Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 101

Thread: The other side

  1. #1
    feros ferio John E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
    My Bikes
    1959 Capo; 1980 Peugeot PKN-10; 1981 Bianchi; 1988 Schwinn KOM-10;
    Posts
    14,356
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    The other side

    Website for defenders of monster SUVs. (Note the Suburban icon.) Cal Worthington is leading the charge against higher gasoline taxes and CO2 emissions limits.

    http://www.wedrive.org/

    Yes, I shall contact my legislator, but not in the way these guys hope!
    "Early to bed, early to rise. Work like hell, and advertise." -- George Stahlman
    Capo [dschaw'-poe]: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger, S/N 42624
    Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
    Bianchi: 1981 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
    Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069

  2. #2
    suitcase of courage VegasCyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SoCal (ex Las Vegas, NV)
    Posts
    1,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    AB 1058 will limit your choice of vehicles. It really is an attempt to force Californians into smaller, less powerful cars. That’s not fair to low and middle income families and working Californians.
    huh? how is this not fair, smaller cars cost less and use less fuel, not to mention, generally have less of a insurance permium. Is it not fair for low and middle income families to save money?

    secondly, the little ad they have on the site, says that legislation will reduce speed limits, which will make vehicles procede at a more efficient rate. (i.e. lower speeds = less fuel consumption). Why is this bad? lower speed also would mean that (if obeyed) accidents would not be as severe...

    are car companies paying to have that site up?
    -VegasCyclist
    "Daddy made whiskey and he made it well.... cost two dollars and it burned like hell...."
    Register!

  3. #3
    Senior Member mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Snowy midwest
    Posts
    5,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The fact that the SUV supporters feel they have to defend them is further proof that SUV's are losing their 'cool' status.

    More and more, SUV's owners are becoming the brunt of jokes. Suddenly, SUV's aren't so cool anymore.

    Watch the pendulum drift in the opposite direction.
    Mike

  4. #4
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As usual, these lobbyists are trying to scare people by telling them, "This bill will take money right out of your pocket," when the real deal is that it will take money out of the pockets of exceedingly rich people that have profited profusely in the sale of these overpriced behemoths called, "sports utility vehicles." Then, true to form, they will pass the cost of these "lost" profits on to the consumer, rather then feel the pinch themselves.

    I would think people would get the idea after being called, "consumers," instead of, "people," for so long. But, that's how they see us, as a piece of their puzzle.
    No worries

  5. #5
    Mister Slick Matadon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by mike
    The fact that the SUV supporters feel they have to defend them is further proof that SUV's are losing their 'cool' status.



    More and more, SUV's owners are becoming the brunt of jokes. Suddenly, SUV's aren't so cool anymore.



    Watch the pendulum drift in the opposite direction.
    I can see budding rap stars going off about how many freaky hos, gats, and "fotys" they can pack in their Geo Metros...
    "The real race is not on the hot, paved road, the torturous off-road course or the smooth-surface velodrome. It is in the electrochemical pathways of your mind."
    --Alexi Grewal

  6. #6
    We drive on the left. Dutchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    1,096
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    huh? how is this not fair, smaller cars cost less and use less fuel, not to mention, generally have less of a insurance permium. Is it not fair for low and middle income families to save money?
    Hey VegasCyclist, great minds think alike. I was going to say exactly the same thing.

    The sad thing for me is that I have seen a number of VERY LARGE American cars on the road recently made by GMC? (I think). They look like secret service vehicles. The Ford (exploder) Explorer is also on sale now.

    Just what we need big cars with Roo bars.

    CHEERS.

    Mark
    I'd rather be riding.

  7. #7
    Senior Member fofa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with the site, what's next, .10 a mile tax on riding your bike? $2.00 toll to use the bike lanes, OH wait, there are no real bike lanes! What it appears you are missing is the fact they are forcing them (trying) into cars still. Why not require them to create alternate transportation before they can enact some inane law. If they want to reduce traffic, dedecate a lane on each street, or a wide path on each, to HPV. After they give us other choices, than lets talk socialism.

