Another letter to the editor

Claire Petersky said:

If you are upset about inequities in our tax system, you have good cause.
Studies show that Washington State has the most unfair state and local tax
system in the country -- the wealthy pay the least here, and the average
Joe pays the most. If you're feeling the pinch, you're not alone. But
don't blame bicyclists for that.

Claire, your writing just gets better and better. That last paragraph
effectively refocuses the argument in a way that's hard to refute, and
does so without insult or condescension. It's a model rebuttal.

Bravo!

RichC

Claire Petersky said:

Maybe I just shouldn't read the newspaper.

---
Contrary to Dean Shirley's
(http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060426/OP01/604260329)
belief, bicyclists definitely
pay their fair share of taxes. <snip>

Claire - do you have a link also for whatever it was the King County
bicycle lobby was whining about?

Also, I'd like to see a representative pie chart of construction and
maintenance funding sources for roads and bike paths.

"Diablo Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Claire Petersky wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Contrary to Dean Shirley's
(http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060426/OP01/604260329)
belief, bicyclists definitely
pay their fair share of taxes. <snip>

Claire - do you have a link also for whatever it was the King County
bicycle lobby was whining about?

I'm pretty up on recent issues, but there's nothing in particular that leaps
out at me. The City of Seattle has a new initiative, but that's just the
City, and the Journal is a suburban paper. I think Mr. Shirley was doing a
general pout, not addressing a specific project.

Quoted message said:

Also, I'd like to see a representative pie chart of construction and
maintenance funding sources for roads and bike paths.

Me too!

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

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

Quoted message said:

Claire Petersky said:

If you are upset about inequities in our tax system, you have good cause.
Studies show that Washington State has the most unfair state and local
tax
system in the country -- the wealthy pay the least here, and the average
Joe pays the most. If you're feeling the pinch, you're not alone. But
don't blame bicyclists for that.

Claire, your writing just gets better and better. That last paragraph
effectively refocuses the argument in a way that's hard to refute, and
does so without insult or condescension. It's a model rebuttal.

Bravo!

RichC

It was nothing but a typical letter to the editor, guaranteed to put all to
sleep. Claire does not know how to go for the jugular. Only someone as Great
as I know how to do that. Unfortunately though, every time I do it it never
gets printed. Editors of newspapers can spot my type from a mile off and
want nothing to do with me. I am the master of insult and condescension. Is
there any other way to write?

But I thought Washington Sate was the most liberal state in the nation. If
so, how can it be that the average Joe is paying the most and the wealthy
are paying the least. I thought that was a Republican philosophy. The Great
Ed Dolan is all confused and confabulated by this startling revelation.
Surely, there is something rotten in Seattle here!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Claire Petersky said:

In fact, bicyclists subsidize the motorists. We don't require the same
amount of pavement that motorists need. We don't put the same wear and
tear on the roads that motorists create. We don't use the vast parking
facilities motorists need. We also pay for emergency response services,
but due to simple physics, bicycles rarely cause injury accidents in the
same way that cars do. And yet, through our general taxes, we pay for all
of these facilities and services to a level that we do not need to get
around on a bike.

Yes!

Free off-street parking is a clear example of a subsidy to motorists,
because it isn't actually free at all. The cost of buying the land,
and constructing and maintaining the parking spots, gets passed along
(in part or in total) to consumers in the form of higher prices. Every
time you buy something at the mega-mall, some portion of the price goes
to pay for the sea of "free" parking outside the mall. But whereas
drivers use those parking spots, bicyclists don't. Consequently, the
bicyclists are subsidizing the drivers.

The price of a gallon of gas (taxes included) doesn't cover the full
social cost of burning that gas (pollution, accidents, congestion, the
list goes on). In the case of congestion, the situation is especially
acute, since even the most fuel efficient cars clog up roadways. So
the argument that drivers are paying their fare share via their gas
taxes is, at best, only partially accurate.

As long as I'm joining you on the soapbox, I'll point out the obvious:
every bicycle trip removes a car from the road, which benefits the
remaining drivers. So rather than sniping at us, Dean Shirley should be
thanking us.

Have a great weekend, everybody.

Josh (in Massachusetts)

Josh Hassol said:

Free off-street parking is a clear example of a subsidy to motorists,
because it isn't actually free at all. The cost of buying the land,
and constructing and maintaining the parking spots, gets passed along
(in part or in total) to consumers in the form of higher prices. Every
time you buy something at the mega-mall, some portion of the price goes
to pay for the sea of "free" parking outside the mall. But whereas
drivers use those parking spots, bicyclists don't. Consequently, the
bicyclists are subsidizing the drivers.

