know how precarious is today's petroleum-intensive agriculture, as it floats this nation's overpopulation beyond the capacity the land could otherwise carry. The U.S. will run out of oil by around 2020, and the world soon after. Wars over oil are therefore always around the corner. Perhaps having a new gas-guzzling SUV should not be so prestigious, as few of them venture out in the wild anyway, where they just tear up the ground and pollute.

    The death toll on U.S. roads is near 43,000 people every year. The Columbine High School massacre body count is dwarfed by the loss of life occurring every week as we drive in this country. Fumes from our vehicles' exhaust kill another 50,000 annually, especially the elderly and children. Heart attacks claim even more people's lives every year due to the excessive sedentary factor implicated in driving. One million animals die on U.S. roads every day. Global warming's single biggest factor is the U.S. automobile population's emissions. Obviously, there is more to be worried about than "high" gas prices (at half of the rest of the world's level) in our car-dependent, paved culture.

    Instead of dealing with this issue head on, "solutions" range from building more roads to "alleviate" traffic congestion, to building non-oil burning vehicles. Unfortunately, the environmental movement is largely funded not to take direct action, but to instead push for technofixes. People assume there are replacement fuels and technologies for oil, but consider, for example, how cheaply it flowed until massively subsidized after the 1970s, and oil is our asphalt and tires as well as fuels. This is one reason fundamental lifestyle change and land-use are the real key. Sadly, there is no operating fund for depaving which addresses the cause of these problems.

    For ways to get involved in projects to reduce petroleum dependence, such as Pedal Power Produce and the new Sail Transport Network, and to get a copy of the Auto-Free Times magazine, visit the web site of the Alliance for a Paving Moratorium: http://www.lesscars.org. Let us rise above oil, cars and pavement starting now.

    The writer is president of Fossil Fuels Policy Action in Arcata, California, and he formerly published the Lundberg Letter on oil industry trends.
     
    Tags:


  2. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Depaving? WTF is that? Digging up the driveway? Interested, then read
    > on,
    >
    >
    > ****
    >
    > On Depaving
    > http://www.smmirror.com/Volume1/issue51/on_depraving.html
    >
    >
    > Today's anxiety over higher gasoline prices is not an issue for

    <snippage>
    > industry trends.
    >
    >
    > --
    > cfsmtb
    >


    Hmm...I agree with the basic sentiment, but there are a few points made
    there that are either a bit tenuous or easily dismissed. This is the sort of
    thing about which you need to write extraordinarily carefully if you don't
    want to sound like a raving space cadet.
     
  3. Jules

    Jules Guest

    <snip tree-hugging bits>

    > Californians spend around $13,000 per registered
    > vehicle annually. If that doesn't bother you, realize that a pedestrian
    > actually goes just as fast as any motorist. How is that? Do the
    > arithmetic: if all the hours to earn the money to buy the car, to pay
    > for repairs and the insurance and fuel, and the time sitting in traffic
    > and finding the car in some huge parking lot, and all other
    > time-consuming car activities are considered, and the total hours are
    > divided into the annual miles driven, the average North American is
    > proven to be going only five miles per hour.


    That is fantastic... quote that and pass it along to select
    friends/colleagues and just let them mull it over.

    It's a very convincing argument. I love it ;-)

    Jules
     
  4. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0

    Seriously though, I'm impressed a article as potentially oddball as this can still emanate from the Land of Fee. Space cadet? You obviously haven't read my blogger profile ... :D
     
  5. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2005-12-20, Jules (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > <snip tree-hugging bits>
    >
    > > Californians spend around $13,000 per registered
    >> vehicle annually. If that doesn't bother you, realize that a pedestrian
    >> actually goes just as fast as any motorist. How is that? Do the
    >> arithmetic: if all the hours to earn the money to buy the car, to pay
    >> for repairs and the insurance and fuel, and the time sitting in traffic
    >> and finding the car in some huge parking lot, and all other
    >> time-consuming car activities are considered, and the total hours are
    >> divided into the annual miles driven, the average North American is
    >> proven to be going only five miles per hour.

    >
    > That is fantastic... quote that and pass it along to select
    > friends/colleagues and just let them mull it over.
    >
    > It's a very convincing argument. I love it ;-)


    It's called the "effective speed".

    The effective speed of the fastest cars happen to be the slowest :)

    Bikes come out near best -- something like 14km/h, IIRC.

    Busses wouldn't fair too bad if well utilised. I imagine trains would
    be slow though (you have to take all the money you spend on the train
    via taxes, not just your ticket).

