Why not actually train people how to driver properly and then see the >accidents really fall off even though some people are driving 100mph+.>

Like, for instance, in Germany.

In article <75k851havbgagqli1t­vkaqtsqsivocl8m3@4ax­.com>,> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:>

Sorry, but I don't buy it.>

Driving properly isn't so hard that it can't be learned, but we (the US >and Canada) don't bother to *teach* it.

There's no set training curriculum; just a test which hardly covers >anything other than "can you keep it pointed in the right direction?".

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:42:33 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.n­et> wrote:>

Well... because...>

Lotsa people here could _never_ pass the test.

That would mean that they'd be>economically crippled because they would be unable to hold the job they're>capable of doing, but would have to accept a job just because it was within>walking distance or bicycling distance.

If you believe all the writings here and elsewhere, it is _not_ necessary to>drive in Europe because of the outstanding public transport they have. We>(USA) have crappy public transport almost everywhere. People without licenses>are _screwed_, big time.>

That's why.>

Dave Head

percent probably, that'd never make it. These people would drag down the> economy.

It's not uncommon for some people in some urban areas to not know how to>drive or have a license- New York, for instance.

Most people are so wedded to their cars that they cannot even conceive>of a lifestyle that doesn't involve getting into a car ANY time you>want to go ANYwhere. The fact is, if 5% of the current driving>population were to suddenly lose their licenses, there would be enough>demand to not only make public transportation truly profitable (as it>was 100 years ago) but you'd see the system expand.

Most people are so wedded to their cars that they cannot even conceive> of a lifestyle that doesn't involve getting into a car ANY time you> want to go ANYwhere. The fact is, if 5% of the current driving> population were to suddenly lose their licenses, there would be enough> demand to not only make public transportation truly profitable (as it> was 100 years ago) but you'd see the system expand.

Most people are so wedded to their cars that they cannot even conceive> of a lifestyle that doesn't involve getting into a car ANY time you> want to go ANYwhere. The fact is, if 5% of the current driving> population were to suddenly lose their licenses, there would be enough> demand to not only make public transportation truly profitable (as it> was 100 years ago) but you'd see the system expand. The net effect on> the economy would be POSITIVE, because suddenly all the people who

cannot (or choose not to) drive today would have usable alternatives.> And society would benefit immeasurably: less traffic congestion, fewer> incompetents on the roads, and no more Russell Weller incidents caused> by elderly drivers who continue to drive past their expiration dates> because they have no good alternatives.

Elect me president and I'll make it happen. ­

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 02:37:33 -0400, "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth­.net>> wrote:>

My grandmother NEVER learned how to drive. She contributed to the> economy via public transportation for 40+ years (she worked in an> office at the state capital in St. Paul). When she would take me> shopping downtown at Daytons, we'd take the bus to get there and back.

Most people are so wedded to their cars that they cannot even conceive> of a lifestyle that doesn't involve getting into a car ANY time you> want to go ANYwhere. The fact is, if 5% of the current driving> population were to suddenly lose their licenses, there would be enough> demand to not only make public transportation truly profitable (as it> was 100 years ago) but you'd see the system expand. The net effect on> the economy would be POSITIVE, because suddenly all the people who> cannot (or choose not to) drive today would have usable alternatives.

And society would benefit immeasurably: less traffic congestion, fewer> incompetents on the roads, and no more Russell Weller incidents caused> by elderly drivers who continue to drive past their expiration dates> because they have no good alternatives.>

Elect me president and I'll make it happen. ­>

If you are too stupid to pass an improved driving test, then perhaps> all you're good for is being a "sandwich artist" or a bag boy.

Don't you mean "nourishment configuration engineer" or "strategic >transportation containment system placement professional"? >

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:34:00 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:>

If you are too stupid to pass an improved driving test, then perhaps>all you're good for is being a "sandwich artist" or a bag boy.

