Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

[Tom Sherman]

Jack May wrote:
> "Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:8c51a781-ac75-4499-80e7-c6090d97cf93@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> George Conklin's latest idiocy:
>>
>>> Thus a vehicle [that] will allow you to carry home a 4 x 8
>>> piece of plywood is called "Unnecessary" by those who always
>>> have to let someone else do anything other than blab.
>> =v= Unless you're a carpenter, carrying home a 4 x 8 piece of
>> plywood is not a daily activity, so using that as an excuse for
>> dragging around an extra ton or so of steel on a more-than-daily
>> basis is kind of stupid.
>>
>> =v= My own vehicle has hauled plywood of that size (and larger!)
>> when I've attached a trailer to it. So your argument simply
>> doesn't hold water (something else I've hauled).
>
>
> A 4X8 sheet of plywood is not the main problem. We are constantly carrying
> big loads home from places like CostCo and Home Depot. Families have to
> carry a lot of stuff around when they have kids.

Oh bosh! Somehow our family of four managed to make do with a VW Type I.
You need to buy less stuff, not have a larger vehicle.

Heck, I managed to move three (3) times using nothing but a Honda Civic.

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> ...
> I also doubt congested roads are significantly caused by
> SUV use. It's too many vehicles due to our
> "one-person-one-car" pardigm of transport in the US. If
> you observe closely, you'll no doubt note *one* person
> in the Prism, just like there is in the Escalade....

The real root of the problem is the human population is at least three
times the size that can be properly supported by the available
resources. Selfish behavior by individuals at the expense of the whole
is to blame.

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

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:18:49 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
>We used mostly Honda Civics (wagons or hatchbacks) for family cars
>since 1978, with the exception of a small Saturn wagon, and a Pontiac
>Vibe. Using the Civics, we hauled everything we needed, including up
>to four bicycles at a time, or a canoe, or two kayaks, or loads of
>landscaping dirt, or landscaping rocks, or an entire dorm room full of
>furniture, etc.
>
>The last three items rode in the trailer. The rest were on or in the
>car. (Come to think of it, one time the landscaping rocks were in the
>car.)
>
>It amazes me that, according to the SUV owners, we did the impossible
>so many times, for so many years!

It's because you've been riding those darn two-wheelers, you've
developed the ability to think. For yourself. Which makes you
dangerous.



Email address works as is.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 1:12 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Doug Cimper wrote:
> > ...
> > Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that
> > people won't arrive at on their own?
>
> Because people are selfish bastards who put their own greed ahead of the
> welfare of the whole.
>

That's if you leave the room that is.

In fact the closer you stand to a person the more they care about you.

And if you get really really close you can hear the ocean.

____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 7:27 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Shroyer wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>So if I cost other people money by driving a (larger) SUV, then how do
> >>other people save me money by driving tiny cars? Because so far I
> >>haven't seen a dime of that savings. Every time I fill up, it costs me
> >>$45, $50 a tank, and somebody with a little car there is only paying $15
> >>or $20! It's just unfair!
>
> > I was going to attempt some snarky mockery of this paragraph, but
> > really, I think it's better for me to just let it stand on its own.
>
> > You make a conscious decision to purchase a vehicle that consumes more
> > gas than a normal car, then you complain when confronted with the
> > economic consequences of choice? Surely you must realize how
> > off-the-charts childish and stupid this sounds?
>
> "Stupid" are the comments that somehow SUV's are a factor in
> our foreign wars. We need to control Middle East oil to run
> our SUVs; apparently there's a foreign oil market for SUVs
> and one for fuel efficient vehicles. These wars then get
> added to the "cost" of operating them.

It's a little more complicated than that.

SUV popularity is characteristic of the mindset and behavior that got
us into the untenable position of importing the majority of the oil on
which we run our economy, most of it from distant and rather sleazy
countries.

If, back around 1970, we had switched to a less profligate lifestyle,
plus invested seriously in energy independence, we might be very
disinterested in OPEC. We could probably have skipped Cheney's dream
invasion of Iraq and all its expense. Hell, if the money spent there
had been put into energy research, who knows? Even something as wild
as cold fusion might be a reality. We'd _certainly_ be a lot less
beholden to Middle Eastern dictators.

But that wasn't the path that was chosen. Ronny Raygun famously
ripped the solar panels off the White House. Alternative energy is
not macho enough, obviously. Neither is conservation, even by the
simple act of using the proper tool for the transportational job.

And so we have tens of thousands of dollars of debt per American to
pay for an invasion for oil. We have a military stretched to the
breaking point. We have an economy that's looking shakier by the
day.

But no matter, darn it - we got BIG vehicles! It's the Ammerrikun
Way!

> I pay more to run my pickup truck. Although I wasn't thinking
> along the lines of $100/fillup, I did know it would be pricey
> compared to a Civic, or even Buick LeSabre for that matter.
>
> I accept the costs as a choice I made. When I no longer am
> willing to accept those costs, a new vehicle will be in my
> driveway that matches what I'm willing to pay to run it.
>
> I *do* pay more to operate my truck than a Civic operator, which
> includes state and federal taxes. I'm not getting a free ride.

You seem to miss the fundamental concept, which is: Your payment do
NOT cover the total cost to society of your choice. That's probably
true for all drivers, but it's _more_ true for drivers of more
wasteful, more dangerous vehicles.

To take one small example: Large vehicles impose more injuries and
fatalities on drivers of smaller vehicles, and on pedestrians, by
virtue of their bumper heights and taller front ends.

Then there's the research pointing out the difference in personality
traits associated with vehicle choice. SUV drivers have been shown to
be more selfish and aggressive than other vehicle owners.

Which is, I suppose, why they argue so hard to justify an obviously
dumb vehicle.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka Gaby de Wilde wrote:
> On Dec 20, 1:12 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Doug Cimper wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that
>>> people won't arrive at on their own?
>> Because people are selfish bastards who put their own greed ahead of the
>> welfare of the whole.
>>
>
> That's if you leave the room that is.
>
> In fact the closer you stand to a person the more they care about you.

Or the more they want you to go the hell away. Which is caring in a
negative way.

> And if you get really really close you can hear the ocean.

The sound of your circulatory system.

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

 

[DougC]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> SUV popularity is characteristic of the mindset and behavior that got
> us into the untenable position of importing the majority of the oil on
> which we run our economy, most of it from distant and rather sleazy
> countries.
>
> If, back around 1970, we had switched to a less profligate lifestyle,
> plus invested seriously in energy independence, we might be very
> disinterested in OPEC.

The US "oil crisis" was caused by the US government instituting price
controls on fuel. European countries that didn't set gas prices did see
prices go up somewhat (in response to the somewhat-lower supplies) but
they didn't see the widespread daily gas-station lines that happened in
the US.

> But that wasn't the path that was chosen. Ronny Raygun famously
> ripped the solar panels off the White House. Alternative energy is
> not macho enough, obviously. Neither is conservation, even by the
> simple act of using the proper tool for the transportational job.
>

I'm not familiar with the details of why the panels were removed, but
generally speaking, photo-voltaic panels aren't really economical. The
only places they're popular in the US is where there's large government
subsidies to help offset the costs. And where that is true--people who
are too poor to afford any solar panels are nonetheless subsidizing
those who do buy them. Do you think that is fair? And if you do think
it's fair, then why do you complain about having to subsidize people who
own SUVs? The burden of subsidizing solar panels is a REAL one, with
actual numbers, that we could mathematically figure out--unlike your
"displaced SUV costs".

> And so we have tens of thousands of dollars of debt per American to
> pay for an invasion for oil. We have a military stretched to the
> breaking point. We have an economy that's looking shakier by the
> day.

The war is more political than anything, but military spending is not
the US's main problem--that would be Social Security, Medicare and the
Federal Reserve. If I could take those three crooked puppies out behind
the barn and shoot them tomorrow, the gov't budget surplus would soar
and the stock market would slide back down to 1500 points, which is
about where it would be without the Fed Reserve inflating US currency on
a regular basis.

>
> You seem to miss the fundamental concept, which is: Your payment do
> NOT cover the total cost to society of your choice. That's probably
> true for all drivers, but it's _more_ true for drivers of more
> wasteful, more dangerous vehicles.
>
> To take one small example: Large vehicles impose more injuries and
> fatalities on drivers of smaller vehicles, and on pedestrians, by
> virtue of their bumper heights and taller front ends.

Yes, but the simple choice is not in itself unfair. Nobody is limited by
law to buying a small car.

And cars aren't intended to be safe to run over pedestrians with, so
that's a useless complaint. Pedestrians have been killed by being hit by
/bicyclists/. Should we get rid of bicycles too?

> Then there's the research pointing out the difference in personality
> traits associated with vehicle choice. SUV drivers have been shown to
> be more selfish and aggressive than other vehicle owners.
>
> Which is, I suppose, why they argue so hard to justify an obviously
> dumb vehicle.

Are you even old enough to remember the 1973 oil scam?
Auto companies were required to build more smaller cars and less large
cars. People started buying trucks because they didn't want the small
cars that auto manufacturers were forced to start building. -Way back
then, SUV's actually WERE trucks, with class-III hitches and 30" tires
and everything. A lot of people that need them today are not happy about
the fact that the manufacturers have gone cheap and insisted on using
weaker car parts.

You'll never get this until you can come to grips with the actual truth.
It wasn't the oil companies that keep people from buying tiny cars, it's
not the Freemasons and it's not the Jews. It was ordinary people with
the money to choose, who decided they /didn't/ want somebody else to
make the choice for them.

And likewise--even so with urban planning, which is really only a class
warfare upon the poor. The wealthy are rarely ever burdened by it, and
the middle class have the economic power to avoid it by moving. It is
only the poor that are stuck living with the consequences. It should be
rightly called "ghetto planning".
~

 

[max]

In article <[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The US "oil crisis" was caused by the US government instituting price
> controls on fuel. European countries that didn't set gas prices did see
> prices go up somewhat (in response to the somewhat-lower supplies) but
> they didn't see the widespread daily gas-station lines that happened in
> the US.

In (west) Germany, they banned driving on Sundays. Try that in the US!
Hah!

Ob. bicycle stuff: i went for a couple of 4 hour autobahn bicycle rides
during that phase, south out of München and back.

--
The part of betatron @ earthlink . net was played by a garden gnome

 

[Stephen Harding]

DougC wrote:

> The US "oil crisis" was caused by the US government instituting price
> controls on fuel. European countries that didn't set gas prices did see
> prices go up somewhat (in response to the somewhat-lower supplies) but
> they didn't see the widespread daily gas-station lines that happened in
> the US.

I believe a lot of the gas lines that occurred in the US were
largely unnecessary, due to people essentially trying to hoard
gas by keeping their tanks full, necessitating frequent visits
to the gas station.

Shortages tend to spark that sort of behavior in people. I
suppose it's overall a good survival strategy, but it is a form
of selfishness that can generate a lot of social/economic problems.


SMH

 

[George Conklin]

"DougC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 2:23 pm, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> So if I cost other people money by driving a (larger) SUV, then how
do
> >>>> other people save me money by driving tiny cars?
> >>> It's not necessarily a mirror image situation. That is, it's possible
> >>> for you to cost others money without them saving you money. But: If
> >>> all the people getting 30+ mpg were in SUVs, Cheney would have had to
> >>> invade Iraq a lot sooner. The cost of that conquest would have been
> >>> going for a longer time. Therefore, those economy drivers did save
> >>> you money.
> >>>> Because so far I
> >>>> haven't seen a dime of that savings.
> >>> You just haven't noticed, because the "control" situation isn't
> >>> obvious.
> >> So then, how is it so "obvious" that you know that other people driving
> >> SUV's costs you money?
> >> ~
> >
> > Briefly, what's obvious to one person is totally incomprehensible to
> > another.
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> So then,,,, if I drive a SUV and you don't, then I either owe you an
> obvious amount of money, or an incomprehensible amount of money. Which
> is it?
> ~

They owe you.

 

[George Conklin]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack May wrote:
> > "Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
news:8c51a781-ac75-4499-80e7-c6090d97cf93@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> George Conklin's latest idiocy:
> >>
> >>> Thus a vehicle [that] will allow you to carry home a 4 x 8
> >>> piece of plywood is called "Unnecessary" by those who always
> >>> have to let someone else do anything other than blab.
> >> =v= Unless you're a carpenter, carrying home a 4 x 8 piece of
> >> plywood is not a daily activity, so using that as an excuse for
> >> dragging around an extra ton or so of steel on a more-than-daily
> >> basis is kind of stupid.
> >>
> >> =v= My own vehicle has hauled plywood of that size (and larger!)
> >> when I've attached a trailer to it. So your argument simply
> >> doesn't hold water (something else I've hauled).
> >
> >
> > A 4X8 sheet of plywood is not the main problem. We are constantly
carrying
> > big loads home from places like CostCo and Home Depot. Families have to
> > carry a lot of stuff around when they have kids.
>
> Oh bosh! Somehow our family of four managed to make do with a VW Type I.
> You need to buy less stuff, not have a larger vehicle.
>
> Heck, I managed to move three (3) times using nothing but a Honda Civic.

That is, you put the Honda Civic in the back of the moving van.

 

[George Conklin]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > ...
> > I also doubt congested roads are significantly caused by
> > SUV use. It's too many vehicles due to our
> > "one-person-one-car" pardigm of transport in the US. If
> > you observe closely, you'll no doubt note *one* person
> > in the Prism, just like there is in the Escalade....
>
> The real root of the problem is the human population is at least three
> times the size that can be properly supported by the available
> resources. Selfish behavior by individuals at the expense of the whole
> is to blame.

This is what Malthus said several hundred year ago.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 2:32 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Stephen Harding wrote:
> > > ...
> > > I also doubt congested roads are significantly caused by
> > > SUV use. It's too many vehicles due to our
> > > "one-person-one-car" pardigm of transport in the US. If
> > > you observe closely, you'll no doubt note *one* person
> > > in the Prism, just like there is in the Escalade....
>
> > The real root of the problem is the human population is at least three
> > times the size that can be properly supported by the available
> > resources. Selfish behavior by individuals at the expense of the whole
> > is to blame.
>
> This is what Malthus said several hundred year ago.

Hey I was just thinking

What if we could snooker people into believing that driving a 4 seat
car makes you feel lonely.

I mean, 3 is a crowd, 4 is a party and there you are with all those
empty chairs?

I mean look at you?

Just remember it doesn't actually have to be true to tell people it
is.

Should create a whole vocabulary of SUV jokes.

Put the mentalist back into the enviro.

haha
____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

 

[DougC]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Hey I was just thinking
>
> What if we could snooker people into believing that driving a 4 seat
> car makes you feel lonely.
>
> I mean, 3 is a crowd, 4 is a party and there you are with all those
> empty chairs?
>

Where I live, most of the time (during daytime hours) I see the buses
and light-rail trains running very-nearly empty ,,, except for the
person operating them, of course.

During morning and evening rush-hours they've got some people on them,
sure,,,, but they run them in circles from 4:00 AM until midnight every
day.

This is particularly pathetic concerning the light-rail, that they spent
about a gazillion dollars to build, and are planning on spending several
more gazillion dollars to expand it to points even further (-as if that
were the problem-).
~

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 8:19 am, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > If, back around 1970, we had switched to a less profligate lifestyle,
> > plus invested seriously in energy independence, we might be very
> > disinterested in OPEC. We could probably have skipped Cheney's dream
> > invasion of Iraq and all its expense. Hell, if the money spent there
> > had been put into energy research, who knows? Even something as wild
> > as cold fusion might be a reality. We'd _certainly_ be a lot less
> > beholden to Middle Eastern dictators.
>
> > But that wasn't the path that was chosen. Ronny Raygun famously
> > ripped the solar panels off the White House. Alternative energy is
> > not macho enough, obviously. Neither is conservation, even by the
> > simple act of using the proper tool for the transportational job.
>
> The SUV craze pretty much got under way during the 90's.
>
> Wonder why Clinton and Gore didn't put a stop to it?

