A wonderful example of the confusion these weasels suffer about how history wends its way across our planet. They think sea changes are "announced".

Y'know what I like? My fucking car, that's what I like. I dig the leather, the A/C, the stereo, the air bags and the supercharger. (Actually the supercharger's had some problems, but let's not worry about that just now, I'm trying to make a point.) The paint is magnificent. The sun roof has separate fore and aft shades.

I'll wager ten thousand dollars that should Mr. Lahood bring about any meaningful regulatory muscle to enact or sustain this "sea change", he will exempt himself from those strictures, or his boss will do it for him.

Cabinet secretaries will continue to propel themselves across the surface of our planet using the stinkiest fossil fuels your tax dollars can pay for.

The common sense you seem to think Hubbycap has is anything but. Bicyclists do not pollute the environment or increase dependence on foreign oil, which funds the terrorism that everyone pretends to be so concerned about.

Consider it your fine for polluting.

Moreover, if you don't want to fund bike lanes, fine. Just be aware that those same bike lances that protect bicyclists protect you. Without them, cyclists will be using the roads (which the law requires), and according to the laws of Florida, you are required to give a cyclist a three foot berth when passing them. So, if you're driving one day and a cyclist happens to be pedaling along ahead of you, no problem, you can just pass him right?

Better wait until there's no traffic on the other lane first, since you'll be encroaching on it when you pass. If it's a busy street, you may be puttering along at around 18 miles per hour for a bit.

It's to the motorists' advantage as well as the cyclists to have those bike lanes. And the cyclists have you effectively over a barrel. There's enough of an advantage in having those lanes to give the motorists cause to keep right on paying for them. And no incentive at all to make bicyclists to suddenly want to start paying for them.

1000 dollars to license a bicycle? Hubbycap is out of his fucking mind.

Consider it the price you pay for the privilege of traveling at unnatural speeds in air-conditioned/heated environments, complete with a traveling entertainment system, all while polluting the environment. Hybrids pollute, too. Just not as much.

The law means jack if you get run over and killed by a motorist...no amount of legal action can bring you back, even without a signed death certificate still very very dead.

Let's all shout loudly now!

WAAAAA!!!! My car, my glorious car!!!!

WAAAAA!!!! My bike is made of magic and helps Jesus find the eggs that we hid from him for Easter!!!!

Warning, bicycles and hybrid cars are known to cause smugness.

Can you count the fallacies? Not me.

I've heard time and again how, "Without the increase in {fill in blank}, you wouldn't be {another blank}!

Yet the statement never seems to acknowledge the costs.

But that's OK. Oil is not going to get cheaper, and sometime or other, it will be considered someone else's business what you do with a gallon of it, because once it's gone, it's g o n e gone.

Carrying fat people to WalMart because they were bored.

And those same people will then look around indignantly and complain that someone else is keeping them from driving wherever they want. I hope you have the wit not to be one of them.

Should a resource be consumed because it is convenient?

> Should a resource be consumed because
> it is convenient?

Yes.

And besides, aren't you the guy who likes to light up the hills with his sports bike?

Many people don't drive, yet they pay taxes for drivers. Bicyclists and pedestrians may use the same streets, but they put much less wear and tear on them. There should be a road tax based on amount driven and vehicle weight.

> There should be a road tax based on
> amount driven and vehicle weight.

Agreed (maybe), but even people even people who don't drive benefit from living in a society where people are driven and where goods are shipped. Most everything you'll eat, wear, read, sleep on, watch, medicate yourself with or admire was brought to you by oil, and brought to you at prices that couldn't be sustained in a sandals-&-bicycle economy.

People who imagine themselves to be daringly resistant to the charms of the oil's modernity are kidding themselves. Don't let them kid you, too.

Crid: > Should a resource be consumed because

> it is convenient?

Yes.

Junk food is convenient, Crid. Since you think therefore it should be consumed, bon appetit. Post a picture of yourself after you gain five-hundred pounds after following your own sagacious guideline.

Nope, Hubbycap is right. Bikes and walking are great.I'm all for making it possible. But, it needs to be paid for. Bike registration fees, cyclist insurance, walking/cycling tax. Patrick, as usual you are all sorts of wrong. We don't HAVE to be dependent on middle east oil. The greenies/libs want it that way by not allowing us to drill our own oil.

Also, everything you own or use in life was brought to you by fossil fuels. Hundreds or thousands or 10's of thousands of miles worth of fossil fuels. You can glibly talk about not using gas all you want, but you would starve to death. Or freeze to death. Or die from some rather easily curable illness who's cure travels via gas. You want to try to go back to the 1700's, fine. Get yourself some land and do so. Put up or shut up, but don't drag the rest of us down with you.

I want, nay, demand a special lane so I can ride my horsey to work. Assuming I had a horsey.

I saw this post and thought it was about Portland, Oregon. The illustrious mayor has decided to skim money from the sewer system (600 million) to devote to more bike only paths, lanes and bridges in the city.

Momof4, as always, you don't know what you're talking about. You seem to think we wouldn't be dependent on foreign oil if the libs allow us to just drill for it in our own back yard. Newsflash, Mom! Less than 40% of the oil the U.S. consumes actually comes from the U.S.

So, you think if we just drill in a few more places, we'll be able to produce over 150% more than we already do? Doubtful. We do not have the oil to maintain our lifestyle. You just shot your mouth off without even trying to find out the statistics behind the B.S. you're shoveling.

And furthermore, the resources used to bring a cyclist his bicycle makes much more efficient use of resources. An 18-wheeler carrying a truckful of bicycles to Walmart is by far a more efficient use of fossil fuels than a single person driving a five-passenger SUV 20 miles to and from work every day.

And my original point still stands. Motorists have as much interest in cyclists and pedestrians having their own lanes/sidewalks as the cyclists and pedestrians themselves do. Arguably more. Unless you're thrilled by the idea of choosing moving at a languid pace down the street because you're behind a bicycle and there's no room to safely pass him. You could always opt for killing the cyclist by running him over, but you still won't get where you're going very quickly, as the cops might have a few questions for you.

