"Ticket" to give to harrasing drivers

Robert,

You're assuming the driver can read.

But seriously, you are better off avoiding all interactions,
whatsoever
(IMO). Generally, when someone gets inexplicably angry with
me, I simply smile, wave, mumble something like, 'dumb
<expletive>,' to myself, and continue merrilly on my
way. This leaves the drivers confused, and me in a
happier mood. A consummation devoutly to be wished.

I have never successfully told anyone that their driving is
dangerous and inadequate. The survey that said that 80% of
drivers think they are above average sums it up nicely. The
few individuals who think they don't drive well are, quite
possibly, the only ones who might listen to some calm,
helpful advice (though the odds are that they still feel
defensive about
IN).

Rick

"Robert Haston" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

After seriously getting into it with a driver who decided
to yell at me to get on the sidewalk and reinforce his
opinion with a close pass, I

figured

Quoted message said:

I thought of an alternative to shouting at each other. I
would just hand them a notice:

So you think you're doing society a favor by harassing a
cyclist:

1. You are wrong: According to Florida state statutes,
cyclists have the right to use all roads except
interstate highways or similar access roads. This is
because forcing cyclists to use adjacent paths is
often more dangerous due to crossing traffic and poor
visibility problems.

2. It is illegal. Playing vigilante (especially when you
are wrong) and starting or escalating an altercation
can result in assault charges. Menacing a person with
your car can get you convicted of assault with a
deadly weapon.

If you feel like being a vigilante, I might suggest you
focus your

intention

Quoted message said:

on drivers, who kill several thousand pedestrians and
cyclists each year, not cyclists who pose no real threat
to anyone else.

As to the popular myth that cyclists don't pay for roads:
All local roads (along with police, fire rescue, runoff
control, crossing guards, and

other

Quoted message said:

services) are paid for by property taxes. This combined
with other subsidies such as "free" parking, oil defense,
and other subsidies are several times greater than the
few hundred dollars drivers pay in gasoline taxes and
license fees.

The interesting ending to the story was the guy and I were
going the same way for about a mile after the altercation
- a mile of roads with zero sidewalks - a mile of me
staying right behind him on the 25 MPH streets. Boy, I was
sure impeding his progress.

--
Robert Haston Satellite Beach, FL

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert Haston said:

2. It is illegal. Playing vigilante (especially when you
are wrong) and starting or escalating an altercation
can result in assault charges. Menacing a person with
your car can get you convicted of assault with a deadly
weapon.

Can you find any instance of this ever happening?

Robert Haston said:

Quoted message said:

Menacing a person with your car can get you convicted of
assault with a deadly weapon.

Trent Piepho said:

Can you find any instance of this ever happening?

To somebody who aimed a car at a civilian cyclist? I don't
know of any.

To somebody who aimed a car at a pedestrian law enforcement
officer? Yes, the courts protect those people against
deadly violence.

Mitch.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Robert

Haston said:

After seriously getting into it with a driver who decided
to yell at me to get on the sidewalk and reinforce his
opinion with a close pass, I figured I thought of an
alternative to shouting at each other. I would just hand
them a notice:

Ah, if only they weren't driving something that can go
faster than me...

Quoted message said:

So you think you're doing society a favor by harassing a
cyclist:

1. You are wrong: According to Florida state statutes,
cyclists have the right to use all roads except
interstate highways or similar access roads. This is
because forcing cyclists to use adjacent paths is
often more dangerous due to crossing traffic and poor
visibility problems.

Of course, I'd change that to "New York," but...

Quoted message said:

2. It is illegal. Playing vigilante (especially when you
are wrong) and starting or escalating an altercation
can result in assault charges. Menacing a person with
your car can get you convicted of assault with a
deadly weapon.

Whether or not it's ever happened with a cyclist as victim,
I say there's a first time for everything. Right on!

Quoted message said:

If you feel like being a vigilante, I might suggest you
focus your intention on drivers, who kill several thousand
pedestrians and cyclists each year, not cyclists who pose
no real threat to anyone else.

