| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2013/10/24-11/8 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54742 Activity:nil |
10/4 NY bike gang's own video footage at 0:20-0:27 shows that they
intentionally blocked and stopped the SUV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ukdkgLYYbw&feature=player_embedded
Yet they still have the gut to cry victim. Geez!
\_ Yeah, after being hit and run, someone tried to stop the cager,
who then commited assualt with a deadly weapon. Does someone
blocking you give you the right to run them over? I think not.
\_ Hit and run before the time of the clip? Evidence please?
\_ Next time when you and your wife and kid are ganged up by a
known mob of 50+ with 50+ deadly weapons (your logic) who are
trying to open your car door, please stay put.
\_ They even dragged the wife out of the car. http://www.csua.org/u/11e9
\_ Want some "explanation" from the punk who cut off the SUV?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kn8kygx
\_ You mean, legally and safely changed lanes before being hit
from behind by the rich asshole entitled Range Rover driving
douchebag who was following too close.
\_ Did you actually watch the video?
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/11f1
"New video has surfaced of the same bike crew surrounding and
attacking another car earlier in the day."
\_ ^SUV^$100,000 Range Rover |
| 2013/7/23-8/23 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54714 Activity:nil |
7/23 Cities safer than suburbs:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/m4lxcyk
\_ they are not accounting for the dangers of exposing our kids to
diversity and gay people.
\_ And the future to boot:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/opinion/19krugman.html |
| 2013/7/22-8/23 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54711 Activity:nil |
7/22 "George Zimmerman Emerged From Hiding for Truck Crash Rescue"
http://www.csua.org/u/10qi (gma.yahoo.com)
The auto accident was staged by Zimmermand and his lawyer, I'm sure. :) |
| 2013/5/14-24 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54678 Activity:nil |
5/14 Think you can "only" afford a used Toyota?
http://www.csua.org/u/105v (autos.yahoo.com) |
| 2012/11/6-12/4 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54525 Activity:nil |
11/6 "SUV and Plane Collide at Texas Airport SUV and Plane Collide at Texas
Airport": http://www.csua.org/u/y8s
One more reason why you shouldn't run a STOP sign. |
| 12/24 |
| 2012/7/29-9/24 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54446 Activity:nil |
7/29 Is it really true that we subsidize auto driving to the tune of
$5k/yr? Shit I could probably hire a private driver for less...
http://tinyurl.com/cars-suck-ass
\_ You might have missed the point. Hiring a chauffeur to drive your
private vehicle won't change the amount of gasoline your private
vehicle use or the amount of real estate it uses on freeways and
vehicle use or the amount of real estate on freeways and
parking lots it takes up for transporting you. So it won't change
the situation. The chaffeur only adds to the non-subsidized part
of the cost.
\_ Okay I could hire a bicyle rickshaw driver for less then..
\_ or live in a sustainable, walkable city with much lower
energy requirements, like the rest of the world.
\_ ... and hire a rickshaw driver to take me everywhere.
Like the rest of the (undeveloped) world.
\_ or ride bike like a well developed world (Denmark)
or slow down to reduce energy needs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUU6DJwkoyQ
(georgeous women alert)
\_ NSFW. Anyway, the one not being interviewed is hot!
\_ Our cities were built around the auto, not trains or
walking. Most of the First World's large cities are very
dense with almost nothing a few miles outside of them.
That's not us. What you are suggesting is building up
the urban cores of our cities and convincing people to
move back to them. This may happen, but it's not
something we can force. In the end, the populace will
decide. So far, even though your idea has some
traction, most Americans dislike the idea.
\_ Agreed. The following quote from the article best
summarizes the reason: "They are making the correct
economic decision, but not in a free-market economy."
\_ How much do other countries subsidize automobiles?
How much do other countries subsidize other
forms of transit?
Why is it better that long-distance automotive
commuting become "the exclusive privilege of the
wealthy?"
I don't know the answer to the first two
relative to the US and I view the third as a question
of liberty and equality. I also think that it has
less to do with subsidies than with personal
preference and the age of the nations involved.
Americans *don't mind* paying higher property tax
if it means they don't have to take a train and
the alternatives don't make sense for the way our
cities evolved. We can tax the hell out of gas
to force everyone to take mass transit, but *WHY*?
\_ Where do you live where people "don't mind"
paying higher property taxes? Here in CA they
passed Prop 13. If we can enourage more people
to take mass transit, we will gain lots of
advantages:
1) Far fewer highway and roadway deaths
2) Cleaner air leading to a healthier
population and fewer deaths due to pollution
3) Healthier and skinnier population due to
more exercise
4) Trade balance would be much better: the only
reason we run a trade deficit today is due
to imported oil, most of which goes to transit.
5) No US money going to oil shieks, most of whom
hate us and finance terrorism
6) No need to fight oil wars in the Middle East,
saving us lots of money and lives
7) Less congestion on the freeways, meaning buses
and trucks will be more efficient
8) Shorter commutes will mean less stress and
quality of life will go up for most people.
9) Less land being used for roadways and parking
should free up more land for housing, making
housing cost less, especially in urban core.
10) Fewer suburban homes mean less money wasted
10) Fewer suburban homes mean less money spent
on running power lines, cable, sewer lines,
etc on spread out homes.
I am sure I am missing a few things here, but that
should be a good start.
\_ The huge fire at the Chevron refinery in
Richmond today can certainly make the list.
More public transit -> less gas consumption ->
fewer oil refineries -> fewer accidents and
less toxic fume.
\_ More productive time spent when on public
transit instead of driving. One can get work
done using laptops, read a novel, or surf the
web and catch up with the latest gossip while
done using a laptop, read a novel, or surf the
web and catch up on the latest gossip while
sitting on public transit instead of
controlling your car and paying attention to
the road. 3G/4G coverage is wide, and there
is free WiFi on Google shuttles (I heard) and
AC-Transit Transbay Buses. BART also provides
WiFi (paid) and 3G even in underground stations
and tunnels.
\_ I think you should not confuse the public
vs. private issue with the gasoline issue.
If cars were powered by a clean, renewable,
cheap resource would that mean you still want
to force people to use public transit?
\_ No one is arguing for force to be used, we
are just sick and tired of having to use
our taxpayer dollars to encourage stupid
behavior. If cars were not polluting, safe,
and did not cause congestion, then they would
be great. Where are those flying nuclear
powered cars we were promised?
\_ Great. I'm convinced. Sign me up. Now where
is the effective mass transit system that I
can use to replace my car? I can get from home
to my office in 28 minutes in my car, but it
would take over an hour and a half by bus
(each direction, so that's a couple of extra
hours I'd be spending in transit every day).
People stick with their cars because the mass
transit options are very limited in their
utility. I *want* to take public transit, but
it just can't get me where I need to go in a
reasonable amount of time. Until it can, I'm
stuck with driving.
\_ Yeah many are stuck with cars. Vote for
politians that will change the status quo.
There are some places in America where
transit works.
\_ Yeah, about three. Let the free market
decide. So far, most would rather get
22 MPG in a Ford F-150 than get on a
bus with a bunch of weirdos for a
commute that is twice as long but
costs just 25% less.
\_ Exactly. Let the *free* market decide.
As the article above pointed out, the
problem now is that the market is
not a free market. So all the
proposals about stopping mandatory tax
from subsidizing gasoline and roads is
to, in other words, make the market a
free market again.
\_ As long as we stop subsidizing
rail and other public transit,
sure. |
| 2012/6/30-7/27 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54425 Activity:nil |
6/30 Cities are better. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/nation/la-na-census-cities-20120628 |
| 2012/5/25-30 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/RealEstate] UID:54400 Activity:nil |
5/25 Sorry suburban hicks, properties in walkable cities retain
better values:
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/05/18/study-resilient-walkables-lead-the-housing-recovery |
| 2012/5/21-7/20 [Transportation/Bicycle, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:54395 Activity:nil |
5/20 Suburbs sucking wind, cities recovering:
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/05/18/study-resilient-walkables-lead-the-housing-recovery
\_ 2 hours of commute a day could mean nothing (e.g. a young blue
collar worker who has all the time in the world) or it could
mean everything (e.g. really busy city person who has little
time and/or energy to spend with kids). |
| 2011/9/26-10/18 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:54181 Activity:nil |
9/27 Where did suburb lover go?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Poverty-pervades-the-cnnm-893289229.html
\_ He defaulted on his underwater no-doc, no-down loan on his McMansion
and lives with his wife and three kids in his mom's basement.
\_ suburb lover is dim |
| 2009/12/2-26 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53560 Activity:nil |
12/2 Freeway of the future, a 1958 Disney-ish film. "Speed, safety, and
comfort are the future". Yeah. Wow, people back then were stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6pUMlPBMQA&feature=player_embedded
\_ "640KB ought to be enough for anybody."
\_ totally taken out of context. It's just an informal
way of saying "it's enough for most casual PC users
for at least a few years." As for the highway shit,
that is just totally ridiculous considering the
enormous energy requirements that is required for
their vision. On the other hand, perhaps they thought
black oil was unlimited, fueling such fooling optimism
about the future.
\_ Reminds me a bit of WALL-E. |
| 2009/11/23-12/2 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/RealEstate] UID:53540 Activity:moderate |
11/23 "Warming's impacts sped up, worsened since Kyoto"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto
\_ what do you propose we average Joes do about climate warning?
Oh really? Yeah, exactly.
\_ Make life choices which reduce your carbon impact. Communicate
with your representatives that you consider this an important
and urgent issue. What else would average Joes do about
anything? -tom
\_ the average Joe will not give up his/her SUV and living
in suburbs and ex-urbs (which are the reasons that increase
our needs for energy).
\_ Some average Joe/Jane won't give up loving in suburbs
while willing to give up his/her SUV; Some average
Joe/Jane won't give his/her SUVs while willing to
telecommunte twice a week; some average Joe/Jane won't
telecommute while willing to become vegetarian; etc.
And, like you said, some average Joe/Jane won't give up
anything. Ideally, the problem can be very easily solved
by everyone giving up N things. But very few people in
the free world would be willing to do that. So we'll have
to rely on most people giving up 1 or 2 things out of their
own list of N things. (For me, I didn't give up living
in suburbs. But I wear a jacket at home in winter instead
of turning on the heat, use a fan in summer instead of AC,
line-dry my laundary in the backyard instead of using the
gas dryer, skip the plastic or paper bags when grocery-
shopping, gave up my SUV and got a Prius, and literally
dig through the household trash to find recyclable and
compostable items that my wife and in-laws fail to
separate out.) --- OP
\_ The average Joe will do whatever is effectively marketed
to him. SUVs and suburbs have been effectively marketed
to average Joes. We are starting to see better marketing
of environmental and quality-of-life issues, but we need
more. Also, we need to stop subsidizing carbon production,
which is where legislative action is needed; if the
suburb dwellers were paying the true cost of their
lifestyle, it would be much less attractive. -tom
\_ I get what you are saying, but this could be said
about any group. "Bike riders will do whatever is
effectively marketed to them". Otherwise the
marketing wouldn't have been effective. -- jwm
\_ That's a bit tautalogical, sure. But my
point is that the idea that everyone should
live in a big house in a faceless suburb
with two SUVs (or now, an SUV and a Prius)
is the result of 60 years of corporate
marketing, and corporations are really the
only beneficiaries. Just as corporate marketing
changed what the average Joe wanted, marketing
of social responsibility can change what the
average Joe wants. -tom
\_ I agree. The way we as a society have used
marketing has been damaging. --jwm
\_ I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that "corporations
are really the only beneficiaries." I really
like having land around my house. I use it to
grow food, for recreation, and for privacy. I
went to my coworkers ultra-chic condo which
cost over $1M and had koi and Italian fountains
everywhere, but I wouldn't care for living in
close quarters like he does. He even told me
he is looking for a single family home for
various reasons all related to the density of
the housing. You may think there's no benefit
to a SFR, but millions of Americans disagree
and that is how most Americans lived 200
years ago. I think that mixed-use/loft/high
density housing is something pushed on us by
corporations and SFR more closely reflects
the rural areas most Americans lived in prior
to the Industrial Revolution.
\_ Who said anything about condos? I live in
a house in a city (Oakland). -tom
\_ Plus the Richmond and Sunset Districts in
SF are also primarily houses. -- !PP
\_ So are Hancock Park and Beverly Hills
in LA, but most people can't afford
to live there. If they want a nice house
with land they have to leave the city.
\_ The complaint was against a "big house in a
faceless suburb." How can you possibly
argue that a big house in Oakland is
somehow superior to a big house in a
suburb like Lafayette? Same damn thing.
\_ 1) The house in Oakland is smaller.
2) The house in Oakland requires less
driving.
Pretty simple, really. -tom
\_ Neither of these are necessarily true.
\_ They are both true as averages.
-tom
\_ They don't _have_ to be.
These are external to the
idea of suburbs. You can
build smaller houses in
the suburbs. You can take
BART to SF from Lafayette
as surely as you can from
Oakland. One thing you _cannot_
do is build affordable SFR in a
city, which takes us back
to condos.
\_ You're right, if reality were
completely different than it
is, houses would be smaller
in Lafayette and people
in suburbs would drive less
than people in cities. But
on this planet, houses are
larger in suburbs and people
drive more. -tom
\_ I think you need to
focus on the problems
you are trying to
address and "suburbs"
and "housing density"
are not them. You can
live in the city and
drive a lot (reverse
commute, which some
people do) and you
can build a huge
energy sucking house
in the city, too, if
you are rich.
\_ I said "make life
choices that reduce
your carbon impact";
someone else asserted
that "average Joes"
would not give up
their SUVs in the
suburbs. I'm pointing
out that that assertion
is unfounded. -tom
\_ I think that most people want both the
advantages of density (short commutes, walkable
neighborhoods, more community) as well as lots
of space for themselves personally. Most people
just want more of everything, but the planet
cannot support this kind of lifestyle for
6 billion people. This is just a simple fact
of physics, not something that has anything
to do with corporations. The earth is probably
already past its carrying capacity, according
to many scientists.
\_ The idea that people should live in
identical large houses with large yards
and large fences, a long drive away
from the places they want to go, was
basically invented in the 50s by and
for corporations. Before that virtually
all development was mixed-use, and
our population was denser despite being
much smaller. From 1950 to 1990, Bay
Area population more than doubled,
while density actually decreased. Most
of that change was due to the construction
of freeways and related destruction of urban
neighborhoods, with housing moving from
urban, mixed-use to suburban and isolated.
Now things are starting to swing back the
other way, which is a good thing. Very
little of this has much to do with what
the average Joe wants, except insofar as
he's susceptible to marketing. -tom
\_ This is a lie. Like I said, before the
Industrial Revolution more people
than not lived in large houses with
large yards a long drive away from
\_ There was driving
before the Ind.
Rev.??
\_ certainly not
autos but I would
guess PP means horse
and buggy drives
town. The population was not denser
at all. This era you wax nostalgic for
was an artifact of the Industrial
Revolution where workers moved to slums
in large cities in order to work in
factories. It's laughable that you think
that corporations in the 1950s invented
the suburban lifestyle. What corporations
invented was *DENSE CITIES*. From
1950 to 1990 what we saw was _AN
IMPROVED STANDARD OF LIVING_ and now
that our standard of living is
eroding we are seeing more people
living like cockroaches. Not only
that, _ALL_ of this has to do with
choices people make. You give marketers
_WAY_ too much credit. I live in a
house built at the turn of the century
and it's not hard to see why people
wanted to move to their own brand
new box in a new suburb. (Example:
one bathroom). That's not an
artifact of marketing, buddy.
\_ Overpopulation and resource depletion
leads to a declining standard
standard of living. Why is that
surprising to you? People have lived
in large crowded cities since at least
the Roman Empire, you are nuts to
think that this is a modern invention.
Sure, subsidence farmers lived spread
Sure, subsistence farmers lived spread
out, but cities were denser before
the automobile. Have you been to any
of Europe? I prefer my solidly built
turn of the century house to the ticky
tacky crap that passes for "luxury"
these days. And btw, people used to
live in much smaller houses, so you
are wrong about the "large houses"
part, too. -!tom
http://www.moyak.com/papers/house-sizes.html
\_ 1. I prefer my old house, too,
but that's because I like
the character. You can realize,
though, why post-WW II families
thought that moving to a new,
modern house with a yard and
2 bathrooms was appealing.
2. By "large houses" I mean a
large footprint (less dense).
Houses have gotten larger over
time, but the lots they are
built on has not.
\_ So "large house with large
yards" really means "small
house with large yard" in
your language? Could you
please clarify which defn
of "large" you are using next
time, so I don't get confused?
Thanks in advance.
3. Large crowded cities were not
a very common way of life.
This is a modern innovation.
From Scientific American,
September 2005:
"From the beginning of the
Christian era to about
1850, the urban population
of the world never exceeded
7 percent. The Industrial
Revolution quickly changed
that--today 75 percent of
people in the U.S. and
other developed countries
live in cities, according
to the United Nations."
You tell me which is more
recent.
\_ Prior to the industrial
revolution, people outside
of cities were organized
in family units; multiple
generations would live
densely within the same
house or on the same land.
The land provided most of
the daily needs of the
group, requiring little
travel relative to current
practice. The concept of
"commuting" is a modern
invention (and a carbon-
expensive one). -tom |
| 2009/10/9-21 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:53442 Activity:nil |
10/9 "Iconic Hummer brand sold to Chinese manufacturer - Yahoo! Finance"
http://www.csua.org/u/p9c
Now the Chinese has blueprint of the workhorse vehicle of our military.
\_ You know what? It's a stupid workhorse. We shouldn't be
using hummers for strikes anyway
going
\_ I heard what's good about the HMMWV is that it's highly
configurable, and perhaps only the Unimog is better in this
regard. To me, it doesn't even have a level front hood that can
be used as a table, which was a requirement for the MJ's.
\_ Mind you, milspec Hummers are great for breaking up kidney
stones. Those shock absorbers? Definitely an after-market
add-on. |
| 2009/8/5-13 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:53240 Activity:kinda low |
8/5 The Technium. Economics, needs, and physics-- is there an end to
Moore's Law, or any other laws wrt to storage, bandwidth, megapixels?
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/07/was_moores_law.php
\_ Automobile MPGs don't follow Moore's Law. Oh, the article already
mentions this.
\_ Maybe they just have a lower exponential coefficient. Processor
speed is like 1.5x per year, disk is like 2x as large per year,
I've heard ram speed is like 1.25x per year (or something like
that). Maybe auto MPG is just like 1.001x per year.
I saw another post where someone said auto efficiency has only
gone up 3 mpg in 80 years. If you take 1.001^80 = 1.0832...
If we started at 30 mpg 80 years ago, 1.0832 x 30 ~= 32.5. So
it could follow Moore's slow Law. ;) -mrauser
\_ um, you guys TOTALLY missed the whole point of the article.
Whatever law exists, exists for artificial reasons. The market,
economics, demand, and expectations from shareholders all
play a much bigger role than anything else. As for MPG,
it's been artificially low in the past few decades for
obvious reasons. Go American built SUV!
\_ My uncles ex-wife's brother-in-law has a device he
inserts into his carburetor that gives him 50MPG on a
68 Camaro. He says that it is top secret and that the
oil companies own the patent and destroyed all the the
copies though, except for the one he smuggled out.
