How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?

I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
Styrofoam without burning your hands.

FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
my hero.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

[Martin Edwards]

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
Styrofoam without burning your hands.
FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
my hero.

We have them in Europe. It is a way of self-identifying as an alpha
male and, on a purely practical level, it is the next best thing to a
truck for bullying other traffic.

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
Styrofoam without burning your hands.
FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
my hero.

We have them in Europe. It is a way of self-identifying as an alpha
male and, on a purely practical level, it is the next best thing to a
truck for bullying other traffic.

They're called Chelsea Tractors, here in London.

[John W Gintell]

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
Styrofoam without burning your hands.
FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
my hero.

Pass two laws:

1) SUVs must be made out of styrofoam (will make them less dangerous when they
crash into other cars so this is a good idea)

2) Ban styrofoam

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On 2/21/13 1:47 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:> Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
Styrofoam without burning your hands.
FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
my hero.

1) SUVs must be made out of styrofoam (will make them less dangerous when they
crash into other cars so this is a good idea)
2) Ban styrofoam

You are making sense there. I'll pass the proposition along.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?

A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?

"What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"

Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.

[Martin Edwards]

On 23/02/2013 19:48, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?

A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?

"What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"
Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.

Springtime, the acacias are blooming. Well, not yet, but chin up.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?

A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?

"What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"
Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.

Springtime, the acacias are blooming.  Well, not yet, but chin up.

The killed the winter here in South Florida. But that's OK, we are
waiting for a killer hurricane to wipe out the whole area.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:51:05 -0800, His Highness the Wise
TibetanMonkey,

that doesn't necessarily mean to spread your thoughts on one
topic of mostly a local relevance globally but to think outside
that corner....

so then what we do here, most of the time, is zen... what is the
rest of your time spent doing x?

computer games, a daily program (i live in a psychiatric hostel)
which includes a morning walk, smoking. i'm cutting down on food
these days..
being told i look pregnant was the final straw.
today i was invited to join the anonymous group.... it looks like
fun..+

Sorry, whatever you do, don't be anonymous. Be the black sheep.
That's my motto anyway.
Smoking doesn't make sense though. Think about it and quit today.
they say "fuck the new world order". i don't, and if i were a member
i would have to change their mind by creating a conflict within.

cheers...wish i had less of a download limit so i could watch it all.
what do you think about 2012, 2013 and where we're headed?

considering that just a few short years ago there weren't even places
like this where spiritual concerns could be discussed it can only
evolve into something beneficial eventually.

i believe hackers are sort of saving the world by sparing it...does
that make sense? it amazes me they haven't done worse. or are we that
stupid..
nah.. it amazes me there aren't more assassinations and school
shootings.
it is like there is something good in everyone fear is still there
though. it sort of makes the times we do cause havoc forgivable....

government feeds fear but even they are only victims of it themselves.
it is a tactic to win votes though. there's a problem and we'll fix it
for you if you vote for us.. american politics is really based on fear.
==============\\
the government , the media , the oligarchy and the entire industrial
military complex is based on fear. a society without fear wouldn't need
much of a government or military.
advertisements are the worst when it comes to true information. if you
don't have super white teeth you better be deathly afraid.

do you think the government really knows what it's doing?
i think they do partly but they are sometimes just afraid themselves.

they REALLY are afraid and they really do think they are important.
but i know in america there is a lot of real corruption mixed in there.
(sorry!)

In America you are a CONSUMER --or nothing at all.

Walking and bicycling are free so they are way down in the list of
priority. The "bike facilities" that are accomplished are meant to
feed the corruption, not make it easier for the cyclist.

[Martin Edwards]

On 24/02/2013 17:54, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?

A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?

"What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"
Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.

Springtime, the acacias are blooming. Well, not yet, but chin up.

The killed the winter here in South Florida. But that's OK, we are
waiting for a killer hurricane to wipe out the whole area.

Brace yourself for the anti-gay posts.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by Martin Edwards
On 24/02/2013 17:54, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?

A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?

"What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"
Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.

Springtime, the acacias are blooming.  Well, not yet, but chin up.

The killed the winter here in South Florida. But that's OK, we are
waiting for a killer hurricane to wipe out the whole area.

Brace yourself for the anti-gay posts.

All I got to do is move to higher ground, right? ;)

Post by Martin Edwards
Laws or no laws, "stupid"ity is generally a "fault".

Stupidity is to set a law ("it's the law!) that gives 3 feet clearance
to cyclists...

How the fuck you enforce that?

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

I know I shouldn't be encouraging this stuff here, but one question does leap to mind: just how do you define "SUV"?
Bob M.

Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles.
Mercedes, BMWs, Acuras, Kias, Jeep Liberty (original) and Ford Ranger
are safe. The last two are gone because they weren't big enough.

I didn't ask for a clever (at least in your mind) explanation of
the abbreviation; I asked for a *definition*. And you've provided
something that shows precisely the point I wanted to make: just who
gets to decide what is "supersized" and/or "unnecessary"? Is size
really your concern, or should this be judged on environmental impact
(which would be an entirely new can of worms)? Since you've brought
"necessity" into the discussion, shall we assume that any vehicle is
OK by you if a "need" can be demonstrated for it? (You're going to
find this hard to believe, I know, but there are people who actually
need the size/carrying capacity/whatever of a truck/SUV or similar
vehicle. By the way, not that this is in any way relevant, but I'm
not one of those people; the largest vehicle with more than 2 wheels
that I normally operate is a Toyota Corolla.)

The clever abbreviation is also the definition. In Europe they deal
with it through HIGHER GAS TAXES. If they have SUVs they are usually
smaller. On top of that we should require a TRUCK LICENSE since they
can cause catastrophic damage to regular cars. We have a situation
where drivers drive them while on the phone or tending the kids. Think
about it and you'll see how dangerous that can be, particularly to
cyclists and motorcyclists.

... do you mean that bicycles
are entitled to unrestricted use of the road? Can ride without
consideration for any others that might be using the same facility?

I don't think anyone argues for that. At least, not anyone I've
encountered.
I think a reasonable approach would be for bicycles to be covered by
the same rules as other vehicles. Perhaps some modification might be
made if it were necessary to permit lane sharing IF the lane is wide
enough to safely share. Beyond that, it's probably best to do away
with most bike-specific laws.
Here's an example: Many U.S. states have provisions requiring
cyclists to ride "as far to the right as practicable" (not
"possible"), often with non-exhaustive lists of exceptions (for
safety, etc.). But if a road is empty of other traffic, that makes no
sense. When I ride down my own residential street, and no other
traffic is present, why should I have an obligation to ride (say) two
or three feet from the edge? In fact, why should I even have to
consider such a law when I'm doing 25 mph in a 25 mph zone, or
otherwise moving at normal traffic speed?

Didn't we discuss this already? What makes you think you have any
obligation to ride far right if there is no other traffic or you're
riding at the speed of traffic? Some weird abstract notion that
citizenship is adherence to spec? (Maybe scofflaws don't have it all
wrong after all (?)

Oregonians are weird. Many people take bicycling seriously there. We
think it's a joke or a sport better kept to special places.

ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes (1) A person commits the offense of
improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a
bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using
the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and
the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or
edge of the roadway.
If there is no traffic, you can ride in the middle of the road.

Wait a minute, in a free society you can ride wherever you want. We
are not bound by bike lanes as in socialist Europe. ;)

I believe what's really intended is for cyclists to not unnecessarily
restrict traffic flow - although that's unfortunately modified by our
society's false belief that a bicyclist really doesn't have as much
right to the road as a motorist.

So you would leave it to each and every individual *how* to go about
sharing the road?

But legally, we probably have more right to the road, since we don't
have to get a license for permission to use the road.

We have whatever right to use the road that our legislatures see fit
to give us.
-- Jay Beattie.

Yeas, our masters gracefully give us the scraps --if any.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Feb 25, 7:29 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

I don't see the engineers giving a damn about the actual consequences
of those stupid signs. Around here we got signs that say "Walk bike
across bridge." But nobody is sure what they mean. One driver thought
I shouldn't be on the bridge and the argument ended in him spitting in
my face and taking off.

Just the mental image of you taking the time to argue with someone in
a motorized vehicle about whether you should be on a bridge, and the
thought of the car driver actually taking the time to "discuss" the
issue with you (let alone it ending with the driver spitting in your
face) when both of you could have simply and civilly been on your way
with little or no time wasted, and no emotional drama..... kinda
funny.

And it's kind of funny the "good Samaritan" was trying to enforce this
"walk bike across bridge" ordinance and he didn't have a fucking clue
what it meant. I was riding lawfully on the road. I asked a cop two
years later and he told me it meant not to ride the bike on the
sidewalk. I understand engineers don't give a shit about cyclist and
pedestrian safety, but at least they could write common sense signs.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

I know I shouldn't be encouraging this stuff here, but one question does leap to mind: just how do you define "SUV"?

I didn't ask for a clever (at least in your mind) explanation of
the abbreviation; I asked for a *definition*.

The clever abbreviation is also the definition.

Sorry, but no, it's definitely not. It's certainly nothing you could write a law around. So 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).
Bob M.

Just because:

1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,

2- They contribute more to Climate Change.

I know that's a hot topic, but we can not hide from it:

'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.”

We’ve reached a horribly ironic tipping point. Since the beginning of
our species, our tools have made humanity more efficient at virtually
every job we do. But now, they’ve come to collect on their debt.'

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671962/bad-news-global-warming-is-smothering-our-productivity

***

I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
not an acceptable way to do it.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
2- They contribute more to Climate Change.

And you STILL haven't offered any clear-cut definition as to just what
"they" you are talking about. Until you do that, you're just taking the
lazy way out - complaining about something but offering no real, practical
solution for your perceived problem.

Post 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.”
We’ve reached a horribly ironic tipping point. Since the beginning of
our species, our tools have made humanity more efficient at virtually
every job we do. But now, they’ve come to collect on their debt.'
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671962/bad-news-global-warming-is-smothe...
***
I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
not an acceptable way to do it.

We can set a limit on weight and bumper height. Of course, you may
still buy a bigger one and use it strictly off road --or keep in the
garage.

Tell you what, we can set the curb weight as follows:

CURB WEIGHT 2002 JEEP LIBERTY... 3648 lbs. And that shall be the law
of the land.

Compare that to the curb weight of a Hummer: 6614 lbs. If you need
something bigger than a Jeep Liberty go to Russia.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Many U.S. states have provisions requiring
cyclists to ride "as far to the right as practicable" (not

"Slower moving vehicles, keep right"
Different words, same meaning, in my opinion.

Right but you probably don't have an agenda.

Oh come on, Duane. The difference is obvious in the situation when
the cyclist is _not_ slower; yet many states mandate that the cyclist
still ride "as far right as practicable." That difference should not
be hard to understand.
I do have an agenda, of course. It's protecting the rights of
cyclists.

Like I said, "rights" are whatever the legislature gives you. If the
local statute prescribe "as far right as practicable" regardless of
traffic or just lumps cyclists in with other "slow moving vehicles,"
you're screwed. Time to go to the legislature -- as you know. There
is no federal constitutional right to ride in the lane -- except maybe
if it is a religious observance or you're carrying a gun, which is
tantamount to a religion (sorry Andrew). I don't think it is among
the natural rights of Man either. It could be one of those forgotten
commandments or a mitzvah or something.

Well, some rights exist independent of (or actually, superior to) what
the legislature gives you. I agree that position in the lane is not
one of those rights. Still, if the legislature does give the right to
choose lane position, I think it's worth defending. If they don't, or
if they impose too many restrictions, I think it's worth fighting for
better rights.
But when I talk about protecting the rights of cyclists, they need
protection from groups that would give them all away. An example
would be a bike advocacy group that endorses a mandatory helmet law;
they'd give away the right to choosing one's headwear, or lack of
same. Another group would be an advocacy group that is so enamored of
bike lanes that it accepts mandatory bike lane usage in order to get
more bike lanes. And I fear we have some here who think it's fine to
restrict cyclists to the rightmost three feet of roadway, no matter
what.
We have enough enemies. We need to watch our "friends" very closely.
- Frank Krygowski

It sounds like "All vehicles are equal, but some are better than
others."

It reminds me of "All men are created equal..." but slavery went on
for another century, and discrimination for two centuries. Something
funny with that definition of "vehicle."

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Feb 26, 2:22 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

On Feb 26, 1:30 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
We can set a limit on weight and bumper height. Of course, you may
still buy a bigger one and use it strictly off road --or keep in the
garage.
CURB WEIGHT 2002 JEEP LIBERTY... 3648 lbs. And that shall be the law
of the land.
Compare that to the curb weight of a Hummer: 6614 lbs. If you need
something bigger than a Jeep Liberty go to Russia.

Your "definition" would outlaw my 1999 GMC Sierra 1500 2wd standard
cab longbed pickup truck which has been operated legally and without
accident for 14 years and over 140,000 miles, hauling motorcycles and
towing trailers and moving children to their new apartments and
bringing home beds and taking bicycles to the beach and to the
mountains.
Please explain how that fits in with your concept of global harmony
and peaceful coexistence, and tell me what vehicle you are going to
buy for me to replace my beloved and useful hauling device.
You should do this before my 800+ pound Street Glide accidently bunts
you and your bicycle off the bridge and into the icy drink below.

Hey, no need to unleash that gorilla...
You may keep the truck

So, it's not the truck, or the size, or the weight, or the handling of
the vehicle that concerns you. So, your railing mightily against
"SUVs" is just a smokescreen. Got it.

provided you acquire a proper commercial
license to drive it.

My truck does not require a commercial license to drive it.
Considering that I have been licensed to drive for 40 years and have
never had an accident while driving a pick-up truck, I fail to see any
merit in your demand.

Think of all the idiots --soccer moms if you
will-- that terrorize our roads.

I don't just think about them - "soccer mom" or not - I deal with them
on a daily basis. It doesn;t make a bit of difference whether they
are driving an SUV or not. If they drive like an idiot in my
vicinity, they are a problem that I have to deal with.

They will have to observe LANE DISCIPLINE and other nice things that
are considered good road manners.

But all those things are already addressed by current law, and the
infractions against those laws (and against good driving manners) are
by no means limited to those who drive SUVs. Or even to those who
drive motorized vehicles.

No phone, of course.

Laws addressing phone use in cars are already on the books, and the
infractions against those laws are by no means limited to those who
drive SUVs. Or even to those who drive motorized vehicles.
Clearly, what you would like to see is good drivers on the roads,
driving competently and politely. So would I. The difference
between us is that I know that the lack of such has NOTHING to do with
the vehicles on the road and EVERYTHING to do with the PEOPLE on the
road.

So you plan on driving those stupid vehicles until the end of times?
How about when they get into accident? You know, accidents do happen.
Are you aware that you are unleashing an arms race where everyone must
be big to survive an accident?

Sorry, philosophers must question everything. Going with the flow is
not an option. We do need fewer drivers, better drivers, smaller cars.
But that's only my humble opinion. People would be terrorized to drive
a friendly Neighborhood Electric Vehicle around here, let alone a
beach cruiser.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Le 2/28/2013 9:07 PM, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

People don't wear helmets in Holland, perhaps because cycling is
thought to be safe.

I lived in Holland for a couple years. The Dutch are lucky in
several ways. The countryside is completely flat. The government
has lays bike lanes parallel to motorways physically separate
from the road (tell that to "big gov't is bad" Wilson)
Another major difference between riding bikes in the US and France,
and riding bikes in Holland, is that there's never any racing
on bike lanes in Holland. People cycle at a leisurely pace,
going shopping, taking care of day to day business. When they
want to cycle at speed, they ride motorways. Dutch bikes are
built to ride upright and not crouched, and they usually single
speed.

I live in a very flat place (Florida) minus the harsh winter and still
don't get to ride a bike without dealing with stupid design and no
less stupid drivers. I may argue that stupid drivers are the result of
stupid design where bike lanes are not even connected. In some places
they just paint a bike (called sharrow) and the Jewish lawyer is ready
to take your business. If you lose a leg and you catch the driver, you
may be in for some big compensation (minus the lawyer fee).

[Huge]

I do have an agenda, of course. It's protecting the rights of
cyclists.

Presumably to behave like cunts?

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by Huge

Post by His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

I do have an agenda, of course.  It's protecting the rights of
cyclists.

Presumably to behave like cunts?

Cunts and balls, what kind of perversion is going on here? I think you
gotta have balls to ride a bike but that's only my humble opinion.

Post by Huge
On Feb 28, 3:20 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

Post by His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
It sounds like "All vehicles are equal, but some are better than
others."
It reminds me of "All men are created equal..." but slavery went on
for another century, and discrimination for two centuries. Something
funny with that definition of "vehicle."

Yeah, and that is EXACTLY what you are saying with your proposed
draconian exclusions based on what *YOU* like and what *YOU* need and
what *YOU* prefer in a vehicle, as long as *YOU* don't ever need to
haul anything in a truck or an SUV, then *YOU* are fine with
discriminating against those who do.
You are so hypocritical it's not even funny any more!