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:33:02 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.n­et> wrote:>

Again, from my understanding from what has been written here, there's lots of> _Germans_ and other Europeans that _don't_ have driver's licenses exactly> because of the stiff requirements for getting them. IOW, they can't and > never> will be able to pass the test. I've known people that would fit this > category> if such licensing standards were applied here.>

This economy and this country's transportation system basically requires> _everybody_ be able to drive. There's a big enough percentage, say 5 to 10> percent probably, that'd never make it. These people would drag down the> economy.

Yeah, here in the USA. Introduce the European standards, with all the > minutia> such as "did you look in the rearview before braking" and they would fail the> test, time after time, when forgetting many instances of trivialities such as> this. There's lotsa people here that _just barely_ pass the USA tests as > they> are - introduce even 1 more level of difficulty and these guys are walking.

It would just never work here - at least until we have a viable alternative> (which is not trains, buses, etc. in this country due to our vast land mass> that must be serviced) for these people to get around and make money / spend> money just like everybody else, and therefore contribute to the economy. > Even> a guy that can get to work on a bus, and doesn't have a license, is likely to> be prevented from touring the Grand Canyon or millions of other attractions,> 'cuz there's no (economical) public transport to it, and therefore impact > the> travel and recreation industries.>

Dave Head

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:24:36 -0700, L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote:>

Well, I'm not, but I understand there are lotsa Europeans that can't pass > their> own country's tests and therefore have to take their public transportation.

If it can happen there, it can happen here. Having it happening her wouold > be> the road to an economic distruption.>

Dave Head> >>

In article <4jjb519alivpfrrifj­ho7cea95ehhcj1f0@4ax­.com>,> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:>

From whence does this "understanding" spring? References, pleases.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:52:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.n­et> wrote:>

Many mentions of this "fact" here on usenet over many years. I couldn't find> 'em if I wanted to..>

Dave Head

The fact is, if 5% of the current driving>>population­ were to suddenly lose their licenses, there would be enough>>demand to not only make public transportation truly profitable (as it>>was 100 years ago) but you'd see the system expand.>

Depends on which 5%. If it is the most likely 5% -- that is the most poor,>most clueless, and most incompetent -- no such effect would take place.

There would be increased demand, but not necessarily enough to justify>the cost in a purely free-market system. Public transportation is often>not profitable. Subways often run at a loss.

But subways contribute to an>urban areas liveability. See what I mean? Without a subway, a city like>NY would less liveable.

But what your grandmother didn't know is that no public> transportion is profitable.

Yeah, there are no absolutes, it seems. I said that public transport in the> USA sucks almost everywhere. NYC is the exception, maybe Chicago is another> exception.>

Irrelevant - roads are not profitable, either.>

And that's OK - transportation infrastructure need not be profitable> in order to have benefits for society.>

Sure. We can do all kinds of extreme stuff to save lives,> including ridiculously low speed limits and the like.

They would as long as _everybody_ gets a license, and no large pool> of economic cripples who can't legally drive is created.

Training would be nice (but you can't get people to take it) as long> as it doesn't screw up people's lives (by depriving them of their> freedom.)

I'm assuming a random cross-section of the driving population.

Scott en AztlГЎn wrote:>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:42:31 -0400, zzbunker <jimhunter1@comcast­.com>>> wrote:>>

It's nice to know that everyone overlooks the energy wasted by everyone >having their own cars...by sheer physics, mass transit is more efficient.>

Oil's not going to last forever. GM already showed their inclination to >electric by crushing all of the EV-1's (even though the owners begged >then not too.)>

Pollution aslo causes massive losses via the Healthcare industry. More >Cars=More Pollution=Economic Loss due to illness.>

Imagine the air in Houston without the car and truck traffic. It would >have a drastic impact on the city's quality of life.

Yeah, right - maybe if you close down the refineries too.

But the fact remains that railroads were once extremely profitable> operations.

Its also about spending. If they can't move around like they can now,

It's nice to know that everyone overlooks the energy wasted by everyone >having their own cars...by sheer physics, mass transit is more efficient.

"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message>news:vd0c51­pnkp6sn5hghs9ngv4dei­sqadnvqs@4ax.com...>­>

I've cut down on driving alot. For nonwork/nonbusiness­ stuff, I usually>just drive to stuff close to home.

IF there's something I really need,

order it off the net.

Local stores rarely have the stuff I need.

There's>only one really good computer store in town- the CompUSA and the Best Buy's>simply don't have the stuff to build a PC with, and their prices are high->so no point driving out there.

I imagine mail-order/e-busine­ss will benefit from increased gas prices.

It will be cheaper to order stuff that to drive around looking for just the>right thing you need, wasting fuel. It's comming full circle.

People used>to order alot of stuff out of the Sears Catalog- now we'll just do it online>instead.

Wouldn't happen that way.

True... but they were only really profitable at the time when cars were>nonexistant or a luxury for the rich

Sure it needs to be proven, since he's trying to claim that there would >be an inevitable economic downturn from those who *couldn't* pass... >...ever.

Depends on how much you require. >

Hell, you can raise limits _now_, but it doesn't achieve the revenue generation>objectiv­es, eh?>

I don't want to be paying for 'em on welfare, food stamps, etc. I'll take the>really small chance that they'll screw up around me - I'm much more afraid of>the drunks, and then there's always the road-ragers and the show-offs, which>don't really have much to do with the sort of skills that are tested for - more>to do with temperment.

Yep - pretty much.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:18:08 +0100, Robert Briggs><Trebor.Brig­gs@BITphysics.orgBUC­KET> wrote:>

Glad to hear it. Does that include the timorous that don't even try because>they know its beyond them?

I've known some people that were constantly scared,>and sought out traffic lights so they could get across a really>not-all-that­-busy road, while I and most others I knew at the time would avoid>the lights by using the more minor roads, and not having to wait on the red>lights. Its those people I'm thinking of - I doubt that the test I've heard>about, that appears to require a coordination and memory exercise would flunk>people for forgetting to look in the rearview before braking - little things>like that - would have these people simply not trying, or failing if they did.>

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:03:59 -0400, "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth­.net>>wrote:>

Not true!>

The last hurrah for rail travel was during WWII, when the automobile>was well established (although gasoline and rubber for tires were>rationed). Once the war ended and people could drive freely again,>rail travel too its big nosedive. All it would take would be a similar>situation, such as a sizeable percentage of the driving population to>lose their licenses, to bring that prosperity back.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 01:43:03 GMT, Brian Henderson><BrianL.H­enderson@NOSPAM.veri­zon.net> wrote:>

Sure, that's how it is TODAY.>

But what do you suppose would happen if suddenly 5% of the driving>population suddenly lost the ability to drive? Suddenly demand for>rail would skyrocket; rail operators would respond by running more>trains and expanding routes. Rail travel would become more convenient>and reach more destinations, so more people like your friend would>begin to use it, causing the system to expand even more. Eventually>we'd have a real public transportation system again.

Nope, sorry. In fact, I have a friend who wanted to use mass transit> to get to school this last year, until he went and looked at the train> schedule and found that they had *ONE* train going there and *ONE*> train coming back each day, and neither of them could be used due to> his school schedule. Therefore, he has to drive. Would he rather use> the train? Sure. Would the train service have to improve> dramatically in order to be usable? Absolutely. That's why the> trains run at less than 25% capacity most of the time, because nobody> can use them!

But what do you suppose would happen if suddenly 5% of the driving>population suddenly lost the ability to drive? Suddenly demand for>rail would skyrocket; rail operators would respond by running more>trains and expanding routes. Rail travel would become more convenient>and reach more destinations, so more people like your friend would>begin to use it, causing the system to expand even more. Eventually>we'd have a real public transportation system again.

Of course ridership is low --- many locations think mass transit is only for>the poor and deliberately will not spend the money to make it convenient. I>ran into this when helping to advocate for a new cross-town bus route to>replace the existins two leg burb-downtown-burb route. Transit managemnt>insisted there was not enough ridership to support the route. They were>wrong. And after tehy started running 3 buses an hour they even got white>collar workers to abandon their cars and the stop and go traffic on the>beltway --- the bus was faster!>

In cities where mass transit si made convenient, ridership is high. In>Washington, DC for example, trains run as frequently as every 5 minutes in>rush hours and run 90% occupied or higher for much of hte route.>

Deliberately crippling the system is a long standing tactic of those opposed>to spending money on mass transit.

