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



I understand errors like this happen all the time in America, but
nobody is doing a thing about it...

Slow Driving Grandma
Sitting on the side of the highway waiting to catch speeding drivers,
a State Police Officer sees a car puttering along at 22 MPH.

He thinks to himself, "This driver is just as dangerous as a speeder!"
So he turns on his lights and pulls the driver over.

Approaching the car, he notices that there are five old ladies-two in
the front seat and three in the back-wide eyed and white as ghosts.
The driver, obviously confused, says to him, "Officer, I don't
understand, I was doing exactly the speed limit! What seems to be the
problem?"

"Ma'am," the officer replies, "you weren't speeding, but you should
know that driving slower than the speed limit can also be a danger to
other drivers."

"Slower than the speed limit? No sir, I was doing the speed limit
exactly...
Twenty- two miles an hour!" the old woman says a bit proudly.

The State Police officer, trying to contain a chuckle explains to her
that "22" was the route number, not the speed limit.

A bit embarrassed, the woman grinned and thanked the officer for
pointing out her error.

"But before I let you go, Ma'am, I have to ask... Is everyone in this
car OK? These women seem awfully shaken and they haven't muttered a
single peep this whole time," the officer asks.

"Oh, they'll be all right in a minute officer. We just got off Route
119."
 
SLOW DRIVIN MAN
Slow Driving Man
(for RLJ)
fast country/bluegrass


VERSE 1
every car is passing on the right
they're honking and flashing their brights
they're just a bunch of bellyachers
I have to punish those lawbreakers
I don't care if this trip takes all night

CHORUS:
I'm a Slow Driving Man
Driving as slow as I can
Every time you need to go
there I am, driving slow
because I'm a slow driving man

VERSE 2
I'm the self appointed keeper of the law
making sure that speeders don't get far
now they're driving on the sidewalk
cause I've made a rolling roadblock
by blocking off the fast lane with my car

CHORUS:
I'm a Slow Driving Man
Driving as slow as I can
Every time you need to go
there I am, driving slow
because I'm a slow driving man


BRIDGE
what gives me the right to make you late
it's the wheelchair emblem on my license plate
I am on a holy mission; I will never fatigue
I'm the founder of the anti-destination league

solo


VERSE 3
All these other drivers are insane
drunk on that high octane
I'm old and I'm slow
got no particular place to go
and I won't stay out of the competent lane


CHORUS:
I'm a Slow Driving Man
Driving as slow as I can
Every time you need to go
there I am, driving slow
because I'm a slow driving man


OUT CHORUS:
I'm a Slow Driving Man
Driving as slow as I can
somebody's road rage will explode
and I'll be found dead on the road
because I was a slow driving man



(c) 2003 Hidden Agenda
 
"Scott en Aztlan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, the current Mustangs are still based on the Ford Fairmont
> platform from the 1970s. The Cobra is a $15000 car with a $10000
> engine.
It isn't just the motor. There are upgraded parts all over the
car including the independent rear suspension. There are
other upgrades to the suspension and a much nicer interior.

>
> The '05, based on a modern chassis, will be a HUGE improvement.
I am looking forward to taking a test ride in one of these.
It should be great, unless they went a little too retro on
the interior.
 
> > There's two ways to help the poor: TAXATION, which is rejected by many
> > people, and HELPING THE POOR HELP THEMSELVES, which is what I propose.
>
> Exactly. Give tools, not handouts.

OK, if we give them tools, like fishing rods, then we are teaching
them how to fish. At the same time we can turn the crank on those who
don't want to fish. And I don't mean the homeless should be working 8
hours either, but they could do some recycling, for example, to
sustain themselves. What's intolerable is that most parks in America
are occupied by the homeless. :(
>
> > One solution is the COOPERATIVE, where the poor can lift themselves
> > up, or "learn to fish." It can even happen in a small decentralized
> > government like that of Switzerland. It won't take any effort from
> > people like you. Your neutrality will be good enough.
>
> Decentralized government is good thing. It prevents too much power
> being in one place.

OK, the smaller the better so long as it gets things done. If it
doesn't, then we need to increase it a little bit.

>
> > This is what I propose...
> > A ROAD TO FREEDOM (UNLIKE RUSSIA'S)
> > Why not build a new system? That offers PROSPERITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE and
> > FREEDOM; that discards the defects of both Communism and Capitalism;
> > and that places the system at the service of the human being, and not
> > the other way around. Why not HUMANISM?
>
> Because as I grow older I find that in general, far too many humans
> cannot resist the urge to have power over others.

