I love silly, absolutist rhetoric like this. I don't think anyone here thinks that we're all going to go back to everything being done by horse and buggy. My (and many others') views are simply that we should not be pimping out our entire lives, including killing our cities, to make way for the personal automobile. Most of teh rest of the world doesn't ***** out their entire existence to cars. Why should we?

unfortunatley, thats the attitude a lot of people seem to have, NO cars NO trucks, NO big rigs, NO nothing! just a lalalala little world of people biking around.......

unfortunatley, thats the attitude a lot of people seem to have, NO cars NO trucks, NO big rigs, NO nothing! just a lalalala little world of people biking around.......


can you quantify 'a lot of people'?

people may have objections to the dominance of the private automobile influencing our city design, politics, planning, environment, energy use, and consumerist driven lifestyle... but i don't think the majority of people think the way you think they think.

a lot of what gets discussed here is finding an appropriate tool for the job. hauling 50,000 pounds of bananas isn't going to happen on a bike, but riding to work and the corner store, post office, and to drop the kids off at school can happen on a bike. (and people move whole households by bike, travel across continents, move heavy objects, etc...)

if the majority of car trips are less than 2 miles doesn't it seem overkill to jump into a multi ton vehicle to cover that distance?


you criticize your imagined vision of a lalalala little world of everyone biking about - but you accept without question the lalalala little world of everyone driving about in complicated machines that require constant inputs of $$ (insurance, maintenance, fuel), and energy to move about...

This thread is now beyond a mere train wreck. It's more like the final chase scene from The Blues Brothers. Carry on, let's make it a classic.

In my opinion many things could be done to reduce the use of motor vehicles, that includes heavy trucks as well as personal cars. If we would get away from the factory farms and quit transporting juice oranges from Florida to California and eating oranges from California to Florida via truck we will be making a start. Improve mass transit, reduce the use of personal auto's by 10-15% a year would be a wonderful start. I don't think anybody really expects to do away with cars and trucks 100%. But many, many things could and should be done to improve transportation and the environment. And in a nod to Cosmoline's original post:D Dogies works for me...but you do have the occasional maverick to deal with;):p

Aaron:)

hauling 50,000 pounds of bananas isn't going to happen on a bike

Hey, let's get it right!
It's 30,000 lbs of bananas, heading down the hill that leads into Scranton Pennsylvania.

Hey, let's get it right!
It's 30,000 lbs of bananas, heading down the hill that leads into Scranton Pennsylvania.

:eek: wow. someone else has heard that horrible piece of music.

This thread is now beyond a mere train wreck. It's more like the final chase scene from The Blues Brothers. Carry on, let's make it a classic.

Let's cut to the chase, eh? How 'bout Cars and Car Drivers are the Root of all Evil and not only that but they are obviously Agents of Satan?

No? Too extreme? OK settle for Dogies; makes as much sense.

Your post is the epitome of the knee-jerk anti-car crowd, that cannot seem to admit that cars are essential to our current economy and way of life. Sure, car use could be reduced, and I applaud those who make such efforts, but ranting against the evil "cages" or "prisons" or whatever you want to call them is comically Quixotic.

I don't dispute that cars have become a key part of the economy as it exists. I do dispute the notion that there are no alternatives, or that they represent the inevitable future. I even dispute the notion that they *CAN* continue to form the backbone of our transportation infrastructure into the future. They are exceedingly inefficient, and when (not if) the petro economy grinds to a halt they will become too expensive to operate as much as they are now. Yes, you can grow diesel. But only at substantial time and cost. Yes, you can run them on electricity, but it must be generated again at increased cost esp. when the coal and oil grow too expensive.

As far as being some 19th century reactionary, I don't think I qualify. For one thing, my problem is with the CAR. The personal motor vehicle typically driven by one person back and forth from home to work and out on vacation along the freeways. Working vehicles such as tractors, trucks, big rigs, etc. are less of a problem. Though of course much of the nation's trucking will need to be shifted back over to rail (notice I say *BACK*) once fuel becomes too expensive. Working vehicles didn't give rise to absurdly inefficient urban planning, the suburbs or the mega malls. And I've pulled enough stumps by hand to really appreciate a bulldozer and a backhoe. The core of the problem is CARS.

As far as being some 19th century reactionary, I don't think I qualify. For one thing, my problem is with the CAR. The personal motor vehicle typically driven by one person back and forth from home to work and out on vacation along the freeways. Working vehicles such as tractors, trucks, big rigs, etc. are less of a problem. Though of course much of the nation's trucking will need to be shifted back over to rail (notice I say *BACK*) once fuel becomes too expensive. Working vehicles didn't give rise to absurdly inefficient urban planning, the suburbs or the mega malls. And I've pulled enough stumps by hand to really appreciate a bulldozer and a backhoe. The core of the problem is CARS.

