Myth: The motor car is the ultimate freedom machine

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:40:43 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 00:46:35 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
> Humble Philosopher" > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, December 7, 2014 2:56:05 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> >> In every country in the world, the first thing people want as they
> >> come up out of the mud is personal transportation. Even in China,
> >> with cities far bigger then most, and with plenty of public
> >> transportation of one sort or another, the people still hunger for
> >> personal transportation.
> >
> >Right, and because of it they are choking in pollution and the world is looking into the abyss of irreversible climate change.
> >
> >And they are sitting in endless traffic jams as well, so they are not getting fast anywhere.
>
>
> So? What's it to you? It's their choice, why do you keep suggesting
> you know better how they should live then they do? Maybe you'd like
> to tell us all what size house we should be allowed and what kind of
> food we should be allowed to eat. Clearly they like cars, with all
> the attendant problems, over mass transit. Even in a
> quasi-dictatorship you see this over and over. People want the
> freedom of a car. It's only in a few places that have become rats
> nests, like NYC where many are forced to give up that dream and SETTLE
> for impersonal transportation. Even in NYC people who can will pay
> ungodly sums of money to have a car.

Funny, you want to enjoy the "freedom" to drive a car while denying a place to public transportation, trains and bicycles.

You need to be serious about them because the car has no future.

On 2015-01-02 22:59:52 +0000, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises said:

> On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:40:43 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 00:46:35 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
>> Humble Philosopher" > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, December 7, 2014 2:56:05 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>> In every country in the world, the first thing people want as they
>>>> come up out of the mud is personal transportation. Even in China,
>>>> with cities far bigger then most, and with plenty of public
>>>> transportation of one sort or another, the people still hunger for
>>>> personal transportation.
>>>
>>> Right, and because of it they are choking in pollution and the world is
>>> looking into the abyss of irreversible climate change.
>>>
>>> And they are sitting in endless traffic jams as well, so they are not
>>> getting fast anywhere.
>>
>>
>> So? What's it to you? It's their choice, why do you keep suggesting
>> you know better how they should live then they do? Maybe you'd like
>> to tell us all what size house we should be allowed and what kind of
>> food we should be allowed to eat. Clearly they like cars, with all
>> the attendant problems, over mass transit. Even in a
>> quasi-dictatorship you see this over and over. People want the
>> freedom of a car. It's only in a few places that have become rats
>> nests, like NYC where many are forced to give up that dream and SETTLE
>> for impersonal transportation. Even in NYC people who can will pay
>> ungodly sums of money to have a car.
>
> Funny, you want to enjoy the "freedom" to drive a car while denying a
> place to public transportation, trains and bicycles.

Really? Where did he say that?

Personally, what I'd like is for those other modes of transportation to
pay their own way.

>
> You need to be serious about them because the car has no future.

The car has a bright future. The car is working for the vast majority
of people in North America.

How do we know this? Because they continue to choose it.

On 2015-01-03 15:09:12 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:

>>>> The car has a bright future. The car is working for the vast majority
>>>> of people in North America.
>>>
>>> Oh no, the working class is struggling to eat because of the car. How
>>> many kids can you feed when you own a car? Not many. Unless you live on
>>> welfare.
>>
>> What a load of unsupported bull****.
>
> Place yourself in their shoes and imagine they hit you with a silly red
> light ticket that costs you 160 bucks.

Hmmmm....

Don't go through red lights.

That works for me.

>>
>>>
>>> DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ON WELFARE SHOULD OWN A CAR?
>>
>> Strawman
>
> Just give me the answer. Maybe they need from the car.

Then if they need own they should own one.

It's still a strawman.

>
> Not all people must drive.

As is this. I never said that everyone must.

>>
>>>>
>>>> How do we know this? Because they continue to choose it.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps because they have no choice. People in NYC pass on the car.
>>> They live longer than other Americans. Perhaps they eat better by not
>>> having a car.
>>
>> I can just make things up too, you know...
>
> Well, if it is COMMON SENSE, yes.

Good of you to admit you made it up though.

>>
>>>
>>> FREEDOM FROM THE CAR IS FREEDOM TOO.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Freedom from the car means freedom from the payments and the tickets.
> Don't forget the tickets. You have been targeted for predation.

I've had perhaps two tickets in the last 10 years...

....and I drive fast.

So how am I being preyed upon?


And unless you're advocating a public transportation system that can
take me everywhere I want to go as quickly as I need to get there, it
won't eliminate the car and its expenses for most people...

....simply add to those expenses.

