Oil is a non-renewable FINITE resource, regardless of which political party you belong to. It doesn't matter when or how it is extracted, at some point it will all be gone. It seems to me that the big picture is pretty straight forward - the world can't increase production at the same rate that consumption is increasing forever. At some point something has got to give. Continuing to scramble for every extractable drop is a short term solution to a long-term problem.
Matt - I was simply trying to make a point. However, I challenge you to prove that there is no evidence that exercise increases someones health, and that smoking has no affect on life expectancy. There are always exceptions out there, and we don't make policy on exceptions. As far as wear on the road goes, knee_dropper addressed that, but simply compare the drive lane wear to the wear on the shoulder. As far as gas taxes go, then the people who drive most or have vehicles with the worst gas mileage contribute the most, so do they have more rights to the road?
To me, the question (as put forward by colobob) is where do you draw the line on licensing and regulation? I see as many people walking on the road as cycling, but there are no proposals for licensing pedestrians. As far as smoking taxes go, those are partially driven by the cost smokers put on our health care system. I feel an argument could be made to PAY cyclists, rather than tax them. Two of the points would be a decreased toll on our healthcare system, and another could be due to reduced wear and tear on the roads. Personally, although I hate the principle behind the idea, I would be willing to register and pay taxes on my bicycle (in addition to my car) if it meant that there were actually shoulders on more than two of the roads in the county. I would like to also point out, that for every cyclist you see; that is one less car to be behind in traffic (i.e. 129 SB @40 around 5pm), one less person spewing Carbon Dioxide and other pollutants into our valley air, one less person buying gas, therefore decreasing demand on gas, therefore decreasing the price.
nice assumption justathought, since there was no mention that they are actually cyclists. Maybe they live out there and are frustrated that the decision was made in the way that it was.
my point confirmed "Willing to keep dragging a teenager and those that care about her through the dirt so that his/her ego can "win" the argument in fantasy blog world." Let it drop.
colowoodsman - you still have not addressed why only cyclists? Still missing my point -which is that there are plenty of other groups of road users that have poor behaviour on roads, but are given a pass for whatever reason.
I guess I still don't get it. My attitude is not 'since everyone else breaks the law - why shouldn't we.' I would just like an explanation for why you feel that, as you said, everyone else breaks the law, but we're just going to "moniter" the cyclists. I am not sure why I am being immature and anal for calling it what it is - other "non-motorized" users are breaking the law as well, yet you beleive that only cyclists should have to "register" and be made accountable. Logically, I feel that I have a better argument that you are more immature and anal than I am. Trust me, I get it that many people hate cyclists, I just don't get why none of them are applying the same rules they cite in their arguments against cyclists to other "non-motorized" users, or even motorists themselves. (Example - the speeding that occurs on the county road I live on that is NEVER patrolled, which fits your argument that "there is lttle chance they will get caught and prosecuted for breaking the law."
You know fish, I never did say that I was dumb enough to drink and drive, but I'll tell you there sure is more of an uproar about cyclists using roads they are legally allowed to than there is about motorists doing illegal things like drinking and driving. I was just using that as a note that driving too is a privilege, which some people do lose due to dui's. In fact, I would bet that on any given day there are more people driving who have been drinking than there are cyclists riding 2-3 abreast, but it is a lame point since there is no way to prove it.
I am becoming convinced that id has no soul. Willing to keep dragging a teenager and those that care about her through the dirt so that his/her ego can "win" the argument in fantasy blog world. Awesome. Is there a way to uninvent blogs and have people actually talk to each other face to face?
I challenge any one of you who seem to loathe and despise cyclists so much to this: We'll go drive from Oak Creek to Clark with a County Sherriff or State Partol officer riding shotgun. The officer will have a note pad, and since he knows all of the traffic laws, we will have him log all of the traffic offenses during the drive. I GUARANTEE that motorists will have many times more offenses than cyclists. We'll also log all of the incidents where the "safety of the motor public" is compromised, and again I will win. As I've said before, I just don't get it. We are the only country in the world that prioritizes personal motor vehicles as the primary mode of transportation. But hey, we are the US, and know better than the rest of the world. I can't wait until gas prices get to $10/gallon - better figure out what to do about your hate for cyclists, because they aren't going away, and you never know when you'll be forced to be one either financially, DUI, etc...
Ken Brenner: Are we prepared?
Oil is a non-renewable FINITE resource, regardless of which political party you belong to. It doesn't matter when or how it is extracted, at some point it will all be gone. It seems to me that the big picture is pretty straight forward - the world can't increase production at the same rate that consumption is increasing forever. At some point something has got to give. Continuing to scramble for every extractable drop is a short term solution to a long-term problem.