That might work in areas where there is a viable mass transit system>that goes where people need to go, but in areas like Southern>California­, which were built around the automobile, there simply *IS*>no mass transit alternative.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:51:58 GMT, Brian Henderson><BrianL.H­enderson@NOSPAM.veri­zon.net> wrote:>

That's absolutely correct. Where rail already exists, however, they>would add more trains. Everywhere else they would add more buses (and>bus routes). Eventually, new rail routes would also be built, and the>public transit system would snowball.

Now, US citizens will have to consider the nonmonetary value of>subsidizing mass transit. The value isn't dollars or cents, but intangibles>like having transportation for low income people (how is he going to flip>your burger if he can't get to work?), clearing up the roads of traffic,>reducing pollution and dependence on oil, and so on.

How do you know?>

I see incompetent fucks of all socioeconomic classes.

But what do you suppose would happen if suddenly 5% of the driving>population suddenly lost the ability to drive? Suddenly demand for>rail would skyrocket; rail operators would respond by running more>trains and expanding routes.

In article <XeC5e.36306$f%4.33­04@bignews1.bellsout­h.net>,>Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth­.net> wrote:>>

Or, in simpler terms, publicly subsidized mass transit is welfare.

In article <7kfe51pqnkdglenrmn­vh3embaforej0ghu@4ax­.com>,>Scott en AztlГЎn <newsgroup> wrote:>>

No, it wouldn't, because the rails aren't there

That's absolutely correct. Where rail already exists, however, they>would add more trains. Everywhere else they would add more buses (and>bus routes). Eventually, new rail routes would also be built, and the>public transit system would snowball.

There WAS, until it was allowed to wither and die in the early 1960s.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:03:45 -0700, Scott en Aztlбn> <slothkills@NOyahoo­SPAM.com> wrote:>

That assumes there's room to put more rail. In Southern California,> there simply isn't any physical room available! It's nice to pretend> you can just expand service, but Southern California was built around> the automobile, the only way to give it a servicible mass transit> system is to tear everything down and start all over.>

Ain't gonna happen.

N E One wrote:>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:17:46 -0400, ill <ill@gmail.com> wrote:>>

Less Cars means less refineries...

L Sternn wrote:>> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 02:38:48 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:>>

Yeah. The DMV sends out license suspension notices to these guys ->eventually.

The DMV is way to slow in suspending and revoking>licenses. They should suspend on the first speeding ticket.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:19:06 -0500, russotto@grace.spea­keasy.net>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:>

Then what are all those Metrolink whistles I keep hearing from the>grade crossing about 1 mile from my house? I suppose those are some>sort of ghost trains??

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:03:45 -0700, Scott en AztlГЎn><slothkills­@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:>

That assumes there's room to put more rail. In Southern California,>there simply isn't any physical room available!

Sorry, can't change the past. Try dealing with the realities of>today.

By that logic, so are publicly subsidized roads.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

There are lots of options for adding a transit system: >

how about on pylons above the numerous LA freeways?

Cut and cover tunneling? Done right, it could be going on with a bridge >over the whole worksite, so that traffic wouldn't be impacted too much.

What the whole thing takes is the *will* to do it.

There are LOTS of ways to expand rail transit in SoCal. You being in>denial won't ever change that.

There are lots of options for adding a transit system: >

how about on pylons above the numerous LA freeways?

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:39:53 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.n­et>> wrote:>

I'm not.>

After the San Francisco earthquake, nobody is going to be building> anything like that.

I don't think you realize the scope of what you're talking about here.> You're looking at what amounts to a 'city' a couple hundred miles in> all directions. It isn't just a city, surrounded by open land, it's> wall-to-wall-to-wal­l-to-wall cities, with zero space between, and> people don't tend to live and work in the same city. There was a time> when I worked 70 miles away from my home. It wasn't my choice either,> it was my employers.

In a state on the verge of bankruptcy, it takes money. Got a couple> hundred billion you're willing to share?

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:31:04 -0700, Scott en AztlГЎn><slothkills­@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:>

But the rail transit isn't being used now!

When are you going to get>it through your head? People don't want to sit on a train now!>People don't want to ride busses now! My town just re-started a>historic bus/trolley system a couple years ago and every time I see>one go by, they're almost empty.>

Why build more lines if they aren't going to be used?

There was a time>when I worked 70 miles away from my home. It wasn't my choice either,>it was my employers.

Your employer dictated where you lived?

"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message> news:f38o51d24h35jd­rhc1irl6dtatrk3em649­@4ax.com...> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:13:29 GMT, Brian Henderson> > <BrianL.Henderson@N­OSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:> >

To a large degree, yes. My employer moved operations to another city. I> didn;t want to go, but I did.

How much does your employer pay you?? Enough to live in an "estate" with 5> acre lots and $500000 houses? Then he may be telling you that you cannot> live there.

Where is the facility located? Is it reasonable and affordable for you to> live on the other side of town and fight traffic for 2 hours each way?>

More dictates.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:42:31 -0400, zzbunker <jimhunter1@comcast­.com>> wrote:>

Irrelevant - roads are not profitable, either.>

And that's OK - transportation infrastructure need not be profitable> in order to have benefits for society.

In article <luhl51psp5t6lgotqr­ioi8kb9qfeogsnd1@4ax­.com>,>Scott en AztlГЎn <newsgroup> wrote:>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:05:25 -0500, russotto@grace.spea­keasy.net>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:>>

We've just been through that one.

I'm not.

After the San Francisco earthquake, nobody is going to be building>anything like that.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:31:04 -0700, Scott en AztlГЎn><slothkills­@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:>

But the rail transit isn't being used now! When are you going to get>it through your head?

I was in San Diego this weekend and I did see people using the>trolley.

At one time I heard that it cost more to collect the fares than the fares>brought in. True?

I agree. The driving test I took in Florida was a joke- it didn't

I was in San Diego this weekend and I did see people using the>trolley.>

In fact, if it had gone where we were going, we would have used it>too. There's no reason it couldn't have gone where we wanted to go>either.

When are YOU going to get it through YOUR head that the premise of>this discussion is that 5% of drivers suddenly have their driver's>licenses taken away? THEY are the ones who will need alternatives;>THEY will fill every available seat and cause Metrolink, MTA, et. al.>to run more trains.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:13:29 GMT, Brian Henderson><BrianL.H­enderson@NOSPAM.veri­zon.net> wrote:>> There was a time>>when I worked 70 miles away from my home. It wasn't my choice either,>>it was my employers.

Your employer dictated where you lived?

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:24:41 -0700, L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote:>

No, but they did dictate where I got transferred to, with the choice> of making a drive, moving or quitting. It wasn't a negotiable> transfer.

Anybody know what it costs to run the LA transit system and how much revenue>fares bring in? Wouldn't a lot more people use it if it were free, and>wouldn't it be expanded if a lot more people would use it?>

At one time I heard that it cost more to collect the fares than the fares>brought in. True?

Fine. But don't pretend that they dictated your 70 mile commute. You >could have changed that if you had wanted to.

Sure, I could have sold my dream house which I had just bought and>moved to an area high in crime. Sure, I could have done that.

Because it's a ludicrous concept.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:43:18 -0700, The Real Bev><bashley@myreal­box.com> wrote:>

I don't have the figures on me at the moment, but it wasn't long ago>that I heard that the only reason the Metrolink stays solvent is>because they get huge government subsidies. They run at a loss>constantly.

Kinda like roads.

"Scott en AztlГЎn" wrote:>

Anybody know what it costs to run the LA transit system and how much revenue> fares bring in? Wouldn't a lot more people use it if it were free, and> wouldn't it be expanded if a lot more people would use it?

At one time I heard that it cost more to collect the fares than the fares> brought in. True?>

Other than toll roads, didn't know roads were set up to make money.