|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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...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? Here, try again: 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/ |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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." 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. Actually he isn't functional enough to be a troll. At best he's deranged. At worse his case worker put him online to sink his time like they do with all the other schizophrenics no one wants to deal with. Schizophrenics have no interaction in real life and no interaction online either. They make you wonder if maybe John Milton was wrong. "They also serve who stand & wait." -- Milton |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Americans Shouldn't Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 18:55:13 GMT, Simon Jester
wrote: 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. Touch! -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
On 12/07/2019 04:42, 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). Were you working or just traveling? Here, try again: Were you working or just traveling? Is "trips to the USA" too difficult to understand? I have spent a lot of time in the USA, but I wasn't living there. And whilst there (so many times now), I was not commuting from a residence to a permanent place of work. 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. And that's the important point. The policy of a particular employer in a particular location at a particular time is not law. As an analogy, I know of employers here in the UK (particularly in OOT or EOT shopping malls) who forbid employees to park cars at the place of work, mainly because they want the parking to be exclusively available to customers. But there is no law that says they cannot drive there.And there is no law in the USA which requires people to drive, or even to be able to drive. The writer of the article is exaggerating for an effect he wishes to create. 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/ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Americans | Jane Doe | Racing | 2 | February 4th 13 09:05 PM |
Dave Brailsford insists "more to come" from GB's track cyclists aftersuccessful World Championships | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 4 | April 11th 12 05:57 PM |
installing an old speedo cable drive on a rear wheel for prop drive | meb[_94_] | Techniques | 0 | April 22nd 08 01:24 PM |
installing an old speedo cable drive on a rear wheel for prop drive | meb[_92_] | Techniques | 1 | April 20th 08 11:48 AM |
Contrary patterns: drive, radial; non drive, 2x. | Luke | Techniques | 13 | September 3rd 07 03:42 PM |