Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)

Hunrobe wrote:

I've never heard anyone say, "I'm selling my car so I can buy a bus pass."

I came fairly close once.

I live seven miles from the city center where I work. We were a one-car
family, then my wife went back to work. I bike to work a lot, but I
can't always do that. I would be forced to consider a second car if I
couldn't come up with an alternative.

But the city bus system doesn't come to my village. If it had, I'd
probably have used it. I certainly tried.

The best I could do would be to bike about three miles, to the farthest
reaches of the bus line. There was no gain in that, especially since it
would be faster to ride the entire way than to bus in from that point.

I tried scaring up car poolers, too. Not much luck. Lots of people
driving to my location. None (or almost none) interested in sharing a ride.

Americans really are committed to their solitary cars, for whatever
reason... some because we can't make the alternatives work.

I eventually did buy a second car. I put less than 2000 miles on it
last year. I put many more on my bike.


Incidentally, on vacation a few years ago, we were in Santa Fe, in a
campground somewhere toward the outskirts. We asked about the best way
to get into town, and we were directed to the bus line right nearby. It
turned out to be an amazingly pleasant, friendly experience. Lots of
chatter between passengers. We had people walk with us to give us
accurate directions, and we learned some of the interesting life story
of the driver. Very nice ride!

--
Frank Krygowski

Hunrobe wrote:
I've never heard anyone say, "I'm selling my car so I can buy a bus pass."

I sold my car to move to New York City, 8 years ago. I don't miss it.
Sometimes I even ride the bus.

--
Steven O'Neill
www.bridgetolls.org

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:16:18 -0500, "frkrygowHALTSPAM"
wrote:
There would never be a need for every pickup to be replaced by a car
with a trailer, precisely because the hauling capacity of most pickups
is rarely used. At least, that's what I've seen whenever and wherever
I've looked.

Most pickups are empty. When they're not, their cargo would usually fit
in the back of a small station wagon. The trailer would have to handle

You have anecdotal information here. I thought that you felt
anecdotes are not useful information?

Unfortunately, there's more to it than "I see pickups driving around
empty, so they must be unnecessary". For example, I put on 600
miles per week. If I knew which miles would involve
large/dirty/heavy loads, I could take a car for many of those.
Unfortunately, I don't; it's rarely expected that I will or won't
need to use the truck's abilities. Plans change, emergencies
happen, and I end up with a heavy load.

only the few times the load is truly large. For most people, it's silly
to choose a truck over a car and a trailer.

That's why most people don't choose a pickup truck. It's too
impractical for most people's needs.

You won't find an office parking lot with many full size pickups in
it. You won't even find many compact pickups in such a place. Most
that you do see will be the hybrid pickup/SUV that has become so
common, where you have SUV-sized seating for four or five people and
a tiny little bed; those are not pickups at all.

If you want to argue that most peoples' purposes are better served
by a minivan than a large SUV (with AWD for those with weather
concerns), you'll get my full support there.

It's impractical and expensive to buy a nice pickup when a car (or
SUV) will do; and the bare-bones pickups are bought as work trucks.

It's true that _some_ people buy more truck than they need --
whether it be somebody who would be fine with a compact pickup but
is more comfortable in a full-size, or somebody who would be fine in
a car but bought a pickup instead. However, these people are not as
common as you imply.

And, FWIW, I've long found pickup drivers to be more of a problem than

That's your experience. Mine has been quite the opposite. Pickup
and large-car drivers tend to be quite predictable.

compact car drivers. Perhaps it has something to do with the ads. You
know - muscled construction workers, scowling cowboys, "When you see

You don't sell to construction workers by putting pencil-neck nerds
in the commercial. You show a 250 pound pile of muscles throwing
materials into the truck and off-roading.

this truck in your mirror, you'd better pull over" and so on. Macho

As opposed to sports cars and SUVs?

bull****. It sells to the Walter Mitty types, who then go out and play
tough guy.

Very scientific. Has it occurred to you that the people who need
trucks _are_ tough guys, and play rough regardless of what
commercial they saw or what they're driving?

We hired a new guy today. He has a 4x4 compact pickup with big
tires, etc; he wants to go off-road, but doesn't need something for
heavy hauling -- so he bought exactly what he _does_ need. Why
would he pay more for a bigger truck that uses more gas?

OTOH, there is one more concern that hasn't been touched in this
discussion at all: comfort. After riding in a compact car, or even
some compact pickups (toyota, for example), my knees and elbows
hurt. See, all those little vehicles assume a 120 pound person with
a 7 inch waist. I'm significantly larger than that, and my elbows
and knees have NOWHERE to go in a little car.

I had an '87 Cadillac Deville that fit me well. The '97 Pontiac
Grand Am was very uncomfortable. The '02 GMC full size pickup that
I drive now is quite possibly the most comfortable vehicle I've ever
been in -- my elbows and knees have exactly enough room, and support
in exactly the right places.

Maybe if they'd design the interiors a little differently, more
people could be more comfortable in smaller vehicles.
Unfortunately, they prioritize other things over driver comfort --
aerodynamics and weight, for example, result in oddly shaped
interiors that lack enough space where necessary. The added cost of
engineering for all that results in hard plastic being used
everywhere on the interior of any vehicle less than $30,000.
--
Rick "Comfy" Onanian

Rick Onanian wrote:

Zoot Katz wrote:

So what if we're also known as 'la-la-land'.

I've never heard of that; if somebody asked me where 'la-la-land'
was, I'd guess Southern California.

Vancouver is clearly the So. Cal. of Canada. It has the best climate
in the country, it costs too much to live there, and it defines the
Canuck form of coolness.

If I were ready to leave my country to the Philistines, I'd move there
toot sweet.

Chalo

11 Nov 2003 17:37:03 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

An societal attitude adjustment, that we'll never get from television,
is required before one can accept the benefits inherent in a safe,
clean, and convenient public transit system.
\snip

Media reflects society, not the other way around. Television can reinforce
pre-existing attitudes and opinions but it really doesn't create them.
\snip

Corporate ownership of the media can - and does - shape editorial
content. A 1992 US study of 150 news editors found that 90 per cent
said that advertisers tried to interfere with newspaper content, and
70 per cent tried to stop news stories altogether. 40 per cent
admitted that advertisers had in fact influenced a story.

One can easily surmise the situation has gotten worse since the survey
because there are now even fewer media outlets not owned by corporate
conglomerates. The Pentagon has recently admitted that it fabricates
'news'. Hypnotised by television, the masses fall into line.

The media has to be sympathetic to business interests such as the
automobile and petrochemical industries. Even the threat of withdrawal
of advertising can affect editorial content. A letter sent to the
editorial offices of a hundred magazines stated: 'In an effort to
avoid potential conflicts, it is required that Chrysler corporation be
alerted in advance of any and all editorial content that encompasses
sexual, political, social issues or any editorial content that could
be construed as provocative or offensive.'
\snip

BTW, since I didn't describe transit users at all I have no idea how you arrive
at your conclusion that my non-existent description "resonates with the
typical, culturally ingrained, a priori bias". I characterized the use of mass
transit as "a joyless necessity or a last resort"
*in the eyes of most of those users*.

You went to lengths to describe how unpleasent you perceive it is to
use public transit. You feared having to sit with 'strangers' and
lamented the bus has to frequently stop to board these undesirables.
Rather than seeing it as normal social interaction, it becomes a
frightening proposition only undertaken by desperados.

Certainly there are those that ride buses because they dislike driving but for
most riders it really is a second choice. I've heard many people say, "I'm
riding the bus while I save to buy a car.". I've never heard anyone say, "I'm
selling my car so I can buy a bus pass.". If simply observing that makes me
culturally biased then I guess I'm guilty.

Thanks to media saturation, driving and car ownership has become
'ingrained' while critical thought has vapourised. When GM et al were
dismantling street car systems to sell buses, their propaganda arm
promoted the idea that bus fumes were safe to breathe and rail cars
were less efficient than internal combustion engines. We bought it!

Without even noticing, you regurgitated the official party line.

When presidential candidate, George W. Bush was asked how the Los
Angeles public transportation system could be improved. Bush
responded, “My hope is that you will be able to find good enough work,
so you’ll be able to afford a car.”

His family, GM, Ford and Standard Oil (among others) were all in bed
with nazis. Nazis who at the time weren't so bad because Hearst's
publishing empire, for a trifling sum, said they were okay.
--
zk

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:24:02 -0500,
, Rick Onanian
wrote:


Is that how you choose your location? By what's most popular or
rated best?

The cheap seats cost the same at the end of the game.
--
zk

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:16:18 -0500, ,
"frkrygowHALTSPAM" wrote:

Perhaps it has something to do with the ads. You
know - muscled construction workers, scowling cowboys, "When you see
this truck in your mirror, you'd better pull over" and so on. Macho
bull****. It sells to the Walter Mitty types, who then go out and play
tough guy.

Really, Frank. I'm surprised at you - everybody knows the media is
incapable of distortion or influencing our perceptions.
--
zk

11 Nov 2003 14:38:33 -0800,
,
(Chalo) wrote:

I'd move there toot sweet.

Chalo

Yeah, and you already speak French.
--
zk

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:12:17 -0800, Zoot Katz
wrote:

11 Nov 2003 14:38:33 -0800,
,
(Chalo) wrote:

I'd move there toot sweet.

Chalo

Yeah, and you already speak French.

Je nais say what?

Zoot Katz wrote:

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:16:18 -0500, ,
"frkrygowHALTSPAM" wrote:


Perhaps it has something to do with the ads. You
know - muscled construction workers, scowling cowboys, "When you see
this truck in your mirror, you'd better pull over" and so on. Macho
bull****. It sells to the Walter Mitty types, who then go out and play
tough guy.


Really, Frank. I'm surprised at you - everybody knows the media is
incapable of distortion or influencing our perceptions.

Gosh, what was I thinking? ;-)

--

Frank Krygowski