Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?



"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
> >>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
> >>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
> >>> too few people to be of any real value.
> >>
> >> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
> >> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
> >> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.

> >
> > Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
> > transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
> > desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
> >
> > Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!

>
> Actually research is clear that people that don't use cars tend to be
> poorer, less educated, and less socially connected. Being poorer makes

you
> less sexually desirable and tends to result in being less fit.
>
>


Real research does not bother planners.
 
What we witness in America is a hierarchal transportation system where
the amoral big fish crushes the moral little fish. But who can talk
about morals in a Darwinistic system? Welcome to the Jungle...

'The car-as-cocoon also _insulates_ the driver and passengers from the
physical and social environment immediately outside the vehicle while
_intimidating_ other-modes travellers who prefer to be _part_ of that
environment. The mentality of driving is really the mentality of
taking private measures to deal with public problems (and of
converting public space to private uses). The attitude of "I'm all
right, Jack" is the result of using the car to insulate oneself from
street crime, from poor street cleaning, from street noise, from local
air pollution, people who live on the street, etc.

As if in recognition of these problems, the car manufacturers, the
"aftermarket" producers, and the economy generally have come to
provide a range of amenities that further insulate and amuse the
driver - e.g., smoking, playing the CD, eating/drinking, and talking
on the telephone (all of which increase the chance of causing a
collision). It is as if the car has _become_ a destination. One
doesn't have to go anywhere!'

'What is making things so bad is that the street and neighbourhood
scales have pretty much withered under the assault of large-scale
retailing and "lifestyles" that have no place for neighbouring (in
fact, people in North America avoid their neighbours in the name of
'privacy'). Thus trips up to the weekly frequency, which should be
made by foot or bike, are now made by car, and this growth in car use
has further loosened ties between people and increased the level of
intimidation of the green-modes beyond what once existed when
vulnerable road-users were both respected and noticed.'

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/trips.asp
 
Jack May wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
>>>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
>>>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
>>>> too few people to be of any real value.
>>> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
>>> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
>>> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.

>> Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
>> transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
>> desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
>>
>> Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!

>
> Actually research is clear that people that don't use cars tend to be
> poorer, less educated, and less socially connected. Being poorer makes you
> less sexually desirable and tends to result in being less fit.


True. What many women really want is a provider for their children.

--
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
 
Pat WHO? wrote:
> On Dec 11, 9:51 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>> On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't understand
>>>> that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
>>>> stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
>>>> any real value.-
>>> What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid of
>>> the competition?

>> Bicycle lanes are a horrible idea - I go out of my way to avoid streets
>> with them when I am riding one of my bicycles (or trike). Why should
>> cyclists be expected to use second class ghetto facilities, while
>> leaving the "real" road to the cagers?

>
> There's no problem with bikes sharing lanes with traffic ... just a
> long as you can keep up with it. I'll give you a friendly wave when I
> see you tooling down the expressway on your bike at 70mph. And I hope
> those wind blasts from tractor trailers don't bother you too much. I
> know they bother me on my 800 lb motorcycle but I wouldn't imaging
> they would bother a bicyclist too much.


Who said anything about bicycles on controlled-access urban freeways?
Don't be silly.

I will be happy to ride my bicycle when the price of fuel gets all the
cagers off the road. That future is closer than you believe.

--
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack May wrote:
> > "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
> >>>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
> >>>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
> >>>> too few people to be of any real value.
> >>> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
> >>> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
> >>> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.
> >> Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
> >> transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
> >> desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
> >>
> >> Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!

> >
> > Actually research is clear that people that don't use cars tend to be
> > poorer, less educated, and less socially connected. Being poorer makes

you
> > less sexually desirable and tends to result in being less fit.

>
> True. What many women really want is a provider for their children.


Women tend to value economic security as much more important than men do
in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick around
to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can find
younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.
 
Jack May wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:a278e94f-7753-46cd-910b-df5d271a3481@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 12:59 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't
>> understand
>> that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
>> stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
>> any real value.-

>
> What's the cost of bike lanes? Or could it be that you are afraid of
> the competition?
>
> For example a bike path bridge over a major road or freeway is over $3M.
> Bike paths are a fairly high percentage of transportation spending in the SF
> Bay Area.
>
> Bike use is down in the noise for commuting to and from work. It is not
> real competition to anything. That is the problem with transportation
> advocates. They seldom understand the tradeoff of money and usefulness.


Only because oil is subsidized well below its true cost. Put a fuel tax
in place to pay for the portion of the US military budget that goes to
controlling foreign hydrocarbon reserves, for illness caused by burning
oil based fuels for transit, for injuries caused by motorized transit,
and to compensate for the environmental degradation caused by motorized
transit infrastructure, and the smugness of the cagers would disappear.

Talk about a welfare state - the US has welfare at the pump!

--
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
 
George Conklin wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and Japan

> were
>>>>> so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.
>>>> Yeah, that's why those miserable small cars outsell SUVs and the Big
>>>> Three are sucking sewage. But no, blame it on the unions! Yeah,

> that's
>>>> the ticket!
>>> Your complaint was that there are too many SUVs. Now you say there are

> not.
>>> In fact, people don't like those miserable small cars.

>> Oh, bollocks! I have to drive pick-up trucks for work and they are quite
>> lousy to drive and uncomfortable compared to my Honda Civic, which gets
>> a real world 35+ mpg in urban driving.

>
> The Honda Civic? My sister-in-law had one about 20 years ago. She
> hated it too.


I am sorry to hear about your and your sister-in-law's problems. Maybe
science will develop a cure.

--
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 - 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
 
Stephen Harding wrote:
> Aeek wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:34:09 -0500, "George Conklin"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>
>>>> Oh, bollocks! I have to drive pick-up trucks for work and they are
>>>> quite
>>>> lousy to drive and uncomfortable compared to my Honda Civic, which gets
>>>> a real world 35+ mpg in urban driving.

>
>>> The Honda Civic? My sister-in-law had one about 20 years ago. She
>>> hated it too.

>>
>> I love my 85 Corolla Seca, I can toss most of my bikes in the back
>> without removing the front wheel - and that's what matters.

>
> I love my '98 Dodge Ram half ton, 4WD, V8 pickup truck!
>
> Just toss 12 bikes plus camping gear in the back (and on a
> bike rack) and the team's bikes go from MA to IA in about
> 27 hours with no nicks, scrapes or dings.
>
> And quite honestly, that truck is a very comfortable
> driving vehicle. I think the more upright seating is
> probably why....


But the ride and handling leaves much to be desired, no?

A Honda Civic looks like a normal sedan, but even in the stock form is
great for racing around in. With upgraded shocks and tires, it would be
suitable to run on the track.

--
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
 
George Conklin wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> Having options is the brain dead clich? used by people that don't
>>>>>> understand that funds are limited and options are often far more
>>>>>> expensive than main stream transportation. Options usually carry far
>>>>>> too few people to be of any real value.
>>>>> But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally,
>>>>> culturally and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are
>>>>> isolated, lonely and, yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.
>>>> Oh no George! You've forgotten that people who use sensible
>>>> transportation (i.e., not cars) are also hipper, more sexually
>>>> desirable, fitter, and all around just more Fabulous!
>>>>
>>>> Just thought I'd help you out that little bit!
>>> Actually research is clear that people that don't use cars tend to be
>>> poorer, less educated, and less socially connected. Being poorer makes

> you
>>> less sexually desirable and tends to result in being less fit.

>> True. What many women really want is a provider for their children.

>
> Women tend to value economic security as much more important than men do
> in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick around
> to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can find
> younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.


Because they are suckers for being used?

--
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
 
On Dec 12, 6:59 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
wrote:
> What we witness in America is a hierarchal transportation system where
> the amoral big fish crushes the moral little fish. But who can talk
> about morals in a Darwinistic system? Welcome to the Jungle...
>
> 'The car-as-cocoon also _insulates_ the driver and passengers from the
> physical and social environment immediately outside the vehicle while
> _intimidating_ other-modes travellers who prefer to be _part_ of that
> environment. The mentality of driving is really the mentality of
> taking private measures to deal with public problems (and of
> converting public space to private uses). The attitude of "I'm all
> right, Jack" is the result of using the car to insulate oneself from
> street crime, from poor street cleaning, from street noise, from local
> air pollution, people who live on the street, etc.
>
> As if in recognition of these problems, the car manufacturers, the
> "aftermarket" producers, and the economy generally have come to
> provide a range of amenities that further insulate and amuse the
> driver - e.g., smoking, playing the CD, eating/drinking, and talking
> on the telephone (all of which increase the chance of causing a
> collision). It is as if the car has _become_ a destination. One
> doesn't have to go anywhere!'
>
> 'What is making things so bad is that the street and neighbourhood
> scales have pretty much withered under the assault of large-scale
> retailing and "lifestyles" that have no place for neighbouring (in
> fact, people in North America avoid their neighbours in the name of
> 'privacy'). Thus trips up to the weekly frequency, which should be
> made by foot or bike, are now made by car, and this growth in car use
> has further loosened ties between people and increased the level of
> intimidation of the green-modes beyond what once existed when
> vulnerable road-users were both respected and noticed.'
>
> http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/trips.asp


The problem is that you are trying to impose your lifestyle and values
on others. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone
and you need to take a bigger view of things.

Here's an example. I have to drive my kid to school tomorrow, like I
do every day. It's 10 miles each way -- 40 miles for school !!! For
you, that's horrible. Let's examine the alternatives:

a. Take a bus. Sorry. There are no busses between here and there.
None. Zip. Nada.

2. Drive himself. Sorry. He doesn't have a license.

III. Ride a bicycle. 7" to 10" of snow are forecast for during the
day tomorrow and a high of 27F. Not really an option. Oh, I saw the
sun today!!! First time in weeks that that has happened.

So I drive him. You might find it horrible but you need to consider
that I live in a radically different area than you do. You'd have a
car if you were here, too.

So before you start making blanket inditements of cars, consider that
there are different needs for different situations.
 
"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The problem is that you are trying to impose your lifestyle and values
> on others. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone
> and you need to take a bigger view of things.
>
> Here's an example. I have to drive my kid to school tomorrow, like I
> do every day. It's 10 miles each way -- 40 miles for school !!! For
> you, that's horrible. Let's examine the alternatives:
>
> a. Take a bus. Sorry. There are no busses between here and there.
> None. Zip. Nada.
>
> 2. Drive himself. Sorry. He doesn't have a license.
>
> III. Ride a bicycle. 7" to 10" of snow are forecast for during the
> day tomorrow and a high of 27F. Not really an option. Oh, I saw the
> sun today!!! First time in weeks that that has happened.
>
> So I drive him. You might find it horrible but you need to consider
> that I live in a radically different area than you do. You'd have a
> car if you were here, too.
>
> So before you start making blanket inditements of cars, consider that
> there are different needs for different situations.


But then you're failing to recognize that the whole situation you're talking
about has been caused by the increasing trend to build schools out in the
middle of nowhere so that _no_ children are within walking or safe biking
distance. What quixote is talking about is that we need to catch the
situation before it gets to the point where we have one massive school that
everyone must drive to and look at alternatives, such as several smaller
neighborhood schools. So you are as much a victim of the whole car-centered
mentality as anyone else. You're forced to spend an extra hour or so out of
every day your son goes to school on the road because of where the school is
located. I would imagine your hourly rate is such that the fuel is
insignificant compared to the time cost.

This is one of the reasons my husband and I are looking at moving to a
community that makes more intelligent choices in these sorts of matters than
where we are now. We don't want to be at the mercy of these kinds of poor
decisions that impose extra costs on us.

-Amy
 
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Women tend to value economic security as much more important than men do
> in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick
> around
> to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can find
> younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.


I think it is more because women who have means find that the kind of men
who will date women who make more than them are not worth having, and women
who do not have means will not hook up with a guy who will drag them down
(if they're smart).
 
Pat WHO? wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:59 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> What we witness in America is a hierarchal transportation system where
>> the amoral big fish crushes the moral little fish. But who can talk
>> about morals in a Darwinistic system? Welcome to the Jungle...
>>
>> 'The car-as-cocoon also _insulates_ the driver and passengers from the
>> physical and social environment immediately outside the vehicle while
>> _intimidating_ other-modes travellers who prefer to be _part_ of that
>> environment. The mentality of driving is really the mentality of
>> taking private measures to deal with public problems (and of
>> converting public space to private uses). The attitude of "I'm all
>> right, Jack" is the result of using the car to insulate oneself from
>> street crime, from poor street cleaning, from street noise, from local
>> air pollution, people who live on the street, etc.
>>
>> As if in recognition of these problems, the car manufacturers, the
>> "aftermarket" producers, and the economy generally have come to
>> provide a range of amenities that further insulate and amuse the
>> driver - e.g., smoking, playing the CD, eating/drinking, and talking
>> on the telephone (all of which increase the chance of causing a
>> collision). It is as if the car has _become_ a destination. One
>> doesn't have to go anywhere!'
>>
>> 'What is making things so bad is that the street and neighbourhood
>> scales have pretty much withered under the assault of large-scale
>> retailing and "lifestyles" that have no place for neighbouring (in
>> fact, people in North America avoid their neighbours in the name of
>> 'privacy'). Thus trips up to the weekly frequency, which should be
>> made by foot or bike, are now made by car, and this growth in car use
>> has further loosened ties between people and increased the level of
>> intimidation of the green-modes beyond what once existed when
>> vulnerable road-users were both respected and noticed.'
>>
>> http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/trips.asp

>
> The problem is that you are trying to impose your lifestyle and values
> on others. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone
> and you need to take a bigger view of things.
>
> Here's an example. I have to drive my kid to school tomorrow, like I
> do every day. It's 10 miles each way -- 40 miles for school !!! For
> you, that's horrible. Let's examine the alternatives:
>
> a. Take a bus. Sorry. There are no busses between here and there.
> None. Zip. Nada.
>
> 2. Drive himself. Sorry. He doesn't have a license.
>
> III. Ride a bicycle. 7" to 10" of snow are forecast for during the
> day tomorrow and a high of 27F. Not really an option. Oh, I saw the
> sun today!!! First time in weeks that that has happened.
>
> So I drive him. You might find it horrible but you need to consider
> that I live in a radically different area than you do. You'd have a
> car if you were here, too.
>
> So before you start making blanket inditements of cars, consider that
> there are different needs for different situations.


Does your work (e.g. farmer, miner) require you to live in BFE? If not,
you are referring to WANTS, not NEEDS.

If work is not the reason for living in an isolated place, you have made
a poor choice, since you in all likelihood consume excess fossil fuel
compared to your contribution to society.

--
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
 
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Women tend to value economic security as much more important than men do
>> in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick
>> around
>> to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can find
>> younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.

>
> I think it is more because women who have means find that the kind of men
> who will date women who make more than them are not worth having, and women
> who do not have means will not hook up with a guy who will drag them down
> (if they're smart).


I.e., the women are looking for a "sugar daddy".

--
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Women tend to value economic security as much more important than men
>>> do
>>> in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick
>>> around
>>> to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can find
>>> younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.

>>
>> I think it is more because women who have means find that the kind of men
>> who will date women who make more than them are not worth having, and
>> women who do not have means will not hook up with a guy who will drag
>> them down (if they're smart).

>
> I.e., the women are looking for a "sugar daddy".


No, the men are. If you get burned by that often enough, you learn to steer
clear.
 
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Women tend to value economic security as much more important than men
>>>> do
>>>> in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick
>>>> around
>>>> to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can find
>>>> younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.
>>> I think it is more because women who have means find that the kind of men
>>> who will date women who make more than them are not worth having, and
>>> women who do not have means will not hook up with a guy who will drag
>>> them down (if they're smart).

>> I.e., the women are looking for a "sugar daddy".

>
> No, the men are. If you get burned by that often enough, you learn to steer
> clear.


Typically it is the other way around, since in a patriarchal society,
men usually earn considerably more money than women.

Plenty of women will lie about loving a man if they think he will be a
good provider, withdraw affection after having the desired number of
children, and then continue to suck money from the man through the
resulting divorce settlement.

The "fear of commitment" is a rational behavior on a man's part.

Of course, if a man lies about loving a woman and wanting children just
to get sex, then he deserves what he gets.

--
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
 
Jack May makes up yet more ****:

> Actually research is clear that people that don't use cars
> tend to be poorer, less educated, and less socially connected.
> Being poorer makes you less sexually desirable and tends to
> result in being less fit.


=v= No such research exists.

=v= The most carfree city in the U.S. is also the nation's
center of wealth, education, and culture. Fitness is of
course highest where there's the least car use.

=v= As for sexuality, a teevee show based in this most
carfree location was _Sex_in_the_City_, whereas a show
about suburbia was called _Desperate_Housewives_. Draw
your own conclusions.
<_Jym_>
 
George Conklin says this about Jack May's ****:

> Real research does not bother planners.


=v= There you have it. By George Conklin's standards,
"research" is whatever Jack May says it is. No need to
cite references or even make a lick of sense with it.
Jack spewed it, George bought it, that settles it.
<_Jym_>
 
>> Being poorer makes you less sexually desirable and tends
>> to result in being less fit.

> True. What many women really want is a provider for their
> children.


=v= Given that cars take up an average of 20% of the wealth
one works for and an ever greater chunk of one's time, I'm
not sure how this qualifies as "providing."
<_Jym_>

P.S.: Great sexist throwback Weltanschauung afoot there.
 

Similar threads