Political Crossfire Forums

[black noise]

This article was written by a local bicycle activist in Santa Cruz County, Ca and it ran in the Sentinel. For some perspective, Santa Cruz is having a debate currently over wether or not to widen their highway through town.

Quote: On Earth Day, in Sacramento, President Bush again described "a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Like any addiction, admitting to the problem is the beginning of recovery. What do we do next, as a society, to kick this addiction?

It makes sense to begin with the largest consumer. At 40.7 percent, cars, pick-ups and SUVs are far and away the single largest consumer of oil in this country. By way of comparison, large transport trucks are next at 12.7 percent and heating oil is at 4.9 percent. C. Komanoff, from Department of Energy statistics. Our addiction to oil is, to a large degree, an addiction to cars.

The president seems to be aware of this, and calls for the use of "better batteries for hybrid and electric cars and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen." Unfortunately, there are no cars that run on hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source but a way to store energy. And the energy to separate the hydrogen from water and place it in the fuel cells will come from where? The president seems a bit vague on this point. This is the classic behavior of an addict, even a self-professed one.

On April 25, a Sentinel editorial caught the Democrats exhibiting another sign of addiction — looking for a scapegoat, in this case Big Oil. I don't think we should waste our time with either fancy batteries or figure pointing. I know its complicated compared to generating hydrogen fuel cells with nuclear reactors, but maybe we should, you know, drive less. If each household, for example, got rid of one car and drove the other one slightly more, its total miles driven would be reduced by 40 percent — enough to eliminate the need for the violence around importing Mid-East oil. What would that look like, on a societal level?

Getting rid of one car would reduce the expenses of your average household by 7.5 percent derived from National Highway statistics. These savings could help make the transition a positive one. Some families could use the savings to work less and walk their children to school. Others could use the extra money to move to within walking/ biking distance of where they work, even if that meant paying 22.5 percent more on housing housing represents a third of each household expenses.

Getting rid of one car per household would free up $385 million, annually, in Santa Cruz County — 91,139 cars multiplied by $4,227.00 per vehicle — the amount, according to a pamphlet put out by the county Regional Transportation Commission, our society spends on each car. With that kind of wealth we could build a 31-mile bike trail every year, run trains to Watsonville every hour, make major inroads in the cost of housing, and still pay less in taxes.

Or forget economics and walk down a typical street, noting how much space is taken up cars: the street itself, outdoor and indoor parking, auto supply shops and gas stations. North American cities devote 30- to 60-percent of their urban areas to roads and parking alone. Rodrgue: "The Geography of Transport Systems". Keeping in mind that each car in Santa Cruz is allocated three to four parking spaces: at least one for home, work, and shopping, imagine taking 275,417 parking spaces out and using that space for housing, for parks, for schools, for commerce that generates tax money. To a large degree, it is the car itself that makes everything so far away that we feel compelled to drive to it.

Once we think about it, each of us can identify cities that are more auto centric than less. Cities like Santa Cruz have refused to use space and money on expanding infrastructure to cater to cars. As a result these cities end up with dense downtowns, public transportation, infill housing, clustered businesses, and greenbelts. This kind of planning further encourages the use of feet and bicycles, creating an upward spiral towards a livable city, a trend occurring all over the country. Urban rail systems are on the rise in such unlikely places as San Jose and Los Angeles. Ivy League campuses are closing their cores to automobiles and, in a recent survey of members of AAA, 89 percent of their members favor increasing subsidies for public transportation.

Here in Santa Cruz County our public debate on widening Highway 1 is, at heart, about whether to expand the amount of space and resources we as a county devote to car infrastructure. In a society as addicted to oil as ours, saying no to this kind of development is like saying no to someone passing around a cigarette, or a syringe. It's not an easy thing to do, and can be painful in the short term, before the above-mentioned positive effects of reducing driving help to counteract our dependency.

Nevertheless, after knocking on thousands of doors in all parts of the county as part of the Campaign for Sensible Transportation, en Ingles y Espanol, I find that most county residents are not happy with the amount that we are forced to drive by our current transportation system. We move around more than we really want to, and work more than we want to in order to pay for it. The difficult part for people seems to be imagining that society could be organized differently. This is a classic sign of addiction. How can I possibly be happy, the marijuana addict thinks, without waking up and smoking? How can I get my kids to school, and both of us to work, without our cars?

According to longtime activist and state Sen. Tom Hayden "change begins in the individual lives of countless people when they no longer accept existing conditions as inevitable." Though not an easy task, this kind of change is the only true antidote to our addition to oil. President Bush has taken the first step. The next one is up to us: imagine a world with fewer cars.

Personally I think this is a very interesting article that brings up many valid points. Cities would be much better to live in if their streets weren't clogged with cars and people could walk and bike without the fear of being struch by a car, not to mention the air being cleaner, streets being quieter, and space being freed up because cars and parking lots aren't hogging it. In my opinion over the last 100 years the growth of the car has been fueled by profit, not by human need. If we had designed cities around people in the US, they would be better places to live in. For example look at cities in Europe (which were designed around humans, before cars existed) compared to a modern US city like LA (designed around cars. Cities are nicer when they cater to human needs.

As gas prices spiral upward with no sign of ever coming back down, the stupidity of the car as a primary form of transportation is revealed. Would anyone here rather live in a sprawling metropolis where your time is divided between work, home, and driving instead of living in a dense city where everything is in walking distance?

[ieatfood]

look, not everyone likes to ride bikes
stop trying to force everyone else to live the life you want them to live

this is a free country
if people want to ride bikes, they should ride bikes
if people want to drive hybrids, they should drive hybrids
if people want to drive hummers, they should drive hummers

worry about yourself
other peoples living habits are none of your business

[Gryff1nd0r]

I wouldn't call cars stupid, that's pretty harsh.

I pretty much drive my car whenever I have to, no more or less. If I am in biking distance, I will bike, but really it is impossible to bike to most of my destinations, and if it is, (like the grocery store) I need storage space, so I still need my car.

cars = good

pollution free cars of the future = better

[Rankor and Pissing]

Here's something I stubled upon just now on a "six stroke engine". For those not too familiar with the types of cumbustion engines we all use in our gas powered cars - we use a 4 stroke engine, which are the numbers of strokes for a full cycle to occur mixing fuel and air ignition and the return... this guy has patented a 6 stroke engine, which converts the lost heat and energy and could help boost fuel consumption by 45%, as well as eliminate the need for the radiators, fans, and other cooling aparatus that's in all straight gas powered engines today.

This is way overdue, especially since the cumbustion engine really hasn't changed in over 100 years.


http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE

[black noise]

ieatfood wrote: look, not everyone likes to ride bikes
stop trying to force everyone else to live the life you want them to live

this is a free country
if people want to ride bikes, they should ride bikes
if people want to drive hybrids, they should drive hybrids
if people want to drive hummers, they should drive hummers

worry about yourself
Jeez, I'm just saying. Where did I mention that everyone should ride bikes? I said that cars are not a good idea for primary transportation, and walking, biking, and trains (like NY subway or Paris metro) is far better for cities. I'd worry about myself but I'd rather give people an idea of what's possible and that cars are only necessary because how cities are designed has forced them to be necessary.

And cleaner cars... I don't know. Even if cars emitted nothing they still contribute to urban sprawl, take 50 hours a year from people in traffic, take $1000 a year in costs from spending time in traffic, kill 50,000 people a year, turn towns into anti-human sprawls of road designed solely for driving, working, and shopping, and consume more than half of a citie's land area.

Quote: other peoples living habits are none of your business This makes me laugh. This whole forum is filled with people arguing about how to live. Vegetarians vs vegans vs meat eaters, bikes vs cars, god vs science... this forum wouln't exist without people arguing over how to live.

So now that we've gotten that out of the way and we've established that I don't want to force everyone to destroy their car and get onto a bike (though that wouldn't be horrible), would you seriously prefer Los Angeles where people spend 50 hours every year in traffic to a denser city where cars are not required to live? Have fun in your traffic jam, I'll be "forcing everyone else" to live in a clean, safe town.

Cars by themselves are not bad. They can be incredibly useful in many circumstances. But when they're used by millions of people every day at the same time for transportation it's clear that they're not the best idea.

[bob.appleyard]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Here's something I stubled upon just now on a "six stroke engine". For those not too familiar with the types of cumbustion engines we all use in our gas powered cars - we use a 4 stroke engine, which are the numbers of strokes for a full cycle to occur mixing fuel and air ignition and the return... this guy has patented a 6 stroke engine, which converts the lost heat and energy and could help boost fuel consumption by 45%, as well as eliminate the need for the radiators, fans, and other cooling aparatus that's in all straight gas powered engines today.

This is way overdue, especially since the cumbustion engine really hasn't changed in over 100 years.


http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE

Pretty cool. I don't know what else has it, but the new Golf GTI has an engine where fuel and oxygen are injected into the cyliners according to the required amount of thrust, so that no fuel is wasted. It pretty cool. If you're careful with it, you can get 30+ mpg out of it, but if you're a boy racer like me it's nothing like that...

I'm really glad I don't own a car.

[poweRob]

The car's successor (within metropolitan areas):

Skyweb.





Swipe your transportation card, enter destination code, nonstop riding to your destination. No riding with others you don't want. No stopping to pick anyone up. No exhaust/emmissions pollution (electric). Please save your breath "but electricity uses dirty coal" people. That's a different argument and therefore would be a red herring to the topic. The reason I brought it up at all is that in traffic, you don't breath the exhaust of the vehicle in in front of you with this system.

AND! Unlike modern transportation systems of buses and trains, at bus fare prices ($1.00 per ride), this system is self sustaining and needs no taxpayer subsidies.

[John Galt]

poweRob wrote: The car's successor (within metropolitan areas):

Skyweb.





Swipe your transportation card, enter destination code, nonstop riding to your destination. No riding with others you don't want. No stopping to pick anyone up. No exhaust/emmissions pollution (electric). Please save your breath "but electricity uses dirty coal" people. That's a different argument and therefore would be a red herring to the topic. The reason I brought it up at all is that in traffic, you don't breath the exhaust of the vehicle in in front of you with this system.

AND! Unlike modern transportation systems of buses and trains, at bus fare prices ($1.00 per ride), this system is self sustaining and needs no taxpayer subsidies.

Well then, finally we can stop paying taxes for roads. That's a ton of savings every year in my pocketbook from less taxes. I'm all for it. I mean, NO PUBLIC FUNDING WHATSOEVER! That's awesome. 100% behind this.

Of course, public transportation "works great" in London. High population density. Private mass transportation would work just dandy too. But aside from a few select cities in the US, most don't have nearly the density that the euphorists like the OP talk about. This is why public transportation needs subsidies. If people really wanted it, then they would build it themselves. Sure, use the government for eminent domain type issues, if imperative, but not to support the damn things.

[connermt]

black noise wrote: This article was written by a local bicycle activist in Santa Cruz County, Ca and it ran in the Sentinel. For some perspective, Santa Cruz is having a debate currently over wether or not to widen their highway through town.

Quote: On Earth Day, in Sacramento, President Bush again described "a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Like any addiction, admitting to the problem is the beginning of recovery. What do we do next, as a society, to kick this addiction?

It makes sense to begin with the largest consumer. At 40.7 percent, cars, pick-ups and SUVs are far and away the single largest consumer of oil in this country. By way of comparison, large transport trucks are next at 12.7 percent and heating oil is at 4.9 percent. C. Komanoff, from Department of Energy statistics. Our addiction to oil is, to a large degree, an addiction to cars.

The president seems to be aware of this, and calls for the use of "better batteries for hybrid and electric cars and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen." Unfortunately, there are no cars that run on hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source but a way to store energy. And the energy to separate the hydrogen from water and place it in the fuel cells will come from where? The president seems a bit vague on this point. This is the classic behavior of an addict, even a self-professed one.

On April 25, a Sentinel editorial caught the Democrats exhibiting another sign of addiction — looking for a scapegoat, in this case Big Oil. I don't think we should waste our time with either fancy batteries or figure pointing. I know its complicated compared to generating hydrogen fuel cells with nuclear reactors, but maybe we should, you know, drive less. If each household, for example, got rid of one car and drove the other one slightly more, its total miles driven would be reduced by 40 percent — enough to eliminate the need for the violence around importing Mid-East oil. What would that look like, on a societal level?

Getting rid of one car would reduce the expenses of your average household by 7.5 percent derived from National Highway statistics. These savings could help make the transition a positive one. Some families could use the savings to work less and walk their children to school. Others could use the extra money to move to within walking/ biking distance of where they work, even if that meant paying 22.5 percent more on housing housing represents a third of each household expenses.

Getting rid of one car per household would free up $385 million, annually, in Santa Cruz County — 91,139 cars multiplied by $4,227.00 per vehicle — the amount, according to a pamphlet put out by the county Regional Transportation Commission, our society spends on each car. With that kind of wealth we could build a 31-mile bike trail every year, run trains to Watsonville every hour, make major inroads in the cost of housing, and still pay less in taxes.

Or forget economics and walk down a typical street, noting how much space is taken up cars: the street itself, outdoor and indoor parking, auto supply shops and gas stations. North American cities devote 30- to 60-percent of their urban areas to roads and parking alone. Rodrgue: "The Geography of Transport Systems". Keeping in mind that each car in Santa Cruz is allocated three to four parking spaces: at least one for home, work, and shopping, imagine taking 275,417 parking spaces out and using that space for housing, for parks, for schools, for commerce that generates tax money. To a large degree, it is the car itself that makes everything so far away that we feel compelled to drive to it.

Once we think about it, each of us can identify cities that are more auto centric than less. Cities like Santa Cruz have refused to use space and money on expanding infrastructure to cater to cars. As a result these cities end up with dense downtowns, public transportation, infill housing, clustered businesses, and greenbelts. This kind of planning further encourages the use of feet and bicycles, creating an upward spiral towards a livable city, a trend occurring all over the country. Urban rail systems are on the rise in such unlikely places as San Jose and Los Angeles. Ivy League campuses are closing their cores to automobiles and, in a recent survey of members of AAA, 89 percent of their members favor increasing subsidies for public transportation.

Here in Santa Cruz County our public debate on widening Highway 1 is, at heart, about whether to expand the amount of space and resources we as a county devote to car infrastructure. In a society as addicted to oil as ours, saying no to this kind of development is like saying no to someone passing around a cigarette, or a syringe. It's not an easy thing to do, and can be painful in the short term, before the above-mentioned positive effects of reducing driving help to counteract our dependency.

Nevertheless, after knocking on thousands of doors in all parts of the county as part of the Campaign for Sensible Transportation, en Ingles y Espanol, I find that most county residents are not happy with the amount that we are forced to drive by our current transportation system. We move around more than we really want to, and work more than we want to in order to pay for it. The difficult part for people seems to be imagining that society could be organized differently. This is a classic sign of addiction. How can I possibly be happy, the marijuana addict thinks, without waking up and smoking? How can I get my kids to school, and both of us to work, without our cars?

According to longtime activist and state Sen. Tom Hayden "change begins in the individual lives of countless people when they no longer accept existing conditions as inevitable." Though not an easy task, this kind of change is the only true antidote to our addition to oil. President Bush has taken the first step. The next one is up to us: imagine a world with fewer cars.

Personally I think this is a very interesting article that brings up many valid points. Cities would be much better to live in if their streets weren't clogged with cars and people could walk and bike without the fear of being struch by a car, not to mention the air being cleaner, streets being quieter, and space being freed up because cars and parking lots aren't hogging it. In my opinion over the last 100 years the growth of the car has been fueled by profit, not by human need. If we had designed cities around people in the US, they would be better places to live in. For example look at cities in Europe (which were designed around humans, before cars existed) compared to a modern US city like LA (designed around cars. Cities are nicer when they cater to human needs.

As gas prices spiral upward with no sign of ever coming back down, the stupidity of the car as a primary form of transportation is revealed. Would anyone here rather live in a sprawling metropolis where your time is divided between work, home, and driving instead of living in a dense city where everything is in walking distance?

A world with fewer cars.....absolutely horrible.
:cry:
Less cars = :evil:
Better, more efficient cars = :)

[perdidochas]

black noise wrote:
Personally I think this is a very interesting article that brings up many valid points. Cities would be much better to live in if their streets weren't clogged with cars and people could walk and bike without the fear of being struch by a car, not to mention the air being cleaner, streets being quieter, and space being freed up because cars and parking lots aren't hogging it. In my opinion over the last 100 years the growth of the car has been fueled by profit, not by human need. If we had designed cities around people in the US, they would be better places to live in. For example look at cities in Europe (which were designed around humans, before cars existed) compared to a modern US city like LA (designed around cars. Cities are nicer when they cater to human needs.

Well, I think you are confusing human with pedestrian. Cities are designed with human needs in mind, even the current urban sprawl is designed for humans. I do totally agree that most of modern suburbia isn't designed for pedestrians or bicyclists, but they are designed for humans.

black noise wrote: As gas prices spiral upward with no sign of ever coming back down, the stupidity of the car as a primary form of transportation is revealed. Would anyone here rather live in a sprawling metropolis where your time is divided between work, home, and driving instead of living in a dense city where everything is in walking distance?

Well, yes. I don't want to live in close proximity with thousands of other people. Personally, I wish that I could telecommute a few days a week.

[poweRob]

John Galt wrote: poweRob wrote: The car's successor (within metropolitan areas):

Skyweb.





Swipe your transportation card, enter destination code, nonstop riding to your destination. No riding with others you don't want. No stopping to pick anyone up. No exhaust/emmissions pollution (electric). Please save your breath "but electricity uses dirty coal" people. That's a different argument and therefore would be a red herring to the topic. The reason I brought it up at all is that in traffic, you don't breath the exhaust of the vehicle in in front of you with this system.

AND! Unlike modern transportation systems of buses and trains, at bus fare prices ($1.00 per ride), this system is self sustaining and needs no taxpayer subsidies.

Well then, finally we can stop paying taxes for roads. That's a ton of savings every year in my pocketbook from less taxes. I'm all for it. I mean, NO PUBLIC FUNDING WHATSOEVER! That's awesome. 100% behind this.

Of course, public transportation "works great" in London. High population density. Private mass transportation would work just dandy too. But aside from a few select cities in the US, most don't have nearly the density that the euphorists like the OP talk about. This is why public transportation needs subsidies. If people really wanted it, then they would build it themselves. Sure, use the government for eminent domain type issues, if imperative, but not to support the damn things.

It's no pancea for the country but as I stated at the beginning of the post, for metropolitan areas, it could do vast wonders. If you live outside the city and want to visit, you drive to the border of the metropolitan area and hop aboard and go whereever. (Kind of what I used to do to go to the Braves games in Atlanta when I'd drive over to Atlanta and jump the MARTA train to downtown).

I believe it would also do wonders for the heat island effects of major cities by allowing them to tear up the bulk of the paved roadways rather than expanding them as well as being able to give the property back to the citizens and the homes where ever-expanding roads had once taken them away.

[John Galt]

Oh another thing.... I'd be bored in those things. They need entertainment. Or maybe a fake stearingwheel. Something. Anything. There's too much foot room. rabble rabble rabble. No but really, if not one dime is public -- go for it.

[black noise]

perdidochas wrote: black noise wrote:
Personally I think this is a very interesting article that brings up many valid points. Cities would be much better to live in if their streets weren't clogged with cars and people could walk and bike without the fear of being struch by a car, not to mention the air being cleaner, streets being quieter, and space being freed up because cars and parking lots aren't hogging it. In my opinion over the last 100 years the growth of the car has been fueled by profit, not by human need. If we had designed cities around people in the US, they would be better places to live in. For example look at cities in Europe (which were designed around humans, before cars existed) compared to a modern US city like LA (designed around cars. Cities are nicer when they cater to human needs.

Well, I think you are confusing human with pedestrian. Cities are designed with human needs in mind, even the current urban sprawl is designed for humans. I do totally agree that most of modern suburbia isn't designed for pedestrians or bicyclists, but they are designed for humans.
They are designed for humans who drive cars. You are required to own a car to live in many cities. You're forced to buy gas, pay for insurance, repairs, etc. There is no room for people who don't want to buy a car. This is especially important for poor people who need to live hours away to find the affordable housing and end up spending 1/4 or more of their income on transportation, and there's really no alternative. What happens to these people when gas prices go up and their city was built with cars as the only way of getting from place to place?

[perdidochas]

black noise wrote: perdidochas wrote: black noise wrote:
Personally I think this is a very interesting article that brings up many valid points. Cities would be much better to live in if their streets weren't clogged with cars and people could walk and bike without the fear of being struch by a car, not to mention the air being cleaner, streets being quieter, and space being freed up because cars and parking lots aren't hogging it. In my opinion over the last 100 years the growth of the car has been fueled by profit, not by human need. If we had designed cities around people in the US, they would be better places to live in. For example look at cities in Europe (which were designed around humans, before cars existed) compared to a modern US city like LA (designed around cars. Cities are nicer when they cater to human needs.

Well, I think you are confusing human with pedestrian. Cities are designed with human needs in mind, even the current urban sprawl is designed for humans. I do totally agree that most of modern suburbia isn't designed for pedestrians or bicyclists, but they are designed for humans.
They are designed for humans who drive cars. You are required to own a car to live in many cities. You're forced to buy gas, pay for insurance, repairs, etc. There is no room for people who don't want to buy a car. This is especially important for poor people who need to live hours away to find the affordable housing and end up spending 1/4 or more of their income on transportation, and there's really no alternative. What happens to these people when gas prices go up and their city was built with cars as the only way of getting from place to place?

I'm not saying that the way things are currently designed is the best, just that we design our communities to fit the way we live at that time. Humans designed the suburban sprawl model for a reason. It allowed us to not live like bees in a hive, which is what I think of apartment living. Alternatives will be developed as the need for them develops. Human cities/culture/technologies change and adapt for the conditions at the time. They will adapt according to the economy.

[Green]

ieatfood wrote: look, not everyone likes to ride bikes
stop trying to force everyone else to live the life you want them to live

this is a free country
if people want to ride bikes, they should ride bikes
if people want to drive hybrids, they should drive hybrids
if people want to drive hummers, they should drive hummers

worry about yourself
other peoples living habits are none of your business
Having to cover up lighted windows in WWII was not a choice we wanted to make. Although they never attacked us, if our neighbor had his lights shining, you would both be bombed. It's a free country but we can't use DDT. Gas guzzlers are causing problems and they are going to have to disapear.

Civics have engines that are three times larger than most cars in Europe.

The six stroke combustion engine- The invention was sold out by Big oil because they want people to buy hummers that use tons of gas. One hundred mpg would cut into profits. I condemn big oil!

[John Galt]

Green wrote: ieatfood wrote: look, not everyone likes to ride bikes
stop trying to force everyone else to live the life you want them to live

this is a free country
if people want to ride bikes, they should ride bikes
if people want to drive hybrids, they should drive hybrids
if people want to drive hummers, they should drive hummers

worry about yourself
other peoples living habits are none of your business
Having to cover up lighted windows in WWII was not a choice we wanted to make. Although they never attacked us, if our neighbor had his lights shining, you would both be bombed. It's a free country but we can't use DDT. Gas guzzlers are causing problems and they are going to have to disapear.

Civics have engines that are three times larger than most cars in Europe.

The six stroke combustion engine- The invention was sold out by Big oil because they want people to buy hummers that use tons of gas. One hundred mpg would cut into profits. I condemn big oil!

Link?

[poweRob]

John Galt wrote: Oh another thing.... I'd be bored in those things. They need entertainment. Or maybe a fake stearingwheel. Something. Anything. There's too much foot room. rabble rabble rabble. No but really, if not one dime is public -- go for it.

I'd imagine you'd be able to read a book, plug in a laptop, listen to MP3's. OR... (my idea here I thought of a while back) Have absolutely free transportation and drop in an LCD screen and sell ads for revenue. Unfortunately it'd be a captive audience that would get annoyed to death and probably destroy the LCD screen after breeching an annoyance/patience limit.

[mathurin]

Green wrote: ieatfood wrote: look, not everyone likes to ride bikes
stop trying to force everyone else to live the life you want them to live

this is a free country
if people want to ride bikes, they should ride bikes
if people want to drive hybrids, they should drive hybrids
if people want to drive hummers, they should drive hummers

worry about yourself
other peoples living habits are none of your business
Having to cover up lighted windows in WWII was not a choice we wanted to make. Although they never attacked us, if our neighbor had his lights shining, you would both be bombed. It's a free country but we can't use DDT. Gas guzzlers are causing problems and they are going to have to disapear.

Civics have engines that are three times larger than most cars in Europe.

The six stroke combustion engine- The invention was sold out by Big oil because they want people to buy hummers that use tons of gas. One hundred mpg would cut into profits. I condemn big oil!

WWII was a time of war
DDT was killing our national bird, luckily we killed enough mosquitos to get rid of malaria before we banned DDT

and somehow civics still seem to be too wuss for me
i have a 1979 camaro, the engine is currently 5.0 liter, but that is to small for me, this summer i will be upgrading to a 5.7 liter
more power baby, not to mention that it is all cheaper than buying and paying tags and taxes on a new crappy civic
here is something to blow your mind, my brother drives a 73 caddilac, it is around 8 liters:!:

how was the invention sold out by big oil?
all i see is a news story from a car magazine (not even a really good one) website that describes an experimental engine, a good idea, but not all good ideas on paper, or even in prototypes, wind up being good in the practical world, the engine might have rought power output incompatible with vehicle running, bottom line, it has been 2 months since a guy made the most basic prototype, it is waaaaaaaaaaaaay to early to decide he has sold out because it is not on the lot

[John Galt]

Actually DDT's banning is based on junk "science." Rachel Carson's experiments have never been repeated. In fact, she didn't even do them. SHe made up claims about other people's experiments, called them "classic" and led the charge against one of the greatest inventions man has ever made which saved millions and millions of lives. THANK YOU EUPHORISTS FOR "SAVING" BIRDS AT THE EXPENSE OF HUMANS.

Oh, link: http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm Has refrences to peer reviewed journals, debunking Carson's and other's claims that have led to the death of millions.

[Blinky]

ieatfood wrote: look, not everyone likes to ride bikes
stop trying to force everyone else to live the life you want them to live

this is a free country
if people want to ride bikes, they should ride bikes
if people want to drive hybrids, they should drive hybrids
if people want to drive hummers, they should drive hummers

worry about yourself
other peoples living habits are none of your business


ieatfood, other people's living habits ARE my/yours/everybody's business if they affect my/your/everybody's life.
Hummers use more fuel, creating more exhaust fumes, contributing more to air pollution/global warming etc. These far reaching issues affect everyone, so therefore they are our business. I for one don't want my children or grandchildren growing up wearing gas masks because the Earth's atmosphere has been totally f***ed up by morons who think they can do whatever the hell they want.
Your line of thinking is tantamount to your neighbour deciding he'll open a manure store in his front yard, and damn how you feel about the idea - a man's gotta make a living, right?
Let me ask you something - Do you currently live on a busy road and next to a coal burning plant? Why not? I bet it would be much cheaper - you'd save a fortune!




mathurin wrote: WWII was a time of war
DDT was killing our national bird

Guess what? Petrol fuelled motor vehicles are (slowly) killing us and the entire planet.


Quote: and somehow civics still seem to be too wuss for me
i have a 1979 camaro, the engine is currently 5.0 liter, but that is to small for me, this summer i will be upgrading to a 5.7 liter
more power baby

Good to see your priorities are thoroughly backwards.