|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsibleidiot parents refuse to pay)
Rick Onanian wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:42:31 -0800, Zoot Katz wrote: Consider that there are more cars than licensed drivers. That's because some people have a truck for when they need to truck stuff, and a car for when they don't... Apparently, some people have never heard of utility trailers. -- Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:05:50 -0600, Kevan Smith
wrote: On 06 Nov 2003 05:36:44 GMT, (Hunrobe) from AOL http://www.aol.com wrote: So you would trash the concept of the presumption of innocence and deny people's civil liberties to reap the benefits of fewer cars on the roads and increased public transportation ridership. Either you *really* like public transportation or you're only willing to defend those civil liberties that you happen to enjoy. Driving a car is not a right. It is not a civil liberty. As it stands, it is a privilege granted by the state. If you have a problem with that, write your legislator, not me. Well if bicycles and cars can not safely co-exist on public roads I am guessing the privilege of riding a bicycle on public roads will be gone. Do you have a problem with the state telling you that? |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
On 9 Nov 2003 16:14:56 -0600, Steve R. wrote:
Well if bicycles and cars can not safely co-exist on public roads I am guessing the privilege of riding a bicycle on public roads will be gone. Do you have a problem with the state telling you that? Years ago, there was a serial rapist loose in Tel Aviv. Alarmed by the growing list of victims, a member of Parliament suggested that perhaps there should be a curfew such that young women would be off the streets and safe indoors by a certain hour. Golda Meir, who was the Prime Minister at the time, retorted that if there were to be a curfew, it ought to affect only men. I don't know why, but your statement above brought that particular anecdote to mind. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsibleidiot parents refuse to pay)
Rick Onanian wrote:
wrote: Lots more people could qualify for mortgages and end up getting real equity if they weren't supporting a car. Housing would be more Wrong. Buying a car is about the best way to get credit. You can't get a mortgage without a lot of credit; but if you've never bought anything big, you don't have enough credit. You can buy a car with terrible credit. There are some programs for no-credit people to get mortgages, but mostly they just end up paying through the nose. affordable if it weren't necessarily so large to facilitate also housing the car required to get there. By 'owning' a stake in the What? Do you have any idea how much space it takes to keep a car at your house? None, on most streets; you're welcome to park in the street, and parking in the street doesn't suck. If you want to park on your lawn or cut a driveway in it, you can; I wish! No overnight parking, no parking between 7-9 and 4-6, and you can get in all kinds of trouble by parking your car on your front lawn, and a few other kinds for having more cars than The City Fathers think you should have. And what's really crappy is that I live in the next best thing to a slum. and a garage is so inexpensive. You spend $100,000 to build a house on a lot you own, and $3,000 of that builds a garage. It's a concrete slab, four walls (with no interior finish), two doors, and a roof. Three walls if it's attached to the house. Garage space, unless you're really rich, is much too valuable to waste on car storage. The damn things have waterproof paint, why do they need their own rooms? community, people take more care of what happens there. Not by owning a stake in the community, just by being limited to a much smaller radius. Most people are not built to ride bikes as far or as fast as we do; if they were, then cars never would have become popular -- everybody would have bought bikes instead. I'm sure bikes were cheaper when cars became popular by the same ratio (or even more so, if we talk about good bikes) as they are now. Cars became a necessity for many people when the road gang pulled up the trolley tracks and started shuffling populations to the new suburbs served solely by the roads they lobbied to get. Why didn't they ride bikes instead? Why did they move to the suburbs where they would then need to buy a car? Nobody shuffles me, I live where I want to live. It's a totally contrived and manipulated way to live. I don't want to live in an apartment. I've lived in one and I hated it. I want to live as far away from my neighbors as possible, even if our yards are 50x150, and every once in a while I want to grow some flower. If everyone feels like I do, the automobile is pretty essential. So be it. Rather than whining because people like to drive cars, wouldn't it make more sense to devise a system where it didn't hurt? Still, I've paid my dues. I ride my bike as much as, maybe even more than, I drive my truck. -- Cheers, Bev "I've seen a look in dogs' eyes, a quickly vanishing look of amazed contempt, and I am convinced that basically dogs think humans are nuts." -- John Steinbeck |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap(irresponsibleidiot parents refuse to pay)
frkrygowHALTSPAM wrote:
Rick Onanian wrote: On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:42:31 -0800, Zoot Katz wrote: Consider that there are more cars than licensed drivers. That's because some people have a truck for when they need to truck stuff, and a car for when they don't... Apparently, some people have never heard of utility trailers. 1. How big a trailer can a Honda Civic pull? 2. Owning a truck for occasional usage is socially conscious -- it keeps it out of the hands of somebody who would drive it every day. -- Cheers, Bev /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ I remember when everybody posted to Usenet with their real, deliverable e-mail address. Of all the sins committed by the spammers, destroying the viability of the open Internet was the worst. (Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, news.admin.net-abuse.email) |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsibleidiotparents refuse to pay)
The Real Bev wrote:
frkrygowHALTSPAM wrote: Apparently, some people have never heard of utility trailers. 1. How big a trailer can a Honda Civic pull? I don't know what the limit is. I know our 1985 Honda Civic wagon pulled a (roughly) 850 pound camping trailer coast to coast. The car also had three bikes on it, three people inside it, and was stuffed full of travel gear. It was a little slow in the mountains, but not terribly so. Otherwise it did fine. 2. Owning a truck for occasional usage is socially conscious -- it keeps it out of the hands of somebody who would drive it every day. Whew! For a minute I thought you were serious! -- Frank Krygowski |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
Sun, 09 Nov 2003 16:49:13 -0800, ,
The Real Bev wrote: \szip I don't want to live in an apartment. I've lived in one and I hated it. I want to live as far away from my neighbors as possible, even if our yards are 50x150, and every once in a while I want to grow some flower. The land that created your garden was the left over space between garages after the streets were laid out. If housing were designed to enhance our gardens rather than accomodate everybody's cars, our houses would be more beautiful. The flowers growing there would be more beautiful. The whole community would be more beautiful. If everyone feels like I do, the automobile is pretty essential. So be it. Were the automobile designed to be essential, we wouldn't have plushy macho-toy trucks and boombox low-riders. No, automobiles are designed to be consumable tokens of ones social standing and promoted as ones ticket to instant freedom and assured breeding success. Rather than whining because people like to drive cars, wouldn't it make more sense to devise a system where it didn't hurt? I hear a lot of whining from drivers, mostly about traffic, the roads, parking, the expense and other drivers behaviour. Sounds to me, that they like to complain more than they like driving. I've yet to hear one say how much they enjoy driving in rush hour except that it's a place to get away from the kids. Put the kids in the garage and the car through a shredder. Painless. -- zk |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap(irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
Zoot Katz wrote:
Sun, 09 Nov 2003 16:49:13 -0800, , The Real Bev wrote: \szip I don't want to live in an apartment. I've lived in one and I hated it. I want to live as far away from my neighbors as possible, even if our yards are 50x150, and every once in a while I want to grow some flower. The land that created your garden was the left over space between garages after the streets were laid out. If housing were designed to enhance our gardens rather than accomodate everybody's cars, our houses would be more beautiful. The flowers growing there would be more beautiful. The whole community would be more beautiful. My yard is a dump. I find it extremely pleasant to ride my bike on the streets where the houses start at $1Million. If there were no cars there would be no roads and I would have to look at my pitiful weed-infested yard instead of the gardener-groomed acres of the wealthy. If everyone feels like I do, the automobile is pretty essential. So be it. Were the automobile designed to be essential, we wouldn't have plushy macho-toy trucks and boombox low-riders. Hey, EVERYTHING is designed in a spectrum from Spartan to Sybaritic. You pays your money and you takes your choice. Some buy Huffies, some buy Kleins. I bought a KHS for 10 cents on the dollar at a yard sale. It's the American way. No, automobiles are designed to be consumable tokens of ones social standing and promoted as ones ticket to instant freedom and assured breeding success. Who cares what it was designed for, I use it for what I choose. The only thing you have right here is "instant freedom." That's exactly what a car is, much moreso than a bicycle. If I want to go where I choose, when I choose, I can (1) have a car, (2) live in the crowded conditions required for public transportation, and/or (3) just never want to go anywhere. It's about maximizing choices, son. I can choose a car or a bike. Public transportation doesn't go anywhere taking a car isn't more efficient, but I guess I could choose that too. Or walking, which is of limited utility. Rather than whining because people like to drive cars, wouldn't it make more sense to devise a system where it didn't hurt? I hear a lot of whining from drivers, mostly about traffic, the roads, parking, the expense and other drivers behaviour. Sounds to me, that they like to complain more than they like driving. I've yet to hear one say how much they enjoy driving in rush hour except that it's a place to get away from the kids. We all like to complain about everything. You're having fun complaining about cars, and I suppose you don't have one and wouldn't drive one unless somebody's life depended on it. Put the kids in the garage and the car through a shredder. Or the other way around. I saw Fargo and I don't think a car would fit in that shredder, although children would. How many times has this argument been performed? Has anybody ever changed his/her mind or are we all just circle-jerking? -- Cheers, Bev ================================================== ============ "Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded." |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:16:06 -0800, ,
The Real Bev wrote: How many times has this argument been performed? Has anybody ever changed his/her mind or are we all just circle-jerking? We've been jerked into a vicious circle. This "argument" has only come into human habitat discussions during the past 60 years. Our building heritage, history and culture was hijacked. Now our ability to even create "beautiful" cities has been stolen by the orchestrated need for car-centric surroundings. Devoting so much space to the car spreads the city out further and makes car ownership even more necessary and inevitable. As we spend more on roads, bridges and overpasses, we have less to spend on public transit infrastructure to nodes of higher density mixed use developments. There could have been more pumpkin patches in green belts between population nodes instead of strip mall parking lots. What seems to have been missed by earlier is that banks look at present debt load, as well as credit history, before deciding to loan money for a house. When the houses are all spread out to make room for streets and driveways, the land requirements are greater, therefore more expensive. Because the building lots and houses are larger to accommodate the cars, they're more expensive too. Spending on vehicles erodes wealth while spending on housing can build wealth. Over a decade, spending $6000/year on car ownership creates $5500 in equity. The same amount spent on home ownership creates $28,000 in equity. When the first household expenditure surveys were conducted in 1901, (cycling's heyday) transportation accounted for less than 2 percent of the family budget – now it is 18 percent and rising. With transportation costs eating up a bigger percentage of household budgets, saving for a home becomes increasingly difficult. Backslide into serfdom. -- zk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|