New Book "Traffic Life"

Stephan Wehner said:

You may be interested in this new book that I have put together called

Quoted message said:

Traffic Life: Passionate Tales and Exit Strategies

Quoted message said:

It is an anthology with short stories, poems, cartoons and lots of other art by 40 contributors
(notably, Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison) from around the world. The theme is the problems of
traffic and car culture.

Quoted message said:

Alternatives are covered, with cycling coming out at the top.

Quoted message said:

Most of the contents are available online at

Quoted message said:

www.trafficlife.com

Looks interesting, the first story was amusing. One comment, the resources collection would be much
better as a list instead of just an aggregation of links jumbled up together.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g To err is human, To purr feline. --
Robert Byrne

Dane Jackson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Looks interesting, the first story was amusing. One comment, the resources collection would be
much better as a list instead of just an aggregation of links jumbled up together.

Granted! Improvement of that page is planned.

Stephan

On 11 Feb 2004 09:39:11 -0800, [email hidden] (Stephan Wehner)

Quoted message said:

You may be interested in this new book that I have put together called

Traffic Life: Passionate Tales and Exit Strategies

It is an anthology with short stories, poems, cartoons and lots of other art by 40 contributors
(notably, Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison) from around the world. The theme is the problems of
traffic and car culture.

Unless the price of oil quadruples, you aren't going to be able to persuade a significant portion of
the population to abandon their cars.

Come to think of it, it might take more than that. Gas prices in Europe approach that, and I saw an
awful lot of cars in London, Florence, and Zurich last year.

Even if the price of oil does skyrocket, there will be alternatives. Hybrid cars already get 50+
mpg, and are quite practical...unlike pure electrics.

By the way, I flipped through the book...you seem to be simply preaching to the choir. Much, if not
most of the content seems to be fringe econuts ranting about how oppressed they are.

You do realize that none of the "solutions" proposed has the slightest chance of actually being
adopted, don't you?

Doug

Doug Haxton said:

On 11 Feb 2004 09:39:11 -0800, [email hidden] (Stephan Wehner) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You may be interested in this new book that I have put together called

Traffic Life: Passionate Tales and Exit Strategies

It is an anthology with short stories, poems, cartoons and lots of other art by 40 contributors
(notably, Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison) from around the world. The theme is the problems of
traffic and car culture.

Quoted message said:

Unless the price of oil quadruples, you aren't going to be able to persuade a significant portion
of the population to abandon their cars.

Actually I would imagine the curve would look like smoking price increases. First you see some small
percentage of people cut down, and an even smaller percentage quit. As the cost increases you see
more people limiting their usage, and an increasing (but smaller) amount of people no longer
smoking/driving.

Even if gas cost 25 times as much, I guarantee you would still see some people driving. But there
would be quite a few less of them, and they would be viewed differently by society.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g "Ubi non accusator, ibi non judex."

(Where there is no police, there is no speed limit.) -- Roman Law, trans. Petr Beckmann (1971)

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:42:53 GMT, Dane Jackson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Doug Haxton said:

On 11 Feb 2004 09:39:11 -0800, [email hidden] (Stephan Wehner) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You may be interested in this new book that I have put together called

Traffic Life: Passionate Tales and Exit Strategies

It is an anthology with short stories, poems, cartoons and lots of other art by 40 contributors
(notably, Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison) from around the world. The theme is the problems of
traffic and car culture.

Quoted message said:

Unless the price of oil quadruples, you aren't going to be able to persuade a significant portion
of the population to abandon their cars.

Actually I would imagine the curve would look like smoking price increases. First you see some
small percentage of people cut down, and an even smaller percentage quit. As the cost increases you
see more people limiting their usage, and an increasing (but smaller) amount of people no longer
smoking/driving.

Makes sense. You'd have to raise prices a *lot*, though. I wouldn't drive one bit less if gas was
twice as expensive, and I suspect 90%+ of people would do the same.

Quadruple it and I'll drive (somewhat) less.

Quoted message said:

Even if gas cost 25 times as much, I guarantee you would still see some people driving. But there
would be quite a few less of them, and they would be viewed differently by society.

Ok, at $35 a gallon, I'll grant your point :-)

Doug

Doug Haxton said:

Makes sense. You'd have to raise prices a *lot*, though. I wouldn't drive one bit less if gas was
twice as expensive, and I suspect 90%+ of people would do the same.

Probably because the typical cost of having a car far exceeds the cost of using it. Anybody sinking
over $500 a month into payments and insurance isn't going to quit driving because the fuel costs
$200 a month. Those driving 15mpg trucks might request that the government do something to lower the
cost of their poor decision. Like maybe drilling and consuming the remaining oil in Alaska. We'll be
less dependent on foreign oil when that's gone, just ask some of the Republicans. Mitch.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:37:42 -0500, Mitch Haley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Doug Haxton said:

Makes sense. You'd have to raise prices a *lot*, though. I wouldn't drive one bit less if gas was
twice as expensive, and I suspect 90%+ of people would do the same.

Probably because the typical cost of having a car far exceeds the cost of using it. Anybody sinking
over $500 a month into payments and insurance isn't going to quit driving because the fuel costs
$200 a month.

Quite true. Make it $400/month for gas, and I'll drive less. I might even purchase a more fuel-
efficient vehicle for some trips...but stop driving altogether? No way. Not unless it's even more
expensive.

Quoted message said:

Those driving 15mpg trucks might request that the government do something to lower the cost of
their poor decision. Like maybe drilling and consuming the remaining oil in Alaska.

Well, it's not like it's doing anyone any good when it's in the ground...

Quoted message said:

We'll be less dependent on foreign oil when that's gone, just ask some of the Republicans.

If you ask this Republican, I'll make the following forecast: As long as foreign oil is inexpensive,
we'll be dependent on it, and why shouldn't we be? Why use up our oil when someone else is willing
to sell us theirs so cheaply?

Oh, sure, it'll eventually dry up...at some indeterminate point decades (at least) in the future. It
won't happen overnight, though. As the price slowly goes up, the market will find alternatives.

In the meantime, it's cheaper than bottled water, so start your engines!

Doug

Doug Haxton said:

If you ask this Republican, I'll make the following forecast: As long as foreign oil is
inexpensive, we'll be dependent on it, and why shouldn't we be? Why use up our oil when someone
else is willing to sell us theirs so cheaply?

Exactly. That's why it made no sense when Bush was talking about "reducing our dependence". When
OPEC can't supply us, then we can give up our dependence on foreign oil. That seems to be a major
problem with Bin Laden, he thinks we're gobbling up the Arab world's natural resources. When you
look at world oil consumption, he's got a point. USA - 20 million barrels per day, China's in 2nd
place with 5 million, Japan recently dropped to third place with 5 million... I was surprised to
find out we still burn four times as much as China when we have 10% of China's population. If the US
military were counted as a separate country, I wonder where it would rank on the list. Mitch.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:13:00 -0500, Mitch Haley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Doug Haxton said:

If you ask this Republican, I'll make the following forecast: As long as foreign oil is
inexpensive, we'll be dependent on it, and why shouldn't we be? Why use up our oil when someone
else is willing to sell us theirs so cheaply?

Exactly. That's why it made no sense when Bush was talking about "reducing our dependence". When
OPEC can't supply us, then we can give up our dependence on foreign oil. That seems to be a major
problem with Bin Laden, he thinks we're gobbling up the Arab world's natural resources.

That's because oil is all that the Arab world produces. Their other industries are insignificant. I
recall someone pointing out recently that the combined GDP of every Arab country is roughly
equivalent to that of Spain.

Quoted message said:

When you look at world oil consumption, he's got a point. USA - 20 million barrels per day,
China's in 2nd place with 5 million, Japan recently dropped to third place with 5 million... I was
surprised to find out we still burn four times as much as China when we have 10% of China's
population.

I'm not. Per capita ownership of automobiles is something like 2.0 in the US, IIRC. What is it in
China.... 0.1?

Quoted message said:

If the US military were counted as a separate country, I wonder where it would rank on the list.

Rather low, I suspect. While our Armed Forces burn a lot of gas, so do the entire countries of
France, Great Britain, Sweden, etc.

Doug

Or the laws of thermodynamics will prove more challenging than the PR people in the energy and auto
industries want us to believe, and we will have to get by using about 10% of the energy we do now.
Not that that couldn't be as good (or better) life. Part of the insanity of our society is everyone
zipping around like Chihuahuas on speed.

Although I think burning fossil fuel 3 million times faster than our planet made it is a disgrace,
one must consider that if we weren't burning it now in our hummers, we would be burning it later in
bulldozers and chainsaws.

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:37:42 -0500, Mitch Haley <[email hidden]>

Oh, sure, it'll eventually dry up...at some indeterminate point decades (at least) in the future.
It won't happen overnight, though. As the price slowly goes up, the market will find alternatives.

Quoted message said:

Doug

Robert Haston said:

Although I think burning fossil fuel 3 million times faster than our planet made it is a disgrace,
one must consider that if we weren't burning it now in our hummers, we would be burning it later
in bulldozers and chainsaws.

Your point is well taken, but *right now* (4:56 pm United States Central Standard Time, Sunday 15
February 2003) on TV (the Weather Channel) I'm watching an ad for a human-driven chainsaw. Sure it's
still a chainsaw, but no gas! And (proudly claimed by the ad) no start-up time!

If fossil fuel disappears, the tech *will* adapt.

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- eilertech.comeilertech.comOpen ↗ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich Village... She ordered the 20-
ounce steak." -- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse with Suzanne Vega.

I can't see much of anything improving on the one man bucksaw/bowsaw with its very thin blade, or
the two man whipsaw. Chainsaws have to cut 2-4 times more width, if not more.

I guess it is all a bunch of hot air until the end of cheap oil arrives. It will be interesting to
say the least.

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

Quoted message said:

Robert Haston said:

Although I think burning fossil fuel 3 million times faster than our

planet

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

made it is a disgrace, one must consider that if we weren't burning it

now

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in our hummers, we would be burning it later in bulldozers and

chainsaws.

Quoted message said:

Your point is well taken, but *right now* (4:56 pm United States Central Standard Time, Sunday 15
February 2003) on TV (the Weather Channel) I'm watching an ad for a human-driven chainsaw. Sure
it's still a chainsaw, but no gas! And (proudly claimed by the ad) no start-up time!

If fossil fuel disappears, the tech *will* adapt.

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- eilertech.comeilertech.comOpen ↗ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich Village... She ordered
the 20-ounce steak." -- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse with
Suzanne Vega.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:59:37 GMT, Scott Eiler <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Robert Haston said:

Although I think burning fossil fuel 3 million times faster than our planet made it is a
disgrace, one must consider that if we weren't burning it now in our hummers, we would be burning
it later in bulldozers and chainsaws.

Your point is well taken, but *right now* (4:56 pm United States Central Standard Time, Sunday 15
February 2003) on TV (the Weather Channel) I'm watching an ad for a human-driven chainsaw. Sure
it's still a chainsaw, but no gas! And (proudly claimed by the ad) no start-up time!

If fossil fuel disappears, the tech *will* adapt.

There's a novel coming out later this year called "Dies the Fire" by one of my favorite authors, S.
M. Stirling, in which electricity stops going through wires, gunpowder stops working, and even steam
engines won't work.

hem.bredband.netdies cv.htmlOpen ↗

I gather that someone like 99% of humanity dies in the first few months.

Doug

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:15:58 GMT, "Robert Haston" <[email hidden]> from

EarthLink Inc. -- url='http://www.earthlink.net/'http://www.EarthLink.net/url said:

I guess it is all a bunch of hot air until the end of cheap oil arrives.

It's already arrived. The price is kept artificially low in terms of money paid per barrel. Factor
in all the military spending to enforce a stable supply, not to mention human lives lost in
petroleum wars, then try to call it "cheap oil."

--
[email hidden]
Remove specifics and convert to ambiguities.
1

Having served in Iraq twice, and having an oil engineer uncle, I don't see the military cost as
mandatory. I see the oil as more of an excuse for a bigger military rather than the oil itself needs
defending.

There are lots of cheaper options the powers that be don't want (such as pipeline instead of
tankers) - especially considering that we get 12% of our oil from the middle east (Japan and
Korea get 75%).

1. Stockpile 24% of our annual consumption (2,000 gallons per capita).
2. Buy long-term oil contract from those we get 36% from.

If there is an oil war, we make huge profits as our stockpiles, contracts, and domestic oil value
doubles. Personally I think we need a public uprising and spend our own money on it, while
reducing consumption to lower the cost. Given that oil has outpaced inflation for 20 years now, it
is low-risk.

Anyway, there are lots of options, options you never see between car commercials on TV.

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:15:58 GMT, "Robert Haston" <[email hidden]>

from

Quoted message said:

EarthLink Inc. -- url='http://www.earthlink.net/'http://www.EarthLink.net/url said:

I guess it is all a bunch of hot air until the end of cheap oil arrives.

It's already arrived. The price is kept artificially low in terms of money

paid

Quoted message said:

per barrel. Factor in all the military spending to enforce a stable

supply, not

Quoted message said:

to mention human lives lost in petroleum wars, then try to call it "cheap

oil."

Quoted message said:

--
[email hidden] Remove specifics and convert to ambiguities. 1

Doug Haxton said:

There's a novel coming out later this year called "Dies the Fire" by one of my favorite authors,
S. M. Stirling, in which electricity stops going through wires, gunpowder stops working, and even
steam engines won't work.

Quoted message said:

hem.bredband.netdies cv.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

I gather that someone like 99% of humanity dies in the first few months.

Nifty. I quite liked the General series, I'll have to pick this up. Baen has really been taking a
disproportionate amount of my book budget since they setup the Baen online library and started
posting sample chapters for everything.

I'm really waiting for Eric Flints next book "1634: The Galileo Affair".

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g "Are you police officers?" "No, ma'am.
We're musicians." -- The Blues Brothers

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:19:11 GMT, Dane Jackson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a novel coming out later this year called "Dies the Fire" by one of my favorite authors,
S. M. Stirling, in which electricity stops going through wires, gunpowder stops working, and even
steam engines won't work.

Quoted message said:

hem.bredband.netdies cv.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

I gather that someone like 99% of humanity dies in the first few months.

Nifty. I quite liked the General series, I'll have to pick this up. Baen has really been taking a
disproportionate amount of my book budget since they setup the Baen online library and started
posting sample chapters for everything.

I'm really waiting for Eric Flints next book "1634: The Galileo Affair".

Have you read Stirling's "Island in the Sea of Time" series? If you you like 1632 & 1633, you'll
*really* like this. It's also related to "Dies the Fire"

Doug

Robert Haston said:

Having served in Iraq twice, and having an oil engineer uncle, I don't see the military cost as
mandatory. I see the oil as more of an excuse for a bigger military rather than the oil itself
needs defending.

There are lots of cheaper options the powers that be don't want (such as pipeline instead of
tankers)

Pipelines only go as far as the coastlines of our nearest allies, which is to say, Turkey as the
best case. Laying a trans-Atlantic oil pipeline is not about equal to a trans-Atlantic telephone
pipeline - and the telephone pipeline was hard enough. Besides, I haven't yet heard that tankers are
the weak link in the world economic system. Maybe oil itself is...

Quoted message said:

- especially considering that we get 12% of our oil from the middle east (Japan and Korea
get 75%).

Apparently the United States *has* been taking three decades of advice to reduce its dependendy on
Middle Eastern oil, then. Apparently the rest of the world has not, though. Go figure; we all depend
on oil from *somewhere*. And if our friends in Japan and Korea fail to get oil, the world economic
system starts to collapse.

Quoted message said:

1. Stockpile 24% of our annual consumption (2,000 gallons per capita).
2. Buy long-term oil contract from those we get 36% from.

Ideas 1 and 2 together would make OPEC drive up oil prices like crazy before we could ever
complete them.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, there are lots of options, options you never see between car commercials on TV.

Kindly please tell us which options actually result in less oil consumption, thereby benefiting any
part of the world in the long run.

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- eilertech.comeilertech.comOpen ↗ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich Village... She ordered the 20-
ounce steak." -- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse with Suzanne Vega.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 06:27:22 GMT, Scott Eiler <[email hidden]> from Eiler

Technical Enterprises said:

Kindly please tell us which options actually result in less oil consumption, thereby benefiting any
part of the world in the long run.

Don't buy or use a car.

--
[email hidden]
You are an engineer.
100