"Ticket" to give to harrasing drivers

[Robert Haston]

After seriously getting into it with a driver who decided to yell at me to
get on the sidewalk and reinforce his opinion with a close pass, I figured
I thought of an alternative to shouting at each other. I would just hand
them a notice:


So you think you're doing society a favor by harassing a cyclist:

1. You are wrong: According to Florida state statutes, cyclists have the
right to use all roads except interstate highways or similar access roads.
This is because forcing cyclists to use adjacent paths is often more
dangerous due to crossing traffic and poor visibility problems.

2. It is illegal. Playing vigilante (especially when you are wrong) and
starting or escalating an altercation can result in assault charges.
Menacing a person with your car can get you convicted of assault with a
deadly weapon.

If you feel like being a vigilante, I might suggest you focus your intention
on drivers, who kill several thousand pedestrians and cyclists each year,
not cyclists who pose no real threat to anyone else.

As to the popular myth that cyclists don't pay for roads: All local roads
(along with police, fire rescue, runoff control, crossing guards, and other
services) are paid for by property taxes. This combined with other
subsidies such as "free" parking, oil defense, and other subsidies are
several times greater than the few hundred dollars drivers pay in gasoline
taxes and license fees.

The interesting ending to the story was the guy and I were going the same
way for about a mile after the altercation - a mile of roads with zero
sidewalks - a mile of me staying right behind him on the 25 MPH streets.
Boy, I was sure impeding his progress.

--
Robert Haston
Satellite Beach, FL

[Rick]

Robert,

You're assuming the driver can read.

But seriously, you are better off avoiding all interactions, whatsoever
(IMO). Generally, when someone gets inexplicably angry with me, I simply
smile, wave, mumble something like, 'dumb <expletive>,' to myself, and
continue merrilly on my way. This leaves the drivers confused, and me in a
happier mood. A consummation devoutly to be wished.

I have never successfully told anyone that their driving is dangerous and
inadequate. The survey that said that 80% of drivers think they are above
average sums it up nicely. The few individuals who think they don't drive
well are, quite possibly, the only ones who might listen to some calm,
helpful advice (though the odds are that they still feel defensive about
it).

Rick


"Robert Haston" > wrote in message
k.net...
> After seriously getting into it with a driver who decided to yell at me to
> get on the sidewalk and reinforce his opinion with a close pass, I
figured
> I thought of an alternative to shouting at each other. I would just hand
> them a notice:
>
>
> So you think you're doing society a favor by harassing a cyclist:
>
> 1. You are wrong: According to Florida state statutes, cyclists have the
> right to use all roads except interstate highways or similar access roads.
> This is because forcing cyclists to use adjacent paths is often more
> dangerous due to crossing traffic and poor visibility problems.
>
> 2. It is illegal. Playing vigilante (especially when you are wrong) and
> starting or escalating an altercation can result in assault charges.
> Menacing a person with your car can get you convicted of assault with a
> deadly weapon.
>
> If you feel like being a vigilante, I might suggest you focus your
intention
> on drivers, who kill several thousand pedestrians and cyclists each year,
> not cyclists who pose no real threat to anyone else.
>
> As to the popular myth that cyclists don't pay for roads: All local roads
> (along with police, fire rescue, runoff control, crossing guards, and
other
> services) are paid for by property taxes. This combined with other
> subsidies such as "free" parking, oil defense, and other subsidies are
> several times greater than the few hundred dollars drivers pay in gasoline
> taxes and license fees.
>
> The interesting ending to the story was the guy and I were going the same
> way for about a mile after the altercation - a mile of roads with zero
> sidewalks - a mile of me staying right behind him on the 25 MPH streets.
> Boy, I was sure impeding his progress.
>
> --
> Robert Haston
> Satellite Beach, FL
>
>

[Trent Piepho]

In article >,
Robert Haston > wrote:
>2. It is illegal. Playing vigilante (especially when you are wrong) and
>starting or escalating an altercation can result in assault charges.
>Menacing a person with your car can get you convicted of assault with a
>deadly weapon.

Can you find any instance of this ever happening?

