HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:34:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <sandrock.715040040@leo> sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:
>>As for punishing people who use cars - damn straight!  They do not pay for
>>the damage they are causing.

Sez who? What damage are they not paying for? Perhaps the taxes paid by
a society where 4 out of every 7 jobs is dependant upon the internal
combustion engines isn't enough?

>>A gas tax discourages abuse of a valuable resource, discourages pollution,
>>discourages frivolous driving trips, discourages high-speed driving,
>>discourages dependence on foreign oil. 

In other words, automobiles don't coincide with what _you_ think
is important.
>
>Americans seem to have extremely poor cardiovascular health overall, and one
>reason is surely our over-reliance on the auto to get everywhere.

It's nice of you to decide what America's health and welfare should be.
>
>Re speedboats, I feel even more strongly. Cars serve a good purpose, but
>speeding around the lake is nothing but cheap thrills, in my opinion. (I
>sail, in case you haven't guessed.) The noise and smell spoils the tran-
>quility of the region for everyone else, but hey, we're talking big bucks
>here for equipment and fees, etc.

Yes indeed we sure see _your_ point. If you don't like, no-one should
like it. Screw everyone else's freedoms because you have the inside
line on truth.

I have to admit that every line I've read in this whole message
string that has to do with people's ideas about taxation
rings with class warfare and hypocrisy. I'm not saying this
to flame you or anyone else, what I'm saying is that the
majority of the people in the United States decides what is
good for them. Careful look at the statistical evidence will
be proof enough for anyone that they vote overwhelmingly
with their pocketbooks to support automobiles and to shun
public transit.

And if there is one thing that really frosts me is those who
say, "I can't control myself so you should pass a law to
protect me from myself." So meaning, they own cars and drive
all of the time but want laws past to force them to do something
they proclaim they believe in when all along they don't.
From: mellon@iti.org (Ted Lemon)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:16:16 GMT

In article <7wdntwa.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>>The facts are that taxation is already way too high. [in the U.S.]

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

				_MelloN_
--
mellon@ncd.com						uunet!lupine!mellon
Member, League for Programming Freedom | To learn how software patents could
cost you your right to program, contact the LPF - league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:44:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug29.001326.16446@u.washington.edu> roberth@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Harrison) writes:

>I saw a breakdown recently of how much pollution various sources cause per
>hour of use.  (I think this was in US News an World Report.)  The article
>said that in one hour of use an outboard motor causes as much pollution as
>a car does in 800 miles.

If youwant to know the _major_ polution hazard in the world just
try thinking the next time you flush! Or use the washing machine.
Or wash your hands. 

The chief cause of polution is over population. But the fix is
simple. Simply sterilize two out of every three people.

What with the millions upon uncounted millions of outboard motors
destroying the atmosphere this seems like a very good project for
the next Lenin.

And just to set the record straight. I have raced sailboats for
15 years or more. I finally stopped after crewing on the
season winning IOR boat, a Farr 37 that we managed to beat
all of the big guys in with enough regularity to be season 
champions. The only boat I ever had that used an outboard motor
had seized the thing the day I bought it and I sailed it
exclusively for a year before I sold it. All my other boats
had inboard auxillaries and I have yet to see a sailboat
that didn't use it's motor almost as much as it's sails.

Maybe we ought to try taxing left handed troglodites. They seem
so numerous and politically helpless that you ought to be 
able to get a class war going over them too.
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (Soren LaForce)
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.soc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:33:00 GMT

In article <schinder.715365481@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>, schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes...
>In <1SEP199208502942@xenon.arc.nasa.gov> laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (Soren LaForce) writes:
> 
>>In article <12hnx0_.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes...
> 
>>> 
>>>Furthermore, there were on the order of 850 fatalities each year
>>>from bicycle accidents vs. the 50,000 per year in auto accidents.
> 
>>Same comment.  Normalize the numbers to miles driven.  You list 
>>about 60 times more auto fatalities per year than bicycle fatalities.
>>Considering that there are probably much more than 60 times the number
>>of auto miles driven (and more relevently, much more than 60 times
>>the number of auto hours driven) the bike satistics don't look too good.
> 
>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.  In my childhood I was a fan of
>speedometers, so I know I easily rode 200 miles per year then.  A few
>miles a day over the course of a summer will do it. (Of course, this
>year I rode about 5000, within a factor of two of my car milage.) My
>vague recollection is (anyone out there with a copy of Forester's book
>at hand?) that the per mile risk of driving and bicycling is about the
>same (which would mean bicycling is safer per hour).