True. The same is true in communism and conservatism. And democratic
socialism may never work for America. Our bureaucracy is too corrupt
to begin with. ;)
>
> Lack of paragraph structure makes the rest hard to read...
>
>
> > There's political compass where people like you (Right Libertarian)
> > and me (Left Libertarian) both fall under the horizontal line that
> > reject AUTHORITY, what I call the "lion." In other words,
> > they--conservatives and communists--have a lion that hates COMPETITION
> > running the jungle. You don't hate COMPETITION, do you?
>
> I don't know what you call 'right and left libertarian'. However I hate
> the fact that *EVERYTHING* is a competition. IE, driving on the
> expressway shouldn't be a competition.

Well, I gather you are right libertarian placing emphasis on
competition, while I left libertarian place emphasis on cooperation.
Yet you and I should be able to compete and cooperate. If we agree to
disagree--we are both democratic, right?--then no harm done.

Actually I think the most dangerous animal is not the lion but the
fox. He manipulates behind the curtain, he wants monopoly...

As for the roads, the current chaos could be easily fixed with
enforcement on reckless driving, phone use, etc. while lifting speed
limits. We could COMPETE, but not based on size, but on skills.
 
In article <[email protected]>, DonQuijote1954 wrote:

>> > There's political compass where people like you (Right Libertarian)
>> > and me (Left Libertarian) both fall under the horizontal line that
>> > reject AUTHORITY, what I call the "lion." In other words,
>> > they--conservatives and communists--have a lion that hates COMPETITION
>> > running the jungle. You don't hate COMPETITION, do you?
>>
>> I don't know what you call 'right and left libertarian'. However I hate
>> the fact that *EVERYTHING* is a competition. IE, driving on the
>> expressway shouldn't be a competition.

> Well, I gather you are right libertarian placing emphasis on
> competition, while I left libertarian place emphasis on cooperation.
> Yet you and I should be able to compete and cooperate. If we agree to
> disagree--we are both democratic, right?--then no harm done.

I haven't posted anything favoring competition other than may the better
_product_ win. In fact most of what I posted is against the abuses of
winner-take-all competition, such as microsoft's less than honorable
business practices.

> Actually I think the most dangerous animal is not the lion but the
> fox. He manipulates behind the curtain, he wants monopoly...

> As for the roads, the current chaos could be easily fixed with
> enforcement on reckless driving, phone use, etc. while lifting speed
> limits. We could COMPETE, but not based on size, but on skills.

There's no need to compete on the roads, but people have to act out
their idiotic need for power. Like the guy I encountered today. I am
riding on a residental street approching a stop sign. I am staying
away from parked cars to avoid being doored and taking the lane
because of the stop sign. A minivan driver accelerates, passes me
and slams on his brakes. He didn't gain anything by it, but he had
to show me who was more powerful. He got upset at my usual comment
'what did that gain you' as I was at the same stop sign.
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<4pzTc.252903$a24.92037@attbi_s03>...
> In article <[email protected]>, DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>
> >> > There's political compass where people like you (Right Libertarian)
> >> > and me (Left Libertarian) both fall under the horizontal line that
> >> > reject AUTHORITY, what I call the "lion." In other words,
> >> > they--conservatives and communists--have a lion that hates COMPETITION
> >> > running the jungle. You don't hate COMPETITION, do you?
> >>
> >> I don't know what you call 'right and left libertarian'. However I hate
> >> the fact that *EVERYTHING* is a competition. IE, driving on the
> >> expressway shouldn't be a competition.
>
> > Well, I gather you are right libertarian placing emphasis on
> > competition, while I left libertarian place emphasis on cooperation.
> > Yet you and I should be able to compete and cooperate. If we agree to
> > disagree--we are both democratic, right?--then no harm done.
>
> I haven't posted anything favoring competition other than may the better
> _product_ win. In fact most of what I posted is against the abuses of
> winner-take-all competition, such as microsoft's less than honorable
> business practices.

Wait a minute, who said this?