  8. #8
    cycle-powered nathank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Munich Germany (formerly Portland OR, Texas)
    My Bikes
    '02 Specialized FSR, '03 RM Slayer, '99 Raleigh R700, '97 Norco hartail, '89 Stumpjumper
    Posts
    1,848
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    fofa,

    your comment to tax bikes, while i'm sure meant to be sarcastic, is obviously way off base... if you don't already know, auto users, even in progressive CA, don't pay their share of road costs through auto registration, gas tax and toll fees --- the majority of the funding comes from general sources like income and property taxes... and bike users pay these other taxes just like auto drivers... and require fewer road services and cause less road damage (actually if it were to be 'fair', then pedestrians and cyclists would get money back for not driving or taking transit)

    and while i agree that it would be nice if some alternate transportation were also offered, that is a separate issue - i know that CA has a number of initiatives for public transit... (CALTRANS for example)

    the main complaint on the site is that there is a goal set, but it is not stated exactly how it will be met --- oh and the 'horror' of what THEY (the horrible government) might do --- having large-scale (statewide) legislation on such an issue that covers every implementation detail is virutally impossible to get passed and usually not the best solution b/c making such small level decisions in a legislative committe is just not practical (local leeway with oversight is usually better) - they don't have the direct contact with the issues that maybe DMV or CHP or other groups have...

    and then their main argument: "AB 1058 will limit your choice of vehicles. It really is an attempt to force Californians into smaller, less powerful cars. That’s not fair to low and middle income families and working Californians."

    most of these will not force anything - yes, it might make people who are now able to afford to do things at the expense of others no longer able to, but wah... so some rich people will have to pay more

    not being fair to lower and middle class Americans... this is one of those word tricks::most lower and middle class Americans don't need or often buy the hugely expensive and inefficient vehicles, it's the affluent people who mostly do (how many low income people buy Ford Excursions or Mercedes SUVs). Actually this bill is asking those rich people to pay their fair share that now the general public (lower/middle class) must now pay for them.

    raising the gas tax can be detrimental to some lower class people who depend on cars... this is a negative side-affect but combined with your suggestion to provide public transit the answer can be found

    yes, maybe this bill would be better is it also required a like increase in public transit options or maybe an offset program where people could buy reduced cost transit passes or whatever, but my guess is that the people who are against this bill would be still as against it even if this were included and beautifully solved (i.e. the opostion aren't really concerned about the lower/middle-class Californians, they just don't want to have to pay for their SUVs and gas-guzzling luxury vehicles)

    i think this bill sounds just about right on... (although i haven't read the full text)
    why drive when you can ride?
    now a fully certified German MTB Guide! (DAV)

  9. #9
    Poky Oxymoron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Pocahontas, Iowa
    My Bikes
    1999/2000 Rans Rocket - red, of course, and a forest green 2001 Specialized Expedition w/ 2" slicks, fenders and Jaand baskets
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I totally agree that this bill is great. Make drivers pay their fair share. If the gov't isn't going to give peds and cyclists money back, then they should charge drivers more. But I can also see how some aspects could hurt the poor. Because of cities with horrible public transit, some people do have to drive. One would end up with two people, one rich and one poor, both driving ten miles to work. They would pay the same per mile tax. However, the other aspects of the law might balance it out more, so that the wealthier do foot more of the burden. If anything this bill would at least help all drivers realize the true costs associated with their transportation, even if they have no choice.

    Clay

  10. #10
    Senior Member fofa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    nathank:
    Quote from site:
    • Another 50-cent-per-gallon increase in gasoline taxes.
    • A two-cent tax on every mile driven for all passenger vehicles.
    • Extra fees of $3,500 on minivans, light duty trucks, sport utility vehicles, and others to discourage consumers from buying them.
    • Reduction of the speed limit to 55 miles per hour.
    • Recommending new designs for vehicles and engines.
    End of quote:
    If anyone uses any kind of transportaion that is powered (not human), than the 50 cents a gallon would effect them. If they (poor and middle class) have a car then the .02 per mile tax would effect them. BUT here is the problem as I see it
    Quote from your post:
    and while I agree that it would be nice if some alternate transportation were also offered, that is a separate issue
    End of quote:
    Why is alternate transportation a separate issue. Do you work for the government, sounds like it? If the government wants to tax us more to get around, why is it unrealistic to expect the government to supply some resonable alternatives at the same time? Maybe something as simple as additional bike lanes? as an example, just this weekend my daughter and I went on a hunt to get to our grocery store on our bikes, without having to go on the main artery which it is on. Closest we could get would mean walking our bikes through a 1/4 mile of woods, then crossing this main artery without an intersetion in site, and crossing a field. The main artery has no shoulder/sidewalk, and fast, heavy traffic. So I must continue to use my truck. Then my wife who has MS has a minivan which is much easier for her to drive, and can carry the additional equipment she needs like walker and/or wheelchair. A car, especially a small one would be impractical, so would I have to pay an additional $3500 to have the priviledge of buying one? If the government wants me to cut back, allow me too. I think they should be the same issue to me, not separate.