July 3, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: C.R. 36 becomes Taylor Way
Matt - I was simply trying to make a point. However, I challenge you to prove that there is no evidence that exercise increases someones health, and that smoking has no affect on life expectancy. There are always exceptions out there, and we don't make policy on exceptions. As far as wear on the road goes, knee_dropper addressed that, but simply compare the drive lane wear to the wear on the shoulder. As far as gas taxes go, then the people who drive most or have vehicles with the worst gas mileage contribute the most, so do they have more rights to the road?
July 1, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: C.R. 36 becomes Taylor Way
To me, the question (as put forward by colobob) is where do you draw the line on licensing and regulation? I see as many people walking on the road as cycling, but there are no proposals for licensing pedestrians. As far as smoking taxes go, those are partially driven by the cost smokers put on our health care system. I feel an argument could be made to PAY cyclists, rather than tax them. Two of the points would be a decreased toll on our healthcare system, and another could be due to reduced wear and tear on the roads.
Personally, although I hate the principle behind the idea, I would be willing to register and pay taxes on my bicycle (in addition to my car) if it meant that there were actually shoulders on more than two of the roads in the county. I would like to also point out, that for every cyclist you see; that is one less car to be behind in traffic (i.e. 129 SB @40 around 5pm), one less person spewing Carbon Dioxide and other pollutants into our valley air, one less person buying gas, therefore decreasing demand on gas, therefore decreasing the price.
July 1, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Doug Monger and Nancy Stahoviak: Re-striping of C.R. 36 a safety issue
nice assumption justathought, since there was no mention that they are actually cyclists. Maybe they live out there and are frustrated that the decision was made in the way that it was.
June 29, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: C.R. 36 becomes Taylor Way
my point confirmed "Willing to keep dragging a teenager and those that care about her through the dirt so that his/her ego can "win" the argument in fantasy blog world." Let it drop.
June 29, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Ride a bike; obey the laws
colowoodsman - you still have not addressed why only cyclists? Still missing my point -which is that there are plenty of other groups of road users that have poor behaviour on roads, but are given a pass for whatever reason.
June 29, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Ride a bike; obey the laws
I guess I still don't get it. My attitude is not 'since everyone else breaks the law - why shouldn't we.' I would just like an explanation for why you feel that, as you said, everyone else breaks the law, but we're just going to "moniter" the cyclists. I am not sure why I am being immature and anal for calling it what it is - other "non-motorized" users are breaking the law as well, yet you beleive that only cyclists should have to "register" and be made accountable. Logically, I feel that I have a better argument that you are more immature and anal than I am.
Trust me, I get it that many people hate cyclists, I just don't get why none of them are applying the same rules they cite in their arguments against cyclists to other "non-motorized" users, or even motorists themselves. (Example - the speeding that occurs on the county road I live on that is NEVER patrolled, which fits your argument that "there is lttle chance they will get caught and prosecuted for breaking the law."
June 28, 2008 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Stripes cause strife
You know fish, I never did say that I was dumb enough to drink and drive, but I'll tell you there sure is more of an uproar about cyclists using roads they are legally allowed to than there is about motorists doing illegal things like drinking and driving. I was just using that as a note that driving too is a privilege, which some people do lose due to dui's. In fact, I would bet that on any given day there are more people driving who have been drinking than there are cyclists riding 2-3 abreast, but it is a lame point since there is no way to prove it.
June 28, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: C.R. 36 becomes Taylor Way
I am becoming convinced that id has no soul. Willing to keep dragging a teenager and those that care about her through the dirt so that his/her ego can "win" the argument in fantasy blog world. Awesome. Is there a way to uninvent blogs and have people actually talk to each other face to face?
June 28, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Stripes cause strife
I challenge any one of you who seem to loathe and despise cyclists so much to this: We'll go drive from Oak Creek to Clark with a County Sherriff or State Partol officer riding shotgun. The officer will have a note pad, and since he knows all of the traffic laws, we will have him log all of the traffic offenses during the drive. I GUARANTEE that motorists will have many times more offenses than cyclists. We'll also log all of the incidents where the "safety of the motor public" is compromised, and again I will win. As I've said before, I just don't get it. We are the only country in the world that prioritizes personal motor vehicles as the primary mode of transportation. But hey, we are the US, and know better than the rest of the world. I can't wait until gas prices get to $10/gallon - better figure out what to do about your hate for cyclists, because they aren't going away, and you never know when you'll be forced to be one either financially, DUI, etc...
June 28, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )