TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, usenet- [email protected] says...
> Originally posted by Cycle America/N TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists By KATHARINE
> Q. SEELYE
>
> --I'm still of the mind that transportation should be given a fair shake all around and base it on
> all vehicles by weight and mileage driven. That way, bicycles would share a proportionate amount
> to road taxes with vehicle owners (more applicable if you don't also own a motor vehicle). This
> would eliminate some of the erroneous arguments about cyclists not "paying their share" (as most
> do own a motor vehicle), and maybe there would be some adjustment for multiple vehicle ownership.
>
> I would pay more taxes to have good shoulders and wonder if we reduced speed limits as well might
> off-set some of the costs of transportation in general as it has a direct effect on fuel
> consumption.
>
> Let'salso support the bill to include cycle commuter tax credits!
>
> Enough, I'm going riding...
>
> Jon [email protected]

If bikes had to be registered and pass saftey inspections that would free up a lot of floor space in
Walmart for Sponge Bob Square Pants videos.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On 4 Jul 2003 00:30:24 +0950, JCM <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm still of the mind that transportation should be given a fair shake all around and base it on
>all vehicles by weight and mileage driven. That way, bicycles would share a proportionate amount to
>road taxes with vehicle owners

1. Bicycles are vehicles, cyclists are by definition vehicle owners (pedantic point)

2. The damage a vehicle does to the road varies with the cube of its mass. Very few cars mass
under 1000 kg, a bike plus rider is closer to the 100kg mark. OK, it might be a fat rider, but
SUVs can tip the scales at over three tonnes, so as a back-of-the-envelope calculation it's
close enough.

So, a proportional tax for the bike would be 1/1000 of the car tax. Assuming the car tax is $100,
that would be a bike tax of 10c per year
- and it would probably cost $5 to collect and administer. So either you make the bike tax
/dis/proportionate (in which case you discourage cycling, which may not be entirely wise) or you
decide that 10c is neither here nor there and forget about it.

One way of taxing according to weight and mileage driven is to tax oil (horror!). That would be fair
as bikes use about five ounces of oil per year

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, JCM <[email protected]> writes:
> Originally posted by Cycle America/N TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists By KATHARINE
> Q. SEELYE
>
> --I'm still of the mind that transportation should be given a fair shake all around and base it on
> all vehicles by weight and mileage driven. That way, bicycles would share a proportionate amount
> to road taxes with vehicle owners (more applicable if you don't also own a motor vehicle). This
> would eliminate some of the erroneous arguments about cyclists not "paying their share" (as most
> do own a motor vehicle), and maybe there would be some adjustment for multiple vehicle ownership.

Motor vehicle operating fees, taxes & levies do not provide any special entitlement to the use of
public streets & roads, other than the priviledge of operating a motor vehicle on them.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Goimir]

JCM wrote:

> I would pay more taxes to have good shoulders and wonder if we reduced speed limits as well might
> off-set some of the costs of transportation in general as it has a direct effect on fuel
> consumption.

I'd rather have an additional lane than a wider shoulder. Shoulders tend to accumulate lots of
broken glass and gravel. An additional lane(yes, this means taking the lane for all you guys who
like to ride in shoulders) gets cleared by all the passing traffic.

Reducing speed limits will only increase revenue for the police department.

 

[Robin Hubert]

"Goimir" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> JCM wrote:
>
> > I would pay more taxes to have good shoulders and wonder if we reduced speed limits as well
> > might off-set some of the costs of transportation in general as it has a direct effect on fuel
> > consumption.
>
> I'd rather have an additional lane than a wider shoulder. Shoulders tend to accumulate lots of
> broken glass and gravel. An additional lane(yes, this means taking the lane for all you guys who
> like to ride in shoulders) gets cleared by all the passing traffic.
>
> Reducing speed limits will only increase revenue for the police department.

That's funny, and not true. Enforcing existing traffic laws would provide huge revenue. Why don't
they? They could afford to hire more cops to do just that, full time. Also, "reducing speed limits",
won't increase revenues, 'cause they don't enforce the speed limits anyway. And, FWIW, reducing
speeds will do more than potentially produce revenue. It'll also make things alot safer and relaxing
for the people who live and work along said streets.

