A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????

wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks for the story. The clear implication is that "efficiency" is
going to result in lower gas taxes. Seems to me that would be contered
by the fact that people are driving more. I have trouble seeing
efficiency as a bad thing and can't believe there aren't other ways to
tax that would not punish it, even marginally.

I also encourage efficiency however in the end no matter what you do it ends
up somehow biting you later. I recall just before moving from California
that there were plans for another windmill generator farm in the Mojave
desert, seems so many people complained that they didn't want any more of
those "ugly" things around and the project was scrapped.

Like I said, damned if you do and damned if you don't and I'm sure there are
many other ways to tax people but remember this is California and taxes was
what ended up being the problem for the previous govenor a couple of years
ago

I have the feeling that the per mile tax is more about trying to
control congestion than it is about dwindling gas tax revenues.

No doubt they are trying to force people to use mass transit

"Zach" wrote in message
ups.com...
Wasn't oil going for about $55/barrel a couple months ago? Whatever it
is the price is much too low and I hope it goes above $100/barrel to
pay for the real costs.

Apparently you're wealthy and can survive a world depression, but many of us
aren't... Now, not to get off topic or anything but how many will lose their
lives as a result of such an economic collapse, I wonder? Seems a bit
excessive just to get rid of a few SUVs and SOVs.

Then maybe the excessive number of oversized,
overweight, single occupant vehicles will get off our roads so we have
more space for more benign forms of transportation such as riding
recumbents.

Sorry, but you're either going to steer clear of these "off topic"
discussions, or you're not.

Have fun at Burning Man. Not my cup-o-tea. I don't impose my lifestyle on
you, so I'm afraid I don't really honor an expressed wish to impose yours on
me very much. I'm just fine with a movement to hybrid cars and other effort
to conserve energy, and I'm not especially crazy about either SUVs, but I
figure people can make up their own minds and I'm not praying for global
economic collapse for the sake of my secret Ur-myth. There are a lot of
fine, brave, and unselfish people who would suffer harm, and who are simply
never going to buy a recumbent or any other type of bicycle.



Zach

Freewheeling wrote:

"Zach" wrote in message
ups.com...
Wasn't oil going for about $55/barrel a couple months ago? Whatever
it
is the price is much too low and I hope it goes above $100/barrel
to
pay for the real costs.

Apparently you're wealthy and can survive a world depression, but
many of us
aren't... Now, not to get off topic or anything but how many will
lose their
lives as a result of such an economic collapse, I wonder? Seems a
bit
excessive just to get rid of a few SUVs and SOVs.

I've read that when peak oil goes into full effect perhaps 80% of the
world population will lose their lives. I have taken a number of steps
that will allow me to survive world depression but I'm not going to get
into them here as this is way off topic.

In any case I realise I don't want to see the price of oil double but
rather I want to see a tax on automotive fuel that would cover the full
costs of driving which is now highly subsidised by general tax payers.
Basically a pollution/carbon tax that would bring the price of fuel in
the US up to the level it is in Europe which would encourage more
efficient vehicles and less driving. Normally I'm against all taxes and
government interference but this is the one area where I think the
government could be of some benefit to step in and make car drivers pay
the full price for the damage they are causing to the enviroment and
society. Right now car drivers are on a form of government welfare as
much of the true costs of driving such as road repair, traffic police
services, parking facilities and wars for oil are paid for by the
general public in one form or another through hidden subidies.

Then maybe the excessive number of oversized,
overweight, single occupant vehicles will get off our roads so we
have
more space for more benign forms of transportation such as riding
recumbents.

Sorry, but you're either going to steer clear of these "off topic"
discussions, or you're not.

I should have refrained from commenting all together but the original
poster brought up a point I feel strongly about being a tax paying
bicycle rider and seeing much of my taxes going to fund people
over-driving like there is no tomorrow. Personally I think bicycles and
bicycle accessories should be exempt from sales tax just like food is
to encourage their use. If California can give hybrid drivers a $1000+
tax refund to encourage people to buy these more efficient cars they
can certainly waive the sales tax on bicycles which are even more
efficient.

Have fun at Burning Man. Not my cup-o-tea. I don't impose my
lifestyle on
you, so I'm afraid I don't really honor an expressed wish to impose
yours on
me very much. I'm just fine with a movement to hybrid cars and other
effort
to conserve energy, and I'm not especially crazy about either SUVs,
but I
figure people can make up their own minds and I'm not praying for
global
economic collapse for the sake of my secret Ur-myth. There are a lot
of
fine, brave, and unselfish people who would suffer harm, and who are
simply
never going to buy a recumbent or any other type of bicycle.

Sorry, I was not trying to impose my wish on you. I am all for personal
freedom and dislike laws, government and being told what to do by
others. I don't care what others do as long as what they are doing
isn't hurting me. People over using their cars are hurting me by
polluting the air I breathe. I want to see this dealt with fairly. I'd
rather the government didn't get involved but many drivers don't seem
to care about others around them and therefore purchase a vehicle much
heavier than they need that gets poor fuel economy and drive it
excessively. Some people won't change unless they start having to pay
the true costs of their addictions.

BTW, while I like the freedom, creative energy and general social
experiment going on at Burning Man I dislike the fact it is way out in
the desert in a place that is very hard to get to without driving to
it. The majority of the 35,000 people going there get there in private
cars or motorhomes. Many carpool at least and the Green Tortoise bus
line brings several bus loads of people there but there is a lot of
petroleum fuel used getting there and also running generators there. I
would like to see the event become more environmentally conscious. I
think if fuel were $5/gallon the attendence would be lower but still
high, perhaps more people would carpool.

Zach

"Zach" wrote in message
oups.com...

In any case I realise I don't want to see the price of oil double but
rather I want to see a tax on automotive fuel that would cover the full
costs of driving which is now highly subsidised by general tax payers.
Basically a pollution/carbon tax that would bring the price of fuel in
the US up to the level it is in Europe which would encourage more
efficient vehicles and less driving.

The only reason why gasoline prices in europe are much higher than the US is
because of taxes to pay for bloated socialist programs, they don't pay for
more efficient vehicles. They pay roughly the same price for oil that we do.

I should have refrained from commenting all together but the original
poster brought up a point I feel strongly about being a tax paying
bicycle rider and seeing much of my taxes going to fund people
over-driving like there is no tomorrow. Personally I think bicycles and
bicycle accessories should be exempt from sales tax just like food is
to encourage their use. If California can give hybrid drivers a $1000+
tax refund to encourage people to buy these more efficient cars they
can certainly waive the sales tax on bicycles which are even more
efficient.

The manufacturers already subsidize hybrids before they get to the sales
floor, if they didn't the price for hybrids would be far higher, for now
they are loss-leaders until they can fine tune the manufacturing process

Personally I'd rather see them manufacture more diesel cars than hybrids,
far easier to take care of and usually are more efficient

Sorry, I was not trying to impose my wish on you. I am all for personal
freedom and dislike laws, government and being told what to do by
others. I don't care what others do as long as what they are doing
isn't hurting me. People over using their cars are hurting me by
polluting the air I breathe. I want to see this dealt with fairly.

Hoping for $100 per barrel oil isn't dealing with anything fairly.

I'd
rather the government didn't get involved but many drivers don't seem
to care about others around them and therefore purchase a vehicle much
heavier than they need that gets poor fuel economy and drive it
excessively. Some people won't change unless they start having to pay
the true costs of their addictions.

Telling people what they should have isn't the way to go either, people buy
what they like, so do you


BTW, while I like the freedom, creative energy and general social
experiment going on at Burning Man I dislike the fact it is way out in
the desert in a place that is very hard to get to without driving to
it.

What is Burning Man?

"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
news snip


What is Burning Man?



Old hippies and some of their off spring camping out in the desert and
having a grand ole time just like they did back in the '60's, but without
all the loud music. Here's the on topic part: Lots of bare naked ladies
riding bicycles of all sorts and doing other bare naked things. They have
lots of creative energy just as Zach says.

Google "Brad Templeton" + "Burning Man"

Brad is a interesting recumbent guy who likes to go to BM every year and
then post his photos on his web site.

skip

skip wrote:
"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
news snip


What is Burning Man?



Old hippies and some of their off spring camping out in the desert
and
having a grand ole time just like they did back in the '60's, but
without
all the loud music. Here's the on topic part: Lots of bare naked
ladies
riding bicycles of all sorts and doing other bare naked things. They
have
lots of creative energy just as Zach says.

I know a couple in their mid-60's who could be described as old hippy
artists that have been going to Burning Man every year since 2000. In
fact I originally found out about Burning Man through them. However the
majority of the people attending Burning Man appear to be in their 20's
and 30's. Lots of topless and naked women, many riding bikes. On Friday
they have a ride called Critical Tits. Picture about 5000 women riding
topless. There is actually a lot of loud music though instead of 1960's
music it is electronic techno music. There is always some music at all
hours but it is easy to get away from the music if you have a bike.
Once you arrive you aren't allowed to drive a motor vehicle unless it
is a scooter or an art car registered with the Department of Mutant
Vehicles. So there are lots of people getting around bike bike and on
foot. The speed limit for art cars is 5 mph. They are pretty strict on
what constitutes an art car and how it is driven, especially after an
art car fatality in 2003. Other than that, not allowing dogs, cleaning
up after yourself and not hurting anyone there aren't any laws at
Burning Man. People can do whatever they want as long as it isn't
causing harm. This tends to bring out a lot of creative energy and
people losing their inhibitions in ways they wouldn't in real life. I'd
say only about 10% of the people there go around naked but there is
plenty of other odd behaviour in "Black Rock City" one wouldn't
normally find in a real city.

Google "Brad Templeton" + "Burning Man"

Brad is a interesting recumbent guy who likes to go to BM every year
and
then post his photos on his web site.

Also go to www.burningman.com. I took about 350 photos my first time at
Burning Man in 2003, somewhat fewer last year. Photos don't do it
justice though, one really has to go there to experience it. I've never
been to anything like Burning Man before. It was a real life changing
experience and now it is an annual tradition, I already have my ticket
to the 2005 Burning Man. This year I will most likely bring a trike. I
brought the BiGHA test bike in 2003 and my HP Velotechnik Street
Machine GT last year. Anyways Burning Man had quite an influence on me.
In fact many of the dreams I have now take place there. Seems like at
least once a week I have a dream that takes place at Burning Man.

Zach

"Zach" wrote in message
oups.com...

skip wrote:
"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
news snip


What is Burning Man?



Old hippies and some of their off spring camping out in the desert
and
having a grand ole time just like they did back in the '60's, but
without
all the loud music. Here's the on topic part: Lots of bare naked
ladies
riding bicycles of all sorts and doing other bare naked things. They
have
lots of creative energy just as Zach says.

I know a couple in their mid-60's who could be described as old hippy
artists that have been going to Burning Man every year since 2000. In
fact I originally found out about Burning Man through them. However the
majority of the people attending Burning Man appear to be in their 20's
and 30's. Lots of topless and naked women, many riding bikes. On Friday
they have a ride called Critical Tits. Picture about 5000 women riding
topless. There is actually a lot of loud music though instead of 1960's
music it is electronic techno music. There is always some music at all
hours but it is easy to get away from the music if you have a bike.
Once you arrive you aren't allowed to drive a motor vehicle unless it
is a scooter or an art car registered with the Department of Mutant
Vehicles. So there are lots of people getting around bike bike and on
foot. The speed limit for art cars is 5 mph. They are pretty strict on
what constitutes an art car and how it is driven, especially after an
art car fatality in 2003. Other than that, not allowing dogs, cleaning
up after yourself and not hurting anyone there aren't any laws at
Burning Man. People can do whatever they want as long as it isn't
causing harm. This tends to bring out a lot of creative energy and
people losing their inhibitions in ways they wouldn't in real life. I'd
say only about 10% of the people there go around naked but there is
plenty of other odd behaviour in "Black Rock City" one wouldn't
normally find in a real city.