\_ What degree does your brother-in-law have? High school?
People are stupid.
\_ He has a PhD in common sense, which is more than you
will ever have.
\_ 50 mpg, 200 mpg, 2000,mpg does it matter, you're still
using oil, duke.
\_ Processor speed stopped increasing years ago. Transistor
density continues at 2x / 18 mo. |
| 2009/7/21-24 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:53167 Activity:low |
7/20 Do people not know that the only place where there is no speed
limit is on a freeway onramp? Which means that it is the entrant
driver's job to speed up and get in past the existing traffic?
\_ The ones who can't accelerate are in SUVs
\_ True. My 2nd-gen Prius (not the 2010) accelerates on the
on-ramps fine. -- !OP
\_ People are stupid. Especially those in LA.
\_ This happens everywhere, but most noticeable in 2 lane
or smaller highways. Indeed in LA, where freeways are wide
the exsiting traffic has more recourse.
\_ People might be stupid in LA, but they are much better drivers
than the ones in the Bay Area. They are especially adept
at handling merging. |
| 2009/6/2-5 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:53071 Activity:low |
6/2 "GM to sell Hummer to Chinese company"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_on_bi_ge/us_automakers
Why would China want to buy the Hummer brand? They already have their
own Humvee copycat - the East Wind EQ2050: http://www.csua.org/u/le9
\_ Because "China" is one big hive mind where everyone thinks alike,
right?
\_ That is mostly true, just as most Americans are dumb because
they elected someone like Bush to go to war. You see, there's
a difference between perception and reality, but externally,
it makes no difference. |
| 2009/5/6-9 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52955 Activity:nil |
5/6 http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_tale_of_two_exurbs \_ Nice article. -tom \_ Starts slow but the comparison between the two towns is nice. Nothing new, but re-affirming. -op |
| 2009/3/31-4/6 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52778 Activity:moderate |
3/31 More proof that LA sux:
http://laist.com/2007/06/12/la_wins_5_of_th.php
http://laist.com/2009/03/27/emergency_weekend_closure_of_405_co.php
\_ LA has the worst traffic jams in the nation, but also one of the most
extensive public transit systems, very high usage, and is also
\_ LA has the worst traffic jams in the nation, but also one of the
most extensive public transit systems, very high usage, and is also
one of the most dense urban areas in the US. -ERIC MORRIS
\_ LA itself might be okay, but anytime you leave it, you're
pretty much screwed. Public transit in the greater LA area is
hardly extensive, but nor could you really expect it to be,
cost-effectively anyway, for such a large area. Go sprawl.
\_ LA is much less sprawling than most other urban areas.
If you consider the Bay Area as a whole, the two are
comparable. I have an insane coworker who was commuting
from Vacaville to San Jose for about 3 years, and finally
moved last month.
\_ How far is it from Encino to Redlands? LA is not less
sprawling than other urban areas.
\_ I didn't realize Redlands was part of LA. I think
the point the guy is making is that LA has some
very, very densely developed areas of the type that
do not exist in many American cities outside of NYC
and it will continue to get more dense as the
population swells. LA is very big but it is also
very dense if you look at the "urban area" versus
just the city proper. In fact, it is the most
dense urban area according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas
(I read it is the #3 most dense behind NYC and SF
according to another study, but the point is it is
*MUCH* more dense than typical for a large US city.)
population swells. LA is the 3rd most dense city
in the nation (behind NYC and SF) and has areas
more dense than SF (and just as dense as Manhattan).
So I would agree that LA is much less sprawling
than most other urban areas since it is ranked
#3. LA is very big but it is also denser than
cities like Dallas, Phoenix, Boston, Washington DC,
Atlanta, Philadelphia, and even Chicago when you look
at the "urban area" versus just the city proper.
Travel just outside the city limits of most cities
(including NYC) and the density really drops off
quickly even though a significant portion of the
population lives there. Not true in LA, which is
fairly densely developed throughout the county
and even into other counties. BTW, I fail to see how
taking the 9 million people not living in LA
and even into other counties. I fail to see how
taking the 11 million people not living in LA
proper and cramming them into LA proper "to make
it more dense" would improve the quality of life.
\_ Redlands is as much a "part of LA" as Vacaville
is a "part of San Francsisco." Reducing people's
commutes would improve their quality of life, but
obviously this could only work if there was enough
transit to move them around. Because not everyone
can drive a car everywhere in a dense urban area,
as Hong Kong and NYC already know and LA is
starting to find out.
\_ Redlands is at least as much a part of the LA
metro area as Vacaville is part of the Bay Area.
The idea that the Inland Empire is a seperate
metropolis is a joke and this is coming from a guy\
who was born in Riverside and still has family
metropolis is a joke and this is coming from a guy
who was born in Riverside and still has family
there.
\_ Calling Vacaville a part of the Bay Area is
is a joke.
|_
http://csua.org/u/nx8 aka
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-driving-and-delay |
| 2009/3/10-17 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52698 Activity:very high |
3/10 Are there many JD, MBA, MDs who read MOTD? Currently below, there is
one person claiming to be a lawyer and another mentions an MBA...
Also, is it proper to preface MOTD with a preposition (e.g. the motd)?
\_ I don't know if there are many JDs who read the MOTD, but I do. I
think there is one MBA from INSEAD who reads the MOTD. I don't
know about MDs, but if my brother gets into med school next year
there might be one.
Also, is it proper to preface MOTD with a preposition (e.g. the motd)?
\_ "the" is an article, not a preposition, and yes, the MOTD deserves
an article. -tom
\_ Thanks (for the grammar correction and MOTD rules). It's like
The 405...
\_ no, it's not like "the 405", which is an awful LA
construction (literally and linguistically). MOTD
stands for Message Of The Day, so it's incorrect to say
"Are there people who read MOTD," which expands to
"Are there people who read message of the day?" -tom
\_ You say "gins and tonic", don't you?
\_ "the" is also used in Canada and England. e.g. The M1.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014178.php
\_ Well, "The M1 Motorway" is the name of it. The name of
280 is not "The 280 Freeway", it's Interstate 280.
There's also no other 280 around to confuse it with.
You don't put "the" on other road names so why do it
for freeways? e.g. 1st street "the 1st street". We
do say stuff like Highway 1 or Route 1 though, or I-80.
Those actually make sense, unlike "the".
\_ The 10 freeway is the Santa Monica Freeway. The
405 is the San Diego Freeway. It's retarded to
call the 405 "Interstate 405" and immediately
brands you a putz.
\_ not as retarded as calling it "the 405".
\_ Since The 405 is an LA freeway, that's the
appropriate designation. It's The 405,
80, 280, etc, and I-5 (because that's in both
noCal and soCal). If you said "take 405 to 101"
in LA, you'd sound like a FOB who says things
like "have you read message of the day?"
\_ It is certainly the case that we use
dialect to identify clan membership. David
Foster Wallace had an interesting article
(partly) on that point:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html
But it's also the case that "the 405" is
stupid. -tom
\_ Sorry, but it's not. If you say "Take
405 freeway to 10 freeway" then that's
stupid. You need the article just
like if you say "Take the San Diego
Freeway to the Santa Monica Freeway".
Maybe it's not what your used to, but
it's completely correct and makes
complete sense. You can always tell
someone new to California (not just
LA) when they ask "How do I get on
the Interstate from here?" (guffaw)
\_ I say stuff like "take 80 to 980"
all the time. Just like I say
"Go down 18th and turn on
Mission." You would never say
"Go down the 18th" now would you?
\_ No, I wouldn't. However,
"take 80 freeway to 980
freeway" sounds stupid does it
not?
\_ It's not called "the 10 freeway."
It's called 10, or Route 10,
or Interstate Highway 10. -tom
\_ Only on Planet Tom is it not
called "the 10 freeway". It is
called that because it descends
from "the Santa Monica Freeway".
It is sometimes called I-10
and when it is "the" is not used.
However, when "the" is used it
is used because it makes sense
to use it as in "the 10 freeway".
It is never referred to as 10,
Highway 10, or Route 10 and
none of those are official
designations. Official designation
is Interstate 10 and I addressed
that case.
\_ I drove 10 all the way across
the country, and nowhere other
than LA does anyone call it
"the 10," and no one anywher
calls it "the 10 freeway." -tom
\_ I drove 10 all the way
across the country, and
nowhere other than LA
does anyone call it
"the 10," and no one
anywhere calls it "the
10 freeway." -tom
\_ 1. People in LA do call it
"the 10 freeway".
2. The reason no one
anywhere else uses
"the" is because they
do not use names for
it like "Santa Monica
Freeway" and
"San Bernardino Freeway"!
Don't you get it? Hell,
in most of the rest
of the country they
don't even call such
highways "freeways",
but we do and it's
completely correct to
do so. Next you will
be saying that it's
not soda, but pop
because you heard
people in Missouri
call it that.
\_ 1. It's completely
stupid to call it
"the 10 freeway" and
I've never heard anyone
say that.
\_ It is not stupid and
you don't hear it
because you live in
a bubble in
Berkeley. What
is stupid about
it?
\_ As explained
above, it makes
no logical
sense. -tom
2. You're completely
wrong that other
places in the country
don't have local names
for I-10. Look at the
wikipedia page.
\_ I didn't say they
didn't. However,
I bet they use
"the" if they use
them followed by
the word "freeway".
3. People everywhere
other than LA manage
to have local names
for highways, and
don't use "the" in
front of the number.
-tom
_/
Several commenters here says that "the" is used in Canada.
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/003203.php
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/003203.php -abe
\_ People elsewhere
manage to call
"soda" "pop", too.
Is that also
stupid?
\_ That's a
different
dialect--it's
not gramatically
illogical, like
"the 405" is.
-tom
\_ "the 405"
is short
for "the
405 freeway"
which is
grammatically
correct.
\-arent you from
NJ, home of
"the (new jersey)
turnpike" and "the
pip", near
"the long island
expressway" (sic)
"the LIE"
[and the maj degan,
the cross bronx]
the cross bronx etc]
i personally like
the "the". what i
hate is "internet"
without the "the"
and "maths" instead
of "math". --psb
of "math". for fwys
i use kind of an
ideosyncratic system.
for bay area fwys
i'd say "the 101"
but normally leave
off "the" on others.
ideosyncratic
system. for bay
area fwys i'd say
"the 101" but
normally leave off
"the" on others.
\_ "The Turnpike"
is the name of
the road. It's
also I-95, and
no one calls it
"the 95." -tom
\_ Because it is
not "the 95
freeway/
highway/
expressway".
Do you say
"get on
freeway" or
"get on the
freeway"?
BTW, "maths"
annoys me, too.
annoys me,
too.
\_ I was watching Season 5 of 24 last night and the Russians kept using
"the" in front of freeways (e.g. the 118). But they were in LA and
the writers probably live in LA.
\_ "Are there people who read the Wired?" vs. "Are there people who
read Wired?" <-depends on whether you deem MOTD to be a designation
or the title of /etc/motd.public. Either way, you shouldn't be
reading Wired, that rag.
\_ PhDs are a dime a dozen on the motd.
\_ You think a dozen people are reading the motd?
\_ Yeah, about 20 or so.
\_ Thank you for wasting 10 minutes of my life reading about
'405' and 'the 405' on the motd. get lives, all of your. !the tom
\_ Not as annoying as Star Wars guy, but not as exciting as
Bitter Divorced Guy. |
| 2008/12/9-14 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52215 Activity:kinda low |
12/9 I have what is likely a very basic (and possibly stupid) question.
Do the current financial troubles of the big 3 auto makers
just happen to coincide with the horrible economy we have,
or is it resulting from it? Thanks.
\_ They were already troubled, but not irreparably in the
previous environment. The current environment has made things
much worse.
\_ GM is an unmanagable leviathan which has been in decline for 30 years.
Its debt was downgraded to junk status _last_year_ after they lost
$39 billion. The downturn would merely pull the plug on this vegetable.
\_ GM is an unmanagable leviathan which has been in decline for 30
years. Its debt was downgraded to junk status _last_year_ after
they lost $39 billion. The downturn would merely pull the plug
on this vegetable.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/12/03/ap5776689.html
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2008/snapshots/175.html
\_ The Economist ran a story about the End of the Car Giants, which I
unfortunately cannot find right now. They said their business model
was basically broken and that they were going to wither away. This
was about three years ago. |
| 2008/11/27-12/4 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52122 Activity:nil |
11/27 Guess what, petro is cheap again! Time to buy that SUV of your
dream again and save GM! -patriotic American |
| 2008/11/16-17 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52000 Activity:nil |
11/16 Four-door Lamborghihi sports car.
http://www.csua.org/u/my5 (autos.yahoo.com)
And no, it's not an SUV or a modified limo. |
| 2008/11/13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:51964 Activity:kinda low |
11/13 why is the left supporting companies that make SUVs and Hummers?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/pelosi-to-seek.html
\_ Democrats want their votes. |
| 2008/10/14-17 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/Military] UID:51529 Activity:low |
10/14 This is why people shouldn't own guns: -anti-gun nut
http://cbs2.com/local/Porter.Ranch.Murder.2.833728.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-porterranch7-2008oct07,0,7425239.story
\_ The guy made 1.2 mil (convert paper to money), then another
0.5 mil from the house. How could he have just run out of
money? This is baffling. I hope he didn't blow it up on hookers.
\_ On margin investments are how you make (and lose) 1.2 mil.
\_ You're an idiot. You probably think the $50M to put up a net on the
GG bridge is a good investment?
\_ Jumping off the bridge: jumper dies
Shooting guns: someone may grab your gun, or you go nuts
and shoot innocent people, or your child shoots accidentally
\_ Jumping off the bridge: Causes a traffic jam,
politicians waste time and money talking about it.
Shoots self: No traffic jam, politicians waste time
and money talking about it anyway.
The bigger picture, of course, is that it is
completely acceptable loss to the gains, just like
allowing people to have massive weapons that are
cars.
\_ What is worse, causing traffic jam or accidentally
or intentionally killing your family members and
by-standers because you went balistic?
\_ You could probably kill a bunch of people with a car
if you decided to do so.
\_ right. Exactly. People also shouldn't have cars, or swimming pools
Or be allowed to take their kids to mcdonalds. Why don't all these
fools see how right we are and how wrong they are. |
| 2008/9/25-10/1 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:51309 Activity:nil |
9/25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transit LA mean travel time is 29.2min, which is only slightly more than SF at 29.0. See, Los Angeles isn't such a bad place to live! \_ "figures shown for central city only, not metropolitan area" |
| 2008/9/15-19 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:51174 Activity:nil |
9/15 Oil below $100--anybody noticing?
\_ nope, its all about the financial market meltdown.
\_ Yeah, I went out and bought a Hummer.
\_ I hear yermom gives great hummers.
\_ And for under $100 too! |
| 2008/8/11-14 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50850 Activity:low |
8/11 Ford Flex commercial-- wrong time (high gas price), wrong
music (why the hell did they use a Hot Pocket food commercial),
wrong setting (SUV market should tailor to suburban dwellers,
not a fucking city that is shown). Fucking stupid commerical.
\_ Gee, I thought from the name it was some flex-fuel vehicle.
\_ Nope, just a fucking SUV. What a STUPID NAME. |
| 2008/8/7-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50811 Activity:nil |
8/7 Russians naively buy American SUVs for their off-road capabilities and
get into trouble. Hilarious!
http://englishrussia.com/?p=2001
\_ This is funny! Those SUV drives don't know off-roading. 1. Lock
the differentials, or apply the gas and the brake at the same time.
2. Put a piece of wood under each wheel. |
| 2008/8/1-5 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:50759 Activity:nil |
7/31 "You Know Gas Prices Are High When Texans Start Driving Golf Carts"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121746229279198963.html
'"You wouldn't think it, but it's a chick-magnet," says the unmarried,
40-year-old chemical engineer,'
'The Peterses' cars get about 30 miles from a full charge, ...... or
two cents a mile. Compare that with 20 cents a mile for a car that
goes 20 miles on one $4 gallon of gasoline.' |
| 2008/7/30-8/5 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50730 Activity:nil |
7/30 "Neighborhood Walkability Linked to Weight"
http://www.csua.org/u/lzh (http://www.webmd.com
"People in the study who lived in the most walkable neighborhoods
weighed an average of 8 pounds less than people who lived in the least
walkable areas."
"Neighborhoods built before 1950 tended to have sidewalks and other
characteristics that made them more accessible to pedestrians, ......
In general, newer neighborhoods offered fewer opportunities for
walking."
Not all suburbs are the same.
\_ Yeah, take Saratoga for example - no sidewalks or street lights.
\_ San Francisco: 2nd skinniest county in America
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5n2wft (Money Magazine)
\_ Just in front of Williamson County, Tennessee, well-known as
a walkable urban center. |
| 2008/7/28-8/2 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50706 Activity:nil |
7/28 Thugs on Wheels strike again
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/372364_criticalmass27.html
\_ You know, I'm so surprised that we haven't had a nutcase
with CCW PERMIT carrying guns and wielding a SUV who ended
up shooting a bunch of bicyclists yeah baby BANG BANG BANG
\_ So let's see. Critical mass goes by. Dude in car doesn't want
to wait 10 minutes for them to pass, instead pulls out in front
of them. People get pissed and shout at him, so he drives his car
through the crowd and hits some people. Then things get ugly.
Frankly he got off easy.
\_ I have no idea where you invented this summary from:
"According to what some witnesses told police, an altercation with
the driver ensued and some of those on bikes began sitting on his
car and hitting the vehicle, Jamieson said.
"According to what some witnesses told police, an altercation
with the driver ensued and some of those on bikes began sitting
on his car and hitting the vehicle, Jamieson said.
"The driver tried to back up, he said, and struck a bike.
"That's when bicyclists really began attacking the vehicle.
I think the cyclists got off easy. That's the problem with mobs.
\_ Key word: some. Let's guess which some those were. Dude
should never have ridden his car through the crowd. You
know that, he knows that. You think people just decided
to attack him for fun? How come all those 1000s of other
cars along the route didn't get attacked?
\_ I think the Thugs intentionally intimidate drivers, and are
thrilled to escalate minor confrontations (jumping on the
car, etc.) which induce panic in the driver, who in fear
tries to get away from the mob. See, that's the problem
with mobs.
\_ So because the guy was irrationally fearful, it is okay
that he committed assualt with a deadly weapon? Good
thing he didn't kill anyone. Would it be okay if I
started shooting at car drivers that violate my right of
way as a pedestrian? That is certainly a more rational
fear than this guys. What was the chance that someone
on a bicycle could actually hurt him if he stayed in
his car with windows rolled up?
\_ Smashing the windshield? I'd say he is 100%
justified in fleeing from a mob, possibly injuring
members of the mob in the process.
\_ They smashed his windshield after he started
running people over, at least according to the
press account of the incident. I am not saying
that there was a good reason to smash his wind
shield, but he had no excuse for deliberately
running people over, just because they were
blocking his way and sitting on his car and
"hitting the vehicle" which means smacking it
with their palms.
\_ Nope, sorry you've got it wrong.
"The driver tried to back up, he said, and
struck a bike."
"That's when bicyclists really began attacking
the vehicle."
It was after the attack that the car drove
away through the crowd.