"You are being nonresponsive, appealing to emotion, and being insulting.
Like most liberals you cannot discuss this logically but instead want
to discuss it emotionally. I refuse to. Your goal isn't to solve problems,
your goal is to take from one group, give to another, and create a
constant, never ending cycle of dependence."
>
> > Actually I think the most dangerous animal is not the lion but the
> > fox. He manipulates behind the curtain, he wants monopoly...
>
> > As for the roads, the current chaos could be easily fixed with
> > enforcement on reckless driving, phone use, etc. while lifting speed
> > limits. We could COMPETE, but not based on size, but on skills.
>
> There's no need to compete on the roads, but people have to act out
> their idiotic need for power. Like the guy I encountered today. I am
> riding on a residental street approching a stop sign. I am staying
> away from parked cars to avoid being doored and taking the lane
> because of the stop sign. A minivan driver accelerates, passes me
> and slams on his brakes. He didn't gain anything by it, but he had
> to show me who was more powerful. He got upset at my usual comment
> 'what did that gain you' as I was at the same stop sign.

That's just another "random act of unkindness"... ;)
 
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Dave C. wrote:

> Ummmmm . . . because (unfortunately) driving is the ONLY viable
> transportation option for 99.9% of people living in the U.S. It boils down

I agree with your sentiment, but 99.9 isn't really fair. I would guess
approx 5-10% of the population of the country lives in the NYC metro
area alone (this is a pure guestimate based on ~8 million people living in
NYC proper, about twice that in the surrounding suburbs and ~300 million in
the US total) where mass transit is a good option. Add in Philly, DC,
Boston, etc and you have a small but not negligible minority of folks
who can avoid driving. Otherwise, you're right on target.

Dave
 
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, Jack May wrote:

>
> "DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Have you ever thought that the same technology can be incorportated
> > into buses? But even without it...
>
> Hope you realize that a car company spend one to several billion dollars to
> design a new motor.

A billion dollars to design a new motor? That seems way too high to me
although I'd love to see any supporting data. I can't imagine with
expenditures like that on something like design of a single engine
a company would stay in business very long. Maybe to design a new
*platform* or to set up a new facility that can be used to design many
new motors. A billion dollars buys a lot of R&D.


> Hope you realize that the bus companies have such a smaller market that they
> can't afford to spend billions to keep up with the technology.

I'm sure that's what their lobbyists tell congress. Ever see the Lincoln
Tunnel ramp into Port Authority? Buses are not a small market.


> Hope you realize that transit systems run their vehicles for such long time
> periods that it takes a long time to replace old dirty technology with
> better technology.

That's true.


> Hope you realize that most governments don't give a damn about what they do
> because they are only interested in punishing people that are not in the
> government.

Um, yeah. OK.

Dave
 
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, Mark Jones wrote:

> Sounds like a winning plan. Amtrak seems to only serve the needs
> of people along the east coast. Everyone else is out of luck.

There's a very good economic (from amtrak's POV) reason for that which I'm
sure you can figure out if you were to look at a map of the US with
population density info on it. I'm sure they've made cost analysis studies
of bridging these southern/western/midwestern cities and realized it's not
at all feasible unless folks were willing to pay thousands for a ride
which of course no sane person would do.

Dave
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
Metal Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Dave C. wrote:
>
> > Ummmmm . . . because (unfortunately) driving is the ONLY viable
> > transportation option for 99.9% of people living in the U.S. It boils down
>
> I agree with your sentiment, but 99.9 isn't really fair. I would guess
> approx 5-10% of the population of the country lives in the NYC metro
> area alone (this is a pure guestimate based on ~8 million people living in
> NYC proper, about twice that in the surrounding suburbs and ~300 million in
> the US total) where mass transit is a good option. Add in Philly, DC,
> Boston, etc and you have a small but not negligible minority of folks
> who can avoid driving. Otherwise, you're right on target.
>

While 99.9% may be low 5-10% is way too high. Transit usage is only
2.5-4% of all usage. The overwhelming majority being a single optimal
round trip. Far less than 1% can practically function by choice with
just transit as a transportation option.
 
On 8 Aug 2004, DonQuijote1954 wrote:

> Correction: the numbers I gave before were for bicycling. These are
> the combined figures...
>
> We should take these European countries to international court for
> denying the right of the elderly and children to die... ;)
>
> (The walking/bicycle ridership for Holland is 46%, for Denmark is 41%,
> and for the good ol' US of A is 7%)

Do you realize that Denmark has fewer residents than New York City? Or
that one can realistically bike across Holland in a few days but that it
would take several weeks to bike across the US? Or that a country
like Belgium is approximately the size of Maryland and that Maryland is
the 8th smallest of 50 states in the US? Or that the logistics for
distributing goods in a massive country with large landlocked areas is
completely different than those for distributing goods in a tiny country
completely accessible by sea, and that considerations like this might make
optimum transportation models slightly different given that transit
infrastructures and shipping infrastructures are related?

Please consider the logistics before waving around a holy grail of
bicycling/walking. I'm not opposed to the idea; in fact I've done more
mass transit and bicycle commuting in my life than automobile commuting.
However IMO if you expect rational people to take you seriously you need
to come across as having logically considered things and sensationalizing
an arbitrary statistic is not a good way to do this. It's a politican or
marketers's tactic. Yuck.

Dave
 
"Metal Dave" <[email protected]> wrote
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, Jack May wrote:
>> Hope you realize that a car company spend one to several billion dollars
>> to
>> design a new motor.
>
> A billion dollars to design a new motor? That seems way too high to me
> although I'd love to see any supporting data. I can't imagine with
> expenditures like that on something like design of a single engine
> a company would stay in business very long. Maybe to design a new
> *platform* or to set up a new facility that can be used to design many
> new motors. A billion dollars buys a lot of R&D.

I've also seen similar figures; sorry can't remember where/when.
You have to remember that the R&D also includes the tooling,
which can be expensive - that's why they often choose cylinder
spacing identical to engines they alread have so that they can
use current tools.

Floyd
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Cote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Metal Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Dave C. wrote:
> >
> > > Ummmmm . . . because (unfortunately) driving is the ONLY viable
> > > transportation option for 99.9% of people living in the U.S. It boils
down
> >
> > I agree with your sentiment, but 99.9 isn't really fair. I would guess
> > approx 5-10% of the population of the country lives in the NYC metro
> > area alone (this is a pure guestimate based on ~8 million people living
in
> > NYC proper, about twice that in the surrounding suburbs and ~300 million
in
> > the US total) where mass transit is a good option. Add in Philly, DC,
> > Boston, etc and you have a small but not negligible minority of folks
> > who can avoid driving. Otherwise, you're right on target.
> >
>
> While 99.9% may be low 5-10% is way too high. Transit usage is only
> 2.5-4% of all usage.

That's of all usage in the entire country - which includes vast areas where
there is no transit at all. The percentage is substantially higher where
transit is actually available.


>The overwhelming majority being a single optimal
> round trip. Far less than 1% can practically function by choice with
> just transit as a transportation option.

Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that it's all cars
or all transit. You don't have to give up your car in order to use transit.


BTW. You're an idiot
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robert Cote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Metal Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Dave C. wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ummmmm . . . because (unfortunately) driving is the ONLY viable
> > > > transportation option for 99.9% of people living in the U.S. It
> > > > boils down
> > >
> > > I agree with your sentiment, but 99.9 isn't really fair. I would
> > > guess approx 5-10% of the population of the country lives in the
> > > NYC metro area alone (this is a pure guestimate based on ~8
> > > million people living in NYC proper, about twice that in the
> > > surrounding suburbs and ~300 million in the US total) where mass
> > > transit is a good option. Add in Philly, DC, Boston, etc and you
> > > have a small but not negligible minority of folks who can avoid
> > > driving. Otherwise, you're right on target.
> >
> > While 99.9% may be low 5-10% is way too high. Transit usage is only
> > 2.5-4% of all usage.
>
> That's of all usage in the entire country - which includes vast areas where
> there is no transit at all.

I might have said and reported the numbers in reference to the entire
U.S. because the numbers used previously involved and directly refered
to, and I quote: "people living in the U.S." Read first Leroy.

> The percentage is substantially higher where
> transit is actually available.

Well golly gee. Shock and suprise. In FAct I'd be willing to bet near
100% of all transit use is in places where it is available. When the
point is that transit is not and cannot be pervasive then all you've
done is agree with the obvious.

>
> >The overwhelming majority being a single optimal
> > round trip. Far less than 1% can practically function by choice with
> > just transit as a transportation option.
>
> Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that it's all cars
> or all transit. You don't have to give up your car in order to use transit.

The rest of us were discussing that very extreme. As it turns out all
transit is not possible for several reasons. All POV transportation
provision on the other hand appears possible but not optimal. FYI Leroy
there's a difference between what I said (overwhelming majority) and
what you wish were said (all cars).

>
> BTW. You're an idiot

Better to be called an idiot by the likes of you than to produce posts
that prove it without any prompting whatsoever. For instance; an idiot
would most likely be found in alt.local.village.idiot whereas a
discussion of POV versus transit would be found in alt.planning.urban
and such. Even more telling, an idiot would try to trick honest posters
into posting to just alt.local.village.idiot in a lame attempt at the
last word on the subject in the relevant newsgroups. BTW if any
rec.motorcycles are left I ride a '83 GS1100ES that has been lightly
modified (meaning correctly jetted and tuned away from the factory
settings that were for EPA only).

For everyone else I apologize for Leroy Baxter. He's... umm. how should
this be said? Ummm.... "special."
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Cote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that it's all
cars
> > or all transit. You don't have to give up your car in order to use
transit.
>
> The rest of us were discussing that very extreme.

Only you transit-haters are discussing that extreme.

> As it turns out all
> transit is not possible for several reasons.

You mean it wasn't obvious from the start?

> All POV transportation
> provision on the other hand appears possible but not optimal.

Yet you continue to argue for that extreme.

>FYI Leroy
> there's a difference between what I said (overwhelming majority) and
> what you wish were said (all cars).

All cars is already the "overwhelming majority". If you were really
arguing as you claim, there'd be no argument. It would be like arguing that
this us usenet.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robert Cote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that
> > > it's all cars or all transit. You don't have to give up your car
> > > in order to use transit.
> >
> > The rest of us were discussing that very extreme.
>
> Only you transit-haters are discussing that extreme.

Read again more carefully this time. It is certainly inthe interests of
we transit supporters to find out what the limits of ther various modes
may be.

>
> > As it turns out all
> > transit is not possible for several reasons.
>
> You mean it wasn't obvious from the start?


Not at all. Several reasons are subtle and require education and
intellect. I guess that explains why you had to ask.

One subtlety is the decreasing utility nature of transit. Each
additional increase in market share comes at an increasing price. This
is not necessarially the the case for POV modes.

>
> > All POV transportation
> > provision on the other hand appears possible but not optimal.
>
> Yet you continue to argue for that extreme.

Not at all.

>
> > FYI Leroy
> > there's a difference between what I said (overwhelming majority) and
> > what you wish were said (all cars).
>
> All cars is already the "overwhelming majority".

That's not responsive. You tried to say I was arguing for all cars.
Nothing you've said since is an admission of that error.
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Cote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Robert Cote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that
> > > > it's all cars or all transit. You don't have to give up your car
> > > > in order to use transit.
> > >
> > > The rest of us were discussing that very extreme.
> >
> > Only you transit-haters are discussing that extreme.
>
> Read again more carefully this time. It is certainly inthe interests of
> we transit supporters to find out what the limits of ther various modes
> may be.

To bad transit-haters aren't honest about their hate. No, you don't support
transit.

> > > As it turns out all
> > > transit is not possible for several reasons.
> >
> > You mean it wasn't obvious from the start?
>
> Not at all. Several reasons are subtle and require education and
> intellect. I guess that explains why you had to ask.

Apparently you weren't smart enough to understand that that was a rhetorical
question.

>
> One subtlety is the decreasing utility nature of transit. Each
> additional increase in market share comes at an increasing price.

Actually not. As the transit network increases, it becomes more useful -
not less.

> This
> is not necessarially the the case for POV modes.

Actually it is. Critical roads are at capacity and there is no room to
expand them without geometrical increases in cost - both in terms of money
and destruction on the community.

> > > All POV transportation
> > > provision on the other hand appears possible but not optimal.
> >
> > Yet you continue to argue for that extreme.
>
> Not at all.

Always.

> > > FYI Leroy
> > > there's a difference between what I said (overwhelming majority) and
> > > what you wish were said (all cars).
> >
> > All cars is already the "overwhelming majority".
>
> That's not responsive. You tried to say I was arguing for all cars.
> Nothing you've said since is an admission of that error.

No error on my part. At some level you realize that getting rid of transit
altogether is impossible, so you try to get rid of all you can. You're
essentially arguing the meaning of "is".
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robert Cote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "Robert Cote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that
> > > > > it's all cars or all transit. You don't have to give up your car
> > > > > in order to use transit.
> > > >
> > > > The rest of us were discussing that very extreme.
> > >
> > > Only you transit-haters are discussing that extreme.
> >
> > Read again more carefully this time. It is certainly inthe interests of
> > we transit supporters to find out what the limits of ther various modes
> > may be.
>
> To bad transit-haters aren't honest about their hate. No, you don't support
> transit.

Well I do insist on truth in reporting transport performance. Are you
somehow suggesting that telling the truth is anti-transit?

>
> > > > As it turns out all
> > > > transit is not possible for several reasons.
> > >
> > > You mean it wasn't obvious from the start?
> >
> > Not at all. Several reasons are subtle and require education and
> > intellect. I guess that explains why you had to ask.
>
> Apparently you weren't smart enough to understand that that was a rhetorical
> question.

I am smart enough to recognize a lame retort to a clever insult. I was
also the person to point out the less obvious contributing factors. I
leave it to the audience, including your friends in alt.village.idiot,
to determine the relative measure.

>
> >
> > One subtlety is the decreasing utility nature of transit. Each
> > additional increase in market share comes at an increasing price.
>
> Actually not. As the transit network increases, it becomes more useful -
> not less.

Not responsive to the point. I said incrementally more expensive. This
is the internal contradiction for transit systems. In order to be be
more useful, it needs to be less efficient. The problem remains that
they get less efficient faster than they get more useful.

>
> > This is not necessarially the the case for POV modes.
>
> Actually it is. Critical roads are at capacity and there is no room to
> expand them without geometrical increases in cost - both in terms of money
> and destruction on the community.

Read again Leroy. "Not necessarially" leaves room for the exceptions.

>
> > > > All POV transportation
> > > > provision on the other hand appears possible but not optimal.
> > >
> > > Yet you continue to argue for that extreme.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Always.

Well thanks for that refreshingly mature "is not/is too" exchange.

>
> > > > FYI Leroy
> > > > there's a difference between what I said (overwhelming majority) and
> > > > what you wish were said (all cars).
> > >
> > > All cars is already the "overwhelming majority".
> >
> > That's not responsive. You tried to say I was arguing for all cars.
> > Nothing you've said since is an admission of that error.
>
> No error on my part.

It never is. YAWN.
 
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 07:39:05 -0700, Metal Dave <[email protected]>

>On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Dave C. wrote:
>
>> Ummmmm . . . because (unfortunately) driving is the ONLY viable
>> transportation option for 99.9% of people living in the U.S. It boils down
>
>I agree with your sentiment, but 99.9 isn't really fair. I would guess
>approx 5-10% of the population of the country lives in the NYC metro
>area alone (this is a pure guestimate based on ~8 million people living in
>NYC proper, about twice that in the surrounding suburbs and ~300 million in
>the US total) where mass transit is a good option. Add in Philly, DC,
>Boston, etc and you have a small but not negligible minority of folks
>who can avoid driving. Otherwise, you're right on target.
>

I've lived in Houston at Westheimer and Hillcroft. The only thing I
really needed my car for was going to work, although come to think of
it, I probably could've taken the bus to work <shudder>.

Fortunately, I drove against traffic to work, so the drive was easy and
there was very little traffic to deal with.

I had 2 grocery stores in walking distance, a new and a used music
store, a liquor store, a pool hall, a bookstore, a video store, a
Venezuelan restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, an Italian restaurant,
several fast food restaurants, 2 strip clubs, a cleaners, 2 gas
stations, my bank, and quite a few other things all within walking
distance.

Of course, I still used my car quite a bit though. Limiting yourself to
whatever's in walking distance can be boring. Sometimes I'd drive just
for the fun of it. Taking Memorial Drive from the loop downtown and
back at 60 is a fun drive, especially if you're doing it for no reason
rather than having to appear in court for another ticket - which is just
about exactly where you turn around to come back.

I remember the Chronicle did an article years ago about how you could
live your entire life and a full one at that without ever having to
stray more than a block north or south of Westheimer. I'm pretty sure
buses run the whole length of it, so even in a city like Houston, you
could get by without a car if you had to.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Re: Drivers: How can you love something you hate so much?
Replies
0
Views
342
Road Cycling
Bernard Farquart
B
Norjak71
Bikers and drivers
Replies
16
Views
3K
Road Cycling
reighn
R
C
What To Do About Jerk Drivers?
Replies
30
Views
4K
Road Cycling
JSWin
JSWin
U
Rude Drivers
Replies
25
Views
4K
Road Cycling
Uawadall
U
B
thanks for tips on "too polite automobile drivers" post.
Replies
1
Views
852
Road Cycling
[email protected]
J
Top Bottom Back