How Did I Miss This One?

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:45:00 +1100, Greg Sutherland wrote:
> For a self titled "engineer" your contributions are light on for
> dispassionate, verifable analysis and high on emotional rhetoric! For
> example "Luddite fantasies", "rat holes of failed technology".
>
> Greg

Real engineers get their knickers in a twist over stuff like someone
using a comma where one should use a semicolon. Unless "Jack" got a
disability pass on exams as a dyslexic, he would've failed 8th grade
industrial arts classes for his spelling & syntax.

Oddly enough, the statistics show that (and to my surprise) it's the
supposedly auto-centric California and the West Coast that's increasingly
abandoning auto travel to ride the rails. Amtrak's Cascades haul nearly
twice as many passengers as the traditionally (in service since about 1860)
heavily patronized Chicago-St Louis route. The Pacific Surfliner attracts
nearly as many riders as the East Coast Amtrak Acela service (about
2,000,000 per year).
You can look up the statistics he
http://www.narprail.org/cms/images/uploads/trains.pdf

Some of the statements made by anti-rail public officials are patently
ignorant, eg:
Rep. Harold Rogers, House floor, June 29, 2005
"We simply cannot keep going on sending empty trains clear across the
country with no riders."
Norman Mineta (prepared remarks, Chicago, IL, press conference, Feb. 14):
"Amtrak...is...running trains that nobody rides between cities that nobody
wants to travel between."

Apparently, these public officials haven't tried booking an Amtrak
ticket lately! Or bothered riding a train! The main limitation to
passenger travel growth on many routes is simply lack of rolling
stock to carry the human cattle who want to suffer through the indiginities
Amtrak forces people to suffer at places like its asinine
Chicago Union Station setup. Tickets on many routes are sold out days
or weeks ahead of time. International tourists who contribute millions
to the US economy, want to use trains to see the USA without a Chevrolet
and who are used to frequent and convenient train service back home, get
put through loading procedures similar to loading a train of Conestoga
wagons in Kansas City in 1850.

--
Ned Carlson www.tubezone.net
South Side of Chicago,IL USA
1/29/2006 11:28:42 PM

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:

> Now here is something I would support: if you are caught driving
> without a license, whatever vehicle you are driving is immediately
> confiscated and sold at auction.

Which would result in a huge number of cheap vehicles coming back onto the market to
continue the problem.

No - they should be crushed.

Graham

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> 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.

IMO,the "privelege" concept is used to allow for DUI roadblocks and other
unconstitutional behavior on the part of authorities.
Not so much for removing bad drivers "priveleges" after a history of bad
driving.
Besides,even Rights can be revoked,by a court of law.Ask any felon.
They lose the right to vote,the RKBA...

>
>>> 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,

AFAIK,one CAN drive on their own property without gov't interference,or on
other's property with their permission.

> 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)
>
>

Allegedly,that is why licenses are required.
The problems are with the LEVEL of competence required,and enforcement
AFTER the license is issued.Even one who demonstrated a high level of
competence can backslide and adopt poor driving manners.Sometimes,a
reality-check is useful,applied in the form of a traffic ticket.
And revocation of the license,if one persists in bad driving;it's a
feedback loop.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:03:04 GMT, Arif Khokar >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>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?
>
>
> You have to understand Jack - he views the world through
> rail-hating-autophile-colored glasses.

Remember that cartoon in one of the McLuhan books of a driver looking
isn his rearview mirror and seeing a covered wagon? There's a lot of it
still about.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Jack May wrote:
>
>
> I view through glasses of an engineer wanting thing to work instead of
> pouring money down the rat holes of failed technology
>
>
Another masterpiece of English composition for the Little Red Book.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Jim Yanik wrote:

> (Brent P) wrote:
>> 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.
>
> IMO,the "privelege" concept is used to allow for DUI roadblocks and other
> unconstitutional behavior on the part of authorities. Not so much for
> removing bad drivers "priveleges" after a history of bad driving.
> Besides,even Rights can be revoked,by a court of law.Ask any felon. They
> lose the right to vote,the RKBA...

The practical difference is negligible, but the semantic difference is very
different. If you regard driving as a privilege, then you are grateful to a
generous entity for allowing you to do it at all, much less where you want to.
If you regard driving as a right, then anybody who prevents you from doing
it had better have a damn good reason backed up by guns. The "driving is a
privilege" crap is espoused by shepherds or sheep, not humans.

--
Cheers,
Bev
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

In article >, Ned Carlson wrote:

> Oddly enough, the statistics show that (and to my surprise) it's the
> supposedly auto-centric California and the West Coast that's increasingly
> abandoning auto travel to ride the rails. Amtrak's Cascades haul nearly
> twice as many passengers as the traditionally (in service since about 1860)
> heavily patronized Chicago-St Louis route.

I think that says more about St. Louis than it does rail travel....

> Apparently, these public officials haven't tried booking an Amtrak
> ticket lately! Or bothered riding a train! The main limitation to
> passenger travel growth on many routes is simply lack of rolling
> stock to carry the human cattle who want to suffer through the indiginities
> Amtrak forces people to suffer at places like its asinine
> Chicago Union Station setup. Tickets on many routes are sold out days
> or weeks ahead of time. International tourists who contribute millions
> to the US economy, want to use trains to see the USA without a Chevrolet
> and who are used to frequent and convenient train service back home, get
> put through loading procedures similar to loading a train of Conestoga
> wagons in Kansas City in 1850.

Exactly. The rail system in the USA is firmly planted in the 19th
century. Government envolvement and union rules are probably my guess as
to why.

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.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> 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.
>
>

I've ran afoul of that myself.
I saved the "parts" car that I used to build my very first auto(from two
car bodies,one with a bad engine);a 1964 Triumph Herald,and a neighbor
ratted me out to the town code enforcement board,even thought the auto was
wrapped completely and thoroughly in a canvas tarp.
I had 30 days to dispose of the parts car.

But I did drive the completed,registered car in that yard,even though I had
no driver's license.It was a lot of fun,and nothing they could do about
that.

After that,my dad erected a 6 ft tall privacy fence across the yard where
the neighbor's view looked into our yard.All legal,too. B-)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net