On 2015-01-03 17:19:34 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:

> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:23:54 AM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
> Humble Philosopher wrote:
>> You drivers are placing the noose around your own neck. Your radicalism
>> doesn't even tolerate the bicycle. The bicycle infrastructure is non
>> existent or dysfunctional. Public transportation is highly
>> dysfunctional too. You oppose trains in the city. You oppose fast
>> trains as well. What's next?
>>
>> "Carmageddon!"
>
> I don't think we should turn this into a class struggle issue because
> we often are both cyclists and drivers.
>
> Naturally the bicycle is the most democratic vehicle of the two and the
> one that keeps you in touch with your community. I don't think you
> should even vote if you don't ride a bike. You don't know what's going
> on. You don't know about crime. You don't know about broken sidewalks.
> You don't know about corruption.

More completely bull****.

>
> Everything is dysfunctional. You think we want free facilities. No, we
> don't want any of that. Bike lanes don't work, not connected, used for
> deliveries. They become another excuse for corruption.

I KNOW you receive free facilities.

Who will pay for those if you actually eliminate car use?

>
> We want a traffic lane. That means "taking the lane" in the bike
> culture. You want us to pay for it? OK, how about 30 bucks a year for
> the "license." Oh don't worry, we are not going to let loose any monkey
> on the road. Anyways the true idiots are driving already. And we don't
> want them next to us. We want next to us scooters and slow vehicles. Oh
> yes, those Neighborhood Electric Vehicles are cute and friendly.

And if that $30 a year can't pay for all the lanes you want? Where will
they come from?

>
> Time to go driving now.

On 2015-01-04 02:08:11 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:

> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:33:25 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2015-01-03 15:09:12 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>
>>>>>> The car has a bright future. The car is working for the vast majority
>>>>>> of people in North America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh no, the working class is struggling to eat because of the car. How
>>>>> many kids can you feed when you own a car? Not many. Unless you live on
>>>>> welfare.
>>>>
>>>> What a load of unsupported bull****.
>>>
>>> Place yourself in their shoes and imagine they hit you with a silly red
>>> light ticket that costs you 160 bucks.
>>
>> Hmmmm....
>>
>> Don't go through red lights.
>
> It's NOT going through red lights. It's passing a line or failing to
> stop when turning right. That's a bad habit we could eradicate without
> being swallowed whole. We could learn by being issued a $50 ticket.
> They just go for the jugular.

It IS going through a red light. Period.

If you stop behind that line: no problem.

If you stop when turning right: no problem.

>>
>> That works for me.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ON WELFARE SHOULD OWN A CAR?
>>>>
>>>> Strawman
>>>
>>> Just give me the answer. Maybe they need from the car.
>>
>> Then if they need own they should own one.
>>
>> It's still a strawman.
>>
>>>
>>> Not all people must drive.
>>
>> As is this. I never said that everyone must.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do we know this? Because they continue to choose it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or perhaps because they have no choice. People in NYC pass on the car.
>>>>> They live longer than other Americans. Perhaps they eat better by not
>>>>> having a car.
>>>>
>>>> I can just make things up too, you know...
>>>
>>> Well, if it is COMMON SENSE, yes.
>>
>> Good of you to admit you made it up though.
>
> Well, am I making up that more people and more cars mean more traffic
> jams? You need a study for that or is it commonsense?

You are making up that people in NYC live longer by not having a car.

I'll put it more simply so that you can understand:

You are LYING.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FREEDOM FROM THE CAR IS FREEDOM TOO.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Freedom from the car means freedom from the payments and the tickets.
>>> Don't forget the tickets. You have been targeted for predation.
>>
>> I've had perhaps two tickets in the last 10 years...
>>
>> ...and I drive fast.
>>
>> So how am I being preyed upon?
>
> Tickets, tickets, tickets. Also towing, parking fees, tolls...

Nope. Sorry, but I don't get "tickets, tickets, tickets", and any time
I've been towed, it's been my fault.

>
> They just doubled the tolls around here. No escape.
>>
>>
>> And unless you're advocating a public transportation system that can
>> take me everywhere I want to go as quickly as I need to get there, it
>> won't eliminate the car and its expenses for most people...
>>
>> ...simply add to those expenses.
>
> Actually public transportation is a good option for those who are not
> such good drivers. It would make your driving more fun and pleasurable.

It might be a good option...

....if it didn't require drivers to subsidize it.

On 2015-01-04 02:10:29 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:

> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:35:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2015-01-03 17:19:34 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>
>>> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:23:54 AM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
>>> Humble Philosopher wrote:
>>>> You drivers are placing the noose around your own neck. Your radicalism
>>>> doesn't even tolerate the bicycle. The bicycle infrastructure is non
>>>> existent or dysfunctional. Public transportation is highly
>>>> dysfunctional too. You oppose trains in the city. You oppose fast
>>>> trains as well. What's next?
>>>>
>>>> "Carmageddon!"
>>>
>>> I don't think we should turn this into a class struggle issue because
>>> we often are both cyclists and drivers.
>>>
>>> Naturally the bicycle is the most democratic vehicle of the two and the
>>> one that keeps you in touch with your community. I don't think you
>>> should even vote if you don't ride a bike. You don't know what's going
>>> on. You don't know about crime. You don't know about broken sidewalks.
>>> You don't know about corruption.
>>
>> More completely bull****.
>>
>>>
>>> Everything is dysfunctional. You think we want free facilities. No, we
>>> don't want any of that. Bike lanes don't work, not connected, used for
>>> deliveries. They become another excuse for corruption.
>>
>> I KNOW you receive free facilities.
>>
>> Who will pay for those if you actually eliminate car use?
>>
>>>
>>> We want a traffic lane. That means "taking the lane" in the bike
>>> culture. You want us to pay for it? OK, how about 30 bucks a year for
>>> the "license." Oh don't worry, we are not going to let loose any monkey
>>> on the road. Anyways the true idiots are driving already. And we don't
>>> want them next to us. We want next to us scooters and slow vehicles. Oh
>>> yes, those Neighborhood Electric Vehicles are cute and friendly.
>>
>> And if that $30 a year can't pay for all the lanes you want? Where will
>> they come from?
>
> I don't want bike lanes. I want the right lane be prioritized for slow
> vehicles.
>
> We can pay as well, but don't terrorize us.

Cyclists AREN'T paying.

Neither are public transit users.

Car drivers are paying.

On 2015-01-04 14:42:22 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:

> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:32:48 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2015-01-04 07:27:01 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>
>>> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:09:11 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2015-01-04 02:10:29 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:35:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-01-03 17:19:34 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:23:54 AM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
>>>>>>> Humble Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> You drivers are placing the noose around your own neck. Your radicalism
>>>>>>>> doesn't even tolerate the bicycle. The bicycle infrastructure is non
>>>>>>>> existent or dysfunctional. Public transportation is highly
>>>>>>>> dysfunctional too. You oppose trains in the city. You oppose fast
>>>>>>>> trains as well. What's next?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Carmageddon!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think we should turn this into a class struggle issue because
>>>>>>> we often are both cyclists and drivers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Naturally the bicycle is the most democratic vehicle of the two and the
>>>>>>> one that keeps you in touch with your community. I don't think you
>>>>>>> should even vote if you don't ride a bike. You don't know what's going
>>>>>>> on. You don't know about crime. You don't know about broken sidewalks.
>>>>>>> You don't know about corruption.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More completely bull****.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everything is dysfunctional. You think we want free facilities. No, we
>>>>>>> don't want any of that. Bike lanes don't work, not connected, used for
>>>>>>> deliveries. They become another excuse for corruption.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I KNOW you receive free facilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who will pay for those if you actually eliminate car use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We want a traffic lane. That means "taking the lane" in the bike
>>>>>>> culture. You want us to pay for it? OK, how about 30 bucks a year for
>>>>>>> the "license." Oh don't worry, we are not going to let loose any monkey
>>>>>>> on the road. Anyways the true idiots are driving already. And we don't
>>>>>>> want them next to us. We want next to us scooters and slow vehicles. Oh
>>>>>>> yes, those Neighborhood Electric Vehicles are cute and friendly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if that $30 a year can't pay for all the lanes you want? Where will
>>>>>> they come from?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want bike lanes. I want the right lane be prioritized for slow
>>>>> vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can pay as well, but don't terrorize us.
>>>>
>>>> Cyclists AREN'T paying.
>>>>
>>>> Neither are public transit users.
>>>>
>>>> Car drivers are paying.
>>>
>>> You are not even paying for the environmental damage you cause.
>>
>> Maybe...
>>
>> Show me the math.
>>
>> What I know is that public transit as it is today depends on there
>> being enough drivers in cars to pay for it.
>
> Do you think the public transit of NYC is paid by drivers as well?

I know it is. They take in only 52% of their operating costs from fares.

> It's only in the suburbs where public transportation struggles. The
> sprawl was built around the car and there lies the problem. But now we
> are talking about solutions, right?

You're mostly talking fantasies.

>>
>>>
>>> People in Norway and the Netherlands pay their fair share for gas, that
>>> is twice as much as you do.
>>
>> And where have I said I'd object to paying that much?
>
> Sure but first we need to take care of corruption. No matter how much
> money you throw into the system, it will find its way into the black
> hole of corruption.

Assumes facts you've not proven.

In other words, more bull****.

