How Did I Miss This One?

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> [I have long held that a system like this is the ONLY way we will ever
> eliminate traffic congestion - we simply cannot build roads fast
> enough to outpace the ability of incompetents and LLBs to clog things
> up.]

I hold the same view. However I favor a cheaper solution. That is to remove
the incompetents and LLBs from the road.

BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging
and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a simple
increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the solution always
seems to involve government control.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:
>> [I have long held that a system like this is the ONLY way we will ever
>> eliminate traffic congestion - we simply cannot build roads fast
>> enough to outpace the ability of incompetents and LLBs to clog things
>> up.]
>
> I hold the same view. However I favor a cheaper solution. That is to
> remove
> the incompetents and LLBs from the road.
>
> BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging
> and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a simple
> increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the solution always
> seems to involve government control.

The analysis of congestion pricing in London found it was no better than a
traffic control system using present technology. Congestion pricing is
mainly a way for Governments to increase taxes, not to improve traffic.

You of course want it because you hope you Luddite fantasies will come true
by getting people to use transit, which will never happen. Transit is the
equivalent of trying to get people to go back to 8 track tape in an iPod
world. A very sophomoric view of the world.

Jack May wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote:

>>I hold the same view. However I favor a cheaper solution. That is to
>>remove the incompetents and LLBs from the road.
>>
>>BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging
>>and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a simple
>>increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the solution always
>>seems to involve government control.

> The analysis of congestion pricing in London found it was no better than a
> traffic control system using present technology. Congestion pricing is
> mainly a way for Governments to increase taxes, not to improve traffic.
>
> You of course want it because you hope you Luddite fantasies will come true
> by getting people to use transit, which will never happen.

Having problems with reading comprehension?

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
>
>> "Brent P" > wrote:
>
>
>>> I hold the same view. However I favor a cheaper solution. That is to
>>> remove the incompetents and LLBs from the road.
>>>
>>> BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging
>>> and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a simple
>>> increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the solution
>>> always
>>> seems to involve government control.
>
>
>> The analysis of congestion pricing in London found it was no better
>> than a traffic control system using present technology. Congestion
>> pricing is mainly a way for Governments to increase taxes, not to
>> improve traffic.
>>
>> You of course want it because you hope you Luddite fantasies will come
>> true by getting people to use transit, which will never happen.
>
>
> Having problems with reading comprehension?

The old two cultures thing, I'm afraid. His maths are pretty good.

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

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

In article >, Jack May wrote:

> You of course want it because you hope you Luddite fantasies will come true
> by getting people to use transit, which will never happen.

I don't want the tracking taxing scheme. I am dead set against it. I
believe transit should be built and run so it's useful. People will then
choose it because it is useful.

> Transit is the
> equivalent of trying to get people to go back to 8 track tape in an iPod
> world. A very sophomoric view of the world.

That's because US transit is more or less a broken down 1940s system. In
some places of chicago and NYC it's a 19th century system.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Scott en
> Aztlán wrote:
>> [I have long held that a system like this is the ONLY way we will
>> ever eliminate traffic congestion - we simply cannot build roads fast
>> enough to outpace the ability of incompetents and LLBs to clog things
>> up.]
>
> I hold the same view. However I favor a cheaper solution. That is to
> remove the incompetents and LLBs from the road.

yes,it's always said that driving is a privelege,not a right. Thus,only
those who can do it properly should have the privelege;that's the basis
behind our current license system,although not enforced.
>
> BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging
> and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a
> simple increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the
> solution always seems to involve government control.
>

Driving is freedom.
One(or more) can go when they want,where they want.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> yes,it's always said that driving is a privelege,not a right. Thus,only
> those who can do it properly should have the privelege;that's the basis
> behind our current license system,although not enforced.

That concept is only brought up when they wish to force us to sign away
rights to be able to drive.

>> BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of logging
>> and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce driving a
>> simple increase in the gasoline tax would be enough. However the
>> solution always seems to involve government control.

> Driving is freedom.
> One(or more) can go when they want,where they want.

Being allowed to drive IMO should be a right, being able to do it on a
public road should require demonstration that a person would not
interfere with the rights of others on the roadway. (competence)

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> yes,it's always said that driving is a privelege,not a right.
>> Thus,only those who can do it properly should have the
>> privelege;that's the basis behind our current license system,although
>> not enforced.
>
> That concept is only brought up when they wish to force us to sign
> away rights to be able to drive.

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

>
>>> BTW, the goal of congestion pricing etc and so forth is one of
>>> logging and controling travel. If they really wanted to reduce
>>> driving a simple increase in the gasoline tax would be enough.
>>> However the solution always seems to involve government control.
>
>> Driving is freedom.
>> One(or more) can go when they want,where they want.
>
> Being allowed to drive IMO should be a right,

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

> being able to do it on a
> public road should require demonstration that a person would not
> interfere with the rights of others on the roadway. (competence)
>
>

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

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

> (Brent P) wrote:
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>>> yes,it's always said that driving is a privelege,not a right. Thus,only
>>> those who can do it properly should have the privelege;that's the basis
>>> behind our current license system,although not enforced.
>>
>> That concept is only brought up when they wish to force us to sign away
>> rights to be able to drive.
>
> IMO,the "privelege" concept is used to allow for DUI roadblocks and other
> unconstitutional behavior on the part of authorities. Not so much for
> removing bad drivers "priveleges" after a history of bad driving.
> Besides,even Rights can be revoked,by a court of law.Ask any felon. They
> lose the right to vote,the RKBA...

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

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

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>> That concept is only brought up when they wish to force us to sign
>> away rights to be able to drive.

> IMO,the "privelege" concept is used to allow for DUI roadblocks and other
> unconstitutional behavior on the part of authorities.

That's what I meant. We have to sign away the bill of rights to get
behind the wheel.

>>> Driving is freedom.
>>> One(or more) can go when they want,where they want.

>> Being allowed to drive IMO should be a right,

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

One cannot even store automobiles on his own private property these days.