One could as easily turn this around by pointing out that the reason
you can afford to shop at that mega-mall is because the shops there
rely on the volume of sales they make to the driving public to keep
prices down but that's falling into the "us versus them" trap again.

Motorists are not only motorists anymore than cyclists are only
cyclists. Both are also employees and employers, churchgoers and
atheists, parents and singles, liberals and conservatives, political
and apolitical. Defining people as good or bad based on their mode of
transportation is both silly and wrong, as silly and wrong as the
letter to the editor that Claire posted that started this thread.

Everytime I read a letter to the editor I think of a story about TV
ratings I heard years ago. One of the things the Nielsen people do is
distribute journals to a specific demographic and then track what
people say they watch. Some of those journal cover as much as an entire
year. A Nielsen employee in Texas noticed week long gaps in one of the
year long journals and called the journal writer. After speaking to
that person, he went in to talk to his boss.
"Boss, this guy just told me he hates LBJ so much that whenever he sees
him on television he gets a gun and shoots the screen. Then he has to
buy a new TV set. Shouldn't we just throw out his stats when we are
assigning ratings?"
"No. Even the lunatic fringe has a right to decide what programs stay
on the air."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S. - I also think of that story whenever anyone tells me they think
Bill Mahr is actually funny.

Bob said:

that's falling into the "us versus them" trap again.

Actually, I rather like the us vs. them point of view. I feel that way
very storngly when I read that our Congressmen rode in big, gas
guzzling vehicles approximately one block from their offices to a
photo-op in front of an Exxon gas station sign this morning (Washington
Post). Once there, they pontificated about the price of gasoline. One
block!

So yes... more us vs. them with regards to indecent automobile use is
just fine.

Quoted message said:

Defining people as good or bad based on their mode of
transportation is both silly and wrong

Why is it silly to say it is wrong to drive a car? When you see someone
motoring alone in a Suburban or Expedition or F150 pickup, who is not a
farmer or trademan, do you think those hundreds of horses are
contributing to our social welfare?

There are, of course, plenty of reasons for someone other than a farmer
or a tradesman to drive a SUV or pickup truck. Calling down hellfire
and brimstone upon the driver of such a vehicle merely because the good
reason for his/her use of such a vehicle is latent is churlish at best.

When he was looking for his last vehicle, my father almost bought an
SUV. The reason was that he found it much easier to enter/exit than
most small vehicles (arthritis). Simply because ***you*** do not see
the reason behind a specific action does not mean that there is not a
good reason for it.

There are, of course, plenty of motorists who could just as easily
commute via bicycle. Since many of us live in quasi-free societies
where, for the moment, people are allowed to make their own poor
choices rather than have us, the illuminati, make their decisions for
them, we have to live with it. Come the revolution...

Jeff

Quoted message said:

There are, of course, plenty of reasons for someone other than a farmer
or a tradesman to drive a SUV or pickup truck.

Perhaps you would be so good as to list a few. And don't use the
freaking special cases of people with no legs and wheelchairs. Stick to
the 99.99% of the folks driving these beasts.

Quoted message said:

When he was looking for his last vehicle, my father almost bought an
SUV. The reason was that he found it much easier to enter/exit than
most small vehicles (arthritis).

I'm not driving a VW Golf TDI. But I own one. And my 85 year old father
manages just fine.

Quoted message said:

for the moment, people are allowed to make their own poor
choices rather than have us, the illuminati, make their decisions for
them, we have to live with it.

Hello... those decisions aren't made in vacuums. There is an older,
suitably conservative, and richly American, concept of public good. But
stick around, it will be back.

Will said:

Bob said:

that's falling into the "us versus them" trap again.

Actually, I rather like the us vs. them point of view. I feel that way
very storngly when I read that our Congressmen rode in big, gas
guzzling vehicles approximately one block from their offices to a
photo-op in front of an Exxon gas station sign this morning (Washington
Post). Once there, they pontificated about the price of gasoline. One
block!

So yes... more us vs. them with regards to indecent automobile use is
just fine.

Adding the adjective "indecent" doesn't strengthen your case all that
much because whether you like it or not, there are a lot more of "them"
than "us".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Defining people as good or bad based on their mode of
transportation is both silly and wrong

Why is it silly to say it is wrong to drive a car? When you see someone
motoring alone in a Suburban or Expedition or F150 pickup, who is not a
farmer or trademan, do you think those hundreds of horses are
contributing to our social welfare?

I'll agree with you and say that most of the people I see driving gas
guzzlers don't need them but as for the rest, you simply aren't
addressing what I wrote. The only connection your reply has to what I
wrote is that you used the words "silly" and "wrong" in the same
sentence too.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob said:

Will said:

Bob said:

that's falling into the "us versus them" trap again.

Actually, I rather like the us vs. them point of view. I feel that way
very storngly when I read that our Congressmen rode in big, gas
guzzling vehicles approximately one block from their offices to a
photo-op in front of an Exxon gas station sign this morning (Washington
Post). Once there, they pontificated about the price of gasoline. One
block!

So yes... more us vs. them with regards to indecent automobile use is
just fine.

Adding the adjective "indecent" doesn't strengthen your case all that
much because whether you like it or not, there are a lot more of "them"
than "us".

I think "indecent" applies unless it was raining cats and dogs. These
fat cats really should learn they are capable of walking one block as a
group to make a point and not counter the whole thing before it starts
by arriving in guzzlers. It makes a mockery out of their speeches. Kind
of like they want the price to go down so people can ride and pollute
more...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Defining people as good or bad based on their mode of
transportation is both silly and wrong

Why is it silly to say it is wrong to drive a car? When you see someone
motoring alone in a Suburban or Expedition or F150 pickup, who is not a
farmer or trademan, do you think those hundreds of horses are
contributing to our social welfare?

I'll agree with you and say that most of the people I see driving gas
guzzlers don't need them but as for the rest, you simply aren't
addressing what I wrote. The only connection your reply has to what I
wrote is that you used the words "silly" and "wrong" in the same
sentence too.

I'll agree with Bob but add a point relevant to my country area. Even
the cagers need some defense against these farm road monsters who will
take a Ford F-350 or equivalent to get a gallon of milk, or more likely,
another 6-pack. If they can afford these big trucks and farms, and get
government subsidies, (a lot do), then they can damn well afford a
little commuter to town. I have seen first hand what one of these big
pickups will do to a little Mitsubishi (my daughters) when one of them
decides to run a light. Totaled the front of my kids car and didn't even
scratch the offender, who paid the whole thing plus a fine for running
the light. Justice sort of, but the kids car was almost new and now she
would up with a 'laugh/cry' Kia.

Quoted message said:

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bill Baka

Bob said:

I'll agree with you and say that most of the people I see driving gas
guzzlers don't need them but as for the rest, you simply aren't
addressing what I wrote.

My issue wasn't to dispute whether we share the workplace, the church,
the voting booth...

I indicated that the choice of transportation creates an "us vs. them"
situation. Automobiles have been marketed for decades to exploit "us
vs. them". You "arrived" in a Cadillac, had "passion" with a BMW, had
testosterone with a Corvette...

What's new is what's coming.

Suburban folks who drive big trucks and SUV's aren't going to like
being viewed as socially inept for consuming more than their share of
resouces. They are driving up the cost of gasoline for everyone while
crowding us on the roads and polluting our air. People will resent
that. I already do.

For those lacking an imagination, or a wide circle of friends:

I have friends with a small manufacturing business. They use an SUV to
haul a trailer around to conventions, etc, to display their wares.
They, and their families, travel in the SUV itself.

I have friends who live outside the city. Pickup trucks have better
clearance than most vehicles (useful when roads haven't been cleared
after a snowfall) and have better cargo and towing capacity (useful for
reducing the number of trips into town).

Personally, when I lived in Dallas, I almost purchased an SUV simply
because all too frequently I found myself surrounded by the stupid
things and unable to see anything in any direction (this is NOT
hyperbole).

I'm not certain I'd agree with you that invalids using SUVs or trucks
constitute a neglible special case. I personally know at least a dozen
people in that situation. No, I am not involved in medical or personal
care (nor do I sell or maintain vehicles).

My original point was simply that we cannot know the reasons why a
person drives a specific type of vehicle just by looking at that
person. Without knowing the reasons, we have no basis for criticizing
that person's choice. Do some of them deserve criticism? Absolutely.
Do all of them deserve criticism? Not a chance.

Man, if you own a TDI, why aren't you driving it? I had that
opportunity last summer. What a hoot. As I noted, my father didn't
buy an SUV, but it was something he found easier to enter/exit than
most small vehicles.

Anyway, this is wildly OT for this group. I'd rather ride my bike than
deride other people.

Jeff

Bill Baka said:

I'll agree with Bob but add a point relevant to my country area. Even
the cagers need some defense against these farm road monsters who will
take a Ford F-350 or equivalent to get a gallon of milk, or more likely,
another 6-pack. If they can afford these big trucks and farms, and get
government subsidies, (a lot do), then they can damn well afford a
little commuter to town.

When I was driving a lot (80 mile commute one-way), I considered buying
a car with better fuel efficiency than my small truck. The truck was
averaging 20mpg and I figured that I could save some money. I ran the
idea by my accountant (aka Mom).

She quickly pointed out that the payments and extra insurance costs
were more than double what I was paying every month for the fuel I was
burning in my little truck.

Even with higher fuel costs, it is usually cheaper to drive what you
have instead of buying a second vehicle with better mileage. Unless
the second vehicle is a moped, or even better, a bicycle....

I heard of an interview with a trucker on the local news. He was
filling his 300 gallon (!) tank at a cost of over $750. Of course, it
carried him and his load over 1,200 miles.

It won't be long before the fuel costs trickle into all aspects of our
economy.

-Buck

Will said:

Suburban folks who drive big trucks and SUV's aren't going to like
being viewed as socially inept for consuming more than their share of
resouces. They are driving up the cost of gasoline for everyone while
crowding us on the roads and polluting our air. People will resent
that. I already do.

The tenor of your original "us vs them" seemed to be in a "good
cyclists vs bad motorists" vein. Now you seem to be limiting it to a
"good socially conscious people vs bad socially inept people" one. Your
position is evolving. That's a good thing. ;-)
BTW, you're free to resent those suburban folks in their big trucks and
SUVs but if you think they are the reason gas prices are high, traffic
is bad, and the air isn't pristine, your resentment is based more on
class envy than on demonstrable fact.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob said:

The tenor of your original "us vs them" seemed to be in a "good
cyclists vs bad motorists" vein. Now you seem to be limiting it to a
"good socially conscious people vs bad socially inept people" one. Your
position is evolving. That's a good thing. ;-)

Glad you like it. My position is simple. SUV's and trucks are bad.
There are special casses that make their use appropriate. But they are
rare.

Quoted message said:

BTW, you're free to resent those suburban folks in their big trucks and
SUVs but if you think they are the reason gas prices are high, traffic
is bad, and the air isn't pristine, your resentment is based more on
class envy than on demonstrable fact.

They are exactly the reason scarcity is occuring. We can deny it,
attribute it to changing gasoline formulation, geo-political
instability, the emerging Chinese economy, etc... but at the bottom of
it is gross consumption of a depleting resource. Class envy hasn't got
much to do with it. I'm not rich but I stopped attending business
meetings at 50 <g>.

Will said:

Bob said:

The tenor of your original "us vs them" seemed to be in a "good
cyclists vs bad motorists" vein. Now you seem to be limiting it to a
"good socially conscious people vs bad socially inept people" one. Your
position is evolving. That's a good thing. ;-)

Glad you like it. My position is simple. SUV's and trucks are bad.
There are special casses that make their use appropriate. But they are
rare.

Quoted message said:

BTW, you're free to resent those suburban folks in their big trucks and
SUVs but if you think they are the reason gas prices are high, traffic
is bad, and the air isn't pristine, your resentment is based more on
class envy than on demonstrable fact.

They are exactly the reason scarcity is occuring. We can deny it,
attribute it to changing gasoline formulation, geo-political
instability, the emerging Chinese economy, etc... but at the bottom of
it is gross consumption of a depleting resource. Class envy hasn't got
much to do with it. I'm not rich but I stopped attending business
meetings at 50 <g>.

I'll agree with you that over-consumption of a depleting resource is
the major underlying cause of the current gas prices. I simply don't
agree with what to me seems to be the inescapable conclusion of the
rest of your argument, that being that if all the gas guzzling vehicles
were magically replaced by more efficient vehicles tomorrow gas prices
would drop, traffic would flow smoothly, and the air would be
noticeably cleaner.

BTW, I know more than a few people that stopped attending business
meetings at various ages. They aren't rich either. They are unemployed.
I hope that's not what you meant. ;-)

Regards,
Bob hunt

Well, they didn't publish my letter. But they did publish this one:
http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060428/OP01/604280334/-1/OP

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Bob said:

I'll agree with you that over-consumption of a depleting resource is
the major underlying cause of the current gas prices. I simply don't
agree with what to me seems to be the inescapable conclusion of the
rest of your argument, that being that if all the gas guzzling vehicles
were magically replaced by more efficient vehicles tomorrow gas prices
would drop, traffic would flow smoothly, and the air would be
noticeably cleaner.

Vehicle replacement is not the answer and I hope we don't spend a lot
of time and effort proving it out. My guess is we will fool with
synfuels for a while, fool with ethanol, fool with batteries and
hybrids... but in the end, we will drop the car concept. And hopefully,
we will do that before we've made Alberta and other places look like
lunar landscapes via tar sand extraction. This will not be a bad thing,
I am hopeful. Trillions of dollars will be available to invest (right
here in the USA!) once we stop buying cars, stop insuring them, stop
building roads, paying for traffic management...