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:35:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2015-01-03 17:19:34 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>
> > On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:23:54 AM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
> > Humble Philosopher wrote:
> >> You drivers are placing the noose around your own neck. Your radicalism
> >> doesn't even tolerate the bicycle. The bicycle infrastructure is non
> >> existent or dysfunctional. Public transportation is highly
> >> dysfunctional too. You oppose trains in the city. You oppose fast
> >> trains as well. What's next?
> >>
> >> "Carmageddon!"
> >
> > I don't think we should turn this into a class struggle issue because
> > we often are both cyclists and drivers.
> >
> > Naturally the bicycle is the most democratic vehicle of the two and the
> > one that keeps you in touch with your community. I don't think you
> > should even vote if you don't ride a bike. You don't know what's going
> > on. You don't know about crime. You don't know about broken sidewalks.
> > You don't know about corruption.
>
> More completely bull****.
>
> >
> > Everything is dysfunctional. You think we want free facilities. No, we
> > don't want any of that. Bike lanes don't work, not connected, used for
> > deliveries. They become another excuse for corruption.
>
> I KNOW you receive free facilities.
>
> Who will pay for those if you actually eliminate car use?

"Eliminate car use?"

I tell you drivers tend to be radical. I want to retire the bad drivers so the other forms of transportation as well as the good drivers can enjoy more room.

On 2015-01-04 22:43:11 +0000, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises said:

> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:35:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2015-01-03 17:19:34 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>
>>> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:23:54 AM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
>>> Humble Philosopher wrote:
>>>> You drivers are placing the noose around your own neck. Your radicalism
>>>> doesn't even tolerate the bicycle. The bicycle infrastructure is non
>>>> existent or dysfunctional. Public transportation is highly
>>>> dysfunctional too. You oppose trains in the city. You oppose fast
>>>> trains as well. What's next?
>>>>
>>>> "Carmageddon!"
>>>
>>> I don't think we should turn this into a class struggle issue because
>>> we often are both cyclists and drivers.
>>>
>>> Naturally the bicycle is the most democratic vehicle of the two and the
>>> one that keeps you in touch with your community. I don't think you
>>> should even vote if you don't ride a bike. You don't know what's going
>>> on. You don't know about crime. You don't know about broken sidewalks.
>>> You don't know about corruption.
>>
>> More completely bull****.
>>
>>>
>>> Everything is dysfunctional. You think we want free facilities. No, we
>>> don't want any of that. Bike lanes don't work, not connected, used for
>>> deliveries. They become another excuse for corruption.
>>
>> I KNOW you receive free facilities.
>>
>> Who will pay for those if you actually eliminate car use?
>
> "Eliminate car use?"
>
> I tell you drivers tend to be radical. I want to retire the bad drivers
> so the other forms of transportation as well as the good drivers can
> enjoy more room.

I want to require all drivers to be good drivers... ...or lose their
right to drive.

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 5:46:14 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2015-01-04 22:43:11 +0000, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises said:
>
> > On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:35:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2015-01-03 17:19:34 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:23:54 AM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
> >>> Humble Philosopher wrote:
> >>>> You drivers are placing the noose around your own neck. Your radicalism
> >>>> doesn't even tolerate the bicycle. The bicycle infrastructure is non
> >>>> existent or dysfunctional. Public transportation is highly
> >>>> dysfunctional too. You oppose trains in the city. You oppose fast
> >>>> trains as well. What's next?
> >>>>
> >>>> "Carmageddon!"
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should turn this into a class struggle issue because
> >>> we often are both cyclists and drivers.
> >>>
> >>> Naturally the bicycle is the most democratic vehicle of the two and the
> >>> one that keeps you in touch with your community. I don't think you
> >>> should even vote if you don't ride a bike. You don't know what's going
> >>> on. You don't know about crime. You don't know about broken sidewalks.
> >>> You don't know about corruption.
> >>
> >> More completely bull****.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Everything is dysfunctional. You think we want free facilities. No, we
> >>> don't want any of that. Bike lanes don't work, not connected, used for
> >>> deliveries. They become another excuse for corruption.
> >>
> >> I KNOW you receive free facilities.
> >>
> >> Who will pay for those if you actually eliminate car use?
> >
> > "Eliminate car use?"
> >
> > I tell you drivers tend to be radical. I want to retire the bad drivers
> > so the other forms of transportation as well as the good drivers can
> > enjoy more room.
>
> I want to require all drivers to be good drivers... ...or lose their
> right to drive.

Well, we need those SPEED CAMERAS to start separating the good drivers from the bad drivers.

Hint: Good drivers don't go speeding on city streets. They should have a working passing lane on freeways.