Transportation Secretary: �This Is the End of Favoring Motorized Transportation at the Expense of Non-Motorized�
in [Drive]
|
Prev: test
Next: Droids Are Blind, Too
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids on 26 Mar 2010 11:02 http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63290 Obama Transportation Secretary: �This Is the End of Favoring Motorized Transportation at the Expense of Non-Motorized� Wednesday, March 24, 2010 Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari) (CNSNews.com) - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced that federal transportation policies will no longer favor �motorized� transportation, such as cars and trucks, over �non-motorized� transportation, such as walking and bicycling. LaHood signed the new policy directive on March 11, the same day he attended a congressional reception for the National Bike Summit, a convention sponsored by a bicycling advocacy group, the League of American Bicyclists. LaHood publicly announced his agency�s new direction four days later in a posting on his blog��Fast Lane: The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation�--where he effusively described it as a �sea change� for the United States. �Today, I want to announce a sea change,� LaHood wrote. �People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.� �Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative,� said the moderator at the National Press Club event. �Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?� �It is a way to coerce people out of their cars,� said LaHood. (snip) -------------------------------- Best thing they could do is lower speed limits to say 45 and have super- stiff fines for offenders. That would save gas and 10,000 lives a year and it would SAVE money.
From: Patriot Games on 29 Mar 2010 12:23 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:24:33 -0700, Filmway(a)teckway.net wrote: >On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:56:27 -0800, John David Galt ><jdg(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: >>> �It is a way to coerce people out of their cars,� said LaHood. >>If we want to make America livable again, let's start by coercing people like >>LaHood out of federal employment. Patriotic Americans need to re-learn the use >>of tar and feathers, and LaHood's a good one to start with. >Let me guess >You're another Klanner? X-No-Archive: yes
From: Matthew Russotto on 17 Apr 2010 23:32 In article <vnj7s5tr63iqvifa3avg3u8dai15io981g(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Even if there were underground crude oil deposits on Titan, drilling >for it, pumping it, and shipping it here would cost way more than the >gaoline is worth. That's not the point. The point is that _Earth_, according to accepted theory, used to have an atmosphere rather similar to that until some early pan-genocidal archae screwed things up by releasing oxygen as a wasted product. At least one of the abiotic theories of oil suggests that not all of the hydrocarbons around at that time were oxidized, and that petroleum is actually a remnant of that time. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 17 Apr 2010 23:40 In article <30v8s51jmp7afqgt9fj7m4qrrkthscsrun(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > >>> So that leaves us with the (finite) Earthly supply. >> >>An extremely large supply that is increasing slower than it's being >>used by natural processes. Plus humans have figured out how to make oil >>from waste products like turkey guts. > >So why are we wasting out money on hydrogen fueling stations and >electric cars? We should immediately focus all of our energy (pun >intended) on Turkey Guts Stations! Certainly turkey guts stations have a better chance than hydrogen fueling of doing anything worthwhile, though I wouldn't bet on either. The thermal depolymerization people haven't put out so much as a press release since 2008, so I assume they ran out of suck..err, investors when the recession hit. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 18 Apr 2010 13:25
In article <ssams5trv897ckl529hqod3nt5ik2i8rno(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Last time on rec.autos.driving, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew >Russotto) said: > >>In article <vnj7s5tr63iqvifa3avg3u8dai15io981g(a)4ax.com>, >>Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>Even if there were underground crude oil deposits on Titan, drilling >>>for it, pumping it, and shipping it here would cost way more than the >>>gaoline is worth. >> >>That's not the point. The point is that _Earth_, according to >>accepted theory, used to have an atmosphere rather similar to that >>until some early pan-genocidal archae screwed things up by releasing >>oxygen as a wasted product. At least one of the abiotic theories of >>oil suggests that not all of the hydrocarbons around at that time were >>oxidized, and that petroleum is actually a remnant of that time. > >Fascinating. However, nothing you have said suggests that oil on Earth >is anything other than a finite resource. All resources are finite. Even hydrogen and stupidity. >You might argue where it came from, but the fact remains: we WILL run >out of it sooner or later. That's true, but how much sooner or later is a rather important question. Running out in 2050 is substantially different from running out in 5150. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. |