  11. #11
    NCAA - DUAL CHAMPIONS! a2psyklnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    From Sarasota, FL sitting in front of a computer spewing random thoughts!
    My Bikes
    Intense Uzzi SL, Masi Speciale, Trek 3700 Nashbar Single Speed, Old Cilo Road frame
    Posts
    7,972
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    O.K., time to hear from an SUV Driving, Gun-Totting, Conservative, Less Government, God Fearing, American!

    Wake Up People! Do you want the Government telling you what you can and can't do? That's what I read from this bill!

    I don't, but if I were in CA, I'd be firing off a letter in protest to this bill, not just because I drive an SUV, but because I hate giving up my right to decide whether I can or cannot!

    I don't smoke, but I'm strongly against any anti-smoking regulation! I'm against ANY regulation that limits my freedom of choice! That limit of freedom and the exhorbinate taxes are exactly what a forefathers were fighting when they revolted against England! They shouted NO MORE TAXES and FREEDOM! From what? Everything you're willing to give up today.

    The thought is, well the rich can afford it! That's B.S. and a turn down the road to SOCIALISM!

    Why should I have to pay more taxes to drive a vehicle that has more room, is more comfortable, and is much SAFER? I already do, the gas milage is lower, and that's an expense I'm willing to bear. The initial cost is higher, it's bigger, has a more powerful engine, has airbags, anti-lock brakes, and I can fit my family (including my Dog), my bikes and all my camping gear inside when we want to go on vacation. These things I'm willing to pay extra for, they're important to me. I'm NOT rich. To use a quote, "I'm above the lower and below the upper" - Jodi Macena, I have enough, but not so much! The expense of this vehicle is a lot of my budget, but I feel it's the safest vehicle for my family and I, so it's important to me. But that's MY choice, I don't want the goverment trying to disuede me from buying this vehicle by imposing a higher tax on it!

    Why should MY insurance go up, when it's a safer vehicle? Because small cars that are about as strong as aluminum cans get damaged more when in accidents with SUVs. How about making small cars stronger and safer! I like my STEEL Frame Chassi, it's saved my LIFE! I like having an airbag, I like having anti-lock brakes. I don't mind paying more for these features, but to pay a higher tax, that's gone too far!

    What's next guys? Hey, I know, what about a 10% additional tax on any titanium made frame, due to the environmental damage created by the mining of titanium? Well, if you're rich, you can afford it! Or better yet, how about a 20% disposal fee charged to each and every bicycle tire and inner tube you buy! Don't even get me started on grease and chain lubes, I see a 200% tax due to the hazards of the environment by the use of these products.

    (The last paragraph was complete sarcasm for you "socialist minded" folk out there! Don't get any ideas you fundamentalist!)

    This bill is imposing a tax to cover the governments butts for inefficient budgeting! I believe in paying taxes, but not anymore than I already do! I believe in a straight line tax. If everyone, paid 10%, we'd have more than enough money in the federal budget. To impose a graduated tax puts a hamper on motivation. The way I see it, "the more I work, and the more money I earn, the more the government TAKES and the less I have!" Talk about a motivation killer! No wonder more and more people are seeking governmental assistance. Get money for doing NOTHING! Sure beats working your a$$ off!

    I suggest paying taxes with an attached spreadsheet showing where and how I want my money spent. If this is a government, "For the People, by the People" Let "the People" decide how to spend their own money! I would prefer to have a tax cut, over of a piece of public art!

    L8R

    Flame away if you want, but I believe any restriction of my Freedom is anti-american and contrary to the foundation of this great nation!
    Last edited by a2psyklnut; 05-07-02 at 12:39 PM.
    "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "WOW, What a Ride!" - unknown
    "Your Bike Sucks" - Sky Yaeger

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wait a second...now, the way I read this, the bill is a call for the reduction in greenhouse gases, and the tax and all are just suggestions (or scare tactics) of ways to comply with the law if it were passed.

    While I confess that I haven't read the actual bill (not enough time at the moment to concentrate on any legal speak), this is the link of the state assembly...

    http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

  13. #13
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by a2psyklnut
    Why should I have to pay more taxes to drive a vehicle that has more room, is more comfortable, and is much SAFER?
    BicycleNut,

    Don't take this the wrong way, I respect your right to see it your way. But...

