Yes and that how I was going to write it before hesitating and writing the mistake that you read.
The "lips not moving" joke was in reference to my avatar. Things sleep deprivation makes you write...
You discovered that also. I've been lusting after the Rohloff from the day I saw it. Stick that on a velomobile, along with the Schlumpf high-speed crankset with planetary gears, and you have a nice, super-wide range drivetrain with no derailleurs. Doing some math, I figured use the 2.5X high-speed crank with a 34 tooth chainring ( the stock 27 would exceed the minimum 2.35 chainring/sprocket ratio required by the Rohloff hub ). Choose the 13 tooth option for the Rohloff sprocket. You now have 34/13 = 2.615, which comfortably exceeds 2.35. You can even get by with 34/14 = 2.429. Anyway, the 34/13 option gives you a low of ~17" (gear-inches). When the high-speed crank is set at 2.5, the resulting high would be ~226.5". Corresponding speeds at a 90 RPM cadence would be 4.6 mph and 60.5 mph, respectively. Great now for both uphills and downhills. Unfortunately, your wallet will also be lightened quite a bit. :-D
I assume so.
By subsidize you really mean doesn't tax it at insane levels like many other countries in the world right? :scratch:
Never mind just teenagers. For distances of about 5 miles or less, if you're not carrying much cargo, a bike isn't a bad way to get around. That's doubly true in large cities. I make as good or better time on most of my bike trips than you would by car. And I have at times gone 20 miles each way.
Maybe. My guess is if such prices continue long-term it'll simply mean most people switching from gas cars to electric cars. Although EVs solve my single biggest complaint about cars, namely air pollution, they're still a car which requires wasting lots of space for roads and parking lots. And they'll still kill and maim at the same unacceptable rate as gas cars. Honestly, assuming we had the infrastructure, I'm having a hard time seeing that cars are needed at all for most people. Basically, the best passenger modes for various distances are as follows:Upon consideration, $8/gallon gas is probably a good step toward jtr's utopia.
Wasn't Congress just talking about eliminating the $2 billion in tax breaks it gives to the oil industry? A special tax break equals a subsidy, which in turn equals lower prices at the pump than would otherwise be. Given all the negatives associated with fossil fuel use, subsidizing it is about as stupid as it gets for a policy decision. If we didn't subsidize gas prices, many of the other alternatives would be able to compete on a fair basis, even without government subsidies for them also.
Our last one use just over $600... (for 3mths usage). But that one is typically high due to use of the air-con. Over the winters months, it's down to around $400 for the 3 mths.
IMHO, a tax break is not a subsidy. Besides, everyone knows that corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers pay the taxes because the product ends up being more expensive. So, the solution to high gas prices is to make gas more expensive?
I think we should use up every last drop of oil. When a viable alternative to oil exists the market will move to it. No amount of hand waving & legislating by 535 idiots in Washington DC is going to make a viable alternative to oil appear out of thin air.
This is easy. JTR and people like him think you should be forced (via economic coercion) to move to where the public transportation is readily available.
What you really mean is less individual freedom. More state run social planning. After all, it's for the collective good.
Yes, because that's the only thing which will get people off oil for good. Funny how I remember you bitching like crazy about the subsidies the government gives for solar, wind, etc. I guess subsidies are fine in your book if they're for something you personally use, but not for something someone else uses.
Putting aside that we've had viable alternatives to oil for decades which policy keeps us from using, the big problem with your line of thinking is you'll continue to have these price swings as long as you use oil, and also you'll kill the planet in the process. Not to mention there will be chaos fighting for that last drop of oil if we fail to convert to alternatives first in an orderly manner. Since you're so big on free markets, let the free markets reign. Stop the subsidies for oil, and for everything else for that matter. Just charge for the costs of externalities, like pollution, for all energy sources. The market will choose the best power sources. I'll bet good money oil won't be among them. Nuclear sounds good to me, along with wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, tidal. While you're at it, get rid of all the other social engineering in the tax code (after all, you're not big on that, right?). That includes home mortgage deductions which favor home ownership over renting (and therefore sprawl over more compact living not requiring auto use), deductions for dependents, etc. Basically treat everyone the same under the tax code, and better yet implement a sales tax instead of an income tax (i.e. tax consumption since that's really the root of the problem).
How is not being dependent on a finicky, expensive piece of machinery like a car being less free? Guess what, I don't have to worry about car repairs, car payments, higher gas prices, traffic tickets, renewing my driver's license/registration, and so forth. I don't have to waste extra time working to pay for these things, either. Freedom baby! Fuck big oil, fuck the automakers, fuck the DMV, most of all fuck the cops and their ticket quotas! You bought into that whole auto=freedom crap hook, line, and sinker. I'm more free than you. I'll need to earn $300,000 less over my life than you to retire at the same standard of living just by virtue of never needing to drive. And I'm starting to grow my own food. More freedom! The American idea of freedom isn't about subsidizing big corporations trying to get us to buy crap we don't need.
As I said, I would love to use alternate transport, be it walking, bike or mass public transport. (my waist line would like it as well).
What you really mean is less individual freedom. More state run social planning. After all, it's for the collective good.
You know, I had a lengthy reply typed up, but it just isn't worth arguing with you. We're not going to find any common ground. You want all the elements of a high standard of living, but you don't want any of the infrastructure & backbone needed to to deliver it. This isn't a Gene Roddenberry utopia and never will be.
Wow, you feeling ok? That seems like a first!