Paul, you have some good points, but...

First, my own experiences do NOT agree with that, do yours?

Second, 15,000 miles per driver per year is closer (certainly in 
california).  AND, pretty much everyone drives a car, not even close to 
everyone rides a bike (unfortuneately).  I mean, if you don't ride a bike,
you'll never be killed on one.

Third, all else being equal, cars are operated under much worse conditions
than are bikes.  I really hate to ride in the rain, snow, etc.  So
I don't.  I do drive then, tho'.  What I'm getting at here is that one 
(not this one anyway) would expect more car fatalities due to the dissimilar
useage patterns.


> 
>>I ride bikes.  I drive cars.  Both populations have lots of idiots.
>>I do not fear for my life anywhere near as often in the car.  
> 
>But maybe you should.  Irrational fears are tough to lose, but may not
>be warranted by facts.

Yeah, but I like to reserve my worrying for the rational fears!  Anyway,
since when is fearing for ones life irrational?  I'm not talking about
a constant condition, just when some jerk is looking one way and driving
the other.  And I happen to be where he's driving.

The facts are that most car drivers see other cars, but may or may not
see pedistrians, bikes, motorcycles, horses, etc.

> 
>Paul J. Schinder
>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
>schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov



--Soren            laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:51:01 GMT

In <1992Sep1.194113.202@cs.rochester.edu> scott@cs.rochester.edu (Michael Scott) writes:

>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.

I can remember after moving to Ohio, Mr. Friendly Policeman came to
our second grade class (in 1961) with a pamphlet proclaiming that we
should ride against traffic.  The next year Mr. Friendly Policeman
came to our third grade class with a pamphlet saying we should ride
*with* traffic.  That remained the recommendation forever after.

>-- 
>Michael L. Scott
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: zstern@adobe.com (Zalman Stern)
Subject: Re: _New Cyclist_ and British Rail.
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 07:29:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.142151.13484@wraxall.inmos.co.uk>  
cath@dyrham.inmos.co.uk (Catherine Barnaby) writes:
>(For the UK-ites, there was a review/article in New Cyclist about
>taking bike-like objects on a train... was it a "protest" sort
>of mission??)
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?
--
Zalman Stern		   zalman@adobe.com		    (415) 962 3824
Adobe Systems, 1585 Charleston Rd., POB 7900, Mountain View, CA 94039-7900
  "Yeah. Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters too." Bill Watterson
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:14:46 GMT

scott@cs.rochester.edu (Michael Scott) writes:

>In article <13823@chalmers.se> d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se (Hans Lindberg) writes:
>| 
>| 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.

Maybe this idea derives from the admonition for hikers and joggers to
travel against traffic for safety. I'm not saying that cyclists should
do this, but as a runner, it's my preferred method in the absence of
sidewalks. But then I can easily move to safety should an auto approach
too close for comfort!

Mark Sandrock
-- 
UIUC Chemical Sciences Computer Ctr.	  "You not only improve in physical
505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801	   fitness by running but [in] your
Email: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu	   character as well." --Zatopek
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Welcome to rec.bicycles.soc
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:31:38 GMT

I'm pleased to see that this group is alive and well.
Here is the charter, in case you don't remember.

rec.bicycles.soc: Social issues, cycling transportation advocacy,
laws, conduct of riders and drivers; road hazards such as potholes,
dogs, and sociopaths.

--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
From: rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: Ignorant Cyclists...)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:14:57 GMT

d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se (Hans Lindberg) writes:

>                                                              When it
>comes to riding on the wrong side, I find that most kamikazes here in
>Sweden do that out of lazyness and lack of wits. 

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
except for the keep as far to the right as practicable rule (and in some
places the obligation to use bike lanes/paths where they exists).  While 
I don't know what the law says in Sweden, as I understand it, in many 
areas of Europe bicyles are treated differently (e.g., being required 
to do a box left turn, i.e., making a left turn from the right hand 
edge of the road rather that from the centre).

[deleted section]

>                                                      But I've never
>heard of anyone being told or taught to ride against traffic here in
>Sweden though. There is a rather dangerous trend herein Sweden to be
>more or less reckless, maybe to give a cool impression, I don't know. 
>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.

>                                  The Police don't give shit. I guess
>it's just up to us drivers to wipe of the blood of the hoods of our
>cars our selves. 

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,
rather minor (do they arrest bugs for mucking up your windshield?).  
The fact that idiot cyclists do cause serious problems for other 
cyclists is, of course, beyond either their comprehension or concern.


Robert M. Lewis
Department of Sociology
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Xref: sparky rec.bicycles.soc:27 rec.bicycles.misc:120
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:21:03 GMT
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.soc

In article <1992Aug27.145155.28022@cci632.cci.com>, tims@cci632.cci.com (Tim Sullivan) writes:
> 
> melvin@math.psu.edu wrote this about Gas subsidies and taxes:
> >While cursing the traffic jam caused by the toll booth on the Maine Turnpike,
> >I thought of how neat it would be to require cars to have large bar codes on
> >the door so that tolls could be automatically charged to your MAC card without
> >slowing down.  With this system, all roads could be made into toll
> >roads and car drivers could begin to pay for the immense physical and
> >social destruction they cause.
> 	
> 	In todays New York Times (8/27/92) there is an article decribing how
> 	Motorola and Amtech Corp. are teaming up to create a radio controlled
> 	toll collection system that will charge tolls against a credit or debit
> 	card.

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.

And we should make government spend gas tax revenue only on related issues
(transportation, evnironment and energy).  And that includes bicycling support!


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc
From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark )
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 08:28:28 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.soc

In article <1992Aug27.190755.995@bnr.ca> snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.145155.28022@cci632.cci.com>, tims@cci632.cci.com
>(Tim Sullivan) writes:
>|>
>|>	In todays New York Times (8/27/92) there is an article decribing how
>|>	Motorola and Amtech Corp. are teaming up to create a radio controlled
>|>	toll collection system that will charge tolls against a credit or debit
>|>	card.
>
>In Dallas such a system is already in use (has been for quite a while)
>on the Dallas Tollway.
>
>These "tolltags" are sensed (radio or IR I'm not sure) with cars going
>through the toll booth at some rather high rates of speed (30-40mph)
>much to the dismay of the police.

This sounds like a topic for r.b.soc, which is where I've directed followups.
C'mon folks, r.b.misc isn't a new name for rec.bikes.  

Ken
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Pickup Truck Gets Revenge in a Civilized Fashion
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:35:20 GMT
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

Thomas H. Kunich writes

> Well, in heavy traffic I like to pass and repass all
> of those cars who want to blast by you at 40 mph to
> get to the next light.

It's even more fun to wave at them the third, fourth,
tenth time you pass them :-)

*Especially* the suit in the $120,000 Ferrari that can't
go faster than a $500 bike. :-)

But, I must admit, when I'm feeling *really* nasty, I'll
just *slowly* ride over a 101 overpass at 5:30pm and wave
at all the silly cagers down below.

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: roberth@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Harrison)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:13:26 GMT

sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:
> Re speedboats, I feel even more strongly. Cars serve a good purpose, but
> speeding around the lake is nothing but cheap thrills, in my opinion. (I
> sail, in case you haven't guessed.) The noise and smell spoils the tran-
> quility of the region for everyone else, but hey, we're talking big bucks
> here for equipment and fees, etc.
I saw a breakdown recently of how much pollution various sources cause per
hour of use.  (I think this was in US News an World Report.)  The article
said that in one hour of use an outboard motor causes as much pollution as
a car does in 800 miles.  (Of course sailboats usually use just this sort
of engine to get in and out of harbor or in windless conditions!)  The
article (or actually just a sidebar to the article) was pointing out how
much pollution engines without smog controls (e.g. lawn mowers, chainsaws,
off-road vehicles) cause compared to automobiles.  The outboard motor was
the worst of the things listed, but all of them were very bad. 
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 17:11:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <JOEH.92Sep3150948@ami.sps.mot.com> joeh@ami.sps.mot.com (Joe Hollinger) writes:
>
>Actually, the idea behind gasoline taxes is correction of market
>failure, not necessarily revenue generation. The thought is that
>people should be forced to account for the damage that they do;
>otherwise the market encourages behaviors that are economically
>inefficient. 

Actually, the idea behind this string is that one group wishes
to control another group. Just another historical objective of
people who believe that they have 'the' answer.

I don't claim that these people do not do so in complete good faith,
but merely that that is what they're doing.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: ouwendyk@prso.pttnwb.nl (A.P.J. Ouwendijk)
Subject: Re: Riding on the wrong side (was: 
Organization: PTT Telecom b.v. The Netherlands
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:49:50 GMT

In article <1702500003@igc.apc.org>, <conbio@igc.apc.org> writes:
|> 
|> As a bicyclist who also occasionally drives a car, I feel
|> compelled to point out that riding on the wrong side of
|> the road (i.e. opposing traffic) is (1) not what drivers
|> EXPECT to see on the road but also (2) against the traffic code
|> and a citable traffic violation.  A friend of mine was actually
|> cited by a policeperson for riding on the wrong side of a road
|> which lacked bike lanes.
|> 

Last summer I cycled through Wales and Ireland, so I had to get used
to riding on the wrong side of the road.

Nobody rides on the *right* side of the road in those countries .....  :-)

-- 
        Anthon Ouwendijk               E-Mail: ouwendyk@prso.pttnwb.nl
   __o  PTT Telecom b.v.  o__          Voice:  +31 70 3434572
 _`\<,  's-Gravenhage     ,>/'_
(_)/(_) The Netherlands  (_)\(_)       #include    <std/disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:50:35 GMT

In article <1vln1f-.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>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.

Oh boy, is this getting far from cycling.  Followup-to talk.politics.misc.

The basic question, in my mind, is whether the current standard of
living in the U.S. (or Canada, for that matter) is sustainable.  I
believe the answer is no - there have been enormous gains in standard
of living since WW-II, and people have come to believe that this will
go on forever.  In a finite world, this obviously makes no sense (esp.
if we persist on equating standard of living with consumption/GNP - in
fact, with all our toys and labour-saving devices, we are working
HARDER to provide our basic needs than our grandparents and
greatgrandparents did, with their simpler lifestyles.  Consider that
the Bushmen of the Kalahari, living in an inhospitable desert, spend
3 hours a day meeting their needs.  Leaves them with lots of time
for family activities, games, socializing...)

ObBike:  This is one reason I advocate cycling as a real method of
transport, and an economical, pleasant, alternative to the car.  Still,
some people have difficulty understanding that though cycling is the
most efficient mode of transport, and damn fun too, it should be
seriously considered as a way of gettting people from point A to
point B.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: madine@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.)
Subject: Information on accident claims wanted.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:07:59 GMT
Keywords: Attorneys, injuries, settlements, magazine article

I found the following in "Bicycle USA", the magazine of the League
of American Wheelmen.  Thought it might be of interest.  It was in
the classifieds section.  "Bicycle USA" [nor I] can attest to the
truthfulness.  I tried to limit the post to the US.  The prerequisite
of having used an attorney would effectively limit the respondents to the
US anyway.


ATTENTION Attorneys and Cyclists: Information
on bicycle accident claims wanted for future articles
for "Bicycle USA".  Send a description of your
accident, injuries, settlement/verdict, and the name
of your attorney (if you have one) to Steven M.
Magas, Esq., CARROLL, BUNKE, HENKEL,
HAVERKAMP, & SMITH, 5856 Glenway Ave., Cin-
cinnati, OH 45238.


I do not have anything to report.  But maybe other net users
who do not subscribe to "Bicycle USA" would be interested in
contributing.  Please respond to the above USmail address.

Gary E. Madine, Allentown, PA
gem@aloft.att.com

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc