Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

"Pat" wrote in message
...

The problem is that you are trying to impose your lifestyle and values
on others. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone
and you need to take a bigger view of things.

Here's an example. I have to drive my kid to school tomorrow, like I
do every day. It's 10 miles each way -- 40 miles for school !!! For
you, that's horrible. Let's examine the alternatives:

a. Take a bus. Sorry. There are no busses between here and there.
None. Zip. Nada.

2. Drive himself. Sorry. He doesn't have a license.

III. Ride a bicycle. 7" to 10" of snow are forecast for during the
day tomorrow and a high of 27F. Not really an option. Oh, I saw the
sun today!!! First time in weeks that that has happened.

So I drive him. You might find it horrible but you need to consider
that I live in a radically different area than you do. You'd have a
car if you were here, too.

So before you start making blanket inditements of cars, consider that
there are different needs for different situations.

But then you're failing to recognize that the whole situation you're talking
about has been caused by the increasing trend to build schools out in the
middle of nowhere so that _no_ children are within walking or safe biking
distance. What quixote is talking about is that we need to catch the
situation before it gets to the point where we have one massive school that
everyone must drive to and look at alternatives, such as several smaller
neighborhood schools. So you are as much a victim of the whole car-centered
mentality as anyone else. You're forced to spend an extra hour or so out of
every day your son goes to school on the road because of where the school is
located. I would imagine your hourly rate is such that the fuel is
insignificant compared to the time cost.

This is one of the reasons my husband and I are looking at moving to a
community that makes more intelligent choices in these sorts of matters than
where we are now. We don't want to be at the mercy of these kinds of poor
decisions that impose extra costs on us.

-Amy

"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

Women tend to value economic security as much more important than men do
in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick
around
to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can find
younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.

I think it is more because women who have means find that the kind of men
who will date women who make more than them are not worth having, and women
who do not have means will not hook up with a guy who will drag them down
(if they're smart).

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
If you are of the class your attitudes indicate, you will be one of the
first taken down.

What have of got against the class of '49?

Pat WHO? wrote:
On Dec 12, 6:59 pm, donquijote1954
wrote:
What we witness in America is a hierarchal transportation system where
the amoral big fish crushes the moral little fish. But who can talk
about morals in a Darwinistic system? Welcome to the Jungle...

'The car-as-cocoon also _insulates_ the driver and passengers from the
physical and social environment immediately outside the vehicle while
_intimidating_ other-modes travellers who prefer to be _part_ of that
environment. The mentality of driving is really the mentality of
taking private measures to deal with public problems (and of
converting public space to private uses). The attitude of "I'm all
right, Jack" is the result of using the car to insulate oneself from
street crime, from poor street cleaning, from street noise, from local
air pollution, people who live on the street, etc.

As if in recognition of these problems, the car manufacturers, the
"aftermarket" producers, and the economy generally have come to
provide a range of amenities that further insulate and amuse the
driver - e.g., smoking, playing the CD, eating/drinking, and talking
on the telephone (all of which increase the chance of causing a
collision). It is as if the car has _become_ a destination. One
doesn't have to go anywhere!'

'What is making things so bad is that the street and neighbourhood
scales have pretty much withered under the assault of large-scale
retailing and "lifestyles" that have no place for neighbouring (in
fact, people in North America avoid their neighbours in the name of
'privacy'). Thus trips up to the weekly frequency, which should be
made by foot or bike, are now made by car, and this growth in car use
has further loosened ties between people and increased the level of
intimidation of the green-modes beyond what once existed when
vulnerable road-users were both respected and noticed.'

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/trips.asp

The problem is that you are trying to impose your lifestyle and values
on others. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone
and you need to take a bigger view of things.

Here's an example. I have to drive my kid to school tomorrow, like I
do every day. It's 10 miles each way -- 40 miles for school !!! For
you, that's horrible. Let's examine the alternatives:

a. Take a bus. Sorry. There are no busses between here and there.
None. Zip. Nada.

2. Drive himself. Sorry. He doesn't have a license.

III. Ride a bicycle. 7" to 10" of snow are forecast for during the
day tomorrow and a high of 27F. Not really an option. Oh, I saw the
sun today!!! First time in weeks that that has happened.

So I drive him. You might find it horrible but you need to consider
that I live in a radically different area than you do. You'd have a
car if you were here, too.

So before you start making blanket inditements of cars, consider that
there are different needs for different situations.

Does your work (e.g. farmer, miner) require you to live in BFE? If not,
you are referring to WANTS, not NEEDS.

If work is not the reason for living in an isolated place, you have made
a poor choice, since you in all likelihood consume excess fossil fuel
compared to your contribution to society.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

Amy Blankenship wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

Women tend to value economic security as much more important than men do
in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick
around
to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can find
younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.

