Risk Homeostasis - Drivers and Cyclists

Rocketman wrote:
: Excellent analysis, Robert. I completely agree. It is becoming obvious to
: me that the little guy is being shoved off the road - so to speak - in the
: US (not just cyclists). This aggressive, selfish mindset (and laws that
: condone and promote it) carry over into virtually every sector of our
: society. Aggressiveness is the order of the day. Fat, stupid, unthinking,
: uncaring people are not only tolerated here, they are the majority. They're
: buying gigantic vehicles to match their waistlines, and they'll be damned if
: they'll slow down for anybody. If they kill a kid on a sidestreet, it's the
: kid's fault, and his parents' fault, not the driver's.

: What to do? Candlelight vigils, media-oriented public protests, petitions,
: lobbying and every other form of civil disobedience (including Critical Mess

There is some research to show that risk compensation can be counteracted
by reminding people of the risks they are taking.

Candlelight vigils are a great way to do this. Along with calls for
fair compensation for victims, measures to stop drunk driving (remember
Ken Kifer), and gas taxes that cover the cost to society of driving.

My guess is that more will be achieved by avoiding the really
contentious issues until it's necessary to deal with them. No one will
argue about vigils to draw attention to death on the roads. It's also
hard to argue with calls that gas taxes should cover the cost of driving.
Once people accept the principle, the details can come later.

Dorre


: ^H^H^H^H^ Mass) will be required in order to realign our priorities as a
: society. It's not going to be easy, or quick. With 40,000+ US
: automobile-related deaths per annum, it would take a very high body count of
: dead cyclists to even get the public's attention. It's a problem that I
: can't figure out how to solve without a regime change and some major
: overhauls of American behavior. Let's start with the former: Regime Change
: Begins at Home :-)

Calling for regime change seems a good way of putting 50% of the
population off-side. Surely all political parties should be in favor
or reducing the carnage on our roads? Surely all political parties want
fair compensation for victims? Surely they also want drivers to pay
for the cost of their transport? Aren't taxes high enough already?
What politician would advocate raising taxes to subsidize more
driving?

: -Barry

Jeff Potter wrote

My guess is that our nation's lawyers and prosecutors ARE THEMSELVES
potentially injurious motorists!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/pf/a...vers/index.htm

CC

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Rocketman wrote:

Excellent analysis, Robert. I completely agree. It is becoming obvious
to
me that the little guy is being shoved off the road - so to speak - in
the
US (not just cyclists). This aggressive, selfish mindset (and laws that
condone and promote it) carry over into virtually every sector of our
society. Aggressiveness is the order of the day. Fat, stupid,
unthinking,
uncaring people are not only tolerated here, they are the majority.
They're
buying gigantic vehicles to match their waistlines, and they'll be
damned if
they'll slow down for anybody. If they kill a kid on a sidestreet, it's
the
kid's fault, and his parents' fault, not the driver's.

What to do? Candlelight vigils, media-oriented public protests,
petitions,
lobbying and every other form of civil disobedience (including Critical
Mess
^H^H^H^H^ Mass) will be required in order to realign our priorities as a
society. It's not going to be easy, or quick. With 40,000+ US
automobile-related deaths per annum, it would take a very high body
count of
dead cyclists to even get the public's attention. It's a problem that I
can't figure out how to solve without a regime change and some major
overhauls of American behavior. Let's start with the former: Regime
Change
Begins at Home :-)

The first thing we (in the US) need is a gas tax in the $4-5/gal. range,
both to pay for the true cost of petroleum consumption, and to provide
an economic incentive for people to drive reasonably sized motor
vehicles.


Maybe, but whos to say it will be spent wisely.

The second would be to improve the lives and reduce the stress levels of
the majority of the working population by having a "living wage" minimum
wage and a 30-hour work week. With the productivity levels of today's
worker, it is ridiculous that people are working close to 50 hours a
week for less in real wages than they made 30 years ago at 40-hours a
week.

Hear that giant sucking sound?? How competitive would we be with offshore
wage scales then? It's a global economy, like it or not.

Tom Thompson

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

"There is enough in the world for everyone's need; there is not enough
for everyone's greed." - Mohandas Gandhi

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

The first thing we (in the US) need is a gas tax in the $4-5/gal. range,
both to pay for the true cost of petroleum consumption, and to provide
an economic incentive for people to drive reasonably sized motor
vehicles.

Lets see what a hike to $4-5/gallon will do

1. Higher cost of goods
2. More businesses moving overseas because of #1
3. Fewer jobs because of #2

I doubt many will be able to afford the reasonably sized motor vehicle.
Besides the adding income to the government (assuming it does give added
income) will be wasted by the state and federal government much like the
supposed tobacco settlement was.

The second would be to improve the lives and reduce the stress levels of
the majority of the working population by having a "living wage" minimum
wage and a 30-hour work week. With the productivity levels of today's
worker, it is ridiculous that people are working close to 50 hours a
week for less in real wages than they made 30 years ago at 40-hours a
week.

The minimum wage was never created for people to live on, it was created to
simply be a minimum wage, and the reason for the less real wages these days
is because of added federal/state/local taxes, in most working couple homes
the spouse is merely paying the taxes while the other makes the earnings.
and your proposal will do nothing but aggrevate the situation

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

Tom Thompson wrote:
...
Hear that giant sucking sound?? How competitive would we be with offshore
wage scales then? It's a global economy, like it or not.

Applying punitive tariffs to imports from countries with substandard
wages, working conditions, environmental laws and human rights would be
a relatively simple matter and would stop the race to the bottom that is
harming workers everywhere.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Mark Leuck wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

The first thing we (in the US) need is a gas tax in the $4-5/gal. range,
both to pay for the true cost of petroleum consumption, and to provide
an economic incentive for people to drive reasonably sized motor
vehicles.

Lets see what a hike to $4-5/gallon will do

1. Higher cost of goods
2. More businesses moving overseas because of #1
3. Fewer jobs because of #2

I doubt many will be able to afford the reasonably sized motor vehicle.
Besides the adding income to the government (assuming it does give added
income) will be wasted by the state and federal government much like the
supposed tobacco settlement was.

The second would be to improve the lives and reduce the stress levels of
the majority of the working population by having a "living wage" minimum
wage and a 30-hour work week. With the productivity levels of today's
worker, it is ridiculous that people are working close to 50 hours a
week for less in real wages than they made 30 years ago at 40-hours a
week.

The minimum wage was never created for people to live on, it was created to
simply be a minimum wage, and the reason for the less real wages these days
is because of added federal/state/local taxes, in most working couple homes
the spouse is merely paying the taxes while the other makes the earnings.
and your proposal will do nothing but aggrevate the situation

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

Northern Europe has gas taxes in this range, considerably higher minimum
wages, much shorter average work weeks, yet does not suffer to any
serious extent the problems mentioned above. Unless the Northern
European people are somehow inherently better than those in the US are,
the arguments do not stand up. And yes, on average they drive much more
sensibly sized motor vehicles.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

"There is enough in the world for everyone's need; there is not enough
for everyone's greed." - Mohandas Gandhi

john riley wrote:

Drivers don't just kill cyclists and pedestrians; they kill other
drivers as well.

Thanks to at least 50 years of car-centric infrastructure building, we
have now arrived at a place where lots of N Ams. spend a lot of time
in their car every day. Given the amount of time they spend driving,
it would be difficult to give the task the required attention, even if
they were so inclined. Which they are not. They resent the time they
have to spend in the car, so they try to use it for other purposes...

It is amazing how many people in the US do not enjoy driving, but yet
refuse to consider any other alternative.

...Bike messsengers in particular are very aggressive in
"educating" errant drivers....

As are Jerry Garcia lookalikes with electrical assist.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Tom Sherman wrote in
:


It is amazing how many people in the US do not enjoy driving, but yet
refuse to consider any other alternative.

I've had a similar thought, particularly while waiting to cross busy
intersections on my way home. I mean, it's a little much to expect someone
to be happy about driving a rusted out junker with shot rings and springs
(and yet, sometimes they are), but I've been a little taken aback by the
facial expressions of two drivers in particular. One in an Audi TT and
another in a Z Beamer (sensibly sized Euro cars, but not sensible cars at
all, eh :-) . Painfully sour. I had to look away. The irony of course is
that they presumably bought these cars at least in part to increase their
happiness.

H

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Tom Thompson wrote:
...
Hear that giant sucking sound?? How competitive would we be with
offshore
wage scales then? It's a global economy, like it or not.

Applying punitive tariffs to imports from countries with substandard
wages, working conditions, environmental laws and human rights would be
a relatively simple matter and would stop the race to the bottom that is
harming workers everywhere.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Applying punitive tariffs tends to lead to tariff wars which is one of the
reasons Bush ended the steel tariffs today. In the end nobody wins

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Northern Europe has gas taxes in this range, considerably higher minimum
wages, much shorter average work weeks, yet does not suffer to any
serious extent the problems mentioned above. Unless the Northern
European people are somehow inherently better than those in the US are,
the arguments do not stand up. And yes, on average they drive much more
sensibly sized motor vehicles.

And considerably less productivity and employment and fewer people own cars.
Fortunatly for them the infrastructer gives them the ability to exist
without a car which in most areas is not possible here. As far as sensibly
sized motor vehicles, with the exception of the Mini, vehicles in Europe
don't seem to be any smaller or larger than ours here in the US. They just
have less per captia than we do.

When you are a company who relies on parts and employees and you raise the
cost of bringing in those parts (the added gas tax) and raise the cost of
that employee (higher minimum wage) you will soon have neither the parts or
the employees. In my industry most of the manufacturing is now overseas or
in Mexico because of manufacturing costs alone. You will never see the
benefits of that added tax money because it will not exist.

It all sounds good Tom until it's implemented