    --
    TimC
    Entropy requires no maintenance. -- Markoff Chaney
     
  6. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    TimC wrote:

    > It's called the "effective speed".
    >
    > The effective speed of the fastest cars happen to be the slowest :)
    >
    > Bikes come out near best -- something like 14km/h, IIRC.


    Scooters and small motorcycles, with a purchase cost of between $2000 and
    $4000, come out best.

    Theo
     
  7. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Resound Wrote:
    >>
    >> Hmm...I agree with the basic sentiment, but there are a few points
    >> made
    >> there that are either a bit tenuous or easily dismissed. This is the
    >> sort of
    >> thing about which you need to write extraordinarily carefully if you
    >> don't
    >> want to sound like a raving space cadet.

    >
    >
    > Seriously though, I'm impressed a article as potentially oddball as
    > this can still emanate from the Land of Fee. Space cadet? You obviously
    > haven't read my 'blogger profile'
    > (http://www.blogger.com/profile/4221785) ... :D
    >
    >
    > --
    > cfsmtb
    >


    Ah, but there's a difference between thoughtful, considered space cadets and
    loony raving space cadets. Sometimes only the the perceptions of others,
    granted, but a difference nonetheless.
     
  8. Jules

    Jules Guest

    > It's called the "effective speed".
    >
    > The effective speed of the fastest cars happen to be the slowest :)


    Well... I'm not convinced of that to be honest. If I had a Ferarri I'm
    pretty sure my "effective hourly wage rate" would be so frickin' high
    that I'd be moving pretty damn quick ;-)

    It's neither here nor there, really. While this stuff is a bit of a
    computational charade, it'll undoubtedly achieve its intention of
    encouraging people to think about what cars really cost them. In many
    senses of the word "cost".

    Jules
     
  9. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2005-12-20, Jules (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >> It's called the "effective speed".
    >>
    >> The effective speed of the fastest cars happen to be the slowest :)

    >
    > Well... I'm not convinced of that to be honest. If I had a Ferarri I'm
    > pretty sure my "effective hourly wage rate" would be so frickin' high
    > that I'd be moving pretty damn quick ;-)
    >
    > It's neither here nor there, really. While this stuff is a bit of a
    > computational charade,


    In what sense is it a computational charade?

    It makes perfect sense and seems completely legitimate to me.

    The proper calculation would look at depreciation instead of just
    looking at the cost of the car.

    I got rid of my car, and so save a bare minimum of $2000 a year (the
    bike costs about $1000 a year to run, and I guess my cycling fuel
    costs about $1000, although I do eat a *lot*). That saves me a
    hundred hours or so of having to work (that's a two week extra
    holiday, thankyou!). Or allows me to buy $2000 worth of useful stuff.
    Like a new motherboard, since I put that RAM in backwards lastnight,
    and smoked the voltage regulator.

    That's 100 hours in which I can do something useful, or earn money to
    get something useful, instead of simply sitting there doing day in day
    out drudgery work.

    --
    TimC
    That [Tim-Tam] would be the Classic. Not to be confused with the
    Chocolate, Chocolate, Chocolate, and Double Chocolate flavour.
    (Personally, I prefer Cadbury's Doubles myself. Tim Tams don't taste
    enough of chocolate.) -- Faceless Man on ARK
     
  10. Jules

    Jules Guest

    > I got rid of my car, and so save a bare minimum of $2000 a year (the
    > bike costs about $1000 a year to run, and I guess my cycling fuel
    > costs about $1000, although I do eat a *lot*). That saves me a
    > hundred hours or so of having to work (that's a two week extra
    > holiday, thankyou!).


    So are you taking the unpaid holiday? Or have you just got more cash
    with which to consume other stuff?

    > Or allows me to buy $2000 worth of useful stuff.
    > Like a new motherboard, since I put that RAM in backwards lastnight,
    > and smoked the voltage regulator.


    ahh... ;-)

    > That's 100 hours in which I can do something useful, or earn money to
    > get something useful, instead of simply sitting there doing day in day
    > out drudgery work.


    The numbers themselves aren't necessarily incorrect, but the model is
    bsaed on two flawed concepts.

    Which are:

    1) That someone would rather sit and wait for a bus/train than work /
    earn the money to pay for a car.

    2) This model implies that any rational person should buy an older /
    cheap / polluting car instead of a new / efficient / expensive one.
    Which - economically - is the rational option but certainly doesn't
    advance the goals of the person who invented this model.

    Nor is it (thankfully) what everyone does. We'd probably be in even
    worse shape if everyone was truly economically rational.