I think it is more because women who have means find that the kind of men
who will date women who make more than them are not worth having, and women
who do not have means will not hook up with a guy who will drag them down
(if they're smart).

I.e., the women are looking for a "sugar daddy".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

Women tend to value economic security as much more important than men
do
in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick
around
to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can find
younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.

I think it is more because women who have means find that the kind of men
who will date women who make more than them are not worth having, and
women who do not have means will not hook up with a guy who will drag
them down (if they're smart).

I.e., the women are looking for a "sugar daddy".

No, the men are. If you get burned by that often enough, you learn to steer
clear.

Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

Women tend to value economic security as much more important than men
do
in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick
around
to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can find
younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.
I think it is more because women who have means find that the kind of men
who will date women who make more than them are not worth having, and
women who do not have means will not hook up with a guy who will drag
them down (if they're smart).
I.e., the women are looking for a "sugar daddy".

No, the men are. If you get burned by that often enough, you learn to steer
clear.

Typically it is the other way around, since in a patriarchal society,
men usually earn considerably more money than women.

Plenty of women will lie about loving a man if they think he will be a
good provider, withdraw affection after having the desired number of
children, and then continue to suck money from the man through the
resulting divorce settlement.

The "fear of commitment" is a rational behavior on a man's part.

Of course, if a man lies about loving a woman and wanting children just
to get sex, then he deserves what he gets.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

Women tend to value economic security as much more important than
men do
in all circumstances. It makes sense, because often men don't stick
around
to help out with the children. That is one reason why rich men can
find
younger and very pretty women to hook up with them.
I think it is more because women who have means find that the kind of
men who will date women who make more than them are not worth having,
and women who do not have means will not hook up with a guy who will
drag them down (if they're smart).
I.e., the women are looking for a "sugar daddy".

No, the men are. If you get burned by that often enough, you learn to
steer clear.

Typically it is the other way around, since in a patriarchal society, men
usually earn considerably more money than women.

It seems like every woman I've known who even had a modest amount of
security that she got on her own had a man somewhere along the line sponging
off her. People think it's the other way around, but women who choose to
stay home, cook, clean, and raise a family _do_ work in the partnership.
Most men who sponge just sponge.

-Amy

most car drivers though do not have your situation so how would we address
them. They are overweight, malnurished because of it. that i think is the
point. Are you of this nature BTW? then you should drive less. Cyclists
would probably not cross your path anyway on that trip if it was out of the
way as you say.
Overweight according to BMI makes you more sick than everyone else and you
will likely, miss more work, and be in the hospital more since your immune
system can only handle so much abuse, as well as all your organs. Rot from
the inside out I believe.

Just share the road equally, be civilized. Cyclists are doing you a favor
but are grossly unloved. We are funding your driving not the reverse.
Drivers are ignorant pukes for the most part. And that is who is subsidized
with our tax money none the less. spoiled, go figur'

Pat wrote:
On Dec 13, 10:52 am, wrote:

On Dec 13, 9:36 am, Pat wrote:


On Dec 12, 11:46 pm, wrote:

Oh, and another comment to a couple of you. I think it's somewhat
arrogant and mis-informed to think that all (or even many) of the
people who live in rural areas do so because they've "inherited the
family farm". You might find it hard to believe, but we have doctors
and lawyers and Indian Chiefs around here.

You misunderstood. Those who actually did inherit the family farm are
OK. They get my sympathy - in part, because they have to put up with
pampered ex-suburbanites adding to their traffic, complaining about
their agricultural smells, ruining their views, driving up their land
prices and taxes. In fact, they get my respect for having a less
greedy lifestyle.

The "Daniel Boone with an SUV and McMansion" pretenders are another
matter entirely. They move out to get away from the other SUVs and
McMansions. But of course, they bring their own with them. Why,
they're _special_, you see. Just ask them!


Farmers are a interesting lot. They despise social programs and want
lower taxes but also demand HUGE subsidies -- including subsidies for
not doing anything at all. Then they complain how poor they are while
arguing for reduced capital gains to protect their huge net worths.

I'm not certain most family farmers are that well off.
The fact that there are fewer and fewer of them probably
says their "huge net worths" aren't perhaps so huge.

Around here, it's tough for a farmer to stay farming. The
value of his land is potentially huge, but making a living
from farming doesn't pay the bills. So he sells off a chunk
of the cornfield for a few houses (*big* houses around here
these days), and farms a while longer. The kids don't want
to farm because, it seems they don't get paid enough for doing
nothing, so eventually, a developer ends up with the farm and
a bunch more big houses with attendant traffic and services
and shopping malls and fast food and suddenly, it ain't quite
so rural any more.

Even the corporate farms don't take the risks of farming on
to themselves. They more likely lease the lands from a family
farmer and pay him if the crop comes in, and don't pay him if
it doesn't. All the risks stay away from the corporation and
remain centered on a private farmer.


SMH