Drivers: How can you love something you hate so much?

[Matthew Russotto]

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott en Aztlan <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:04:47 -0500, [email protected]
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>Today's trains operate on private
>>>rights-of-way, and have priority over cars at grade crossings. Where
>>>is the congestion going to come from?
>>
>>In-system congestion. The cars fill up and you can only put so many
>>cars on a track.
>
>Of course there are limits, but they are higher than you think.
>
>http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy941205.html
>
>"The North Shore Line accomplished the major task of moving 200,000
>passengers in 1,080 minutes by using most of their equipment,
>including 410 trains made up of 2,608 cars that utilized both the
>Skokie Valley Route and the original Shore Line Route."

So 11,000 people an hour, in a one time go-for-broke event,
"an achievement that may never be surpassed by any other railroad
line"? That ain't much.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Zoot Katz wrote:
> Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:28:30 GMT, <2xVRc.278239$XM6.71685@attbi_s53>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) regurgitated doctrine:
> \szip
>>> Even when clean cheap alternative fuels are available the overwhelming
>>> presence of individually occupied and inattentively piloted personal
>>> scuds will continue to be an ineffectual and dangerous model for
>>> coping with the transportation needs of an increased population.
>>
>>The problem is that (generally liberal) lowest common demonator concept
>>that lets anyone with a pulse drive.
>
> Since you've chosen to argue against concepts that threaten your
> paradigm by reciting your catechism and framing the argument as a
> simple one of superficially opposed political factions, we're not
> going to be able to continue.

> There is no conspiracy, liberal or otherwise, to deprive you of your
> imagined exclusive right to drive with reckless impunity, goof.

You really have an inability to read. You might want to seek some help
regarding that.

 

[The Lindbergh Baby]

DonQuijote1954 wrote:

> HOW CAN YOU LOVE SOMETHING THAT YOU HATE SO MUCH?

I love driving.

It's the other drivers, and idiotic street conditions (lanes that close
off for construction suddenly without any warning, potholes the size of
the Grand Canyon, unannounced detours that get you lost) that I hate.

I love the driving conditions they show in car commercials: miles of
open road, not a pothole, no other cars, no construction, etc. Give me
roads like that and I'll enjoy driving.



John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 

[The Lindbergh Baby]

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> [email protected] (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>But going back to the subject: I don't understand if there are so many
>>drivers in America for who driving is getting from point A to point B,
>>and driving is a chore, to be palliated be eating, drinking, talking
>>on the phone, why do you defend so stubbornly driving as your only
>>option?
>>
>>HOW CAN YOU LOVE SOMETHING THAT YOU HATE SO MUCH?
>>
>
>
> Americans are idiots. The media tells them cars are cool so they accept it.

You tell me you have "superior intelligence" and I don't accept it.

Guess I'm not an idiot.



John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 

[The Lindbergh Baby]

Bernard Farquart wrote:
> "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:06:04 GMT,
>><[email protected]>, "S o r n i"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some cars ARE cool.
>>
>>The ones that have been shredded and recycled into patio furniture are
>>cool. All the rest of 'em still stink.
>
>
> My 928 smells real nice, mmmmm leather.

"Mmmmmm donuts." --Homer Simpson



John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 

[Chalo]

Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
> > Their ubiquity is what ruins
> > the city surface for more human uses, and poisons the air despite the
> > fact that their exhalations have been rendered somewhat less noxious
> > than in the recent past.
>
> "somewhat less noxious?" You mean almost zero, right? As in, almost
> pure C02 and water.

You are in denial, buddy. If you think that enough carbon monoxide to
kill you, anong with plenty of nitrogen oxides from the catalytic
converter and unburned hydrocarbons qualify as "almost pure CO2 and
water", then of course you'll be willing to sleep in the garage with
the car running, right?

A gas stove emits "almost pure" CO2 and water. If you cooked
breakfast over your tailpipe instead, you'd be dead before you got to
eat it.

Chalo Colina

 

[Chalo]

"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not ignorant about this stuff;
>
> Yes you are ignorant about this stuff. That is obvious from what you write.

What a well-reasoned retort! You must be a Republican, you are so clever.

Chalo Colina

 

[p4t6]

You must be a republican / capitalist too. I bet you listen to ruch
limbaugh.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:30:19 GMT, The Lindbergh Baby
<[email protected]> wrote:

> DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>
>> HOW CAN YOU LOVE SOMETHING THAT YOU HATE SO MUCH?
>
> I love driving.
>
> It's the other drivers, and idiotic street conditions (lanes that close
> off for construction suddenly without any warning, potholes the size of
> the Grand Canyon, unannounced detours that get you lost) that I hate.
>
> I love the driving conditions they show in car commercials: miles of
> open road, not a pothole, no other cars, no construction, etc. Give me
> roads like that and I'll enjoy driving.
>
>
>
> John
>

 

[Dave Head]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:45:27 -0700, Scott en Aztlan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:27:05 GMT, Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Cars are the only things that really work.
>>>
>>>Only because the NIMBYs and the short-sighted moron planners make it
>>>so.
>>
>>Well, the local residents might be right for the wrong reasons. They voted
>>down another transportation system that is going to run a limited amount of
>>hours per day, run on a schedule so that they end up waiting for it a lot, be
>>fairly expensive to use, etc. etc.
>
>We have to start somewhere. Operating hours can be expanded. Headway
>can be reduced. More cars can be added to trains. But NONE of this can
>occur if people keep voting down the basic service.
>
>>The system I would like to see built would handle automobiles on fast rail cars
>>- drive to it, drive onto it, drive off of it, drive the rest of the way to
>>where you're going.
>
>You mean like this?
>
>http://www.avt-train.com/index2.html

Yeah! Wasn't aware of that one! Wow. Now, if we could get that built... It
should be good for cross-country or downtown. The train never stops to take on
or let off passengers is a key element that's neede for rail travel to be
efficient.

Now, the "8 seconds wait during rush hour" can't be allowed to be translated
to, "We're shutting it down between midnight and 5 AM to save money...." That
would negate the wonderful aspects of having the engine turned off and moving
people and cars with (hopefully nuclear generated) electricity with zero
pollution.

>>I bet that would be received a bit better.
>
>You'd be wrong.

Don't think so. It would be absolutely useful to _almost everybody_ since, as
long as it gets them _somewhat_ closer to their destination, then they aren't
stranded as soon as they get off it - they just drive to their destinations.

>The AVT train concept has been around for years. With LA freeway
>speeds being so low, you'd think people would be clamoring for this,
>right? Yet the closest we've come to actually building it is to
>construct a model in Griffith Park.

Somebody needs to build it so it can be seen to work, for sure.

It would be interesting to see the fare they calculate for a ride. If its
$2.00 to go downtown, then it'll be wildly popular. Even $5 would make it
popular. $10 might start stretching things, depending on how long the ride
downtown is, how much gas would be burned to get there driving, etc.

>
>>But why are the _local residents_ getting to vote on a system that benefits
>>everyone in the surrounding area, anyway? I wonder if the people in downtown
>>Washington, DC got a chance to veto the entire DC Metro subway system because
>>it didn't do enough for them personally? Somebody's going to have to establish
>>a regional transportation authority with the power to do what's right, without
>>letting localities screw up the entire region by voting their on narrow,
>>special interest. The vote happens, then, across the whole region, not little
>>bitty areas.
>
>Now you see why we'll never have better public transit until the
>personal automobile becomes completely unusable. No politician
>anywhere has the balls to step up and make these kinds of visionary
>decisions; all the NIMBYs would vote them out of office and vote in
>anyone who promises to kill the plan.

Well, I think I'm not going to wait around _here_ to see it. Nutty DC area,
not building roads, will be a real travel cesspool soon. Is already, but will
be way worse. The only thing good that may come out of this is that it'll
hammer the truck traffic with massive inefficiency, and then maybe people will
start thinking about building rails for that again, too.

Dave Head

 

[Nate Nagel]

Chalo wrote:
> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Chalo wrote:
>>
>>>Their ubiquity is what ruins
>>>the city surface for more human uses, and poisons the air despite the
>>>fact that their exhalations have been rendered somewhat less noxious
>>>than in the recent past.
>>
>>"somewhat less noxious?" You mean almost zero, right? As in, almost
>>pure C02 and water.
>
>
> You are in denial, buddy. If you think that enough carbon monoxide to
> kill you, anong with plenty of nitrogen oxides from the catalytic
> converter and unburned hydrocarbons qualify as "almost pure CO2 and
> water", then of course you'll be willing to sleep in the garage with
> the car running, right?
>
> A gas stove emits "almost pure" CO2 and water. If you cooked
> breakfast over your tailpipe instead, you'd be dead before you got to
> eat it.
>
> Chalo Colina

Time to wake up and smell the new millenium. Some of the new SULEVs you
could literally run them in a closed garage and not die until all the O2
ran out. Your statement might be true of cars from the early 80's, but
not today's vehicles.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

 

[Mark Jones]

"Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:43:30 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Then you evidently haven't ridden in a Corvette. I have driven mine
> >on round trips of 3500 miles, three different times.
>
> I've ridden my sportbike 400+miles which is infinitely less
> comfortable.
>
> But insofar as performance cars are concerned the Vette is a
> refrigerator dolly with a V8 in it. It's about as reliable as one too.
Not a shred of truth to anything you just said about the Vette.

 

[Mark Jones]

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:A49Sc.282374$XM6.253514@attbi_s53...
> In article <[email protected]>, Zoot Katz wrote:
> > Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:28:30 GMT, <2xVRc.278239$XM6.71685@attbi_s53>,
> > There is no conspiracy, liberal or otherwise, to deprive you of your
> > imagined exclusive right to drive with reckless impunity, goof.
>
> You really have an inability to read. You might want to seek some help
> regarding that.
This is Zoot after seeking help. You should have seen him before.

 

[S o r n i]

p4t6 wrote:
> You must be a republican / capitalist too. I bet you listen to ruch
> limbaugh.

A sad little two-sentence top-posted flame attempt, and you couldn't even
get THAT right.

Bill "reveals sloppy thinking, some would say" S.

 

[tcmedara]

DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Right, comparing Germans and Americans is like comparing apples and
> oranges...

In this instance, the analogy holds. Not so in others. So what are you an
apple or an orange?

Tom (always preferred orange)

 

[DonQuijote1954]

The Lindbergh Baby <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>
> > HOW CAN YOU LOVE SOMETHING THAT YOU HATE SO MUCH?
>
> I love driving.
>
> It's the other drivers, and idiotic street conditions (lanes that close
> off for construction suddenly without any warning, potholes the size of
> the Grand Canyon, unannounced detours that get you lost) that I hate.
>
> I love the driving conditions they show in car commercials: miles of
> open road, not a pothole, no other cars, no construction, etc. Give me
> roads like that and I'll enjoy driving.
>

Me too, but it depends on the car and the road as well. Probably a
stick-shift Miata on a winding road would be my style .

 

[Chalo]

Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Time to wake up and smell the new millenium. Some of the new SULEVs you
> could literally run them in a closed garage and not die until all the O2
> ran out. Your statement might be true of cars from the early 80's, but
> not today's vehicles.

Sounds like you've been taking a double helping of automaker publicity
department hype. If those are the claims they are making, and there
is any truth to them, it surely stops at the laboratory door. I don't
need any instrumentation to smell unburned aromatics and sulfur
compounds in the exhaust of even the newest cars when I'm out riding
my bike or motorcycle. Where those things are found there are also CO
and NOx. The car that emits harmlessly clean exhaust after some
mileage in the real world is a figment of your imagination.

The tailpipe stink and the brown city air tell a tale that can't be
"spun" by shills for auto manufacturers.

Chalo Colina

 

[Bernard Farquart]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
'>
> Sounds like you've been taking a double helping of automaker publicity
> department hype. If those are the claims they are making, and there
> is any truth to them, it surely stops at the laboratory door. I don't
> need any instrumentation to smell unburned aromatics and sulfur
> compounds in the exhaust of even the newest cars when I'm out riding
> my bike or motorcycle. Where those things are found there are also CO
> and NOx. The car that emits harmlessly clean exhaust after some
> mileage in the real world is a figment of your imagination.
>
> The tailpipe stink and the brown city air tell a tale that can't be
> "spun" by shills for auto manufacturers.
>

Perhaps it is because most of the cars on the road right now
are OLD.


Moron.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Chalo wrote:
> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Time to wake up and smell the new millenium. Some of the new SULEVs you
>> could literally run them in a closed garage and not die until all the O2
>> ran out. Your statement might be true of cars from the early 80's, but
>> not today's vehicles.
>
> Sounds like you've been taking a double helping of automaker publicity
> department hype.

SULEV are regulatory standards. Read them some time.

 

[DonQuijote1954]

> As you know, "total choice" is not the arguement I made.
> The arguement I made is that the socialist system has less choice. That
> the socialist through central control wants to dictate the choices people
> have. CAFE is a good example of this mentality. CAFE was designed to
> remove the large passenger cars from the market in favor of smaller more
> fuel efficent models. (unless the legislators believed there would be
> some magical technological advance that didn't happen) When this choice
> was removed by government for the "common good" the people reacted in
> an unusual, unexpected manner. They started to buy trucks.

I think America is well established on the road to monopolistic
communism. Democratic socialism provides so many more choices...

Sweden, for example, has been something of an enigma to classical
economists. A strong social democratic welfare state, with substantial
government control moderating economic fluctuations, has put Sweden in
the "soft" category of capitalism (but with very little industry
nationalised, it is outside the "socialist" categorisation). If
business is necessarily a ruthless struggle between self-interested
competitors, how did Sweden's "softness" (social equality,
humanitarianism, welfare and environmental concern) lead to such a
strong economy? Sweden has had one of the world's highest standards of
living (in 1992 GDP per person was $12,000 higher than in the UK), and
working conditions and labour-management relations have generally been
excellent. Economists rationalised that Sweden was a small, insulated
exception to universally harsh economic laws, but, in fact, since the
late nineteenth century Sweden has been a world economy highly exposed
to international trends.

Similarly, in Germany, Holland and Japan, benevolence towards
‘society' (as expressed towards employees, customers and local
communities) is very much part of their economic strategies, rather
than simply a hoped-for effect of the market mechanism. This tendency
hasn't harmed the economic growth of these countries (from 1979 to
1991, manufacturing grew by 33.3% in Germany and 60.4% in Japan,
compared with 4.9% in Britain. Also, GDP per capita in Britain
continued to lose comparative advantage with these countries during
this period).

http://www.anxietyculture.com/freemarket.htm

 

[Doug Purdy]

"Bernard Farquart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:06:04 GMT,
> > <[email protected]>, "S o r n i"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Some cars ARE cool.
> >
> > The ones that have been shredded and recycled into patio furniture are
> > cool. All the rest of 'em still stink.
>
> My 928 smells real nice, mmmmm leather.

I own 2 vehicles, neither leather and my butt don't burn in the sun but they
all stink.

Until they're patio furniture.

Doug