    SUV's have not been demonstrated to be safer than cars. Sheer size and weight do not create safety for the passengers. Many other factors are involved. Many SUV's are subject to rollover, and some have been found to be less safe than other vehicle types. And what about the safety of
    others who may get in an accident with a huge SUV?
    Their safety is important, too.

    Also, the "right" to do whatever you want has limits. In this case, driving low-mileage vehicles (especially when there are no passengers or loads) is wasteful and polluting, which affects everyone. Therefore, everyone should have a say about your right to create that pollution. Higher taxes is not my idea of freedom, but your freedom to drive and my freedom to breathe clean air are in direct conflict.
    No worries

  14. #14
    NCAA - DUAL CHAMPIONS! a2psyklnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    From Sarasota, FL sitting in front of a computer spewing random thoughts!
    My Bikes
    Intense Uzzi SL, Masi Speciale, Trek 3700 Nashbar Single Speed, Old Cilo Road frame
    Posts
    7,972
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Remind me of the "Not Safer", the next time you're rear ended by a fully loaded tanker truck on the interstate! If I were in a compact car, that's what I'd be right now, COMPACT!

    As far as roll over, that's FORD! I wouldn't drive one of those anyways!

    Which, brings me to my next topic. If there is going to be regulation for SUV's, why not strickter regulation for Semi-Trucks.

    The Logical reasoning would be, if an SUV does 5% (making this # up for the sake of discussion only) of the damage due to size of the vehicle and pollutants of combustion how much is made by a Diesel tractor trailer? I'd be guessing 20%! They are regulated, but the sheer number makes the amount caused by minivans and SUV's almost insignificant!

    L8R
    "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "WOW, What a Ride!" - unknown
    "Your Bike Sucks" - Sky Yaeger

  15. #15
    Senior Member dirtsqueezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Boise, Idaho
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Trent Lott is watching this one closely:

    Must Be True
    -DS-

    The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Pacific Grove, CA
    Posts
    163
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by a2psyklnut
    Remind me of the "Not Safer", the next time you're rear ended by a fully loaded tanker truck on the interstate! If I were in a compact car, that's what I'd be right now, COMPACT!

    As far as roll over, that's FORD! I wouldn't drive one of those anyways!

    Which, brings me to my next topic. If there is going to be regulation for SUV's, why not strickter regulation for Semi-Trucks.

    The Logical reasoning would be, if an SUV does 5% (making this # up for the sake of discussion only) of the damage due to size of the vehicle and pollutants of combustion how much is made by a Diesel tractor trailer? I'd be guessing 20%! They are regulated, but the sheer number makes the amount caused by minivans and SUV's almost insignificant!

    L8R
    Everybody can pull some sort of story to support their arguements. My girlfriend's ex was rearended by a semi on an interstate and he survived with only cuts and bruises. He was driving a Hyundai Excel. There was a guy in Kansas City a few years back who was driving a Saab and went head-on into a Blazer. He walked away, the folks in the Blazer all died.

    We already regulate what people can and cannot drive. I cannot drive a tank on the road even if I could afford one. The government has limited my choices, and rightly so. But you are right, it is a slippery slope. Somebody could try to pass a law to outlaw cycling except in bike lanes and bike paths. Or outlaw bikes that don't have training wheels, because we could tip over and hurt ourselves. Then cyclists would be on the other end of the loss of choice.

    So how do we get around this conflict? We exercise the rights that we have in a democratic republic. We contact our representatives and let them know what we think about the issue. And they decide. Because that's the way it works here. And I'm pretty sure that's what the founding fathers had in mind.

    andy

  17. #17
    Devilmaycare Cycling Fool Allister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wynnum, Australia
    My Bikes
    1998 Cannondale F700
    Posts
    3,819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by a2psyklnut
    Flame away if you want, but I believe any restriction of my Freedom is anti-american and contrary to the foundation of this great nation!
    Please spare us the jingoism. Freedom does not mean 'doing whatever I want'. The logical extension of your philosophy is that any laws limiting our right to kill someone, to take an extreme example, is an affront to freedom.

    No-one, and no law can restrict your freedom: you can only do that yourself.
    If we learn from our mistakes, I must be a goddamn genius.

  18. #18
    feros ferio John E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
    My Bikes
    1959 Capo; 1980 Peugeot PKN-10; 1981 Bianchi; 1988 Schwinn KOM-10;
    Posts
    14,356
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As attractive as I find a libertarian philosophy, I am also painfully aware of the vast societal and environmental external costs of motoring. Also, as Allister's post strongly implies, well-conceived rules and regulations actually enhance our freedoms. A well-engineered, well-maintained public roadway with strict rules governing speed, position, right-of-way, legal accountability, and even bumper height, gives me a freedom of mobility that would probably not be available in a laissez-faire system.

