And The Worst Part Is They Want To Leave You Alone

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:19 am

There are already limits on personal conveyances. GVW. Towing capacity etc. They are sufficiently large so it is possible for an individual to own his own towing vehicle capable of towing an Airstream or similar or to own an RV or similar conveyance.

I had a free ride last summer on a sail boat towed to a lake by an individual. My mate and I greatly enjoyed it. I'm against restricting that person's liberty to tow his boat to the lake on a Sunday. Do you have any idea what it costs to hire a tow on a Sunday? And have the tow vehicle sit around all day waiting for the tow back? And why would it need to wait? Sometimes the weather changes and the State has no provision for mooring all the boats that show up on a given Sunday.

In any case: you are on the road not just with 3 or 4 ton vehicles. There are 10 and 20 and 30 ton vehicles. I note your only complaint is with individual vehicles. I'm sure you will deliver a fine rationalization for that.

In any case the law and citizen liberty interests are against you. Now if you can amend the Constitution to eliminate those Natural Rights - oh wait - such natural rights, traditional in common law, cannot be abrogated by law.

I guess if you don't like it you should pack your ermines (in the words of the immortal Wm. Burroughs - who also said the marks are wising up).

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:54 pm

I agree that the legal constraints on vehicle size are reasonable as they are. Pretty close. There is, however, a transfer of value from those only using small vehicles, or no vehicles at all, to those using larger vehicles. Safety space is one. Another is that the degradation of roadways is much greater with heavier vehicles over small ones, even if total transport weight is considered.

Private vehicle transport has a huge public infrastructure component. It is more reasonable to me that those most using the public component pay for it the most. I see "the common green" yet again.

I take the New York State Thruway, a toll road every weekday. I share the road with Tandem tractor trailers (one truck, 2 loaded trailers). You can bet those expand the potholes quickly, and even cause wear and tear on the road bed itself. The thruway, being a toll road, isn't subsidized by my New York state Income tax, but more than pays for itself.

As an aside, it's strange to me: We could pay for the Civil war without an Income tax, paying for most of it with road tolls. Why are income taxes needed to subsidize road transport now?

If I had my "druthers", we'd pay for transportation infrastructure by taxing vehicle traffic, a form of consumption, rather than taxing productive behavior such as work and investing, using the tax receipts to subsidize transport.

I think the "common green" realization points to the optimization. Those that use the roadways should pay for them.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:04 pm

Another is that the degradation of roadways is much greater with heavier vehicles over small ones, even if total transport weight is considered.

I have actually studied the matter. The vehicles responsible for 90% of road wear are 18 wheelers. The differences between a roller skate and an SUV are quite small when compared to an 18 wheeler.

And people make choices. Fuel economy vs safety. Why not let people make those choices?

You object to the risk of driving a roller skate. So why not buy an SUV if the risk bothers you? Not only will you be safer vs an SUV you will have some chance of survival if you come up against an 18 wheeler.

Yeah. I know. It is unfair.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:13 pm

It is more reasonable to me that those most using the public component pay for it the most.

Do they have gasoline taxes where you live? Vehicle taxes?

People are already taxed based on use. Maybe not exactly. But probably close. You know who is under taxed vs road wear? 18 wheelers. But we like our cheap shipping. So auto users subsidize the shipping companies. So far not a peep out of you about them. This indicates to me that your concerns are envy based. Not very pretty. Or else you are arguing out of ignorance. Not very smart.

JohnSmith · Post by **JohnSmith** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:51 pm

Straw men? Where are my straw men? Where did I say, "that's his viewpoint," then destroy that position? When I said that you agree that freedom must be limited somewhere? I backed it up. When I said engineers optimize? I may be a student, but I'm an engineer too. I've worked for design firms, I've worked for military firms, for robotics firms. I optimize between 'fastest' and 'cheapest' all the time.
Was It when I said that you were setting up your very own straw men over Helius's arguments? That's just facts. You claimed he had a position - one he had never supported - then demolished it.
Hmm. Ok, Kiteman might have a point. You don't want absolute freedom, just a lot more than you have now. Well, my point remains. Life is unfair, and just like us, you won't always get what you want. And, of course, there's the fact that you complain just as much as the rest of us. I backed that up as well.

That's all of it. Where were my straw men?
*Edit - It just occured to me. Do you even know what a straw man is?

pfrit · Post by **pfrit** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:04 pm

MSimon wrote:
It is more reasonable to me that those most using the public component pay for it the most.
Do they have gasoline taxes where you live? Vehicle taxes?

People are already taxed based on use. Maybe not exactly. But probably close. You know who is under taxed vs road wear? 18 wheelers. But we like our cheap shipping. So auto users subsidize the shipping companies. So far not a peep out of you about them. This indicates to me that your concerns are envy based. Not very pretty. Or else you are arguing out of ignorance. Not very smart.