Hmm. Let's see: Congress was dominated by which party? Would that
have any effect? (And understand, I was not and am _not_ a Clinton
fan.)

> > You seem to miss the fundamental concept, which is: Your payment do
> > NOT cover the total cost to society of your choice. That's probably
> > true for all drivers, but it's _more_ true for drivers of more
> > wasteful, more dangerous vehicles.
>
> This is true with *any* motor vehicle. Why do you focus only on
> SUV drivers "not paying their fair share"?

Because I understand that many people often have a reasonable need to
drive, since America has been re-designed for the sole convenience of
motorists. However, I see no way that it's reasonable to drive in a
vehicle which endangers others much more than necessary, or a vehicle
which impacts the environment much more than necessary. SUVs do
both.

> > To take one small example: Large vehicles impose more injuries and
> > fatalities on drivers of smaller vehicles, and on pedestrians, by
> > virtue of their bumper heights and taller front ends.
>
> > Then there's the research pointing out the difference in personality
> > traits associated with vehicle choice. SUV drivers have been shown to
> > be more selfish and aggressive than other vehicle owners.
>
> I think this is nonsense.

You probably mean you _guess_ this is nonsense. Read
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html for a few clues.

> > Which is, I suppose, why they argue so hard to justify an obviously
> > dumb vehicle.
>
> A dumb vehicle for you is not necessarily a dumb vehicle for someone
> else.

For a certain value of "not necessarily."

Fact is, the vast popularity of SUVs has _nothing_ to do with choosing
the appropriate vehicle for the task. Pro-SUV folks have tried
mightily to list logical reasons for their choice:
"I have to pull a trailer."
"I own a boat."
"I have to take my spoiled teenage son to the ski resort."
"I have kids."
"What if it snows?"
"I have to be safe on the road."

I've easily handled each and every one of those problems with a Honda
Civic - except for a large boat. But I had a friend with a large ski
boat, who pulled it with an ordinary sedan.

ISTM the fundamental defense of the SUV crowd is "Well, I think I need
it, so there!" It's the same defense used by inner-city thugs driving
drug-financed boom cars through quiet neighborhoods. And in fact, the
two groups share many characteristics.

> For thousands of years, humanity got by without engines on boats, so
> I don't need an engine.

Agreed.

> A dumb purchase to my mind is hubby, wifey
> and junior in a 5000 square foot home.

Agreed.

> Over half the world lives in one or two room huts with no real issues,
> so why do we need homes with
> parlors, living rooms, bedrooms, media rooms, cellars, attics?
>
> It's dumb to have all those rooms in a house!

Agreed. And like Escalades, the McMansions are strutting displays of
one's credit line. They're yet another attempt to hide personal
dullness behind a facade of possessions.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)]

I believe that, at one point in time, the Commonwealth of Virginia was
looking at passing a law that would NOT allow an SUV to use the
car-pool lanes. Whether or not these vehicles had enough people in
them.

I don't know if it was passed or not and I can't remember the original
reason for this to come into being. But it's a little food for
thought.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> ...
> For thousands of years, humanity got by without engines on boats, so
> I don't need an engine. A dumb purchase to my mind is hubby, wifey
> and junior in a 5000 square foot home. Over half the world lives in
> one or two room huts with no real issues, so why do we need homes with
> parlors, living rooms, bedrooms, media rooms, cellars, attics?
>
> It's dumb to have all those rooms in a house!

Agreed! What is needed is a good rack storage system to make best use of
the available floor space.

Of course, if one is smart enough to avoid the trap of marriage and
parenthood, one needs much less space!

