I'd suggest a better model - send less to DC, keep it more locally, and then paying for local issues with local dollars becomes a definite reality. Seems kind of crazy for your town to rely upon the representatives and Senators of dozens of other States to get its sidewalks installed.
Nope. On a per-capita basis, there is more road damage from the bus, versus those 50 people each in their own SUV. Damage goes as the fourth power of weight. Triple the weight, you have 81 times the road damage. Better to have "only" 50 times the damage from the individual vehicles rather than the single, 3 times heavier vehicle.
That only applies to states that allow both lane splitting and don't have helmet laws. I'm not even sure if California applies.
You are correct. CA is the only State that allows lane sharing (splitting - but the CHP prefers sharing), and it requires helmets. All other States - including the no-helmet ones - ban lane splitting.
I have a 2008 Piaggio MP3-500 in my stable of bikes. And it's as stable as any other bike I have (Honda CTX700, Suzuki V-Strom 650). Three wheels, as stable - or unstable, when you're stopped - as any other motorcycle.
Damage to roads goes as the fourth power of weight; mileage tends to scale linearly with weight. The result is that any road taxes should be based upon weight times miles traveled, not gasoline consumed. Note this would also account for high-weight/zero-gas vehicles like Teslas, or high-weight/low-gas vehicles like most hybrids (which tend to weigh more than their gasoline-only counterparts).
Ethanol has about 2/3rds the energy per gallon as gasoline. By mandating blends of ethanol with gasoline, the Government is effectively lowering your mileage - resulting in more gallons of the blended material purchased per mile traveled. A stealth tax.
That actually makes sense, as it is not gas usage but weight that destroys roads. Damage to roads goes as the 4th power of weight. As hybrids and electric cars tend to weigh more than their gas counterparts, they should pay at least the same, if not more taxes.
Buses are curiously exempt. I once ran the numbers - a fully loaded Ford Excursion (largest SUV ever made) with a single passenger did less damage, per passenger mile, than a maximum capacity city bus (and lowering the passengers on the bus increased the differential even further). Tax by weight times mileage on all vehicles.
Only if you also factor in weight. Damage to roads goes as the 4th power of weight. A heavy vehicle driven 5,000 miles a year will do a LOT more damage than a light vehicle driven 15,000 miles a year (or my motorcycle driven 20,000 miles a year).
So why should the Federal Government be involved in a city sidewalk program? How about the city increase it's own gas tax to cover infrastructure improvements (which it can most assuredly do)?
If it's anything like it was in 2004, highway/automotive gas taxes are a net income to the Federal Government; transit (especially rail) is the big consumer. The issue isn't the amount of gas taxes collected - the issue is a huge amount of the gas taxes are spent on transit and railroads.
I see. The IRS Commissioner's sworn testimony is biased and twisted. How about President Obama's words on the issue where he states "I’ve reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog’s report, and the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable"? It's not twisted, it's not biased - this is straight from the group you're trying to defend. It is a real scandal - and those accused even agree about it.
Great, so that's why the IRS Commissioner apologized. Why he said what happened was wrong. Because they were just doing their job, nothing really was wrong, and nothing happened worth apologizing for...
Look, the IRS ITSELF (via the Commissioner) and the Inspector General BOTH are on-record as claiming these actions happened, they should not of happened, and they are, at the very least, the result of gross incompetence. Your trying to spin it as "nothing was wrong" simply goes against the statements of all the actual players in the game. Even President Obama states that "the misconduct... is inexcusable".
But I'm glad to know you are much more knowledgeable about the IRS Scandal than the commissioner, the Senators, the Inspector General, the President, and all the other Government and political participants who have come out and plainly stated what happened was wrong.
No illegal actions, no scandal. Then I guess there was no reason for the IRS Commissioner to apologize for the targeting of Tea Party groups. Good to know! He's not just incompetent about data retention rules, but about the actions and culpability (or lack thereof) of his own organization! Great to know that he represents the quality of people the President appoints...
IRS Commissioner said otherwise. Now, it is possible this is all just incompetence and the commissioner doesn't have a clue about actual e-mail storage (nor does anyone who prepped his talking points for his testimony). But what does that say about the IRS as a whole? Either it's pretty much incompetent all the way through and needs a SERIOUS overhaul top-to-bottom, or it's now doing a CYA move with the tacit approval of the White House.
Slashdot Mirror
2. Smart and athletic are not exclusive of each other
3. Some men can multitask and some girls can't multitask (and empathize, and...)
Stereotypes swing both ways...
Interesting thing about rape and gender... Ninety one percent of accused are male, but 99% of incarcerated are male. It seems that women "get a pass" when it comes to raping others.
I'd suggest a better model - send less to DC, keep it more locally, and then paying for local issues with local dollars becomes a definite reality. Seems kind of crazy for your town to rely upon the representatives and Senators of dozens of other States to get its sidewalks installed.
It could... I am curious what it would do the cornering/leaning of the bike under power.
Weight is actually the biggest factor, contact patch and number of axles can affect to a small degree, but weight is the big driver of road damage.
Nope. On a per-capita basis, there is more road damage from the bus, versus those 50 people each in their own SUV. Damage goes as the fourth power of weight. Triple the weight, you have 81 times the road damage. Better to have "only" 50 times the damage from the individual vehicles rather than the single, 3 times heavier vehicle.
So then, because the State citizens decided to not increase their taxes, the Federal Government should spend Federal dollars on a State highway?
That only applies to states that allow both lane splitting and don't have helmet laws. I'm not even sure if California applies.
You are correct. CA is the only State that allows lane sharing (splitting - but the CHP prefers sharing), and it requires helmets. All other States - including the no-helmet ones - ban lane splitting.
I have a 2008 Piaggio MP3-500 in my stable of bikes. And it's as stable as any other bike I have (Honda CTX700, Suzuki V-Strom 650). Three wheels, as stable - or unstable, when you're stopped - as any other motorcycle.
Not on my cruiser. No standing position at all. More akin to a recliner position, if anything...
Highways are net contributors to the fund; transit sucks away 2 dollars for every 1 dollar gained by cars.
Damage to roads goes as the fourth power of weight; mileage tends to scale linearly with weight. The result is that any road taxes should be based upon weight times miles traveled, not gasoline consumed. Note this would also account for high-weight/zero-gas vehicles like Teslas, or high-weight/low-gas vehicles like most hybrids (which tend to weigh more than their gasoline-only counterparts).
Ethanol has about 2/3rds the energy per gallon as gasoline. By mandating blends of ethanol with gasoline, the Government is effectively lowering your mileage - resulting in more gallons of the blended material purchased per mile traveled. A stealth tax.
That actually makes sense, as it is not gas usage but weight that destroys roads. Damage to roads goes as the 4th power of weight. As hybrids and electric cars tend to weigh more than their gas counterparts, they should pay at least the same, if not more taxes.
That's OK. Out here in California, the State that bleeds Blue and is perpetually Democrat dominated (unassailably so at the State level) has roads just as bad (the top four worst cities in the nation for example), has the highest gas tax in the nation ($0.713 per gallon), over $117 BILLION in backlog transportation work, the highest State income tax, and a $777 BILLION State debt.
Michigan is a rank amateur when it comes to fiscal mismanagement and high taxes...
Buses are curiously exempt. I once ran the numbers - a fully loaded Ford Excursion (largest SUV ever made) with a single passenger did less damage, per passenger mile, than a maximum capacity city bus (and lowering the passengers on the bus increased the differential even further). Tax by weight times mileage on all vehicles.
Only if you also factor in weight. Damage to roads goes as the 4th power of weight. A heavy vehicle driven 5,000 miles a year will do a LOT more damage than a light vehicle driven 15,000 miles a year (or my motorcycle driven 20,000 miles a year).
So why should the Federal Government be involved in a city sidewalk program? How about the city increase it's own gas tax to cover infrastructure improvements (which it can most assuredly do)?
If it's anything like it was in 2004, highway/automotive gas taxes are a net income to the Federal Government; transit (especially rail) is the big consumer. The issue isn't the amount of gas taxes collected - the issue is a huge amount of the gas taxes are spent on transit and railroads.
I see. The IRS Commissioner's sworn testimony is biased and twisted. How about President Obama's words on the issue where he states "I’ve reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog’s report, and the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable"? It's not twisted, it's not biased - this is straight from the group you're trying to defend. It is a real scandal - and those accused even agree about it.
The President disagrees with you.
Look, the IRS ITSELF (via the Commissioner) and the Inspector General BOTH are on-record as claiming these actions happened, they should not of happened, and they are, at the very least, the result of gross incompetence. Your trying to spin it as "nothing was wrong" simply goes against the statements of all the actual players in the game. Even President Obama states that "the misconduct ... is inexcusable".
But I'm glad to know you are much more knowledgeable about the IRS Scandal than the commissioner, the Senators, the Inspector General, the President, and all the other Government and political participants who have come out and plainly stated what happened was wrong.
No illegal actions, no scandal. Then I guess there was no reason for the IRS Commissioner to apologize for the targeting of Tea Party groups. Good to know! He's not just incompetent about data retention rules, but about the actions and culpability (or lack thereof) of his own organization! Great to know that he represents the quality of people the President appoints...
Pretty sure this is a real issue given that the IRS commissioner apologized for the targeting of Tea Party groups. If it's fake, why come out and apologize?
IRS Commissioner said otherwise. Now, it is possible this is all just incompetence and the commissioner doesn't have a clue about actual e-mail storage (nor does anyone who prepped his talking points for his testimony). But what does that say about the IRS as a whole? Either it's pretty much incompetent all the way through and needs a SERIOUS overhaul top-to-bottom, or it's now doing a CYA move with the tacit approval of the White House.