    Motorists, myself and my wife included, foul our air and water, alter our climate, and deplete our childrens' natural resources. I do not think it is unreasonable to close the longstanding Excursion-size legal loophole under which SUVs and minivans, which are used as passenger cars most of the time, do not have to conform to the same safety, emissions, and fuel efficiency standards as cars. A university engineering lab has demonstrated that a hybrid-electric Chevy Suburban with regenerative braking can top 20mpg in urban-cycle driving. With a little push from the legislature, I am confident that GM's vast engineering resources can do an even better job. Increased fuel efficiency is a worthwhile goal which will create engineering jobs, save resources, and slow global warming.
    "Early to bed, early to rise. Work like hell, and advertise." -- George Stahlman
    Capo [dschaw'-poe]: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger, S/N 42624
    Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
    Bianchi: 1981 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
    Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069

  19. #19
    Bash US - We'll Bash You
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    CARB has forced mandates on industry for years. How effective have the mandates been?

    Emissions for light trucks were addressed a few years ago:
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr061490.htm

    Cleaner gas? Been there, done that:
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr112291.htm

    Its for the children!
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr040192.htm
    Helps the poor, too!

    By God we demand cleaner diesel!
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr060292.htm

    As for diesel - money talks, CARB walks. Or, oops, we went too far again:
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr101793.htm

    In the news today, Kalifornia treehuggers were arrested for lewd and lascivious conduct with trees in response to this:
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr092893.htm




    Some of the madness our design team was involved in years ago when I was a Detroit slave:
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr061693.htm
    Where are all these friggin things now? Oh yeah, they worked great but cost about $150,000 to produce. At least our heart was in the right place!

  20. #20
    cycle-powered nathank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Munich Germany (formerly Portland OR, Texas)
    My Bikes
    '02 Specialized FSR, '03 RM Slayer, '99 Raleigh R700, '97 Norco hartail, '89 Stumpjumper
    Posts
    1,848
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't smoke, but I'm strongly against any anti-smoking regulation! I'm against ANY regulation that limits my freedom of choice! That limit of freedom and the exhorbinate taxes are exactly what a forefathers were fighting when they revolted against England! They shouted NO MORE TAXES and FREEDOM! From what? Everything you're willing to give up today.
    a2psyklnut

    OK, i guess i kind of started a hot one here...

    OK, i'm not a history expert but i'm pretty sure the US revolutionary slogan was 'no taxation without representation', not 'NO MORE TAXES and FREEDOM!' as you claim - there's a huge difference. The US has had taxes from the beginning, but taxation WITH representation.

    Flame away if you want, but I believe any restriction of my Freedom is anti-american and contrary to the foundation of this great nation!
    a2psyklnut

    i just don't get it when Americans interpret 'Freedom' as the right to do whatever they damn well please - come on that's just childish and unrealistic... 'hey this is a free county, so why can't i set off nuclear tests in my backyard? it's MY property so why should the government be able to tell ME what to do MY PROPERTY? oh, AND i ALREADY pay taxes so i deserve to do as i please...'

    and fofa, as Tina already stated, these are only EXAMPLES of what the government COULD do - and i'm sure they chose the most 'scary' ones to incite people to oppose the bill...

    i strongly support the US government system as it was founded and for the most part practiced (minus all the money-corruption that the powers-in-control don't want to end...), and i just don't get how so many Americans seem to fear, mistrust and hate the government. The 'government' is exactly that which gives you all these rights and freedoms... i just don't get it. without the governement you hate and fear and mistrust that's always taking your 'hard-earned money', who's protecting your Freedom?

    aturley, right on man!
    why drive when you can ride?
    now a fully certified German MTB Guide! (DAV)

  21. #21
    Mister Slick Matadon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, I just spent half an hour writing a two page response to this, and it just...dissappeared into the ether.

    I am going to go quietly beat some Opera developers into hamburger, now.

    I can summarize it thusly: a2, you're a tool. America isn't about "F*** you, Jack, I got mine!", it's supposed to be about respecting the rights of others. SUVs are inherently dangerous to anyone *not* in an SUV, and I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be anything other than FYJIGM.
    "The real race is not on the hot, paved road, the torturous off-road course or the smooth-surface velodrome. It is in the electrochemical pathways of your mind."
    --Alexi Grewal

  22. #22
    Bash US - We'll Bash You
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Matadon

    ...SUVs are inherently dangerous to anyone *not* in an SUV, and I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be anything other than FYJIGM.
    With your line of reasoning, 18 wheelers would be equivalent to instruments of mass destruction. Perhaps the wheels of interstate commerce would be better served by horse and buggy?

    For that matter, we should all be in horse and buggies? Think it through though. If that were the case, think of the ground water contamination from the natural exhaust of the horses!

    Thank you Opera developers for your magician's act.

  23. #23
    Mister Slick Matadon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by martin




    With your line of reasoning, 18 wheelers would be equivalent to instruments of mass destruction. Perhaps the wheels of interstate commerce would be better served by horse and buggy?



    For that matter, we should all be in horse and buggies? Think it through though. If that were the case, think of the ground water contamination from the natural exhaust of the horses!



    Thank you Opera developers for your magician's act.
    False analogy. 18-wheelers are operated by people who are specially trained and held to very strict standards. If you have a Class 'A' license (required to operate *any* commercial vehicle), you can have it taken away for even a .01 BAC (which is legally sober), even if you are driving your own personal vehicle at the time.

    SUVs require no licensing or training beyond that of driving an ordinary motorcar; furthermore, when compared to even a pathetic Geo Metro, SUVs have far worse breaking and maneuvering characteristics, yet the majority of SUV drivers treat their vehicles as if they were like any normal car. I can't even begin to recall the number of times I've been passed whilst driving on the freeway by idiots in SUVs who are pulling close to 95 mph on the speedometer; I don't drive at those kinds of speeds in my *sports car* unless I'm on a racetrack!
    "The real race is not on the hot, paved road, the torturous off-road course or the smooth-surface velodrome. It is in the electrochemical pathways of your mind."
    --Alexi Grewal

  24. #24
    suitcase of courage VegasCyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SoCal (ex Las Vegas, NV)
    Posts
    1,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by John E
    Motorists, myself and my wife included, foul our air and water, alter our climate, and deplete our childrens' natural resources. I do not think it is unreasonable to close the longstanding Excursion-size legal loophole under which SUVs and minivans, which are used as passenger cars most of the time, do not have to conform to the same safety, emissions, and fuel efficiency standards as cars. A university engineering lab has demonstrated that a hybrid-electric Chevy Suburban with regenerative braking can top 20mpg in urban-cycle driving. With a little push from the legislature, I am confident that GM's vast engineering resources can do an even better job. Increased fuel efficiency is a worthwhile goal which will create engineering jobs, save resources, and slow global warming.
    I agree John, but as you may know, when car manufacturers figure a way to make a engine or fuel system more efficient they normally will use that knowledge to make a bigger and more powerful car, negating the gained efficiency.
    -VegasCyclist
    "Daddy made whiskey and he made it well.... cost two dollars and it burned like hell...."
    Register!

  25. #25
    Bash US - We'll Bash You
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Matadon


    False analogy. 18-wheelers are operated by people who are specially trained and held to very strict standards. If you have a Class 'A' license (required to operate *any* commercial vehicle), you can have it taken away for even a .01 BAC (which is legally sober), even if you are driving your own personal vehicle at the time.
    You stated that SUVs are inherently dangerous in your earlier post. Actually, all motor vehicles are inherently dangerous. Welcome to Reality 101.

    Originally posted by Matadon

    SUVs require no licensing or training beyond that of driving an ordinary motorcar; furthermore, when compared to even a pathetic Geo Metro, SUVs have far worse breaking and maneuvering characteristics, yet the majority of SUV drivers treat their vehicles as if they were like any normal car. I can't even begin to recall the number of times I've been passed whilst driving on the freeway by idiots in SUVs who are pulling close to 95 mph on the speedometer; I don't drive at those kinds of speeds in my *sports car* unless I'm on a racetrack!
    So you are saying that SUVs should require special licensing due to their vehicle design characteristics. Actually, let's not stop there!
    Sports cars should require special training and licensing since they can go fast. That little Geo Metro needs a special license because of its small size and lack of horsepower. Vans should require a special license due to their reduced visibility. Vehicles valued above a certain dollar figure should require special licensing - what if a wicked carjacker struck?

    There are incompetent drivers behind the wheel in all makes of vehicles, both commercial and noncommercial. Hopefully, you are adult enough to take responsibility for your own life and train yourself to deal with the nutcases. Cops and government can't be everywhere - unless you prefer a police state.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •