RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


re: triple prices on gasoline [apolitical rant](40 posts)

re: triple prices on gasoline [apolitical rant]cyclopathic
May 9, 2002 5:36 AM
I was off the board for half day and was surprised to see how much response my innocent remark got ;) It seems that anytime anyone says a word about gas prices there're 2 hundred people to go ballistic. Instantly.

I wanna clarify my position which comes rather from "common sense" not from "political views". Though I do reasonable things to protect nature and environment, I wouldn’t like to be associated with "environmental nazis" in any way.

The reality of current status quo situation is that cars not bikes drive economy. There’s no infrastructure (designated roads, shoulders etc) or economic benefit of using bicycle (gas is cheap, no tax breaks etc). The worse part is that we usually commute too far and we don’t have time to cycle it. 24mi of my 46mi commute route is on MUTS crossing numerous busy streets and it takes 3hr+ one way, sorry I don’t have this time I can only do it once in a while.

Let’s face it there cannot be "political" solution, any solution in making US bicycle friendly would be against economic interests of major corporations and will of population and thus will have no politician to endorse. The only way it can be done if there’s another oil crisis and prices on gas triple. After all it did work in 70s cars got smaller and more efficient. By any means it won't be a "solution" it will be a problem which will bring solution about.
and sintesi at home saysRadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 5:52 AM
"post this in the non cycling forum"
:)

I guess people like Sentesi At Home feel the need to be a forum police. Makes them feel important and big.
hey, it's cycling relatedcyclopathic
May 9, 2002 5:56 AM
even sintesi will admit that commuting on bicycle is "cycling related"
hey, it's cycling relatedRadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 5:58 AM
So was the other post he attacked. The SUV picture posting wasn't, but hey I at least got to use the term lot lizard on the board. It is a beautiful day.
Don't get your panties in a wad honey.Sintesi at home
May 9, 2002 7:14 AM
WadicalWon. You got a problem with me go to the non-cycling forum and yell your pretty little head off. ; )

PS: don't be stalker. It's unseemly.
Please comment on your hipocracy!RadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 7:58 AM
I would never stalk you. Don't flatter yourself you cheap .02 W, oh I shouldn't go there. You were the one yelling at someone to take their comments that were non cycling related to another board, when they were in reference to a cycling related post on this board. Yet you were nowhere to be found when they were posting pics of SUVs on this board. Care to comment on your hipocracy?
I missed that one. So sue me.Sintesi at home
May 9, 2002 8:16 AM
BTW. That was a different topic and please, "yelling?" I was very nice and polite. It was a suggestion.

If it's bike related even in a general fashion, I say fine. But if it is truly non-cycling related why clutter up this board? What is wrong with the non-cycling board. It's not like being banished to the kids table at Thanksgiving or something.
I missed that one. So sue me.RadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 9:07 AM
How could you miss the post of everyone pasting pictures of monster trucks all over the board. Scroll down the next page and look.
Would it really make you feel better?Sintesi at home
May 9, 2002 9:20 AM
Oh, all right.
another rantSUV
May 9, 2002 6:19 AM
This is America People should be able to pick and choose what vehicle they drive; I am not for laws eliminating certain Vehicles. I believe that the owners of Vehicles that do not pass certain emission standards (i.e., <30 mpg, or very old and out of tune 1982 Toyota) Should be responsible for the actual cost of the vehicle they are driving. An SUV getting 13 mpg has a considerable greater cost to the American public than a small 2002 compact car, not only in fuel, but in increased road wear due to weight, and increased accidents due to lack of driving skills (four wheel drive is not designed for snowy roads) I do admit some of the all wheel drive models out today are designed for traction control in slippery surfaces. Not that all CARS have four wheel STOP. Not just trucks that go speeding around in the snow. The cost to the American people for those who chose to drive such vehicles should not go to everyone. It should be applied to the owners of such vehicles. Gas should be sold at different prices to cover the costs that are effectively placed on the public and the environment. Maybe even vehicle taxes based upon costs to the public for these vehicles.

Remember it is our country and we should be able to choose what we drive. We should also pay for the additional costs that these vehicles create.

My $0.02
So,TJeanloz
May 9, 2002 6:25 AM
Are you saying I can't drive my Porsche any more, because it gets 6 miles to the gallon? If so, I'm totally against it.
NOPESUV
May 9, 2002 6:39 AM
I am saying that you can own and drive anything that you want. You should also be responsible for driving that vehicle of your choice by paying for the ACTUAL cost of driving that vehicle.
tough argument to keep consistentDougSloan
May 9, 2002 6:50 AM
When you eat food, did you pay the actual cost of the food? (pesticides, air pollution, diesel fuel...)

When you ride your bike on a highway, even if you don't own a car, did you pay the actual cost of that highway? (fuel in construction, tearing up land, destruction of environment, oil used in asphalt...)

When you ride in a 747, did you pay the actual cost of that flight (fuel, airport construction...)

When you post in this forum, did you pay the real cost of doing so? (army to defend borders to secure freedom of speech, courts to protect Constitutional rights, internet infrastructure...)

I hope the point is coming through. It might be wrong, or at least narrow-minded, to select out one activity and then demand the participants pay all the cost/expense of that activity alone, when there are thousands of things we accept without a similar demand.

Doug
Doug, you mean we can raise taxes to cover REAL costs?retro
May 9, 2002 7:25 AM
That's a pretty liberal argument for a conservative. I'm all for the oil companies and loggers (for instance; everybody else, too) paying the REAL cost of extracting their products, including the damage they do at all levels. Of course it will get passed along to the consumers, but that's only fair--we're the ones ultimately responsible. Whenever anybody tries to get legislation like that passed, though, we have to listen to the conservative caterwauling about taxes, freedom, government in our lives, blah blah blah. It really IS a hard argument to keep consistent, but conservatives often aren't troubled by that particular hobgoblin.
toughDougSloan
May 9, 2002 7:41 AM
It's a tough issue.

Some people value intellectual honesty, consistency, and philosophical purity, and some prefer saying whatever it takes to achieve the ends that are important to them. I try to lean toward the former. It's a tough position to take, being principled, because sometimes it might lead to results contrary to what you want.

Part of what I was arguing, though, is that we rarely, if ever, even attempt to capture the real, total cost of an activity through taxes, price controls, user fees, or whatever. There are so many hidden and obvious subsidies or penalties that it would be nearly impossible.

What we are really saying, when someone argues for paying the "real cost" of something, is that "I don't value that activity, so make it more expensive for those who do." Whether it's SUV's, national parks, logging, beach erosion, health care, or whatever, it's pretty much the same.

So, instead of arguing for users to pay the "real cost" of driving SUV's, why not just come right out and say "I don't like them, so jack up the cost for them"? Essentially, that's the honest argument.

Doug
Aw, c/mon128
May 9, 2002 8:02 AM
Your argument dissolves the difference between right and wrong, better and worse, and effecient v. less eficient.
'I don't value that activity, so make it more expensive for those who do' I think that is intellectually dishonest. It may just as well be: resources are limited, be more conservative with them. I don't think it has to boil down to a value judjement so much as a matter of facts: this uses too much fuel, this uses less.

I believe it's largely a difference between: what I want want v. what is best for the group considering the circumstances. I come down on the consevative side of alot of issues, not a party adherent. (unless it's a house party)
but as a group, sometimes we need to sacrifice what each wants, for the benefit of the group. Honesty is irrelevant...
Doug, I would tend to agree with you original argument, but...Djudd
May 9, 2002 8:49 AM
Your original argument that paying for the actual cost of a commodity is tough to keep consistent. However, when that commodity's cost is way out of proportion to any other than I think we have to consider trying to find a way to get back some of the cost. I submit cars and especially SUV's are there.
In this area -DC metro area- cars are exacting a huge price in lost productivity, and pollution. Homes are being appropriated through eminent domain and torn down to widen highways and before the widening is finished the road needs to be widened again. Northern Virginia is an absolute mess. Commuting is a nightmare everyday. One accident on the beltway and commuting in two states is ruined for the day.
There has been a recent spate of SUV accidents three of which have wiped out entire families. Most of these accidents have been judged to be loss of control-driver error. I don't think it is fair to the rest of the public that one item takes so much toll on our collective lifestyle. I am a driver ( a minivan) and trebling the cost of gas would be the least we can do
Doug, I would tend to agree with you original argument, but...RadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 9:10 AM
You minivan drivers think you own the road the way youuns drive those things to soccer practice. Mini van drivers, stereotyped as this is, drive like crap racing all over the place to get to soccer practice or to the music lesson. You need to preach to your own choir about safety before you cross over and preach to SUV drivers buddy. Put a soccer mom behind the wheel of a mini van and watch out. Hell is unleashed on the highway.
an alternative?DougSloan
May 9, 2002 9:13 AM
Maybe a decent alternative is to really focus on public transportation. I'm all for that, as long as it's done right.

Electric trains powered nuclear power would have almost zero impact on environment and utilize less land resource.

Maybe we are focusing too much on disincentives and not enough on incentives for alternatives. Ultimately, I think the incentives work better.
re: an alternative?... I neglected to add...Djudd
May 9, 2002 11:31 AM
there is a big push here to get people on to public transportation and, lately, to ride bikes as commuting. I think you are right about incentives, however, some sort of punitive action goes hand-in-hand with it. Witness the HOV lanes great for those with the requires number of passengers, not so for those choosing to ride alone. (as a footnote, there is a problem around here with single drivers cheating into the HOV lane... police say it is so pervasive they can;t possibly ticket all the offenders) In a perfect world we would seek common ground on the effects of driving on the overall public good. When you ask for for moderation what you here is, "I gotta right to drive whatever and whenever I want". A falsehood that I fear mother nature will correct.
Also,Jekyll
May 9, 2002 6:55 AM
When you're burning more fuel you are in fact paying more taxes. It costs far more to drive a land yacht like an Expedition then to drive a Civic. If you are burning up 3 times as much fuel and paying three times as much in taxes as a product of the vehicles poor fuel economy you are indeed paying much of the "cost" on driving the vehicle.
I think our attitude is if it ain't against the law then...Sintesi at home
May 9, 2002 7:32 AM
I'll do whatever the hell I please. Responsibility towards the environment is a matter of personal choice. Personal choice is equated with freedom in this country and "freedom" has moral authority over all other values.

Personally I find self aggrandisement repulsive and greed at the height of almost all evils and a genuine cause of grief in the world. We won't be civilized until people willfully refuse to take more than they need and much less than they want. Key word: willfully. As in without compulsion from government.

Whoops did I just post this in the cycling forum? I think I just offended myself.

So ride your bike!
there all better.
I think our attitude is if it ain't against the law then...RadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 8:00 AM
Whoops did I just post this in the cycling forum? I think I just offended myself.

You mean that is possible?
You find me sanctimonious and inconsitent do you?Sintesi at home
May 9, 2002 8:19 AM
Sorry, sorry, sorry. Boy am I sorry.
You find me sanctimonious and inconsitent do you?RadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 9:06 AM
Just quit telling people to post it elsewhere. Like who died and left you in charge of this board.
Once apon a time Ron.Sintesi at home
May 9, 2002 9:32 AM
Long before you arrived, there was only 4 boards. In the general section there was soo much thread drift on off-topic issues that you'd come in and find the whole baord overwhelmed with non-bike inanity. People were practically screaming for a non-cycling board so people with legitimate bike related issues, interests and questions stopped getting buried. Lo and behold the new board was born.

People seem to forget that. It's a good solution that helps everyone find what they are looking for. I can't see why you would have a problem with that. It's just a matter of being curteous and respectful of others.

You don't like me pointing this out. So what?
But I Didn't Post The PostRadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 10:07 AM
Didn't say you did.Sintesi at home
May 9, 2002 1:29 PM
You're the one posting my name and calling BS on my previous post. Now your acting like I'm attacking you. C'mon lets just try and get along and not get personal anymore. Truce?
Didn't say you did.RadicalRonPruitt
May 10, 2002 5:13 AM
Truce, because if we don't Greg will force us too. It has happened to me before, believe it or not.
higher fuel = smaller cars, not more bikingkenyee
May 9, 2002 7:25 AM
IIRC, in the 70s, it did lead to smaller (and less safe) cars. Usually safety = better crumple zone = bigger mass.

I think the last post in the other thread hit it on the head. People get larger cars because they're "safer". They want to ban what other people do because if everything does what "they" do, they'll be "safer". It's a strange paranoia.

BTW, I'd bet these same people don't think highly of bikers because they think bikers are crazy people who hit pedestrians, run red lights, and go the wrong way in traffic or go too fast on their baby walking/jogging trails ;-)
Very True. My Families Safety Is More Important The MPGRadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 8:02 AM
Very true. There have been many studies that have shown that as the averge per gallon fuel rate has increased, so has the number of fatalities on the highway. My families safety is more important that 2 or 3 more miles to the gallon.
Here is an interesting idea (in comic strip form)sodade
May 9, 2002 8:23 AM
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/04/08/tomo/index.html
guys you're missing the pointcyclopathic
May 9, 2002 9:12 AM
I am not arguing the prices on gasoline (which btw avg Am pays more then avg Euro). I am arguing that at present situation with subsidies personal car based transportation system and spiral as a result of, politicians worrying about nothing but maintaining status quo nothing will change to get people out on bicycles.

In Europe car ownership is discouraged (via higher density development, higher taxes, lack of parking and yes higher gas prices) bicycles or actually mopeds and scooters make more sense.

I am sure if any metropolitan area would impose additional 40% parking tax, use money to build bicycle commute routes and give tax break for bicycle commuters, there would be more people out there.
Whatever happened to that...RadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 9:16 AM
Scooter like thing that was supposed to change the world? I have never seen one of those things since they were on the Good Morning America Show.
I guess it did change the worldcyclopathic
May 9, 2002 9:32 AM
you just don't realize it you've been abducted by aliens 8<(

I actually meant motorized scooters-motorollers
I guess it did change the worldRadicalRonPruitt
May 9, 2002 10:08 AM
Wasn't the post office supposed to start using those things.
nope...you missed "majority rules"kenyee
May 9, 2002 12:04 PM
You might as well try to pry people from their TVs. If politicians said "we're going to crank up the price of TVs and take away free TV broadcasting because you now need a decoder so we can track what you're watching", it'd be political suicide

Same thing nowadays w/ bikes. Most people consider them nuances (the same ones on the MUTs jogging and walking their dogs and letting their dogs poop everywhere w/o cleaning up despite the laws). These same ones are Joe/Jane Average who the politicians listen to. The same Joe Average people are happily convincing politicians to add more parks, but not biking routes or paths.

If you seriously want to encourage more bike use, you have to add brainwashing (a.k.a. TV/print ads) to make Joe Average think bikes are normal instead of bikers are weirdos (there was a thread a while back about how people think bikers are strange and that was probably mostly true).

Cranking up gas prices (your main topic) will probably not do what you want. Besides, the extra money will just like politicians pockets. You can't "earmark" taxes for a particular purpose (at least I've never seen it done w/o someone's hand in the till)...
re: "majority rules"cyclopathic
May 9, 2002 12:38 PM
actually my topic was "you can't get them out of cars even if you nuke 'em with high gas prices" nevermind..

CP

PS with respect to "brainwashing" all you need is to publish how much top pros are making 8-)
re: re: triple prices on gasoline [apolitical rant]NJRoad
May 10, 2002 5:07 AM
In Europe taxes on fuel are not only higher but your annual registration costs (at least in Portugal) are also higher for less economical or sport vehicles. For example a 6-cyl BMW with a diesel costs about 1/4 to 1/2 a year to register as a the same BMW with a 6-cyl gas engine.

Also the theory of bigger is safer is not only antiquated thinking stemming from the econo vehicles of the 70's but it is also somewhat selfish.

Let's see how many people this p***es off. Your family is in Ford Elephant another family is in the Hyundai, junior spits up in the back seat and you turn to make sure he's OK, run a stop sign and hit the Hyundai. Isn't it a secure feeling to know that thanks to the obsene height of your vehicle, your bumper caught the side of their car in the middle of the body panels where they're the weakest?
re: re: triple prices on gasoline [apolitical rant]RadicalRonPruitt
May 10, 2002 5:15 AM
They had a choice, buy a Hyundai or buy something safer. They went the cheaper route, so oh well...