Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
 

"In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the obligation to drive. This truism has been echoed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has pronounced car ownership a “virtual necessity.” The Court’s pronouncement is telling. Yes, in a sense, America is car-dependent by choice—but it is also car-dependent by law."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...idable/592447/

Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
 

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 03:42:31 GMT, Bret Cahill
wrote:

"In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the
obligation to drive. This truism has been echoed by the U.S. Supreme
Court, which has pronounced car ownership a “virtual necessity.”
The Court’s pronouncement is telling. Yes, in a sense, America is
car-dependent by choice—but it is also car-dependent by law."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...shes-arent-alw
ays-unavoidable/592447/

Try getting the car lobbyists in here to agree!



--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
 

On 10/07/2019 07:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 03:42:31 GMT, Bret Cahill
wrote:

"In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the
obligation to drive. This truism has been echoed by the U.S. Supreme
Court, which has pronounced car ownership a “virtual necessity.”
The Court’s pronouncement is telling. Yes, in a sense, America is
car-dependent by choice—but it is also car-dependent by law."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...shes-arent-alw
ays-unavoidable/592447/

Try getting the car lobbyists in here to agree!

I have made several trips to the USA without driving a car or being
driven as a passenger within a private car (not to Los Angeles, I hasten
to add). New York City (meaning Manhattan and not necessarily the
further-flung reaches of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx and certainly
not Staten Island) can actually make a car a hindrance. It's about 50:50
in Las Vegas, though distances for travel there by visitors are not great).

I haven't been to Chicago, though I doubt that I would take the risk of
riding on public transport there.

This is a short-hand way of saying that I don't recognise this so-called
"obligation to drive" mooted by the author of that article. If he simply
means that driving yields more and better utility to the traveller, he
is right. But everyone knows that already.

The idea that there is some legal obligation to drive in the USA is
self-evident tripe and a reader taking his erroneous claim literally
would be very silly. *You* don't take it literally, do you?

He mentioned Houston as an example of how planning restrictions have had
undesirable effects. He states (as though it were significant): "Houston
is estimated to have 30 parking spaces for every resident". He doesn't
say who made the "estimate" and on what basis and also doesn't seem to
take account of the fact that the City of Houston (famously relaxed in
its own planning and zoning requirements) is the centre of a *huge*
travel-to-work catchment area which extends well beyond its city limits.
I know a resident of that metropolitan area who lives 29 miles from the
centre of that city, well beyond its municipal boundaries and who cannot
be described as a City of Houston resident. Though now retired, he
nevertheless needed a parking space at his place of work. The area in
which he lives is teeming with people who still commute to work in
downtown Houston every day.

So this comparison between parking spaces and the number of legal
residents (adults only? children too? how about illegal immigrants?) is
either misconceived or deceitful. I'm inclined to opt for the latter,
mainly because I've read that sort of article before, usually about
Californian cities.

Tell you what, though: I do like this USA concept of the journey to work
being tax-deductible. Now retired from normal work, it wouldn't do me
any good if it were introduced here, but the odd bit I still do
(strictly self-employed) allows me to make a full claim for all
work-related travel at 45p a mile, plus all parking charges and tolls.
Even the odd rail-fare if I have to go to Central London (the buses are
free to me). And if I went by car, the so-called Congestion Charge would
also be deductible as a business expense. That's only as it should be,
but if you don't have any expenses to meet, it's hard to see what the
revenue could reasonably treat as a deduction.

For cyclists, are there any expenses to pay (other than the bit where
they get on the train and take up too much space with their oily,
greasy, dirty, bikes)? OTOH, if we had a USA-style deductible regime and
if cyclists had parking charges to pay, it would only be right that such
a cost should be every bit as deductible as any other genuine cost of
getting to work. And since the 45p a mile standard HMRC motor vehicle
allowance includes a (small) amount for wear, tear and mileage-related
depreciation, it would seem fair for a relatively small sum also to be
available to those who commute by bike, say... 2p or 3p a mile (subject
to a proper revenue calculation).

Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
 

"In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the
obligation to drive. This truism has been echoed by the U.S. Supreme
Court, which has pronounced car ownership a “virtual necessity.â€
The Court’s pronouncement is telling. Yes, in a sense, America is
car-dependent by choice—but it is also car-dependent by law."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...shes-arent-alw
ays-unavoidable/592447/

Try getting the car lobbyists in here to agree!

I have made several trips to the USA without driving a car or being
driven as a passenger within a private car (not to Los Angeles, I hasten
to add). New York City (meaning Manhattan and not necessarily the
further-flung reaches of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx and certainly
not Staten Island) can actually make a car a hindrance. It's about 50:50
in Las Vegas, though distances for travel there by visitors are not great).

Were you working or just traveling?

I've had jobs were it was forbidden to cycle to job sites.

I haven't been to Chicago, though I doubt that I would take the risk of
riding on public transport there.

This is a short-hand way of saying that I don't recognise this so-called
"obligation to drive" mooted by the author of that article. If he simply
means that driving yields more and better utility to the traveller, he
is right. But everyone knows that already.

The idea that there is some legal obligation to drive in the USA is
self-evident tripe and a reader taking his erroneous claim literally
would be very silly. *You* don't take it literally, do you?

He mentioned Houston as an example of how planning restrictions have had
undesirable effects. He states (as though it were significant): "Houston
is estimated to have 30 parking spaces for every resident". He doesn't
say who made the "estimate" and on what basis and also doesn't seem to
take account of the fact that the City of Houston (famously relaxed in
its own planning and zoning requirements) is the centre of a *huge*
travel-to-work catchment area which extends well beyond its city limits.
I know a resident of that metropolitan area who lives 29 miles from the
centre of that city, well beyond its municipal boundaries and who cannot
be described as a City of Houston resident. Though now retired, he
nevertheless needed a parking space at his place of work. The area in
which he lives is teeming with people who still commute to work in
downtown Houston every day.

A lot of attention has been devoted to putting solar PV panels in parking lots because they are only infrequently shaded by cars.

So this comparison between parking spaces and the number of legal
residents (adults only? children too? how about illegal immigrants?) is
either misconceived or deceitful. I'm inclined to opt for the latter,
mainly because I've read that sort of article before, usually about
Californian cities.

Tell you what, though: I do like this USA concept of the journey to work
being tax-deductible. Now retired from normal work, it wouldn't do me
any good if it were introduced here, but the odd bit I still do
(strictly self-employed) allows me to make a full claim for all
work-related travel at 45p a mile, plus all parking charges and tolls.
Even the odd rail-fare if I have to go to Central London (the buses are
free to me). And if I went by car, the so-called Congestion Charge would
also be deductible as a business expense. That's only as it should be,
but if you don't have any expenses to meet, it's hard to see what the
revenue could reasonably treat as a deduction.

For cyclists, are there any expenses to pay (other than the bit where
they get on the train and take up too much space with their oily,
greasy, dirty, bikes)? OTOH, if we had a USA-style deductible regime and
if cyclists had parking charges to pay, it would only be right that such
a cost should be every bit as deductible as any other genuine cost of
getting to work. And since the 45p a mile standard HMRC motor vehicle
allowance includes a (small) amount for wear, tear and mileage-related
depreciation, it would seem fair for a relatively small sum also to be
available to those who commute by bike, say... 2p or 3p a mile (subject
to a proper revenue calculation).

https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsore...-influen/3079/

Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
 

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:02:32 PM UTC+1, Colonel Edmund J. Burke wrote:
On 7/9/2019 8:42 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
"In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the obligation to drive. This truism has been echoed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has pronounced car ownership a “virtual necessity.” The Court’s pronouncement is telling. Yes, in a sense, America is car-dependent by choice—but it is also car-dependent by law."

We do things grandly here is why, limey faggot.





Why would anyone put limes in a faggot?
Limes belong in Margarita.

Americans Shouldn't Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
 

"Simon Jester" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:02:32 PM UTC+1, Colonel Edmund J. Burke
wrote:
On 7/9/2019 8:42 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
"In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the
obligation to drive. This truism has been echoed by the U.S. Supreme
Court, which has pronounced car ownership a "virtual necessity." The
Court's pronouncement is telling. Yes, in a sense, America is
car-dependent by choice-but it is also car-dependent by law."

We do things grandly here is why, limey faggot.





Why would anyone put limes in a faggot?
Limes belong in Margarita.

Americans Shouldn't Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
 

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:57:52 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Americans Shouldn't Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
 

Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:02:32 PM UTC+1, Colonel Edmund J.
Burke wrote:
On 7/9/2019 8:42 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
"In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the
obligation to drive. This truism has been echoed by the U.S.
Supreme Court, which has pronounced car ownership a "virtual
necessity." The Court's pronouncement is telling. Yes, in a sense,
America is car-dependent by choice-but it is also car-dependent by
law."

We do things grandly here is why, limey faggot.





Why would anyone put limes in a faggot?
Limes belong in Margarita.

Jester has finally scraped the bottom of the barrel.
He replied to a well known troll.
Well done Jester, you have confirmed that you are as thick as pig ****.
What a fool you really are.

Americans Shouldn't Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
 

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:27:04 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:02:32 PM UTC+1, Colonel Edmund J.
Burke wrote:
On 7/9/2019 8:42 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
"In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the
obligation to drive. This truism has been echoed by the U.S.
Supreme Court, which has pronounced car ownership a "virtual
necessity." The Court's pronouncement is telling. Yes, in a sense,
America is car-dependent by choice-but it is also car-dependent by
law."

We do things grandly here is why, limey faggot.





Why would anyone put limes in a faggot?
Limes belong in Margarita.

Jester has finally scraped the bottom of the barrel.
He replied to a well known troll.
Well done Jester, you have confirmed that you are as thick as pig ****.
What a fool you really are.

I reply to you all the time.

Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
 

On 11/07/2019 17:59, Bret Cahill wrote:
"In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the
obligation to drive. This truism has been echoed by the U.S. Supreme
Court, which has pronounced car ownership a “virtual necessity.â€
The Court’s pronouncement is telling. Yes, in a sense, America is
car-dependent by choice—but it is also car-dependent by law."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...shes-arent-alw
ays-unavoidable/592447/

Try getting the car lobbyists in here to agree!

I have made several trips to the USA without driving a car or being
driven as a passenger within a private car (not to Los Angeles, I hasten
to add). New York City (meaning Manhattan and not necessarily the
further-flung reaches of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx and certainly
not Staten Island) can actually make a car a hindrance. It's about 50:50
in Las Vegas, though distances for travel there by visitors are not great).

Were you working or just traveling?

I've had jobs were it was forbidden to cycle to job sites.

Perhaps. But that is not the law, as claimed in the article.

I haven't been to Chicago, though I doubt that I would take the risk of
riding on public transport there.

This is a short-hand way of saying that I don't recognise this so-called
"obligation to drive" mooted by the author of that article. If he simply
means that driving yields more and better utility to the traveller, he
is right. But everyone knows that already.

The idea that there is some legal obligation to drive in the USA is
self-evident tripe and a reader taking his erroneous claim literally
would be very silly. *You* don't take it literally, do you?

He mentioned Houston as an example of how planning restrictions have had
undesirable effects. He states (as though it were significant): "Houston
is estimated to have 30 parking spaces for every resident". He doesn't
say who made the "estimate" and on what basis and also doesn't seem to
take account of the fact that the City of Houston (famously relaxed in
its own planning and zoning requirements) is the centre of a *huge*
travel-to-work catchment area which extends well beyond its city limits.
I know a resident of that metropolitan area who lives 29 miles from the
centre of that city, well beyond its municipal boundaries and who cannot
be described as a City of Houston resident. Though now retired, he
nevertheless needed a parking space at his place of work. The area in
which he lives is teeming with people who still commute to work in
downtown Houston every day.

A lot of attention has been devoted to putting solar PV panels in parking lots because they are only infrequently shaded by cars.

So this comparison between parking spaces and the number of legal
residents (adults only? children too? how about illegal immigrants?) is
either misconceived or deceitful. I'm inclined to opt for the latter,
mainly because I've read that sort of article before, usually about
Californian cities.

Tell you what, though: I do like this USA concept of the journey to work
being tax-deductible. Now retired from normal work, it wouldn't do me
any good if it were introduced here, but the odd bit I still do
(strictly self-employed) allows me to make a full claim for all
work-related travel at 45p a mile, plus all parking charges and tolls.
Even the odd rail-fare if I have to go to Central London (the buses are
free to me). And if I went by car, the so-called Congestion Charge would
also be deductible as a business expense. That's only as it should be,
but if you don't have any expenses to meet, it's hard to see what the
revenue could reasonably treat as a deduction.

For cyclists, are there any expenses to pay (other than the bit where
they get on the train and take up too much space with their oily,
greasy, dirty, bikes)? OTOH, if we had a USA-style deductible regime and
if cyclists had parking charges to pay, it would only be right that such
a cost should be every bit as deductible as any other genuine cost of
getting to work. And since the 45p a mile standard HMRC motor vehicle
allowance includes a (small) amount for wear, tear and mileage-related
depreciation, it would seem fair for a relatively small sum also to be
available to those who commute by bike, say... 2p or 3p a mile (subject
to a proper revenue calculation).

https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsore...-influen/3079/