It actually gets funnier. A majority amount of municipal road damage not related to snow plows is from public transportation. Look at a bus lane or compare a street with buses to one without (with otherwise similar traffic patterns). And they don't pay fuel taxes. A completely hidden tax. Very amusing...

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:55 pm

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes ... AN2010.pdf

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes ... AN2010.pdf

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes ... _pages.pdf

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes ... 1_2010.pdf

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/581.pdf

This link shows numbers on road miles, but is primarily focused to idle fuel burn.
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/373.pdf

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:39 pm

MSimon wrote:
It is more reasonable to me that those most using the public component pay for it the most.
Do they have gasoline taxes where you live? Vehicle taxes?

People are already taxed based on use. Maybe not exactly. But probably close. You know who is under taxed vs road wear? 18 wheelers. But we like our cheap shipping. So auto users subsidize the shipping companies. So far not a peep out of you about them. This indicates to me that your concerns are envy based. Not very pretty. Or else you are arguing out of ignorance. Not very smart.

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd have seen I pointed out the problem of tractor trailers. You instead blindly rant out of ignorance. Not very pretty. You seem to skip the middle, which is fine, unless you're going to insult and rage in a blind rant. Pretty funny. That's why I read your stuff.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:51 am

Helius wrote:
MSimon wrote:
It is more reasonable to me that those most using the public component pay for it the most.
Do they have gasoline taxes where you live? Vehicle taxes?

People are already taxed based on use. Maybe not exactly. But probably close. You know who is under taxed vs road wear? 18 wheelers. But we like our cheap shipping. So auto users subsidize the shipping companies. So far not a peep out of you about them. This indicates to me that your concerns are envy based. Not very pretty. Or else you are arguing out of ignorance. Not very smart.
If you actually read what I wrote, you'd have seen I pointed out the problem of tractor trailers. You instead blindly rant out of ignorance. Not very pretty. You seem to skip the middle, which is fine, unless you're going to insult and rage in a blind rant. Pretty funny. That's why I read your stuff.

But this was about insurance. And commercial vehicles have insurance. So what conclusion can be drawn about your discomfort about the state of the commons? You are worried about something that is already a non-problem? You want a separate highway system for commercial vehicles? What?

EricF · Post by **EricF** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:10 am

I saw this vid and got to thinking, they could replace a lot of commercial trucks and the railroad systems with these evacuated tube mag-levs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avaN4nUon6Y

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:26 am

We could pay for the Civil war without an Income tax, paying for most of it with road tolls. Why are income taxes needed to subsidize road transport now?

IIRC our first income tax was created by Lincoln, to help pay for the war.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:53 am

EricF wrote:I saw this vid and got to thinking, they could replace a lot of commercial trucks and the railroad systems with these evacuated tube mag-levs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avaN4nUon6Y

The system he describes would completely suck if the wind stopped blowing. How do you start such a system in the dark?

Another utopianist fantasy without understanding the costs and finance aspects.

And how does he propose getting the people who travel on such a device to their final destination? And it will probably use Halbach arrays not - superconducting magnets.

And one world government? Not a good idea. At all.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:33 am

I presume you've heard the Seimens radio ads related to their maglev system? They are on constantly in the DC metro area. Sounds like they want big brother to pay for their system. This guy's vision is on the move.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:12 pm

KitemanSA wrote:I presume you've heard the Seimens radio ads relted to their maglev system? They are on constantly in the DC metro area. Sounds like they want big brother to pay for their system. This guy's vision is on the move.

No. I don't live in DC or a big metro area. I'm out in the sticks. Thank the Maker.

Such a system has political and logistic problems. The cost per mile is insane. And every village and hamlet wants to have a stop. If you do that you kill average speed.

But you need those small towns for their votes.

Take my small town (150K). We are the UPS air hub for the MidWest. Very busy at night. Not as corrupt as Chicago. At 6,000 mph (for ease of BOE calculation) we are 1 minute from Chicago.

Or figure this. At 6,000 mph it is roughly 30 minutes to cross the Atlantic. And then a 3 or 4 hour drive to Maine. Longer to Florida.

So what happens - very big cities (very prone to corruption) with an empty countryside. And why big cities? You need them to support the volume of traffic to make the system workable.

Continent wide you might get a route of DC to Chicago to LA.

My guess? At the current state of technology and civilization a 500 mph open air system might be workable. If the cost of the guide way can be reduced enough. What might do that? Carbon nanotube "track".

BTW that is my guess for the key technology for the next big advance - cheap carbon nanotubes. It affects everything from transistors to electrical power transmission. The cost needs to come in significantly below copper or aluminum.