HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 17:06:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <mellon.715392976@pepper> mellon@iti.org (Ted Lemon) writes:
>
>Actually, the tax rate in the U.S. is lower than in any other industrialized
>nation.

Is this suppose to give us the idea that we can stand yet more taxation?
I don't notice businesses in Great Britain nor France doing so hot with
their massive taxation.

Companies are fleeing California with such alacrity that one estimate
has us loosing 100,000 jobs over the next ten years. Already there
is a bad effect of income earners simply moving out of the state, leaving
behind the welfare cases and service users that taxes pay the bulk
upkeep on.

The standard of living in the USA has dropped 1.9% in the last year
and there is suspecian that this will keep up indefinitely unless
businesses can be encouraged instead of driven out.

Taxation, to a point, is actually good for the economy. It keeps 
capital in motion that might otherwise be floundering in banks
and savings institutions instead of working.

But at some point, taxation becomes a process of taking investment
capital out of the system without developing additional wealth. This
point has long ago been exceeded.

Perhaps you don't understand what's going on? If I earn $50,000/yr
(a good but not great wage in the SF bay area) I will be taxed
34% from the federal government and 12% from the state government.
(Or is that 18%?) This means that I am paying _46%_ of my income
in income taxes alone! Now add to this the state sales tax of 8.25%,
state property taxes, aircraft or boat property taxes, gasoline taxes,
any local taxes, and all of the hidden expenses of these taxes and
it is plain that if you can afford to buy a house (and you don't have
the tax relief from buying a house) you are paying more than 1/2 or
all of your earnings to the government.

It isn't suprising that more and more people are thinking that it 
isn't worth the effort to try and become successful.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: esc149u@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Dr SJD Cox)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 09:31:39 GMT

From article <13823@chalmers.se>, by d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se (Hans Lindberg):
> 
> Bunch of pros and cons bla bla...
> 

Another thing:  Cyclists who deliberately break the law give ALL 
of us a bad name - and make car drivers even less likely to respect 
our rights to road space than they do already.  If we obey the rules, 
then we can also expect protection under them.  

Simon Cox
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark )
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 14:55:17 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <7wdntwa.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <51170@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>>
>>Why do we go to all this trouble?  There are ways of getting around these
>>tolls (the easiest is to just add to congestion on nearby non-toll roads).
>>Just do a nice, hefty gas tax.  Then you don't need the bucks to put in
>>some sort of expensive toll-collection system.  Gas is already lightly
>>taxed, so the entire system for that exists and is paid for.
>
>Why don't we just tax everyone 100% of their income and then
>there won'[t be any of these stupid arguments.

Because that would be communism.  And we're not communists.  

>The facts are that taxation is already way too high.

Fact?  

>Companies
>and jobs are fleeing the United States and the gap between the
>haves and have-nots is widening. But, hell, I don'[t suppose any
>of that is half as important as punishing people who use cars.

Using that logic, they should also be fleeing Europe in droves.
The social problems you mention are much more attributable to high 
wages, low skill levels, expensive health-care, and poor investment than
taxes being "too high".

Besides, how would gas taxes kill *business*?  These taxes would affect
individual commuters.  Gas taxes aren't punishment, they're encouragement.

Just like people are now being encouraged to drive (and 'punished' if they
don't).

Ken
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Specialized Parts
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 23:09:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Specialized is still in the parts business and still builds
or rather has built, some of the best parts going.

Apparently they have had extremely poor market relations
for the last three or four years and have lost many of the shops
as customers. That's what happens when you start taking advantage
of your size and try pushing small shops around.

If they can get past that bad habit, though, their parts --
everything from nice cartridge bearing hubs to superlight
sealed headsets for cheaper than DuraAce -- are really something
to use.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis)
Subject: Re: _New Cyclist_ and British Rail.
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:09:07 GMT

zstern@adobe.com (Zalman Stern) writes:

>This is the second reference I've heard to this article. It sounds like a  
>good bit of humour. Can anybody give more details, like the specific issue  
>of this magazine?

I believe it can be found in the June 1992 issue, though there is
something on this in almost every issue.


Robert M. Lewis
Department of Sociology
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se (Hans Lindberg)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Date: 30 Aug 92 02:54:28 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden


Bunch of pros and cons bla bla...

Honestly guys, I can't believe anyone would actually ride against the traffic
to "be on the safe side" :) so to speak. The concept is so utterly stupid.
Would you also suggest that a skilled motorbike rider should ride on the
wrong side so he can avoid all other potential killers trying to run him down.
Riding a bicycle on the wrong side would just create dangerour situations.
Consider meeting a car and a lawbiding biker at the same time. Should
you go to the left or to the right of the aproaching biker, and how will
he know what you are to chose? 

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: esc149u@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Dr SJD Cox)
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:01:45 GMT

From article <schinder.715536898@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>, by schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder):
> In <1992Sep3.154300.16289@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> madine@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.) writes:
> 
> [excellent description of hazards at "bike path"-road intersections deleted]
> 
>>The danger of bikepaths is not that you will hit or be hit by another bicyclist
>>or pedestrian--the danger is that you will be hit by a motor vehicle
>>while ON the "bikepath".
> 
> This is undoubtedly the biggest problem.  It's not the only problem
> you might have with motorists, though.  For example, I've encountered
> motor vehicles (not just motorcycles) traveling *on* "bike paths" that
> were wide enough to accomodate them and with insufficient barriers to
> keep them off.  These motorists, of course, expect you to get out of
> their way.

My biggest whinge is that bike-paths rarely get the same maintenance as 
roads, so are often rougher.  Road surface condition is much more 
important to the comfort of a bicycle rider than a car rider!
From: actize@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Whereabouts of Cyclist
Date: 1 Sep 1992 19:00:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

Does' anybody know the whereabouts & telephone number of the cyclist Larry
Glickfeld, previously of Lake Tahoe ?

Mike		actize@garnet.berkeley.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 23:44:01 GMT

>madine@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.) writes:
>>  Of course, (lower) closing speed is not a valid argument
>>for riding with traffic.

locher@iastate.edu (Robert C Locher) writes:
>[15xph bike, 45xph car, head-on has 4X the kinetic energy to
> dissipate.]

Also, if the driver has the same distance visibility in either case,
s/he has twice as long to react when the bike and car are traveling in
the same direction.

	;-D on  ( An accidental discovery )  Pardo
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Reply-To: silvert@biome.bio.ns.ca (Bill Silvert)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:39:03 GMT

When I was a child in Kansas in the 40's, the law required that cyclists
ride against traffic.  When that crazy law got cancelled I don't know.
-- 
William Silvert, Habitat Ecology Division, Bedford Inst. of Oceanography
P. O. Box 1006, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CANADA B2Y 4A2.  Tel. (902)426-1577
InterNet Address: silvert@biome.bio.ns.ca
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: madine@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.)
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:43:00 GMT
Summary: Bikepaths, unsafe at any speed.

In article <1992Sep2.173449.10789@u.washington.edu>, roberth@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Harrison) writes:
>

> [Excellent points about how statistics can be misleading.]
  Deleted.

> 
> I feel the same way about bike paths.  Some people have written here that
> bike paths are the most dangerous place to ride:  I believe that this is
> a misuse of statistics.  Rather say that there are more inexperienced
> and foolish riders on the bike paths who are more likely to have accidents
> that someone confident enough to ride on the roads.  I have no doubt
> that a good bike path is safer than the road for a careful rider.
> 

Only as long as the careful rider rides around in circles on a fully
separated "bikepath".

What you didn't consider was the increase in danger to the bikepath cyclist
(of any level of experience) presented by the intersection of 
bikepaths with roadways.  These intersections include driveways and  parking
lot entrances as well as the roadway itself.  Bicycle ROAD
accident statistics have been analyzed with the experience of the bicycle
operator normalized out.  They show that intersections are
where nearly all the motor vehicle-bicycle accidents occur.

Bikepaths are by design only helpful in reducing the motor vehicle-overtaking-
and-striking-bicycle accident.  In retun for this pitiful safety improvement,
bikepaths do at best nothing to reduce the exposure of cyclists to
intersections.  More usually, bikepaths add MORE intersections; 
bypass relatively safe road/road intersections in favor of a grossly unsafe
bikepath/road intersection; and often mislead bicycle operators into
making grossly unsafe maneuvers.  That all comes in addition to
the well known and more usually cited hazards of peds, dogs, rule-less
cyclists, etc.  Even without bikepath accident statistics, bikepaths
can be shown to be unsafe.

The danger of bikepaths is not that you will hit or be hit by another bicyclist
or pedestrian--the danger is that you will be hit by a motor vehicle
while ON the "bikepath".

Gary E. Madine, Allentown, PA
gem@aloft.att.com
From: scott@cs.rochester.edu (Michael Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:41:13 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <13823@chalmers.se> d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se (Hans Lindberg) writes:
| 
| Bunch of pros and cons bla bla...
| 
| Honestly guys, I can't believe anyone would actually ride against the traffic
| to "be on the safe side" :) so to speak. The concept is so utterly stupid.

But it's true.  Lots of people here ride against traffic.
I think once upon a time somebody here taught kids to ride that way --
the police, maybe, or the public schools -- under the misconception that
it was safer.
-- 
Michael L. Scott
Computer Science Dept.      (716) 275-7745, 5478
University of Rochester     FAX 461-2018
Rochester, NY  14627-0226   scott@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:14:58 GMT

In <1992Sep3.154300.16289@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> madine@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.) writes:

[excellent description of hazards at "bike path"-road intersections deleted]

>The danger of bikepaths is not that you will hit or be hit by another bicyclist
>or pedestrian--the danger is that you will be hit by a motor vehicle
>while ON the "bikepath".

This is undoubtedly the biggest problem.  It's not the only problem
you might have with motorists, though.  For example, I've encountered
motor vehicles (not just motorcycles) traveling *on* "bike paths" that
were wide enough to accomodate them and with insufficient barriers to
keep them off.  These motorists, of course, expect you to get out of
their way.

The other problem is the attitude problems "bike paths" cause among
motorists, many of whom are already intoxicated by the power of their
vehicles and are convinced that might should make right on the road
(if not entirely sure that it does).  Once paths exist in a locality,
motorists expect cyclists to use them even if they're not convienient,
if they're dangerous, don't go where the cyclist wants to go, etc.
(Tell any non-cyclist in an area that has bike paths that you're a
cyclist, and they'll immediately start telling you about the wonderful
bike paths in the area, and are shocked when you tell them that you'd
never dream of riding on them because they're too dangerous.)  When I
lived in California, with it's widespread facilities (and to my
knowledge, lack of coercive laws forcing cyclists to use them) and
generally benign attitude of motorists toward cyclists, motorists
still got very irritated if for some legitimate reason I moved out of
the bike lane.

I wonder if there's any evidence that "bike facilities" lead to a rise
in problems on other roads in the general area of the facilities?  I
wouldn't be suprised if this were the case.

>Gary E. Madine, Allentown, PA
>gem@aloft.att.com
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:30:38 GMT
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

Thomas H. Kunich writes

> The facts are that taxation is already way too high.
> Companies and jobs are fleeing the United States and the
> gap between the haves and have-nots is widening. But,
> hell, I don'[t suppose any of that is half as important
> as punishing people who use cars.

Yes!  Let's lower taxes!  It's about time!

So, let's lower the sales tax.  
And the property tax.
And the income tax.

But, wait a minute, those taxes support road use
(registration and gas taxes certainly don't)!  Can't
lower those, now can we?

Nope, we can't.  We *have* to go on punishing the elderly
and handicapped and the poor (Measure A!) just so auto
commuters can get a free ride.  ;-)

*Nobody* has been talking about *just raising* the gas
tax.  That makes *no sense*.  But a gas tax *does* make
sense when used as revenue replacement for lowering other
taxes while keeping the same amount of money flowing into
the highway system (so that we all get the same benefits).
And then the power to lower their own taxes is in the
hands of the voters - because *that's* the only way it'll
happen.

Scott Byer                                   NeXTMail: byer@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:30:52 GMT

Ted Lemon writes

> Actually, the tax rate in the U.S. is lower than in any other
> industrialized nation.

The taxation rate on capital gains in the U.S. is the *highest* among
any of the inductrialized countries.  Japan, for example, has no
capital gains tax.  A capital gains tax makes the re-invenstment of
a companies earnings into further improvement of it's manufacturing
methods a losing proposition.  It also discourages investment, growth,
and long-term considerations.  The U.S.'s high capital gains tax is
one reason companies have such a 'short-term' view, that we keep
everyone complaining about.

The U.S. has extraordinarily high taxes in other areas - sales taxes;
a very regressive tax, property taxes; punishing people on a fixed
income who have lived in a house for a long time.

The U.S.'s income taxes, when all added up - federal, state, and local,
are very nearly 50%.  This is *way* too high, even if it isn't *highest*.
And it certainly isn't *lowest* - Brazil, for example; one of the
reasons that country has had such a great turn-around the past few
years.

There are also many hidden taxes that everyone pays through the higher
prices of consumer good, such as very high corporate tax rates.

In overall taxation ,the U.S. is nowhere near the bottom.

Scott Byer                             NeXTMail: byer@mv.us.adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: hrad@ellis.uchicago.edu (vincent peter hradil)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Reply-To: hrad@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:32:22 GMT

In article <schinder.715380802@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov> schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>What do running magazines have to say about this?  I'd suspect that
>running with traffic would be slightly safer, and I see runners around
>here about equally likely to run with traffic as against it.
>
>Paul J. Schinder
>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
>schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov

If I run, which is seldom, I run against traffic.
This is because I can then see a car coming and
move out of the traffic (preferably off the road
and very clear of the cars path).  This is
because, as a runner I am not operating a vehicle,
and therefore should not be part of traffic.

However, as a cyclist I am operating a vehicle and
thus I obey the same rules of the road as any
other vehicle would, because I _am_ part of the
traffic.

Vince
From: roberth@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Harrison)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:46:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep1.194611.18818
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep1.181611.13576@stortek.com> jennings@lhotse.stortek.com (Jeff Jennings) writes:
>Paul J. Schinder (schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: I wouldn't be so sure if I were you.  The average car in the US is
>: used for around 10000 miles a year.  If the average bike goes only 200
>: miles it's within a factor of 50.
>
>This is true for an average car and an average bike.  However, the discussion
>was about "Total" miles for cars vs. bikes.  The above comparison only 
>remains valid if the number of cars is roughly the same as the number of
>bikes.  Somehow, I don't think this is true.
I think there are actually more bicycles in the U.S. than there are cars.
I seem to recall seeing the numbers once--perhaps someone out there in
netland can post the true numbers.

It should not be too surprising to find the numbers about the same, or even
favoring bicycles.  After all, virtually every kid 5-15 owns a bike but
doesn't own a car.  It seems pretty usual for a family to have a bike for
everyone in the family but just have two cars.

--RH
From: d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se (Hans Lindberg)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:50:14 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

>True over here as well.  Actually it is even worse here because the laws
>in North America clearly state that bicycles are to operate as vehicles
...

The law seems to be much the same here, and the boxturns are only
recommended, if traffic versus skills ratio of rider calls for it.


>>It seems to be majorly uncool to use or even have light on the bike.
>>Reflectors also are majorly uncool.  

>I'm not sure if that is all that new, kids have always tended to this,
>but you may be right in so far as it's getting worse.
...


True,but I'm not singeling out kids here, I'm talking Everyman h
(btw, is that the term i N Am to?).


>Not quite, the reason that "the Police don't give shit" (over there or
>here) is exactly because all the car drivers have to do is "to wipe off
>the blood off the hoods of [y]our cars", which is, it must be said,
...

Not quite, here in Sweden there is some general rule that says the car
driver is virtually never free from guilt in an accident. He is normally
considered partly to blame, as a car driver always is supposed to adapt
his driving to the circumstances, no matter what they may be. Secondly
It's never very fun to take a life, if you don't consider a possible
afterlife the killer might very well be worse of than the victim...



>Robert M. Lewis


Hans Lindberg



    /      /    /	"-Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable
   /      /    /	 that we have to alter it every six months."
  /------/    /
 /      /    /				--Oscar Wilde
/      /    /.....

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:03:41 GMT

In article <7wdntwa.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>The facts are that taxation is already way too high. Companies
>and jobs are fleeing the United States and the gap between the
>haves and have-nots is widening. But, hell, I don'[t suppose any
>of that is half as important as punishing people who use cars.

You consider it a punishment to pay the full price of your use of a
car?  Sorry, but I have no wish to subsidize you.

And please don't tell me about the car being a necessity - you're in
the wrong newsgroup for that bit of nonsense.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc