🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: tx.general
Article #3307

Re: GUN CONTROL (was: Re: I'd just like to say I support Ann for Governor

#3307
From: Patrick L Humphrey
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 18:51
70 lines
5379 bytes
On Wed, 09 Nov 1994 18:17:29 -0600 in <D.Nash-0911941817290001@bubba.ots.utexas.edu> Donald L. Nash (D.Nash@utexas.edu) said:
|In article <PATRICK.94Nov9135009@brazos.is.rice.edu>,
|patrick@brazos.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) wrote:
|
|>Unfortunately for you, I'm also the owner of a little red '90 Mazda
|>pickup truck, so I'm paying my share of taxes...

|You pay taxes on you truck, not on your bike.  You own two vehicles but
|you only pay tax on one.  People who own two motor vehicles (instead of
|one motor vehicle and one bicycle), pay taxes on both of them.  My point
|is that your comparison is somewhat flawed.  The taxes you pay on your
|truck entitle you to drive your truck on public roads, not your truck and
|your bike.  You're getting road-use out of your bike for free.  If you
|don't believe me, try selling your truck.  You'll still get to use your
|bike, but you won't be paying any road taxes.

Sorry, but I'm footing my share of the bill.  Road taxes are supposed to be
derived from stuff like registration fees, license fees and renewals, and the
taxes that make up around 35% of the retail cost of a gallon of gas at the
pump, but in reality they're taken from a few more diverse sources -- like
from the sales tax.  That puts a *lot* of us on an equal footing.

|>In Texas, bikes are traffic -- therefore, when I'm
|>pedaling to or from work, or anywhere else, I've got the same rights and
|>responsibilities as idiots like you in the four-wheelers.

|Same rights, but not the same responsibilities.  You have to obey the
|traffic laws, but you don't have to license your bike (i.e. pay tax on
|it), have an operator's permit to use it, or subject it to yearly safety
|inspections.  Any yahoo who doesn't know the traffic laws from a hole in
|the ground can go buy a bike and use it without paying for his use of the
|public roads, without proving to anyone that he can operate the bike
|competently, safely, and legally; and without demonstrating the bike's
|structural safety.  You can't get away with that in a car and I don't
|think you should be able to get away with it on a bike.

So you think passing a few more laws will solve the problem?  Never mind that
*that* approach usually winds up causing more problems than it solves, and you
provide a sterling example in the following statement:

|Of course you run into the problem that kids ride bikes, too.  But you can
|get around that by exempting residental streets from the enforcement of
|licensing and inspection requirements.  If a kid gets caught on his bike
|in a non-residental area, then the cops get to take him home and scold his
|parents, or something like that.

...and I wonder, who gets to determine what's residential and what isn't?  The
distinction isn't anywhere near as clear-cut as you might think, particularly
in urban areas like Houston -- and if taken literally, you'd wind up with
streets where every other block would have different laws applicable.  Then,
you have to figure out where you're going to get all the people needed for
enforcement, and who's going to foot the bill -- do you see what you're
getting into?

|Personally, I don't like having bikes on the same streets as cars.  It is
|a big inconvenience for the drivers and a big hazard for everyone.  I like
|separate bike lanes, but those have their own problems (like turning left
|when the bike lane is on the right shoulder).

Oh, so *that's* your motivation...you don't want to be _inconvenienced_.
If my lawful presence on a street inconveniences you in your land barge, I'm
sorry, but those are the breaks.  You'd best learn to share the road, because
under the law, you don't have a whole lot of other options.  I think the
Critical Mass folks up there could find a more constructive way of getting
their point across -- disrupting large amounts of traffic is *not* the way to
do it -- but your attitude is equally ignorant.  We've both got rights to the
road in Texas, lump it or leave it...so it'd behoove us to learn to share it,
and do it right.

--Patrick L. "especially in Bellaire and West U" Humphrey
Technical Details
Message-ID: <39tq3s$gni@larry.rice.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bga.com!cs.utexas.edu!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!little-star.owlnet.rice.edu!patrick
References: <39r0m3$h1k@oak.zilker.net> <PATRICK.94Nov9135009@brazos.is.rice.edu> <D.Nash-0911941817290001@bubba.ots.utexas.edu>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10b82c,642977eedb6b415e
X-Google-Attributes: gid10b82c,public
X-Google-Thread: 103916,642977eedb6b415e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103916,public
X-Google-Thread: fd714,44a840f94edd3e03
X-Google-Attributes: gidfd714,public
X-Google-Thread: f59be,2e27125b926e6893
X-Google-Attributes: gidf59be,public
X-Google-Thread: 104ad1,faf138bd852a6ce6
X-Google-Attributes: gid104ad1,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-10 10:50:58 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bga.com!cs.utexas.edu!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!little-star.owlnet.rice.edu!patrick
From: patrick@rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: tx.general,dfw.general,austin.general,tx.guns,tx.politics
Subject: Re: GUN CONTROL (was: Re: I'd just like to say I support Ann for Governor
Followup-To: tx.general,dfw.general,austin.general,tx.guns,tx.politics
Date: 10 Nov 1994 18:51:40 GMT
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Lines: 70
Distribution: tx
Message-ID: <39tq3s$gni@larry.rice.edu>
References: <39r0m3$h1k@oak.zilker.net> <PATRICK.94Nov9135009@brazos.is.rice.edu> <D.Nash-0911941817290001@bubba.ots.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: little-star.owlnet.rice.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]