C'mon, admit that driving an SUV is about the balls...

Loading Image...

Be honest. The bully needs his balls nice and big to impress the girls
and intimidate the competition. Girls sometimes have an even bigger
urge to have balls since they got none.

Ask the Europeans and Japanese if they have the same urge. I think the
Chinese got it though. In other words, it's cultural as well as
genetic.

Look at the animal kingdom and pay attention at the clever and
sometimes stupid ways in which males attract females.

The people with real balls though are the ones riding a bicycle or
motorcycle.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:45:04 -0800 (PST), "His Highness the Wise
TibetanMonkey, the Most Humble Philosopher Alive"

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
The people with real balls though are the ones riding a bicycle or
motorcycle.

Huh? And all this time I thought it was low I.Q. that caused such
riding folk to crow so.............

Not so. Nothing is easier than drive an automatic SUV (emphasis in
automatic). If you want the smart people to drive SUVs require stick
shift. Even an idiot can drive an SUV, place the thing in drive and
go, everybody gets out of your way.

Where the SUVs are successful is in the mating game. Plenty of women
do look at you, but --this is the catch-- they are the type most
likely to clean your bank account. We cyclists on the other hand are
deemed the "losers," but quality women seeking fun do come to us.

And figure this, you can save your money and get a hooker and still
have control over you bank account --if any. Don't worry about money,
just have fun.

But that's only my humble opinion.

[The Green Troll]

On Feb 26, 1:54 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

It'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.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

So 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).
Bob 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.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
2- They contribute more to Climate Change.

That 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.

Regulate 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.
NASA 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.

Post 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.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
not an acceptable way to do it.

Gibbons can climb higher.

Buster
<http://www.rev.net/~aloe/transportation>

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by The Green Troll
On Feb 26, 1:54 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

It'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 Troll

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

So 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 Troll

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

Bob 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 Troll

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
2- They contribute more to Climate Change.

That 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 Troll
Regulate 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 Troll
NASA 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 Troll

Post 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 Troll

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
I 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.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On 7/03/2013 7:07 AM, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

On 7/03/2013 1:44 AM, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

I think he made a revolution of sorts. He certainly made some people
mad while others claim devotion to him. But now he is gone. What are
his ideals anyway? SOCIALISM? What kind, democratic or autocratic? Do
they need to bother about elections anymore? Can the revolution
survive?
That's the risk of being CAUDILLO. It's not the kind of revolution you
want to create. Besides it was funded with oil. That's easy but it's
dirty. The true revolution will celebrate frugality while promoting
non polluting vehicles. You know what's the price of gas in Venezuela?
Something that would make Americans drool: 12 cents a gallon.
Americans would probably want something like Chavez without the
socialist rhetoric. But rhetoric is just words. What counts is the
facts.  Venezuela remains a very dangerous place. Crime is out of
control. It's not what we want. Norway is a civilized country, also
socialist, also swimming in oil, but it has managed its resources
wisely. No littering or unsafe streets. Voted #1 in happiness.
Now what?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

It demonstrates the evoltionary effect of the Northern European braim as
compared with Equatorial brain development to deal with survival.
Something the academics are not allowed to teach at universities now
since the Marxists took over the universities.
Teaching Equatorials a Northan language doesn't pass on the Northern
evolutionary survival skills.

In what way climate influences the brain? Scandinavians were the
infamous Vikings, known for their terrorizing raids on other lands.
Not even the monks were safe.
Perhaps they learned to make love not war.

Take a detailed look at the ships they built to do that...and think
about how they worked out how to curve the wood to shape.  Just that one
little detail tells you what cognitive effort is needed.
  Violence is in *all* of us when survival matters and does'nt need any
cognitive effort.  After a few generations it was the Vikings who
protected the monks because they learned to become Christian.
  On the other hand, the monks, or today any Christian, is are more
likely to be terrorised by near equatorial Muslims who have never shown
mental aptitude to reform. And to make it worse, they are proud about
not reforming...now there's brains.

I think all religion has a negative effect on society. This same
Christian culture threatens the environment in ways the Muslim
terrorists can not dream of. We are destroying ourselves. The hope is
this pagan culture of "the forests are sacred," very powerful in
northern Europe, spreads around the world.

That's what the revolution will promote anyway.