|
General » rec.autos.driving » Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797701 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 02:48 |
|
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mar 9, 4:47 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1... [at] wvu.edu> wrote:
>> Driving slower doesn't save a significant amount of fuel (I might get an
>> additional 30 miles in a tank of gas by driving slower).
> That's very substantial. Depending on what you drive, that could be
> anywhere from ~0.6 to 3 gallons. Insignificant would be <10 miles per
> tank.
No it isn't. In my car, it's probably around a gallon (which in itself
is worth nowhere near as much as the time I lose by driving slower to
save $3.50 worth of gas). Compare that to using 0 gallons in 5 days and
probably around 3 to 4 gallons per weekend to how many gallons you use
per week while driving 50 mph instead of 60 mph. FYI, I don't have to
refuel more often than once a month in the summer (even less if I choose
not to drive on weekends) with a car that has a 16 gallon fuel tank.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797702 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 02:48 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <9G_Aj.5697$Sa1.1300 [at] news02.roc.ny>, Arif Khokar wrote:
>>> or you can give people in the middle east who dispise us a lot
>> That's because we hate their freedoms.
> That's a good one... mind if I steal it? :)
Sure, go ahead :)
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797703 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 02:57 |
|
On Mar 11, 9:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
>
> >>I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
> >>consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
> >>how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
>
> > You overestimate the intelligence of the Beavis and Butthead
> > generation by an order of magnitude. This is what happens when the
> > current run of 14-year-olds are allowed in the driver's seat...
>
> > http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_031108WAB_hwy_18_a ccident_L...
>
> Doesn't matter. Would you prefer *some* parental supervision or none at
> all? Those are your choices...
I'll take Full Parental Or Adult Supervision for 100, Alex.
>Truth is, driving is pretty much a
> requirement for functioning in society in most areas of the US, so far
> better for the initial experience behind the wheel to be supervised than
> not.
Truth is, that would be far better no matter what.
----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797710 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 03:27 |
|
On Mar 11, 9:02 pm, Paul Johnson <ba... [at] ursine.ca> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
>
> > I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
> > consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
> > how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
>
> You overestimate the intelligence of the Beavis and Butthead
> generation by an order of magnitude. This is what happens when the
> current run of 14-year-olds are allowed in the driver's seat...
>
> http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_031108WAB_hwy_18_a ccident_L...
Yeah, because NO ONE of legal age ever drinks and
drives................
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797714 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 03:39 |
|
In article <d045d49c-7f9f-42e1-bdc4-d9b1e3e9dabc [at] s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
>
>> I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
>> consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
>> how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
>
>You overestimate the intelligence of the Beavis and Butthead
>generation by an order of magnitude. This is what happens when the
>current run of 14-year-olds are allowed in the driver's seat...
>
> http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_031108WAB_hwy_18_a ccident_LJ.43c847c3.html
That sort of attitude is what led to the current problems.
But I like the article: " Troopers say when they arrived, the two
clearly appeared to be under the unfluence."
Typos usually aren't so funny.
Anyway, the existance of poor parents is a reason to restrict everyone.
Oh well, I should just give up, sit back and just watch the contry go to
hell.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797744 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 04:45 |
|
On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
> I have a different view on this. Where I grew up, I was licensed at age 14,
> and there was NO public transportation available, and everything was driving
> distance from just about everything else.
I'm going to hazard a guess that this was rural, and let's just say,
quite a while ago, no?
If so, well, a lot of things were different then.
> In areas where school buses operate at high school level and they make you
> wait until 16 or 17 to get your license, the 17 year old drivers are MUCH
> more dangerous than the 14 year old drivers that must drive, just to stay in
> school.
That's not my particular observation. Again, perhaps location has
something to do with it, although I grew up in a somewhat rural area
(northern MN)
> So many people advocate RAISING the minimum driving age to 17 or 18 or
> ????????
>
> But this ignores a very scary reality. We all know that parents of
> teenagers aren't always great drivers, but for the most part they do give a
> damn about TRYING to teach their kids to drive safely. By raising minimum
> driving age to 17 or 18, you are severely restricting the time frame in
> which the parents have the opportunity to TRY to teach their kids how to
> drive safely. End result is that our kids learn to drive from other kids
> after they head off to college in another state. Is that what we REALLY
> want? It certainly scares the shit out of me.
>
> I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
> consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
> how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
That's an interesting viewpoint.
Overall, though, these days I'd still see it the other way.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797754 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 07:37 |
|
On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
> > Lots of states used to allow 14 year olds (or whatever) to drive farm
> > implements on non-freeway roads. There were usually a ton of
> > restrictions--no night driving, only between your properties, etc.
>
> > Putting 14 year olds in regular driving situations is a great way to
> > reduce the general population.
>
> I have a different view on this. Where I grew up, I was licensed at age 14,
> and there was NO public transportation available, and everything was driving
> distance from just about everything else. In high school, every student
> drove to school as there was no bus service and bus service would have been
> prohibitively expensive due to the low population density. In areas where
> driving is legal at young ages like 14, there is usually a really good
> reason for that, which boils down to, you must drive...not for
> entertainment, but just to maintain your regular every day routine.
> When I was 14, driving was not such a big deal. Yeah, there were some
> hotheads who were irresponsible but for the most part my 14-15 year old
> peers treated their cars like the transportation appliance that it was, not
> a toy.
>
> In areas where school buses operate at high school level and they make you
> wait until 16 or 17 to get your license, the 17 year old drivers are MUCH
> more dangerous than the 14 year old drivers that must drive, just to stay in
> school.
>
> So many people advocate RAISING the minimum driving age to 17 or 18 or
> ????????
>
> But this ignores a very scary reality. We all know that parents of
> teenagers aren't always great drivers, but for the most part they do give a
> damn about TRYING to teach their kids to drive safely. By raising minimum
> driving age to 17 or 18, you are severely restricting the time frame in
> which the parents have the opportunity to TRY to teach their kids how to
> drive safely. End result is that our kids learn to drive from other kids
> after they head off to college in another state. Is that what we REALLY
> want? It certainly scares the shit out of me.
>
> I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
> consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
> how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
I'm in full agreement with you. I grew up in a similar situation where
I was out in the country in Idaho and I had to drive to get to school
at 15, so I did. And what I found is that upon arriving in college the
15 year old Idaho drivers who'd had their license for 3 years were far
more responsible then the 18 year old California drivers who had had
their license for six months. An 18 year old driving age makes it
really tough to break into driving .
I grew up in McCall, Idaho. When I was 15, I was allowed to go to
school, home and that's it. As I got older my parents were able to
slowly extend the leash and by the time I was 17 I was allowed to
drive to Boise (down admittedly dangerous SH 55). By the time I went
off to college in Washington I had almost four years of driving
experience under my belt and it was not a big deal for me to make the
McCall ID to Seattle trek underany weather conditions.
These kids that have had their licenses for six months and are then
allowed to drive 500-1000 miles for college are scary. They're not
only not used to not driving but they likely haven't had an
oppurtunity to build up their driving "endurance." I don't trust
someone who has never driven more then an hour to get in the car and
drive 12- 14 hours. That's scary, and kids should be given time to
build up to that level.
I admit that getting my driver's license at a young age in rural
conditions with horrible snow conditions probably put me at an
advantage compared to city kids getting their license at 15. I got my
driver's license in November and didn't see a road without ice for 6
months (and during my formative driving years I only had the luxury of
driving on dry pavement about 40% of the time), and I'd guess that the
overexposure to highly adverse weather conditions made me a more
responsible young driver (on my way in to school every day you'd
generally see three or four tourists with their cars in the ditch).
And as such, I had already driven in moderate two lane traffic for 2
years before I even touched a four lane road (nearest four lane road
(truck lanes excepted) from McCall being in Boise or Weiser). While
that may sound scary, the adjustment was really easy because I was
already completely in control of the car, and I feel like I became a
pretty good city driver pretty quickly.
I guess the point is that I think adequate time needs to be given to
slowly break kids into the road. I really think kids will be better
drivers if they are slowly pushed into tougher traffic conditions and
longer drives from a younger age then if they are just handed the keys
and sent off to college at 18.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797755 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 08:41 |
|
On Mar 11, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
>
> >>I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
> >>consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
> >>how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
>
> > You overestimate the intelligence of the Beavis and Butthead
> > generation by an order of magnitude. This is what happens when the
> > current run of 14-year-olds are allowed in the driver's seat...
>
> > http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_031108WAB_hwy_18_a ccident_L...
>
> Doesn't matter. Would you prefer *some* parental supervision or none at
> all? Those are your choices... Truth is, driving is pretty much a
> requirement for functioning in society in most areas of the US, so far
> better for the initial experience behind the wheel to be supervised than
> not.
Did you read that article at all? Supervision was involved.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797756 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 08:44 |
|
On Mar 11, 11:37 pm, "davidjcorco... [at] gmail.com"
<davidjcorco... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm in full agreement with you. I grew up in a similar situation where
> I was out in the country in Idaho and I had to drive to get to school
> at 15, so I did. And what I found is that upon arriving in college the
> 15 year old Idaho drivers who'd had their license for 3 years were far
> more responsible then the 18 year old California drivers who had had
> their license for six months. An 18 year old driving age makes it
> really tough to break into driving .
That's not really a fair comparison. A half-retarded monkey or that
drunk teenager from that NWCN story are, on average, more competant
than a Californian driver with 20 years of experience.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797757 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 13:29 |
|
In article <6f899ab7-5d93-46cc-8fa4-21429723a748 [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Mar 11, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
>>
>> >>I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
>> >>consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
>> >>how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
>>
>> > You overestimate the intelligence of the Beavis and Butthead
>> > generation by an order of magnitude. This is what happens when the
>> > current run of 14-year-olds are allowed in the driver's seat...
>>
>> > http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_031108WAB_hwy_18_a ccident_L...
>>
>> Doesn't matter. Would you prefer *some* parental supervision or none at
>> all? Those are your choices... Truth is, driving is pretty much a
>> requirement for functioning in society in most areas of the US, so far
>> better for the initial experience behind the wheel to be supervised than
>> not.
>
>Did you read that article at all? Supervision was involved.
So a few bad parents mean that everyone else has to be restricted?
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797758 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 14:13 |
|
On Mar 12, 8:29=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <6f899ab7-5d93-46cc-8fa4-21429723a... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.=
com>, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> >> Paul Johnson wrote:
> >> > On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
>
> >> >>I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental=
> >> >>consent. =A0This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach t=
he kid
> >> >>how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. =A0-Dave
>
> >> > You overestimate the intelligence of the Beavis and Butthead
> >> > generation by an order of magnitude. =A0This is what happens when the=
> >> > current run of 14-year-olds are allowed in the driver's seat...
>
> >> > http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_031108WAB_hwy_18_a ccident_L.=
...
>
> >> Doesn't matter. =A0Would you prefer *some* parental supervision or none=
at
> >> all? =A0Those are your choices... =A0Truth is, driving is pretty much a=
> >> requirement for functioning in society in most areas of the US, so far
> >> better for the initial experience behind the wheel to be supervised tha=
n
> >> not.
>
> >Did you read that article at all? =A0Supervision was involved.
>
> So a few bad parents mean that everyone else has to be restricted?
Apparently. I don't get it either.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797778 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 19:10 |
|
On Mar 4, 8:36 pm, My Land of Misery <gr... [at] netzero.net> wrote:
> http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/commutingt raffic/st...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2zx4la
>
> > > SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- Even as some states impose new restrictions on
> > > 16-year-old drivers in response to high accident rates, one Illinois
> > > lawmaker is suggesting going in the other direction -- allowing
> > > 14-year-olds behind the wheel.
>
> > > The idea is to let kids get their learners permits early enough to
> > > provide plenty of practice before they're actually licensed at 16.
>
> > > "I'm not asking for them to be able to jump in the car and drive down
> > > the road at 14. I'm asking for them to be able to learn at a younger
> > > age," says Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Freeport, the bill's sponsor. By lowering
> > > the age for a drivers permit to 14, Sacia argues, it's easier for
> > > those young drivers to get much-needed behind-the-wheel experience
> > > before they're licensed.
This is just more corruption. The auto industry pays congress to lower
driving ages since that means more drivers and more crashes for the
auto industry to profit from.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797779 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 19:15 |
|
On Mar 12, 1:10=A0pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<beta... [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:36 pm, My Land of Misery <gr... [at] netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/commutingt raffic/st...
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/2zx4la
>
> > > > SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- Even as some states impose new restrictions on
> > > > 16-year-old drivers in response to high accident rates, one Illinois=
> > > > lawmaker is suggesting going in the other direction -- allowing
> > > > 14-year-olds behind the wheel.
>
> > > > The idea is to let kids get their learners permits early enough to
> > > > provide plenty of practice before they're actually licensed at 16.
>
> > > > "I'm not asking for them to be able to jump in the car and drive dow=
n
> > > > the road at 14. I'm asking for them to be able to learn at a younger=
> > > > age," says Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Freeport, the bill's sponsor. By loweri=
ng
> > > > the age for a drivers permit to 14, Sacia argues, it's easier for
> > > > those young drivers to get much-needed behind-the-wheel experience
> > > > before they're licensed.
>
> This is just more corruption. The auto industry pays congress to lower
> driving ages since that means more drivers and more crashes for the
> auto industry to profit from.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's baloney. Illinois just raised the age to drive and increased
the amount of time a student driver must have before a license is
granted.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797782 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 19:26 |
|
On Mar 12, 1:10=A0pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<beta... [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:36 pm, My Land of Misery <gr... [at] netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/commutingt raffic/st...
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/2zx4la
>
> > > > SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- Even as some states impose new restrictions on
> > > > 16-year-old drivers in response to high accident rates, one Illinois=
> > > > lawmaker is suggesting going in the other direction -- allowing
> > > > 14-year-olds behind the wheel.
>
> > > > The idea is to let kids get their learners permits early enough to
> > > > provide plenty of practice before they're actually licensed at 16.
>
> > > > "I'm not asking for them to be able to jump in the car and drive dow=
n
> > > > the road at 14. I'm asking for them to be able to learn at a younger=
> > > > age," says Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Freeport, the bill's sponsor. By loweri=
ng
> > > > the age for a drivers permit to 14, Sacia argues, it's easier for
> > > > those young drivers to get much-needed behind-the-wheel experience
> > > > before they're licensed.
>
> This is just more corruption. The auto industry pays congress to lower
> driving ages since that means more drivers and more crashes for the
> auto industry to profit from.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm going to tell you a secret. The United States isn't a democracy.
It's a plutocracy. The rich dictate what politicians will do, and
control who wins elections using money and the media. So, they
regularly manipulate legislators to draft legislation that favors
their corporations, and makes them money. And, they really don't give
a damn about people, whether they live or die, unless they can make
them money. They call that "free market Capitalism", which they
worship with a truly religious fervor.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797784 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 19:41 |
|
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> I'm going to tell you a secret. The United States isn't a democracy.
> It's a plutocracy. The rich dictate what politicians will do, and
> control who wins elections using money and the media. So, they
> regularly manipulate legislators to draft legislation that favors
> their corporations, and makes them money. And, they really don't give
> a damn about people, whether they live or die, unless they can make
> them money. They call that "free market Capitalism", which they
> worship with a truly religious fervor.
"Jerry" "Kraus". Since you don't like it or us very much, why don't
you move to Iran or some-such place that suits you better?
>
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797786 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 19:47 |
|
On Mar 12, 1:41=A0pm, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larryshel... [at] cox.net>
wrote:
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
> > I'm going to tell you a secret. =A0The United States isn't a democracy.
> > It's a plutocracy. =A0The rich dictate what politicians will do, and
> > control who wins elections using money and the media. =A0So, they
> > regularly manipulate legislators to draft legislation that favors
> > their corporations, and makes them money. =A0And, they really don't give=
> > a damn about people, whether they live or die, =A0unless they can make
> > them money. =A0They call that "free market Capitalism", which they
> > worship with a truly religious fervor.
>
> "Jerry" =A0"Kraus". =A0Since you don't like it or us very much, why don't
> you move to Iran or some-such place that suits you better?
>
>
>
> --
> Requiescas in pace o email
>
> Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
>
> http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
How about I just take over here, and you can move to Mexico, since you
like the "free market" so much?
In any case, your system is currently self-destructing. It's funny to
watch. I'm enjoying it.
Nice work in Iraq. I'm reading about the Iranian President's
triumphal procession in Baghdad under the eyes of your mercenaries.
Actually, just moving to Iraq would effectively put me in the Iranian
orbit. I could probably work for the Iranians while being in the U.S.
army in Baghdad, these days.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797794 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 20:56 |
|
In article <13tg8u6jkb6vcfe [at] news.supernews.com>, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
>Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
>> I'm going to tell you a secret. The United States isn't a democracy.
>> It's a plutocracy. The rich dictate what politicians will do, and
>> control who wins elections using money and the media. So, they
>> regularly manipulate legislators to draft legislation that favors
>> their corporations, and makes them money. And, they really don't give
>> a damn about people, whether they live or die, unless they can make
>> them money. They call that "free market Capitalism", which they
>> worship with a truly religious fervor.
>
>"Jerry" "Kraus". Since you don't like it or us very much, why don't
>you move to Iran or some-such place that suits you better?
He didn't say if he liked it or not, he said that's the way it is.
I would make one correction to what he has above, replace 'rich' with
'wealthy' as per Chris Rock's routine ;)
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797796 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 21:03 |
|
On Mar 12, 2:56=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <13tg8u6jkb6v... [at] news.supernews.com>, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. =
wrote:
>
> >Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
> >> I'm going to tell you a secret. =A0The United States isn't a democracy.=
> >> It's a plutocracy. =A0The rich dictate what politicians will do, and
> >> control who wins elections using money and the media. =A0So, they
> >> regularly manipulate legislators to draft legislation that favors
> >> their corporations, and makes them money. =A0And, they really don't giv=
e
> >> a damn about people, whether they live or die, =A0unless they can make
> >> them money. =A0They call that "free market Capitalism", which they
> >> worship with a truly religious fervor.
>
> >"Jerry" =A0"Kraus". =A0Since you don't like it or us very much, why don't=
> >you move to Iran or some-such place that suits you better?
>
> He didn't say if he liked it or not, he said that's the way it is.
>
> I would make one correction to what he has above, replace 'rich' with
> 'wealthy' as per Chris Rock's routine ;)
My friend, the Stock Market went down today, after our moronic Fed
Chairmen Ben Bernanke effectively invested 200 billion dollars
yesterday that he doesn't have, in a desperation move to make it go
up. If you don't think we are heading for big changes, in the
immediate future, you are living in a fantasy world.
Not quite sure how things are going to end up. But, they ain't a
stayin the way they are. Not in the U.S. This system is self-
destructing.
Like I say, it's fun to watch.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797803 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 21:29 |
|
In article <30f1b901-a9a5-43f7-842e-9e7095ad5747 [at] 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Jerry Kraus wrote:
>On Mar 12, 2:56 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <13tg8u6jkb6v... [at] news.supernews.com>, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> >Jerry Kraus wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm going to tell you a secret. The United States isn't a democracy.
>> >> It's a plutocracy. The rich dictate what politicians will do, and
>> >> control who wins elections using money and the media. So, they
>> >> regularly manipulate legislators to draft legislation that favors
>> >> their corporations, and makes them money. And, they really don't give
>> >> a damn about people, whether they live or die, unless they can make
>> >> them money. They call that "free market Capitalism", which they
>> >> worship with a truly religious fervor.
>>
>> >"Jerry" "Kraus". Since you don't like it or us very much, why don't
>> >you move to Iran or some-such place that suits you better?
>>
>> He didn't say if he liked it or not, he said that's the way it is.
>>
>> I would make one correction to what he has above, replace 'rich' with
>> 'wealthy' as per Chris Rock's routine ;)
>
>My friend, the Stock Market went down today, after our moronic Fed
>Chairmen Ben Bernanke effectively invested 200 billion dollars
>yesterday that he doesn't have, in a desperation move to make it go
>up. If you don't think we are heading for big changes, in the
>immediate future, you are living in a fantasy world.
I don't know if I made it clear enough, I was agreeing with you, that
you were just offering the effective facts of the matter.
Helicopter boy has more than pissed me off with his actions, since I am
a saver. Today I made a shopping list. If I can figure out if the intake
will clear the shock tower I'll probably end up spending a couple grand
on my maverick's engine. Nice AL set up... sadly though it appears they
set up the intake for an early falcon and there are fitment problems
with later cars. Mavericks have the smallest width between the shock
towers of them all.... Hell I just may even see if the boys at mad max
cars can find me something down under. Might as well spend it....
>Not quite sure how things are going to end up. But, they ain't a
>stayin the way they are. Not in the U.S. This system is self-
>destructing.
>
>Like I say, it's fun to watch.
I don't think anyone is just watching. You're either in the US, a
country that is going to suffer on the edges of the smoldering crater of
economic ruin or in a 'rogue state' that will be subject to attack by
the US miltary. There aren't really any spectators in this only degrees
and kind of hurt.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797823 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 22:50 |
|
In article <d1d6712d-b9d0-4092-90a3-8c016c0f0ee8 [at] 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gpsman [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 9, 5:11 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>> I strongly disagree. Our economy is too closely tied to being able to
>> do everything quickly.
>
>Lol. No industry pisses away fossil fuels in exchange for time.
Yeah, that's why I can't send anything via UPS 2-Day Air, or FedEx
Overnight anymore.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797826 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 22:54 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <d1d6712d-b9d0-4092-90a3-8c016c0f0ee8 [at] 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
> gpsman <gpsman [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 9, 5:11 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I strongly disagree. Our economy is too closely tied to being able to
>>>do everything quickly.
>>
>>Lol. No industry pisses away fossil fuels in exchange for time.
>
>
> Yeah, that's why I can't send anything via UPS 2-Day Air, or FedEx
> Overnight anymore.
Indeed. I just got a rather large box from New Brunswick, shipped two
days ago and was on my loading dock at 9AM.
Sometimes it amazes even me that you can do stuff like this as part of
day-to-day business and nobody bats an eye.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797845 ] |
Thu, 13 March 2008 00:38 |
|
On Mar 12, 5:54 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > In article <d1d6712d-b9d0-4092-90a3-8c016c0f0... [at] 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
> > gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 9, 5:11 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >>>I strongly disagree. Our economy is too closely tied to being able to
> >>>do everything quickly.
>
> >>Lol. No industry pisses away fossil fuels in exchange for time.
>
> > Yeah, that's why I can't send anything via UPS 2-Day Air, or FedEx
> > Overnight anymore.
>
> Indeed. I just got a rather large box from New Brunswick, shipped two
> days ago and was on my loading dock at 9AM.
>
> Sometimes it amazes even me that you can do stuff like this as part of
> day-to-day business and nobody bats an eye.
The way I imagine you imagining shipping methodology is reminiscent of
that old Looney Tunes cartoon where an redwood tree is held erect
while a hundred mechanical hatchets come out and chop it to flinders
until a single toothpick teeters, then finally falls into a box.
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797847 ] |
Thu, 13 March 2008 00:49 |
|
gpsman wrote:
> On Mar 12, 5:54 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>
>>>In article <d1d6712d-b9d0-4092-90a3-8c016c0f0... [at] 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Mar 9, 5:11 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>I strongly disagree. Our economy is too closely tied to being able to
>>>>>do everything quickly.
>>
>>>>Lol. No industry pisses away fossil fuels in exchange for time.
>>
>>>Yeah, that's why I can't send anything via UPS 2-Day Air, or FedEx
>>>Overnight anymore.
>>
>>Indeed. I just got a rather large box from New Brunswick, shipped two
>>days ago and was on my loading dock at 9AM.
>>
>>Sometimes it amazes even me that you can do stuff like this as part of
>>day-to-day business and nobody bats an eye.
>
>
> The way I imagine you imagining shipping methodology is reminiscent of
> that old Looney Tunes cartoon where an redwood tree is held erect
> while a hundred mechanical hatchets come out and chop it to flinders
> until a single toothpick teeters, then finally falls into a box.
> -----
>
> - gpsman
Huh? Did you have a point?
You said "no industry pisses away fossil fuels in exchange for time."
Shipping anything by air versus truck or ship is a perfect example of
exactly that - using more fossil fuel in exchange for quicker delivery
times.
Additionally, there are firms that will do same day or even several hour
local deliveries of parcels - even envelopes - for a fee, of course.
Sure, it would be more efficient to wait until you have a full truck or
van load going to the same place, but sometimes the contents of a single
envelope are important enough that someone will pay.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797850 ] |
Thu, 13 March 2008 01:49 |
|
On Mar 12, 7:49 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 5:54 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
> >>>In article <d1d6712d-b9d0-4092-90a3-8c016c0f0... [at] 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Mar 9, 5:11 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>I strongly disagree. Our economy is too closely tied to being able to
> >>>>>do everything quickly.
>
> >>>>Lol. No industry pisses away fossil fuels in exchange for time.
>
> >>>Yeah, that's why I can't send anything via UPS 2-Day Air, or FedEx
> >>>Overnight anymore.
>
> >>Indeed. I just got a rather large box from New Brunswick, shipped two
> >>days ago and was on my loading dock at 9AM.
>
> >>Sometimes it amazes even me that you can do stuff like this as part of
> >>day-to-day business and nobody bats an eye.
>
> > The way I imagine you imagining shipping methodology is reminiscent of
> > that old Looney Tunes cartoon where an redwood tree is held erect
> > while a hundred mechanical hatchets come out and chop it to flinders
> > until a single toothpick teeters, then finally falls into a box.
> >
>
> Huh? Did you have a point?
If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.
> You said "no industry pisses away fossil fuels in exchange for time."
> Shipping anything by air versus truck or ship is a perfect example of
> exactly that - using more fossil fuel in exchange for quicker delivery
> times.
Lol. "Using" $B!b(B "pissing away".
> Additionally, there are firms that will do same day or even several hour
> local deliveries of parcels - even envelopes - for a fee, of course.
Yeah, and they don't piss away the additional fees by driving, or
flying even a tiny bit faster.
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797883 ] |
Thu, 13 March 2008 04:50 |
|
In article <fr9jfa01mel [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <d1d6712d-b9d0-4092-90a3-8c016c0f0ee8 [at] 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
>> gpsman <gpsman [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 9, 5:11 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I strongly disagree. Our economy is too closely tied to being able to
>>>>do everything quickly.
>>>
>>>Lol. No industry pisses away fossil fuels in exchange for time.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's why I can't send anything via UPS 2-Day Air, or FedEx
>> Overnight anymore.
>
>Indeed. I just got a rather large box from New Brunswick, shipped two
>days ago and was on my loading dock at 9AM.
I ordered an R/C helicopter from Hong Kong a few months ago. Arrived
at my desk (Philadelphia suburbs) the day after it was shipped --
shipping was about $50, just under twice the cost of the slow boat
(which takes weeks).
But wait, GPSMan says that SpeedPost doesn't exist.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797913 ] |
Thu, 13 March 2008 16:04 |
|
Paul Johnson wrote:
> You've never driven just in time delivery, or you'd understand that
> safety and fuel economy is still the priority, the distances involved
> just aren't generally more than 250 miles from pickup which is how
> things still stay on time. That's how JIT works, not the cocamame
> scheme you suggest.
Yeah, safety is always the first concern. Which is why the dispatcher
insisted it would have been better to drive to Vale in the dark and get
stuck in the snow (or worse) rather than waste the two hours available
under HOS by stopping for the night and tackling the mountain passes in
daylight, probably after the storm had passed.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797952 ] |
Fri, 14 March 2008 01:44 |
|
On Mar 12, 5:29 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <6f899ab7-5d93-46cc-8fa4-21429723a... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> >> Paul Johnson wrote:
> >> > On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
>
> >> >>I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
> >> >>consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
> >> >>how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
>
> >> > You overestimate the intelligence of the Beavis and Butthead
> >> > generation by an order of magnitude. This is what happens when the
> >> > current run of 14-year-olds are allowed in the driver's seat...
>
> >> > http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_031108WAB_hwy_18_a ccident_L...
>
> >> Doesn't matter. Would you prefer *some* parental supervision or none at
> >> all? Those are your choices... Truth is, driving is pretty much a
> >> requirement for functioning in society in most areas of the US, so far
> >> better for the initial experience behind the wheel to be supervised than
> >> not.
>
> >Did you read that article at all? Supervision was involved.
>
> So a few bad parents mean that everyone else has to be restricted?
Hanlon's Razor suggests 90% of parents are bad. Visit any high school
and tell me I'm wrong.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797955 ] |
Fri, 14 March 2008 01:49 |
|
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mar 12, 5:29 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <6f899ab7-5d93-46cc-8fa4-21429723a... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
>>>>>> I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
>>>>>> consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
>>>>>> how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
>>>>> You overestimate the intelligence of the Beavis and Butthead
>>>>> generation by an order of magnitude. This is what happens when the
>>>>> current run of 14-year-olds are allowed in the driver's seat...
>>>>> http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_031108WAB_hwy_18_a ccident_L...
>>>> Doesn't matter. Would you prefer *some* parental supervision or none at
>>>> all? Those are your choices... Truth is, driving is pretty much a
>>>> requirement for functioning in society in most areas of the US, so far
>>>> better for the initial experience behind the wheel to be supervised than
>>>> not.
>>> Did you read that article at all? Supervision was involved.
>> So a few bad parents mean that everyone else has to be restricted?
>
> Hanlon's Razor suggests 90% of parents are bad. Visit any high school
> and tell me I'm wrong.
come visit some of the highschools out here in flyover country, where
real people live.
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797956 ] |
Fri, 14 March 2008 01:50 |
|
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mar 12, 5:29 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <6f899ab7-5d93-46cc-8fa4-21429723a... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 11, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
>>>>>>consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
>>>>>>how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
>>
>>>>>You overestimate the intelligence of the Beavis and Butthead
>>>>>generation by an order of magnitude. This is what happens when the
>>>>>current run of 14-year-olds are allowed in the driver's seat...
>>
>>>>> http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_031108WAB_hwy_18_a ccident_L...
>>
>>>>Doesn't matter. Would you prefer *some* parental supervision or none at
>>>>all? Those are your choices... Truth is, driving is pretty much a
>>>>requirement for functioning in society in most areas of the US, so far
>>>>better for the initial experience behind the wheel to be supervised than
>>>>not.
>>
>>>Did you read that article at all? Supervision was involved.
>>
>>So a few bad parents mean that everyone else has to be restricted?
>
>
> Hanlon's Razor suggests 90% of parents are bad. Visit any high school
> and tell me I'm wrong.
Even assuming you are correct, is the way to correct the problem to tell
the kids that you *expect* them to be irresponsible? I don't think so.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797959 ] |
Fri, 14 March 2008 01:56 |
|
On Mar 12, 11:41 am, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larryshel... [at] cox.net>
wrote:
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
> > I'm going to tell you a secret. The United States isn't a democracy.
> > It's a plutocracy. The rich dictate what politicians will do, and
> > control who wins elections using money and the media. So, they
> > regularly manipulate legislators to draft legislation that favors
> > their corporations, and makes them money. And, they really don't give
> > a damn about people, whether they live or die, unless they can make
> > them money. They call that "free market Capitalism", which they
> > worship with a truly religious fervor.
>
> "Jerry" "Kraus". Since you don't like it or us very much, why don't
> you move to Iran or some-such place that suits you better?
What's wrong with trying to fix the system we have so we can be the
best nation on earth again? Not sure if you've noticed, but we've
gradually fallen behind the rest of the first world since the
bicentennial.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797964 ] |
Fri, 14 March 2008 02:23 |
|
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:41 am, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larryshel... [at] cox.net>
> wrote:
>> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>>> I'm going to tell you a secret. The United States isn't a democracy.
>>> It's a plutocracy. The rich dictate what politicians will do, and
>>> control who wins elections using money and the media. So, they
>>> regularly manipulate legislators to draft legislation that favors
>>> their corporations, and makes them money. And, they really don't give
>>> a damn about people, whether they live or die, unless they can make
>>> them money. They call that "free market Capitalism", which they
>>> worship with a truly religious fervor.
>> "Jerry" "Kraus". Since you don't like it or us very much, why don't
>> you move to Iran or some-such place that suits you better?
>
> What's wrong with trying to fix the system we have so we can be the
> best nation on earth again? Not sure if you've noticed, but we've
> gradually fallen behind the rest of the first world since the
> bicentennial.
Sorry, but I don't see any attempt to fix any thing. All I see is never
ending carping about how bad it is here.
And actually, no, I had not noticed that there was any better places to
live. That is precisely why I still live here. We have not fallen
behind any part of the world, much less all of it.
I do notice a lot of the rest of the world coming here for some reason.
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797965 ] |
Fri, 14 March 2008 02:24 |
|
In article <d19f96f7-2003-4c77-80cf-04418c4541e3 [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Mar 12, 5:29 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <6f899ab7-5d93-46cc-8fa4-21429723a... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> >On Mar 11, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>> >> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> >> > On Mar 10, 5:49 am, "Dave C." <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>I think minimum driving age should be no higher than 15 with parental
>> >> >>consent. This gives parents a minimum of 2 years to try to teach the kid
>> >> >>how to drive before the kid is out of the parents control. -Dave
>>
>> >> > You overestimate the intelligence of the Beavis and Butthead
>> >> > generation by an order of magnitude. This is what happens when the
>> >> > current run of 14-year-olds are allowed in the driver's seat...
>>
>> >> > http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stories/NW_031108WAB_hwy_18_a ccident_L...
>>
>> >> Doesn't matter. Would you prefer *some* parental supervision or none at
>> >> all? Those are your choices... Truth is, driving is pretty much a
>> >> requirement for functioning in society in most areas of the US, so far
>> >> better for the initial experience behind the wheel to be supervised than
>> >> not.
>>
>> >Did you read that article at all? Supervision was involved.
>>
>> So a few bad parents mean that everyone else has to be restricted?
>
>Hanlon's Razor suggests 90% of parents are bad. Visit any high school
>and tell me I'm wrong.
Could be 99.9% still isn't justification.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797967 ] |
Fri, 14 March 2008 02:28 |
|
In article <3f7271a8-2dd3-4cbd-9602-6219e8ba6449 [at] u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Mar 12, 11:41 am, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larryshel... [at] cox.net>
>wrote:
>> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>> > I'm going to tell you a secret. The United States isn't a democracy.
>> > It's a plutocracy. The rich dictate what politicians will do, and
>> > control who wins elections using money and the media. So, they
>> > regularly manipulate legislators to draft legislation that favors
>> > their corporations, and makes them money. And, they really don't give
>> > a damn about people, whether they live or die, unless they can make
>> > them money. They call that "free market Capitalism", which they
>> > worship with a truly religious fervor.
>>
>> "Jerry" "Kraus". Since you don't like it or us very much, why don't
>> you move to Iran or some-such place that suits you better?
>
>What's wrong with trying to fix the system we have so we can be the
>best nation on earth again? Not sure if you've noticed, but we've
>gradually fallen behind the rest of the first world since the
>bicentennial.
If we want this to be the best nation on earth, we have to shrink the
government, get it out of our lives along with other countries, and make
the dollar sound again. More government controls, more regulation, more
intervention, keeping/enlarging the empire overseas, and more attempts
at managing the economy will only give us more of what we've had for the
last few decades.
|
|
|
| Re: Illinois bill would allow 14-year-olds to drive [message #797996 ] |
Fri, 14 March 2008 07:50 |
|
Paul Johnson <baloo [at] ursine.ca> wrote:
> Hanlon's Razor suggests 90% of parents are bad.
Are you a parent?
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Tue Jan 6 10:06:22 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.32195 Sekunden |
