Because it snowed last night
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Vito on 18 Apr 2010 10:36 don (Calgary) wrote: >> Robert Bolton <robertboltondrop(a)gci.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>> Once again it is a big leap from enforcing laws to telling you what >>>> kind of car you should drive or how much a local merchant who has >>>> invested the risk capital into a business, what he or she can >>>> charge for their product or service. >>> >>> Balance is in the eye of the beholder. Taxing a vehicle because of >>> the damage it does to the environment might not seem like a bad idea >>> to some people. You can damage as much of the environment as you >>> choose, so long as you pay for the damage. >> >> Apples and oranges Robert. Even if the two scenarios were the same >> your example is a poor one. I have two four wheeled vehicles. Neither >> of them get better the 20 mpg on a good day, with a tail wind, but I >> use far less gasoline than most people do. It's not the vehicle that >> damages the environment, it is the consumption of fossil fuels. The >> two are not necessarily related. Further punishing the user with >> punitive taxes does nothing to save the environment, it only serves >> to provide more funds for our already out of control governments. Moreover, why pick on cars, et cetera? We (USA) have been doing that since the 1960s. Meanwhile, population growth has nullified each and every improvement. The time has come to punish (tax) excess procreation. BTW Don, you were right about the Indians.
From: The Older Gentleman on 18 Apr 2010 10:42 don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > It's not the vehicle that > damages the environment, it is the consumption of fossil fuels. The > two are not necessarily related. Um, considering the immense amount of fossil fuels that go into the building of a vehicle, I'd say they most definitely *are* related. Trouble is, you could raise that argument against most of man's creations. Their use, of course, is another matter. > Further punishing the user with > punitive taxes does nothing to save the environment, it only serves to > provide more funds for our already out of control governments. <Shrug> So collect vehicles, if that's your bag, but don't drive them on public roads. It works for many people. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: don (Calgary) on 18 Apr 2010 11:30 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:36:45 -0400, "Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > >Moreover, why pick on cars, et cetera? We (USA) have been doing that since >the 1960s. Meanwhile, population growth has nullified each and every >improvement. The time has come to punish (tax) excess procreation. > >BTW Don, you were right about the Indians. Indians????
From: don (Calgary) on 18 Apr 2010 12:16 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:42:45 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > ><Shrug> So collect vehicles, if that's your bag, I do not own the Dakota because I like to collect vehicles. I like it because it is 4-wheel drive and can haul and tow moderate loads. It didn't cost me much and is economical for me to operate. I own the XJ because IMHO it is the best looking automobile ever made. I use it for casual transportation during inclement weather, or if I am going out with a group or a lady friend. It didn't cost me much and for my use it is economical to operate. More important than all of that, I enjoy driving it. For me these are practical vehicles. >but don't drive them on >public roads. It works for many people. Why not drive them on public roads? Collectively the Dakota and my XJ6 annually cost me $800.00 to insure, $150.00 to register, couple of hundred in regular maintenance, and the two of them might use 100 to 150 gallons of gasoline per year - total. I would say my four wheel vehicle carbon footprint is considerable less than average. It would even meet the Kyoto guideline of 8% below my 1990 level. Further, for my use, these vehicles are practical and economical. So why shouldn't I be allowed to drive them on public roads?
From: The Older Gentleman on 18 Apr 2010 17:55
don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > Further, for my use, these vehicles are practical and economical. Depends on your definition of economical. An old XJ6 is hardly fuel-efficient, but if it's hardly being used then it's not expensive to own. There's ad ifference. > > So why shouldn't I be allowed to drive them on public roads? Nobody said you were being forbidden. Your own personal approach is one thing. It might work for you. Other people have other parameters and goals - track day cars, for example. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com |