If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> [I have long held that a system like this is the ONLY way we will ever > eliminate traffic congestion - we simply cannot build roads fast > enough to outpace the ability of incompetents and LLBs to clog things > up.] I hold the same view. However I favor a cheaper solution. That is to remove the incompetents and LLBs from the road. BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a simple increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the solution always seems to involve government control. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
"Brent P" > wrote in message ... > In article >, Scott en Aztlán > wrote: >> [I have long held that a system like this is the ONLY way we will ever >> eliminate traffic congestion - we simply cannot build roads fast >> enough to outpace the ability of incompetents and LLBs to clog things >> up.] > > I hold the same view. However I favor a cheaper solution. That is to > remove > the incompetents and LLBs from the road. > > BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging > and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a simple > increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the solution always > seems to involve government control. The analysis of congestion pricing in London found it was no better than a traffic control system using present technology. Congestion pricing is mainly a way for Governments to increase taxes, not to improve traffic. You of course want it because you hope you Luddite fantasies will come true by getting people to use transit, which will never happen. Transit is the equivalent of trying to get people to go back to 8 track tape in an iPod world. A very sophomoric view of the world. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
Jack May wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote: >>I hold the same view. However I favor a cheaper solution. That is to >>remove the incompetents and LLBs from the road. >> >>BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging >>and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a simple >>increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the solution always >>seems to involve government control. > The analysis of congestion pricing in London found it was no better than a > traffic control system using present technology. Congestion pricing is > mainly a way for Governments to increase taxes, not to improve traffic. > > You of course want it because you hope you Luddite fantasies will come true > by getting people to use transit, which will never happen. Having problems with reading comprehension? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
Arif Khokar wrote:
> Jack May wrote: > >> "Brent P" > wrote: > > >>> I hold the same view. However I favor a cheaper solution. That is to >>> remove the incompetents and LLBs from the road. >>> >>> BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging >>> and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a simple >>> increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the solution >>> always >>> seems to involve government control. > > >> The analysis of congestion pricing in London found it was no better >> than a traffic control system using present technology. Congestion >> pricing is mainly a way for Governments to increase taxes, not to >> improve traffic. >> >> You of course want it because you hope you Luddite fantasies will come >> true by getting people to use transit, which will never happen. > > > Having problems with reading comprehension? The old two cultures thing, I'm afraid. His maths are pretty good. -- You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
In article >, Jack May wrote:
> You of course want it because you hope you Luddite fantasies will come true > by getting people to use transit, which will never happen. I don't want the tracking taxing scheme. I am dead set against it. I believe transit should be built and run so it's useful. People will then choose it because it is useful. > Transit is the > equivalent of trying to get people to go back to 8 track tape in an iPod > world. A very sophomoric view of the world. That's because US transit is more or less a broken down 1940s system. In some places of chicago and NYC it's a 19th century system. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> yes,it's always said that driving is a privelege,not a right. Thus,only > those who can do it properly should have the privelege;that's the basis > behind our current license system,although not enforced. That concept is only brought up when they wish to force us to sign away rights to be able to drive. >> BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging >> and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a >> simple increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the >> solution always seems to involve government control. > Driving is freedom. > One(or more) can go when they want,where they want. Being allowed to drive IMO should be a right, being able to do it on a public road should require demonstration that a person would not interfere with the rights of others on the roadway. (competence) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
>> That concept is only brought up when they wish to force us to sign >> away rights to be able to drive. > IMO,the "privelege" concept is used to allow for DUI roadblocks and other > unconstitutional behavior on the part of authorities. That's what I meant. We have to sign away the bill of rights to get behind the wheel. >>> Driving is freedom. >>> One(or more) can go when they want,where they want. >> Being allowed to drive IMO should be a right, > AFAIK,one CAN drive on their own property without gov't interference,or on > other's property with their permission. One cannot even store automobiles on his own private property these days. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
97 Stratus Miss Firing on Cylinder 4 | jh0828 | Dodge | 2 | January 11th 06 11:46 PM |
Please help. 91 nissan maxima GXE engine miss | [email protected] | Technology | 6 | June 28th 05 04:11 PM |
GM Techs....i have a grand am problem with my 3.3...slight miss | scale | Technology | 12 | February 22nd 05 12:48 AM |
Follow-up: 2000 Contour miss and Check Engine Light | Craig Williams | Technology | 1 | December 31st 04 06:00 AM |
2000 Contour miss and Check Engine | Craig Williams | Technology | 3 | December 21st 04 01:11 AM |