Patrick, oil is one area you aren't going to get away with pretending you know more than me. My dad worked in oil and gas development for 32 years, and still does contract work. We do, actually, have the ability to fund about 100% more of our own oil usage than we do right now, with alaska and offshore. The rest can easily be gotten in places that aren't the middle east.

I know you like to play the resident expert on absolutely everything Amy blogs on, but you're not. Deal with it and move on.
And on oil usage, I repeat: put up or shut up. Just like Gore.

I'm a big "share the road" type - moving over when I see a cyclist or a motorcycle (not that my car takes up much space). But, again, like the idea that we should have a high-speed train between LA and SF, these things must be paid for.

At the moment, if California gets any more in debt, we'll be forced to sell Schwarzenegger's children to the Chinese. Yet, the idiot voters gave the high sign to the train -- which seems to be a huge boondoggle, and about which an expert in the LA Weekly predicted something like "a shovel of dirt will never be dug."

Around here, there are lots of bike lanes...but bicyclists rarely use them, preferring to ride in the road.

I just wish they wouldn't ride the wrong way up one way streets, would stop and red lights and stop signs, and would signal when they turned. If they did that, I'd be happy.

... though I do want to point out, people DID bike and walk before the automobile became widespread. It's not like there weren't roads before cars... there weren't highways, but you can't walk or bike on them anyhow. They just didn't have tarmac.

If government were to do it's job (think of the literal meaning of the word govern - to guide and control), then...

Transportation taxes are collected from various sources and then spent to provide the transportation infrastructure. If one type of transport needs to be discouraged, and another encouraged, the way to do this is to collect more taxes from the first and provide more support for the second.

If a city's roads are overloaded with cars, but many people live within bicycling distance of their offices, then it might make sense to use a portion of taxes collected from cars to provide safe bicycle paths. If people do not live close to their jobs, then perhaps one wants to subsidize commuter rail, or buses, or whatever other alternative makes sense.

This is the kind of decision that can and should be made by a competent, thoughtful city government.

People who imagine themselves to be daringly resistant to the charms of the oil's modernity are kidding themselves. Don't let them kid you, too.

Posted by: Crid

So were not supposed to let morons about oil hoodwink us, but were supposed to let the religious?

Come on Crid be consistiant, either we indulge people in their fantasies or we dont, or have you appointed yourself judge and jury as to which outlandish bullshit the rational are supposed to let the irrational induldge in?

When we were kids, we biked everywhere. (This was B.C. - Before Cellphones.) We were absolute terrors, I tell you! Ask any motorist in our town! We were in and out of traffic like nobody's business, with minimal amount of screeching of tires. There was some fist-shaking, yes, but we blew that off and were tearing down a side street in NO time! Then, we GREW UP. And got cars. And drove places. And there were still kids on bikes, terrorizing motorists just as if we had never stopped. *sigh* Those were the days. And we weren't any more self-righteous than the adults that ride their bikes today, pretending to be so much better than the rest of us who drive cars.
Look, bottom line is, there are many places that can and should have accomodations for bicycles. But they all cost money. So it's reasonable that cyclists should contribute to the cost and upkeep. As for nonrenewable oil sources, have a gander at these stats:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2

The money has to come from somewhere.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/29/why-cities-and-states-are-brok

Up for higher taxes? For health care, for bike paths, for the train to SF? And then there are numerous other "good causes."

Wait till NHTSA and Ralph Nader decide that they know better than the bicycle manufacturers how a bike should be designed and built. Then the average bike will weigh 300 lbs. and will cost $4000. And you won't be able to work on it yourself; you'll have to take it to a bike shop every time it needs oiling.

Momof4: Patrick, oil is one area you aren't going to get away with pretending you know more than me. My dad worked in oil and gas development for 32 years, and still does contract work. We do, actually, have the ability to fund about 100% more of our own oil usage than we do right now, with alaska and offshore. The rest can easily be gotten in places that aren't the middle east.

Does daddy dearest have a website, Mom? Or am I supposed to defer to the phantom expert that happens to be related to you? I backed up my assertion with a verifiable source, Mom. Perhaps you could do the same?

In other words, I'm calling B.S.

And by the way, regardless of where we get the oil from, my point still stands...nice try at deflection, Mom! I almost bit. Too bad close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Very good try at distracting from the topic, though. Kudos to you!

Now, back to the topic at hand. Placing a bicycle in the hands of a cyclist, uses far less oil per person than the commuter who drives ten miles to work every day by himself in a five passenger SUV. In fact, a cyclist even considering the amount of fossil fuels needed to place the cycle in his hands, uses less fuel than any motorist, unless he drives an electric, and even that's debatable. Count the number of cycles on one 18-wheeler that delivers them to Wal-Mart, divide the oil used by number of bikes, the amount of fuel (if any needed to bring the bike home, and add on a can of WD-40 to lubricate the chain and you're done. All fossil fuels (which WD-40 is not) expended.

By the way, you're looking at this all wrong. Cyclists and pedestrians should not be paying for their accomodations on the road. On the contrary, the motorists should be paying for it, and compensating the bicyclists and pedestrians for their lost time. The non-motorists are not an impediment to motorists. On the contrary, the motorists are an impediment to the non-motorists, who can get from point a to point b without needing traffic lights, multi-lane highways, etc.

So, since cyclists and pedestrians are now obligated to stop at the motorists' intersections and wait for the motorists' traffic lights, crossing motorists multilane highways, things they can manage just fine without, yes, the motorists can pay for the accomodations that the cyclists need, thanks to their tree-killing, space-hogging, eyesore paved roads.

So, suck it up, gashogs!

Oh, I did forget the use of fossil fuels to acquire the metals and assemble the bike. My bad. I still would wager the expenditure of fossil fuels is much less than that used by a motorist.

Such. A. Hypocrite. I worked for a Cabinet Secretary during the Bush Administration, so I can attest that Cabinet Secretaries are constantly traveling. It's the job! I would wager my house that Secretary LaHood is on a plane at least 3 days a week. And when the secretaries travel, wherever they go, they have a minimum of two cars accompanying them for security. So that's at least three cars...their own, and two security cars. Then, you have to add in the cars of the staff members that accompany the secretary. Cheifs of Staff, press officers, personal aides, etc. So that's another 3 cars at least.
Think the Secretary will demand that they all start riding bicycles? Har har.

