Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Commuting
Reload this Page >

congestion charge triped

Notices
Commuting Bicycle commuting is easier than you think, before you know it, you'll be hooked. Learn the tips, hints, equipment, safety requirements for safely riding your bike to work.

congestion charge triped

Old 02-13-08, 02:13 AM
  #1  
craigdurkee
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
craigdurkee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 522

Bikes: gaint crx 2 2007

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
congestion charge triped

wohooooooooooooooooooo

https://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...760356392.html

Drivers of petrol-guzzling cars will have to pay £25 ($53) a day to enter central London, triple the current general congestion charge, the mayor said. The most fuel efficient vehicles will get a free ride.

Mayor Ken Livingstone - who introduced the daily congestion charge on trucks and cars entering central London in 2003 to cut traffic and pollution - said the change is primarily aimed at the big cars owned by people in wealthy parts of the capital such as Chelsea.

The mayor, who has the power to make the change without legislative approval, said it will go into effect on October 27.

"Nobody needs to damage the environment by driving a gas-guzzling 'Chelsea tractor' in central London. The CO2 emissions from the most high-powered 4x4s and sports cars can be up to four times as great as the least polluting cars," he said.

Cars that produce more than 225 grams of carbon emissions per kilometre will pay a £25 fee upon entering the centre of the capital during weekdays.

Cars that produce less than 120 grams of CO2 per kilometre will enter free of charge.

Livingstone said that 17 per cent of the cars that visit central London each day - or about 33,000 - will pay the £25, two per cent will go free, and the remaining 81 per cent will continue to pay today's £8 fee. Trucks will continue to pay £8.

London's congestion charge is widely credited with reducing traffic and changing commuting patterns for the better in the capital.

Officials from other large cities around the world have studied the plan or discussed imitating it.

For instance, on January 31, New York State's traffic commission voted to recommend that New York City charge drivers an $US8 ($9) daily fee to bring their cars into Manhattan below 60th Street. That would still require the approval the State Legislature.

Groups such as Greenpeace praised Livingstone's changes, but the business group London First called it "daft".

Sheila Rainger, acting director for the RAC Foundation, a charity that researches mobility and the environment, also said the new system "will do very little to cut CO2 in London".

"The real polluters are the old bangers kept on the road by motorists who can't afford to change them. This is gesture politics rather than a serious attempt to tackle London's air quality problems," she said.

Phil Popham, the managing director of Land Rover, said: "We believe it will have immediate costs for our business, but doubtful benefits from an environmental perspective."
craigdurkee is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 06:43 AM
  #2  
Orbital57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 72

Bikes: Condor Italia + Marin Muirwoods (which got me back into riding)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Firstly I would like to admit that I was partly wrong in the last C-Charge thread, I mentioned a coule of reports that suggest the C-Charge doesn't make money. Since then I have looked at the reports and the reason it 'doesn't make money' is that the writers charged both the original cost and the replacement cost of hardware to the 5 year period (basically charging set up costs twice).

I'm dubious about the benefits of this. Residents of the C-Charging zone get a 90% discount, people who drive a Porche Carrerra (one of the more popular Chelsea Tractors) will therefore only pay £2.50 max a day after discount. Hardly the huge incentive Ken would have people believe in given the petrol costs of driving one.

So, what does it do? The anti C-Charge press points out that the people who are hardest hit are poor people with large families, large family meaning large car, low income means older, less efficient car and a guarentee that these people can't afford a Prius (or to move into the Zone for the discount).

So, inevitable flame war coming up?

On a side note, I wish someone would find a way to get the nasty diesel vans off the roads, I've had enough oflungfulls of 1/2 burnt diesel.
Orbital57 is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 06:53 AM
  #3  
Orbital57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 72

Bikes: Condor Italia + Marin Muirwoods (which got me back into riding)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
For info -

Charging Rates are here -https://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/proj...aces/7411.aspx

Only 3 rates for car drivers (ignoring discounts) -

<120 g/km = free
121 - 225 g/km = £8 (same as now)
>226 g/km = £25 (also applies if your engine is >3,000 cc)

At least it's simpler than the original which I saw with 6-7 categories.

My only complaint is the > 3 litre engine bit. You could potentially have a hugely efficient modern engine and be charged the full price even though you pollute less than a higher emmission car, anyone care to explain how that's green?
Orbital57 is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 06:57 AM
  #4  
maddyfish
Senior Member
 
maddyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ky. and FL.
Posts: 3,944

Bikes: KHS steel SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by craigdurkee View Post
wohooooooooooooooooooo



.

"Nobody needs to damage the environment by driving a gas-guzzling 'Chelsea tractor' in central London. ."
That is a dangerous statement. When a governemental member is telling you what you need and don't need, that is dangerous. Now they may not need these big cars, but what's next that the government says they don't need?
maddyfish is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 07:52 AM
  #5  
jeff-o
Recumbent Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 2,991

Bikes: Rebel Cycles Trike, Trek 7500FX

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Change is hard. I applaud these measures to cut down on congestion and pollution!
jeff-o is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 08:11 AM
  #6  
Desert_Donkey
Senior Member
 
Desert_Donkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 68

Bikes: 2000 Diamondback X-Link

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The very idea of anyone in the government telling me what I "need" or am allowed to have is anathema to me. I can make informed decisions on my own, thanks very much, and I don't need some overpaid, underworked guv'mint drone sticking his nose into my business, well-meaning or not.
Desert_Donkey is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 08:39 AM
  #7  
eibeinaka
Senior Member
 
eibeinaka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 152

Bikes: Surly LHT

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The election for Mayor of London is in May. The voters of London are to be given a chance to remove Livingstone if they think this charge is outrageous. They won't. Nobody likes 4X4s being driven in urban settings in Britain;Not other motorists, not cyclists, not pedestrians. It just isn't necessary.

The Conservatives can make all the noise they want about it, it's not going to prevent Ken winning in May.
__________________
eibeinaka is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 08:51 AM
  #8  
ajmstilt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 123

Bikes: Public D8, Marin Hamilton 29er, (stolen: Trek 7.3, Electra Amsterdam)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Desert_Donkey View Post
The very idea of anyone in the government telling me what I "need" or am allowed to have is anathema to me. I can make informed decisions on my own, thanks very much, and I don't need some overpaid, underworked guv'mint drone sticking his nose into my business, well-meaning or not.
They're nto telling you you can't, just that you won't be as subsidised as everyone else.
ajmstilt is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 08:54 AM
  #9  
oboeguy
34x25 FTW!
 
oboeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,013

Bikes: Kona Jake, Scott CR1, Dahon SpeedPro

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Desert_Donkey View Post
The very idea of anyone in the government telling me what I "need" or am allowed to have is anathema to me. I can make informed decisions on my own, thanks very much, and I don't need some overpaid, underworked guv'mint drone sticking his nose into my business, well-meaning or not.
That's great... if you're the only person on Earth, but as long as you live in a "majority rules" state, you have to live with people telling you what's better for the "common good", no?

Anyway, I'm not sure I get this congestion pricing scheme. Suppose everyone moves to energy efficient cars, then what? Yes, pollution drops but "congestion" is no longer discouraged.
oboeguy is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 10:00 AM
  #10  
ItsJustMe
Seńior Member
 
ItsJustMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 13,749

Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
They're not really telling you what you can have. You can have the car. Heck, you can buy 100 Hummers. They're just telling you that they'd rather you not bring the stinkboxes into a highly congested area where other people have to breathe your fumes. The roads are provided for the public good, and this seems like a reasonable restriction on their use.
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
ItsJustMe is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 10:13 AM
  #11  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,691

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9988 Post(s)
Liked 2,117 Times in 1,458 Posts
Originally Posted by maddyfish View Post
That is a dangerous statement. When a governemental member is telling you what you need and don't need, that is dangerous. Now they may not need these big cars, but what's next that the government says they don't need?
Read all the qualifiers in that statement... it comes down to a vehicle and a location, not just the choice of vehicle.

Drive what you want... but don't do it in certain places... That latter part has always been part of the government mandate. You can't drive your 4WD on the hiking trails of the local wilderness park can you... It is restricted by "government."

No, the bottom line is that we really don't need to have motor vehicle access to every inch of the planet... especially if that vehicle is not suited to that environment.
genec is online now  
Old 02-13-08, 10:14 AM
  #12  
Kabir
Senior Member
 
Kabir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Posts: 144

Bikes: Downtube IXNS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by maddyfish View Post
That is a dangerous statement. When a governemental member is telling you what you need and don't need, that is dangerous. Now they may not need these big cars, but what's next that the government says they don't need?
I wouldn't mind to have a government telling me that I don't need cigarettes or addictive drugs, for example.
Kabir is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 10:16 AM
  #13  
Kabir
Senior Member
 
Kabir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Posts: 144

Bikes: Downtube IXNS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by oboeguy View Post
That's great... if you're the only person on Earth, but as long as you live in a "majority rules" state, you have to live with people telling you what's better for the "common good", no?

Anyway, I'm not sure I get this congestion pricing scheme. Suppose everyone moves to energy efficient cars, then what? Yes, pollution drops but "congestion" is no longer discouraged.
I don't mind to have a traffic jam filled with bicycles.
Kabir is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 10:23 AM
  #14  
cerewa
put our Heads Together
 
cerewa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: southeast pennsylvania
Posts: 3,155

Bikes: a mountain bike with a cargo box on the back and aero bars on the front. an old well-worn dahon folding bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I can make informed decisions on my own, thanks very much, and I don't need some overpaid, underworked guv'mint drone sticking his nose into my business, well-meaning or not.
So in other words, you feel that externalities* should be managed by the free market?
*(third-party effect; a consequence of an economic activity which affects other parties without this being reflected in market prices)
cerewa is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 10:33 AM
  #15  
Kabir
Senior Member
 
Kabir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Posts: 144

Bikes: Downtube IXNS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Desert_Donkey View Post
The very idea of anyone in the government telling me what I "need" or am allowed to have is anathema to me. I can make informed decisions on my own, thanks very much, and I don't need some overpaid, underworked guv'mint drone sticking his nose into my business, well-meaning or not.
Who "informs" you? Anyone but the government?
Kabir is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 11:09 AM
  #16  
Desert_Donkey
Senior Member
 
Desert_Donkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 68

Bikes: 2000 Diamondback X-Link

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
All I'm saying is that the government is best that governs the least.

Personally, I don't see much of a need for ridiculous vehicles such as Hummers and Yukons, especially if they are used as single-occupancy vehicles, but that's just me. I realize that people want large, ungainly and aggressive vehicles, and that's their right to have them.

If states and cities want to make rules governing traffic congestion, smoking and such, that's fine as long as the people living in said cities and states have a voice in making the decision. That's why we have council meetings open to the public, and why we should ALL be involved in this process.

The idea of big government passing down edicts from on high without any public input is pretty distasteful to me, and is destructive to the whole idea of representative government.
Desert_Donkey is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 11:20 AM
  #17  
mustang1
Senior Member
 
mustang1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,719

Bikes: 2006 road bike, 2012 cx bike, 2012 carbon rb, 2014 hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This hasn't actually been given the go-ahead has it? I thought it was just in the "this is what we want to do" phase.

THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN.

The government knows they can't get away with £25, in fact they dont even want £25. They probably only want around £15 but tell the media (who then print it everywhere and dumb-455 Brits take it on the chin with a smile) it'll be £25. Then when everyone has heard of this and complain, the govt then comes out with £15 charge, making out as if they're giving the public 'a good deal'.

The public are stupid to buy into this crap.

Someone save this post and re-post it closer to the time - IT WONT BE £25.

The congestion charge was supposed to be about reducing congestion, and not about environmental friendliness. This is a way for the government to extract more money from people who have nicer cars because they have a higher income and are more able to pay this stupid tax. The whole point of 80% tax on gasoline was to limit car usage.

IT'S PATHETIC - BUT QUITE FRANKLY THE BRITISH PUBLIC DESERVES IT FOR BEING SO DAMN STUPID.
mustang1 is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 11:23 AM
  #18  
mustang1
Senior Member
 
mustang1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,719

Bikes: 2006 road bike, 2012 cx bike, 2012 carbon rb, 2014 hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Desert_Donkey View Post
All I'm saying is that the government is best that governs the least.

Personally, I don't see much of a need for ridiculous vehicles such as Hummers and Yukons, especially if they are used as single-occupancy vehicles, but that's just me. I realize that people want large, ungainly and aggressive vehicles, and that's their right to have them.

If states and cities want to make rules governing traffic congestion, smoking and such, that's fine as long as the people living in said cities and states have a voice in making the decision. That's why we have council meetings open to the public, and why we should ALL be involved in this process.

The idea of big government passing down edicts from on high without any public input is pretty distasteful to me, and is destructive to the whole idea of representative government.
In my experience, these council meetings are usually held at a time thats inconvenient to pretty much everyone who has a loud enough voice to oppose what the govt is planning. What's the difference between the tirads (or whowever) using extortion tactics to 'protect' businesses and the government 'insisting' we pay tax?
mustang1 is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 11:26 AM
  #19  
banerjek
Portland Fred
 
banerjek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 11,548

Bikes: Custom Winter, Challenge Seiran SL, Fuji Team Pro, Cattrike Road/Velokit, РOS hybrid

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked 51 Times in 33 Posts
Originally Posted by Desert_Donkey View Post
All I'm saying is that the government is best that governs the least.
Damn straight. I'm appalled how many people take as given that the world should be filled with signs and lights interfering with the free flow of traffic. Add to that weight limits, safety requirements for construction, lights, etc. It's a police state!
banerjek is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 11:29 AM
  #20  
mustang1
Senior Member
 
mustang1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,719

Bikes: 2006 road bike, 2012 cx bike, 2012 carbon rb, 2014 hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
govt tampered with traffic signals

Oh and one more thing - before the congestion charge came out, the govt tampered with the phasing of traffic signals/lights to [I]increase[I] congestion (I know, I was right in the middle of it for many months prior to the charge being enforced) - then when the chrage came out, the traffic light signals phasing went back to optimal (and combined with the charge itself) the govt claimed reduced traffic levels.

Tossers - but I say again - BRIT PUBLIC DESERVES IT.
mustang1 is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 11:41 AM
  #21  
mustang1
Senior Member
 
mustang1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,719

Bikes: 2006 road bike, 2012 cx bike, 2012 carbon rb, 2014 hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
How will ppl get to work ?

So these people who have to eithe pay £25 or look for alternative transport, what alternative do you think they're gonna use? Bike? No. Trains. And you know how packed our trains in London get? Well put it this way, lamb who are on a truck off to get slaughtered have more space than that's found on trains.

And that's when the service is good*. But this is not the case, as the trains are so packed, someone ealways pulls the emeergency alarm coz theyre sick (coz the trains are packed) which then causes delays, meaning more people need to fight to get on the trains, and more people get pushed under the train, causing further delays.

good is a loose term here, the Brits dont know what good service is, good service means packed trains

And really, I'm not joking or exagerating. People fight to get on the trains. I was coming home with a friend yesterday evening and a woman was completely adamant that she would get into the train so packed, not even I could get on (and she was bigger than me). So a cat fight ensued much to amusement of onlookers (ie, other people who wanted to get on the train).

GOOD - BRIT PUBLIC DESERVES THIS CRAP SERVICE. YOU KNOW WHAT PEOPLE CALL US IN BRITAIN NOW? NOT GREAT BRITAIN but TINY BRITS.
mustang1 is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 11:44 AM
  #22  
acroy
Senior Member
 
acroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas Suburbpopolis
Posts: 1,480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The below says it all:

Originally Posted by craigdurkee View Post
Sheila Rainger, acting director for the RAC Foundation, a charity that researches mobility and the environment, also said the new system "will do very little to cut CO2 in London".

"The real polluters are the old bangers kept on the road by motorists who can't afford to change them. This is gesture politics rather than a serious attempt to tackle London's air quality problems," she said.

Phil Popham, the managing director of Land Rover, said: "We believe it will have immediate costs for our business, but doubtful benefits from an environmental perspective."


This "congestion charge" as a way to reduce emissions is is pure political posturing bullcrap. "soak it to the rich!"

If you actually want to reduce emissions, go after the big emitters: old clonkers. One of the most cost-effective ways to reduce traffic emissions is to buy the old clonker for a couple grand and crush it. IUmmediate effect, very cheap compared to other schemes.

Cheers
acroy is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 11:44 AM
  #23  
mustang1
Senior Member
 
mustang1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,719

Bikes: 2006 road bike, 2012 cx bike, 2012 carbon rb, 2014 hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by banerjek View Post
Damn straight. I'm appalled how many people take as given that the world should be filled with signs and lights interfering with the free flow of traffic. Add to that weight limits, safety requirements for construction, lights, etc. It's a police state!
Straight up. I was on the norht circular road the other day and was stopped at traffic lights at a cross roads. Just a simple cross road. You know how many traffic lights I counted? TWENTY. TWENTY FRIGGIN traffic lights and numerous signs all over the place it's ridiculours. In America a junction would have 4 sets of traffic lights for a similar crossroad.

GOOD GOOD YOU ALL DESERVE IT.

ARGH. you see, this is why I dont watch news on tv any more, or read the paper, or take in any 'mainstream' news fomr the internet. I hate it.

Ok I wont post any more now.
mustang1 is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 12:32 PM
  #24  
Abneycat
Hooligan
 
Abneycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Base of the Rocky Mountains, Canada. Wonderous things!
Posts: 1,431

Bikes: 2010 Cannondale Hooligan 3

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by acroy View Post
The below says it all:



This "congestion charge" as a way to reduce emissions is is pure political posturing bullcrap. "soak it to the rich!"

If you actually want to reduce emissions, go after the big emitters: old clonkers. One of the most cost-effective ways to reduce traffic emissions is to buy the old clonker for a couple grand and crush it. IUmmediate effect, very cheap compared to other schemes.

Cheers
Take the money from the congestion charge and use it to fuel a new incentive for low income families to have their vehicles fitted with better air filters and the like?
Abneycat is offline  
Old 02-13-08, 01:01 PM
  #25  
bigbenaugust 
always rides with luggage
 
bigbenaugust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KIGX
Posts: 2,109

Bikes: 2007 Trek SU100, 2009 Fantom CX, 2012 Fantom Cross Uno, Bakfiets

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 273 Post(s)
Liked 17 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Desert_Donkey View Post
All I'm saying is that the government is best that governs the least.
Then what are you (and I, for that matter) doing in the US anymore? We should go to one of those countries without a functioning government at all... Somalia and portions of the DRC come to mind.
__________________
--Ben
2006 Trek SU100, 2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno, and a Bakfiets
Previously: 2000 Trek 4500 (2000-2003), 2003 Novara Randonee (2003-2006), 2003 Giant Rainier (2003-2008), 2005 Xootr Swift (2005-2007), 2007 Nashbar 1x9 (2007-2011), 2011 Windsor Shetland (2011-2014), 2008 Citizen Folder (2015)
Non-Bike hardware: MX Linux / BunsenLabs Linux / Raspbian / Mac OS 10.6 / Android 7
bigbenaugust is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.