Transportation Car RoadHogs - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Transportation:Car:RoadHogs:
Results 151 - 229 of 229   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2022/08/07 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

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:
        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.
        \_ Want some "explanation" from the punk who cut off the SUV?
           \_ 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?
           "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:
        \_ they are not accounting for the dangers of exposing our kids to
           diversity and gay people.
        \_ And the future to boot:
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" (
        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? (
2022/08/07 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

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
        One more reason why you shouldn't run a STOP sign.
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...
        \_ 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:
                       (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
                          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
                             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,
2012/6/30-7/27 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54425 Activity:nil
6/30    Cities are better.
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:
2012/5/21-7/20 [Transportation/Bicycle, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:54395 Activity:nil
5/20    Suburbs sucking wind, cities recovering:
        \_ 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?
        \_ 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.
        \_ "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"
        \_ 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
                                      Pretty simple, really.  -tom
                                      \_ Neither of these are necessarily true.
                                         \_ They are both true as averages.
                                            \_ 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.
                                                            \_ 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
                                         \_ 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
                                               \_ 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"
        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
           \_ 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
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?
        \_ 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"
        Why would China want to buy the Hummer brand?  They already have their
        own Humvee copycat - the East Wind EQ2050:
        \_ Because "China" is one big hive mind where everyone thinks alike,
           \_ 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
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
                         (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
                            \_ Calling Vacaville a part of the Bay Area is
                               is a joke.
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.
                    \_ 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:
                                   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
                                      \_ 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
                                                           \_ 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.
                  Several commenters here says that "the" is used in Canada.
                                                         \_ People elsewhere
                                                            manage to call
                                                            "soda" "pop", too.
                                                            Is that also
                                                            \_ That's a
                                                               not gramatically
                                                               illogical, like
                                                               "the 405" is.
                                                               \_ "the 405"
                                                                  is short
                                                                  for "the
                                                                  405 freeway"
                                                                  which is
                                                         \-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.
                                                           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
                                                                 Do you say
                                                                 "get on
                                                                 freeway" or
                                                                 "get on the
                                                                 BTW, "maths"
                                                                 annoys me, too.
                                                                 annoys me,
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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. (
        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?
        \_ 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,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
                   \_ 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
        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!
        \_ 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"
        '"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" (
        "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

        Not all suburbs are the same.
        \_ Yeah, take Saratoga for example - no sidewalks or street lights.
        \_ San Francisco: 2nd skinniest county in America
  (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
        \_ 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
                                \_ "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
                                         \_ 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.
        \_ 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
           \_ 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
              \_ 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.
              \_ 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
        \- 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
           \_ 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><DEAD> "speculator" and a <DEAD><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:
        "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
                            \_ 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
                                  \_ 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 (
        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)
2008/4/4-9 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:49667 Activity:nil
4/4     "Slow Down a Little, Save a Lot of Gas" (
        \_ 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
        \_ 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:
        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 (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
        \_ 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
                 \_ 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
                       (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
           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
           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
              \_ 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"
        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
        \_ 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
           \_ 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
           \_ 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.
           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? (Twin
        \_ 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:
                                                  Oakland data from NAI:
                                                  Bulk warehouse rent - $5/sq ft
                                                  Industrial land price is
                                                  $300-750 k/acre
                                                  SF data from NAI:
                                                  Bulk warehouse rent - $9/sq ft
                                                  Land price - $1.6-6M/acre
                                                  Marin data from NAI:
                                                  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
                                    \_ 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
                               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. 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
                                                             \_ Actually 21km
                                                                which is 13 mi,
                                                                but who's
                                                          \_ You're clearly an
                                                             idiot who's never
                                                             spent any serious
                                                             time in New York.
                                                             \_ 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 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?
                    \_ 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?
        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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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?
        \_ My 82 Datsun 720 diesel pickup beats that. -scottyg
           \_ My whimpy '87 Ford Escort Pony 4-seater used to get 38mpg
        \_ 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
              \_ "...... 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.
           \_ 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?)
              \_ 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.
                \_ 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!
        \_ 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:
        "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!
        \_ 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"
        "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 (
        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
        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:
        \_ 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
                 \_ 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.
        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.
        \_ 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
                             \_ 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
                             \- 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
                                \_ 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: (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
                                            \_ 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.
                                                 \_ 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.
                                            \_ 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
                                                     \_ "Piles of government
                                \_ 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
        \_ 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?
                 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
        "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
           \_ 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
                 \_ 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.
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!
        \_ 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
           \_ 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.
                    \_ 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
           \_ "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
2007/4/22-25 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46413 Activity:nil
4/22    "NYC pledges 1 million new trees by 2017"
        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 (
        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
        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:
        \_ 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, house, prestige.and to
           undervalue what giving up: sleep, exercise, fun.
  (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."
        \_ $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
        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
           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
                    \_ 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.
              \_ 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.
                    \_ 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:
                             \_ 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
                                      (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.
                                \_ 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
                                      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.
                        \_ More witnesses:
                           "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
                            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."
          \_ 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).
2007/3/26-29 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46093 Activity:nil
3/26    "As Gas Rises, Flying May Be Cheaper Than Driving"
        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
              \_ And you get a good upper body workout too.
2007/2/11-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45711 Activity:nil
        "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
        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
                       \- in re: Paris, may be of interest:
                       \- 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:
                         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!
              \- 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
              \_ 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:

        \_ OLD.
2007/1/24 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:45576 Activity:moderate
1/23    User generated Chevy Tahoe commercial:
2007/1/14-23 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car] UID:45530 Activity:nil
        WSJ on web vigilantes. Features;;;
2022/08/07 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 151 - 229 of 229   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Transportation:Car:RoadHogs: