Road Cycling · Public discussion

"License to Kill" or Options?

Started by Don Quijote · · Last activity · 75 posts · 3,298 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
21 January 2004
Last activity
13 February 2004
Original author
Don Quijote
Posts
75
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,298
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 75
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Don't give people a "license to kill," give them OPTIONS!

    Driving tests and real-life driving

    (snip)

    Politically, it is unpopular to suggest somebody who is physically impaired, who is emotionally
    unbalanced, or who is just plain stupid should not drive. But the fact is; bad driving causes lethal
    accidents and huge traffic jams every day, all across America. Bad driving wastes millions of
    gallons of fuel and adds tons of pollutants to our air.

    America's urban freeways are no place for the incompetent, and it is thousands of times less
    expensive and more effective to get lousy drivers off the road than it is to build ever-wider
    freeways and more elaborate junctions. A more difficult driving test will accomplish this. Driving
    tests can also reinforce common sense, patience, and respect for others... things which are
    increasingly rare on American roads.

    Current driving tests measure rudimentary knowledge of the rules of the road. At some point in a
    driver's life—usually very early— you must prove your ability to operate a vehicle under minimally
    difficult circumstances. Once licensed, many Americans are not road tested again for dozens of
    years. Adding cellular phones, babies, fast food, gigantic Sport Utility Vehicles, and other
    distractions—on top of a general increase in traffic and average speeds—only brews more gridlock
    and carnage.

    (snip)

    America must not shrink from hard decisions about where, when and who is fit to drive. We must get
    the incompetent, the angry, the thoughtless and the decrepit off the road. At the same time, we must
    provide the opportunity to learn driving skills for people who need to drive and are able to do it
    well, regardless of income level.

    Giving people options Increased transportation options for people who cannot drive must coincide
    with efforts to weed out lousy drivers. Forcing people out of their cars, with no way to get to
    work, breeds outlaws and joblessness. Some ways include:

    electric scooter and bicycle programs bike-trains high-speed rail

    (snip)

    ***Similarly, driving a 400-horsepower, 8,000 pound vehicle is much more demanding than driving a
    small vehicle, and should require specialized skill testing***.

    State motor vehicle departments, with the assistance of the Highway Patrol, should have flexibility
    to apply a higher standard in a high-risk area. Limitations could be based on geography, population
    density, average speed, vehicle types etc. A test for the Los Angeles commuter might emphasize high-
    speed merging, traffic jams, and anger management. The privilege of driving in the wilds of Wyoming
    might require mastering snow and the effects of elevation. Pilot different tests in many cities.
    European counties with higher driving standards may be able to help.

    One reader asked, "how can we enforce such a plan?" Good question. A gradual transition seems best.
    Here are four sensible steps which could be taken over, say, five or seven years.

    1. Automatically refer people cited for breaking existing traffic laws to a new, more difficult
    test. If they fail, they are downgraded to a new, limited-class license. They are excluded from
    driving in major metropolitan areas during high-use hours. They get one free retest and access to
    training. They must pass the new test within one year or lose their license. (This will be a
    great deterrent for those who are competent, but sometimes misbehave.)

    2. Create a new traffic infraction: incompetence. The ticket has no fine, but the driver must
    take the new test. If they fail, they are downgraded to the new, limited-class license. They
    get one free retest and access to training. They must pass the new test within one year or
    lose their license.

    3. Start going through the drivers rolls. Those motorists with the worst records and longest time
    since their last road test should be first for upgraded testing.

    4. Limited drivers who receive a citation in the restricted areas during restricted times are
    considered to be driving without a license, and are prosecuted under existing laws.

    Clearly, this will require money to train more driving instructors and examiners, and to modernize
    licensing systems. This is money well spent; it will recycle through the community many times, while
    making our roads safer and our air cleaner, and while reducing demand for expensive fossil fuels.

    Response to this web page from the Sustainable Enterprises community:

    (snip)

    "I couldn't agree more that the licensing requirements in the United States needs to be changed. I
    lived in Germany for 20 years. Even though they have some 80 Million people crammed into the area
    of Washington and Oregon combined, they really can drive. They drive AWARE of what is going on
    around them. I returned to the Pacific Northwest a little over two years ago, and have never before
    seen so many incompetent and incapable drivers. People, just because it is big and has all the
    "safety" features, does not release you from being a RESPONSIBLE driver! If you can't drive it -
    park it and milk it."

    (snip)

    "Whenever possible ride a bicycle don't drive! Use transit."

    "Uncle George" is over 92 and still driving... fortunately in his neighborhood, which is not around
    here. I guess I'd better not tell you where he lives."

    more below...

    sustainableenterprises.comdrivtest.htm

    webspawner.combikeforpeace

  2. On 20 Jan 2004 19:24:39 -0800, [email hidden] (Don

    Quijote) said:

    Don't give people a "license to kill," give them OPTIONS!

    Dear Donkey Hotay,

    Didn't you post this message already? I think I remember the subject line and the content.

    Is it necessary to continue to post trolls quite like this to exactly this carefully-chosen list of
    newsgroups: rec.autos.driving rec.motorcycles alt.autos alt.law-enforcement.traffic
    rec.bicycles.misc again?

    Regarding those choices: How is it on-topic for any of those groups other than rec.autos.driving and
    alt.autos?

    Simply suggesting bicycles as an alternative option does not make it on-topic for rec.bicycles.misc.

    I didn't see any suggestion of motorcycles, although they certainly are another option.

    Finally, I didn't see anything that makes it any more on-topic for a traffic law enforcement
    newsgroup than would be a message about a train ride.

    Wouldn't it be more appropriate to post only to rec.autos.driving and alt.autos, and post
    notifications in the rest that your post may be of tangential interest to many of those readers?
    --
    Rick Onanian

  3. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Rick Onanian said:
    (Don Quijote) said:

    Don't give people a "license to kill," give them OPTIONS!

    Dear Donkey Hotay,

    Didn't you post this message already? I think I remember the subject line and the content.

    Is it necessary to continue to post trolls quite like this to exactly this carefully-chosen list
    of newsgroups: rec.autos.driving rec.motorcycles alt.autos alt.law-enforcement.traffic
    rec.bicycles.misc again?

    Regarding those choices: How is it on-topic for any of those groups other than rec.autos.driving
    and alt.autos?

    See below.

    Quoted message said:

    Simply suggesting bicycles as an alternative option does not make it on-topic for
    rec.bicycles.misc.

    Bicylists are affected by incompetent cagers and may even be drivers themselves with an interest
    in the post.

    Quoted message said:

    I didn't see any suggestion of motorcycles, although they certainly are another option.

    Motorcyclists already have tighter licensing requirements than the cracker-jack prize that drivers
    of four-wheelers routinely win.

    Quoted message said:

    Finally, I didn't see anything that makes it any more on-topic for a traffic law enforcement
    newsgroup than would be a message about a train ride.

    It seems to me that perhaps the folks doing the traffic law-enforcement have some experience in the
    matter of licensing and competence.

    Quoted message said:

    Wouldn't it be more appropriate to post only to rec.autos.driving and alt.autos, and post
    notifications in the rest that your post may be of tangential interest to many of those readers?

    Only if the original poster was not interested in generating any kind of cross-discussion
    between groups.

    --
    Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: timberwoof.comfaq.shtml bike:
    timberwoof.commotorcycle

  4. "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:45:08 +0000, Timberwoof wrote:

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    drive. Is this absurd, or what?

    No, it is not. It is as American as Apple Pie.

    <rant on>

    Frankly, I think your license should be suspended or revoked after the second offense. I figure
    one offense is acceptable, probably when you're about 16 or so. Everybody makes one mistake. Fine
    'em at least a thousand or two for that one. After that, get another? Ka-blammo! No license. Maybe
    give them a year or two to get some training before you give them another shot at it in a year or
    two. Maybe.

    Licensing should also be tiered to the weight and horsepower of the vehicle. If you want to drive a
    Ford F-350 Dually or a Corvette or a Viper, you should be forced to go through extra training (at
    your own goddamn expense, not the taxpayers), pay (much) more for your advanced license, and have
    much more stringent licensing tests to pass.

    Get caught driving without a license? Should be mandatory 5 years prison time, with no possibility
    of parole. Kill someone with a car? Life, just like if you slit his throat with a knife. Hurt a
    bicyclist or a pedestrian with a car? Should be the same as if you hit him with a bat or shot him
    with a gun. I'm talking hard time, sleeping with Bubba, Penitentiary-type prison.

    It's high time that we started throwing those worthless cage-driving m*therf*ckers in prison when
    they [censored] up, and they'll start paying attention. And, yes, the Pacific Northwest is the worst
    [censored] place I have ever driven. I thought San Francisco and Los Angeles were bad? Ha! Those places
    are driving PARADISES compared to the drooling morons that drive on our streets and highways here in
    Seattle. Don't get me wrong, I love Seattle and the Great Northwest. It's just full of the worst
    kind of clueless pin-headed slack-jawed cage drivers I have ever seen anywhere.

    We are entirely too lenient on drivers and their behavior. We should eliminate the traffic ticket
    altogether. Traffic infractions that result in getting pulled over by a cop should result in no less
    than an arrest. The car should be impounded. The driver should go to jail and have to post bail.
    Your car should be auctioned off to pay for more traffic patrol officers and cars. You should have
    to stand before a judge and a jury and be judged and sentenced.

    Driving a car is indeed a Privilege. It's about [censored] time we started treating it as such.

    Damn, I hate cars. Actually, I don't hate cars, it's the clueless drivers and our worthless
    government that causes this situation.

    <rant off

  5. On 20 Jan 2004 19:24:39 -0800, [email hidden] (Don Quijote)

    Quoted message said:

    Don't give people a "license to kill," give them OPTIONS!

    Driving tests and real-life driving

    (snip)

    Politically, it is unpopular to suggest somebody who is physically impaired, who is emotionally
    unbalanced, or who is just plain stupid should not drive. But the fact is; bad driving causes
    lethal accidents and huge traffic jams every day, all across America. Bad driving wastes millions
    of gallons of fuel and adds tons of pollutants to our air.

    America's urban freeways are no place for the incompetent, and it is thousands of times less
    expensive and more effective to get lousy drivers off the road than it is to build ever-wider
    freeways and more elaborate junctions. A more difficult driving test will accomplish this. Driving
    tests can also reinforce common sense, patience, and respect for others... things which are
    increasingly rare on American roads.

    Forget the stupid tests. We need to treat reckless drivers like the murderous psychopaths they are
    and that means giving them prison time. If people knew that doing 80 in a 55 zone would get them 6
    months in the can, they wouldn't do it. Next question.

  6. "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    But no one, in 36 years, has tested my ability to

    Quoted message said:

    drive. Is this absurd, or what?

    I don't see what's so absurd about it. You're 52, not 82. You've been driving successfully (without
    killing yourself, or anyone else I presume) for 36 years. Why do you think you need to be tested?

    If you're suffering from a bureaucracy deficiency in your life, I'm sure your local Dept. of Motor
    Vehicles would be more than happy to test you - as long as you paid the fee.

    Dave

  7. On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:06:36 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend

    Quoted message said:
    (Don Quijote) said:

    Don't give people a "license to kill," give them OPTIONS!

    Driving tests and real-life driving

    (snip)

    Politically, it is unpopular to suggest somebody who is physically impaired, who is emotionally
    unbalanced, or who is just plain stupid should not drive. But the fact is; bad driving causes
    lethal accidents and huge traffic jams every day, all across America. Bad driving wastes millions
    of gallons of fuel and adds tons of pollutants to our air.

    America's urban freeways are no place for the incompetent, and it is thousands of times less
    expensive and more effective to get lousy drivers off the road than it is to build ever-wider
    freeways and more elaborate junctions. A more difficult driving test will accomplish this. Driving
    tests can also reinforce common sense, patience, and respect for others... things which are
    increasingly rare on American roads.

    Forget the stupid tests. We need to treat reckless drivers like the murderous psychopaths they are
    and that means giving them prison time. If people knew that doing 80 in a 55 zone would get them 6
    months in the can, they wouldn't do it. Next question.

    You running for DA? You would get my vote.

    I'm bothered that people who do flee police at high speeds isn't charged with multibe accounts of
    attempted vehiclure homicide.

    later,

    tom(the troll feeder).

    ***************** Our Sites ***************** carfleamarket.comcarfleamarket.com
    virtuallotterypool.comvirtuallotterypool.com freelancingprojects.comfreelancingprojects.com linkskyrise.comlinkskyrise.com
    intertainia.comintertainia.com voyeurjunction.comvoyeurjunction.com - Adults Only! findmeshelter.comfindmeshelter.com
    (coming soon)
    ***************************************************

  8. On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:23:03 -0800, "Raoul Duke" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    But no one, in 36 years, has tested my ability to

    Quoted message said:

    drive. Is this absurd, or what?

    I don't see what's so absurd about it. You're 52, not 82. You've been driving successfully (without
    killing yourself, or anyone else I presume) for 36 years. Why do you think you need to be tested?

    You should have to have your eyes checked by the DMV. This doesn't require that you go to the DMV,
    just submit you last eye exam with your request for new license renewal.

    Quoted message said:


    If you're suffering from a bureaucracy deficiency in your life, I'm sure your local Dept. of Motor
    Vehicles would be more than happy to test you - as long as you paid the fee.

    Well, you already pay a fee. Think about it, you pay for your first license, you get an exam,
    drivers road test, and eye exam for x amount of dollars. Then your renewal, is the exact same x
    amount of dollars, so you should get atleast and eye exam/review included.

    Quoted message said:


    Dave

    Maybe I shouldn't feed the trolls, but they're so damn cute. :-P

    later,

    tom

    ***************** Our Sites ***************** carfleamarket.comcarfleamarket.com
    virtuallotterypool.comvirtuallotterypool.com freelancingprojects.comfreelancingprojects.com linkskyrise.comlinkskyrise.com
    intertainia.comintertainia.com voyeurjunction.comvoyeurjunction.com - Adults Only! findmeshelter.comfindmeshelter.com
    (coming soon)
    ***************************************************

  9. On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:06:36 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend

    Quoted message said:

    If people knew that doing 80 in a 55 zone would get them 6 months in the can, they wouldn't do it.
    Next question.

    I hear you like 6 monks in your can. Does Georgie know you're having

  10. Timberwoof said:


    Quoted message said:

    Wouldn't it be more appropriate to post only to rec.autos.driving and alt.autos, and post
    notifications in the rest that your post may be of tangential interest to many of those readers?

    Only if the original poster was not interested in generating any kind of cross-discussion
    between groups.

    I simply cannot believe you are defending this. I thought you were smarter than that.

    --
    Al | '98 FLTRI
    Brennan | '98 T509 EN
    owl tuna| '83 GR650
    hot mail| '57 6T

  11. Quoted message said:

    On 20 Jan 2004 19:24:39 -0800, [email hidden] (Don Quijote)
    scribbled:

    Forget the stupid tests. We need to treat reckless drivers like the murderous psychopaths they are
    and that means giving them prison time. If people knew that doing 80 in a 55 zone would get them 6
    months in the can, they wouldn't do it. Next question.

    Indeed. Driving is a privilege, not a right. It's high time we treated it as such. Throw 'em in
    jail, and they'll start paying attention.

    Driver's licensing is a complete joke in this country. Every single driver should be retested, both
    knowledge and practical, every single time they renew. Licensing should be tiered to the
    weight/horsepower of the vehicle you're going to drive. Large and/or high horsepower vehicle owners
    should undergo extensive training (at their own expense), and much more stringent licensing
    procedures. Caught driving without a license or outside your license tier? Go to jail.

    Considering the destructive power of the modern day car/truck/SUV, every single moving violation
    should be considered a felony and you should be subject to arrest, confinement, a hefty fine (many
    thousands of $$$), impounding of the vehicle (to be sold at auction), and a lengthy license
    suspension (or even a permanent license revocation) at a minimum.

    You say this will be expensive? You say that DMV fees will rise astronomically? Too bad. As was
    already stated, driving is a privilege. If you can't afford it, that's just too damn bad. Traffic
    safety should be paramount above all other considerations, especially cost to the end user.

  12. On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:09:20 GMT, "HardwareLust" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Traffic safety should be paramount above all other considerations, especially cost to the end user.

    Last I looked, in democratic societies people determine what considerations if any government uses
    when deciding how to regulate.

    Europeans have a more evolved system of public education. Thus their approaches are more
    intelligent.

    American educational systems breed a select few minds, right alongside a steady stream of
    profitable consumer morons. If there is a deficit we can always rely on skilled labor from abroad
    to fill the gap.

    Thus stupidity will continue to be the norm. A stupid driver will borrow themselves up to their
    eyeballs so they can buy a $50,000 SUV based on an $18,000 pickup truck with $2,000 worth of wood
    and leather appointments thereby netting a $30,000 profit. A smart driver will not.

  13. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The fact that America is B-I-G doesn't make her more appropriate for the car. Perhaps the
    opposite is true.

    But that's not what I said. I wasn't pointing out that it's big to show that cars are necessary. I
    was pointing out that it's big to show that what people do in one part of the country is nothing
    like what people do in some other place that's as far away as Western Europe is from Yemen. There
    are plenty of places where cars are not needed at all. There are other places where cars are
    essential.

    Parts of the US became major cities centuries ago. Public transportation became parts of those
    places just as it did elsewhere in the world. Cars are not widely needed there. Other more remote
    towns grew up around railroad stations. When the trains went through, towns shot up where there
    was nothing. Cars are needed locally, but there are better ways for long distance travel. Then
    there are areas that were relatively empty until a few decades ago. Fifty years ago these areas
    were farms. There was no need to have a train running to each big farm or even each farming
    community. People could make other arrangements for those rare trips by coach to get to the
    trains. But as the automobile became popular, it became possible for people to build homes in some
    of these regions when it was simply not affordable to do it in cities where there was no more land
    and property was not affordable. Building public transportation after the fact was and is an
    expensive proposition. It costs billions of dollars to extend existing public transportation into
    metropolitan areas, and the US has far too many Republicans for that to ever happen.

    Well, I'm glad you realize where the problem lies... 😉

    But actually the American Urban Sprawl was not a matter of accident but of design. The cartoon
    "Roger Rabbit" shows how GM bought the electric trolleys in Los Angeles--only to dump them. Then LA
    was the model for the rest of the country. There are FEW places in America where you can get around
    by efficient public transportation. 🙁

    (While this article ain't mine, I subscribe to it. In a way, we are driven to drive, which in turn
    generates money, and wars... Well, you know the story...)

    THE PROBLEM

    TRANSPORTATION

    One of the major differences that a visitor from Europe (both Eastern and Western) encounters on
    coming to the United States is in transportation. In Europe the emphasis is on public transit, while
    in the U.S. the emphasis is on individual private transportation. Both have their advantages and
    disadvantages. If you want to get from the ghost town of Terlingua (famous for its annual chili
    cookout) to the hottest little place in Texas named Presidio you must closely follow the American
    shore of the Rio Grande. There is only one road there and almost no traffic, so it is advisable to
    use a private automobile and take plenty of drinking water. On the other hand, if you want to get
    from Columbus Circle to the Columbia University in Upper Manhattan, the transport of preference
    would probably be the Metro. Not necessarily because the New York Metro is that much faster than a
    ride by an automobile, but because parking in every large city is an expensive and generally time
    consuming undertaking. New York City is one of the few American cities that possesses public
    transportation, alas decaying and inadequate for a city of that size. Inhabitants of most American
    cities do not really understand what public transportation is all about because they were never
    exposed to it. To them public transit are buses running every half- hour and only during the day.
    Consequently, without a taxicab it is virtually impossible to get, in reasonable time, from point A
    to point B in an average size American city. However, transportation by automobile is increasingly
    congested especially at the so called "rush hours." These are the times when the capacity of the
    existing thoroughfares and connecting roads reaches its limit and traffic slows to a standstill.
    Traffic congestions are a typical dilemma that existed already at the time of Nikita Kruschev's
    visit to the United Nations in New York City. At that time the New Yorkers were still somewhat proud
    of their monumental traffic jams because this phenomenon flaunted their riches before the eyes of
    the world. Now however, it appears, they agree with the remark of Mr. Kruschev who surveyed the
    situation and told them "What a waste" by some accounts and "What a nonsense" by other accounts. A
    quarter of a century after Kruschev's visit most American cities still do not have a viable public
    transit system. The uncontrollable desire for quick profits subverts among other things also the
    efficiency of automobile transportation and creates waste not only in loss of time suffered by the
    drivers and passengers, but also in excess fuel consumption. The so called "turnpikes" are some of
    the most pernicious capitalist inventions. These are roads owned by special semi-private groups,
    called "authorities". They are bounded by toll booths, where the motorists are required to stop and
    pay a certain fee to the owners of the road. Paying of the toll is a slow process and there are only
    a limited number of toll collectors. It does not take much imagination to foresee what will happen
    when a certain critical capacity is exceeded. Traffic backs up for many miles and proceeds at the
    breathtaking speed of about three miles per hour. The situation could be remedied if the toll booth
    operators would take bar code readings and if necessary video snapshots of the license plates of the
    passing automobiles. It appears however, that the owners of the turnpikes are afraid that they would
    not be able to collect their money. Hence, the major links of the transportation system will
    continue to regularly break down at times when most needed. Every European who visits the city of
    Los Angeles cannot fail to notice the acute transportation headaches that the inhabitants of that
    city must endure. Most transatlantic visitors think that the solution to all Los Angeles
    transportation problems is exceedingly simple: rapid trains at 5 to 10 minutes intervals and parking
    lots adequately staffed with short range electric cars. Unfortunately, an average American's habits
    are a major part of the transportation and pollution problem. Since the early years of this century
    when the rails were pulled out, courtesy of oil and car manufacturing companies, he became so
    dependent on his automobile that even a temporary separation is to him a traumatic experience. He
    realizes that public transport is safer, faster, healthier and cleaner than individual driving; that
    it allows him pursuit of some of his favorite leisure activities such as reading and writing.
    Nevertheless he is still reluctant to part with his jalopy and limit his driving to only these
    occasions where private car is irreplaceabke. In American democracy important decisions are usually
    made by small powerful groups. The decisions, favoring the interests of these groups are almost
    always made at the expense of a much larger but powerless and silent majority.

    snip

    (The following extract explains how this problem with public transportation came about. Source: book
    "Fast Food Nation," by Eric Schlosser.)

    The automobile offered drivers a feeling of independence and control. Daily travel was freed from
    the hassles of rail schedules, the needs of other passengers, and the location of trolley stops.
    More importantly, driving seemed to cost much less than using public transport --an illusion created
    by the fact that the price of a new car did not include the price of building new roads. Lobbyists
    from the oil, tire, and automobile industries, among others, had persuaded state and federal
    agencies to assume that fundamental expense. Had the big auto companies been required to pay for the
    roads --in the same way that trolley companies had to lay and maintain track-- the landscape of the
    American West would look quite different today.

    The automobile industry, however, was not content simply to reap the benefits of government-
    subsidized road construction. It was determined to wipe out railway competition by whatever means
    necessary. In the late 1920s, General Motors secretly began to purchase trolley systems throughout
    the United States, using a number of front corporations. Trolley systems in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and
    Montgomery, Alabama, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and El Paso, Texas, in Baltimore, Chicago, New York
    City, and Los Angeles --more than one hundred trolley systems in all-- were purchased by GM and then
    completly dismantled, their tracks ripped up, their overhead wires torn down. The trolley companies
    were turned into bus lines, and the new buses were manufactured by GM.

    General Motors eventually persuaded other companies that benefited from road building to help pay
    for the costly takeover of America's trolleys. In 1947, GM and a number of its allies in the scheme
    were indicted on federal antitrust charges. Two years later, the workings of the conspiracy, and its
    underlying intentions, were exposed during a trial in Chicago. GM, Mack Truck, Firestone, and
    Standard Oil of California were all found guilty on one of the two counts by the federal jury. The
    investigative journalist Jonathan Kwitny later argued that the case was "a fine example of what can
    happen when important matters of public policy are abandoned by government to the self-interests of
    corporations." Judge William J. Campbell was not so outraged. As punishment, the ordered GM and the
    other companies to pay a fine of $5,000 each. The executives who had secretly plotted and carried
    out the destruction of America's light rail network were fined $1 each. And the postwar reign of the
    automobile proceeded without much further challenge.

    A SOLUTION (Curitiba, Brazil)

    The urban transportation system is one of Curitiba's best-known planning successes, a model for
    cities around world that want to implement eco-efficient transportation networks that are well-
    integrated with urban form and produce environmental benefits.

    The city pioneered the idea of an all-bus transit network with special bus-only avenues created
    along well-defined structural axes that were also used to channel the city's growth. The transit
    system is rapid and cheap, and is currently being integrated with the metropolitan region.

    Its efficiency encourages people to leave their cars at home. Curitiba has one of highest rates of
    car ownership in Brazil, and high population growth. Yet auto traffic has dropped substantially;
    Curitiba has the highest public ridership of any Brazilian city (about 2.14 million passengers a
    day), and it registers the country's lowest rates of ambient pollution and per capita gas
    consumption. In addition, an inexpensive "social fare" promotes equality, benefiting poorer
    residents settled on the city's periphery. A standard fare is charged for all trips, meaning shorter
    rides subsidize longer ones. One fare can take a passenger 70 kilometers.

    webspawner.comdonquijote

  14. Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores said:

    On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:09:20 GMT, "HardwareLust" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Traffic safety should be paramount above all other considerations, especially cost to the
    end user.

    Quoted message said:

    Last I looked, in democratic societies people determine what considerations if any government uses
    when deciding how to regulate.

    Quoted message said:

    Europeans have a more evolved system of public education. Thus their approaches are more
    intelligent.

    Quoted message said:

    American educational systems breed a select few minds, right alongside a steady stream of
    profitable consumer morons. If there is a deficit we can always rely on skilled labor from abroad
    to fill the gap.

    Quoted message said:

    Thus stupidity will continue to be the norm. A stupid driver will borrow themselves up to their
    eyeballs so they can buy a $50,000 SUV based on an $18,000 pickup truck with $2,000 worth of wood
    and leather appointments thereby netting a $30,000 profit. A smart driver will not.

    Please name a single $50,000 SUV based on an $18,000 pickup truck.

  15. TCS said:

    Please name a single $50,000 SUV based on an $18,000 pickup truck.

    Lincoln Navigator

    Cadillac Escalade

    30k truck->50k luxoV

    Lexus GX

    20k car - > 40k "SUV"

    Lexus RX

  16. Rick Onanian <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    (Don Quijote) said:

    Don't give people a "license to kill," give them OPTIONS!

    Dear Donkey Hotay,

    Didn't you post this message already? I think I remember the subject line and the content.

    The title, yes, but the content is absolutely new. This website I came across really reflects the
    problem. It shouldn't take so much fussing about, but nothing is being done and people are dying
    everyday because of it. Actually we are suffering more from reckless, undertrained drivers than from
    war in Iraq. 🙁

    Quoted message said:


    Is it necessary to continue to post trolls quite like this to exactly this carefully-chosen list
    of newsgroups: rec.autos.driving rec.motorcycles alt.autos alt.law-enforcement.traffic
    rec.bicycles.misc again?

    We all share the same road, don't we? And who pays the price of the undertrained driver, he or the
    bicyclist or motorcyclist? If the roads are a jungle--and they are--we can safely assume that those
    at the lower end of the food chain are the main losers. So is the economy, the environment, and any
    chance for fairness in the world. It's a recipe for trouble indeed.

  17. SRQEagan said:
    Quoted message said:

    America must not shrink from hard decisions about where, when and who is fit to drive. We must
    get the incompetent, the angry, the thoughtless and the decrepit off the road.

    Quoted message said:

    So, when will you be turning in your license, jackass?

    Obviously, angry, thoughtless, and decrepit refers to you. Why are you so angry, and why do you
    hate almost everyone and everything, itchy? And you still still haven't learned to post with proper
    attributes. Whatta miserable dork.....

    --

    911truth.org911truth.org globalresearch.caglobalresearch.ca wsws.orgwsws.org

    [censored] Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
    destruction." August 26, 2002.

    Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." January 9, 2003.

    Colin Powell: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is
    determined to make more." February 5, 2003.

    Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are," about these weapons. "They are in the area around Tikrit
    and Baghdad." March 30, 2003.

    George W. Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field
    commanders to use chemical weapons." February 8, 2003.

    George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
    Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
    March 17, 2003.

    "I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It
    has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but
    also in social and environmental policy.....This is not normal government policy. Now is the time
    for people to engage in civil disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
    possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
    - George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist

    "One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days
    we're going to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

    Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million. Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11
    panel: $3 million.

    regulareverydaypeople.comregulareverydaypeople.com truthout.orgtruthout.org commondreams.orgcommondreams.org
    counterpunch.orgcounterpunch.org responsiblewealth.orgresponsiblewealth.org

    "You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building, I didn't realize that he meant only
    the United States"
    -- Al Franken

    Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close friend and top campaign contributor,
    Ken Lay, did to Enron...

  18. Hank H. Hansteen said:

    [censored] Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
    destruction." August 26, 2002.

    Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." January 9, 2003.

    Colin Powell: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction,
    is determined to make more." February 5, 2003.

    Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are," about these weapons. "They are in the area around Tikrit
    and Baghdad." March 30, 2003.

    George W. Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field
    commanders to use chemical weapons." February 8, 2003.

    George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
    Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." March
    17, 2003.

    Here's a few you left out.........

    One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass
    destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton,
    Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously
    diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton,
    Feb. 17, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks
    that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our
    allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger,
    Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws,
    to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi
    sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
    destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
    Kerry, and others. Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which
    is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for
    his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
    that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
    status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the
    cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United
    States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
    December 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and
    stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons
    of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his
    country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume
    that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass
    destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein
    retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a
    crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
    indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force --if necessary--
    to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in
    his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear
    weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember
    we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
    destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN
    resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
    nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
    worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
    his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
    members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
    capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had
    for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
    destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
    oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone
    to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and
    his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons
    of mass destruction is real." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

  19. Raoul Duke said:


    "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    But no one, in 36 years, has tested my ability to

    Quoted message said:

    drive. Is this absurd, or what?

    I don't see what's so absurd about it. You're 52, not 82. You've been driving successfully
    (without killing yourself, or anyone else I presume) for 36 years. Why do you think you need to
    be tested?

    Just because I haven't killed anyone is no reason to presume I am a good driver. By the way people
    drive these days, it seems no one is stopped for anything (except DWB) unless there are body parts
    hanging from your front bumper. Wouldn't it be reasonable that someone should be given a driving
    test, say, once every 10 years? Just to find out if they remember how to use a turn signal, obey a
    speed limit, and maintain proper following distance. Failing that, why should other states presume
    that my last state of residence was up to their standards? I moved, from California, to
    Massachusetts, Texas, and finally Pennsylvania. In all but the last, all I had to show was my old
    license, and I got another one, no questions asked.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can _`\(,_ | only be cured by
    something racy and Italian. Bianchis and (_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis
    and Ferraris. -- Glenn Davies

  20. "Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    TCS said:

    Please name a single $50,000 SUV based on an $18,000 pickup truck.

    Lincoln Navigator

    Cadillac Escalade

    BZZZT! Wrong answer*s*! He said a *single* one ...

    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    --
    C.R. Krieger
    (Stato là; fatto quello)

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.