[syadasti]

Better motorcycle emission controls are available and the EPA (Euro too) has been gradually phasing in tighter restrictions, so your point is moot. Every other measured pollutant (NOx, HCs, CO)is measured for a reason - its harmful and contributes to problems just like C02 does (which I never dismissed) - smog, asthma, etc. The point is a much smaller engine should also put out less of the other pollutants when its possible to control them.

Also most states regularly inspect the emission controls on gasoline passenger cars while motorcycles are exempt, so motorcycles will be even worse with time than passenger cars with no control on aging emission systems.

You can easily fault the corporations as some leave off emission controls in countries that don't require them on products with well developed controls like passenger cars. There are very few companies that haven't moved banned product to other markets when they knew they were harmful (US is the biggest producer of DDT) or moved all or most of their production to countries with lax pollution and/or labor laws. They are profiting at the expense of the people of those countries - they know better but profits go first.

Or it could be that it's really difficult to fit the equipment for tighter emissions controls within the very confined space of a motorcycle.

Also, nice dismissal of CO2 as unimportant. Guess global warming isn't a big deal? My little beemer got 70mpg and took 1/5 of the energy and materials to manufacture of, say, a prius, golf TDI, or civic hybrid. It also took up less space on the road and in the city, easing congestion. It spent zero time idling in traffic.

Could motorcycles be cleaner? Yes. Should they be? Yes. Is it some massive conspiracy led by the manufacturers to poison the populace? Sure, that's more likely than, say, the fact that motorcycles represent such a tiny proportion of traffic in the US that it's not worth the EPA or CARB's time to battle the highly vocal riders/populace over emissions. This is one of those rare cases where you can blame the people, not the corporations.

 

[4xBoy]

So because Europe has allowed there prices to go through the roof so should we...Are you kidding me?

Depends on how the payment is being taken.

I barely ever drive, but I pay for roads and auto infrastructure through my federal taxes, why shouldn't the funding come directly from the buying of fuel that way the highest users pay the most for it.

 

[drkenan]

Pretty well written and reasoned for an American, whose 2nd language is English, actually...

ftfy5

 

[X3pilot]

Meh, this happened in 2008, happned in 2001, happened in 1995, happened in 1979, 1980 and so on....

Prices go up, people bitch. Most normal consumers that take a few minutes to get somewhat educated are really frustrated over the market mechanics of oil speculation and pricing. In the 70's/80's, it was an actual issue of supply being lower than demand. Today, it's based on market speculation and fear. If commodities were based on actual market factors and traded by actual users of those commodities, it would be different. The NYMEx is nothing more than a casino, subsidized by retirement funds, 401ks and more OPM (other people's money). For example, actual supply and demand economics would dictate that with as much spare supply we have now, oil prices should level out at a stable price, not change and flucuate with media reports. Also, gasoline has shot up 35% in a month, yet the gas in the ground and being delivered today, was made with crude bought at 30-60 days ago prices, so are they factoring a hedge against current prices? is that right or fair?

Either way, the good General should know better than try to defend fossil fuel usage and prices on a bicycling based forum group. Most of you live within reasonable bike commuting distance of your work or live within a mass transit system. Some can't do that due to economics, where their work is located geographically or whatever.

 

[KavuRider]

Either way, the good General should know better than try to defend fossil fuel usage and prices on a bicycling based forum group. Most of you live within reasonable bike commuting distance of your work or live within a mass transit system. Some can't do that due to economics, where their work is located geographically or whatever.

Or are just tired of hearing people who bought huge trucks (and didn't need them) gripe about having to fill their V8 powered lazy-boy. I know I am.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Or are just tired of hearing people who bought huge trucks (and didn't need them) gripe about having to fill their V8 powered lazy-boy. I know I am.

 

[dan-o]

Or are just tired of hearing people who bought huge trucks (and didn't need them) gripe about having to fill their V8 powered lazy-boy. I know I am.

says the single guy driving a v8 conversion van that gets worse mileage than the truck owned by the guy in the article.

 

[KavuRider]

says the single guy driving a v8 conversion van that gets worse mileage than the truck owned by the guy in the article.

I'm not complaining about gas prices though.
I just accept I have to drive less. I don't drive that much to begin with.

edit - I also will be ditching it for an econo-box as soon as possible.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Wife's current mode of transportation. A bazillion miles per gallon, and now that the snow/ice is finally melting she's going back to riding to work ~4 days per week. Bring on the $5/gallon gasoline!

Devil's advocate:

Mile for mile, it costs more to feed yourself to ride a bicycle than to, say, take a bus or a train. Learned that on a long bicycle trip in Canada when I was in high school.

 

[sanjuro]

Or it could be that it's really difficult to fit the equipment for tighter emissions controls within the very confined space of a motorcycle.

Also, nice dismissal of CO2 as unimportant. Guess global warming isn't a big deal? My little beemer got 70mpg and took 1/5 of the energy and materials to manufacture of, say, a prius, golf TDI, or civic hybrid. It also took up less space on the road and in the city, easing congestion. It spent zero time idling in traffic.

Could motorcycles be cleaner? Yes. Should they be? Yes. Is it some massive conspiracy led by the manufacturers to poison the populace? Sure, that's more likely than, say, the fact that motorcycles represent such a tiny proportion of traffic in the US that it's not worth the EPA or CARB's time to battle the highly vocal riders/populace over emissions. This is one of those rare cases where you can blame the people, not the corporations.

I don't want a cleaner bike: I want a faster one!

 

[BurlyShirley]

So because Europe has allowed there prices to go through the roof so should we...Are you kidding me?

Where did anyone even suggest this? The point of the article was that high gas prices are somehow eroding the American way of life. The point of referencing comparative data was to illustrate that many countries pay higher fuel costs, yet demonstrate equal or better quality of life to that seen in the states.

There are many reasons for there prices being what they are. There are even more reasons why ours shouldn't be as high as they are. So to condemn people who are not happy about it is ridiculous.

Complaining about fuel prices is one thing. Complaining that you're going broke due to fuel costs when you've sunk far more money into a wasteful and inefficient lifestyle than you have into those fuel costs only shows peoples' ignorance and frankly, demands ridicule. This is the type of "personal responsibility" people are always ranting about. If you're living so close to your budget that an increase in fuel costs is going to bankrupt you, a lifestyle change is in order. That's the larger issue at stake.. not why has gas gone up a couple dollars, because it does so periodically and people who don't realize this and don't budget accordingly are idiots. Again, they deserve to be ridiculed because it's irresponsible.

I drive a Ford truck that easily provided me with 20 plus miles per gallon. I know that isn't you average economy car and I'm OK with that as I use thew truck for work. I now am lucky to see 12 mile per gallon with the newer fuel we are forced to use in California. This newer fuel has not been proven to do anything for our environment yet we've allowed Sacramento to continue requiring it. It added to the cost and they increase the tax and were not supposed to be frustrated by that.

Now you're conflating your dissatisfaction in local political decisions with this assclown writer's misguided attempt to drum up sympathy for the financially retarded. This doesn't do a thing to make the subject of the article's financial decisions any better.

We continue to buy oil from other sources at extremely high prices and sell our own oil to other countries for extremely low prices and we're not supposed to be frustrated by that.We have enough oil in our own land to supply our needs and bring the worlds price down to a competitive level yet we don't because the damage it would do to OPEC and our politicians hide behind the environmentalists. Oh yah, we're not supposed to be frustrated by that.

Well, this finally, sort of addresses the point of the thread. I mean it actually relates to why gas prices are so high nationwide, although it's a misinformed opinion. While you could potentially ramp up production of our own resources to meet demand, you wouldn't be able to do so for long. And the massive costs to build the infrastructure to do so would likewise be reflected at the pump. Ours arent as easy to get to as those in many other areas, which would likewise add to costs. And why should we drain our own resources now instead of saving them for when the lights start turning off in other countries? Conservation is simply smart and in the interests of the country longterm.

Also, you'd wreck other natural resources in the process, but you've already demonstrated you don't care about things such as air quality so Im not sure you're concerned about anything else. Really doesn't matter because if this type of post is reflective of your broader understanding of the situation at hand there really isn't much point in posting anything else.

I don't know when it happened but at some point the cycling community has seemed to become so liberal that they have lost all reason....Say it ain't so

Lost all reason? You haven't made a single legitimate point in this thread. Maybe reconsider and then try again.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Would someone please kick some rep to BurlyShirley? I must spread, it seems.

 

[stoney]

done.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Would someone please kick some rep to BurlyShirley? I must spread, it seems.

I too, have been denied. Sorry Burly, excellent post.

 

[MMike]

I too, have been denied. Sorry Burly, excellent post.

me too.....maybe I could just neg rep the other guy to even things out?

 

[jonKranked]

So because Europe has allowed there prices to go through the roof so should we...Are you kidding me?

There are many reasons for there prices being what they are. There are even more reasons why ours shouldn't be as high as they are. So to condemn people who are not happy about it is ridiculous. I drive a Ford truck that easily provided me with 20 plus miles per gallon. I know that isn't you average economy car and I'm OK with that as I use thew truck for work. I now am lucky to see 12 mile per gallon with the newer fuel we are forced to use in California. This newer fuel has not been proven to do anything for our environment yet we've allowed Sacramento to continue requiring it. It added to the cost and they increase the tax and were not supposed to be frustrated by that. We continue to buy oil from other sources at extremely high prices and sell our own oil to other countries for extremely low prices and we're not supposed to be frustrated by that. We have enough oil in our own land to supply our needs and bring the worlds price down to a competitive level yet we don't because the damage it would do to OPEC and our politicians hide behind the environmentalists. Oh yah, we're not supposed to be frustrated by that.

I don't know when it happened but at some point the cycling community has seemed to become so liberal that they have lost all reason....Say it ain't so

 

[jonKranked]

also, who exactly who is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to continue living in california?

 

[general sherman]

Where did anyone even suggest this?

You did on the first page of this post.



Complaining about fuel prices is one thing. Complaining that you're going broke due to fuel costs when you've sunk far more money into a wasteful and inefficient lifestyle than you have into those fuel costs only shows peoples' ignorance and frankly, demands ridicule. This is the type of "personal responsibility" people are always ranting about. If you're living so close to your budget that an increase in fuel costs is going to bankrupt you, a lifestyle change is in order. That's the larger issue at stake.. not why has gas gone up a couple dollars, because it does so periodically and people who don't realize this and don't budget accordingly are idiots. Again, they deserve to be ridiculed because it's irresponsible.

If I couldn't afford the cost I would sell the truck. The fact is, you can find any excuse to ridicule people all you want and your still going to be the jerk that ridicules others to feel good about yourself. Just because I can afford the fuel cost doesn't mean I should stand by and not give my opinion that costs shouldn't be that high.


Now you're conflating your dissatisfaction in local political decisions with this assclown writer's misguided attempt to drum up sympathy for the financially retarded.

I originally posted to this thread because of some of the responses I read. I think that any discussion about the cost of fuel should include a discussion about political influence. Here in California it has the most influence on cost.


Well, this finally, sort of addresses the point of the thread. I mean it actually relates to why gas prices are so high nationwide, although it's a misinformed opinion. While you could potentially ramp up production of our own resources to meet demand, you wouldn't be able to do so for long. And the massive costs to build the infrastructure to do so would likewise be reflected at the pump. Ours arent as easy to get to as those in many other areas, which would likewise add to costs. And why should we drain our own resources now instead of saving them for when the lights start turning off in other countries? Conservation is simply smart and in the interests of the country longterm.

Nice.....Any basic business knowledge would teach you that supply effects demand and they work together to effect cost. If we add to the worlds supply it brings the cost down both by adding to the overall supply and by encouraging other suppliers to not allow there market share to drop.

You can sit on your high horse and call someone misinformed but without any concrete examples of your own it falls flat.


Also, you'd wreck other natural resources in the process, but you've already demonstrated you don't care about things such as air quality so Im not sure you're concerned about anything else. Really doesn't matter because if this type of post is reflective of your broader understanding of the situation at hand there really isn't much point in posting anything else.

We have more oil available in this country than you think. OPEC knows it and fights harder than you or me to keep access to it limited. Accessing it is certainly less impact-full to the environment today than ever before. It is definitely not considered wrecking the environment. Air quality is another flat argument that liberals have been using for years yet with ever faulty science. But I won't even argue that point. I'll just add this. The amount of pollutants expelled by vehicles has only gone down to allow for industry to expel more. The costs go up for the average citizen and the



Lost all reason? You haven't made a single legitimate point in this thread. Maybe reconsider and then try again.

BurleyShirley

 

[Silver]

also, who exactly who is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to continue living in california?

I'll take blacks, Mexicans, and gays for $1000, Alex.

 

[general sherman]

Where did anyone even suggest this? The point of the article was that high gas prices are somehow eroding the American way of life. The point of referencing comparative data was to illustrate that many countries pay higher fuel costs, yet demonstrate equal or better quality of life to that seen in the states.