Google "Brad Templeton" + "Burning Man"

Brad is a interesting recumbent guy who likes to go to BM every year
and
then post his photos on his web site.

Also go to www.burningman.com. I took about 350 photos my first time at
Burning Man in 2003, somewhat fewer last year. Photos don't do it
justice though, one really has to go there to experience it. I've never
been to anything like Burning Man before. It was a real life changing
experience and now it is an annual tradition, I already have my ticket
to the 2005 Burning Man. This year I will most likely bring a trike. I
brought the BiGHA test bike in 2003 and my HP Velotechnik Street
Machine GT last year. Anyways Burning Man had quite an influence on me.
In fact many of the dreams I have now take place there. Seems like at
least once a week I have a dream that takes place at Burning Man.

Zach


I can't imagine any old hippy with still functioning brain cells that
wouldn't want to be there. It's interesting that younger people
predominate. Some of them would have to be the children and grandchildren
of the hippies. Somehow the tradition lives on.

Right now I wondering if I can sell this deal to a couple of friends and
head that way. I need to be there for the Critical Tits Ride. 5,000 women
riding their bikes topless - now that's what I would call a spectacle. Some
people like to count sheep to go to sleep. I'd much rather count naked
women on bicycles myself.

And of course all the all the rest of it would be good too.

skip

skip wrote:

I can't imagine any old hippy with still functioning brain cells that

wouldn't want to be there. It's interesting that younger people
predominate. Some of them would have to be the children and
grandchildren
of the hippies. Somehow the tradition lives on.

There are some old hippies there but many more young people. The old
hippies tend to be the ones with a lot of money who come in large
motorhomes. I met a grandmother from Berkeley in her mid 70's there and
she was there with her husband, daughter and son-in-law. I met her
while the "man" was burning on the second to last night of the event
and got a ride back to her camp with her family on an art car that
resembled a boat. I rolled my Street Machine up the ramp and off we
went cruising the Playa on this boat which I think was based on a van
chassis. Another time I met a 58 year old woman riding a RANS Tailwind.
We rode back to her motorhome where I met her husband who looked about
ten years older and she gave me some cookies and let me hang out in the
motor home for as long as I wanted. Very nice woman. Actually everyone
I met there was quite nice and friendly.

Right now I wondering if I can sell this deal to a couple of friends
and
head that way. I need to be there for the Critical Tits Ride. 5,000
women
riding their bikes topless - now that's what I would call a
spectacle. Some
people like to count sheep to go to sleep. I'd much rather count
naked
women on bicycles myself.

I agree. Let me tell you I have enough images burned in my mind from
the past two years at BM that I have no shortage of things to count if
I'm having trouble sleeping.

And of course all the all the rest of it would be good too.

Yes, I had many incredible experiences there. I think I learned more
the first week I was at Burning Man than in the entire past ten years.
For me it was a real personal growth experience and I am still
receiving the benefits of it. The first year I went there one of the
greeters at the gate said "welcome home" and I didn't really understand
what they meant. The second year someone "welcomed me home" and I knew
exactly what they meant. It was like coming back home to the utopian
land of my dreams.

BTW, I've gotten my transportation to and from BM for the past two
years as part of a volunteer job driving a motorhome there for a
customer who attends. It only gets 8 miles per gallon but it would have
to go there if I went or not. This has been a single occupant vehicle
since he arrives seperately but at least this last trip I was able to
take 2 recumbents and 5 or 6 uprights there for another customer and
was able to bring back one man to Reno and a woman to Oakland.