[Mitch Haley]

Robert Haston > wrote:
> >Menacing a person with your car can get you convicted of
> > assault with a deadly weapon.

Trent Piepho wrote:
> Can you find any instance of this ever happening?

To somebody who aimed a car at a civilian cyclist?
I don't know of any.

To somebody who aimed a car at a pedestrian law
enforcement officer?
Yes, the courts protect those people against
deadly violence.

Mitch.

[Trudi Marrapodi]

In article >, "Robert
Haston" > wrote:

> After seriously getting into it with a driver who decided to yell at me to
> get on the sidewalk and reinforce his opinion with a close pass, I figured
> I thought of an alternative to shouting at each other. I would just hand
> them a notice:

Ah, if only they weren't driving something that can go faster than me...

> So you think you're doing society a favor by harassing a cyclist:
>
> 1. You are wrong: According to Florida state statutes, cyclists have the
> right to use all roads except interstate highways or similar access roads.
> This is because forcing cyclists to use adjacent paths is often more
> dangerous due to crossing traffic and poor visibility problems.

Of course, I'd change that to "New York," but...

> 2. It is illegal. Playing vigilante (especially when you are wrong) and
> starting or escalating an altercation can result in assault charges.
> Menacing a person with your car can get you convicted of assault with a
> deadly weapon.

Whether or not it's ever happened with a cyclist as victim, I say there's
a first time for everything. Right on!

> If you feel like being a vigilante, I might suggest you focus your intention
> on drivers, who kill several thousand pedestrians and cyclists each year,
> not cyclists who pose no real threat to anyone else.

I wouldn't go that far--at least I wouldn't say NO cyclists pose a threat
to anyone else. Some do--the ones who don't follow the rules and ride
recklessly. However, I would point out that it's wrong to focus one's
anger on a cyclist who is doing no wrong, but merely inconveniencing one
by forcing one to share the road, which is not all thine.

> As to the popular myth that cyclists don't pay for roads: All local roads
> (along with police, fire rescue, runoff control, crossing guards, and other
> services) are paid for by property taxes. This combined with other
> subsidies such as "free" parking, oil defense, and other subsidies are
> several times greater than the few hundred dollars drivers pay in gasoline
> taxes and license fees.

I'm curious: what about other taxes? I don't own property myself. Then
again, I do pay rent, which can be construed as helping my landlord
indirectly to pay his property tax.

> The interesting ending to the story was the guy and I were going the same
> way for about a mile after the altercation - a mile of roads with zero
> sidewalks - a mile of me staying right behind him on the 25 MPH streets.
> Boy, I was sure impeding his progress.

What a dork. Typical, though. These kinds of guys don't even want to share
the road with other motor vehicles--so when they see a bicycle, they
really fly off the handle. They think the most they can do to get back at
a fellow motorist is criticize the driving, but when they see a cyclist,
they think "Get off the !@$#!@! road!" is an appropriate response.

Unfortunately, I fear Rick is correct, in that engaging with these jerks
one-on-one is usually a losing proposition. Kind of like trying to teach a
pig to sing--all it does is prove futile and annoy the pig. What he's
saying is that when it's a cyclist vs. a motorist, the pig in question is
a boar with big tusks--and usually, it's the boar with the big tusks who
has the advantage in that fight.
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight. It's like a Joan Crawford movie."

[Robert Haston]

"Trudi Marrapodi" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Robert
> Haston" > wrote:


> > After seriously getting into it with a driver who decided to yell at me
to
> > get on the sidewalk and reinforce his opinion with a close pass, I
figured
> > I thought of an alternative to shouting at each other. I would just
hand
> > them a notice:
>
> Ah, if only they weren't driving something that can go faster than me...

He stopped for me after I said "THANKS A$$H0L#!" In the past, I have wound
up aside the perp at the next stop. I just thought it would be nice to have
something to offer. Or if they clam up and pretend I'm not there, I could
stick it under thier wiper.

Just to clarify, I said cyclists pose no real threat to others, not cyclists
pose no threat.

> > As to the popular myth that cyclists don't pay for roads: All local
roads
> > (along with police, fire rescue, runoff control, crossing guards, and
other
> > services) are paid for by property taxes. This combined with other
> > subsidies such as "free" parking, oil defense, and other subsidies are
> > several times greater than the few hundred dollars drivers pay in
gasoline
> > taxes and license fees.
>
> I'm curious: what about other taxes? I don't own property myself. Then
> again, I do pay rent, which can be construed as helping my landlord
> indirectly to pay his property tax.

How about: every road, parking lot, light, traffic cop, etc. on every
military, federal, state, and local government installation? Gas taxes
don't pay for those. How about several dozen billion a year in health
insurance covering auto accident injuries? How about pollution? How many
lost days due to pollution aggravated asthma or bronchitis, or all the
damage to structures, agriculture, and fisheries due to acid rain?

[Trudi Marrapodi]

In article et>, "Robert
Haston" > wrote:

> "Trudi Marrapodi" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Robert
> > Haston" > wrote:
>
>
> > > After seriously getting into it with a driver who decided to yell at me
> to
> > > get on the sidewalk and reinforce his opinion with a close pass, I
> figured
> > > I thought of an alternative to shouting at each other. I would just
> hand
> > > them a notice:
> >
> > Ah, if only they weren't driving something that can go faster than me...
>
> He stopped for me after I said "THANKS A$$H0L#!" In the past, I have wound
> up aside the perp at the next stop. I just thought it would be nice to have
> something to offer. Or if they clam up and pretend I'm not there, I could
> stick it under thier wiper.

It's often true that these guys who feel that you are slowing them so
terribly down are, if you get out of the way, only going to only make it
to the next red light faster than you do. (Yet another reason they're
being so stupid.)

> Just to clarify, I said cyclists pose no real threat to others, not cyclists
> pose no threat.

OK.

> > > As to the popular myth that cyclists don't pay for roads: All local
> roads
> > > (along with police, fire rescue, runoff control, crossing guards, and
> other
> > > services) are paid for by property taxes. This combined with other
> > > subsidies such as "free" parking, oil defense, and other subsidies are
> > > several times greater than the few hundred dollars drivers pay in
> gasoline
> > > taxes and license fees.
> >
> > I'm curious: what about other taxes? I don't own property myself. Then
> > again, I do pay rent, which can be construed as helping my landlord
> > indirectly to pay his property tax.
>
> How about: every road, parking lot, light, traffic cop, etc. on every
> military, federal, state, and local government installation? Gas taxes
> don't pay for those. How about several dozen billion a year in health
> insurance covering auto accident injuries? How about pollution? How many
> lost days due to pollution aggravated asthma or bronchitis, or all the
> damage to structures, agriculture, and fisheries due to acid rain?

Very good points. I will remember them the next time someone tries to
imply, in off-road coversation, that cyclists don't really subsidize the
roadways unless they also drive and pay gasoline taxes or drivers' license
fees.

As for me, I'd gladly apply for and buy a bike license...if it would: a)
get these idiots who act as if I don't belong on the road to shut up, and
b) force those who want to ride a bicycle to obtain one, hence forcing
them to subject themselves to "cyclist ed" training that would teach them
about riding on the correct side of the road, signaling, stopping for
lights, using the left turn lanes, lighting themselves up at night, not
weaving onto and off the sidewalk from the road just to skip the parked
cars alongside parts of it, not weaving in and out of traffic, not riding
on the sidewalk and buzzing me when I'm walking on it, etc.
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight. It's like a Joan Crawford movie."

[Robert Haston]

I agree about buying a bike license for education purposes, and because it
would be cheap and a good symbolic gesture.

But the real problem is thousands a year per auto in subsidies. These are
definitely punitive to cyclists as they directly threaten our lives by
raising the amount of heavy machinery we must operate amongst.

Removing subsidies would save most drivers, as once the true costs were up
front, they would seek alternatives to reduce driving. For example, a
driver figures he can save $1000 a year in subsidies if he carpools. He
then saves $2000 a year in auto costs.