Here's where we differ.

American (and to a growing extent) European affluence has made it possible for people to live farther away from their jobs, travel greater distances on vacation and purchase products from many miles away, in part because of cars. To use a car for these things is not (necessarily) the choice of herds of mindless cattle, but a rational choice by people who can make their own decisions about their own quality of life. They are not chained and enslaved to their vehicles, but use them as a tool to live the lifestyle they want.

If you think the world would be a better place with fewer cars (something we agree on, in principle), then try to convince people to give them up, or try to convince your government to formulate more progressive policies. Belittling people by calling them stupid, mindless "cagers" is just a false way to demonstrate one's supposed moral superiority without accomplishing anything useful.

Here's where we differ.

American (and to a growing extent) European affluence has made it possible for people to live farther away from their jobs, travel greater distances on vacation and purchase products from many miles away, in part because of cars. To use a car for these things is not (necessarily) the choice of herds of mindless cattle, but a rational choice by people who can make their own decisions about their own quality of life. They are not chained and enslaved to their vehicles, but use them as a tool to live the lifestyle they want.

If you think the world would be a better place with fewer cars (something we agree on, in principle), then try to convince people to give them up, or try to convince your government to formulate more progressive policies. Belittling people by calling them stupid, mindless "cagers" is just a false way to demonstrate one's supposed moral superiority without accomplishing anything useful.

Amen

+10000

Ummm... actually it is spelled correctly.

Dogie = motherless calf

Thanks. I didn't know. And the irony is that I live in farm country, opposite a herd of Black Angus.

Here's where we differ.

American (and to a growing extent) European affluence has made it possible for people to live farther away from their jobs, travel greater distances on vacation and purchase products from many miles away, in part because of cars. To use a car for these things is not (necessarily) the choice of herds of mindless cattle, but a rational choice by people who can make their own decisions about their own quality of life. They are not chained and enslaved to their vehicles, but use them as a tool to live the lifestyle they want.

If you think the world would be a better place with fewer cars (something we agree on, in principle), then try to convince people to give them up, or try to convince your government to formulate more progressive policies. Belittling people by calling them stupid, mindless "cagers" is just a false way to demonstrate one's supposed moral superiority without accomplishing anything useful.

I think not, but that is my opinion. I have seen one too many person spend their last dollar trying to keep a car running because of poor choices they have made. I have also seen people become very irrational when something happens to their precious car.

Yes we need to work towards reduction of car use, and it will have to be a grassroots effort. The small town we have our retail shop in is in the process of "revitalizing" the down town area. I have been pushing for cycle friendly design and bike parking. We "may" get some racks, but it has to be determined. What is really stupid is that the town is small enough a car is all but unnecessary for in town transportation, but there are only 2 of us that ride on a normal basis, out of a population of 10,000.

Aaron:)

American (and to a growing extent) European affluence has made it possible for people to live farther away from their jobs, travel greater distances on vacation and purchase products from many miles away, in part because of cars. To use a car for these things is not (necessarily) the choice of herds of mindless cattle, but a rational choice by people who can make their own decisions about their own quality of life. They are not chained and enslaved to their vehicles, but use them as a tool to live the lifestyle they want.

I mean no disrespect to you, but that's just complete crap! Not saying it's not true, but it's certainly not an argument. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. These same folks who live way out on the exurban fringe are the same ones who react violently when gas prices rise a buck or so, expecting governments to subsidize their suburban living and suspend gas taxes, claiming that their kids won't eat this month. Who made that choice to live in the most newly-platted subdivision? Why didn't they think of the consequences of their choices? It's completely their fault. Furthermore, everyone else is paying the price for their choices, with wrecked cities, rising taxes to pay for mega-infrastructure that relates to all of the "necessary" suburban accouterments, and lost tax base to peripheral jurisdictions.

I made a far different choice. AT my price point, I could have bought just about anywhere in the metro area that I wanted to, even the really snooty places; but I didn't. I bought a house for half of what I qualified for in a revitalizing urban area that would allow me to walk to work, groceries and shopping. I actually made a SUSTAINABLE choice, far contrary to what most people are doing these days.