I live in Colorado, land of the bicyclists.

I see problems on both sides.

Many drivers don't respect bicyclists AT ALL (we have the 3 foot rule too, partly because of this) and many bicyclists don't recognize (or don't care) that they are subject to the same rules as motorists.

We do have bike lanes in a lot of places, but not everywhere. I'd ride the 15 miles to work, but I'd have to do most of it on roads that would guarantee me either injury or death at some point. No way. I'd LOVE it if they'd connect the bike trails in my town to the ones in the town where I work, but I don't see it happening.

I'd be fine with paying a registration fee on my bicycle to fund bike trails, and I also think bicyclists need to be ticketed more often when they act like they own the whole road.

Put up or shut up, Patrick, put up or shut up. Ditch the car. And the things in your life brought to you by them. Travel no more, my man! And since your computer used plenty 'o crude to get into your hot little hands, and plenty more to run, we'll not be seeing you around here any more, right?

I don't care if making lots of bikes and shipping them to us plebes takes less oil. You can either stop using any yourself, or stop bitching about how others use theirs.

And no, daddy dearest doesn't have a website. Nor is yours particularly stellar, given that it's funded to support alternative fuels. Not exactly great reason for them to be upfront and correct about oil usage, is it? If you wanted to, you could research this topic. You no doubt don't want to, so believe what you want.

You can't keep spending money you don't have. When are politicians going to start making sea-change announcements about how they're *trimming costs*, saving the taxpayer money and reducing the national debt? Not that I expect the populace to become smart enough to start demanding that of politicians ... fact is we're sunk, we'll just get bled more and more dry to pay for more and more politicians implement more and more things we don't need. The real reason we're working harder than ever, with better technology than ever, and yet feel like we're struggling to get anywhere ... our wealth production is siphoned to these leeches.

Reason weighs in:

http://reason.org/blog/show/us-dot-moves-away-from-evidence-bas

Read some of the links provided in the Reason article as well. They're quite interesting.

The majority of people travel 24+ miles to work on a daily basis. Bicycling to work in the heat, rain, and snow is simply not practical.

Almost 90% of commuters use an automobile to get to work. Only 4.6% use public transit and a mere 1.5% use Other means of transit (including bicycling). So, Lahood's policy is to make 90% equal to 1.5% when making policy decisions? That's some mighty find math work there, Lou.

"It is a way to coerce people out of their cars," said LaHood.

I'm going to do my best to coerce LaHood out of a job.

Ray the Hood is another bird brain.

Yep, whenever I'm ready for my next trip out West, I automatically reach for my bicycle to pedal the interstates with ease. /MAJOR SARCASM

The idea of a bike tax to fund bike paths and bike lanes is actually not a bad idea. If they want 'em, they gotta pay for 'em. And I like bike lanes: that way the cyclists stay the frack outta my way!

Carrying fat people to WalMart because they were bored.

And those same people will then look around indignantly and complain that someone else is keeping them from driving wherever they want. I hope you have the wit not to be one of them.

I am personally trying to lose weight (although I don't consider myself as being actually obese). But, once I hit my target weight of 160 or so, I will probably still find enjoyment in driving the 36 miles to work in a timely fashion, rather than attempting the commute on a bike.

As for the fatties who cause the car to list to one side when they get in, when gas prices inevitably soar because the 0b0z0 administration has forbidden domestic offshore oil exploration, toughsky-[NSFW]sky for them, I guess

I want, nay, demand a special lane so I can ride my horsey to work. Assuming I had a horsey.

Anybody up for an Amish tax?

Isn't this the same administration that gave away millions of dollars so people could purchase new cars?

Feel free to drive your car, but I'll expect you to pay for the total cost of operating that vehicle. Once you do that, I'll be happy to pay the total cost of operating my bicycle.

You guys should read Lewis Mumford's critiques of our car-worshipping city planning efforts. You all make it sound like it's an either-or choice, a war between cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians. And in the same breath, let's all scream "OBESITY EPIDEMIC!", get back in our individual autos, and sit in traffic.

I alternate between driving, public transportation, and walking, depending on where I'm going. But even though I don't bike, every time I see a cyclist when I'm driving, I think, "That's one less car clogging up the road."

I wish cyclists would wear more reflectors and blinky things fore and aft - and yes, I wish more of them would use their turn signals and obey stop signs.

A lot of these problems are dictated by where we choose to live. If I buy a house way out in the country, beyond walking or biking distance from anywhere at all, I will be totally dependent on a car - and if fuel or money for vehicle repairs becomes scarce, I could be immobilized. And if my country home does not have facilities for me to produce my own food, energy, clothing, tools, etc - then I've really picked the worst of all possible worlds.

I would probably be paying that total cost IF the governments weren't so busy siphoning off my gas taxes and drivers license fees to subsidize the operation of buses and choo-choos. And furthermore, I haven't seen any bicyclists offering to pay for my auto repairs, in case you were throwing that in as well.

We went through this Big Brother Must Run Our Lives back in the Seventies. There was a minor shortage of gasoline for a short time, and all the Big Government lovers demanded the government place a large tax on each gallon of gasoline to coerce people to stop driving.

We had a book assigned in a class at the Community college. The author pointed out that all research into more efficient things of every kind depended upon a flourishing economy.

Algore proposed solutions, or anything like it, tanks the economy, and the first thing to go is research, guaranteed.

So, all we gain by stopping the use of fossil fuels is a bunch of oil in the ground no one uses, and also can't get at because exploration and research dries up.

Right now, using technology developed since the early 70's, we can do everything we need without petroleum; it just costs a fortune. Prices are coming down.

The day the two prices cross over, petroleum vs. alternative processes, the transition will be made quickly. In the meantime, more people live better lives with petroleum.

No government has ever done a better job of regulating all parts of an economy than individual interests. And, you aren't going to do better now.

If you stop and really listen to the so-called environmentalists, you quickly learn they hate human beings. They want five billion nine-hundred ninety four million out of the six billion people on the planet, dead.

C'mon, kids, why fight over the wrong thing?

This would be another feel good boon-doggle that will prolly have some money attached but never produce anything, and not be measurable. It's all well and good to make empty proclamations that no one has any intent to keep... it'll probably put someone to work. It is entirely safe to do so.

Where is the reality of all this, and where are we right now? This country is currently designed around the long distance movement of goods, and consumption of same. Do your apples have a sticker form New Zealand on them, d'ya get your grapes from Chile? Shoes from China? Where is your local toilet paper factory? 2000 miles away?

This is what we have. Essentially without a war and the destruction it causes, there is no way to change this. It would simply be too expensive to be practical.

After all, what would you change it to? You like fresh veggies year 'round, yes? There is likely no-one near you that can make shoes from only locally produced materials. Same with pretty much everything around you. It comes from someplace else, usually a long ways away. Because of all that transit, LOCAL transit is possible, and also long ingrained within us.

Sure, some could be changed, but the push forward in society has come because of work specialization, and Just In Time optimization. This is why the corner grocery is long gone in most places. Having a large grocery serving everyone in a 6 mile radius, with a large store, and a LOT of product. Brought by large trucks.

Something like 75% of families have 2 working parents, and so there is little interest in making a small trip to the store every day to pick up small items, especially if they were having to ride a bike in the rain to do so. Going to the grocery once a week, in conjunction with the trip home from work is actually fully optimized in this system, and actually costs little extra in time money or polution, since it is combined and in one shot. But it can't be done without a car to carry all that merch, in combination with coming home from work.

Work. Yes I can ride the 10 miles each way to work. Assuming my co workers would be willing to put up with a sweaty me. On the upside it's considerably faster than taking the bus, because the bus routes DOUBLE the distance, and it requires 2 transfers. Well over an hour to get to work on the bus. But on the occasions that it is bad weather, guess I wouldn't have a choice for that.

This is the way things ACTUALLY are, not the way we wish things were, or the way they were 100 years ago. [At which time there were only 92M people in the US.]

You can't just wave a wand and shout al'la peanut butter sandwiches, and expect things to change.

It has to make SENSE to do it, economically. People won't drive hybrids, unless gas starts to get expensive... und viola! they start making different choices in cars because gas is expensive. Maybe the next time they move, they are weighing the difference between a bigger house for the money, or one that is adequate but closer to work. Oh, and THEN there is the whole issue of changing jobs, and having your close commute go away because your new job is across town. Does it make any sense to sell the house and move? Will it save money?

Convenience is a commodity. What is done dictated by cost. People already pay taxes to use cars/trucks/etc. based on fuel tax, which IS a usage tax. In addition everyone pays taxes for the infrastructure required to provide them with police and fire services, and for the purpose of national emergencies and defence.

Government wants to get people to use less fuel and commute less? OK, make a going forward partnership with businesses that have worker that could work from home, and get them to see how to optimize that. This requires a full on management change, because a lot of bosses even if they already know better, really just want to see you at your desk every day. Government pertnership and pushes would chenge their minds. Then? Those people don't drive to work in their millions. Pretty much instantly you take millions of cars off the road. Without spending a lot of direct money on anything. Sure, some money will be spent in people beefing up their home infrastructure to handle working from there. But a lot of people who could work from home ALREADY HAVE THEIR HOME SET UP FOR IT.

but doing something easy like that would be crazy talk, wouldn't it. You might actually measure it or something.

As a Tangent?
There is a subtle genius in not drilling in our own areas in the US. Eventually there will be less oil around, and we will probably not use it for propusion, but for lubricants and products.

And who will have a lot of it?
Yeah, the guys that never tapped their reserves before. Course I don't believe that is the reason that they don't do it now. But it may well be how it works out.

Good points, SwissArmy. Reality that works; not theory that always makes two problems for one problem solved.

Ethanol was pushed as a solution to the energy problem. The main result was more hungry people on the planet as their food stuffs were converted to ethanol for rich people while poor people starve.

That is just one example. There are many more.

> So were not supposed to let morons about
> oil hoodwink us, but were supposed to
> let the religious?

Lou, have you ever heard of Maslow?

I don't know what religious double-cross happened to you in childhood, OK?... And I'm not asking, Lou. If you want to go through your life thinking that that it was all "hoodwink", and that you must never let anyone "hoodwink" you again, and that all the forces in civilization are conspiring to "hoodwink" you again, then be my guest.

I like oil. I especially like burning it to move around at tremendous speed in high style. I also like processing it to make things that are useful (or just amusing) to me. The oil economy is fabulous.... It's just a great way to live. You get to live longer. You get better food. You get a better education. You can get along better with other people. Seriously, in aggregate, an oil economy is GENTLER to global biology than any other scheme that could sustain and reward so many people.

If you wanna ride your bicycle, have a great time! But let's not kid ourselves that the world can, will, or should be reworked so that we can all pedal our way through such magnificent lives.

@Crid: "You can get along better with other people. Seriously, in aggregate, an oil economy is GENTLER to global biology than any other scheme that could sustain and reward so many people."

I'd love to see some references for those assertions.

Speaking of burning fossil fuels in high style... The Formula One series moves to Sepang this weekend! It's a wonderful race circuit they have over there: Look at all the runoff areas on the high speed turns. It's terrifically safe. The only bad part is, there's not much parking. They have a lot of public transport to get people to track.

I know what you're thinking! You're thinking 'But Crid, it's Malaysia! They're moving to modernity WITHOUT the automotive traditions which we're all pretending to be so upset about in these comments! So this is a wonderful thing, because these primitive equatorial sun-weasels won't use as much oil, helping to keep prices down at our pumps!'

But wait! Four miles northwest of the track, there's another interesting piece of architecture.

What the most noticeable feature? If Martians or pointy-eared Star Trek men came from outer space to consider that building, what's the first think they'd remark upon?

I think it would be the carefully laid-out parking spaces. The people who built that building know what their audience is into: They're into CARS.

(And yes, the building does point to Mecca; I checked it with Google Earth.)

> I'd love to see some references
> for those assertions.

No, kitten... The fantasy of the endlessly verdant, automatically sustaining planet is YOURS. The world of tremendous comfort and safety that's been given to the modern American is something that REALLY HAPPENED.

If you want argue that we could have been just as happy with some other source of transportation (for food, education, medicine, clothing, etc. etc. etc.), then YOU'RE THE ONE who gets to explain how it would work.

You can dream up any world you want. But I'm not going to sign up for it until it cares for me as as the real one does.

Good luck! We're looking forward to reading your proposal!

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm not putting forward an "alternative source of transportation (for food, education, medicine, clothing, etc. etc. etc.)". I'm just looking to understand what you're saying. Indeed, "Seriously, in aggregate, an oil economy is GENTLER to global biology than any other scheme that could sustain and reward so many people" sounds as though you've already considered other schemes. Please share!

Right. I can't imagine any other scheme that would have enriched my life this much, either. I mean, I supposed we could have dug up every scrap of coal in Appalachia, overturning every mountain on the eastern seaboard, to burn for energy to make my life so comfortable. But it would have been a lot of trouble, don't you think?

I mean again, if you can think of an option, speak up. Oil makes life worth living.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying your opinion.

Patrick fails when he adopts a snarky and rude tone. After that, nobody even wants to read his posts. Maybe Patrick should read Amy's book and learn a thing or 2 about basic kindness.

Or were you snarking about the 'opinion' thing? It's always been my feeling that opinions are NOT like assholes, because opinions can be backed up with something besides shit.

No, jeez, fella, I have no citations. I know of no lab test from the University of Minnesota showing that we might not all have been living just as well –warm in the winter, cool in the summer– in a world propelled by solemn prayers and the eye of a newt. But it's an economy thing: If you can raise your standard of living without the expense of turning the world into a Hellhole, that's what you'll do.

But again, be sure and get back to us on your scenario of how things might have been. Looking forward!

There could be a bike tax just for people who use bike trails. IE, kids riding in circles in front of their houses wouldn't pay, but people using bike trails would have to buy a season pass. They would get a sticker for their bike. Then if they were caught on the trail without it, they would pay a fine.

That way you could fund more bike trails. It would still be less expensive than a car, so worth it for the bicyclists. Also, they could be dirt trials, which would be easier to upkeep.

It's true, all good things must be paid for.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100329/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1358;_ylt=Av2HdgqeUL06NYtxKst6ZzNH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTM0azQxdnRqBGFzc2V0A3luZXdzLzIwMTAwMzI5L3luZXdzX3RzMTM1OARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzQEcG9zAzQEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNmaWxpbmdzc2hvd2w-
I know, off topic but it made me laugh.

Momof4 never gets tired of deflection. Didn't say that cyclists have to use no oil. But they use a lot less than motorists do, including those who drive hybrids.

Whenever you know you're on the wrong side, Mom, you have a tendency to veer off course. You've done it twice in this thread. Once with a deflection as to whether or not we have the oil to sustain ourselves without foreign oil (we do not), and now you're insisting that those who object to excessive use of automobiles have to eliminate their entire use of oil, or else...they're what? Hypocrites? Hardly. If everyone's oil consumption were that of the average cyclist, we wouldn't be relying on foreign oil. Or at least using a lot less of it.

By the way, some of you are going hog-wild over the idea of imposing a registration fee, such as Hubbycap proposed, a 1000 dollar fee on bicycles and a 100 dollar fee on shoes.

So, none of you ever ride bicycles? Or wear shoes? If I gathered you all in the same room, you'd look like Tom Saywer's gang, right? No shoes? None of you have kids to buy these things for?

Or did I miss Hubbycap's suggestion that motorists should be except from this?

Patrick -

Bicycles are a ridiculously inconvenient mode of transport for all but those with the shortest of commutes. And riding in the rain and snow are right out. And it's raining here right now. Last June, it rained 28 of 30 days.

For me, it's doubly inconvenient, because when I do travel to a customer site, I'm going anywhere from 5-50 miles, carrying 20-50 pounds of tools and equipment.

vroom:

Feel free to drive your car, but I'll expect you to pay for the total cost of operating that vehicle. Once you do that, I'll be happy to pay the total cost of operating my bicycle.

You'll exhale more and generate more heat. You'll also eat more protein. Pay up, sucka. And a fine for stinking in public too. If I gotta smell your BO, I expect to be compensated.

Finally, Crid is right. To semi-quote P. J. O'Rourke, "Let's send Al Gore into the forest with an axe and tell him not to come out until he's developed a civilization that can sustain a quarter billion people in the comfort and health we presently enjoy without using oil."

You may not like it, but everything - LITERALLY everything you have came to you on a truck powered by oil.

Amy:

I have always paid more to live in urban areas or live-work areas where you can walk to things.

That's good for you. I couldn't live in such a place. Even my little slice of suburbia feels too crowded from time to time. And there's a lot more people who feel like I do about cities than feel like you do.

The greens will never be able to coerce us into living that way.

I never said we could not use foreign oil. I said not middle east oil. Because we could make near 80% of our needs, but Patrick doens't like new ideas. They make him itch.

You said people riding bikes should get priority over cars. I called bullshit, and said if you think cars/oil use is bad, be done with it personally, leave the rest of us the fuck alone. Easy enough. You're like the teetotalers who don't want anyone else to drink either, except you're chugging it down when you think no one on this blog is looking.

So is it a tax or a fine?

brian: Patrick -

Bicycles are a ridiculously inconvenient mode of transport for all but those with the shortest of commutes. And riding in the rain and snow are right out. And it's raining here right now. Last June, it rained 28 of 30 days.

For me, it's doubly inconvenient, because when I do travel to a customer site, I'm going anywhere from 5-50 miles, carrying 20-50 pounds of tools and equipment.

Hey, Brian. I hope things are going well for you.

I don't want you to misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that anyone should discard their cars and take up bicycling. And I agree with every point you made. I can't usually ride a bike to work, even if I wanted to. Even though we don't have the snow that the northern states do, the heat in the summer makes it impractical. It's hardly appropriate to show up for work drenched in sweat.

The point I'm making is against the arguments for making bicyclists pay 1000 dollars to register their bikes, and pedestrians pay 100 dollars for shoes to maintain the bike paths and sidewalks on the roads.

And you actually help my case with your excellent points. Motorists can use the road under conditions that would make biking or walking unworkable, such as inclement weather.

So, why should cyclists and pedestrians register their bikes and shoes for roads that they can't even use as much? And for reasons I've already pointed out, motorists have a vested interest in maintaining those bike lanes and sidewalks. They keep the bicyclists and motorists out of their way.

momof4: You said people riding bikes should get priority over cars.

Actually, my point is contesting the ridiculous idea that cyclists and pedestrians should have to pay a registration fee to maintain the bike lanes and the sidewalks on the roads since they use them.

My point is, bicyclists and pedestrians can do without the multilane highways completely. Motorists regard the bike lanes and sidewalks as some kind of accommodation that non-motorists should have to pay for. On the contrary, the roads themselves are an accommodation for motorists that inconvenience the pedestrians and the cyclists, who manage to get from point a to point b without the use of multilane highways. A cyclist would need, at the most, a pathway no wider than a sidewalk.

The accommodation is on the motorists' end, and making them safer for cyclists and pedestrians should be a priority and the motorists should pay for it.

No crid, I'd heard of the saying ut not who said it first.

As to what happened to me regarding religion, I'll tell you even though you asked me not to.

What happened to me, was absolutly nothing.

I just saw the holes in religious reasoning. No one in a religious capacity tuched me inappropriately. None of my relitives died pointlessly, oddly eough I had a great grandmother who was alwyas being told she had 6 months to live - that went on for 20 something years.

My problem is I am too smart for my own good, come too close to death often enough to realize how short life is and I've reached the point where I really dont give a shit about making people feel good about their self delusions.

I dont go out of my way to be a total prick to people but my time is to valuable to me to dance delecatly around an issue to avoid hurting someones feelings.

The only thing I truly hate crid is abject stupidiy and willful ignorance. Religion just happens to be one of the bigger examples of stupidity and ignorance.

Quite frankly I dont see the difference between my derision of stupiity in the form of religion and the derision you showed those on this thread who you were aruing with over oil.

Brian's right about P.J.— This is worth watching if you have 15 minutes, and this is worth reading if you're in a hurry.

OK, sure, fine... If you want to have some quaint little neighborhood full of gentle ducklings who want to waddle patiently to the greengrocer and the candy store and the butcher shop and the cobbler and the candlestick maker and all the rest, have at it.

But from what I've seen, the few attractive neighborhoods like that all have something in common: the ducks have tremendous wealth. All the sustaining, oil-burning infrastructure that makes Montana Avenue in Santa Monica or the pleasanter neighborhoods of Manhattan so attractive just happens to be located tens or hundreds of miles away. Somebody cuts off the sweetest part of every kind of fruit, product or services and then (politely) drives it to the bicycle-lover's neighborhood, where someone in sandals pays a premium for living close enough to walk (or bicycle) and pick it up.

When somewhat less wealthy people want modern comforts, they have to drive to Wal-Mart to get them. I'm OK with that.

So when a politician says "This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized," I smell a rat. This unelected fuckball may well have enough voter fist-meat behind him to do damage to American strength and dignity... Lord knows this administration has delivered some horrible blows in a remarkably short time. But let's not pretend those voters have any righteous, proportional understanding or gratitude for the forces (or even the people) that have made their lives the envy of human history.

> My problem is I am too smart for my own good

Yew sher?

> my time is to valuable to me to dance
> delecatly around an issue

Riiiiiiiight.... It's easier to stay as far away from those people as you possibly can while making sarcastic, deprecatory remarks... Don't need no shoes at all for that.

> I dont see the difference between my derision
> of stupiity

Mine's righteous 'n illuminating, yours is bitter and small-minded.

Geez, I can't count the fallacies.

"But let's not kid ourselves that the world can, will, or should be reworked so that we can all pedal our way through such magnificent lives."

You heard it here first, from Crid: we will never run out of oil. Don't worry, be happy!

Cool song. Love the sax.

(Did I mention this was off topic?

Radwaste: You heard it here first, from Crid: we will never run out of oil. Don't worry, be happy!

As much as I like the poetic justice of Crid being on the receiving end of misquotations, that isn't what he said, nor can that be reasonably inferred.

You could just as easily interpret that statement to mean that eventually, we will be able to travel comfortably without the use of oil-based fuel. The hydrogen cell car comes to mind.

Cheers.

Why do you assume I avoid the religious?

What makes you think I dont say sarcastic things right to peoples faces?

And what makes my derision of religions small minded while your derision of religion is not?

Well, Patrick, good point - but I considered this in light of an earlier reply indicating that we should consume a resource because it's convenient.

Sorry, Crid, if that's not what you meant.

By the way, the production of H2 isn't an "out". Gains come from the elimination of waste heat from the drivetrain, not from the elimination of the load to be transported. So far, emissions reduction does NOT mean lower cost. You're just not driving a 4000-pound Tahoe willy-nilly.

Maybe our future is already here, in Tokyo.

It would take a lot of time to go over fuel/engine issues again. I've answered a lot of questions about automotive science here. Take a look.

Rad, you know he didn't say it, he doesn't believe it, and it isn't true.

It's also not germane to the discussion.

And finally, it's ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

If everyone who conceivably COULD bike or walk did so, the impact on fossil fuel use would be minimal. Because they'd be taking showers at work (ok, so if they make that their one and only shower for the day it's just transferring the energy usage), eating more (and higher density foods, which take more energy to produce, refigerate, transport, etc.).

In other words, it takes energy to get from point a to point b. And for the most part, a car is way more efficient than a person at doing it.

None of which has a fucking thing to do with oil. You want to do away with importing oil? Fine.

How about we start with building a few Terawatts of nuclear generation capacity and a grid capable of delivering it?

Then we can talk about "city cars" which are the size of your typical Ford Focus, or VW Jetta, or what have you that are completely electrically powered with metered charging stations and 30-50 mile ranges.