Zach

"Zach" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip

Another time I met a 58 year old woman riding a RANS Tailwind.
We rode back to her motorhome where I met her husband who looked about
ten years older and she gave me some cookies and let me hang out in the
motor home for as long as I wanted. Very nice woman.


Uh huh. I've had some of those cookies too. They're pretty good aren't
they. So are the pancakes.



For me it was a real personal growth experience and I am still
receiving the benefits of it. The first year I went there one of the
greeters at the gate said "welcome home" and I didn't really understand
what they meant. The second year someone "welcomed me home" and I knew
exactly what they meant. It was like coming back home to the utopian
land of my dreams.

BTW, I've gotten my transportation to and from BM for the past two
years as part of a volunteer job driving a motorhome there for a
customer who attends. It only gets 8 miles per gallon but it would have
to go there if I went or not. This has been a single occupant vehicle
since he arrives seperately but at least this last trip I was able to
take 2 recumbents and 5 or 6 uprights there for another customer and
was able to bring back one man to Reno and a woman to Oakland.

Zach


I sure would like to have a photo of you driving that motor home. Would you
send me one? (only kidding. sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to get
where you need to be)

skip

"Zach" wrote in message
oups.com...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Zach" wrote in message
ups.com...
Wasn't oil going for about $55/barrel a couple months ago? Whatever
it
is the price is much too low and I hope it goes above $100/barrel
to
pay for the real costs.

Apparently you're wealthy and can survive a world depression, but
many of us
aren't... Now, not to get off topic or anything but how many will
lose their
lives as a result of such an economic collapse, I wonder? Seems a
bit
excessive just to get rid of a few SUVs and SOVs.

I've read that when peak oil goes into full effect perhaps 80% of the
world population will lose their lives. I have taken a number of steps
that will allow me to survive world depression but I'm not going to get
into them here as this is way off topic.

In any case I realise I don't want to see the price of oil double but
rather I want to see a tax on automotive fuel that would cover the full
costs of driving which is now highly subsidised by general tax payers.
Basically a pollution/carbon tax that would bring the price of fuel in
the US up to the level it is in Europe which would encourage more
efficient vehicles and less driving. Normally I'm against all taxes and
government interference but this is the one area where I think the
government could be of some benefit to step in and make car drivers pay
the full price for the damage they are causing to the enviroment and
society. Right now car drivers are on a form of government welfare as
much of the true costs of driving such as road repair, traffic police
services, parking facilities and wars for oil are paid for by the
general public in one form or another through hidden subidies.

Well, here you've wandered into my area of professional expertise. In fact
very little of the wear and tear on roads is produced by automobiles, but I
have no problem with "privatizing" roads so that we stop "subsidizing"
travel. I've even written one or two papers on the economic viability of
"congestion pricing," which is the primary justification for charging tolls.
(The toll income isn't necessary for road maintenance, per se.) But it just
seems odd that folks who'd opt for a socialistic system in just about every
other area complain that fuel prices don't reflect true market prices, and
that we could artificially raise prices to an abstract market shadaw-price
by imposing taxes. That would seem to me to be going the wrong direction.

Also, the estimates of an "oil peak" are rather theoretical. It's not that
they're wrong, or that we shouldn't heed the warnings, but that's really a
matter for voters to decide. I'm afraid I just don't buy the idea that a
group that apparently supports democratization only when it works to the
disadvantage of their political opposition has enough wisdom and foresight
that they ought to be able to override the preferences of the public when
they're unable to make their case.

It seems to me that oil companies would be perfectly willing to jack up the
price of oil if the elasticities of demand wouldn't, by so doing, reduce
their profit. And they'd be more than willing to invest the proceeds in
alternative energy sources as long as there were some profit potential for
them either in the long or short run. And if they don't see the long run
potential perhaps it's they you ought to be talking to.

But every self-styled social constructivist I've ever met on this topic
seems more interested in promoting their particular Ur-myth than in allowing
people to make such decisions based on their rational calculation of
advantage.


Then maybe the excessive number of oversized,
overweight, single occupant vehicles will get off our roads so we
have
more space for more benign forms of transportation such as riding
recumbents.

Well, you're welcome to make that case, but if there's ever a method of
transit that replaces trucking and other high intensity road uses I think
the public would just as soon do away with the road system entirely, since
it would be a superfluous and unnecessary expense. I doubt that there's
really a broad public constituency for turning the road system into a
cycling haven. We're free-riders, not to put too fine a point on it.


Sorry, but you're either going to steer clear of these "off topic"
discussions, or you're not.

I should have refrained from commenting all together but the original
poster brought up a point I feel strongly about being a tax paying
bicycle rider and seeing much of my taxes going to fund people
over-driving like there is no tomorrow.

Well, there are countries experimenting successufully with privatized road
systems. I can direct you to some literature if you like. But I seriously
doubt that such a non-subsidized or minimally subsidized system would have
much room for bicycles.

Personally I think bicycles and
bicycle accessories should be exempt from sales tax just like food is
to encourage their use.

Well, I'd just do away with the taxes altogether since I'm not into social
construction, and just let people decide how to use their own money. And I
don't leap to the conclusion that they'd all make the wrong decisions
either, given their head.

If California can give hybrid drivers a $1000+
tax refund to encourage people to buy these more efficient cars they
can certainly waive the sales tax on bicycles which are even more
efficient.

Have fun at Burning Man. Not my cup-o-tea. I don't impose my
lifestyle on
you, so I'm afraid I don't really honor an expressed wish to impose
yours on
me very much. I'm just fine with a movement to hybrid cars and other
effort
to conserve energy, and I'm not especially crazy about either SUVs,
but I
figure people can make up their own minds and I'm not praying for
global
economic collapse for the sake of my secret Ur-myth. There are a lot
of
fine, brave, and unselfish people who would suffer harm, and who are
simply
never going to buy a recumbent or any other type of bicycle.

Sorry, I was not trying to impose my wish on you. I am all for personal
freedom and dislike laws, government and being told what to do by
others. I don't care what others do as long as what they are doing
isn't hurting me. People over using their cars are hurting me by
polluting the air I breathe.

Air pollution is an externalized cost, but I'm not convinced that much of it
really comes from auto use. And you can certainly move to a place that's
relatively unaffected if you like. Even if the pollution problems were
resolved, however, there'd still be congestion problems. You have your
vote, and you have your political voice. Not everyone does, you know.

I want to see this dealt with fairly. I'd
rather the government didn't get involved but many drivers don't seem
to care about others around them and therefore purchase a vehicle much
heavier than they need that gets poor fuel economy and drive it
excessively. Some people won't change unless they start having to pay
the true costs of their addictions.

I don't know that that's the case, nor would I necessarily call their
preferences "addictions," any more than it would be appropriate for them to
refer to yours in those terms. There are such things as market failures,
but they almost always require some sort of government intervention to
become stable.

Between Scylla and Charybdis.


BTW, while I like the freedom, creative energy and general social
experiment going on at Burning Man I dislike the fact it is way out in
the desert in a place that is very hard to get to without driving to
it. The majority of the 35,000 people going there get there in private
cars or motorhomes. Many carpool at least and the Green Tortoise bus
line brings several bus loads of people there but there is a lot of
petroleum fuel used getting there and also running generators there. I
would like to see the event become more environmentally conscious. I
think if fuel were $5/gallon the attendence would be lower but still
high, perhaps more people would carpool.

I don't think you're going to see me there any time soon, although Ali G
dropped by awhile ago.


Zach