    But don't get me wrong here - it's an illustrative point and will be a
    usefull "tool in the arsenal" as long as you don't get too close to it
    with a magnifying glass.

    If the absolute numbers were left out... i.e.
    "Think about how many hours of work you do in order to pay for your
    car.. fuel, insurance, rego, depreciation, servicing, yada yada", it
    would be - IMO - more honest... but there's nothing like a bit of
    sensationalist number crunching to get people worried ;-)

    Jules
     
  11. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2005-12-20, Jules (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >> I got rid of my car, and so save a bare minimum of $2000 a year (the
    >> bike costs about $1000 a year to run, and I guess my cycling fuel
    >> costs about $1000, although I do eat a *lot*). That saves me a
    >> hundred hours or so of having to work (that's a two week extra
    >> holiday, thankyou!).

    >
    > So are you taking the unpaid holiday? Or have you just got more cash
    > with which to consume other stuff?


    It's all theoretical -- I'm a student with no income (and a rent bill
    due next month -- eek!) :)

    When I get a job with All New Shiny! compulsory contract, I'll be sure
    to make sure the contract lets me have holidays when I want them.

    >> That's 100 hours in which I can do something useful, or earn money to
    >> get something useful, instead of simply sitting there doing day in day
    >> out drudgery work.

    >
    > The numbers themselves aren't necessarily incorrect, but the model is
    > bsaed on two flawed concepts.
    >
    > Which are:
    >
    > 1) That someone would rather sit and wait for a bus/train than work /
    > earn the money to pay for a car.
    >
    > 2) This model implies that any rational person should buy an older /
    > cheap / polluting car instead of a new / efficient / expensive one.
    > Which - economically - is the rational option but certainly doesn't
    > advance the goals of the person who invented this model.


    Old cars wouldn't be cheap if there was much demand for them because
    no people wanted to buy new cars.

    --
    TimC
    Chairman: I'm glad to see so many bright-eyed and bushy-tailed people
    here at this time of the morning.
    From the audience: Actually, most of us are rabid. -- From an astro talk
     
  12. On 2005-12-20, Jules <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Which are:
    >
    > 1) That someone would rather sit and wait for a bus/train than work /
    > earn the money to pay for a car.


    This takes a shift in the mentality of society in general. This shift is
    the same as, or very similar to, the shift necessary for cycling to
    become generally accepted as an alternative to car travel ...

    > 2) This model implies that any rational person should buy an older /
    > cheap / polluting car instead of a new / efficient / expensive one.
    > Which - economically - is the rational option but certainly doesn't
    > advance the goals of the person who invented this model.


    Not so, actually. The cost of maintenance, and the more expensive fuel
    needed to keep that car going, means that the marginal cost of driving
    wherever is actually still significantly higher than the marginal cost
    of cycling. So yes, on at least some level it's better than the new car
    (you pay a *lot* in depreciation the moment you drive that new car out
    of the car lot), but it still doesn't come in as well as a bicycle.

    I paid a thousand bucks for the bicycle I use for commuting (back on it
    on the 3rd of January; I have this thing about cold showers after a long
    ride in to work ...) -- that's not going to buy you much by way of a
    car, and I'm certain any such car would cost a packet to keep going.

    I seem to remember reading that a 250cc motorbike is the most cost
    effective mode of transport under this system. I can believe it, too.

    --
    My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
    the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
     
  13. In aus.bicycle on Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:10:56 GMT
    Stuart Lamble <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 2005-12-20, Jules <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Which are:
    >>
    >> 1) That someone would rather sit and wait for a bus/train than work /
    >> earn the money to pay for a car.

    >
    > This takes a shift in the mentality of society in general. This shift is
    > the same as, or very similar to, the shift necessary for cycling to
    > become generally accepted as an alternative to car travel ...


    Well... the difference in early - leave home at 7:15am - commute is the
    motorcycle takes about 35 min door to door, the train takes an hour.

    The later run - leave home at 8am - the motorcycle takes about 50 min
    door to door, the train takes an hour. If it turns up...

    The train costs $5.70 return, the bike does about $3 in petrol.

    Going home at the usual times I do - after 6pm - the train can take a
    long time as they often aren't there or if its closer to 7pm then the
    frequency is much less so there's a lot of sitting and waiting.

    The crush on the train either way is unpleasant.

    I'd still have the bike for other things, as most of the people I want
    to visit or places I want to go are difficult and timeconsuming to get
    to by public transport as they aren't in the city.

    The mighty scooter cost me 3 grand to buy, servicing is cheap or I do it
    myself. Tyres are expensive, and last a shorter time than car tyres, I
    expect I'll need 1.5 a year at about $130 each.


    For the commuting motorcyclist, the numbers tend to work out much better
    than they do for cars. If the biker chooses the bike properly!

    If I took a pushbike, then the time would be about 80 minutes I expect,
    gradually dropping but I doubt I'd ever make it in under an hour, plus
    I'd need 15 min for the shower and change.

    > Not so, actually. The cost of maintenance, and the more expensive fuel
    > needed to keep that car going, means that the marginal cost of driving
    > wherever is actually still significantly higher than the marginal cost
    > of cycling. So yes, on at least some level it's better than the new car
    > (you pay a *lot* in depreciation the moment you drive that new car out
    > of the car lot), but it still doesn't come in as well as a bicycle.


    Depends on the car too. Not every old car needs fancy fuel for example.

    > I seem to remember reading that a 250cc motorbike is the most cost
    > effective mode of transport under this system. I can believe it, too.



    Depending on the bike. I'd say a 150cc scooter is more like it. They
    tend to be cheaper - you can buy a Taiwanese 150 for under 5 grand with
    12 months warranty and free servicing, but the cheapest new 250
    motorcycle is a couple of grand more.

    They also get better mileage than most motorcycles - around 30km/l
    instead of 20-25.

    If cheapness and convenience was your requirement, then a 150cc scooter
    is the way to go.

    Mine was "has to be appropriately quirky", so I got a 2 stroke scooter
    and hotted it up :) Only get about 17-18km/l, but it gives a lot of
    laughs for the buck.

    If I was closer to work I'd ride the pushie. Used to do so when I was
    10km from work, but 25km is too far.

    Zebee

    --
    Zebee Johnstone ([email protected]), proud holder of
    aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
    "Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"
     
  14. On 2005-12-20, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
    > For the commuting motorcyclist, the numbers tend to work out much better
    > than they do for cars. If the biker chooses the bike properly!


    Oh, definitely. I think the ultimate point that the whole philosophy is
    making is: what is your decision in transport costing you, and is it
    worth that cost? For example, I drove my car in today, because I'm going
    diving this evening: it's a bit hard to take dive gear (weight belt and
    all, although I didn't have tanks this morning) on a train, bus, or
    bicycle. In this instance, the extra cost of driving in is balanced out
    by the sheer impossibility of doing what I'm planning on doing any other
    way.

    [...]
    > Depends on the car too. Not every old car needs fancy fuel for example.


    When I read "old car", I tend to think of vehicles that were built in
    the days of leaded petrol ... so my response was with that at the back
    of my mind. You're right, of course, but I still think that my comment
    pretty much stands.

    > In aus.bicycle on Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:10:56 GMT
    > Stuart Lamble <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> I seem to remember reading that a 250cc motorbike is the most cost
    >> effective mode of transport under this system. I can believe it, too.

    >
    > Depending on the bike. I'd say a 150cc scooter is more like it. They
    > tend to be cheaper - you can buy a Taiwanese 150 for under 5 grand with
    > 12 months warranty and free servicing, but the cheapest new 250
    > motorcycle is a couple of grand more.
    >
    > They also get better mileage than most motorcycles - around 30km/l
    > instead of 20-25.


    Good point. The only hitch with a scooter is that I wouldn't even
    *think* about taking one onto a freeway -- most only get up to around 80
    kph, and the speed difference would be a real killer -- but otherwise,
    I'm definitely not about to argue that point. :)

    --
    My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
    the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
     
  15. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2005-12-20, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >> They also get better mileage than most motorcycles - around 30km/l
    >> instead of 20-25.

    >
    > Good point. The only hitch with a scooter is that I wouldn't even
    > *think* about taking one onto a freeway -- most only get up to around 80
    > kph, and the speed difference would be a real killer -- but otherwise,
    > I'm definitely not about to argue that point. :)


    In NSW, learner and P plater drivers are limited to 80km/h[1]. It
    works, no fatalities due to such drivers only doing 80km/h.

    Of course, I was once doing 60km/h on a stretch of freeway with
    roadwork speed limits applying (but it was a Sunday, hence no
    workers), when a black merc blasted past with its horn blasting. How
    dare people do the posted speed limit!


    [1] Ssssh, don't tell mum. But the day before my ... 19th?
    .... birthday, when only one day away from coming off the Ps, I had to
    drive interstate. I took off the plates and sat on 100/110 most of
    the way :)

    --
    TimC
    It's written GNU/Linux, and pronounced "Linux". Or, "Linux, with a
    silent GNU/" -- Kubric on /.
     
  16. In aus.bicycle on Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:41:38 GMT
    Stuart Lamble <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 2005-12-20, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> They also get better mileage than most motorcycles - around 30km/l
    >> instead of 20-25.

    >
    > Good point. The only hitch with a scooter is that I wouldn't even
    > *think* about taking one onto a freeway -- most only get up to around 80
    > kph, and the speed difference would be a real killer -- but otherwise,
    > I'm definitely not about to argue that point. :)



    My 180 will do 130-140 flat tack. I can get more if I change the
    rollers.

    The 150 I tested did 110 OK. It didn't want to do much more, but it
    would do that.

    Zebee

    --
    Zebee Johnstone ([email protected]), proud holder of
    aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
    "Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"
     
  17. Resound

    Resound Guest

    <snip>
    >
    > If I took a pushbike, then the time would be about 80 minutes I expect,
    > gradually dropping but I doubt I'd ever make it in under an hour, plus
    > I'd need 15 min for the shower and change.
    >

    <another snip>

    You'd probably get it down to an hour, and therefore in line with the other
    modes of transport or so close as makes no real difference. As for the
    shower and change, you shower and dress before work anyway (I certainly do
    at any rate...naked and stinky isn't a good look) so that's not something
    you need to factor in. I do 20km each way and it takes slobby me about 50
    mins.
     
  18. On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:01:52 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:

    > Believers in the car-free lifestyle are often opponents of urban
    > sprawl -- more freeways, wider avenues, bigger parking lots. To
    > compensate for the struggle and bad news associated with more sprawl
    > and worsening traffic, car-free folk happily get daily exercise walking
    > and biking. And, not having to support a car leads to greater financial
    > freedom: on average, Californians spend around $13,000 per registered
    > vehicle annually.


    Californians are clearly deprived of old brown Corolla Seca liftback
    hatches. They run forever without servicing (except for oil changes), and
    are ideally shaped for tossing bikes (worth much more than than the car!)
    in the back.

    --
    Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
     
  19. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    > Stuart Lamble wrote


    >> Good point. The only hitch with a scooter is that I wouldn't even
    >> *think* about taking one onto a freeway -- most only get up to
    >> around 80 kph, and the speed difference would be a real killer --
    >> but otherwise, I'm definitely not about to argue that point. :)

    >
    >
    > My 180 will do 130-140 flat tack. I can get more if I change the
    > rollers.
    >
    > The 150 I tested did 110 OK. It didn't want to do much more, but it
    > would do that.


    I've tested Suzuki 250 and 650 scooters. The 250 was quite quick, plenty of
    punch left at 120, the 650 was incredible. OTOH, they're very expensive
    scooters. :)

    Theo
     
  20. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2005-12-20, Michael Warner (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:01:52 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:
    >
    >> Believers in the car-free lifestyle are often opponents of urban
    >> sprawl -- more freeways, wider avenues, bigger parking lots. To
    >> compensate for the struggle and bad news associated with more sprawl
    >> and worsening traffic, car-free folk happily get daily exercise walking
    >> and biking. And, not having to support a car leads to greater financial
    >> freedom: on average, Californians spend around $13,000 per registered
    >> vehicle annually.

    >
    > Californians are clearly deprived of old brown Corolla Seca liftback
    > hatches. They run forever without servicing (except for oil changes), and
    > are ideally shaped for tossing bikes (worth much more than than the car!)
    > in the back.


    A certain GPLama and others keep mentioning the Suburu ... um
    .... forrester? One of 'em anyway, that are good for carting whole
    bikes with wheels on. And then they whinge about costs of a new one.

    And I keep mentioning my old Mitsubishi Colt. 1982 model, so no
    deprecation left in it. Only need to fill up once to get the 1000km
    to Coonabarabran (that years model ran equally well on leaded and
    unleaded). Seats fold down, so bike goes in back with front wheel on.

    Pity the repair bills to get it up to strict Victorian[1] roadworthy
    standards would have cost far more than the car was worth.


    [1] We don't care about cars already on the road. You never have to
    get them roadworthied, so you see cars driving around all the time
    with headlights missing, etc. But any cars coming into our state, and
    changing hands at the same time, have to be roadworthied.

    --
    TimC
    Did you know that in German, Usenet bulletin boards are called
    Gruppenareabrettecholistennetzs? - James "Kibo" Parry
     
Loading...