We can also talk about coal conversion. We've got shitloads of that.

But the simple fact is we are not going to conserve our way out of any energy crisis, real or imagined, without seriously curtailing our way of life.

And that's what the end goal of these particular type of busybodies really is - lowering our standard of living to assuage their guilt.

> You heard it here first, from Crid:
> we will never run out of oil.
> Don't worry, be happy!

Oh, don't you worry your pretty little head about it, you sports-bike enthusiast, you. Just slip into your lime-green faux-leather (petrochemically-derived!) jacket and take yourself for a comforting ride through the sprintime hills.

New ways of finding, processing, and conserving oil turn up every day. As it gets more expensive, ever-more genius is brought to bear on the problem... Which is how oil got to be so useful to begin with. We've discussed this before.

Civilization finds problems and people deliver solutions... for a price. That's how progress works. You got a problem with that, Raddy?

Some people seem to think that as the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower, they immediately walked towards one of the many gas stations that dotted the American coastline, knowing that they'd find clean restrooms, hot coffee in conveniently-lidded foam cups, and plastic dinosaur playthings for the kids.

It's not true. Civilization had a problem: How to get energy from where it was (oil fields) to where people needed it (their neighborhoods). And THAT was when a really bright guy came up with the idea of the gas station. 'We'll bring the oil TO people, and they'll pay for it! Cash! It'll be great!' And it was, and it is.

But Raddy, you don't want the price of anything to change, ever. You're special! (Or you're afraid of change.) You don't want to have to be even momentarily uncomfortable! And you feel it's desperately important to say 'But the supply of oil is limited! There's a finite amount!' You love being right about that... You love it so much that sometimes you pee your pants. Because as these little points cycle through your skull, you see opportunities to take control of the lives of others, like Gore and Obama do.

But the literal truth of "finite" oil is irrelevant. It's not the relative former abundance of oil that's made it's so useful. It's the human genius from every walk of life that's taught us how to exploit oil which has made it so important to us. That genius is still with us. When it's time for something new, someone will figure it out.

That guy will want money for a motorbike, too.

> considered this in light of an earlier
> reply indicating that we should consume
> a resource because it's convenient.

Ever see an elderly relative being cared for in a hospital? Maybe after a heart attack in relative youth, and then into an ICU with climate controls and computerized equipment and fresh food from distant farms and exotic meds from futuristic factories and brilliant doctors trained in faraway schools?

It's convenient.

Yes; consume the resources, motherfucker: That woman's in my family.

Crid, you shouldn't talk dirty like that. You get me all excited.

Some off-topic shocking news, by the way: Ricky Martin has come out of the closet. My God! Who knew?

I mean, you could have knocked me down with a feather when Boy George admitted he was gay! You just never know!

I mean, who's next? Richard Simmons?

Is it really a good idea for the federal Department of Transportation to plan the intimate details of transportation projects in Boise, Idaho? If there is a need for bike path in Boise, the engineers in Boise will add it to the plans for the next road project.

The federal government should be concerned with the overall ability to move goods and people from town to town, state to state, and across the country when needed.

Unless you're going to transport household appliances, masses of commuters, or emergency medical cases by bicycle or richshaw, footpaths and bike lanes are not nearly as important as vehicular corridors.

And I hope you like the local public school. 'cause Snowflake's going to be walking to it every weekday.

Greetings, Conan. Who is Snowflake?

Snowflake is sarcasm inspired by the fact that the DOT policy statement includes the following: "For example, children should have safe and convenient options for walking or bicycling to school..."

On May 21, LaHood told reporters at the National Press Club that the "Partnership for Sustainable Communities" his department had formed with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing — sometimes known as the "livability initiative" - was designed to "coerce" people out of their cars.

I'm looking forward to living in my EPA/DOT/DOH-approved sprawl-less "livable" community.

I'll walk to work at the community action group every day. On the way home, I'll stop by the community power plant and spend an hour or two on the stationary bike generating electricity to be stored for cloudy days when the solar farm can't provide enough. On alternate days, I'll contribute another hour to the community garden flicking pests off the leaves of the community tomatoes.

When I get home I'll hurry outside so I can read a chapter or two of my library book before the sun goes down. The CFLs mandated for home lighting won't provide much light for reading the low contrast soy inks (no lead in these books).

I'll bicycle to the local market every other day to restock the larder. The house will be small and the pantry will only hold a few items. No problem though, 'cause the market will be so close.

The market will be small. Large markets contribute to sprawl, so each neighborhood will have its own market. The space and inventory will be limited. With the government-mandated diet restrictions, that won't be a problem. The store's inventory will consist of organic vegetables and soy protein products with no sugary sodas or fatty snacks in sight. So, we'll all be healthy and regular.

If something on my bike or in my house breaks, I'll drop by the neighborhood hardware store where a friendly clerk will order a replacement part to be delivered in two weeks. A small sprawl-resistant hardware store can't keep a lot of inventory on hand, so most parts have to be ordered. Just-in-time inventory encourages fossil fuel consumption, so most stores get only twice monthly deliveries.

When I get home, my children will tell me what they learned in the local school. Today they learned that Sacajawea led an diverse expedition of peoples from all the cultures of the world to map the Western US after the Louisiana Land Robbery. She'd have gotten it done much faster if those two white male imperialists, Lewis and Clark, hadn't stopped to kill and rape the natives at every village they saw.

On Saturday nights, we'll head over to the local uniplex to catch a flick. Each neighborhood will have a cozy theatre within walking distance. Big screen televisions will be banned because they use too much electricity, so if you want a big-screen surround-sound experience, you'll have to go to the movie theater.

/Sarcasm Off

Wow, this thread sure has peoples' panties in a twist.

Its' just about bicycles, people, calm down!!!

Thanks for explaining, Conan. And you're account of sprawl resistant living sounds more Orwellian than Orwell.

Yet another off-topic link. This cartoon is gross, but hilarious. It captures the issue so well.

And you're account of sprawl resistant living sounds more Orwellian than Orwell.

You should have seen the write up in the local paper for the planned community proposed for a recently-vacated local military base out here. I didn't stray that far from the planner's vision.

> Its' just about bicycles, people, calm down!!!

No, it's about policy: "Today I want to announce a sea change," he wrote on his blog last week. "This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized."

In many, many contexts, I want motorized transportation favored.

One minute you're waxing your Ferrari. Next minute, the government steps up and....

Consider it the price you pay for the privilege of traveling at unnatural speeds in air-conditioned/heated environments, complete with a traveling entertainment system, all while polluting the environment.

So you live in a cave and make your clothes out of what you hunt down Patrick? Anything else would be unnatural.

A cyclist would need, at the most, a pathway no wider than a sidewalk.

The accommodation is on the motorists' end, and making them safer for cyclists and pedestrians should be a priority and the motorists should pay for it.

That's fine when it's just a few people - but did you see Beijing in the 80's? Put everyone on bikes and you'll still need multilane highways. And then you'll need some way to pay for it. I like cycling, but your argument is just free-riding (spot the pun!). If you ever converted the majority of people, where would the roads come from?

But of course you don't really want everyone to start riding - being holier-than-thou is so much more fun, isn't it?

*****Snowflake is sarcasm inspired by the fact that the DOT policy statement includes the following: "For example, children should have safe and convenient options for walking or bicycling to school..."*****

LOL!

Quite honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw a kid actually - OMG! - WALK to school.

Seriously, I also don't know why we pay for buses, since every damn kid gets a ride from mommy (or has his own car, which is often nicer than mine, and I have a full time job!)

The mind boggles.

"But Raddy, you don't want the price of anything to change, ever.

Nothing illustrates your... your what? Determination to flounder along? Need to be heard? than this statement, because, if you had read the thread I linked to AND the comments I have made here, you'll see that I make it a point to say that not only will energy get more expensive, drivers of large vehicles have no right to demand that it doesn't and are unreasonable to think that they may drive their SUV everywhere cheaply.

It's clear that the general public doesn't know anything about automotive transportation other than what they like. I would be delighted to have fuel costs lower. But it's not going to happen, partly because many people are making decisions that seem reasonable to them which turn out to be wrong for all of us. Seen the latest ad for the 320HP F-150? Cash for Clunkers, anyone? Buy what you don't need and can't afford, and make somebody else pay for it. Hmm. Where else have I seen that?

(By the way - my leathers are black Dainese, because green is hard to find and I wasn't coming off the $$ to get a custom suit from Z Leathers. These suits also last for many years. The bike is out less than 4000 miles per year, and it gets 60 MPG when not on the track.)

> drivers of large vehicles have no right to
> demand that it doesn't

Of course they do. They can demand whatever they want. Market demand, the demand for lower prices, is what makes the world go 'round. Someone makes a demand for something at price X-1. The current supplier says "Nope, X is my final offer." And some clever guy says to the customer, "I can get it for you at X-½", or "I can get it for you at X-2 if you'll put up with a lesser quality rating."

Do you put on your leathers when you're "bored", or only when you're on the way to do readings at the cancer ward?

Amy used to do this too...'I have no choice but to go to France'.

Also, why are you always snorting at the "general public"? What did those fuckers ever do to you?

Crid, I'm sorry I'm hurting you. That's the only reason I can think of that explains why you don't recognize that markets can only have one response to diminishing supply, and the illogic of mobs, obvious to any history student.

Dang, it's even in Men In Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

You rarely see a logical argument about "other people", because individuals are poorly equipped to understand someone else's plight. You can easily see people calling themselves "conservative" advocating more consumption, and that's because they stop thinking when what they want to do is challenged.

Maybe it's an artifact of the busybody activist, but what I see from an amazing number of people is, "what I'm doing is right, and what they're doing is wrong and should be stopped". It's in your first post.

In the last nine years, the cost of filling the tank of my Ninja has done exactly what it has to fill my non-supercharged, PZEV Sentra: doubled. I don't have a right to demand and get lower prices - that would be welfare, costing others directly. My choice is actually between driving more and driving less - no more, no less.

As is yours.

> markets can only have one
> response to diminishing supply

You're making stuff up. Prices rise as supplies diminish in steady demand, but markets have all kinds of responses when people are free to innovate.

> the illogic of mobs

This is really what it's all about for you: looking down your nose at people. This isn't economics, this is social climbing... With maybe a little bit of a power grab thrown in too.

> It's in your first post.

What's in my first post? I like my car, and there's no doubt Lahood likes his. The difference is that I think everyone in the world should follow my example, or at least have the opportunity to live their lives as I do.... Whereas this government servant (who no doubt also regards the others as a "mob") wants to "announce" the constriction of opportunities. FOR OTHERS...

As you do, because they're so beneath you. THEY DON'T DESERVE MOTORBIKES, do they? They're just savages. Whereas you –with the elevated economic understanding that allows you to find terrific values on durable leatherette sportswear– are just the sort of person to tell the mob what's good for them. They're such fools, aren't they?

Crid, you're making things up about me right and left. You know I have discussed the physics of automotive transportation thoroughly; it is physics, not Radwaste, who says you are flatly not going to propel yourself around in a Hummer for free. I know I do not have a right to the fruit of your labor to do what I please, and I have stated this in various ways many times.

Yet you insist that I am placing myself over others?

There's a voice in your head blotting out what you read, isn't there?

Meanwhile, here's your argument for endless automotive excess.

(Sorry, I thought this one was over.)

How come you get to decide what "excessive"? And who said anything about "free"? A motorbike is tragic waste of our precious, diminishing petrochemical resources, if you ask me... A totally gratuitous, Gaia-maiming indulgence of consumptive ego...

How dare you. How dare you.

Simply wish to say your article is as astounding.
The clarity in your post is simply great and i can assume you're an expert on this subject.
Well with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep updated with forthcoming post.
Thanks a million and please keep up the rewarding work.

Unquestionably consider that that you stated.
Your favourite justification appeared to be at the web the simplest factor
to bear in mind of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed at the same time as other folks think about worries that they plainly
do not know about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the top and also
outlined out the entire thing without having side effect , other
folks can take a signal. Will likely be back to get
more. Thank you