Post by The Green TrollOn Feb 26, 1:54 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser PhilosopherIt's certainly nothing you could write a law around.
Well, you could write an ambiguous, unenforceable law. It wouldn't be
the first. There's a lot of nonsense in the statute books.
Ambiguous laws make for more suits and litigation. That's how the
lawyers become so important.
Take, for example, the "3 feet law," referring to the clearance cars
must give to bicycles. That's a joke, a cruel joke.
Post by The Green TrollPost by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser PhilosopherSo try again - if you're going to proposed somehow banning/regulating/whatever "SUVs," you damned well had better be able to describe just what you're talking about. So what IS it? Are you going to define the category based on gross vehicle weight, size, displacement, gas mileage - WHAT? And more importantly, WHY (for each delineation).
The same way they regulate many world cars out of the market, we could
make life very difficult for SUVs based on restrictions and
regulations. To begin with, they are not a car, so they require
special license to operate.
Post by The Green TrollPost by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser PhilosopherBob M.
1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
So can trucks: pickups, dump trucks, moving vans, transit mixers, etc.
So can buses.
True, but the more we have the worse it is, right? We don't many dump
trucks parked by 5 star hotels.
Post by The Green TrollThat depends on what fuel they use, how far they are driven, and under
what conditions they are driven. When filled to capacity, they can be
more efficient than passenger cars or motorcycles. Some people use
them to carry cargo, such as furniture or sports equipment.
Same fuel could be used for smaller cars. A minivan is much better in
aerodynamics and crash safety (particularly for others). A rack on a
small car often makes up for size inside a Hummer, perhaps more.
Post by The Green TrollRegulate vehicle dimensions only to insure safety. To discourage
emission of greenhouse gases, tax the fuel in the amount of the damage
its consumption causes. Then use the tax revenue to alleviate the
damage, by regrowing tropical forests as heat sinks.
It makes sense. I go for it.
Post by The Green TrollNASA and the Bush family want to colonize Mars, so they have a place
to live after they make Earth uninhabitable. They can charge lots of
money for transportation, land, and oxygen. Climate change will be
profitable for some people, and they know it. Anyone who doesn't pay
will be stuck in the ruins they left behind. For a taste of the
future, visit the South Bronx in August.
Let those responsible escape to Mars. That enough of a Hell anyway. It
take dinero, mucho dinero though. Hey, it's all about money. Predatory
capitalism thrives on disaster.
Post by The Green TrollPost by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher'That doesn’t just mean you can’t dig a ditch outside--you won’t want
to do anything outside. In fact, New York City would be as hot as
Bahrain, and “Bahrain heat stress would induce hypothermia in even
sleeping humans.”
Wouldn't New York City be cooler in the summer because of all the
seawater covering it? Wouldn't most of Bahrain also be under water?
You'd need a coffer dam to dig a ditch.
Maybe they'll relocate it 100 miles inland and make enough money doing
so.
Post by The Green TrollPost by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser PhilosopherI understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
not an acceptable way to do it.
Gibbons can climb higher.
True, but they must come to the ground once in a while. They have to
realize what's going on at the bottom of the food chain and realize
how their predation endangers all.