Your explanation is trite and meaningless. I learned that kind of stuff in my first semester of urban planning school. I've been a planner for awhile now, and the reasons why people move to exurbia seem more and more foreign to me every day. To me, this argument has nothing to do with bikes. Bikes are simply a byproduct of intelligent locational choices. They just make sense when you live within a couple miles of everything. The American suburban dream is dead as a doornail (I think I heard something about foreclosures and lack of new home building once...), and many of those people living out there now are going to be clawing to get out and buy up places like mine where people have been wise and invested in existing infrastructure, rather than treating entire cities as disposable items.

I mean no disrespect to you, but that's just complete crap! Not saying it's not true, but it's certainly not an argument. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. These same folks who live way out on the exurban fringe are the same ones who react violently when gas prices rise a buck or so, expecting governments to subsidize their suburban living and suspend gas taxes, claiming that their kids won't eat this month. Who made that choice to live in the most newly-platted subdivision? Why didn't they think of the consequences of their choices? It's completely their fault. Furthermore, everyone else is paying the price for their choices, with wrecked cities, rising taxes to pay for mega-infrastructure that relates to all of the "necessary" suburban accouterments, and lost tax base to peripheral jurisdictions.

I made a far different choice. AT my price point, I could have bought just about anywhere in the metro area that I wanted to, even the really snooty places; but I didn't. I bought a house for half of what I qualified for in a revitalizing urban area that would allow me to walk to work, groceries and shopping. I actually made a SUSTAINABLE choice, far contrary to what most people are doing these days.

Your explanation is trite and meaningless. I learned that kind of stuff in my first semester of urban planning school. I've been a planner for awhile now, and the reasons why people move to exurbia seem more and more foreign to me every day. To me, this argument has nothing to do with bikes. Bikes are simply a byproduct of intelligent locational choices. They just make sense when you live within a couple miles of everything. The American suburban dream is dead as a doornail (I think I heard something about foreclosures and lack of new home building once...), and many of those people living out there now are going to be clawing to get out and buy up places like mine where people have been wise and invested in existing infrastructure, rather than treating entire cities as disposable items.

You took a class once? Fantastic! That's top notch!

Did your class cover the part about people being trapped in their cars because they're too stupid to figure any of this out for themselves? Why do people move to the suburbs? Could it be cheaper home prices? Could it be lower crime? Could it be they like trees and the outdoors? Better schools? I don't know. The point is that having a car allows people to do what they want. It is a tool, a means to an end. Nevertheless, people routinely throw out the word "cager" as an epithet because someone else's choice doesn't coincide with their cause célèbre. Trite indeed.

You took a class once? Fantastic! That's top notch!

Did your class cover the part about people being trapped in their cars because they're too stupid to figure any of this out for themselves? Why do people move to the suburbs? Could it be cheaper home prices? Could it be lower crime? Could it be they like trees and the outdoors? Better schools? I don't know. The point is that having a car allows people to do what they want. It is a tool, a means to an end. Nevertheless, people routinely throw out the word "cager" as an epithet because someone else's choice doesn't coincide with their cause célèbre. Trite indeed.

Master's degree in urban planning, homes really aren't cheaper in the burbs, crime isn't bad here, we have plenty of parks.

Master's degree in urban planning, homes really aren't cheaper in the burbs, crime isn't bad here, we have plenty of parks.

But the schools?

Nå -- OK, I'll stop being a d***. I'm all for proper urban planning, or more accurately, I'm all for having drivers pay the full cost of their car use. If a politician came out in favor of "outrageously" high gas taxes to pay for infrastructure, instead of the paying for it out of the general fund, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat. Too bad you and I would be the only ones...maybe wahoonc would join us.

I suspect we agree (given the first paragraph of your earlier post) that if people had to pay for their choice -- as opposed to having others subsidize it for them -- things would be a lot different, probably for the better. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just saying that given the current landscape, owning and driving a vehicle, even over great distances, can be a rational means for someone who has other priorities.

Here's where we differ.

American (and to a growing extent) European affluence has made it possible for people to live farther away from their jobs, travel greater distances on vacation and purchase products from many miles away, in part because of cars. To use a car for these things is not (necessarily) the choice of herds of mindless cattle, but a rational choice by people who can make their own decisions about their own quality of life. They are not chained and enslaved to their vehicles, but use them as a tool to live the lifestyle they want.



Maybe in your part of the world. Here though, the choice whether to buy a car is NEVER made by people - only which one(s) to buy.

But the schools?

Nå -- OK, I'll stop being a d***. I'm all for proper urban planning, or more accurately, I'm all for having drivers pay the full cost of their car use. If a politician came out in favor of "outrageously" high gas taxes to pay for infrastructure, instead of the paying for it out of the general fund, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat. Too bad you and I would be the only ones...maybe wahoonc would join us.

I suspect we agree (given the first paragraph of your earlier post) that if people had to pay for their choice -- as opposed to having others subsidize it for them -- things would be a lot different, probably for the better. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just saying that given the current landscape, owning and driving a vehicle, even over great distances, can be a rational means for someone who has other priorities.

Ha, well we certainly would probably be some of the only ones to vote for such a measure, but it's always made so much sense to me. You know, I own a car. I wouldn't debate for a second that it's handy. I'd love to go completely car-free, but my job requires site visits all over the city, and often my petitioners are there at the site when I'm there. There's no way I could show up all sweaty, wearing my cycling clothes and expect any kind of credibility. I'll probably always own a car, but, given my location, it seems pretty silly to drive to places that are just beyond walking range. My real problem, like I said in the last post, is people moving out to these subdivisions at the edge of town and then complaining about gas prices and traffic, demanding that we subsidize their choices by widening roads and suspending gas taxes. It's just so crazy to me. If we had a society where the cost of driving-related infrastructure were all internalized by gas taxes, it would certainly make people think twice before they made those decisions. Furthermore, if there were less incentives to abandon the city in droves, things like schools and greenspace would be much better maintained and funded through maintained tax revenue. For the past fifty years, though, it's been a crazy cycle of feedback. Money leaves the city, erodes tax base, services decline, more money leaves, etc. etc., until all you're left with is cities like Detroit.

I'm interested, though, since you live in Europe, where do you similar incidents of sprawl in Europe and where do you not? What are the differences where it's happening and where it's not? Having visitied a few places in Europe, I would say that most of teh sprawl I saw was pretty high-density stuff that wouldn't cause nearly the problems it does here.

Maybe in your part of the world. Here though, the choice whether to buy a car is NEVER made by people - only which one(s) to buy.

I've read a lot of books on that subject, and there is definitely some truth to it. However, I think it has a lot more to do with unprecedented wealth going to an unprecedented number of people (especially when cities were far filthier than they are today) than it did with the car companies buying up the rails and killing service. I think most people who were alive back then would say that the cities were nasty places to live back then. With the current regulations on industry and the decline of the amount of industry, cities can be far more competitive from a cleanliness standpoint, even though combined sewer systems are still a huge problem in a lot of older cities.

The car companies, IMHO, certainly accelerated the decline, though.

I'm interested, though, since you live in Europe, where do you similar incidents of sprawl in Europe and where do you not? What are the differences where it's happening and where it's not? Having visitied a few places in Europe, I would say that most of teh sprawl I saw was pretty high-density stuff that wouldn't cause nearly the problems it does here.

I've only lived here a year and a half, so I cannot comment on historical aspects, but I can tell you about my little corner of the world. Odense is a city of 150-200,000 or so. It is very centralized, compared to American standards. There are a number of four to five story apartment buildings downtown, but most of the high density comes from row houses or houses with smallish yards.

The city is growing, but as you allude to, the growth is higher density than the McMansion forests of the US, and it is typically right on the edge of town, not five miles out. Most importantly, every population center has it's own grocery store, bakery, etc., so shopping is easy. I live pretty much on the outskirts, where housing is a bit cheaper, but I'm only 5km -- maybe 15 minutes -- by bike from the train station downtown (I can usually beat the bus, but I work up a sweat).

There are a growing number of bix box stores. I live a mile from Denmark's largest shopping mall, and the Bilka, which puts Super Walmart to shame, is just next door to it. Funny enough, though, there are inevitably as many bikes parked in the bike racks as there are cars in the parking lot.

From what I've seen of Copenhagen, it's pretty compact for a city of its size. A lot of people live in nearby towns (Roskilde, for example) and take the train in. In the mornings on TV the public service channel on TV shows the road situation; I don't know if I just get up too early, but I'm amazed at how few cars there are on the road.

I dunno' -- maybe I'm just looking at everything with a newlywed's googly eyes, but this city seems a lot more "livable" than what I'm used to in the US.

They are not chained and enslaved to their vehicles, but use them as a tool to live the lifestyle they want.

Maybe in Europe, but not in the US. The traffic has become unspeakably awful, the freeways sprawl across every state but mine, and paradise has been paved over. As the lyric's to Rush Limbaugh's theme song ironcially cry out, our pretty countryside has been paved down the middle by a government that has no pride. Way to go.

If you think the world would be a better place with fewer cars (something we agree on, in principle), then try to convince people to give them up, or try to convince your government to formulate more progressive policies. Belittling people by calling them stupid, mindless "cagers" is just a false way to demonstrate one's supposed moral superiority without accomplishing anything useful.

I suggested calling them prisoners, not cagers. And my hostility is generally directed towards the auto, not the drivers. Though SOME drivers are both astonishingly unskilled and rude.

As far as motivating people to get out of their cars, I doubt any amount of friendly persuasion will do it. The only thing that will work is raising the price of fuel so the costs vastly outweigh the benefits of living far away and driving around by yourself in a 2,000 lb. pile of steel. That's going to happen whether we want it to or not.

You took a class once? Fantastic! That's top notch!

Did your class cover the part about people being trapped in their cars because they're too stupid to figure any of this out for themselves? Why do people move to the suburbs? Could it be cheaper home prices? Could it be lower crime? Could it be they like trees and the outdoors? Better schools? I don't know. The point is that having a car allows people to do what they want. It is a tool, a means to an end. Nevertheless, people routinely throw out the word "cager" as an epithet because someone else's choice doesn't coincide with their cause célèbre. Trite indeed.

+ a billion!

You know, I own a car. I wouldn't debate for a second that it's handy. I'd love to go completely car-free, but my job requires site visits all over the city, and often my petitioners are there at the site when I'm there. There's no way I could show up all sweaty, wearing my cycling clothes and expect any kind of credibility. I'll probably always own a car, but, given my location, it seems pretty silly to drive to places that are just beyond walking range. My real problem, like I said in the last post, is people moving out to these subdivisions at the edge of town and then complaining about gas prices and traffic, demanding that we subsidize their choices by widening roads and suspending gas taxes. It's just so crazy to me.
Would it sound crazy to you if those subdivision people started pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who believes his choice not to show up sweaty to work is a valid reason to own and drive a car while all others must make the necessary changes in their life so that they don't own and drive a car.

So before you cast stones at those other guys why don't you change jobs and/or locations so that sweaty clothes are not an excuse for you to "require" a car?

Would it sound crazy to you if those subdivision people started pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who believes his choice not to show up sweaty to work is a valid reason to own and drive a car while all others must make the necessary changes in their life so that they don't own and drive a car.

So before you cast stones at those other guys why don't you change jobs and/or locations so that sweaty clothes are not an excuse for you to "require" a car?

Everyone can't just change jobs or places they live to do what they think is right. Some people can and that is great. I might have to bite the bullet soon because my bicycle commute is wearing thin. I love riding but soon the time will go up. Not to the point of my 5+ hour round trip commute I had from CT <-> NYC but 3+ hours. It would be 1 hour round trip by highway capable vehicle:( I have looked for years for a new job and I have been interviewed for exactly 1.. Which came with a heft 60% paycut. I could buy a decent brand new car every year for cash and just give it away and still be ahead. I could move but then my wife loses her job that she absolutely loves, which pays peanuts.

Someone who works in my building lives across the $@#*()$@# street!!! A 2 lane road.. They DRIVE to work everyday and have no excuse not to except the 200 yards walk is too long. They are very fit and they use the gym in their apartment complex. If I could I'd throw a freaken boulder at them if I could before someone who does what they can when they can in a job that actually might have a positive affect on us all.

Everyone can't just change jobs or places they live to do what they think is right. Some people can and that is great.
Oh, I agree with you 100%. It is the height of arrogance/provincialism that prompts some posters to seriously suggest that car free lifestyle can be easily accomplished by "simply" moving residence location and/or changing job position and that other considerations (such as schools, neighbors, and quality of life) are selfish or insignificant concerns.

Of course not everyone can just ditch the car. But that doesn't mean cars are a good thing or that we must refrain from speaking ill of them.

i'll ditch my truck that i need for work when the family down the road with two cars for every person (family of 9) stops using their cars to go to the corner store, three or four times a day.

Does anybody still believe that cars will be a practical form of everyday transit after the next 20 years or so?

It's getting to the point where the question is not, "Should people drive cars?" The question will soon become, "What in the hell are we going to replace cars with, and how will we make this change without totally trashing our economy and lifestyle?"

The arguments on this thread are basically moot already. We should be working on answers to the problems, not bashing each other over the head. Try to be constructive!

Does anybody still believe that cars will be a practical form of everyday transit after the next 20 years or so?

I would speculate that the majority of people believe that cars, in some form, will be around for the foreseeable future. They're just passing the time until technology creates a viable alternate fuel source for them. Maybe they're right... I have no idea.

I would speculate that the majority of people believe that cars, in some form, will be around for the foreseeable future. They're just passing the time until technology creates a viable alternate fuel source for them. Maybe they're right... I have no idea.

It is possible, although there's nothing in the pipeline right now. But consider that the first mass-produced cars were built in about 1905, and within 20 years cars had really taken over the transportation of the US. So anybody who says that they know what we'll be riding around in 20 years from now is talking out of his hat. (Although I'm pretty sure that I personally will still be riding around in a bicycle.) However, I think it's safe to say that internal combustion autos will be in the museums around that time, give or take a few years.

However, I think it's safe to say that internal combustion autos will be in the museums around that time, give or take a few years.

In twenty years, automobiles will be qualitatively the same as they are now. The only question is what they'll run on. I'd put money on combustible fuel, with a substantial percentage of stored electricity. Their use will be nearly as extensive as now.

That's the view in my crystal ball. Or maybe it's the crystal meth talking...

Maybe we should have a wager: if I'm right, I get one of your bikes. If you're right, and cars are obsolete, I'll give you a car. Sound fair?

Oh, I agree with you 100%. It is the height of arrogance/provincialism that prompts some posters to seriously suggest that car free lifestyle can be easily accomplished by "simply" moving residence location and/or changing job position and that other considerations (such as schools, neighbors, and quality of life) are selfish or insignificant concerns.

Meh. Whatever. They make the choices. They can deal with the consequences if gas gets to 10 bucks a gallon. That's all I was really saying. It's the height of arrogance for them to think that I should subsidize their lifestyle choices. I think that was my argument... that they should be charged the FULL cost of tehir lifestyle by taxing gas for 100% of all funds needed for infrastructure. How is that unfair or arrogant?

I think it would be interesting to see them put 100% of infrastructure costs on gas but I don't think it would change much except to really show to people how much it costs. From all the classes I've taken and things I've seen people wouldn't agree with the costs if it was too much or ignore it.

I think cyclists will still paying for the roads and infrastructure even if they charge full price on gas.
It'll trickle down for truck transportation for those of us who buy goods that are shipped by truck. Into telephone, internet any service really as the companies have to shell out more for their vehicles and any products they use. A raising of taxes to cover the prices for emergency services who need the road.

It MAY help in reducing car usage though which would be a good thing. If it costs $1 in gas now to pick up a package of rolls at the grocery store and that changes to $6 in gas some people might A) Wait until they need to get more stuff at the store or they are out anyways on other trips (kinda like my parents taught me) or B) Take their bike/scooter/??? instead. I wonder if that is the case in other countries besides the US where gas prices is really high?
I'd wonder if they would they'd actually lower property and income taxes enough to make up for it.

I think it would be interesting to see them put 100% of infrastructure costs on gas but I don't think it would change much except to really show to people how much it costs. From all the classes I've taken and things I've seen people wouldn't agree with the costs if it was too much or ignore it.

I think cyclists will still paying for the roads and infrastructure even if they charge full price on gas.
It'll trickle down for truck transportation for those of us who buy goods that are shipped by truck. Into telephone, internet any service really as the companies have to shell out more for their vehicles and any products they use. A raising of taxes to cover the prices for emergency services who need the road.

It MAY help in reducing car usage though which would be a good thing. If it costs $1 in gas now to pick up a package of rolls at the grocery store and that changes to $6 in gas some people might A) Wait until they need to get more stuff at the store or they are out anyways on other trips (kinda like my parents taught me) or B) Take their bike/scooter/??? instead. I wonder if that is the case in other countries besides the US where gas prices is really high?
I'd wonder if they would they'd actually lower property and income taxes enough to make up for it.

bingo. It is ALREADY trickling down to consumers here. I drive a big rig part time and we now charge a hefty fuel surcharge to the customers (commercial customers), who in turn have raised their rates to the consumers. In my other job (treeclimbing/cutting) everyone has also implemented a fuel surcharge to the bill.

bingo. It is ALREADY trickling down to consumers here. I drive a big rig part time and we now charge a hefty fuel surcharge to the customers (commercial customers), who in turn have raised their rates to the consumers. In my other job (treeclimbing/cutting) everyone has also implemented a fuel surcharge to the bill.

i imagine we'll see arguments back and forth pro and con on 'passing this on to consumers' and 'hurting the working man'... but, in the end there is no free energy - it has to come from somewhere, and in our current system this means someone goes and gets it, refines it, makes a tidy profit, and someone pays for it.

we have to decide what we are willing to pay for. many people feel that paying for a car, its insurance, maintenance, and fuel, combined with all the assorted costs of having to drive to fulfill life's needs is currently a value. at some point i hope this will flip - either when oil gets to be too expensive, the housing market crumbles, or people just get sick of sitting around in traffic... while companies can raise the cost of their services do to rising energy costs, the 'working man' just continues to take a cut in money that can be saved - when goods get more expensive due to shipping and transport, and the cost of driving to the store to purchase those goods goes up, and the cost of just getting to work goes up, the 'working man' loses 3 times over, and can't pass the cost on to anyone other than his savings account.


i do think it is funny when gov't or industry complains about rising fuel costs or taxes and makes the claim that they have to pass it on to the 'working man'... yet oil companies continue to reap record profits, profits gleaned from the 'working mans' lifestyle.

bingo. It is ALREADY trickling down to consumers here. I drive a big rig part time and we now charge a hefty fuel surcharge to the customers (commercial customers), who in turn have raised their rates to the consumers. In my other job (treeclimbing/cutting) everyone has also implemented a fuel surcharge to the bill.

I have even been seeing fuel surcharges on my rental equipment and crane bills:rolleyes: Sure makes it a ***** to estimate a project effectively.

Aaron:)

I have even been seeing fuel surcharges on my rental equipment and crane bills:rolleyes: Sure makes it a ***** to estimate a project effectively.

Aaron:)


we've been leaving those items NIC since about the time we decided to invade afghanistan. :eek:
used to be you could count on building materials and certain equipment to remain within reasonable price ranges... not anymore though, especially shipping and anything having to do with heavy equipment.

In twenty years, automobiles will be qualitatively the same as they are now. The only question is what they'll run on. I'd put money on combustible fuel, with a substantial percentage of stored electricity. Their use will be nearly as extensive as now.

That's the view in my crystal ball. Or maybe it's the crystal meth talking...

Like I said, I have no idea what kind of transport we'll have in 20 years. But right now, I don't see any replacement for the free ride we've had with fossil fuels. But it could happen, 1 in 5 chance maybe.


Maybe we should have a wager: if I'm right, I get one of your bikes. If you're right, and cars are obsolete, I'll give you a car. Sound fair?
No, not fair, cuz I don't want no stinkin car!!!!

Let's make it a bike for bike bet....

To charge to full price for gas, wouldn't you have to go way beyond paying for road pavement? Asthma from exhaust fumes alone is billions a year, right now. Damage to water quality and air quality causes tremendous loss of property value, right now. Who's paying for that?

Costs of gas might go up by an incredible amount if all the charges are collected in the near future. For example, R & D costs to invent alternatives to gasoline will be billions in the future, but this will be totally unavoidable. What if it also happens that we have to move millions of people to higher ground if the ice caps melt and raise sea levels--who will pay for that? How much should we be charging for a gallon of gas to cover all the bad stuff it will probably cause?

i do think it is funny when gov't or industry complains about rising fuel costs or taxes and makes the claim that they have to pass it on to the 'working man'... yet oil companies continue to reap record profits, profits gleaned from the 'working mans' lifestyle.

Law of supply and demand. As the commodity becomes scarce, the price goes up. Not because it has become more expensive to provide, but because those who control it can demand pretty much whatever they want to supply it. The only things that will bring the price down are an increase in supply (ain't gonna happen) or a decrease in demand (looking pretty unlikely too at this point in the USA).

Only those who can not pass the costs on to someone else will actually suffer. That would be the end user. You and me.

That's capitalism. That's the free market.

Great system huh.




Anyway, back on topic. I like the term Dogies, but then I like cagers too. Yes it is nonconstructive. That is why I only do it when I am venting about what some idiot did while on the road. It may dehumanize them but I do not think of them as cagers when I am riding. I think of them as human being who are 100% responsible for every single thing they do behind the wheel. Courteous? Thank you. Rude? Your fault. Distracted? YOUR FAULT! Distraction is no reason for hitting someone. They are driving a several-ton land missile. That's a catchy term for a car that more people should use. Might wake them up. There is nothing more important in their lives at that moment than paying attention to the road while driving. If they feel the need to think of, or do, anything other than pilot that vehicle then they need to find a place to stop and GET OUT.

I like it. Cattle sounds better. Dogs form packs and packs attack.

I like it. Cattle sounds better. Dogs form packs and packs attack.

Dogies, not doggies. Dogies are stray calfs. As in "git along little dogies."

So Ikea is only 20 miles up the freeway from our house - how would you get there on your (freedom!) bike?
It's doable.

Correction. Brian would prefer not to see so much hostility towards motorists in general.
Until motorists start behaving like normal people instead maniacs that won't happen.