I wouldn't go that far--at least I wouldn't say NO cyclists
pose a threat to anyone else. Some do--the ones who don't
follow the rules and ride recklessly. However, I would point
out that it's wrong to focus one's anger on a cyclist who is
doing no wrong, but merely inconveniencing one by forcing
one to share the road, which is not all thine.

Quoted message said:

As to the popular myth that cyclists don't pay for roads:
All local roads (along with police, fire rescue, runoff
control, crossing guards, and other services) are paid for
by property taxes. This combined with other subsidies such
as "free" parking, oil defense, and other subsidies are
several times greater than the few hundred dollars drivers
pay in gasoline taxes and license fees.

I'm curious: what about other taxes? I don't own property
myself. Then again, I do pay rent, which can be construed as
helping my landlord indirectly to pay his property tax.

Quoted message said:

The interesting ending to the story was the guy and I were
going the same way for about a mile after the altercation
- a mile of roads with zero sidewalks - a mile of me
staying right behind him on the 25 MPH streets. Boy, I was
sure impeding his progress.

What a dork. Typical, though. These kinds of guys don't
even want to share the road with other motor vehicles--so
when they see a bicycle, they really fly off the handle.
They think the most they can do to get back at a fellow
motorist is criticize the driving, but when they see a
cyclist, they think "Get off the !@$#!@! road!" is an
appropriate response.

Unfortunately, I fear Rick is correct, in that engaging with
these jerks one-on-one is usually a losing proposition. Kind
of like trying to teach a pig to sing--all it does is prove
futile and annoy the pig. What he's saying is that when it's
a cyclist vs. a motorist, the pig in question is a boar with
big tusks--and usually, it's the boar with the big tusks who
has the advantage in that fight.
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight.
It's like a Joan Crawford movie."

On Sun, 02 May 2004 03:02:47 GMT, "Rick" <[email hidden]>
mumbled incoherently:

Quoted message said:

You're assuming the driver can read.

But seriously, you are better off avoiding all
interactions, whatsoever
(IMO). Generally, when someone gets inexplicably angry with
me, I simply smile, wave, mumble something like, 'dumb
<expletive>,' to myself, and continue merrilly on my
way. This leaves the drivers confused, and me in a
happier mood. A consummation devoutly to be wished.

I have been doing just that for over twelve years.
And it works very well.

Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department
___________________________________
email: geocities.comemail.htmOpen ↗

"It should be the policy of the United States to support ef-
forts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime,"
-- 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)
signed by Bill Clinton

Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
R: Telling your parents you’re gay.

spammers can send mail to [email hidden]

On 2 May 2004 01:27:14 -0700, [email hidden] (Trent
Piepho) mumbled incoherently:

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Haston said:

2. It is illegal. Playing vigilante (especially when you
are wrong) and starting or escalating an altercation
can result in assault charges. Menacing a person with
your car can get you convicted of assault with a
deadly weapon.

Can you find any instance of this ever happening?

I was at the scene when it did happen. I was not on
a bike, but was running in a 5k race. With me was my
precinct commanding officer, deputy commanding
officer and their wives - all off-duty cops and
members of our departments running club. All roads
had been closed for the hour or so we would be
racing, but a certain doctor could not wait. He
pulled out of his driveway, brushing his fender on
the DCO's wife, who is also a police officer. We ran
faster to try to catch up to him, and found that his
way was blocked by a solid wall of runners. He was
pulled out of his car and subdued. We were out of
our jurisdiction, but spotted a uniform who wasn't.
We told him what happened and he locked the snarling
[censored] up. Since the on-duty officer did not
witness the crime, the DCO's wife had to press
charges, thereby missing the end of the race. Ya had
to be there to appreciate it and hear the applause
we got by passing runners. Another reason I enjoyed
being a cop.

Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department
___________________________________
email: geocities.comemail.htmOpen ↗

"It should be the policy of the United States to support ef-
forts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime,"
-- 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)
signed by Bill Clinton

Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
R: Telling your parents you’re gay.

spammers can send mail to [email hidden]

"Trudi Marrapodi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Robert Haston" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After seriously getting into it with a driver who
decided to yell at me

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get on the sidewalk and reinforce his opinion with a
close pass, I

figured

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought of an alternative to shouting at each other. I
would just

hand

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them a notice:

Ah, if only they weren't driving something that can go
faster than me...