This would apply across the board. With more people using mass transit,
transit subsidies can be reduced.

With more and more people using fewer vehicles (especially during rush hour)
the demand for more road space stops. Money going towards more roads goes
towards stopping our growing "roads and bridges debt" - trillions in
maintenance delayed.

Imagine combining cycling, car pooling, telecommuting, car sharing
(neighborhood rental) and transit hubs. You ride your bike to the transit
hub (convenience store, coffee house, newspaper stand, gym, day care, etc.)
then four of your co-workers pull up in a mini van. You log into your job
and start making money while commuting. You once spent 8 hours a week
driving to work, plus 8 hours working to drive. Now the money you once paid
in subsidies pays for the few thousand miles a year you now drive. After
coming home, you want to go out. The same vehicles people used for
carpooling are at the transit hub and other neighborhood locations. For 40
cents a mile and a dollar an hour, you can rent whatever you want.


"Trudi Marrapodi" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>, "Robert
> Haston" > wrote:
> > > I'm curious: what about other taxes? I don't own property myself. Then
> > > again, I do pay rent, which can be construed as helping my landlord
> > > indirectly to pay his property tax.
> >
> > How about: every road, parking lot, light, traffic cop, etc. on every
> > military, federal, state, and local government installation? Gas taxes
> > don't pay for those. How about several dozen billion a year in health
> > insurance covering auto accident injuries? How about pollution? How
many
> > lost days due to pollution aggravated asthma or bronchitis, or all the
> > damage to structures, agriculture, and fisheries due to acid rain?
>
> Very good points. I will remember them the next time someone tries to
> imply, in off-road coversation, that cyclists don't really subsidize the
> roadways unless they also drive and pay gasoline taxes or drivers' license
> fees.
>
> As for me, I'd gladly apply for and buy a bike license...if it would: a)
> get these idiots who act as if I don't belong on the road to shut up, and
> b) force those who want to ride a bicycle to obtain one, hence forcing
> them to subject themselves to "cyclist ed" training that would teach them
> about riding on the correct side of the road, signaling, stopping for
> lights, using the left turn lanes, lighting themselves up at night, not
> weaving onto and off the sidewalk from the road just to skip the parked
> cars alongside parts of it, not weaving in and out of traffic, not riding
> on the sidewalk and buzzing me when I'm walking on it, etc.
> --
> Trudi
>
> "Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight. It's like a Joan
Crawford movie."

[Trudi Marrapodi]

In article t>, "Robert
Haston" > wrote:

> I agree about buying a bike license for education purposes, and because it
> would be cheap and a good symbolic gesture.
>
> But the real problem is thousands a year per auto in subsidies. These are
> definitely punitive to cyclists as they directly threaten our lives by
> raising the amount of heavy machinery we must operate amongst.
>
> Removing subsidies would save most drivers, as once the true costs were up
> front, they would seek alternatives to reduce driving. For example, a
> driver figures he can save $1000 a year in subsidies if he carpools. He
> then saves $2000 a year in auto costs.
>
> This would apply across the board. With more people using mass transit,
> transit subsidies can be reduced.

How do you figure that? Because they can make more money from passengers
than in subsidies? I would hope so, but...

> With more and more people using fewer vehicles (especially during rush hour)
> the demand for more road space stops. Money going towards more roads goes
> towards stopping our growing "roads and bridges debt" - trillions in
> maintenance delayed.

It'd be nice...if it turned out to be true.

> Imagine combining cycling, car pooling, telecommuting, car sharing
> (neighborhood rental) and transit hubs. You ride your bike to the transit
> hub (convenience store, coffee house, newspaper stand, gym, day care, etc.)
> then four of your co-workers pull up in a mini van. You log into your job
> and start making money while commuting. You once spent 8 hours a week
> driving to work, plus 8 hours working to drive. Now the money you once paid
> in subsidies pays for the few thousand miles a year you now drive. After
> coming home, you want to go out. The same vehicles people used for
> carpooling are at the transit hub and other neighborhood locations. For 40
> cents a mile and a dollar an hour, you can rent whatever you want.

Some of this sounds great, but some of it will never happen. For example,
not everyone can, or wants to, telecommute. It would be nice if more
people who wanted to could, though.

But the biggest mental block you are going to have is in persuading
America, a country of individualists, to give up driving to work in its
own private car and taking a minivan with three coworkers it may not even
like. In a big city where a lot of people do it more or less by necessity
and culture, yes. In smaller cities and towns, no way. You will take away
their right to drive their own cars to work when you pry their cold dead
hands off the wheel.
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight. It's like a Joan Crawford movie."

[Robert Haston]

"Trudi Marrapodi" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>, "Robert
> Haston" > wrote:
>
> > I agree about buying a bike license for education purposes, and because
it
> > would be cheap and a good symbolic gesture.
> >
> > But the real problem is thousands a year per auto in subsidies. These
are
> > definitely punitive to cyclists as they directly threaten our lives by
> > raising the amount of heavy machinery we must operate amongst.
> >
> > Removing subsidies would save most drivers, as once the true costs were
up
> > front, they would seek alternatives to reduce driving. For example, a
> > driver figures he can save $1000 a year in subsidies if he carpools. He
> > then saves $2000 a year in auto costs.
> >
> > This would apply across the board. With more people using mass transit,
> > transit subsidies can be reduced.
>
> How do you figure that? Because they can make more money from passengers
> than in subsidies? I would hope so, but...

First because most busses run at way under capacity. Add more people, and
you can cut subsidies. Also because once you charge drivers the true cost,
you can raise bus fairs to closer to the true cost. Imagine (due to
elimiantion of massive urban auto subsidies) someone who takes advantage of
a car pool / rental club and sells off her car. She wants to go shopping.
She can pay a dollar an hour and 40 cents a mile for a rental, and 20-40
cents a mile to rent a share of the road, and another buck or two for
parking. She can say screw it and shop later or on line, she can take the
bus for about 3 bucks each way (taking her bike to get around at her
destination) or she (like many people in such a society) can plan to have a
"day out" with a friend or two, saving her 50 or 66% and making it nearly as
cheap as the bus.


> > Imagine combining cycling, car pooling, telecommuting, car sharing
> > (neighborhood rental) and transit hubs. You ride your bike to the
transit
> > hub (convenience store, coffee house, newspaper stand, gym, day care,
etc.)
> > then four of your co-workers pull up in a mini van. You log into your
job
> > and start making money while commuting. You once spent 8 hours a week
> > driving to work, plus 8 hours working to drive. Now the money you once
paid
> > in subsidies pays for the few thousand miles a year you now drive.
After
> > coming home, you want to go out. The same vehicles people used for
> > carpooling are at the transit hub and other neighborhood locations. For
40
> > cents a mile and a dollar an hour, you can rent whatever you want.
>
> Some of this sounds great, but some of it will never happen. For example,
> not everyone can, or wants to, telecommute. It would be nice if more
> people who wanted to could, though.

Sure, manual laborers won't benefit by tele-commuting. But consider how
much of their (and everyone's) free time is sedentary. Even the simple act
of reading the paper on a bus is a good example. Imagine someone riding a
stationary bike on a train - weird - but better sense than driving to work,
then the gym.
>
> But the biggest mental block you are going to have is in persuading
> America, a country of individualists, to give up driving to work in its
> own private car and taking a minivan with three coworkers it may not even
> like. In a big city where a lot of people do it more or less by necessity
> and culture, yes. In smaller cities and towns, no way. You will take away
> their right to drive their own cars to work when you pry their cold dead
> hands off the wheel.

The point isn't trying to persuade anyone. The real first step is giving
people the opportunity to avoid all persuading going on on TV by auto
advertisers (who really decide what the news media says about things liek
tele-commuting or the farsical "hydrogen future") All pay television would
stop the brainwashing going on.

The big joke is the world's largest socialist program is covered by the
guise of "American Individualism" How psychotic. We like to act like
individualists, so we socialize the costs of driving to the tune of 10% of
our GNP to keep it expanding. This is Stalinist reshaping of our society
under the guise of individualism, complete with dozens of billions in
auto-propaganda a year, de-facto ownership of the news media (and the choice
of TV programs) by the advertisers, our capitol controlled by the lobbyists
who run it all. They have achieved near total hegemony, with peopel across
the land right now voting to increase sales taxes to build roads - in other
words trying to solve congestion by jacking up driving subsidies another
notch.

I'm about 80 pages along on a book about why and how we need to switch to
ad-free TV. I did this because I realized it was pointless to write a book
about transportation inside a brainwashed society. Not that the first book
will change the world, but you first have to see how screwed up America's
world view is.

[Trudi Marrapodi]

In article et>, "Robert
Haston" > wrote:

> "Trudi Marrapodi" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>, "Robert
> > Haston" > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree about buying a bike license for education purposes, and because
> it
> > > would be cheap and a good symbolic gesture.
> > >
> > > But the real problem is thousands a year per auto in subsidies. These
> are
> > > definitely punitive to cyclists as they directly threaten our lives by
> > > raising the amount of heavy machinery we must operate amongst.
> > >
> > > Removing subsidies would save most drivers, as once the true costs were
> up
> > > front, they would seek alternatives to reduce driving. For example, a
> > > driver figures he can save $1000 a year in subsidies if he carpools. He
> > > then saves $2000 a year in auto costs.
> > >
> > > This would apply across the board. With more people using mass transit,
> > > transit subsidies can be reduced.
> >
> > How do you figure that? Because they can make more money from passengers
> > than in subsidies? I would hope so, but...
>
> First because most busses run at way under capacity. Add more people, and
> you can cut subsidies.

But how do you do that? By telling people they don't have to pay subsidies
if they take the bus? Is that enough, really?

> Also because once you charge drivers the true cost,
> you can raise bus fairs to closer to the true cost.

Raise them? Not sure I like the sound of that.

> Imagine (due to
> elimiantion of massive urban auto subsidies) someone who takes advantage of
> a car pool / rental club and sells off her car. She wants to go shopping.
> She can pay a dollar an hour and 40 cents a mile for a rental, and 20-40
> cents a mile to rent a share of the road, and another buck or two for
> parking. She can say screw it and shop later or on line, she can take the
> bus for about 3 bucks each way (taking her bike to get around at her
> destination) or she (like many people in such a society) can plan to have a
> "day out" with a friend or two, saving her 50 or 66% and making it nearly as
> cheap as the bus.

And you know what? I think that sounds great, but most people would
absolutely shudder at the idea. Not be able to hop in that car parked in
the drive and go anywhere they please at a moment's notice? Horrors!

> > > Imagine combining cycling, car pooling, telecommuting, car sharing
> > > (neighborhood rental) and transit hubs. You ride your bike to the
> transit
> > > hub (convenience store, coffee house, newspaper stand, gym, day care,
> etc.)
> > > then four of your co-workers pull up in a mini van. You log into your
> job
> > > and start making money while commuting. You once spent 8 hours a week
> > > driving to work, plus 8 hours working to drive. Now the money you once
> paid
> > > in subsidies pays for the few thousand miles a year you now drive.
> After
> > > coming home, you want to go out. The same vehicles people used for
> > > carpooling are at the transit hub and other neighborhood locations. For
> 40
> > > cents a mile and a dollar an hour, you can rent whatever you want.
> >
> > Some of this sounds great, but some of it will never happen. For example,
> > not everyone can, or wants to, telecommute. It would be nice if more
> > people who wanted to could, though.
>
> Sure, manual laborers won't benefit by tele-commuting. But consider how
> much of their (and everyone's) free time is sedentary. Even the simple act
> of reading the paper on a bus is a good example. Imagine someone riding a
> stationary bike on a train - weird - but better sense than driving to work,
> then the gym.

Oh, I think commuting without driving is great. You can actually do things
like put on makeup without being a danger to yourself and others. ;-)

And there are other workers who really benefit from being in a work place
every day. I for one am one of them. I feel isolated and unmotivated when
alone. Telecommuting wouldn't work for me psychologically. I need to be
around people when I work.

> > But the biggest mental block you are going to have is in persuading
> > America, a country of individualists, to give up driving to work in its
> > own private car and taking a minivan with three coworkers it may not even
> > like. In a big city where a lot of people do it more or less by necessity
> > and culture, yes. In smaller cities and towns, no way. You will take away
> > their right to drive their own cars to work when you pry their cold dead
> > hands off the wheel.
>
> The point isn't trying to persuade anyone. The real first step is giving
> people the opportunity to avoid all persuading going on on TV by auto
> advertisers (who really decide what the news media says about things liek
> tele-commuting or the farsical "hydrogen future") All pay television would
> stop the brainwashing going on.

And when are you going to get that to happen? (Then again, given what a
cable bill costs, don't we already have "pay TV"?)

> The big joke is the world's largest socialist program is covered by the
> guise of "American Individualism" How psychotic. We like to act like
> individualists, so we socialize the costs of driving to the tune of 10% of
> our GNP to keep it expanding. This is Stalinist reshaping of our society
> under the guise of individualism, complete with dozens of billions in
> auto-propaganda a year, de-facto ownership of the news media (and the choice
> of TV programs) by the advertisers, our capitol controlled by the lobbyists
> who run it all. They have achieved near total hegemony, with peopel across
> the land right now voting to increase sales taxes to build roads - in other
> words trying to solve congestion by jacking up driving subsidies another
> notch.

You can talk about it that way, but I wouldn't call it Stalinist. If
anything, it's capitalism at its worst...sell people on the idea that the
only way to show your individualism is to BUY something that displays it.

> I'm about 80 pages along on a book about why and how we need to switch to
> ad-free TV. I did this because I realized it was pointless to write a book
> about transportation inside a brainwashed society.

If people are brainwashed by ads, it's their own fault. Not that I
wouldn't like to see advertising change, especially the execrably bad
stuff. But really, one's brain does not need to be beholden to anyone
else. Even children are capable of being taught to see through ads.
Trouble is, they are seldom taught.

> Not that the first book
> will change the world, but you first have to see how screwed up America's
> world view is.

Everybody has world views that are screwed up and skewed in some way.
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight. It's like a Joan Crawford movie."

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 23:02:46 -0400,
(Trudi Marrapodi) wrote:

>But how do you do that? By telling people they don't have to pay subsidies
>if they take the bus? Is that enough, really?

No, not for a lot of people that don't work 'normal' hours. In the
Washington, DC area service deteriorates dramatically if you work
late. Missing a late bus or train can cost you an hour or more
(especially MARC trains out of Union Station). And the commuter
support services (ability to call in an occasional special support
ride) assume that you will be unable to keep a normal schedule one or
two days a month. I have weeks worse than that.

Used to use MARC, tried to use Metro. Both cost more and took at least
an hour more a day when things went well. Missing a MARC train could
turn a slightly long day into getting home after 9:00 pm. A bad day
could cost you a couple of hours on top of a long day to begin with.

My final conclusion was that the DC Metro is an expensive solution
that is designed to support the city and MD and VA only to the suburbs
around the stations. They make it expensive and time-costly to use if
you live beyond that area and aren't a nine to fiver.

IOW, move into the city or drop dead if your job has any demands at
all. Personally, since it works best for the city and near 'burbs and
the government workers, I'm finally moving to the side of those that
think they should be the ones to subsidize it.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Trudi Marrapodi]

In article >,
wrote:

> Wed, 05 May 2004 23:02:46 -0400,
> >,
> (Trudi Marrapodi) wrote, in part:
>
> >If people are brainwashed by ads, it's their own fault. Not that I
> >wouldn't like to see advertising change, especially the execrably bad
> >stuff. But really, one's brain does not need to be beholden to anyone
> >else. Even children are capable of being taught to see through ads.
> >Trouble is, they are seldom taught.
>
> After they're chipped "for their own protection" they won't need to be
> taught or brainwashed. We can program them!

Oh yeah...with only the tinfoil hats to protect them, they'll be sitting
ducks...
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight. It's like a Joan Crawford movie."