\_ Anyone with half a brain would know,
don't try to muscle your car through
a crowd of bikes. What did he expect?
The sea of bikes to part before his
mighty car penis? He tried to drive
through them. He fucking hit someone.
\_ Sorry, once the mob attacks, the victim
should use force (even deadly force) to
escape from the mob. That's the problem
with mobs.
\_ Any bicyclist with a quarter of a brain
should know not to try to block the way
of a moving car. Those that place more
importance on asserting their "right" to
annoy drivers than on protecting their
own safety fall victim to natural
selection.
\_ "Tried to back up" means that he deliberately
backed into someone blocking his way. This
should be assault, but since he was in a car
he will get away with it.
\_ I generally agree with you, but this
is orthogonal to whether you have
a right to run over someone who
blocking your way.
\_ "Tried to back up" means that he
deliberately backed into someone blocking
his way. This should be assault, but since
he was in a car he will get away with it.
\_ No, it means he deliberately tried to
back up, and there was someone in the
way. That doesn't mean he was
deliberately trying to hit someone.
\_ Let's change the bikes to say, a
regular demonstration. Demonstrators
are marching, blocking a car. Dude
tries to pull out of his space anyway
and hits a demostrator. People start
crowding his car and screaming at him
for hitting someone when it was
obvious he should have just waited
rather than just pulling out when the
road was blocked. Dude responds by
driving his car through the crowd,
hitting several people. You don't
think he would be at fault there
either?
\_ And attacking the vehicle, smashing
the windshield? Yes, no fault in
trying to get away.
\_ Since neither of us was there and
there are no videos, we can only
speculate, but if you are surrounded
by people peacefully blocking your
way, backing up without making sure
your way is clear is at the very
least, very reckless. |
| 2008/7/15-16 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:50583 Activity:high |
7/15 FUCK YOU dim shit and your SUV and big suburb Republican loving
Southern Californians. I hope the big one wipes out you fuckers.
FUCK YOU ALL.
\_ Agreed, die in hell dim!
\_ Uh, what? Sounds like you have issues. I'm not Republican
and don't own an SUV. I live in the suburbs, but what does
that have to do with anything? Bay Area is full of suburbs,
too. I hope this response humors you. |
| 2008/7/15-23 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50573 Activity:nil |
7/15 help, if i see anyone driving a Land Rover or Humvee in a non
combat situation I automatically think they are an asshole.
\_ what's wrong with that?
\_ Look at the way those cars were advertised a few years ago.
They are marketed as "fuck you" cars. No duh people who own
They are marketed as "f*** you" cars. No duh people who own
them are assholes.
\_ Feel the same way about Jeeps?
\_ My 1996 Jeep Cherokee (169.2in) is shorter than a Honda Civic.
\_ So what? When people complain about SUVs and the people who
buy them, the car's length is generally not what they're
objecting to. What on earth are you trying to say?
\_ I'm just trying to say not all SUVs are equally bad-ass,
in terms of the space that it takes up and gas mileage.
Mine has better gas mileage than some full-size sedans.
Mine has better gas mileage than some luxury sedans.
Mine has better gas mileage than some luxury sedans. -- PP
\_ Doesn't change that Jeep was designed for combat.
\_ Also designed without shock-absorbers or comfortable
seating. Hardcore means no more kidney stones.
\_ I wished that Cal Tech student burned down more Hummers.
I totally support his cause.
\- ARCHIMEDES DEATH RAY vs HUMMER!
\_ if you really want to punish those assholes, lobby congress don't
do anything about the high gas prices. Let these road bullies
PAY for their choices. Right now, we would rather invade another
country than willing to let gas price rise. |
| 2008/6/24-27 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50363 Activity:high |
6/24 It amazes me how stupid people are about economics. Don't people
realize that "speculators" make things better?
\_ Because no politician has the guts to say: "Suck it up and move on,
it's demand and supply and the government can't and shouldn't do
anything about gas prices". Because no politician has the guts to
say "Look, how about YOU consume less gas, then you will spend less
anything about gas prices". Because no politician has the guts to say
"Look, how about YOU consume less gas, then you will spend less
money on it? How about living closer to work, avoiding distant
suburbs, using carpools or public transport, or trading in your
"barn-on-wheels" grocery-getters and 300HP single occupant commuter
appliances for something more efficient?" No politician wants to say
that and no consumer seems to want to hear this either. There are no
enough drama or opportunities to pander to voters in the traditional
"demand and supply" explanation for the fuel price situation.
suburbs, using carpools or public transport,
or trading in your "barn-on-wheels" grocery-getters and 300HP
single occupant commuter appliances for something more efficient?"
No politician wants to say that and no consumer
seems to want to hear this either. There are
no enough drama or opportunities to pander to voters in the
traditional "demand and supply" explanation for the fuel price
situation.
\_ Sorry but this is flat out stupid. People live far from their
jobs because the price of a house or rental is so much lower
even taking into account the huge increase in gas prices we've
seen since 2006. I want to live in your fantasy world where we
can all simply choose to live near work. Do you really truly
think people drive 2+ hours a day because they like driving?
All these people could swap out their Hummers for shitboxes
cutting their gas costs by 50% or whatever and they'll still get
creamed. The reality is there aren't that many large vehicles
doing long commutes. I drive a V8 guzzler. I drive it fast.
Here's the math: I use ~1000 gallons per year getting about 20
mpg. At $5/gallon for premium that's $5k/year. I can switch to
a crap car, get 30 mph and pay 20 cents less per gallon. That's
a savings of 333 gallons and $1800/year. Whoop-ti-do. I've
saved the earth. And it's 400HP, thanks. There is plenty
enough oil out there, insufficient refinery capacity and a ton
of stupid laws that create different magical blends of gas that
distort the market. I'm sure the oil companies are doing a-OK
on my wallet, too. Drill, build some refineries, consolidate
blend requirements across similar regions, and prices will drop.
Econ 1. The big question is: do the people in control of these
things *want* the price to drop? Hello Congress and State law
makers?
\_ I _know_ childrenless couples who opt to drive one hour each
way to their work just so that they could afford to
live in a ginormous house even though they could live for the
same amount of money in a perfectly nice two bedroom house
or an apartment in a nice safe neghborhood, 5 to 10 minute
drive distance from their work for the same money.
(no that's not in Bay Area). So yes, my claim was entirely
stupid. Next, refinery situation is not nice, but you won't
lower the gas prices by much simply by simplifying the blends
and regulations. About 75% of the price of gas you pay
at the pump simply covers the price of oil that was used
to make this gas. The rest is refining and distribution.
Streamlinging refinery regulations would knock off a few cents
at best. If every person who drives a gas guzler actually
did something to lower gas use by 30% like you propose above,
the prices wouldn't be so "bad" right now. The proven oil
reserves in the parts of the US where you can't drill will
increase the supply of US made oil only marginally, and we
still will end up importing most of our oil from abroad.
I am not saying we shouldn't drill more, but McCain's and GWB
push to open more areas for drilling will not fix any problems
in the short term, and hardly make a big difference in the
long term.
\_ Do you read the viking hall of manliness website too?
\_ Since you know nothing and have nothing intelligent to
say you have to resort to a cheap personal attack. Good
call. That worked for me in 5th grade, too.
\_ 0.o That site breaks my brain.
\_ http://arthurshall.com
\_ People live far from their jobs because they are selfish
jerks who don't care how much suffering they cause other people
just so long as they get their 5 bedroom 3 bath home on half
an acre full of junk from Target. Homes are 50% larger then
they were in the 50's and families are smaller now. A smaller
car is not really going to fix the fundamental problem.
jerks who don't care how much suffering they cause other
people just so long as they get their 5 bedroom 3 bath home
on half an acre full of junk from Target. Homes are 50%
larger th[a]n they were in the 50's and families are smaller
larger then they were in the 50's and families are smaller
now. A smaller car is not really going to fix the fundamental
problem.
\- gee, i guess even economists who debate things like hot money
and the effects of high capital mobility are "stupid about
economics". liquidity is generally good. but speculation is
more complicated and might be "net" good, but not necess
"all good". also not everybody is in the position of the
dollar and a very large domestic economy.
YMWTGF(GSOROS, sterilization).
how about signing your name when calling other people stupid? --psb
\_ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121426475050198395.html
\_ I do when I specify names. The nearly universal complaints about
commodity speculators is silly.
\- "i do when i specify names" is kinda silly.
second, in your OP you didnt resrict your comment
to commodity speculation. the FX futures mkt and
the mkt for financial hedges and speculation is
much bigger than the commodities mkt, so that would
hardly be a default assumption. --psb
\_ It is always easier to blame someone else for your troubles
than accept your own part in the problem.
\_ Well informed speculators make things better. Get rich quick idiots
can throw prices totally out of whack, which is bad for necessities
like food and shelter.
\_ Exactly. There is a mass of people who just follow whatever the
trend is. They hear dot com they balloon that up, housing ditto,
now energy and commodities. They are idiots because the majority
of them in each case don't realize the large paper gains, and
meanwhile they cause short term problems and volatility.
\_ It is not clear to me what kind of problems dot com
speculators caused, other than a temporary misallocation of
capital. It is not like driving up the cost of WebVan stock
caused a shortage of anything.
\- just out of curiosity, what do you consider the diff
between a <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> "speculator" and a <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> "investor"
to be ... i mean it is meaningful to talk about a
hedger vs a speculator in a commodity or in the FX mkt,
but it's not totally clear how to differentiate in the
case of a stock ... or do you mean some vague either
focusing on time horizon or "second order" investments
[calls/puts, shorts, butterflies etc]. |
| 2008/6/10-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50206 Activity:moderate |
6/10 What I have been saying for years is now finally going mainstream:
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/86938
"High Fuel Costs Could Spur a New Rationalism"
\_ I sure hope this is going mainstream. But most drives I see on the
roads are still solo drivers, the freeways are not getting less
congested, and my wife doesn't see BART trains getting more crowded.
\_ That's because those supposed solutions are crap. The real
solution is to use small, efficient vehicles, and have protected
paths for low-impact stuff like bikes. 60-80 mpg is not
unreasonable from a small car. You can do better by regulating
things, for example ensuring that on-ramps are long enough to
accommodate slow-accelerating cars, or improving safety by
limiting large vehicles which make small cars more dangerous by
blocking their vision and being dangerous in crashes due to their
mass and ride height.
Clearly people like fast personal transportation. Improving that
technology is going to be much more useful than trying to force
people to give it up.
\_ Once again, the solution is NOT technology. Creating
new infrastructures and testing, etc uses MORE energy.
The solution is to REVERSE technology. Kill everyone
and every innovations, and there will be no more
energy use.
\_ It is worth pursuing more than one line of solution at a
time, since the problem is so large and there is probably
not going to be a one-size-fits all solution. All your
solutions are going to take years, and we need to find a
cheap way to get people to work in the meantime. I envision
a smart car train, where people get into their individual
pods at home, but then join the "train" for longer distance.
You can get really good energy efficiency that way, while
still giving the misanthropes their "personal space," but
this is obviously a long ways off.
\_ The problem isn't really "privacy for misanthropes" but
1) going to and from where you want to go, when you want
to go there, and quickly
2) versatility and convenience in carrying stuff
3) comfort
In most cases mass transit simply doesn't do #1 which is
the important one. More efficient taxis could help. At
least people using taxis reduces the need for parking lots.
AI-driven taxis could be cool, someday. If people entered
their transit request to a taxi company then they could
coordinate the routes to be able to carry a multiple
people per taxi in many cases. That wouldn't require AI
taxis, just smart dispatching software.
As usual, the existence of government controlled transit
operations unnecessarily shackles us all to systems which
are probably not optimal.
\_ #1 has been solved by all the really big cities in the
world with elevators and one minute headway train systems.
But you need much greater density than most American
cities for this to work. Personal transit does not
really work in a place like Tokyo or Hong Kong, anyway.
#2 is solved by putting stores selling what you need
within very close walking distance of your home.
\_ Have you ever been to Texas? Asking big fat Americans
to walk to where they need to be is very unAmerican
and unPatriotic.
\_ Don't interrupt my posts. And you can ask people
\_ I will
to do whatever you want, just don't expect them
\_ interrupt
to do it because you are obviously smarter than
\_ as I see fit
they.
\_ mind you this this a free country
\_ The problem is solved by MOVING close to where
you normally have to go (work).
\_ you can't move in CA. if you do, you get hit with the
new property tax hit of 1000 percent to make up for
all the old people who haven't been properly taxed
since 1978. i am slightly serious about this.
\_ you mean "all the corporations"
\_ That doesn't solve it. It's impractical to
move every time you change jobs, housing is
not freely available, people go other places
than their job (and so they should).
\_ Obviously, a place like Tokyo or Hong Kong is
different. Different places are different. Tokyo can
still require a lot of walking... there are
still lots of places that are hard to get to on
the trains/subways. Tokyo also has lots of taxis.
Your #2 "solution" is not a real solution.
\_ It works all over the world. And what is wrong
with walking? Walking is good for you.
\_ No, it doesn't. Feel free to walk if you want.
\_ Yes, it does. The majority of the world's
population do not own cars, so they do their
shopping the old fashioned way, on foot. Feel
free to be a lazy fatass who pays $200 to
fill up his Escalate if you want, too. Just
don't bitch about it on the motd.
\_ When you say "the existence of government controlled transit
operations unnecessarily shackles us all to systems which
are probably not optimal." are you referring to things like
freeways?
\_ You're the one bitching and blanketing ppl
as lazy fatasses. What about people with
legitimate physical problems? I suppose we
should euthanize them for the good of the
species. What if you live somewhere with
bad weather? You're presenting a false
dichotomy: the Escalade is one extreme of
personal transportation. Why did you
even bring it up?
The majority of the world's population
lives in fucking shitty conditions and
have no choice. They do things like walk
long distances with giant loads of junk
carried on their backs, like pieces of
corrugated steel they found which they
are lugging back to add on to their tiny
shack where they sleep on the floor with
their various relatives and have no
running water.
Maybe you should move to one of those
places. Or just feed yourself to some
animals and stop wasting resources.
\_ The guy with the Escalade is going to
have to give up a bit so that the guy
carrying the steel on his back can live
a little better. A good think, imnsho.
a little better. A good thing, imnsho.
\_ The Fremont->SF BART line did get more crowded during morning
commute hours these days. |
| 2008/5/1-5 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:49868 Activity:nil |
5/1 Humvee copycat in China: The Dong Feng EQ2050
http://www.csua.org/u/le9 (http://www.chinacartimes.com
Speaking of IP infringement ......
\_ If you are stupid enough to copy the hummer...
\_ As long as there is someone stupid enough to buy it ... |
| 2008/4/9-12 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:49691 Activity:nil |
4/8 Somewhat amusing talk on Urban Design by James Howard Kunstler.
He has some interesting things to say, but he thinks he's more
clever than he is. (video) (anti-suburb rant)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/121 |
| 2008/4/4-9 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:49667 Activity:nil |
4/4 "Slow Down a Little, Save a Lot of Gas"
http://www.csua.org/u/l7s (finance.yahoo.com)
\_ RIDE A BIKE and save even more gas. Economically it boils down to
what is your time worth? Is driving faster going to save enough of
your time to make up for the extra fuel cost?
Their argument that it saves 'a lot of gas' is week, it pretty much
just saves a little.
\_ It's kind of depressing riding my bike to work and being passed
by hundreds of cars. Especially since many of the cars have
driven an 50 miles to get there...
\_ Change your bike route/time along heavy commute. I used to
pass by cars along Shattuck in Oakland even on my heavy
mountain bike.
\_ Haha. Unfortunately I'm travelling the wrong direction
for that.
\_ PFT! USE FOOT! Ride bike will not help. It just hides the
costs of shipping and processing all that metal, exotic plastics
and other earth destroying by products of the biking craze. If
everyone walked barefoot at all times there'd be no transport
pollution at all. |
| 2008/4/4-9 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Recreation/Pets] UID:49663 Activity:nil |
4/4 Taking 10 year olds to day spaws. ew.
\_ There's no w in that word
\_ SC accent
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/pretty_babies/page5
\_ What is your point? There's a market for everything. Hummer,
dog feng-shui, puppy accupuncture, a bunch of cat psychologists
near Brentwood/Beverly Hills, gangsta rap, spinner wheels, huge
suburban homes in Glendora with 1.5 hour commute to nearest tech
work in Irvine or Santa Monica, etc. Come to think of it, on
average, people in LA seem to have pretty high self esteem and
fairly low IQ... perfect place to test for weird market ideas.
\_ I take it you didn't RTFA since your reply seems to be talking
about something totally different...
\_ You're right. I'm just PMSing. |
| 2008/3/24-27 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49546 Activity:nil |
3/24 X Prize for 100mpg vehicles: http://www.csua.org/u/l3w I think the 100mph requirement for the mainstream category is too high. Something like 85-90mph will be more useful. OTOH I think it should add a crash test requirement to that category. \_ Put up your own prize money. |
| 2008/3/6-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49353 Activity:low |
3/6 http://www.csua.org/u/kyy (Yahoo! Finance) "The average cost of owning and driving a car 15,000 miles a year is $7,830 according to AAA. SUVs are even more costly, at $9,990 per year." Wow! \_ I guess that sounds about right. My cost has been less than half of that (~$3k/yr) but I drive near half as much. That also doesn't include resale value of my car, but my car won't have much in that department. And of course I'm not including taxes and environmental costs associated with owning and driving my car. \_ How long does it take to grow $652/mo into $1M? By my calculations, about 25 years, if you invest in the stock market. So I can retire at least 10 years early by getting rid of one car. \_ Or by getting a efficient dependable used car. Say a late 90's/early 00's corolla. \_ $652/mo is average. Even an older car costs almost that much. \_ Gas (15k mi/yr): $145/mo for 30mpg at $3.50 a gallon Depeciation on a car that old: negligible, say $50/mo. Insurance: ~$50 mo. \_ Are you out of your mind? $50/month?! I wish. I pay $2400/year for two cars with no accidents or tickets. \_ If you pay that much for an 8-9 year compact car without comprehensive or at least a really high deductable, you are paying way too much. \_ Depends on what coverage you want and I wouldn't drop comprehensive. I had my 1993 Honda stolen and I was glad I had it. \_ When your car is worth ~4k comprehensive adds up to the price of your car pretty damn quickly. \_ Eh. $400/year is worth it for $4K. Repairs: less than $50/mo. That's a about half the cost. Not so bad. (Oh and 15k miles a year is a lot for a car that you can live without. If you are doing 15k miles on a bus that is going to SUCK.) \_ http://www.csua.org/u/kz9 (even without any depreciation, that is $5100/yr) I trust Edmund's numbers better than yours. \_ Depeciation looks like I was high. (See how by year 5 it is ~50/mo. Taxes are going to be lower because you bought it used. Insurance is going to be lower because you shouldn't have comprehensive. Financing is non existant if you buy it used. Gas I seem to be a bit high. So knock OFF 10-20/mo. Mantenance/repairs seem silly high to me, I've never needed to spend that much on my car. |
| 2008/2/15-18 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:49161 Activity:moderate |
2/15 Dear LA hater, let's start an LA bashing thread. What is it about
LA you hate?
\_ I've had the opportunity to live in the Bay Area for 9 years
and LA 10 years. It's true that traffic jam exist in both places
but there are degrees of traffic jam. In short, below is my
experience:
I-405 jam: Mon-Sat, 7am-11am, 4pm-8:30pm REALLY bad. Bad
on weekends even at 1AM.
I-10 jam: Mon-Sat, 7am-10am West bad, 4pm-8pm East REALLY bad.
I-60 jam: similar to I-10
I-105 jam: actually pretty nice except getting to/from it sucks
I-210 jam: Mon-Sat REALLY bad near Pasadena, and unbearable
from Arcadia to 57 due to lots of new cheap homes
Bay Area in general: 7-10am kind of bad, 5-7pm kind of bad,
but at least you're moving at 30MPH.
In short, yes both areas have problems but it's a LOT worse
in LA where traffic jam can be extremely unpredictable at times.
LA traffic blows, no doubt about that.
\_ I hate all the SUV and Hummer drivers. And a lot of people are
REPUBLICANS not because they have a strong opinion on religion,
abortion, etc, but simply because they like the idea of TAX CUtS.
\_ That's called "fiscal conservatism". It is one of the
three pillars of the (R) party. Sorry if you don't
understand that all (R) are not bible thumper social
conservatives. You don't understand what a (R) is. Check.
My name is reiffin. Check.
\_ What are the three pillars? Violence, hypocrisy and
greed?
On average the people in LA are much less intelligent than the
people in N Cal. I mean, just look at the way people drive, the
the type of music they listen to, the type of modifications
they make to their cars, and their loud stereos they crank up
to increase their status symbol. Traffic sucks and while it's
a culturally diverse city, there is a lot of self segregation
amongst the ethnics (e.g. blacks vs. Koreans, whites on the
West side vs. Asians in Monterey Park, etc). Everyone's isolated
and you don't even want to talk to your next door neighbor.
I'm not even going to get into smog and traffic jam. The lack of
a centralized tech hub and the sparse density of related jobs
(e.g. immobility of jobs due to spread out geographic locations
of tech jobs) makes it a career suicide.
N Cal has plethora of startups and big companies concentrated
within 10 miles of most single family home in Sunnyvale/San
Jose/Santa Clara/etc. On the other hand the derth of tech jobs
in LA are spread out in 100 miles from Irvine to Santa Monica
to Burbank to Pasadena and even in the suburbs like San Dimas
(what kind of tech talents are you going to attract from SAN
DIMAS? What a joke!) In short LA blows and the people who live in
it are mostly ignorant dim faggots who don't know any better.
\_ A centralized tech hub isn't important to most people.
\_ obviously not the H07 CH1X
\_ Unless you are into ditzy blond girls the whole h0t ch1x aspect
of LA is overrated. Personally I could not stand the congestion
and smog. Oh, and the people are like totally superficial and
annoying.
\_ Like, totally!
\_ Or hot Mexican girls, hot Asian girls, hot Middle-Eastern
\_ Yeah what is it with all the hot PERSIAN girls
who hate to be called Iranian? I mean, their
parents came here in the 80s, they're SUPER RICH
and drive nice cars, and they're SUPER HOT.
girls, etc. However, they are all gold diggers and won't
date you unless you are rich and/or look like a model
yourself. Good for rich ugly guys, though. The superficial
\_ Agree, it's perfect for butt ugly Greek men
who look super wealthy with their cheaply
bought McMansions in the boonies.
\_ Weird. Rich attractive girls want to date rich
attractive men! How unfair is that? This is a
tragedy of the commons! We need a government
program to fix this!
\_ Well, they are attractive but not rich.
So attractive girls want to date rich
guys. That's not so odd to be sure, but
in LA it is the standard.
people live on the Westside and do not represent all of (or
even most of) LA. It's like saying the people in SF are
all superficial jocks and ditzy blondes after visiting a
bar in the Marina District. The smog is not that bad
these days, especially if you live anywhere near the
coast. I find it a non-issue. It was a big deal in the
1970s, though. Congestion sucks, but name an urban area
that is not congested, including SF and Berkeley.
\_ There are congestions everywhere. The difference between
N Cal and LA is that you don't need to drive 30 miles
at 20MPH to go to a decent AFFORDABLE suburb to "tech
hubs" in downtown LA or West Los Angeles.
\_ What is your idea of an affordable suburb in the SF
area that is under 30 miles from a tech job center?
\_ Nobody mention SAN FRANCISCO. N Cal-- San Jose,
Milpitas, etc etc.
\_ Castro Valley, Hayward, Milpitas, Union City, Dublin
\_ LA and San Diego have tons of hot cute gay asian guys and West
Hollywood rocks -- other than that SoCal sucks.
\_ I believe SF is better for this. |
| 2008/2/6-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49081 Activity:nil |
2/6 "Toyota to Start Sales of Lithium-ion Plug-in Hybrids by 2010"
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/news/08/0114.html
It's no longer rumor. |
| 2008/1/25-2/2 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Finance/Investment] UID:49016 Activity:moderate |
1/25 "The general process of suburbanization is, the richer you are, the more
likely you move to the suburbs," says Julie Martin, a senior demographer
for the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of
Virginia.
\_ Why does JFK junior live in NYC?
\_ He lives with the worms, now.
\_ Obviously true in the DC area, obvioiusly false in most of the
world.
\_ Yes, because a motd anecdote is superior to a researcher at
a university. If you look at the wealthiest areas in the US
in terms of income they are almost all, if not all, suburbs.
\_ No, the wealthiest areas in the US and world are in cities.
\_ No, the wealthiest areas in the US and the world are in cities.
See Pac Heights, The Upper East Side, Kensington in London,
The First Addrosmont (sic?) in Paris, etc. In the Bay Area
The 7th Arrondissement in Paris, etc. In the Bay Area
\- dont you mean the 8e/triangle d'or. --psb
per capita income is as follows:
Marin - 44.9k
San Mateo - 36k
SF - 34.5k
CoCo - 30.6k
Alameda - 26.7k
\_ See, Marin is wealthier than SF.
\_ So is San Mateo. The data does not say what he
thinks it says.
\_ And Alameda county is really urban, not suburban and\
CoCo County is just an outlier. Right?
\_ What does that make SF besides 3rd choice?
\_ Does the evidence presented support or refute
the statement "The wealthier you are, the more
likely you are to live in the suburbs?" Hint:
what is the contrapostiive of that statement?
what is the contrapositive of that statement?
\_ There isn't enough evidence to refute
anything without providing some more
data like population figures. Are the
numbers you gave medians or averages?
What is the margin of error? Fact is
the wealthiest communities in the nation
are suburban, not urban. Even your
stats show that.
\_ It actually depends on what you mean
by the word "communities" actually.
Is a county synomymous with community?
\_ It depends on what you mean by the
word "communities." Is a county
synomymous with community?
\_ It can be and in most of the
country it is. CA has some
massive counties where it might
not be true, but SF is not one of
those.
\_ More like, true to a certain extent based on economic migration
patterns in cities like NYC and Detroit; tends to break down
after a certain economic level and depends heavily on how
attractive inner-city neighborhoods are in a given city.
\_ http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/076903.html
It is more complicated than that. The wealthy and the poor tend
to both move to the suburbs, for differing reasons. |
| 2008/1/4-8 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48883 Activity:very high |
1/3 Why are home prices steady in the cities and collapsing
in the suburbs?
link:preview.tinyurl.com/2nj3gu (Twin http://Cities.com)
\_ This article really only sort of answers that question. A better
question is, why did the home prices in the suburbs get so out of
whack in the first plae?
whack in the first place?
\_ They weren't out of whack. This should all be obvious. There
are more jobs in the city so price/sqft in the city is higher.
Not everyone can afford that or wants to live in a city so
suburbs spring up around them and more around those in rings.
As prices decline, they first decline further from job hubs and
work their way back in. If things continue city prices (which
IMO are just as out of whack) will also fall.
\_ Hmm... you're not the swami...
\_ There are a lot of theories about this, but you should
know that in many large cities the prices are less than
in the affluent suburbs. Whether the market thinks the
cities or the suburbs are more desirable changed over time
from suburbs to cities to suburbs. Now the pendulum is
swinging back to cities again. However, there are still
many cities in this country in which living in the heart
of the city is not exactly desirable as compared to the
suburbs. Imagine, say, Detroit for example. It's not
really about 'job hubs' or 'shopping' or 'transportation'
or 'land' or 'schools' or 'crime'. It's about all of the
above plus the perceptions of the market at a given time.
\_ Heh, while reading your reply I was going to say 'Detroit'
as an example where what I said isn't true. But, yes, I
agree with your expanded version of what I said. All those
things are closely linked.
\_ In most cities worldwide, housing in the city costs more
per square foot than in the suburbs. This is even true
in most large American cities, which were designed for
easy automobile access. There are exceptions of course,
but even in Detroit there are some very nice neighborhoods,
like Palmer Woods. I don't think that "the suburbs" was
ever considered more desirable than the city center in
Paris, London, Tokyo or Cairo.
\_ Really? Where did the royal family of France live?
Every city might have some affluent areas, but in
more than you might think the suburbs are
considered more desirable. It's only recently that
people have moved back to downtowns after years and
years of flight to the suburbs. "Price per square
foot" isn't a good metric to consider to evaluate
desirability even though it might seem so on the
surface. I think overall price needs to be considered.
What fraction of people with $20M to spend on a place
choose to buy in Manhattan versus The Hamptons, for
instance. The suburbs of many cities are quite affluent,
reaching or exceeding the prices for the best real
estate in the city. Consider San Diego. Downtown San
Diego does have a lot of expensive real estate, but the
most desirable properties are in La Jolla, Rancho
Santa Fe, and other suburbs. This is echoed more
often than not across the nation from Miami to even
SF, where the truly rich often opt to live in places
like Atherton and Ross instead of the city proper
(Pacific Heights notwithstanding).
\_ Short answer: I'd bet that anyone with a
business/job in NYC and $20M has a place there and
likely also a place in the Hamptons or some other
distant non-business location. Cities and suburbs
both have good and bad areas. In a city, there is
simply physically less space available so all prices
are likely to be higher than in the suburbs, all
else being equal. I'm quite happily living in my
very suburban town in part because I know there is
no way I could buy a similar place in SF or anywhere
else closer to work for anything close to what I
paid for my house. $/sqft counts.
\_ $/sqft is not enough information on its own.
People don't usually buy or rent residential
property on $/sqft terms, although for
commercial real estate it is common. Imagine
if it wasn't a case where you "couldn't
afford a similar place" but rather "a similar
place doesn't exist". You need to account for
variables other than cost and square footage.
\_ A similar place to my suburban home does not
exist in SF in that sense, true. But to get
the same size yard, two car garage, space on
all sides of the structure, etc, would cost me
$1.5m to $2m or so when I last checked a few
years ago. If I had that much money for
housing I'd leave the state. And yes it
pretty much comes down to $/sqft. That is the
easiest way to measure the price of a home
compared to other homes. That is *the* major
factor for comping a house in an area. You
don't comp against a different sized home.
\_ Your last sentence is exactly why
$/sqft doesn't matter so much. You
don't comp against a different sized
home. Within a class of housing it
makes sense to compare in $/sqft, but
not otherwise. I would argue that you
cannot comp a house in SF to one in
Mill Valley based on $/sqft.
\_ Why do you claim that? Do you really
think there are no houses the same
size as the houses in Mill Valley?
If you really believe that, you don't
really know much about the SF
really know anything about the SF
housing stock. Comp Forest Hill or
St. Francis Wood vs. Mill Valley.
\_ No, it's because other factors
come into play. No appraiser
would choose SF houses as comps
for Mill Valley houses even if
they were the same size.
they were the same size. In fact,
he might not compare two houses
in Mill Valley by size alone. My
appraisal teacher gave an example
of a 6,000 sqft. house built by a
retired couple that only had two
bathrooms: a massive master bath
and a powder room downstairs. The
house appraised at much less per
sqft. than most other houses the
same size. This is an example why
pricing per sqft. does not make
sense for residential real
estate. For warehouse space, say,
it makes perfect sense.
\_ So warehouse space is worth the
same in Oakland as in Marin?
same in Oakland as in Marin, per
square foot?
\_ I'm sure it's fairly close,
except Oakland might cost
more if it's associated
with shipping but then
that's a feature.
\_ I would be astonished if that
were the case, since the land
is worth so much more in
Marin and rents are so much
higher there:
http://www.csua.org/u/kf7
Oakland data from NAI:
http://www.csua.org/u/kf8
Bulk warehouse rent - $5/sq ft
Industrial land price is
$300-750 k/acre
http://www.csua.org/u/kf9
SF data from NAI:
Bulk warehouse rent - $9/sq ft
Land price - $1.6-6M/acre
Marin data from NAI:
http://www.csua.org/u/kfa
Warehouse rent - $14/sq ft
Land - 800k-$1.3M
\_ What is there about your suburban home
that makes it so unique that there are
no homes in SF similar? I bet that you
are wrong. There are plenty of neighborhoods
with big yards, quiet streets, clean, lots
of parking, etc.
are wrong. There are plenty of homes with
big yards, quiet streets, lots of parking
etc.
\_ Not at any price I would pay and the
schools still suck and crime in the
city is still higher, etc. With enough
money I can get almost anything, but
why would I want to spend that much
money to get something that is actively
worse in important ways?
\_ Maybe I need RV or boat parking,
equestrian trails, or who knows
what I find value in. Maybe being
around smelly hippies all the time
annoys me or I just don't like fog.
\_ You can't pick and choose specific wealthy suburban
enclaves and compare them to the neighboring city.
If you want to compare suburban San Diego to
San Diego proper, include National City and
Spring Valley in your calcualtions. San Diego
Spring Valley in your calculations. San Diego
is kind of a tough one anyway, since La Jolla
and Rancho Santa Fe are part of the city proper.
There are always going to be some wealthier and
some poorer areas in both cities and suburbs, but
overall the cities are going to tend to be
more desireable and therefore more expensive.
more desirable and therefore more expensive.
Didn't we already have the billionaire discussion
a few months back? Far more billionaires call
San Francisco home than the outlying suburbs, though
Atherton wins on a per capita basis. Consider that
there are 5X as many people living in the SF suburbs
than in SF proper though and you can see where
people with unlimited resources tend to congregate.
The per capita concentration in the Bay Area is
much higher in The City than in the suburbs overall,
though there are some very prestigious suburbs
that appeal to a minority of wealthy people.
There was no such thing as a "flight to the
suburbs" in most of the world. Do you really
think that Parisian suburbs were ever more
desireable than the city center? Tokyo? London?
desirable than the city center? Tokyo? London?
\_ To the royal family the Parisian suburbs were
more desirable, and they could live anywhere
they wanted. The Japanese royal family didn't
live in Tokyo either. You are correct about
London. You don't need to include National
City or Spring Valley. You just need to look
at the top end, because those are the people
with choices. Of course poorer people are
going to be in Riverside versus Los Angeles.
In that sense, proximity to a city does
influence value. However, my point is that in
most US cities it does get more and more
expensive, on average, as one gets closer to
the city but only to a point. Malibu is not
closer to the urban center than Hollywood.
Atherton is not closer to the urban center
than the Sunset District. You cannot just
assume that the main factor here is proximity
to an urban center. It's just *ONE* factor.
BTW, Rancho Santa Fe is not part of San Diego
proper. La Jolla is, but it's very clearly on
the outskirts of town. I would argue that the
most desirable property is that which is
convenient to a major urban center without
actually being in it, although this is
changing as more people are moving back to
the cities recently. I think with
telecommuting becoming more common the trend
will again reverse and people will leave the
city centers.
\_ Well, fundamentally, suburbs are boring.
They have had an image as either
a good place for raising a family, or perhaps
for people who want a quiet life, or want to
live closer to nature. Royalty and other famous
people or the ultra rich may have different
concerns.
I've known a lot of people in the south bay
area who commute here from SF. Which is crazy.
But they do because it's a city they like to
live in. There are a lot more things to do
and people around. I think this is the
historical normal thing.
Bad city management policies are probably to
blame for the reverse situation. e.g. crime,
cleanliness, pollution, transit options and
usability, parks that aren't full of
hoodlums/homeless, housing programs that
backfire, etc.
\_ There's a reason so many people who get
married and have kids move to the suburbs.
Quieter, safer, cleaner, better schools,
etc. If you're at that stage of life you're
not looking to party all weekend or come
back at 3am from a night of clubbing with
someone you didn't know an hour earlier.
\_ There are plenty of SF neighborhoods
that are clean, quiet, safe, have good
schools, etc. Just none that are in the
price range of your typical suburban
commuter.
commuter. And they are mostly full of
middle aged executives with children.
Maybe you would call them "suburbs
within a city" but they really aren't.
\_ Good schools? So SF has ended their
mandatory lottery system for schools
and my kids would go to the nearest
school like any real city? And what
would it cost me to send my kids across
town for a randomly chosen school?
\_ You can always send your kid to
private school, if you can afford it.
\_ We don't really have any fundamental
disagreement, though I think your
characterization of The Versailles as part of
the Paris suburbs circa 1700 is off the mark.
It was more like a rural village before the
King showed up. If you don't think proximity
to jobs is the primary determinant to land
(and therefore home) value, what do you think
*is* the main factor? -PP
\_ What you are missing is that both the
suburbs and city center are proximate
enough that other variables begin to
matter more. We aren't talking about LA
versus Banning for the most part. We are
talking about SF versus Lafayette, both
of which are proximate enough that the
proximity to jobs is not the prime factor
and instead "quality of life" issues
dominate. People in Marin, East Bay,
Palo Alto, Los Gatos, and so on are close
enough to high-paying jobs without having to
live in the city proper. In fact, many
of those jobs aren't even in the city proper.
I would argue that most people who choose to
live in SF do so because of lifestyle
concerns and not proximity to jobs. In
some ways SF is an affluent suburb of
Silicon Valley.
\_ As someone commuting from the suburbs to
the Valley, no, they're not that
proximate. I chose to have a nicer home
in exchange for 2 hours of driving every
day. It is not a trivial commute. If
pricing/quality/size was similar to where
I am I wouldn't be where I am, I'd be 5
minutes walk from work.
\_ Palo Alto and Los Gatos are probably as
close (in commute time) to as many high
paying jobs as most of The City, but I
don't think that is true for most of
East Bay or Marin. Your last sentence
is not true. Most SF residents work in
The City. Do you have any evidence that
more people commute from SF->SV than
visa versa? Traffic on the 101 would
indicate otherwise.
\_ I bet a lot of people who live in
Palo Alto work within a radius as
large as SF, too. So what? In
terms of population centers, SF is
really more of a suburb than a
real city.
\_ A suburb to what city? Now you
are just babbling. You might
be able to make the claim that
it is a small city or something
but to claim that it is a suburb
is just bizarre.
\_ San Jose
\_ I haven't been part of this
discussion, but anyone that
would assert that SF is a
suburb of San Jose is an
idiot. Ditto for someone who
would assert that the French
court located in Versaille
because they preferred to
live in a suburb of Paris.
Conceptually, suburbs didn't
exist until the automobile
was invented. -dans
\_ Why did they live in
Versailles instead of
in the city then if
not because they
preferred it? I also
do not think San Jose
was a suburb of SF
historically, but the
way the two cities are
trending SJ will eventually
dwarf SF. It's already
true that the SJ suburbs
have almost grown all
the way to SF and not
vice-versa (SF suburbs
growing to SJ). SF is
a small city and will
eventually be Long
Beach to SJ's LA.
\_ My point was that
Versaille is not a
suburb of Paris. As to
why the court set up
shop in Versaille, I'm
not really up on my
French history so I
can't say, and my hunch
is neither are you.
And, of course San Jose
will dwarf SF. San
Jose has room to
expand, and San
Francisco is
constrained to a
peninsula. Manhattan
is the wealthiest
burrough of New York
per capita (and
possibly overall), but
it's not going to grow
because it's an island.
I don't see Brooklyn or
Queens surpassing
Manhattan as the
cultural or monetary
epicenter of New York
city... ever. You're
going to have a hard
time making the
argument that San
Jose's urban sprawl is
somehow going to
elevate it to the
importance of LA. -dans
\_ When I realized I was
arguing with an idiot,
I stopped. I though of
the obvious example
of Brooklyn, but why
waste my time? -PP
\_ Not only is
Brooklyn part of
NYC proper, but
it's clearly adjoined
to Manhattan. You
should have used New
Jersey as an example.
However, San Jose is
not in a similar
situation. It and
its suburbs are
cities in their own
right. In many ways
the South Bay is more
relevant than SF
is and if that trend
continues SF will be
a wealthy enclave.
It is important to
note that the growth
in the Bay Area is
not radiating away
from SF. Instead, the
growth is radiating
from SJ. You might
have a point about
the limited land area
if areas close to SF,
but not in SF, were
growing. However,
that's not really the
case. Many of the
communities adjacent
to SF are not seeing
dense growth as a
result of proximity
to SF. In fact, the
population of SF is
fairly stagnant.
Fairly recently it
was actually
declining. SF
has enough land
to be twice its
population easily,
but it is fading
into irrelevancy.
I grant you that
it is far from
there yet, but
that is the trend.
BTW, Versailles
is 10.6 miles
from the center
of Paris. It's
clearly a suburb.
In fact, Wikipedia
says "Versailles...
is now a wealthy
suburb of Paris."
I only bring this up
to illustrate that
the allure of
suburban living is
not directly tied to
affordability. Lots
of people can afford
an equivalent place
(in terms of size)
in the city and still
choose not to live
there for other
reasons. It is
not always true
that a city is
more desirable (on
average) or more
expensive than its
suburbs. For decades
after the
construction of
highways downtown
was a place to avoid,
not a place to aspire
to live.
\_ 10.6 miles today
constitutes a
suburb, but before
the automobile
it was full-on
rural.
\_ Actually 21km
which is 13 mi,
but who's
counting?
\_ You're clearly an
idiot who's never
spent any serious
time in New York.
-dans
\_ I was born and
raised there
and trying to
say that one of
the five parts
of NYC isn't a
part of NYC is
just dumb.
_______/
\_ Amazing. Not only
does your reading
comprehension suck,
but you're a liar
too! AWESOME! -dans |
| 2007/12/13-20 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48795 Activity:nil |
12/12 How come sedans don't have rear window wipers? Both SUV's/vans/wagons
whose rear windows are more vertical than sedans, and hatchbacks whose
rear windows are more horizontal, have rear window wipers. I'd think
sedans, being in the middle, should have them too.
\_ Good question. Perhaps it is because SUVs are seen as luxuries.
\_ "And this rear window is juuuust right!" |
| 2007/12/11-14 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48784 Activity:high |
12/11 Are vehicle crash test results reliable? Looking at the crash test
video at http://www.ConsumerReports.org/crashtest it looks like the
dummies bounces around randomly. Is it reliable to conclude, based on
one test run, that a certain vehicle is or is not safe during crashes?
\_ I believe they do multiple test runs. Between the auto, legal,
insurance and medical industries, car wrecks are a multi-billion
dollar event every year. They can afford to wreck a few. Instead
of looking at a single video clip and deciding for yourself based
on dummies bouncing around, check out the final stats for each
vehicle. Or just buy a large SUV if you just want to be sure.
\_ Thanks. I already have an SUV. I'm trying to buy a small car
to burn less gas. -- OP
\_ If you want 'safe' you can't drive a small car. "Kept'n!
I kanna break tha lawsuv physics!"
\_ If mass was all there were to it, then pickup trucks
would be the safest vehicles around, but they aren't.
Nowadays, it is more important to have good braking
sytems, full surround air bags, etc. Mass helps, but
is not the only answer. Don't SUVs roll over alot and
kill their occupants that way?
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/106748/article.html
\_ There is this paragraph:
"Clearly, larger cars tend to have fewer fatalities.
But remember to put these figures into perspective.
These figures are comparing the differences **per
million registered vehicles**."
What is it saying? I don't get it.
What does it mean by putting the figures into
perspective? I don't get it.
\_ I think they mean that the most important piece
of safety equipment is an alert, capable driver.
The smallest car, driven by a skillful driver
is safer than a huge SUV driven by an idiot. |
| 2007/11/12-16 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48615 Activity:low |
11/12 Anyone can read Japanese here? The mileage ratings for the Japanese
Prius range from 27.0km/L to 35.5km/L, which translate to 64mpg to
84mpg. The 2007 US EPA rating for city is only 48mpg. Is the Japanese
city driving condition really that different?
http://toyota.jp/prius/ecology
BTW, what's "10.15 mode" vs. "JC08 mode"? Thanks.
\_ Hybrid mileage is a hard thing to measure. EPA recently had to
totally change the hybrid rules to make the results more in line
with real world usage. Before that the Prius was a lot higher.
\_ Just a guess: Japanese pollution emmissions are less stringent
and that leads to an increase in fuel economy.
\_ Before that the results for non-hybrids cars were a lot higher
too.
\_ Just a guess: Japanese pollution emissions are less stringent
and that leads to an increase in fuel economy. For example, I
believe the Subaru WRX was not available in the US for a long
time because of pollution emissions.
\_ I follow changes to the Corolla engines (not so much with the
Prius), and I know that Toyota moved to using direct injection
in their Japanese engines in 2003, which results in better gas
mileage. They can't do this in the US because gasoline in the
US contains far too much sulfur. US gasoline content was slated
\_ What are you talking about? My Lexus uses direct
injection and so do a lot of other Toyota cars.
\_ That was the reason cited *by Toyota* for not using
direct injection *in that engine* *at that time*.
Running gasoline with high sulfur content in a lean burn
direct injection engine leads to sulfur fouling of the
catalytic converter. You could get around this with a
catalytic converter with a much more expensive catalyst
or by changing the fuel/air mix. However, the point
holds: this is a concrete example of an engine technology
with better mileage in Japan than in the US because of
more stringent Japanese environmental regulation.
to reduce the sulfur content in 2006 (from 300ppm to 30ppm),
but this was postponed indefinitely under pressure from the oil
companies. I'd be surprised if that development wasn't in the
Prius engine by now. So yes, environmental restrictions are
part of the difference in gas mileage between US and Japanese
Toyota engines, but it's (at least in part) because of *more*
stringent environmental requirements in Japan. Incidentally,
in addition to improving gas mileage, the switch to direct
injection also increased horsepower and torque in the 2003
Corolla.
\_ Cool info. What about Honda Accord engines? Why did they
change the engine in 2006/7? It sounds very differently
during startup, and revving.
\_ I wish American car companies put this much engineering effort
into their products, instead of figuring out how to sell the
average consumer fucking 100 pound chromed cow ramming barriers
on the front of their SUVs. Seriously, who needs that shit?
\_ Cool info. What about Honda Accord engines? Why did they
change the engine in 2006/7? It sounds very differently
during startup, and revving.
\_ Men who haven't had good sex in over 10 years and need to
overcompensate because otherwise they would have to admit
that at half of the reason for that is them. Just ask
MR Women-don't-like-sex guy.
\_ Yes, and the other half of the reason is that women don't
like sex, which you seem to ignore completely. |
| 2007/11/12-16 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48610 Activity:nil |
11/12 The smart cars only get 33/40?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-11-11-smartcar_N.htm
\_ My 82 Datsun 720 diesel pickup beats that. -scottyg
\_ My whimpy '87 Ford Escort Pony 4-seater used to get 38mpg
overall.
\_ Under the standard American test environment (fat 300 pound
man), yes.
\_ That's worse than the Prius which seats 5 (or 4 if you are the
standard American size.)
\_ Check out the "What about safety?" section. Can a car so tiny
really be that safe??? BTW how come our NHTSA doesn't conduct
crash tests at 50mph?
\_ Because a 50mph crash is going to kill you. Anyone who survives
a wreck at those speeds is very lucky someone got them to a good
hospital immediately and owes their lives to the first
responders.
\_ "...... Schembri's team hauled in one that was smashed in the
rear in a 50-mph test. There was no intrusion into the
passenger compartment."
\_ Generally, the larger a vehicle is, the more dangerous it is.
\_ huh? The heavier it is, the safer it is to the occupants.
It's not safer for the others on the road....
\_ The larger the vehicle, the more dangerous for others
and the more likely to get into an accident in the first
place since handling will be worse. But once in an
accident, the heavier vehicle general is safer. Of
course SUVs have more lax safety standards, so ...
\_ The Smart Car weighs 2400 pounds, which isn't really all
that light. The Yaris weighs less and the Fit and Mini
about the same.
\_ Smart cars are not bought for gas mileage but for the ability to
park anywhere easily I think.
\_ No, smart cars are imported for the tiny little Asian people
who live in American cities (e.g. San Francisco). These are
the same tiny little Asians who like to buy tiny little Hello
Kitty toys and have tiny little yuppie Yorkshire Terriers.
\_ Uhh dude, EUROPEAN. |
| 2007/11/12-16 [Transportation/Bicycle, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48609 Activity:moderate |
11/12 I just started riding bike again, and the joys of maintaining tire
pressure are once again mine. Is there a device or compressor out
there that can have a fixed cut-off pressure? -emarkp
\_ I love Mormons because many of them ride bikes and are very
eco-conscious. -libural
\_ I just pump the damn thing up until it's really firm.
If I notice it's a little slack the next morning, repeat.
\_ You aren't talking tires anymore are you?
\_ Except for the eight kids thing.
\_ At the Shell gas station that I go to, you can set the desired
pressure at the pump and it stops autmoatically when it reaches the
pressure. I don't know if there are portable ones that you can use
for your bike.
\_ Ah, never mind. Found one on my own.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000IE0YIQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/105-2878297-2866811
-emarkp
\_ Just get a floor pump with a gauge. An air compressor is
serious overkill for a bicycle, and won't work as well on
Presta valves, which is what you should be using unless you
are doing something strange. -tom
\_ Bike fanatics prefer presta for accuracy, durability,
and other factors. People who bike 1-2 miles a day
will most likely not notice any significant difference.
\_ How is a Presta valve more accurate or durable? My tires
are wide, and I ride about 5 mi/day. -emarkp
are wide, and I ride about 50 mi/day. -emarkp
\_ If you have to ask... nevermind.
\_ Um, I want to know, and haven't seen any claims like
that in the comparisons I've found about accuracy or
reliability (what does "accuracy" even mean here?)
-emarkp
\_ Something strange like riding to work on an old bike?
What's wrong with Schrader valves? -jrleek
Why do I need Presta valves? -jrleek
\_ I have a foot pump with a gauge already. And I'm happy with
Schrader valves, but I'll take your advice into consideration.
The comments about Presta I've seen suggest they're important
for narrow tires, and that tubeless mountain bike tires use
them. Okay, I don't have either, so I'll stick with Schrader.
-emarkp
\_ I don't care what valve you use, but I'd recommend just
buying a cheap set of non-knobby, narrowish tires if you
are riding on the road. Why would you use wide tires?
\_ I agree here. Riding on skinny tires is so much easier.
On the other hand, if you want a workout, I guess
big tires may be good...
\_ In San Francisco at least, with all the train tracks
and the rough roads, I feel more secure on wide tires.
Maybe this is foolish, I don't know. -!pp
\_ Well you don't need super-skinny racing tires. Are
yours knobby? I think even if you want fatter tires
you can use semi-slick or slick ones. Knobs are
probably the biggest energy drain.
\_ I prefer the wide semi-slick. Primarily because on
the side of the road there can be lots of debris,
and the wide tires seem to do better with fewer
flats. -emarkp
\_ Yeah, mine are knobby. Thanks for the info, I
think I will switch to some big smooth ones.
\_ If you're on the street, get semi-slick.
\_ Presta valves simply work better with
hand pumps. Having to press in the
valve stem isn't a problem when you're
using a high-pressure air compressor,
but if you're using a tiny hand pump
it is sometimes impossible to fill the
tire faster than the air leaks out.
On the question of tires, wide slick
tires are what I would recommend on a
commuter. The Schwalbe Big Apple is
a great tire, but there are plenty of
others. I don't think you need tires
narrower than 700x28 unless you're
specifically riding for speed. -tom
\_ I carry a foot pump in my saddlebags, so I
don't care about the resistance of the
valve spring. But since the pin on a
pump depresses the spring, why would the
Presta give any advantage there? -emarkp
\_ The ability of the pin on the
pump to depress the spring
depends on the geometry of the
valve stem and the pump; it is
far too common to be unable to
pump up a Schraeder valve tube
with a bike pump, and it's
especially a problem when the
tire is flat, making it
difficult to have the leverage
to get the pump on the valve
stem. The Presta is just more
robust for the application. -tom
\_ That makes perfect sense. I've done
my roadside repairs before, and
agree that it sucks to have a hand
pump, and can see that the Schrader
could be more of a problem, but
haven't don't the roadside fix
experience with a Presta valve.
That's why I started carrying a foot
pump with me. On the other hand, if
I were offroad, I wouldn't want to
be lugging saddlebags. -emarkp |
| 2007/11/11-15 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48602 Activity:nil |
11/11 "A century ago, automobiles were viewed as friends of the environment;
they were much cleaner than horses. In 1900, for example, New York
City horses deposited over 2.5 million pounds of manure and 60,000
gallons of urine on the streets. About 15,000 dead horses also had
to be removed from the city streets each year. The motorcar promised
to eliminate such animal waste."
Save the environment, drive a car!
http://www.commondreams.org/views/070900-104.htm
\_ Why didn't anybody win the Nobel Prize for taking carriages around,
and lecturing on the Dangers of the Coming Horse Shit Crisis?
\_ There was no Nobel Peace Prize back in 1900.
\_ It's a good thing our society found a way to recognize
prescient Malthusians like Al Gore. Without them, we would
all be drowning in horse shit now.
\_ Cars today are still much cleaner than horses today. They are just
not clean enough. |
| 2007/10/27-29 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48461 Activity:low |
10/26 Looks like the suburvan lifestyle is about get a lot more expensive:
http://www.csua.org/u/juh
"Such pricing strategies could make a car five times more expensive
to operate, Heminger said."
\_ Well what do ya expect from a jew controlled liberal outlet.
As for "... a new poll shows that many Bay Area residents are
ready to take those steps [to live in smaller houses, higher
gas taxes/tolls]." Sorry buba, but the general rule of thumb
is that the more people save in N Cal, the more people will
waste in S Cal. In another word, for every unit of Prius driven
in N Cal, there will be a near linearly proportional number of
Hummers that'll be driven in S Cal.
\_ I don't know about road tolls, but higher gas taxes is good because
it directly correlates to the amount of CO2 a car produces. I live
in Fremont.
in Fremont and work in San Mateo. |
| 2007/10/14-17 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48312 Activity:nil |
10/13 Bahahahaha like I said before... suburbia, freeways, and driving
suck! Fuck you all suburbia loving SUV driving dickheads. You
deserve it!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21276017
\_ Must... Troll.. Harder...
\_ Yeah, seriously. This was a commercial truck tunnel and had
nothing to do with suburbia or SUV's.
\_ It does show up how dangerous hydrogen powered cars are! |
| 2007/9/7-10 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:47928 Activity:nil |
9/7 "Gas Price, Style Drive Small Car Growth"
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070824/small_cars_big_gains.html?.v=4
"Now competitors have upgraded small car interiors and safety systems,
and U.S. buyers are responding because the cars are far safer than
their predecessors," |
| 2007/6/18-19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:47002 Activity:kinda low 92%like:46994 |
6/17 http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gcco8 (okcupid.com) Interesting. This test says I should live in the suburb. Yay! \_ 0 out of 40 in both metrics? Did you do that on purpose? \_ The test says I should live in a "small town". Any example of a small town in the Bay Area? Also, under what classification are the Sunset and Richomd districts in SF? Thanks. \_ I don't think so. The existence of any large city nearby subverts any small town into a suburb. Livermore tries, but it doesn't really work. You can't have a small town economy when everyone works in San Jose. Also, the small town it recommended to me was La Junta, CO, which has a population of < 8000. \_ Livermore isn't a small town, it is a sprawl. Small towns don't sprawl. \_ As I said it didn't, doesn't, work. \_ Not because of San Jose, because they overbuilt it with suburban sprawl. \_ There are plenty of true small towns in the Bay Area. Probably the most notable is Canyon. Sunset and Richmond, I would consider streetcar suburbs. -tom \_ Plenty of small towns on the coast between SF and Santa Cruz \_ And along the Marin coast and in Napa and Sonoma... |
| 2007/6/18 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46994 Activity:kinda low 92%like:47002 |
6/17 http://www.okcupid.com/tests/describescore?testid=16534455155473404923&category=5 Interesting. This test says I should live in the suburb. Yay! \_ 0 out of 40 in both metrics? Did you do that on purpose? \_ The test says I should live in a "small town". Any example of a small town in the Bay Area? Also, under what classification are the Sunset and Richomd districts in SF? Thanks. \_ I don't think so. The existence of any large city nearby subverts any small town into a suburb. Livermore tries, but it doesn't really work. You can't have a small town economy when everyone works in San Jose. Also, the small town it recommended to me was La Junta, CO, which has a population of < 8000. \_ Livermore isn't a small town, it is a sprawl. Small towns don't sprawl. \_ As I said it didn't, doesn't, work. \_ Not because of San Jose, because they overbuilt it with suburban sprawl. \_ There are plenty of true small towns in the Bay Area. Probably the most notable is Canyon. Sunset and Richmond, I would consider streetcar suburbs. -tom |
| 2007/6/15-19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46972 Activity:low |
6/15 Urban sprawl said to create pushy drivers:
http://www.csua.org/u/ixm
\_ I'm an urbanite myself. Almost every single woman I've met in
my life prefer the suburban lifestyle. My mom, my sister, my
x-gf, x-x-gf, x-x-x-gf, female co-workers, etc prefer the sense
of safety and serenity suburbs provide. I have from time to time
debated with them why the urban lifestyle is better-- better
utilization of space, more efficient use of energy, more
convenience, better community, so on so forth. In the end, I
realized that it's pretty pointless telling them my point
of view. Most of them grew up in the suburbs and they've long
made up their mind that the city is a dump. So go ahead and
list top 10 reasons why the city is better. No one is going to
change his/her mind.
\_ My wife and x-gf both live in Noe Valley. My x-x-gf lives in
Rockridge. Most people are just ignorant, not close minded, so
if you show them otherwise they might change their minds. My
parents thought everyone in San Francisco was stuck up, but
after visiting for a while in Noe, they realized that at least
in my neighborhood, people are quite friendly. It is also
cleaner, safer and quieter than Riverside. Now they are hinting
that they would like to move here. This is not necessarily
a good thing....
\_ But SF is really a dump. It's too cold even during summer,
and too wet. There are too many hills to climb and parking
is impossible. If Amerika invests and builds nice cities
and better mass transits like the ones in Europe maybe
more people would actually want to stay in the city. Until
that happens, suburban lifestyle will be prefered in
Amerika.
\_ Hint: putting a "K" in "American" is not clever. Putting
in three of them doesn't make you 3x clever. Carry on.
\_ Maybe you should meet women somewhere other than your geek job. |
| 2007/6/14 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46944 Activity:nil |
6/13 Watch this real 4x4 (not your SUV) climb a rock - vertically.
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=451622&cache=1
Stupid spectators though. |
| 2007/6/12-15 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46922 Activity:moderate |
6/11 UNC attacker says he's sorry, asks to be released.
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/1491807/?d_full_comments=1&d_comments_page=0#last_comment
\_ Automobile drivers go berserk and run people over all
the time. I can think of half a dozen in the last year
in San Francisco alone. Why does this particular
example of insane car driving behavior pique your
interest so much?
\_ You can name 6 events in the last year in just SF where a driver
has "gone berserk and run people over"?
\_ Because he asks to be released even thought he claims he's sorry?
\_ Yep. Fremont guy who drove around Pac Heights mowing people
down last November; the guy who flipped a U-turn after
arguing with a guy at 16th and Valencia and then drove up
onto the sidewalk, mowing down two people; two different
"homicide by automobile" in Bayview and a similar one in
The Western Addition. Add to that at least two other
hit and runs where the driver mowed someone down and
then took off.
Oceanview. And at least one more in The Mission back in
March 2006 (okay I guess that was more than one year ago)
Add to that at least three other hit and runs where the
driver mowed someone down and then took off and it is
unclear whether the fatality was an accident or deliberate.
\_ ok the guy who got ran over in the mission had an altercation
with the car owner. but the random ass Fremont dude from
really did randomly run over people in pac heights. !op
\_ These all look like cases of people who got into fights
about something else and used their car as a weapon. If
they'd not had a car they'd have used whatever else was
at hand. This says nothing about car drivers, but ok.
\_ Bullshit.
\_ Keep making excuses for homicidial car drivers,
that's ok. Why are car vs. pedestrian fatalities
in The City up 100% over the last five years, but
gun fatalities are not? It must be all those
pedestrians "provoking" them, right? They don't call
it "road rage" for nothing.
\_ Because guns are not easily available while cars are.
When you say fatalities are up 100% in the last five
years the question should be "What has changed in
the last five years?". "Drivers have suddenly all
turned insane" is not the likely answer. The term
road rage dates back at least to the late 80s when
people in LA were shooting each other on the highway.
But you'll note they used guns, not their vehicles as
weapons. I guess it is easier to just say drivers
are all assholes and killers than actually take a
series look at the problem. It may even be that the
absolute numbers are so low (6 in a year?) that a
100% increase is just a statistical anomaly given how
few events there are to count.
\- above poster: do you have any ungoogled guesses
for how many guns are in private hands in the US?
(re: guns not easily avail). i'd appreciate it
if you'ld post what your first guess it ... surely
doing so anonymously wont cause any embarassment.
\_ nothing to do with anything but feel free to
continue this line of debate on your own.
\_ No one said or even implied that drivers are all
assholes and killers. I am glad you are willing
to at least consider the possiblity that the
25+ deaths and 1000+ injuries of pedestrians
per year at the hands of automobile drivers
might be a problem. Acknowledgement of the problem
is always the first step. I am kind of amused
that you think that multiple homicide by automobile
is crazed, but individual target homicide is
per year in SF alone at the hands of automobile
drivers might be a problem. Acknowledgement of the
problem is always the first step. I am kind of
amused that you think that multiple homicide by
auto is crazed, but individual target homicide is
normal.
\_ Ok so it is 25 a year. How does that compare
with other cities? I never said anything like
your last line about multiple vs single target
murder. I have no idea where you came up
with that.
\_ "The City has the fourth-highest rate of
pedestrian deaths in the United States
for cities of more than 100,000 people."
\_ Because he asks to be released even though he claims he's sorry?
Yeah, he's really sorry, really.
\_ Okay, he is obviously nuts, but so are at least half of
people who do this kind of thing. He is kind of amusing,
I have to admit.
\_ BTW, what happened to the guy who struck and killed a pedestrian in
Fremont (which happened to be at walking distance from my home) and
then ran over 14 more people in SF?
\_ In jail, awaiting trial. one of the women he paralyzed
is suing his family.
\_ But has he apologized and asked to be released yet? |
| 2007/6/8-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:46893 Activity:moderate |
6/9 Dear hybrid and bike riding fanatics who hate SUVs: What do you
think about people driving their RVs across the country, or people
who fly planes (with much less miles per jet-A fuels than miles
per 87-91 octane fuels for cars), or people who drive high
performance sportscars with only 10-15MPG? What about the amount
of pollutants an electric car battery (or hybrid car battery)
emits and destroys the earth at the end of the battery's lifetime?
I'm just trying to understand why liberals think the way they do
Thanks for any insight.
\_ Hi non-interesting-troll! Commuting daily with your
bicycle has nothing to do with the above. Please
be funnier.
\_ I don't love hybrids or hate SUVs per se. I hate people who have
alternatives commute solo over long distance in vehicles with low
gas mileage. Also, I hate people who drive SUVs as if they're
driving a car, and then complain that SUVs are dangerous. Before
the "SUV" era, people drove 4x4s as 4x4s and minivans as minivans,
not as cars. I bought my first "SUV" in 1992, and my friends called
it a truck.
driving cars, and then complain that SUVs are dangerous, forcing
manufacturers to "domesticate" SUVs with silly changes like
lowering the CG in the expense of ground clearence and body
ruggedness. Before the "SUV" era, people drove 4x4s as 4x4s and
minivans as minivans, not as cars. I bought my first "SUV" in
1992, and my friends called it a truck.
\_ I hate suvs cause I can't see around them. Simple as that.
They make the road more dangerous.
\_ Agreed. I'm not an enviro-fanatic but I hate SUV's and any other
tall vehicles. BMW's also tend to piss me off because they seem
to always be driven by assholes.
\- a lot of the older driving stereotypes ... BMW drivers,
people driving large cars poorly etc are now trumped
by people driving cluelessly due to cellphone use.
of course a woman in an humvee who isnt a good driver
while on a cellphone in downtown sf [i.e. yesterday]
is even worse.
\_ BMW drivers aren't just bad. They are assholes. Of
the won't let you pass, cut you off, don't use turn
signal, tailgateing, driving too fast variety.
Yes it isn't all of them, but they are higher than
the average.
\_ I'll let you in on a secret. When you drive a BMW,
Mercedes, Lexus, or such, the people in other
luxury cars treat you much better. However, what
you then face is people in beaters (especially
mammoth trucks) being rude to you in all of the
ways as described above. You can draw your own
conclusions. From where I sit (as someone with a
BMW and a Lexus) everyone else seems to drive like
jerks and people with luxury cars drive better -
mostly because they don't want to total them. The
guy in the 1982 Tercel is the idiot going 95 mph
and passing on the right and all of the dents in
his car prove that he's none too careful.
\_ Let me in on a secret. They are still assholes.
And yes there is a the young guy in beater car
group that I also pay a bit more attention to.
BMW drivers tend to be more assholes than Mercedes
and Lexuses (except for Lexus SUVs, those are the
absolute worst in me experiance.)
\_ The reason is that BMW is more of a performance
car. Things that you wouldn't try in another
car are easily done in a BMW and after
driving a while you know what the car can and
cannot do. My Lexus is an IS350, which is also
a performance car. Many Lexus drivers are
driving big sedans that do not handle well.
So, while it may look like BMW drivers are being
jerks and driving recklessly, we are actually
pretty safe, although we sometimes get
annoyed at people in cars who cannot keep up.
--bmw asshole
P.S. I find Pious, er Prius drivers to be the
worst and their expressions are so smug I
want to beat them to death with their own
entrails.
\- supposedly the prius problem is they are
spending too much time looking at those
meters that have nothing to do with driving.
and supposedly some also try to spend time
"optimizing" ... although i kida wonder on
short blocks if some manual transmission
drivers drive annoyingly slowly between
stops to avoud shifting ... like i'll just
drive at 20mph.
stops to avoud shifting ... like just
driving at 20mph.
BTW, i think the reason BMW have a higher
proportion of asshole drivers is they market
to supposedly "serious" drivers ... which
is not who say lexus markets to.
And i think it is worth distinguishing between
And a think it is worth distinguishing between
aggressive and asshole driving. asshole is:
not signaling lane changes, tailgating without
a good reason, like in heavy traffic, cutting
people off, not letting people into a lane
when they have been perfectly reasonable [not
like somebody freeriding a merge]. i drive
quite aggressively but i singal lane changes,
dont cut in front of people because i have a
low accelleration car. i dont t'gate unless
somebody is driving slowly in the fast lane,
in which i will do all kinds of things to them
except flash my lights (tgate, weave, pass
on right, glare at them while passing, cut
them off after passing, slam on brakes after
cutting off after passing (depends on how
obnoxious they were)). i do much less of this
when driving with other people in the car
because if you have to allocate part of your
brain to having a conversation, you should get
out of the fast lane and just drive ambient
traffic speed.
i dont tailgate unless somebody is driving
slowly in the fast lane, in which i will do
all kinds of things to them except flash my
lights (tailgate, weave, pass on right, glare
at them while passing, cut them off after
passing, slam on brakes after cutting off after
passing (depends on how obnoxious they were)).
i also dont cut in front of people because
i have a low accelleration car.
\_ Care to give an example of a thing that is
"easily done" in a BMW that you wouldn't
try in another car? I like BMWs and all but
the reality is that on public roads, whatever
maneuvers you may do are probably illegal or
dangerous, especially a freeway situation
like we're probably thinking about when we
think of asshole drivers. Darting into spaces
between cars isn't safe; you're getting into
people's buffer zones, and if other people
made sudden moves like that you could get
screwed.
\_ Merging, taking turns faster, stopping more
quickly, accelerating faster (e.g. when
getting on the freeway). In my old Nissan I
felt afraid going more than 60 and the
handling was terrible. I feel my car
has helped me avoid accidents I could
not have avoided in my Nissan or Honda.
When you're on a winding road and a BMW
whooshes by you it's not that the guy
is unsafe or an asshole. It's that his
car can actually do it. What annoys me
is people who drive their old Datsun
like it was a Porsche.
\_ Merging onto freeways quickly won't
generally make people think you're
an asshole. It's more the tailgating,
cutting off, not letting you merge etc.
\_ Can't say I do any of that except
maybe tailgate when there's a
person driving 45 in the fast lane.
\_ You haven't cited a single example of
something that's safe in a BMW, but
unsafe in a typical Nissan sedan. In
your example of a BMW whooshing by on a
winding road, no the BMW driver is not
being safe. Any time you drive
substantially faster than surrounding
traffic, you are not driving safely.
\_ I drive an Audi TT and do a lot of
maneuvering I wouldn't have tried in our
Jeep in Chile or with my dad's VW
Passat station wagon. It accelerates
and brakes very precisely, holds the
roads well in curves, and generally
gives me more control, say, a family
sedan. I know what I can and can't do
in it, and hence tend to cut my
tolerances closer when, merging or
slowing down behind people in front
(which can be taken as tailgating.) It
gets really dangerous when some asshole
becomes huffy that you passed him and
starts trying to prove something. -John
\_ In general, I think there are limited resources in the world and
that if we don't collectively reduce our usage of them, we risk
environmental degredation or perhaps even collapse. So I try to
tread lightly on the earth. There is also the notion of "Live simply
so that other's can simply live" which is to say that my increased
consumption of gasoline would tend to raise the price for those
who actually need it more than me. Individually, these actions
have no effect, but collectively they can be very strong. I don't
actually "hate" SUVs, and I think there are rare situations when
they are appropriate (say, you and your large family live on
an unpaved mountain road) but I do strongly disapprove of people
who are wasteful in general.
\_ Not all liberals are smart. The fundamental issues are 1.
reduce consumption per capita, and 2. have no more than 2 children
per household. Car is by far least energy efficient mean of
transportation. If you think of it. it's about 2000 pound vehicle
design to transport 200 pound cargo. this means more than 90% of
energy is used just to carry itself. SUV is worse; Hybrid is
fundamentally more efficient than what we got on the table, albeit
it is not a miracle. I don't have issue with SUV driver per se,
but I have serious issue with our current law, which as it is
right now, classifies SUV as a "secondary vehicle" thus does not
have the same emission and safety standard as regular passenger
cars. Again, I am a "conservative" in a sense that I belive in
market solution. This means I 1. oppose any relaxation on refinary
/ coal fire power plant's emission/exhaust gas 2. oppose any
tax break on oil exploration 3. oppose any royalty-free deal that
extract fuels out of federal land and 4. oppose any subsidies in
so-called bio-disel 5. oppose any tariff on ethanol from Brazil
(currently run at 18%). By enforcing emission and environment
standard on oil refinary and removing any subsidies from gas
exploration, price of gas will be no longer aribitarily low.
When gas is $8-10 dollar a gallon, people will find way to conserve
energy consumption. The beauty of it is that all sort of
alternative energy/transportation innovation will mushroom. And
people will get rid of their SUVs, 4000 pound Lexus, and other
fuel-inefficient cars and reduce the energy consumption.
\_ Isn't it amazing that modesty, thrift and temperance are now
considered "liberal" values?
\_ There was a time when compassionate toward the poor and
needy is considered as a Christian values too...
\_ Still is, the difference is, Christians want to actually
help, not just feel good about themselves. Government
social programs often make things worse.
\_ Yeah, and charities have no shortage of volunteers and
monetary support, what with 82% of the country being
Christian. Yup, good ol' Christian generosity will
fix all our social ills. Fuck off.
\_ We've had decades of welfare programs and no shortage
of social ills. Fuck off. (Besides, who are these
people suffering from a charity shortage?) -!ppp
\_ If Christians really had this level of moral
sophistication they wouldn't need to posit a
'kindergarden universe' where you get spanked eternally
if you are bad.
\_ The underlying philosophy has little to do with
daily living and enactment of core teaching and
beliefs but if it makes you feel better to think
all Christians are childishly unsophisticated
regarding their moral systems then it is still
mostly a free country. I prefer not to denegrate
an entire class of people based on their harmless
belief in fairy tales that tell them to be good
to other people. --Atheist
\_ me too, but I have serious problem with
the fact that federal dollars can go to these
religious organizations, and these organizations
then turn around discriminate against people of
different faith. |
| 2007/6/4-10 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:46845 Activity:high |
6/3 Ahh, that good 'ole suburban lifestyle:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/28quwx (Washington Post)
\_ I spend 20 minutes commuting each way. That's pretty short.
Having a short commute is the only way I have time to exercise
1+ hours/day, which is in turn the only reason I'm not
completely fat. (I'm only a little bit fat.) I don't know
how anyone can live the way this guy did.
\_ Plenty of people are fat, stressed and ulcerated.
\_ haven't we seen this before? motd necromancy!
\_ I think the last one was a NYT article.
\_ I live so far from the city my city friends never heard of the
place. I also commute < 15 minutes each way, have lunch with
my wife at least once a week and work no more than 40 hours a
week over time. Just because some people choose to live their
lives poorly doesn't mean everyone has.
\_ You must work in the same small town where you live.
\_ Wait, so you're saying you work between 40 and 80 hrs/wk?
What's your average, 60hrs/wk?
\_ I mean I have an odd schedule where I work 44 hours one week
then 36 hours the next, so 40 hours/week averaged out. It is
9 hours a day M-Th + 8 F, then 9 per day M-Th and Friday off.
I haven't done one of those 60-80 hour weeks in a few years.
I make a few $K less than I used to but not by much and have
a life now.
\_ Which company is this? We just started doing this
9/80 schedule as well.
\_ To be fair, not everyone has the skills that can give them that
kind of job. Tech work is really nice that way.
\_ When I used to BART into the city I'd see the same folks
every day and chat with a few of them. Mostly they were non-
tech people who would have been better off not coming in to
the city for work. One guy was a counter guy at a deli shop
who drove 30 minutes to BART and then another hour to the
city. I don't know what he made but c'mon... counter guy at
the deli with a 90 minute commute.
\_ Bart time, while still suck, is much less suck when
compared to driving.
\_ Depends on how many hours/week you get stuck standing
the whole way bodily pressed against smelly people.
\_ At one job I worked at, I used to always come in late
and work late, so I got to know the janitor. Turns out
he drove in from Stockton (!) every day and had three
kids. He made $17/hr as a janitor in SF and could only
make $6.15 in Stockton. I guess 3X your salary is worth
a 2+ hr/day commute.
\_ Or better would be to move to another state where he
could live on $5.25 and not waste 2+ hr/day commuting
which he could spend going to school, starting a
business or just enjoying time with his family.
\_ The cost of living is less in other states, but it
is not 1/3 the cost of living in Stockton. This
guy was buying his own house, which you can't do
on minimum wage anywhere.
\_ It isn't just pure cost of living but the value
of his time as well. If he spends it commuting
it is lost. If he spends it in school or doing
something useful he can move up in society and
stop working as a janitor or sandwich maker.
\_ I think that way and you think that way,
but not everyone does. Once you have three
kids, your options narrow considerably.
\_ Once you have three kids, the *last* thing
you should be doing is spending 3 hours a
day commuting. -tom
\_ Once you have +1 kid you're whipped
and your wife will forbid you to
make any drastic changes to their
lives. I presume you never had kids.
\_ Someone deleted my response, but the
best thing for the kids is if this
guy triples his salary and gives his
kids a better lifestyle. Do you
think the kids who have parents on
welfare (and who are home 100% of
the time) are better off? Studies
show that education and income
correlate to success, not "quality
time with the kids", even if that
seems illogical. I presume it's
because beyond a certain age kids
are influenced more by teachers and
peers than parents. Getting your
kids away from gangsters is worth 3
hours per day commuting.
\_ Correlation is not causation.
Kids need food, shelter, and
good relationships with their parents
far more than they need a huge
house in Dixon or the latest
Transformers toy. -tom
\_ You think this janitor is
working for a huge house in
Dixon and a Transformers toy?
What kids need are parents who
are able to care for them.
That doesn't mean being with
them 24/7. Do you think a 3
hour commute is hurting the
kids? Maybe a little, but it's
a net positive considering the
alternative is the dad at home
and the kids in the slums. Kids
need parents who care, not
necessarily parents who are
present.
\_ reference please. -tom
\_ I cannot find the study
right now, but it stated
that parents' income and
education are the TWO
most important factors
for having successful
children with everything
else having just a slight
effect. Here is one paper
that states that the effect
of employment of the father
is negative, but small.
http://tinyurl.com/2bga74
\_ uh, yeah, and how is
commuting 3 hours for
a minimum-wage job
improving parental
income or education?
You're also reading
the study wrong; it
says that the effect
of father's employment
is small--that is, if
the father is *unemployed*,
there is a small negative
effect. It doesn't say
anything about an employed
father who is spending
12 hours a day working and
commuting. The same study
also notes that children
who experience single
parenthood have
significantly lower
educational attainments.
-tom
\_ Why is it a choice of 3 hours
of commuting to a janitor job
vs. welfare and slums? He
can work for lower pay in a
cheaper place and spend that
wasted 3 hours bettering his
life so he won't be a friggin
janitor forever.
\_ As someone else said,
nowhere is cheap enough
to survive on minimum
wage and a lot of the
cheapest places are full
of redneck hicks, which
makes minorities
uncomfortable. (I am
assuming he is a
minority. Please correct
me if he is not.)
\_ Minimum wage and a family
of 4 puts you well below
the poverty line which
means you're getting
piles of government
assistance for food and
housing, as well as a
free education with those
2-3 saved hours a day so
you don't have to die as
a janitor or sandwich
maker.
\_ "Piles of government
assistance?"
\_ If I had 3 kids I'd definitely move far
far away from the city. My options would
narrow in favor of raising my kids away
from such an incredibly negative influence.
\_ Even plenty of us who think that The City
is an incredibly positive influence would
move away, because we wouldn't be able
to afford to live here. I am kind of
curious, have you ever talked to anyone
who was actually born and raised in
San Francisco? Most of them seemed to
have come out just fine.
\_ Yes, I have. What about it?
\_ If fine == gay.
\- you go past 19th ave, or on top
\- you know past 19th ave, or on top
of twin peaks, or beyond glen park
SF is a very different place from
the downtown, marina, pacheights,
mission, assland, western add,
inner sunset, noe areas. and
bayview type areas are in turn
different in a different way.
like someone i know who grew
up in st. francis wood and then
was ucb/tridelt, might as well
have grown up in menlo park or
mill valley. although i think
people form danville or saratoga
are a little different.
\_ While it may not be true of all
large cities, I've met
disproportionately larger number of
SF born/raised people who didn't
know how to swim or ride a bike.
While this doesn't make them "not
fine," it does give them slightly
different background with which to
view the world. |
| 2007/5/26-30 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46764 Activity:kinda low |
5/26 Will people start to tolerate living in the city more as gas
prices increase, or will they stick to the same suburban
lifestyle that they've grown accostomed to for many generations?
In another word will the price of traveling affect the price of
my crappy city home due to the natural laws of supply/demand?
\_ Most people worldwide prefer to live in cities, so I guess
I don't understand your question. It depends a lot on why
your city home is crappy. Is it poorly maintained or something?
\_ If you didn't understand the question, what was the thing that
"depends a lot on why your city home is crappy" you're talking
about?
\_ Yeah, I have a similar problem I need to ask the MOTD about.
I bought a crappy city home, with neighbors on both sides of me,
a tiny lot and no garage, about four years ago. I looked on zillow
and now it is worth $600k more than I paid for it! Should I sell
it, along with its ten minute commute, walking distance to stores,
cafes, restaurants and my daughter's school and move to beautiful
suburban Antioch, where I can get a nice big 4 bedroom, 2 bath
home on a big lot with just the equity in my shitty city home?
I figure I can buy a nice big Hummer for the 1 hour each way
commute. Wouldn't I be much happier if I did that?
\_ Go back to your country you fucking Eurotrash. -American
\_ If you were serious I'd answer your question but you're not.
To the OP, the price of your home already reflects the closeness
to jobs, etc. Move the same house to the suburbs and the value
would be near-zero. Your entire value is based on short distance
to other desirable locations not the place itself. A suburban
house here will cost more than a 'crappy city home' in a place
like Dallas. Why? Because jobs here are higher paying, etc,
and Dallas is dead. Some people are willing to drive or BART
into the city to get a nicer home elsewhere. Other people
actually live and work in the suburbs and *never* go anywhere
near the city and somehow survive, while others never leave
the city for any reason if they can at all help it. To each
his own.
\_ My question is certainly more serious than the OP's. -PP |
| 2007/5/17-19 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car] UID:46671 Activity:very high |
5/17 What happened to Toyota's Tercel, Paseo and Echo? They all failed?
Seems like Toyota's compact models never last long, while the Corolla
lasted three decades AFAIK.
\_ Toyota == new GM. Look what they just did to the xB. :(
\_ Link? What did they do to the xB?
\_ http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3729
short version: 650 lb weight increase, 6 mpg
efficiency decrease, cheapened interior, messed up sightlines
\_ Wow, that's a pretty damning review. And the price
seems really high. Wasn't the whole point of those
things to be dirt cheap?
\_ Ironically enough, the debacle of the 2nd gen has
the prices for the 1st gen models on the used market
rising. I think some low mileage models are now going
for over asking new.
\_ but still as fugly as ever
\_ Huh, that DOES sound like GM. I have a theory that much
of this trend has to do with lame customer surveys. I'm
sure people alwasy say, "It's great, but I wish it was
a little bigger." This is my guess as to why the Civic
seems to grow every year.
\_ Although they keep changing the name every few years, Toyota
never seems to stop producing a sub-compact (currently they
have the Yaris), so the must still be making money in that
market segment.
have the Yaris). Perhaps in that market segment one has to
keep refreshing models quickly.
\_ #t the cheap small/compact car segment aims at young people who
will outgrow their ego in 3-4 years for a more luxurious vehicle
so while it's important to create a new car that's hip and cheap
it's even more important to change their looks and their names
every 3-4 years.
\_ So the majority of people grow more wasteful as they grow
older? I'm not so sure. Though the xB was targetted at
"youth," the people I knew that were buying them were
elderly or new 30ish families with 1 to 2 children.
\_ I am thinking about getting the BRABUS Biturbo coupe.
\_ I'm thinking about getting the BRABUS SV12 S Biturbo coupe.
Does anybody have one and care to share their experience?
\_ Are you talking about Smart? the 2007 model is just
out and no one has experience on it.
\_ They don't grow more wasteful. They grow up. Things
like safety, cargo capacity, and comfort start to count.
\_ Yeah, I have three of them, but my garage only fits
two so I left it parked on the street, so City Tow
got it for having too many parking tickets.
\_ they got replaced by yaris |
| 2007/5/17-19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46669 Activity:moderate |
5/17 link:www.csua.org/u/ipp "Nationally, for every dollar a working family saves on housing, it spends 77 cents more on transportation." And this does not include the time lost to commuting. Just another reason to live near where you work. \_ Nationally, homes are 1/2 to 1/4 the cost of homes nearby SF, Sunnyvale, San Jose, LA, and pretty much every CA city with jobs. I can move closer to Silicon Valley but I will have to pay 1.2mil for the same home that I can get in Union City for only $695K. CA is totally utterly fucked up. \_ The mentality of the average American Joe/Dim: Why the FUCK would I want to spend $3500/month on rent in the city when I can *buy* a nice suburb home, country living, 3X the size WITH A BACKYARD where kids can play, for only $2500/month mortgage? GO RAIDERS! COSTCO! RIDE SUV!!! \_ You make that sound like a bad thing. It isn't. \_ Damn and here I am willing to pay significantly more for housing AND more for transportation. \_ So the average American makes their money go 23% further by spending less on housing. That is smart. Saving on transportation is the sucker move if your numbers are correct. \_ Factor in "time lost to commuting" and it's a losing proposition. Time spent in a car is time spent getting fat and unhealthy. Thanks to not having a commute, I can work out at least an hour per day, and thanks to that, I'm not fat. Even further, the true cost of carbon emissions during transport are not measured, but probably far exceed your 23%. \_ You are making a big assumption on what transportation costs are going to be like in the future. I am betting that gasoline prices will continue to escalate. |
| 2007/5/15-17 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Health/Women] UID:46644 Activity:high |
5/15 What's a good city with the convenience of a city (walkable
retails, grocery, easily accessible clean young women) and the
luxury of a suburbia (new, nice big homes, private, quiet, safe)?
Does such a place actually exist?
\_ If you can afford a penthouse in Manhattan or Wilshire in LA
you'll have a huge place (3500sqft and more) that's quiet, safe,
and is close to retails and people (young women).
\_ If you can afford a penthouse in Manhattan or Wilshire in LA,
you don't have to be close to young women. Young women will come
to you.
\_ Never heard of such a place. Closest would perhaps be loft
housing in a city.
\_ Every city has places like that, but you have to be rich to
afford to live there. See Pacfic Heights.
\_ Vancouver was the closest I've seen to what you describe. They
are also in the middle of building a light rail system between
downtown and the airport.
\_ My home in Fremont is 10min-walk from 99 Ranch and some restaurants.
It's 1500sqft and it's probably worth $600k now. Don't know about
accessibility of clean young women.
\_ Seconded. Walkable, close to mass transit, great dim-sum,
and lots of young & super hot HK women (and wealthy too).
\_ My home in Fremont is 10min-walk from 99 Ranch, Walgreens,
Albertson's and some restaurants. It's 1500sqft and it's probably
worth $600k now. Don't know about accessibility of clean young
worth $600k now. Don't know about accessibility of white young
women.
\_ I'm glad you like Fremont but the positive things you pointed
out are not unique to suburbs. Like all the other suburbs
it is nice and quiet but it just doesn't match the convenience
of a real city.
\_ Many homes in the Sunset and Richmond districts in SF are not
walkable to grocery stores or restaurants.
\_ This is not really true, in that there is no place in
the Sunset that is more than 1 mile from a restaurant.
But some places are pretty far, so far that walking to
your grocery store is not really an option. But everyplace
in the Sunset and Richmond has a bus within a few blocks.
The Richmond is actually very well served by retail, by
the way.
\_ generally economics prevent retail and 'new big homes'.
single-family homes don't provide the population density for retail
places to be profitable within walking distance, for a reasonable
definition of 'walking distance'.
\_ Cupertino
\_ Far from mass transit. Too insulated, you don't meet hot
young women. You can't walk to grocery and other retails.
Cupertino has all the great amenities of a suburb but it
does not have the convenience of a big city.
\_ Safeway is like less than 1 mile from my house and
Target/Trader Joes/AMC Saratoga are like 1.5 miles
from my house as is the Cupertino Library and a bunch
of food places on De Anza and Stevens Creek. Generally
I can get around w/ my bike and there is plenty of bus
service.
\_ Yeah but it's not nice to walk/bike around. Busy
wide streets and typical huge parking lots. De Anza
is not walkable at all.
\_ This is a point worth emphasizing; a walking district
isn't just "services within walking distance." A street
isn't a walking district just because it's not far from
a WalMart; when you walk in an urban walking district,
you interact with community members and shop owners,
see unexpected things, and get pleasure from the
simple act of walking. Walking on big streets to
big box stores where you buy stuff on auto-pilot and
do self-checkout does not replace urban living. -tom
\_ Narrow minded. Stupid. Or both.
You completely failed to realize that most of the
patriotic Americans do not want or care about
interactions with strangers and bums in the city,
and all the inconveniences that go with urban
living like pollution, drugs, crimes, etc. People
value safety, privacy, and better quality of
living (more living space, newer environment,
cleaner) over all those things you mentioned.
\_ Spoken steeped in suburban privilege. You
are clearly too short for this discussion.
\_ HAHAHAHAHA... thanks for the good laugh...
\_ You do understand you are asking for contradictory things, right?
Walkable with close retail implies high density, while private
with big homes implies low density. |
| 2007/4/30-5/4 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46479 Activity:nil 66%like:46447 |
4/30 Part 2 of the OSC anti-car rant. I liked the last one better.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-04-15-1.html |
| 2007/4/25-29 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46447 Activity:kinda low 66%like:46479 |
4/25 All right, an OSC column even motders can enjoy, anti-car rant!
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-04-08-1.html
\_ What he's trying to say: "City life is better, healthier, good
for the environment, good for civilization, etc etc."
What 70% of the Americans will actually hear: "This guy hates my
beloved SUV, my mansion and my freedom to choose however I
want to live my life. Like a Nazi he is imposing his belief.
What a fucking jerk. Go Raiders!!!"
\_ I like his conclusion, but I don't understand all his arguments.
Under "Get Back That Wasted Time", it sounds like he's saying
driving less will give you more free time -- how would that work?
Even in Berkeley, which seems pretty close to the city he's
envisioning, driving is usually faster than walking or public
transit.
\_ Not really, or, it depends on where you live in Berkeley.
Besides, when you do drive, how much time do you spend driving in
Berkeley? In my experience, it was significantly less.
\_ His arguments are strange. But usually when people say driving
wastes time, they mean that if you carpool as passenger or take
public transit, you can read a book, take a nap, do some work on
a laptop and so on. BTW, some AC Transit transbay buses have
free Wi-Fi.
\_ Yeah I think most people would agree that even if walking
took somewhat longer, it's "quality time": it's a lot more
natural, it's not stressful like driving, it gives you
exercise, you can think about or do other things, you
can see interesting things along the way. That is unless you
live in sweltering hot areas or are walking in car-oriented
places that you don't want to be.
\_ That's fine if you have time to kick the leaves and smell
the flowers. Some people have to be somewhere.
\_ The amount of free time you have is a matter of choice.
-tom
\_ I think in the sort of towns being proposed here,
things like scooters and vespas would be practical
for some trips. With less and slower traffic they
would be safer and more convenient than in sprawl.
One could even use... bicycles (gasp). The point is
that ideally the places you have to be in daily life
won't be so far that it matters.
\_ It also includes the fact that if you carpool, you can go on
the carpool lane and get there faster.
\_ This rox, thanks. -ausman
\_ He was doing great right up to the mindless knee jerk attack on
Gore.
\_ "He agrees with me. He is soooo smart! Oh wait, he attacked my
boy! He's a total idiot!!!"
\_ You know, this guy only complained about his attack on Gore.
He didn't sayhe was a total idiot and that everything else
he said was wrong because he attacked Gore. In fact, he
said the guy was "doing fine."
\_ I think it's pretty clear that the Gore jab (not even really
an attack) is there as part of appealing to a broad audience.
People who don't like Gore are probably predisposed against
this essay's ideas, and anyway the global warming issue has
all this political baggage associated with it. By making this
argument in an offhand way he avoids possibly stigmatizing
himself with a rabid political stance.
\_ This is reason #2132 why we'll never solve our environmental
problems. |
| 2007/4/22-25 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46413 Activity:nil |
4/22 "NYC pledges 1 million new trees by 2017"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070422/ap_on_re_us/green_nyc
In other news, Californians pledge 1 million new gas-guzzling SUVs and
luxury sedans to counter the trees' effect. |
| 2007/4/21-24 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46402 Activity:nil 90%like:46401 |
4/20 http://urltea.com/enm (marginalrevolution.com) Surprise! The suburbs are BETTER for your social life! \_ "...the apparent tendency of interaction-prone individuals to locate in dense neighborhoods leads to a positive correlation between density and interaction." What a bullshit study. They admit that more social people tend to live in high density living situations and then "correct" for this tendency to come up with the opposite conclusion. \_ I agree with what you are saying, but on the other hand, the idea is to look at only the effects of the neighborhood on social interaction. So you *have* to correct for the individuals. It's not such a useful result because of that, but it would indicate that the interaction-prone individuals may be making a mistake if the intent is to maximize social interaction. They would all be better off moving to the 'burbs. \_ No one knows which correction factor to use. The only way you could actually test for this is to do a controlled study, which human subjects usually object to. |
| 2007/4/21 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46401 Activity:nil 90%like:46402 |
4/20 http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/11/the_suburbs_are.html Surprise! The suburbs are BETTER for your social life! |
| 2007/4/20-24 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46389 Activity:nil |
4/20 Why cars suck, reason #48:
http://sfgate.com/columnists/lloyd
\_ Hello libUral!
\_ Hello moron(z - haven't read the article, OP may be a moron too).
\_ Yeah, I really liked living in "mixed-use" areas in Korea. I
never really understood why Americans wanted to like in giant
residential areas. Boring. -jrleek
\_ Americans like a lot of space so they can load up their
big SUVs with tons of supplies they buy from Costco.
They need a lot of space to park their big SUVs. And
finally they need a lot of space so they can listen to
hip-hop without their neighbors complaining. Why live in
the dirty, crammed noisy city when you can have exquisite
country living?
\_ The city is also fucking expensive, unless it's a shitty
slummy area full of violent people.
\_ People with long journeys to and from work are systematically worse
off and report significantly lower subjective well-being,. Stutzer
told me. According to the economic concept of equilibrium, people
will move or change jobs to make up for imbalances in compensation.
Commute time should be offset by higher pay or lower living costs,
or a better standard of living. It is this last category that people
apparently have trouble measuring. They tend to overvalue the
material fruits of their commute.money, house, prestige.and to
undervalue what they.re giving up: sleep, exercise, fun.
http://www.csua.org/u/ij3 (New Yorker) |
| 2007/4/9-12 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46244 Activity:kinda low |
4/9 "At $3.25/gallon, good mileage ranks 22nd as the most important
attribute in buying a car."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/09/autos/pluggedin_taylor_fueleconomy.fortune
\_ $3.25 is still too low to change consumer behavior.
\_ We should put a $5/gallon tax on it.
\_ Agreed, and redirect the tax to development for solar power,
geothermal, more efficient cars, or whatever. (Well, maybe
not as much as $5, but still.)
\_ Agreed (well, maybe not as much as $5), and redirect the tax
to R&D for solar power, geothermal, more efficient cars,
fixing the atmosphere, or whatever.
\_ Not as much? $5 isn't nearly enough. I was being
conservative, since it should really be double that to have
the desired social engineering effect. If you want to
change the people's actions to something more beneficial
to the government you have to put punishing taxes on
negative behaviours. The carrot of course would be free
government bikes for everyone.
\_ Get rid of the payroll tax, and tax fuel instead at the same
aggregate level.
\_ I agree that gasoline tax needs to be raised dramatically.
The time to raise it was 15 years ago. However, our politicians
were either too stupid, too cowardly, or too corrupt. Now
we simply cannot slap on a large tax on gasoline. But gas
tax can and should be ramped up at the fastest rate which
doesn't screw us up horribly economically. Also, a way
needs to be found to make this tax less regressive.
\_ No, it is never too late to do the right thing. If we're
15 years behind on this grand social engineering task, if
we want to properly control the negative behaviors of the
people for the betterment of government, we must increase
gas taxes even more to make up for the past weaknesses in
this area you pointed out. Raising it $5/gallon would be
a good start but to make up for the last 15 years, a $7.5/g
increase would take THIRTY years to catch up and that's not
even taking inflation into account. Maybe $10/gallon would
put us where we need to be and would still take 15 years to
catch up. Taxes don't need to be regressive. The earth
doesn't care if you're rich or poor. If you are killing
the earth, our only home, you must be stopped at any cost.
\_ Wow spoken like an ultra earth loving leftist. You
realize that no one listens to you when you use the
"we must do this because we love earth" tone right?
I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you're
not convincing anyone.
\_ Strawman. If you don't take care of the planet that
hosts your entire civilization you are a fool. I
never said we should all kumbaya in a giant tree
hugging circle. We should however still put a
behavior modifying $10/gal tax out there to stop
people like you from destroying all we have. A
healthy earth is required for continued human life.
How dumb do you have to be to not see that?
\_ I believe the number of cup holders ranked 18th in the most
important attribute. I suppose once gas lines become the norm again
or gas is $10/gallon (whichever comes first) Americans will once
again care about fuel efficiency.
\_ I care, but only about whether my car gets 40 MPG versus
12 MPG. I don't think most people would alter their choice
of car because one gets 28 MPG and the other gets 31 MPG.
So in that respect, mileage is not very important. Even
though there's a 10% difference in mileage, the placement of
cup holders in the car is something that impacts my experience
more than enough to offset the difference in mileage. Since
most cars are in the mid-20's to 30 MPG range anyway then
what does it matter? The people driving 12 MPG or 50 MPG
cars are on the fringes of the survey.
\_ You are clearly a threat to the planet and must be
prosecuted and then executed as an environmental criminal.
\_ Sir: the trial is already under way. Executions
have already commenced and execution rates will increase
year by year.
\_ Excellent! But we must execute faster! Faster, I say!
\_ what does it matter if my car gets 20 or 26 mpg, when I
drive so little. We should focus on usage. Set tight
gas quotas and see what that does.
\_ what will the quota be and who gets special exemptions from
the limit? are you going to arrest people who sell gas on
the black market you're creating? |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:46205 Activity:moderate |
4/5 link:csua.org/u/ie4 mp3 of interview with the woman in the minivan in the critical mass incident (with Armstrong & Getty). Interview starts at 12 minutes in. Sounds like people in Critical Mass caused the problem. I find her believable. -emarkp (I should add A&G are far more reasonable than most people I hear on radio, they're not kool-aid drinkers, etc. And their show is liberally sprinkled with humor.) \_ She drove all the way from Hayward in a premeditated effort to assault and attempt to kill innocent people. Only the brave and noble efforts of a handful of people at peril of losing their very lives stopped this mad woman before she could bring her nefarious plot to it's ultimate and deadly conclusion! \_ Yup, I'm sure planting a kid's birthday celebration to coincide with the Critical Mass day and time, and bringing along another kid and three kids from other families, was part of her planning. \_ ob sarcasm lost upon thee \_ I *thought* I piled it on thick enough that no one could possibly take it at face value. My mistake. \_ So let's see if I have this sequence of events right: Van driver gets stopped by a small group of bicyclists, who are illegally blocking traffic. Van driver decides she is not going to wait 30 seconds and drives around bicyclist and weaves back and forth through cyclists. Cyclists get mad and block her way, probably banging their hands on the sides of her car. She freaks out and deliberately rams a bicyclist blocking her way. At this point, cyclists swarm her car and smash her window. Laws broken by cyclists: malicious mischief, failure to yield Laws broken by car driver: assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder. Hard to side with the felon in this case. \_ That's "a" version of events. It wouldn't fly in a court room but good effort. \_ Don't be so sure of yourself. If the victim in this case steps forward, I bet the DA will file charges. \_ The cops were useless: '"We sit there and they just go right through the red lights," Sgt. Callejas said. "What else can we do? Arrest one rider while 500 keep going?"' \_ The answer to his question is YES. Arrest one, charge him/her, and make it clear that breaking the law is breaking the law even when done as a part of civil disobedience. Do this enough times and the economic penalties will add up. --erikred \_ right, just like they should arrest every driver speeding on the freeway. -tom \_ I didn't think even Tom could equate running a red right or a Stop sign with speeding by 5-10 miles. We're not talking about not doing a hand signal on turn. Running lights/stops is a real hazard. Tom, are you disingenuous or stupid? \_ You think it would be safer to have a dozen different Critical Mass groups because they got split up by lights? The cops don't think that. Running stop signs is not any more of a hazard than speeding is; in both cases, it depends on the context. -tom \_ I think it would be safer if CM followed the laws. Kind of a weird concept, I know. And in both the case of speeding and running red lights/signs, I desire and expect the cops to ticket people and arrest the more excessive cases for all vehicles be they cars, bikes, suvs, wheel chairs, flying saucers dropping spaghetti or anything else. The law already recognises the context by assigning different levels of fines and other punishments for different transgressions. It does not account for context by simply ignoring transgressions. Obviously there are corner cases such as the people doing 120+ fleeing from Mount St. Helens eruption, but I haven't heard of any active volcanos in this region. ;-) \_ speaking of flying saucers, what planet are you living on? -tom \_ obflyingcarrant http://csua.com/?entry=38770 \_ No, but if I zoom past a cop on the highway I expect to get pulled over and nailed with a ticket for a few hundred bucks and a visit to traffic school. Just because there are a lot of people breaking the law at once is no reason to ignore it. It is a basic safety issue. In this case it lead to a smashed van, scared kids, and bad bike PR. It could have been a lot worse. I want to know that if the bikers were justified and we know they were only stopped by the cops how much further could they have gone and still been justified in your mind? Since the driver is claimed to be an attempted killer, wouldn't punching her out be justified? How about nabbing the kids on the spot since she's obviously an unfit parent/guardian? How about flat out murder in self defense leaving her dead on the spot? Where is the line? (I'll answer since I was being rhetorical). The answer is they already crossed the line going as far as they did. Once you open the door to vigilante (in)justice you open a Pandora's Box you can never close again. \_ No, just like they should arrest every driver who runs a red light or stop sign. --erikred \_ You didn't listen apparently. She was waved through by police officers, and as she was in the intersection she was swarmed by bicyclists. She's moving slowly, intentionally remaining slow so they could avoid her. They're riding past, and some are circling her. Then one of them rams her vehicle (she says it looked intentional) and it escalates from there, including people climbing in top of the vehicle, breaking her back window, etc. -emarkp \_ You forgot the part where she rammed a bike, pinning it underneath her car. -ausman \_ Where does this pinning quote come from? I must have missed it. \_ I simply don't believe that claim. She says it never happened, and I have to wonder where the bike went. If my bike were pinned under the car, I certainly wouldn't have gone away without filing a report with the police. -emarkp \_ Well, and how would you have ridden off on it? A wheel or a pedal would almost certainly bend or break. \_ http://www.csua.org/u/ie1 Multiple witnesses, most of whom were not directly involved in the incident, trump one person who has every motivation to lie about her participation. -ausman \_ I don't see "multiple witnesses" on that blog link. I see a blogger speculating "Try this version..." You don't appear to have listened to the interview. There were police at the scene from the beginning, and they don't corroborate this. -emarkp \_ Sorry, wrong link: http://www.csua.org/u/ie6 -ausman \_ I get the sense that this is Bad Driver Syndrome. You're in a car. A few thousand pounds of metal. If there are pedestrians or bicyclists doing things around you, legal or illegal, you are only in control of your car. Sounds like the best thing would have been for her to stop and wait for all others to clear before moving. You don't push your car through any group unless someone's got a gun in your face. --scotsman \_ Sorry, I feel the woman and the cops are more credible. Oh, and I love how the video you link to cuts off before the woman can state her case. -emarkp \_ Where do you see a quote from "the cops"? So far they have been mum. -ausman \_ http://csua.org/u/idl (the first article I posted) I thought I heard that police arrived on the scene at some point during the altercation and didn't do anything about it, though I can't find any link to back that up at the moment, so I may be wrong. -emarkp \_ The policeman does say that he apologized to Ferrando, but does not testify one way or another to the facts surrounding the incident. Though I have to admit, him feeling the need to apologize is pretty damning. -ausman \_ It is funny that this is exactly the kind of vigilante justice that emarkp is advocating down below in the gun control debate. For the record: I have never ridden in SF Critical Mass and only a couple of times in Berkeley (which is a much different vibe anyway). I'm not a supporter of Critical Mass. But I do think that this woman was likely acting like an asshole (possibly due to hysteria, possibly due to just being an asshole), put the lives of others in danger, and in some sense, got what she deserved. The police calling "no foul" is probably the right thing to do. Oh, and Matier and Ross are unscrupulous hacks. -tom \_ Actually, no it's the opposite. I believe the driver had the right to fire in self-defense. -emarkp \_ And the bikes believed they had the right to attack in self-defense. Of course, if everyone were packing heat, they'd always consult with emarkp before trying to shoot anyone. -tom \_ I think you're an idiot tom, and please stop putting words in my mouth. The woman was surrounded by a mob which was attacking her vehicle. I simply don't believe the complaint that any bicycle went under the wheels, and if she'd had a gun and used it, I wouldn't have any complaints. By the way tom, if you're so against vigilante violence, why haven't you condemned the cyclists? -emarkp \_ I don't think it's right that they broke her window. I don't think it's right that she ran into a bike and kept trying to drive through more. -tom \_ More witnesses: http://www.csua.org/u/ieb "McCarthy [driver] said she was intimidated by police when she tried to file a hit-and-run report." police when she tried to file a hit-and-run report." Now that sounds like a reliable witness... \_ "Witnesses also say that the bicyclist who was hit wanted to file a police report, but was told by the officers that the only way to do so would be if they called an ambulance for him, which he would have to pay for." http://www.csua.org/u/iec (SFBG) \_ Where did you get "a small group of bicyclists?" \_ Well, A&G are right about one thing: the "Communist" City Council is not going to outlaw critical mass. The vast majority of San Franciscans are sick and tired of being daily bullied, threatened and intimidated by automobile drivers. And the new Transit Effectiveness Project is going to make it even more expensive and difficult to drive in San Francisco. Which is a good thing. \_ Scare cyclists as you drive every day. Weave toward them, dont give them room etc. Slow down in front of them when they run Stop signs. \_ I worked in the financial district and soma for years. The worst that ever happened was a pickup honking at me while I was rolling an E450 across the street. Maybe this intimidation occurs in some other parts of the city? (No, I didn't drive in so I was always on foot where ever I went). \_ http://www.csua.org/u/ie8 http://http://www.csua.org/u/ie7 http://http://www.csua.org/u/iea http://http://www.csua.org/u/ie9 |
| 2007/3/26-29 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46093 Activity:nil |
3/26 "As Gas Rises, Flying May Be Cheaper Than Driving"
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Travel/story?id=1905640&page=1
It's an article from a year ago, but it's probably only more true now.
\_ If you are 1 person flying has been cheaper for a long time,
if you take into account wear and tear on the car.
\_ It's amazing that now flying is cheaper even for a party of
three.
\_ And you get a good upper body workout too. |
| 2007/2/11-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45711 Activity:nil |
2/11 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/14/ING3RIPSO01.DTL "Predictions of the demise of suburbia, choked to death by high gasoline prices, may be greatly exaggerated." \_ We shall see. How many times has Alvin Toffler been used to explain everything. Are jobs really going to move to the suburbs? The only way that would decrease commuting is if they formed sort of "company town" kinds of clusters where everyone lived close to the same big employer. And a lot of the other stuff he claims is happening is bunk, like suburban sprawl in Europe. I personally think that alternative energies will allow Americans to use electric cars to commute, but they will be much smaller, much more efficient cars. And I think that denser communities will still have an advantage in an era of higher energy costs. Haven't densities actually gone up this last decade? Anyone got any hard numbers on this? They certainly have in California. |
| 2007/1/31-2/6 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:45632 Activity:high |
1/31 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16876281/from/RS.2 I really don't understand this. Instead of increasing mileage why don't Americans just plan ahead for once and build a sustainable city with mass transit and mixed use buildings, instead of big McMansions sprawling wherever land is available? \_ Because we don't point to a spot on a map and say, "Let's build a city there". Life is not SimCity. \_ In Dubai and Singapore it is. \- soon maybe american will have a "second class citizen/ \_ Ok, you're right. If we had a dictatorship and command economy we could do that but it would be a horrible place to live. I'll take sprawl, thanks. \_ Haven't been to Singapore or Geneva or Paris, have you? \_ I've been to Paris. What about it? Are you going to claim Paris was artificially designed in the modern era for public transit and reduced driving a la Sim City? \- in re: Paris, may be of interest: http://www.economist.com/cities/briefing.cfm?city_id=PAR \- if some people see 120min a day in a car as the price for a backyard and lawn, what exactly is your issue with that? \_ I don't have an issue with that at all. I also don't believe it is possible to create a city from scratch a la Sim City in the real world. As for me, I have the yard/lawn and 12 minute commute. 2 hours is for the suckers. \_ You live in the Bay Area? Where do you live and where do you work? \_ I live in the Bay Area, yes. Ok, it isn't always 12 minutes. That's going about 78 mph for all 3 exits. About every 2 months I get stuck in bad traffic and it can take as long as 45 minutes to get home. I've never had heavy traffic going in. \_ 12 minutes door to door? You live right next to a freeway onramp? Do you park right in front of your office? \_ 12 minutes. I live a few residential blocks from the freeway and I park directly in front of my building. On a bad day, I have to park on the side and take the side entrance which adds about 15 feet to my car->desk walk. Seriously, I'm telling you, the 2 hour people are total victims who should just leave the Bay Area if they can't afford a place closer to work. They are obviously not earning enough to make living here worth it. \_ No, but Paris is a compact city and hardly a horrible place to live. It is possible to build transit friendly cities without a dictatorship. I'm a libertarian and I don't give a damn about -/ what other people do. They can fart as loud and as stinky as they want. However, as the population density increases the effect of their actions start to affect others more dramatically. They can fart on the country side-- who cares. But if they fart in a movie theatre, that may create problems for people with a rare but acute condition of asthfartma. Likewise, when they use the public highway for 120min, that person is decreasing the capacity of the highway for everyone else on the road and increasing traffic jam. In another word if every person on the road travels twice as far as they do now, the average time to travel from A->B would more than double for everyone. Libertarianism is great when you're alone. Not so great when you're with other people. In a world that is getting smaller and smaller, every action will have a reaction that is proportion to the population. So do I have an issue with people who want to drive 120min one way? If that person's fucking up my commute, fuck ya. \_ You're no libertarian. Libertarians take responsibility for their lives and don't blame others for their problems. If your commute sucks, move closer to work. If you can't move closer to work, get a job where you can. If you're opposed to increases in population density that infringe on your lifestyle then you're in favor of closed borders, mass deportation, and eventually China style birth control enforcement. You have to make some choices in life. They have chosen to drive 2 hours to work (which I think is insane but it isn't my problem). You chose to live in a place where other people clog up the roads. Move. \_ I already did and my commute is only 20 min one way. However I'm a bit concerned with the amount of gasoline people use and the amount of CO2 they emit which will accelerate the rate of global warming. I'm also very concerned with air pollution and related diseases like asthma which I'm inflicted with. \- you may enjoy reading the article from which the "five boroughs" statistic above comes from: \_ The amount of CO2 procuded by cars is trivial compared to what industry is pumping out. It's like asking home owners to stop watering their lawns to save water when the farmers are using 98% of the state's water. If you want clean air you'll have to move away from other people and not down wind from industry as well. \- YMWTR the article from which the "five boroughs" \- YMER the article from which the "five boroughs" statistic below comes from: http://www.nysun.com/article/47626 n.b. Edward Glaeser is sort of like Steven Levitt, the Freakonomist, except EG is supposed to be an asshole. He has some interesting writing about house prices coming from regulation ... basically lefty, anti-development people living in million dollar SF/berkeley hills houses keeping up prices for those of us with faces pressed up to the bay window.--psb \_ Why should us homeowners ruin our quality of life so that housing is cheaper for you? You can always either buck it up and save and live in a smaller place for while (like we all did) or move. Or rent. \- that was sort of a tongue in cheek comment about liberal hypocrisy and nimby: i.e. cost of "being green" [or otherwise PC ... fair trade coffee, anti chain store] can be imposed on others. [i spend like <10% on income on rent, which is pretty unusual around here, i think, so i wasnt really speakng about me ... i'm doing ok.] the point was a bit deeper: house prices are not fully explained by demand side... "people are paying crazy amounts" but also constrained supply side. read the paper. cant be summarized in the motd. see also actual econ discussion of prop 13 vs the hype. nobody is analysis of prop 13 vs the spin. nobody is saying you should ruin your quality of life, but the issue is one of public policy, e.g. tax deduction for mortgage interest. \_ The fundamental problem with the article you pointed out is the line: "The great problem with being reflexively anti-growth is that development in America is close to being a zero-sum game. New homes are going to be built to meet the needs of a growing population. If you stop development in some areas, you are ensuring more development elsewhere. A failure to develop New York means more homes on the exurban edges of America." This is simply not true. Driving up housing costs in San Francisco does not simply mean that people move to Tracy: some (most) of them leave the area. And it is disingenious to blame bad planning in Pheonix on the residents of another city. They can build a dense, transit oriented city if they like: there are plenty of smaller, dense cities in Europe. \_ Actually Tracy and the surrounding towns have been booming for years so I don't agree with you there. Why should the people in Phoenix be forced to build the kind of city you want? They have what they have, if people want to live there, then they will. If not, they'll move, as you say. \_ The tax deduction allows more people to own homes and encourages home ownership which is a form of financial security. It also let retired people who had no substantial income from being taxed out of their homes. IYO, was prop 13 a good call or bad? It isn't clear from your postings what your personal feelings are on these issues. --curious \- if you email me, i am willing to discuss this with you. --psb \- if you email me, i will discuss this with you. --psb \- soon maybe america will have a "second class citizen/ foriegn worker class" too like S'pore and Dubai! http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Singapore/ForeignWorker34.jpg \- this is kind of a neat statistic: More than one-third of all the public transportation commuters in America live in the five boroughs. \_ Haven't spent much time in New York or San Francisco, have you? \_ I have. New York is unique. Transit in SF sucks. If you want everyone to live in a place designed like SF with SF quality public transit then no thanks, I'll take the smog and sprawl. \_ I take SF transit back and forth to work everyday and I think it is great. It takes me 25 minutes each way and I get to read the newspaper on the way. I live in the outer reaches of SF and work downtown, btw. outer reaches of SF, am gay, and work downtown, btw. \_ What does being gay have to do with commuting? *shakes head* Anyway, glad that works for you, but if you lived in SF it would take you an hour or two to cross the city to the same job. I used to take BART to work and it was great that work was literally right outside a BART station, but all of SF is not next to a BART station. Travel to or from a non-BART area in SF sucks. \_ I didn't put in the "am gay" part, some "funny" guy must have. I actually have children. I *do* live in SF, perhaps you misread me. I have lived in a couple of places in The City, the worst commute I ever had was 45 minutes each way. Part of the reason I decided to buy where I did is because it is well served by transit. The J Church is half a block away. \_ Are you on the down low? \_ Are you looking for a date or something? |
| 2007/1/24-28 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:45580 Activity:nil |
1/23 Chevy's make your own Tahoe commercial not working out as planned:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/phj6h (autoblog.com)
Examples:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fp25KotKu9c
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XA6dLFrAFlI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4oNedC3j0e4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X_nwNOEfBTs
\_ OLD. |
| 2007/1/24 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:45576 Activity:moderate |
1/23 User generated Chevy Tahoe commercial:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fp25KotKu9c
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XA6dLFrAFlI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4oNedC3j0e4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X_nwNOEfBTs
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/31/chevys-make-your-own-tahoe-commercial-not-exactly-going-as-pl |
| 2007/1/14-23 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car] UID:45530 Activity:nil |
1/14 http://tinyurl.com/y6xjyp WSJ on web vigilantes. Features http://PlateWire.com; http://AboveAverageDriver.com; http://Irate-Driver.com; http://BadDriving.com |
| 12/24 |