|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message ... "George Conklin" wrote in message ... "DougC" wrote in message ... Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that people won't arrive at on their own? ~ Well, technically that is called normative behavior. Like preachers of all types (religious or secular), planners think we don't live like we should and they are there to tell us what to do. And there it is! Now, come on, George. Couldn't you have squeezed in "revanchist"? :-D No, planning is normative, but the outcomes are revanchist. Actually the term which should be used is reductionistic, but that way, way way beyond you. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?
"George Conklin" wrote in message ... "Amy Blankenship" wrote in message ... "George Conklin" wrote in message ... "DougC" wrote in message ... Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that people won't arrive at on their own? ~ Well, technically that is called normative behavior. Like preachers of all types (religious or secular), planners think we don't live like we should and they are there to tell us what to do. And there it is! Now, come on, George. Couldn't you have squeezed in "revanchist"? :-D No, planning is normative, but the outcomes are revanchist. Actually the term which should be used is reductionistic, but that way, way way beyond you. Oh, George. You're just sooo smart. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?
Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing
decisions that people won't arrive at on their own? =v= People's decisions are largely influenced by the work of *past* urban planning, so you've got a self-destructing presumption in your strident rhetoric there. _Jym_ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?
Well, technically that is called normative behavior.
And there it is! =v= And, as is usual for George Conklin, it is completely wrong. Urban planning is actually a very fluid field -- quite literally so, given how some of its math is the same as that used in fluid dynamics. To call it "normative" makes absolutely no sense. _Jym_ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?
On Dec 17, 5:55 pm, DougC wrote:
wrote: ..... I was finally able to pass him. That's with my front wheel drive. Within a couple minutes, he was out of sight behind me. He didn't "need" 4WD. He needed to stay off the road. If you think that front wheel drive is "just as good" as 4-wheel drive, then you aren't going anywhere you need 4-wheel drive. For the record, I don't think front wheel drive is just as good as 4WD for driving in off-road conditions - i.e., where people shouldn't be driving anyway. But on-road? Exactly how "good" does your drive system have to be? My front wheel drive was good enough to get me where I was going, on a night when the vast majority of drivers stayed home. If 4WD were anywhere close to a necessity, I'd have noticed it sometime between 1964 and now. Yet, if I'd had it continuously since then, it might have helped me slightly in, oh, ten situations max. That's ten situation is 43 years. In all of those, I was never inconvenienced for more than five minutes. And if I'd had 4WD (even on little cars) I'd have paid thousands of extra dollars in gas, due to the inevitably lower mileage caused by 4WD. ..... But if you're really afraid of jamming your head into the roof when your vehicle flips, it doesn't make much sense to drive the type of vehicle that's most prone to flipping! Yes it does, if the only vehicles that can satisfy both the requirements I have are SUV's. That's a big "if." I think what you've done is to purposely state your requirements so you believe only SUVs can meet them. And, having stated them, I think you haven't looked very hard at non-SUV alternatives. There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom, but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought. Got data? No, do you? We'd be considering 1995-2000 year US models here, since that was the era mine was made in... Hmm. Well, you're the one who searched for vehicles. My research project would necessarily be starting from scratch. But instead of requiring 4" head room in case your vehicle flips, why not just get 2" head room and a vehicle that's less prone to overturning than an SUV? One could also grow enough to know that some choices are simply wrong. And that freedom to choose has always needed to be restricted by the effect of one's choice on others. So if I cost other people money by driving a (larger) SUV, then how do other people save me money by driving tiny cars? It's not necessarily a mirror image situation. That is, it's possible for you to cost others money without them saving you money. But: If all the people getting 30+ mpg were in SUVs, Cheney would have had to invade Iraq a lot sooner. The cost of that conquest would have been going for a longer time. Therefore, those economy drivers did save you money. Because so far I haven't seen a dime of that savings. You just haven't noticed, because the "control" situation isn't obvious. Every time I fill up, it costs me $45, $50 a tank, and somebody with a little car there is only paying $15 or $20! It's just unfair! Awww, poor boy! - Frank Krygowski |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?
"Jym Dyer" wrote in message ... Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that people won't arrive at on their own? =v= People's decisions are largely influenced by the work of *past* urban planning, so you've got a self-destructing presumption in your strident rhetoric there. _Jym_ The prescriptions of planners do not change much or at all over time. 1920 seems to be the so-called ideal time, with happy peasants riding transit and living in apartments, while the rich had large private houses and servants living in the basements. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?
"Jym Dyer" wrote in message ... Well, technically that is called normative behavior. And there it is! =v= And, as is usual for George Conklin, it is completely wrong. Urban planning is actually a very fluid field -- quite literally so, given how some of its math is the same as that used in fluid dynamics. To call it "normative" makes absolutely no sense. _Jym_ The normative prescriptions by planners of how we ought to live have changed very little over the years. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?
"Jym Dyer" wrote in message ... Well, technically that is called normative behavior. And there it is! =v= And, as is usual for George Conklin, it is completely wrong. Urban planning is actually a very fluid field -- quite literally so, given how some of its math is the same as that used in fluid dynamics. To call it "normative" makes absolutely no sense. I'm just cheering his use of buzzwords. I wouldn't want to think he'd forgotten any. I'm quite pleased to see he's added a new one this week :-) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?
On Dec 17, 11:06 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 5:55 pm, DougC wrote: wrote: ..... I was finally able to pass him. That's with my front wheel drive. Within a couple minutes, he was out of sight behind me. He didn't "need" 4WD. He needed to stay off the road. If you think that front wheel drive is "just as good" as 4-wheel drive, then you aren't going anywhere you need 4-wheel drive. For the record, I don't think front wheel drive is just as good as 4WD for driving in off-road conditions - i.e., where people shouldn't be driving anyway. But on-road? Exactly how "good" does your drive system have to be? My front wheel drive was good enough to get me where I was going, on a night when the vast majority of drivers stayed home. If 4WD were anywhere close to a necessity, I'd have noticed it sometime between 1964 and now. Yet, if I'd had it continuously since then, it might have helped me slightly in, oh, ten situations max. That's ten situation is 43 years. In all of those, I was never inconvenienced for more than five minutes. And if I'd had 4WD (even on little cars) I'd have paid thousands of extra dollars in gas, due to the inevitably lower mileage caused by 4WD. ..... But if you're really afraid of jamming your head into the roof when your vehicle flips, it doesn't make much sense to drive the type of vehicle that's most prone to flipping! Yes it does, if the only vehicles that can satisfy both the requirements I have are SUV's. That's a big "if." I think what you've done is to purposely state your requirements so you believe only SUVs can meet them. And, having stated them, I think you haven't looked very hard at non-SUV alternatives. There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom, but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought. Got data? No, do you? We'd be considering 1995-2000 year US models here, since that was the era mine was made in... Hmm. Well, you're the one who searched for vehicles. My research project would necessarily be starting from scratch. But instead of requiring 4" head room in case your vehicle flips, why not just get 2" head room and a vehicle that's less prone to overturning than an SUV? One could also grow enough to know that some choices are simply wrong. And that freedom to choose has always needed to be restricted by the effect of one's choice on others. So if I cost other people money by driving a (larger) SUV, then how do other people save me money by driving tiny cars? It's not necessarily a mirror image situation. That is, it's possible for you to cost others money without them saving you money. But: If all the people getting 30+ mpg were in SUVs, Cheney would have had to invade Iraq a lot sooner. The cost of that conquest would have been going for a longer time. Therefore, those economy drivers did save you money. Because so far I haven't seen a dime of that savings. You just haven't noticed, because the "control" situation isn't obvious. Every time I fill up, it costs me $45, $50 a tank, and somebody with a little car there is only paying $15 or $20! It's just unfair! Awww, poor boy! - Frank Krygowski Wow, where do I start in responding to posts such as this. To start with, our anti-4wd friends live in their own little worlds that is well away from where I live. While moms toting kids to soccer games in Phoenix probably don't need 4WD, there are other times and places it is necessary. - if you are towing something, 4wd is extremely benefitials as it redistributes the power because of redistributed weight. Also, if you're towing a boat it is needed because you are pulling a boat out while your back tires are underwater on slippery surfaces. - if you have a pick-up truck you usually need 4wd. Back wd is horrible in bad weather but is needed for a load. - going off-road also usually necessitates 4wd. And for the record, there are plenty of reason to go off road. Where do you think they get the metal to make your sub-compact cars and bikes. Where do the trees for your toilet paper come from. - snow plowing either required 4wd for extremely heavy loads and chains. Plus, it ain't illegal so deal with it. Given all of that, I live in the snow belt south of Buffalo and we've had about 2 feet of snow already this year but I don't have 4wd. I don't think I need it even though I drive about 25000 miles per year. I'd like anti-lock breaks, though. Usually I figure that if I had 4wd, it would just get me stuck in a more inaccessible location. I don't usually worry about going -- I worry about cornering and stopping. I also run the "winter mark" tires because they have superb traction in snow. I also don't like the "truck-ish" ride of most 4WDs. So I tool around in my minivan and just drive carefully. By the same token, though, I know a few people with 4wd for when I need to borrow a truck. Some 4wds, though, are quite foolish. For example, if the nameplate is Cadillac, then you're not going anywhere that needs 4wd. Most city- slickers don't need it and probably most suburbanites don't either. But there's a definite need for it by some people. So all of you, look at the broader picture and realize that everyone should (nor would they want to) live like you or me or anyone else. They need to chart their own paths. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message . .. "Jym Dyer" wrote in message ... Well, technically that is called normative behavior. And there it is! =v= And, as is usual for George Conklin, it is completely wrong. Urban planning is actually a very fluid field -- quite literally so, given how some of its math is the same as that used in fluid dynamics. To call it "normative" makes absolutely no sense. I'm just cheering his use of buzzwords. I wouldn't want to think he'd forgotten any. I'm quite pleased to see he's added a new one this week :-) Your continued lack of vocabulary is pretty horrid to behold. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | donquijote1954 | General | 278 | December 29th 07 11:12 PM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | Jack May | Social Issues | 121 | December 21st 07 02:10 AM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | Jack May | Rides | 102 | December 21st 07 02:10 AM |
Drunk Driving Penalties | BIKE AU | Racing | 0 | May 12th 05 04:41 AM |
True drunk driving story. | Simon Mason | UK | 48 | May 25th 04 12:48 AM |