Until motorists start behaving like normal people instead maniacs that won't happen.

That totally sucks that every single motorist behaves like a maniac. Even worse is the 88,000 of them that have created an account on the forums. I should ban them all until they learn to play nice.

That totally sucks that every single motorist behaves like a maniac. Even worse is the 88,000 of them that have created an account on the forums. I should ban them all until they learn to play nice.

Again, not trying to get rid of motorists. Just hoping that they'll show more social responsibility by

driving slower,
avoiding unnecessary car trips,
buying more efficient cars,
buying fewer cars,
supporting alternative transit, and
respecting non-motorized road users.

That's really not asking too much, considering the problems we're facing right now.

Again, not trying to get rid of motorists. Just hoping that they'll show more social responsibility by

driving slower,
avoiding unnecessary car trips,
buying more efficient cars,
buying fewer cars,
supporting alternative transit, and
respecting non-motorized road users.

That's really not asking too much, considering the problems we're facing right now.

I respect the speed limit, with the exception of freeways and the country roads we take on our motorcycle. My primary auto is one of the most fuel efficient vehicles available. Sadly, my motorcycle is probably one of the least efficient. My missus walks to the bus stop to get to work, but will probably drive when the snow starts. I have nothing but respect for fellow cyclists, with the exception of the fool going the wrong way with headphones on, or talking on the phone. But I still don't appreciate the way certain comments are directed at all motorists.

I respect the speed limit, with the exception of freeways and the country roads we take on our motorcycle. My primary auto is one of the most fuel efficient vehicles available. Sadly, my motorcycle is probably one of the least efficient. My missus walks to the bus stop to get to work, but will probably drive when the snow starts. I have nothing but respect for fellow cyclists, with the exception of the fool going the wrong way with headphones on, or talking on the phone. But I still don't appreciate the way certain comments are directed at all motorists.

Then clearly you're not a problem "motorist". But it's a BF tradition to rag on "motorists". They are attacked much more vehemently on the other forums than they are on LCF. Do you go to the other forums and stick up for "motorists"? No you do not, AFAIK. We are the only ones to be blessed with your pro-"motorist" message. Why is that?

BF view of "motorists", as reflected on the other forums: "Donut-eating cellphone-yakking soccer-mom JAM cager in a big SUV buzzed my pace line real close and yelled at us to get on the GD sidewalk. So I had to take off her side mirror with my U-lock but she deserved it! AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!"

BF view of "motorists", as reflected on LCF: "Cars stink and they're killing all the polar bears. So I got on my bike, which I always ride on the sidewalk, and loaded up my trailer with 500 pounds of local kumquats at the farmer's market. Those kumquats sure were expensive but with all the money I save on gas I could afford it, and I gave some away to the homeless carfree people who ride bikes."

Then clearly you're not a problem "motorist". But it's a BF tradition to rag on "motorists". They are attacked much more vehemently on the other forums than they are on LCF. Do you go to the other forums and stick up for "motorists"? No you do not, AFAIK. We are the only ones to be blessed with your pro-"motorist" message. Why is that?

BF view of "motorists", as reflected on the other forums: "Donut-eating cellphone-yakking soccer-mom JAM cager in a big SUV buzzed my pace line real close and yelled at us to get on the GD sidewalk. So I had to take off her side mirror with my U-lock but she deserved it! AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!"

BF view of "motorists", as reflected on LCF: "Cars stink and they're killing all the polar bears. So I got on my bike, which I always ride on the sidewalk, and loaded up my trailer with 500 pounds of local kumquats at the farmer's market. They were expensive but with all the money I save on gas I could afford it."

You have a point. Really. I suppose I'm too busy putting out fires between members in the rest of the forums to worry about them picking on motorists. Of course, in the rest of the forums, they are picking on their own. To your credit, (meaning the LCF regulars) I can't recall any reported posts out of here.

I quite enjoy lurking in LCF, but I don't like to see negativity anywhere on the forums. Except for troll-bashing. :D

Cheers,

Brian

Again, not trying to get rid of motorists.

Why not? Is it heretical to point out what horrible things autos have done to the nation and the planet? Do such suggestions anger the gods of Detroit? Why would anyone take such umbrage at the rantings of a few of us car free nuts if it wasn't a religious matter? If it's simply political, you can safely ignore us. BUt since cars are a key part of the American religion, we're not allowed to speak ill of them. It's OK if we "suggest some alternatives" while bowing towards the superiority of the auto. But to damn them? To curse the lords of speed and power? This is heresy.