Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

[Jym Dyer]

> 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.

=v= There is no greater imposition of lifestyle (minus the
"life" part) than a system of paving the planet, waging war for
oil, and heating up the atmosphere just so an elite can lug a
few tons of steel around everywhere they go.

=v= Talk about failing to take a bigger view of things!
<_Jym_>

 

[Amy Blankenship]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

It seems like every woman I've known who even had a modest amount of
security that she got on her own had a man somewhere along the line sponging
off her. People think it's the other way around, but women who choose to
stay home, cook, clean, and raise a family _do_ work in the partnership.
Most men who sponge just sponge.

-Amy

 

[Jym Dyer]

> It seems like every woman I've known who even had a
> modest amount of security that she got on her own had
> a man somewhere along the line sponging off her.

=v= Much as I am loathe to continue this steeped-in-sexism
side-thread, I must advise folks that in order to avoid
Jack May/George Conklin levels of ignorance, they ought to
indulge in a bit of research.

=v= I'll be happy to help. Send me the phone numbers of
these women and I'll investigate.
<_Jym_>

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 9:45 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 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, it sounds to me like you've made a bad decision, and are now
whining about it.

When I took my present job (decades ago), I moved in from out of
state. So I had to search for a house.

I picked a house where one my kids could walk to school, and the other
could ride a school bus or bicycle. I was also close enough to ride
my bike to work. And to the grocery. And the library, and bank, and
dentist, and doctor, and hardware store, etc. Not every day, but
usually.

Most of us have remarkable freedom in choosing where to live. But
most people who "have to" drive their kids to school have simply made
dumb choices. They don't factor transportation into their choice -
because of _course_ they'll drive everywhere!

Admittedly, it's possible your situation is different. Perhaps you've
inherited the family farm in an impoverished county that has no bus
service. If so, my sympathy goes out to you. But I think most people
who are in your situation are there because of a dumb choice.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Amy Blankenship]

"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:817d4284-d8af-47fc-a394-1e0845d8186e@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> It seems like every woman I've known who even had a
>> modest amount of security that she got on her own had
>> a man somewhere along the line sponging off her.
>
> =v= Much as I am loathe to continue this steeped-in-sexism
> side-thread, I must advise folks that in order to avoid
> Jack May/George Conklin levels of ignorance, they ought to
> indulge in a bit of research.
>
> =v= I'll be happy to help. Send me the phone numbers of
> these women and I'll investigate.

Most of them eventually learned not to date such men and are now happily
married ;-)

 

[Pat]

On Dec 12, 11:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:45 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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, it sounds to me like you've made a bad decision, and are now
> whining about it.
>
> When I took my present job (decades ago), I moved in from out of
> state. So I had to search for a house.
>
> I picked a house where one my kids could walk to school, and the other
> could ride a school bus or bicycle. I was also close enough to ride
> my bike to work. And to the grocery. And the library, and bank, and
> dentist, and doctor, and hardware store, etc. Not every day, but
> usually.
>
> Most of us have remarkable freedom in choosing where to live. But
> most people who "have to" drive their kids to school have simply made
> dumb choices. They don't factor transportation into their choice -
> because of _course_ they'll drive everywhere!
>
> Admittedly, it's possible your situation is different. Perhaps you've
> inherited the family farm in an impoverished county that has no bus
> service. If so, my sympathy goes out to you. But I think most people
> who are in your situation are there because of a dumb choice.
>
> - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dumb choice? I don't think so. There's no way in heck I'd want to
live where you live and walk/bike/crawl to everywhere. That's a
disgusting lifestyle and, to me, is the worst possible choice one
could make.

I'm not whining about the driving. I don't mind it. My point was
that this is a huge country and lots of different types of people want
to live in lots of different ways. Lots and lots of them pack up for
a weekend or a week and come here skiing. It's a big event to them to
get onto the slopes, which are croweded with other fools like
themselves every weekend. The slopes opened 7 days ago and my younger
son has been boarding 5 times. My older son, who's only been boarding
4 times, is at a school the adjoins the ski slope. How cool is
that.

I've lived in cities, I've lived in the suburbs, and I've lived in
rural areas. Guess what, the rural areas are much nicer. But you
need a car. A bicycle isn't going to cut it.

I'm here for the ruralness (actually, I'd like it a bit more to be
more rural). I work from my house and could work from anywhere. Most
of the projects I work on are hundreds of miles away and hundreds of
miles from each other, so there's no such thing as a centralized
location.

You-all have chosen a lifestyle that you like. Good for you. But
that's not a lifestyle that everyone would like. Living on top of
each other in crowded, conjested areas isn't for me. I don't want to
live in an area that is dependent on A/C all summer and has pavement
everywhere. I do own an A/C and used it two or three days last
summer, but that's it. Otherwise it's better to jump in the pool and
cool off.

I've got ski slopes to the north. The Rez to the south and lots of
state forests/parks around. I'm living in the area YOU come to for
relaxation and recreation and to get out of your urban hell-holes.
You can't beat that.

 

[Pat]

On Dec 12, 5:25 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Taking your quote out of the context of your debate, "real research
does not bother planners" is true. But nothing bothers them. They
just do whatever they want. Or more precisely, they do whatever their
interpretation of locals codes is, whether or not it is what the code
says.

 

[Pat]

On Dec 12, 11:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:45 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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, it sounds to me like you've made a bad decision, and are now
> whining about it.
>
> When I took my present job (decades ago), I moved in from out of
> state. So I had to search for a house.
>
> I picked a house where one my kids could walk to school, and the other
> could ride a school bus or bicycle. I was also close enough to ride
> my bike to work. And to the grocery. And the library, and bank, and
> dentist, and doctor, and hardware store, etc. Not every day, but
> usually.
>
> Most of us have remarkable freedom in choosing where to live. But
> most people who "have to" drive their kids to school have simply made
> dumb choices. They don't factor transportation into their choice -
> because of _course_ they'll drive everywhere!
>
> Admittedly, it's possible your situation is different. Perhaps you've
> inherited the family farm in an impoverished county that has no bus
> service. If so, my sympathy goes out to you. But I think most people
> who are in your situation are there because of a dumb choice.
>
> - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh, and another comment to a couple of you. I think it's somewhat
arrogant and mis-informed to think that all (or even many) of the
people who live in rural areas do so because they've "inherited the
family farm". You might find it hard to believe, but we have doctors
and lawyers and Indian Chiefs around here. We have manufacturing and
colleges. We have restaurants and banks and everything else you need
to keep on keeping on -- including DSL and cell phones.

I work in the development of multi-family housing. Apartments. We
even have apartments !!! Golly Gee.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 9:07 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> ...I think most people
> > who are in your situation are there because of a dumb choice.
>
> Dumb choice? I don't think so.

Well, of _course_ you don't! ;-) "No, I was just complaining about
driving my kid 40 miles each and every day because ... um, because I
really, really like driving, and I can't think of nothing better to do
with that hour anyway."

> I'm here for the ruralness (actually, I'd like it a bit more to be
> more rural).

Of course. The typical American, wanting to "go where no man has gone
before," to colonize the wilderness, to chop down the trees, to pave
his/her own asphalt, to ruin the scenery with his/her own McMansion...

"But I wish it were more rural. I wish _other_ people wouldn't move
out here and do what I did. What are those dummies thinking?"

Good one, Pat!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 12, 9:01 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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.

Not only that, women want their children not to be orphan. And with a
father that rides bike in traffic, there's a high likelihood that
they'll be in need of welfare. And Bush just denied healthcare to them.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 12, 9:13 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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!

And nothing indicates that that will change in the near future. It
would take a world war... or two.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 9:36 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Oh, and another comment to a couple of you. I think it's somewhat
> arrogant and mis-informed to think that all (or even many) of the
> people who live in rural areas do so because they've "inherited the
> family farm". You might find it hard to believe, but we have doctors
> and lawyers and Indian Chiefs around here.

You misunderstood. Those who actually did inherit the family farm are
OK. They get my sympathy - in part, because they have to put up with
pampered ex-suburbanites adding to their traffic, complaining about
their agricultural smells, ruining their views, driving up their land
prices and taxes. In fact, they get my respect for having a less
greedy lifestyle.

The "Daniel Boone with an SUV and McMansion" pretenders are another
matter entirely. They move out to get away from the other SUVs and
McMansions. But of course, they bring their own with them. Why,
they're _special_, you see. Just ask them!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 12, 9:45 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:

> >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.

You don't understand what I'm proposing: OPTIONS. Even myself I have
options if one of them is gathering rust because of the danger out
there. I own three bicycles (one for shopping, one mountain, and one
foldable) and only one goes to the supermarket, barely one mile away.
The rest I do in my scooter, which although it still puts me at the
bottom of the food chain, allows me to get around without a high
impact. Then my girlfriend owns a car, which we occasionally use to
launch the bikes somewhere else or other errands.

Is it fair that when we are dumping the planet, I can't do my share
because it's plain dangerous? I don't think so.

>
> 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.-

This is the name of the game: DIFFERENT PEOPLE USE DIFFERENT
TRANSPORTATION MODES IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 12, 10:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "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.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 12, 10:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "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.

What you mention is the sprawl, so prevalent in America. Notice the
original intention (or best use) of the car...

'This shows that the scale of trips best suited to the automobile,
city-region, should constitute only 3% of all trips (if one counts all
trips, which traffic engineers do not), and trips at this scale could
also be made by bus, delivery, or bicycle. And since the car is
expensive and space consuming, it is not even ideal at that scale
(Peter Saint James correctly points out that it was invented for rural
living and was adopted first by urbanites just to get to the city's
hinterlands).'

(same website above)

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 13, 9:07 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 9:45 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 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, it sounds to me like you've made a bad decision, and are now
> > whining about it.
>
> > When I took my present job (decades ago), I moved in from out of
> > state. So I had to search for a house.
>
> > I picked a house where one my kids could walk to school, and the other
> > could ride a school bus or bicycle. I was also close enough to ride
> > my bike to work. And to the grocery. And the library, and bank, and
> > dentist, and doctor, and hardware store, etc. Not every day, but
> > usually.
>
> > Most of us have remarkable freedom in choosing where to live. But
> > most people who "have to" drive their kids to school have simply made
> > dumb choices. They don't factor transportation into their choice -
> > because of _course_ they'll drive everywhere!
>
> > Admittedly, it's possible your situation is different. Perhaps you've
> > inherited the family farm in an impoverished county that has no bus
> > service. If so, my sympathy goes out to you. But I think most people
> > who are in your situation are there because of a dumb choice.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dumb choice? I don't think so. There's no way in heck I'd want to
> live where you live and walk/bike/crawl to everywhere. That's a
> disgusting lifestyle and, to me, is the worst possible choice one
> could make.
>
> I'm not whining about the driving. I don't mind it. My point was
> that this is a huge country and lots of different types of people want
> to live in lots of different ways. Lots and lots of them pack up for
> a weekend or a week and come here skiing. It's a big event to them to
> get onto the slopes, which are croweded with other fools like
> themselves every weekend. The slopes opened 7 days ago and my younger
> son has been boarding 5 times. My older son, who's only been boarding
> 4 times, is at a school the adjoins the ski slope. How cool is
> that.
>
> I've lived in cities, I've lived in the suburbs, and I've lived in
> rural areas. Guess what, the rural areas are much nicer. But you
> need a car. A bicycle isn't going to cut it.
>
> I'm here for the ruralness (actually, I'd like it a bit more to be
> more rural). I work from my house and could work from anywhere. Most
> of the projects I work on are hundreds of miles away and hundreds of
> miles from each other, so there's no such thing as a centralized
> location.
>
> You-all have chosen a lifestyle that you like. Good for you. But
> that's not a lifestyle that everyone would like. Living on top of
> each other in crowded, conjested areas isn't for me. I don't want to
> live in an area that is dependent on A/C all summer and has pavement
> everywhere. I do own an A/C and used it two or three days last
> summer, but that's it. Otherwise it's better to jump in the pool and
> cool off.
>
> I've got ski slopes to the north. The Rez to the south and lots of
> state forests/parks around. I'm living in the area YOU come to for
> relaxation and recreation and to get out of your urban hell-holes.
> You can't beat that.-

Some people get away from the "urban jungle," some people try to tame
it. But you must understand that only a minority can do what you do
without aggravating the problem with sprawling.

And that's the biggest problem we got in America...

The Problem: Sprawl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sprawl -- the blighted landscape of cookie-cutter suburbs, strip
malls, and far too many highways that has spread across so much of
America -- is a hot topic. Most of us are all too familiar with its
ills: endless driving and frequent traffic jams, aggravated pollution,
fragmented communities and degraded rural and natural areas.
While these effects are plainly visible, sprawl also carries a large
hidden price tag: It places fiscal burdens on cities and towns to
extend services and infrastructure -- new telephone lines, sewers,
police and fire service -- to outlying areas, even as their downtowns
are drained of economic vitality. More and more Americans -- city
planners, environmentalists, community leaders and residents of urban,
suburban and rural areas -- have come to realize that this brand of
headlong, poorly planned development is not in the long-term interest
of their communities.
In communities across the nation, there is a growing concern that
current development patterns -- dominated by sprawl -- are no longer
in the long-term interest of our cities, existing suburbs, small
towns, rural communities, or wilderness areas.

http://www.transcoalition.org/c/sg/sg_problem.html

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 13, 10:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:07 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 11:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > ...I think most people
> > > who are in your situation are there because of a dumb choice.
>
> > Dumb choice? I don't think so.
>
> Well, of _course_ you don't! ;-) "No, I was just complaining about
> driving my kid 40 miles each and every day because ... um, because I
> really, really like driving, and I can't think of nothing better to do
> with that hour anyway."
>
> > I'm here for the ruralness (actually, I'd like it a bit more to be
> > more rural).
>
> Of course. The typical American, wanting to "go where no man has gone
> before," to colonize the wilderness, to chop down the trees, to pave
> his/her own asphalt, to ruin the scenery with his/her own McMansion...

It sounds like the "American dream"...

Only the Indians are missing to be a real wilderness.

 

[smn]

most car drivers though do not have your situation so how would we address
them. They are overweight, malnurished because of it. that i think is the
point. Are you of this nature BTW? then you should drive less. Cyclists
would probably not cross your path anyway on that trip if it was out of the
way as you say.
Overweight according to BMI makes you more sick than everyone else and you
will likely, miss more work, and be in the hospital more since your immune
system can only handle so much abuse, as well as all your organs. Rot from
the inside out I believe.

Just share the road equally, be civilized. Cyclists are doing you a favor
but are grossly unloved. We are funding your driving not the reverse.
Drivers are ignorant pukes for the most part. And that is who is subsidized
with our tax money none the less. spoiled, go figur'

 

[Pat]

On Dec 13, 11:29 am, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 9:07 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 11:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > ...I think most people
> > > > who are in your situation are there because of a dumb choice.
>
> > > Dumb choice? I don't think so.
>
> > Well, of _course_ you don't! ;-) "No, I was just complaining about
> > driving my kid 40 miles each and every day because ... um, because I
> > really, really like driving, and I can't think of nothing better to do
> > with that hour anyway."
>
> > > I'm here for the ruralness (actually, I'd like it a bit more to be
> > > more rural).
>
> > Of course. The typical American, wanting to "go where no man has gone
> > before," to colonize the wilderness, to chop down the trees, to pave
> > his/her own asphalt, to ruin the scenery with his/her own McMansion...
>
> It sounds like the "American dream"...
>
> Only the Indians are missing to be a real wilderness.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First off, just because YOU want to live near other people and see
buildings for miles and miles, that doesn't mean that I want to. I
like trees better than concrete.

Second off, sorry, but we have Indians here. About 3/4ths of the
community I live in is on a Rez. We even have a casino. I've never
been in it but we have one. It has a 288 room hotel that goes up 14
stories. Ugh. But it's giving the nation the money to do what it
wants to do, so that's good.

 

[Pat]

On Dec 13, 10:52 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:36 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 11:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Oh, and another comment to a couple of you. I think it's somewhat
> > arrogant and mis-informed to think that all (or even many) of the
> > people who live in rural areas do so because they've "inherited the
> > family farm". You might find it hard to believe, but we have doctors
> > and lawyers and Indian Chiefs around here.
>
> You misunderstood. Those who actually did inherit the family farm are
> OK. They get my sympathy - in part, because they have to put up with
> pampered ex-suburbanites adding to their traffic, complaining about
> their agricultural smells, ruining their views, driving up their land
> prices and taxes. In fact, they get my respect for having a less
> greedy lifestyle.
>
> The "Daniel Boone with an SUV and McMansion" pretenders are another
> matter entirely. They move out to get away from the other SUVs and
> McMansions. But of course, they bring their own with them. Why,
> they're _special_, you see. Just ask them!
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Farmers are a interesting lot. They despise social programs and want
lower taxes but also demand HUGE subsidies -- including subsidies for
not doing anything at all. Then they complain how poor they are while
arguing for reduced capital gains to protect their huge net worths.