--
Robin Hubert <[email protected]

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "Goimir" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > JCM wrote:
> >
> > > I would pay more taxes to have good shoulders and wonder if we reduced speed limits as well
> > > might off-set some of the costs of transportation in general as it has a direct effect on fuel
> > > consumption.
> >
> > I'd rather have an additional lane than a wider shoulder. Shoulders tend to accumulate lots of
> > broken glass and gravel. An additional lane(yes, this means taking the lane for all you guys who
> > like to ride in shoulders) gets cleared by all the passing traffic.
> >
> > Reducing speed limits will only increase revenue for the police department.
>
> That's funny, and not true. Enforcing existing traffic laws would provide huge revenue. Why don't
> they? They could afford to hire more cops to do just that, full time. Also, "reducing speed
> limits", won't increase revenues, 'cause they don't enforce the speed limits anyway. And, FWIW,
> reducing speeds will do more than potentially produce revenue. It'll also make things alot safer
> and relaxing for the people who live and work along said streets.
>
> --
> Robin Hubert <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>

I think you'll find when police dept. really needs the money for something the tickets are flying
left and right.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Don Wiss]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003, Robin Hubert <[email protected]> wrote:

>That's funny, and not true. Enforcing existing traffic laws would provide huge revenue. Why
>don't they?

Let's take an example. In NYC 1.23 million red lights are run every day. Evry time the light
changes, if there are cars present, as least one runs the red light. Many more, if there is more
than one lane of traffic. NYC now has 50 red light cameras. They would like to install 150 more. But
they have to get permission from Albany (the state capital). This is always refused. While the
automobile association is opposed, it is mainly opposed by politicians that have gotten these
tickets. One State Senator, Guy Vallela of Bronx/Westchester, has come out publicly that he opposes
the cameras because he has received a number of tickets.

Don <donwiss at panix.com>.

 

[Tom Sherman]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
> ...
> 2. The damage a vehicle does to the road varies with the cube of its mass. Very few cars mass
> under 1000 kg, a bike plus rider is closer to the 100kg mark. OK, it might be a fat rider, but
> SUVs can tip the scales at over three tonnes, so as a back-of-the-envelope calculation it's
> close enough....

Where did this cube rule come from?

Looking at the stress distribution from wheel loads (and the resulting strain in the pavement) and
the S/N fatigue curves for bituminous and Portland cement concrete and steel, almost all traffic
related pavement and bridge damage occurs from trucks (lorries). Empirical data, such as the AASHO
road test also supports this.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[DiabloScott]

Originally posted by Constable Of In

As far as I am concerned, any gas-guzzling vehicle is fair game for criticism.

--

Sorry, I disagree. Gas guzzling PEOPLE are fair game for criticism. If I've got a vehicle that gets 5mpg but only drive 2000 miles/year I'm having much less negative impact on ANYTHING than someone with a gas efficient car that drives 40000 miles/year.

I'll welcome punitive gas taxes when they come.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:35:12 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Where did this cube rule come from?

Usenet ;-)

But that's set me thinking. If you want to share the thought process you might like this:
<http://www-mech.eng.cam.ac.uk/trg/dcbook/preface.html>

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[Tom Sherman]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:35:12 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Where did this cube rule come from?
>
> Usenet ;-)
>
> But that's set me thinking. If you want to share the thought process you might like this:
> <http://www-mech.eng.cam.ac.uk/trg/dcbook/preface.html>

The author is of the school of "more is better" when it comes to references. [1]

[1] I noted four former professors of mine in the list.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 07:29:51 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>The author is of the school of "more is better" when it comes to references.

Not unexpected: domain is cam.ac.uk

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[John Foltz]

JCM wrote:
> Originally posted by Cycle America/N TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists By KATHARINE
> Q. SEELYE
>
> (snippage here)... I would pay more taxes to have good shoulders and wonder if we reduced speed
> limits as well might off-set some of the costs of transportation in general as it has a direct
> effect on fuel consumption.
>
Yeah, we all know how well received and effective the 55 mph speed limit was - prior to the 55 law,
the average speed on interstates was 65 mph. Now it's more like 85. Congress taught an entire
generation that breaking the law en mass leaves the police incapable of responding.
--

John Foltz --- O _ Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:06:21 -0400, John Foltz <[email protected]> from Posted via Supernews,
http://www.supernews.com wrote:

>Congress taught an entire generation that breaking the law en mass leaves the police incapable of
>responding.

That's a good lesson to learn.

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace Do you think the "Monkees" should get gas on
odd or even days?
11:01:57 PM 7 July 2003