He stopped for me after I said "THANKS A$$H0L#!" In the
past, I have wound up aside the perp at the next stop. I
just thought it would be nice to have something to offer. Or
if they clam up and pretend I'm not there, I could stick it
under thier wiper.

Just to clarify, I said cyclists pose no real threat to
others, not cyclists pose no threat.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As to the popular myth that cyclists don't pay for
roads: All local

roads

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(along with police, fire rescue, runoff control,
crossing guards, and

other

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

services) are paid for by property taxes. This combined
with other subsidies such as "free" parking, oil
defense, and other subsidies are several times greater
than the few hundred dollars drivers pay in

gasoline

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

taxes and license fees.

I'm curious: what about other taxes? I don't own property
myself. Then again, I do pay rent, which can be construed
as helping my landlord indirectly to pay his property tax.

How about: every road, parking lot, light, traffic cop, etc.
on every military, federal, state, and local government
installation? Gas taxes don't pay for those. How about
several dozen billion a year in health insurance covering
auto accident injuries? How about pollution? How many lost
days due to pollution aggravated asthma or bronchitis, or
all the damage to structures, agriculture, and fisheries due
to acid rain?

In article <[email hidden]>, "Robert

Haston said:

"Trudi Marrapodi" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:trudee-0205041404430001@cci-
209150248193.clarityconnect.net...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Robert Haston" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After seriously getting into it with a driver who
decided to yell at me

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get on the sidewalk and reinforce his opinion with a
close pass, I

figured

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought of an alternative to shouting at each other.
I would just

hand

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them a notice:

Ah, if only they weren't driving something that can go
faster than me...

He stopped for me after I said "THANKS A$$H0L#!" In the
past, I have wound up aside the perp at the next stop. I
just thought it would be nice to have something to offer.
Or if they clam up and pretend I'm not there, I could
stick it under thier wiper.

It's often true that these guys who feel that you are
slowing them so terribly down are, if you get out of the
way, only going to only make it to the next red light faster
than you do. (Yet another reason they're being so stupid.)

Quoted message said:

Just to clarify, I said cyclists pose no real threat to
others, not cyclists pose no threat.

OK.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As to the popular myth that cyclists don't pay for
roads: All local

roads

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(along with police, fire rescue, runoff control,
crossing guards, and

other

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

services) are paid for by property taxes. This
combined with other subsidies such as "free" parking,
oil defense, and other subsidies are several times
greater than the few hundred dollars drivers pay in

gasoline

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

taxes and license fees.

I'm curious: what about other taxes? I don't own
property myself. Then again, I do pay rent, which can be
construed as helping my landlord indirectly to pay his
property tax.

How about: every road, parking lot, light, traffic cop,
etc. on every military, federal, state, and local
government installation? Gas taxes don't pay for those.
How about several dozen billion a year in health insurance
covering auto accident injuries? How about pollution? How
many lost days due to pollution aggravated asthma or
bronchitis, or all the damage to structures, agriculture,
and fisheries due to acid rain?

Very good points. I will remember them the next time someone
tries to imply, in off-road coversation, that cyclists don't
really subsidize the roadways unless they also drive and pay
gasoline taxes or drivers' license fees.

As for me, I'd gladly apply for and buy a bike license...if
it would: a) get these idiots who act as if I don't belong
on the road to shut up, and
b) force those who want to ride a bicycle to obtain one,
hence forcing them to subject themselves to "cyclist ed"
training that would teach them about riding on the
correct side of the road, signaling, stopping for lights,
using the left turn lanes, lighting themselves up at
night, not weaving onto and off the sidewalk from the
road just to skip the parked cars alongside parts of it,
not weaving in and out of traffic, not riding on the
sidewalk and buzzing me when I'm walking on it, etc.
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight.
It's like a Joan Crawford movie."

I agree about buying a bike license for education purposes,
and because it would be cheap and a good symbolic gesture.

But the real problem is thousands a year per auto in
subsidies. These are definitely punitive to cyclists as they
directly threaten our lives by raising the amount of heavy
machinery we must operate amongst.

Removing subsidies would save most drivers, as once the true
costs were up front, they would seek alternatives to reduce
driving. For example, a driver figures he can save $1000 a
year in subsidies if he carpools. He then saves $2000 a year
in auto costs.

This would apply across the board. With more people using
mass transit, transit subsidies can be reduced.

With more and more people using fewer vehicles (especially
during rush hour) the demand for more road space stops.
Money going towards more roads goes towards stopping our
growing "roads and bridges debt" - trillions in
maintenance delayed.

Imagine combining cycling, car pooling, telecommuting, car
sharing (neighborhood rental) and transit hubs. You ride
your bike to the transit hub (convenience store, coffee
house, newspaper stand, gym, day care, etc.) then four of
your co-workers pull up in a mini van. You log into your
job and start making money while commuting. You once spent
8 hours a week driving to work, plus 8 hours working to
drive. Now the money you once paid in subsidies pays for
the few thousand miles a year you now drive. After coming
home, you want to go out. The same vehicles people used for
carpooling are at the transit hub and other neighborhood
locations. For 40 cents a mile and a dollar an hour, you
can rent whatever you want.

"Trudi Marrapodi" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:trudee-0205042140110001@icstudent-
209150244107.clarityconnect.net...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Haston said:

Quoted message said:

I'm curious: what about other taxes? I don't own
property myself. Then again, I do pay rent, which can
be construed as helping my landlord indirectly to pay
his property tax.

How about: every road, parking lot, light, traffic cop,
etc. on every military, federal, state, and local
government installation? Gas taxes don't pay for those.
How about several dozen billion a year in health
insurance covering auto accident injuries? How about
pollution? How

many

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lost days due to pollution aggravated asthma or
bronchitis, or all the damage to structures,
agriculture, and fisheries due to acid rain?

Very good points. I will remember them the next time
someone tries to imply, in off-road coversation, that
cyclists don't really subsidize the roadways unless
they also drive and pay gasoline taxes or drivers'
license fees.

As for me, I'd gladly apply for and buy a bike
license...if it would: a) get these idiots who act as if I
don't belong on the road to shut up, and
b) force those who want to ride a bicycle to obtain one,
hence forcing them to subject themselves to "cyclist
ed" training that would teach them about riding on the
correct side of the road, signaling, stopping for
lights, using the left turn lanes, lighting themselves
up at night, not weaving onto and off the sidewalk
from the road just to skip the parked cars alongside
parts of it, not weaving in and out of traffic, not
riding on the sidewalk and buzzing me when I'm walking
on it, etc.
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight.
It's like a Joan

Crawford movie."

In article <[email hidden]>, "Robert

Haston said:

I agree about buying a bike license for education
purposes, and because it would be cheap and a good
symbolic gesture.

But the real problem is thousands a year per auto in
subsidies. These are definitely punitive to cyclists as
they directly threaten our lives by raising the amount of
heavy machinery we must operate amongst.

Removing subsidies would save most drivers, as once the
true costs were up front, they would seek alternatives to
reduce driving. For example, a driver figures he can save
$1000 a year in subsidies if he carpools. He then saves
$2000 a year in auto costs.

This would apply across the board. With more people using
mass transit, transit subsidies can be reduced.

How do you figure that? Because they can make more money
from passengers than in subsidies? I would hope so, but...

Quoted message said:

With more and more people using fewer vehicles (especially
during rush hour) the demand for more road space stops.
Money going towards more roads goes towards stopping our
growing "roads and bridges debt" - trillions in
maintenance delayed.

It'd be nice...if it turned out to be true.

Quoted message said:

Imagine combining cycling, car pooling, telecommuting, car
sharing (neighborhood rental) and transit hubs. You ride
your bike to the transit hub (convenience store, coffee
house, newspaper stand, gym, day care, etc.) then four of
your co-workers pull up in a mini van. You log into your
job and start making money while commuting. You once spent
8 hours a week driving to work, plus 8 hours working to
drive. Now the money you once paid in subsidies pays for
the few thousand miles a year you now drive. After coming
home, you want to go out. The same vehicles people used
for carpooling are at the transit hub and other
neighborhood locations. For 40 cents a mile and a dollar
an hour, you can rent whatever you want.

Some of this sounds great, but some of it will never happen.
For example, not everyone can, or wants to, telecommute. It
would be nice if more people who wanted to could, though.

But the biggest mental block you are going to have is in
persuading America, a country of individualists, to give up
driving to work in its own private car and taking a minivan
with three coworkers it may not even like. In a big city
where a lot of people do it more or less by necessity and
culture, yes. In smaller cities and towns, no way. You will
take away their right to drive their own cars to work when
you pry their cold dead hands off the wheel.
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight.
It's like a Joan Crawford movie."

"Trudi Marrapodi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Haston said:

I agree about buying a bike license for education
purposes, and because

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would be cheap and a good symbolic gesture.

But the real problem is thousands a year per auto in
subsidies. These

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

definitely punitive to cyclists as they directly
threaten our lives by raising the amount of heavy
machinery we must operate amongst.

Removing subsidies would save most drivers, as once the
true costs were

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

front, they would seek alternatives to reduce driving.
For example, a driver figures he can save $1000 a year
in subsidies if he carpools. He then saves $2000 a year
in auto costs.

This would apply across the board. With more people
using mass transit, transit subsidies can be reduced.

How do you figure that? Because they can make more money
from passengers than in subsidies? I would hope so, but...

First because most busses run at way under capacity. Add
more people, and you can cut subsidies. Also because once
you charge drivers the true cost, you can raise bus fairs to
closer to the true cost. Imagine (due to elimiantion of
massive urban auto subsidies) someone who takes advantage of
a car pool / rental club and sells off her car. She wants to
go shopping. She can pay a dollar an hour and 40 cents a
mile for a rental, and 20-40 cents a mile to rent a share of
the road, and another buck or two for parking. She can say
screw it and shop later or on line, she can take the bus for
about 3 bucks each way (taking her bike to get around at her
destination) or she (like many people in such a society) can
plan to have a "day out" with a friend or two, saving her 50
or 66% and making it nearly as cheap as the bus.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Imagine combining cycling, car pooling, telecommuting,
car sharing (neighborhood rental) and transit hubs. You
ride your bike to the

transit

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hub (convenience store, coffee house, newspaper stand,
gym, day care,

etc.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then four of your co-workers pull up in a mini van. You
log into your

job

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and start making money while commuting. You once spent 8
hours a week driving to work, plus 8 hours working to
drive. Now the money you once

paid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in subsidies pays for the few thousand miles a year you
now drive.

After

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

coming home, you want to go out. The same vehicles
people used for carpooling are at the transit hub and
other neighborhood locations. For

40

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cents a mile and a dollar an hour, you can rent whatever
you want.

Some of this sounds great, but some of it will never
happen. For example, not everyone can, or wants to,
telecommute. It would be nice if more people who wanted to
could, though.

Sure, manual laborers won't benefit by tele-commuting. But
consider how much of their (and everyone's) free time is
sedentary. Even the simple act of reading the paper on a bus
is a good example. Imagine someone riding a stationary bike
on a train - weird - but better sense than driving to work,
then the gym.

Quoted message said:

But the biggest mental block you are going to have is in
persuading America, a country of individualists, to give
up driving to work in its own private car and taking a
minivan with three coworkers it may not even like. In a
big city where a lot of people do it more or less by
necessity and culture, yes. In smaller cities and towns,
no way. You will take away their right to drive their
own cars to work when you pry their cold dead hands off
the wheel.

The point isn't trying to persuade anyone. The real first
step is giving people the opportunity to avoid all
persuading going on on TV by auto advertisers (who really
decide what the news media says about things liek tele-
commuting or the farsical "hydrogen future"😉 All pay
television would stop the brainwashing going on.

The big joke is the world's largest socialist program is
covered by the guise of "American Individualism" How
psychotic. We like to act like individualists, so we
socialize the costs of driving to the tune of 10% of our GNP
to keep it expanding. This is Stalinist reshaping of our
society under the guise of individualism, complete with
dozens of billions in auto-propaganda a year, de-facto
ownership of the news media (and the choice of TV programs)
by the advertisers, our capitol controlled by the lobbyists
who run it all. They have achieved near total hegemony, with
peopel across the land right now voting to increase sales
taxes to build roads - in other words trying to solve
congestion by jacking up driving subsidies another notch.

I'm about 80 pages along on a book about why and how we need
to switch to ad-free TV. I did this because I realized it
was pointless to write a book about transportation inside a
brainwashed society. Not that the first book will change the
world, but you first have to see how screwed up America's
world view is.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Robert

Haston said:

"Trudi Marrapodi" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:trudee-0405042252520001@cci-
209150248100.clarityconnect.net...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Haston said:

I agree about buying a bike license for education
purposes, and because

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would be cheap and a good symbolic gesture.

But the real problem is thousands a year per auto in
subsidies. These

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

definitely punitive to cyclists as they directly
threaten our lives by raising the amount of heavy
machinery we must operate amongst.

Removing subsidies would save most drivers, as once
the true costs were

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

front, they would seek alternatives to reduce driving.
For example, a driver figures he can save $1000 a year
in subsidies if he carpools. He then saves $2000 a
year in auto costs.

This would apply across the board. With more people
using mass transit, transit subsidies can be reduced.

How do you figure that? Because they can make more money
from passengers than in subsidies? I would hope so,
but...

First because most busses run at way under capacity. Add
more people, and you can cut subsidies.

But how do you do that? By telling people they don't have to
pay subsidies if they take the bus? Is that enough, really?

Quoted message said:

Also because once you charge drivers the true cost, you
can raise bus fairs to closer to the true cost.

Raise them? Not sure I like the sound of that.

Quoted message said:

Imagine (due to elimiantion of massive urban auto
subsidies) someone who takes advantage of a car pool /
rental club and sells off her car. She wants to go
shopping. She can pay a dollar an hour and 40 cents a mile
for a rental, and 20-40 cents a mile to rent a share of
the road, and another buck or two for parking. She can say
screw it and shop later or on line, she can take the bus
for about 3 bucks each way (taking her bike to get around
at her destination) or she (like many people in such a
society) can plan to have a "day out" with a friend or
two, saving her 50 or 66% and making it nearly as cheap as
the bus.

And you know what? I think that sounds great, but most
people would absolutely shudder at the idea. Not be able to
hop in that car parked in the drive and go anywhere they
please at a moment's notice? Horrors!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Imagine combining cycling, car pooling, telecommuting,
car sharing (neighborhood rental) and transit hubs.
You ride your bike to the

transit

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hub (convenience store, coffee house, newspaper stand,
gym, day care,

etc.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then four of your co-workers pull up in a mini van.
You log into your

job

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and start making money while commuting. You once spent
8 hours a week driving to work, plus 8 hours working
to drive. Now the money you once

paid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in subsidies pays for the few thousand miles a year
you now drive.

After

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

coming home, you want to go out. The same vehicles
people used for carpooling are at the transit hub and
other neighborhood locations. For

40

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cents a mile and a dollar an hour, you can rent
whatever you want.

Some of this sounds great, but some of it will never
happen. For example, not everyone can, or wants to,
telecommute. It would be nice if more people who wanted
to could, though.

Sure, manual laborers won't benefit by tele-commuting. But
consider how much of their (and everyone's) free time is
sedentary. Even the simple act of reading the paper on a
bus is a good example. Imagine someone riding a stationary
bike on a train - weird - but better sense than driving to
work, then the gym.

Oh, I think commuting without driving is great. You can
actually do things like put on makeup without being a danger
to yourself and others. ;-)

And there are other workers who really benefit from being
in a work place every day. I for one am one of them. I feel
isolated and unmotivated when alone. Telecommuting wouldn't
work for me psychologically. I need to be around people
when I work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But the biggest mental block you are going to have is in
persuading America, a country of individualists, to give
up driving to work in its own private car and taking a
minivan with three coworkers it may not even like. In a
big city where a lot of people do it more or less by
necessity and culture, yes. In smaller cities and towns,
no way. You will take away their right to drive their
own cars to work when you pry their cold dead hands off
the wheel.

The point isn't trying to persuade anyone. The real first
step is giving people the opportunity to avoid all
persuading going on on TV by auto advertisers (who really
decide what the news media says about things liek tele-
commuting or the farsical "hydrogen future"😉 All pay
television would stop the brainwashing going on.

And when are you going to get that to happen? (Then
again, given what a cable bill costs, don't we already
have "pay TV"?)

Quoted message said:

The big joke is the world's largest socialist program is
covered by the guise of "American Individualism" How
psychotic. We like to act like individualists, so we
socialize the costs of driving to the tune of 10% of our
GNP to keep it expanding. This is Stalinist reshaping of
our society under the guise of individualism, complete
with dozens of billions in auto-propaganda a year, de-
facto ownership of the news media (and the choice of TV
programs) by the advertisers, our capitol controlled by
the lobbyists who run it all. They have achieved near
total hegemony, with peopel across the land right now
voting to increase sales taxes to build roads - in other
words trying to solve congestion by jacking up driving
subsidies another notch.

You can talk about it that way, but I wouldn't call it
Stalinist. If anything, it's capitalism at its worst...sell
people on the idea that the only way to show your
individualism is to BUY something that displays it.

Quoted message said:

I'm about 80 pages along on a book about why and how we
need to switch to ad-free TV. I did this because I
realized it was pointless to write a book about
transportation inside a brainwashed society.

If people are brainwashed by ads, it's their own fault. Not
that I wouldn't like to see advertising change, especially
the execrably bad stuff. But really, one's brain does not
need to be beholden to anyone else. Even children are
capable of being taught to see through ads. Trouble is, they
are seldom taught.

Quoted message said:

Not that the first book will change the world, but you
first have to see how screwed up America's world view is.

Everybody has world views that are screwed up and skewed
in some way.
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight.
It's like a Joan Crawford movie."

On Wed, 05 May 2004 23:02:46 -0400, [email hidden]

(Trudi Marrapodi) said:

But how do you do that? By telling people they don't
have to pay subsidies if they take the bus? Is that
enough, really?

No, not for a lot of people that don't work 'normal' hours.
In the Washington, DC area service deteriorates dramatically
if you work late. Missing a late bus or train can cost you
an hour or more (especially MARC trains out of Union
Station). And the commuter support services (ability to call
in an occasional special support ride) assume that you will
be unable to keep a normal schedule one or two days a month.
I have weeks worse than that.

Used to use MARC, tried to use Metro. Both cost more and
took at least an hour more a day when things went well.
Missing a MARC train could turn a slightly long day into
getting home after 9:00 pm. A bad day could cost you a
couple of hours on top of a long day to begin with.

My final conclusion was that the DC Metro is an expensive
solution that is designed to support the city and MD and VA
only to the suburbs around the stations. They make it
expensive and time-costly to use if you live beyond that
area and aren't a nine to fiver.

IOW, move into the city or drop dead if your job has any
demands at all. Personally, since it works best for the city
and near 'burbs and the government workers, I'm finally
moving to the side of those that think they should be the
ones to subsidize it.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

Wed, 05 May 2004 23:02:46 -0400,
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Trudi Marrapodi) wrote, in part:

Quoted message said:

If people are brainwashed by ads, it's their own fault. Not
that I wouldn't like to see advertising change, especially
the execrably bad stuff. But really, one's brain does not
need to be beholden to anyone else. Even children are
capable of being taught to see through ads. Trouble is,
they are seldom taught.

After they're chipped "for their own protection" they won't
need to be taught or brainwashed. We can program them!

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Wed, 05 May 2004 23:02:46 -0400, <trudee-0505042302460001@icstudent-
209150244173.clarityconnect.net>,
[email hidden] (Trudi Marrapodi) wrote,
in part:

Quoted message said:

If people are brainwashed by ads, it's their own fault.
Not that I wouldn't like to see advertising change,
especially the execrably bad stuff. But really, one's
brain does not need to be beholden to anyone else. Even
children are capable of being taught to see through ads.
Trouble is, they are seldom taught.

After they're chipped "for their own protection" they
won't need to be taught or brainwashed. We can
program them!

Oh yeah...with only the tinfoil hats to protect them,
they'll be sitting ducks...
--
Trudi

"Boy, there sure is a lot of tension around here tonight.
It's like a Joan Crawford movie."