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
> news:8c51a781-ac75-4499-80e7-c6090d97cf93@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> George Conklin's latest idiocy:
>>>>
>>>>> Thus a vehicle [that] will allow you to carry home a 4 x 8
>>>>> piece of plywood is called "Unnecessary" by those who always
>>>>> have to let someone else do anything other than blab.
>>>> =v= Unless you're a carpenter, carrying home a 4 x 8 piece of
>>>> plywood is not a daily activity, so using that as an excuse for
>>>> dragging around an extra ton or so of steel on a more-than-daily
>>>> basis is kind of stupid.
>>>>
>>>> =v= My own vehicle has hauled plywood of that size (and larger!)
>>>> when I've attached a trailer to it. So your argument simply
>>>> doesn't hold water (something else I've hauled).
>>>
>>> A 4X8 sheet of plywood is not the main problem. We are constantly
> carrying
>>> big loads home from places like CostCo and Home Depot. Families have to
>>> carry a lot of stuff around when they have kids.
>> Oh bosh! Somehow our family of four managed to make do with a VW Type I.
>> You need to buy less stuff, not have a larger vehicle.
>>
>> Heck, I managed to move three (3) times using nothing but a Honda Civic.
>
> That is, you put the Honda Civic in the back of the moving van.

Nope. I do not own a lot of ****, and all of it can either fit in the
Civic [1] or on a exterior rack [2]. Buying furniture that can be
disassembled, such as futons also helps.

Of course, it would be stupid to use a cube van as a daily driver, when
I can rent one for a couple hundred dollars for the few times per decade
when it would be useful.

[1] OK, I did have to bungee the trunk lid into a partially open
position to carry my trike.
[2] Where the long wheelbase recumbent bicycle rode.

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

 

[Jym Dyer]

George Conklin retorts:

>> Heck, I managed to move three (3) times using nothing but a
>> Honda Civic.

> That is, you put the Honda Civic in the back of the moving van.

=v= Dan Quayle once said he needed to brush up on his Latin to
visit Latin America. He was making a joke (he claims), but it
was so very hard to tell because he was always making statements
like that without realizing how wrong he was.

=v= George Conklin's retort up there reminds me of Dan Quayle.
So much of what George posts is wrong in exactly the same way
as this retort, but I think this time he's joking. It's *is* a
joke, right? He doesn't actually believe there was a moving
van involved, does he? It's so hard to tell.
<_Jym_>

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 21, 5:10 pm, [email protected] (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't think it's too much leniency on DUI,
>
> Check yer attributions.

No, I mean we do have MADD, and all the politicians and government
agencies that take pictures with MADD, but nobody notices THE OTHER
ISSUES. It's like they are scoring points toward their political
careers or cover up their apathy to the other issues, but ignore THE
TERRORISTS, the people who are engaged in mental masturbation.

While the governments looks into Drunk Drivers...

'U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality,
chaired by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), will hold a hearing
entitled, "Oversight Hearing on Effectiveness of Federal Drunk Driving
Programs."'
(madd.com)

It ignores THE OTHER ISSUES...

Book 'It's No Accident'
comment by rblessin88
Lisa Lewis's total command of the issues surrounding traffic safety
makes this a most credible book. She is at her best when she takes
unconventional stances on matters that have long been somewhat
sacrosanct in this country, such as pointing out the complicity of the
insurance industry in undermining traffic safety, or the federal
government's role in refusing to address traffic safety issues aside
from seat belts and alcohol. Likewise, she points out any number of
life-saving technologies already available that the powers-that-be
refuse to even consider requiring on vehicles.

It's No Accident is loaded with facts and statistics, but that's not
its strong suit. Rather it's Ms. Lewis's passion for the subject --
and for the victims of the out-of-control driving culture in this
country -- that leaves the reader convinced that we need to take every
step possible to change our nation's attitudes toward driving.

http://www.lulu.com/content/186268

IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY. MADD is about money, and "accidents" are about
money. Well, the fact that they don't make it safe for bikes is about
money too.