BurlyShirley-You did on the fist page of this thread. My original response to this thread was directed at some of the other posts, not the atricle. My oppologized for the confussion

Complaining about fuel prices is one thing. Complaining that you're going broke due to fuel costs when you've sunk far more money into a wasteful and inefficient lifestyle than you have into those fuel costs only shows peoples' ignorance and frankly, demands ridicule. This is the type of "personal responsibility" people are always ranting about. If you're living so close to your budget that an increase in fuel costs is going to bankrupt you, a lifestyle change is in order. That's the larger issue at stake.. not why has gas gone up a couple dollars, because it does so periodically and people who don't realize this and don't budget accordingly are idiots. Again, they deserve to be ridiculed because it's irresponsible.

I can afford the fuel. If I couldn't I'd simply sell the truck. Just because I can afford the fuel does not mean I should not express my opinion of high costs. As far as your assertion that someones ignorance demands ridicule. If it makes you feel better about yourself then I see why it "demands it". Personally I prefer to share my opinion only in an effort to maybe educate others and learn something myself.

Now you're conflating your dissatisfaction in local political decisions with this assclown writer's misguided attempt to drum up sympathy for the financially retarded. This doesn't do a thing to make the subject of the article's financial decisions any better.

Local politics has a direct effect on costs hear in California. Again, I'm not condoning poor financial decisions. I'm also not judging. I'm just speaking of the costs themselves, not an individuals reasons for being upset about them.


Well, this finally, sort of addresses the point of the thread. I mean it actually relates to why gas prices are so high nationwide, although it's a misinformed opinion. While you could potentially ramp up production of our own resources to meet demand, you wouldn't be able to do so for long. And the massive costs to build the infrastructure to do so would likewise be reflected at the pump. Ours arent as easy to get to as those in many other areas, which would likewise add to costs. And why should we drain our own resources now instead of saving them for when the lights start turning off in other countries? Conservation is simply smart and in the interests of the country longterm.

You write well and almost sound informed, however just stating I'm misinformed without any facts dose not prove any point. Any basic business knowledge would allow you to understand how supply effects demand and how they work together to control the market. We have plenty of oil in this country and are finding more all the time. We are not allowed to tap into it for many reasons but mostly because OPEC doesn't want their market share messed with. They have a huge amount of influence and they often hide behind many environmentalist organizations with their financial support. To argue our oil is somehow harder to get to is simply ignorant. Funny since you are so quick to ridicule others ignorance.



Also, you'd wreck other natural resources in the process, but you've already demonstrated you don't care about things such as air quality so Im not sure you're concerned about anything else. Really doesn't matter because if this type of post is reflective of your broader understanding of the situation at hand there really isn't much point in posting anything else.

Taking advantage of our natural resources is hardly wrecking the environment and you have no idea what my personnel beliefs are. I know it may be hard to believe but I too enjoy breathing clean air. News flash! I just don't believe everything I hear on the Today show or read in the Huffington Post. I base my opinions on facts. Hear is the problem and why people like you and me will never agree. Science and the opinions of different scientists are made up of opinions based on given assumptions. Those assumptions are based on given Data. Data is gathered from various sources. Those sources can very dramatically and all of it effects the outcome (Scientists opinions). The point is simple. For every scientist that will argue how vehicle emissions effect the environment there are others that will argue a different set of data. The fact is we just don't know as much as we would like to think we do. Back to you concern about air quality. If the day ever come that we are all rolling around on electrics we will still have the same issues because the amount of air pollutants saved each year by cleaner burning vehicles is offset by the amount allowed by corporations. The politicians love this policy because they can say they are environmentalists and turn around and sell the rights to corporations to expel more pollutants. Its a money maker for the state.

Lost all reason? You haven't made a single legitimate point in this thread. Maybe reconsider and then try again.

To say I haven't made a point and sling insults does nothing to bolster your opinion. I don't know if you are just a jerk that thinks to highly of yourself or someone that is so self conscious that you get a kick out of escalating friendly conversation. The reality is I don't care. I just pray that people can form their own opinions based in information not on inflamed egos and well written insults. I'm done. My assumption that this thread could be more civil than other forums I've been on was wrong and I've spent more time that I wanted to so flame away......I won't be reading it. If you or anyone else has any questions you can always PM me.

 

[DaveW]

I too, have been denied. Sorry Burly, excellent post.

Ditto.

 

[jonKranked]

Taking advantage of our natural resources is hardly wrecking the environment

in regards to oil, it is exactly wrecking the environment. even when everything goes according to plan, its a trainwreck. you should see what coal mining is doing to appalachia.

and when things go wrong... well...

 

[valve bouncer]

I love the PAWN forum. Noob comes along, craps on with the usual crap they crap on with, gets thoroughly owned by someone, gets -repped back to the stone age then moans about how mean we all are.
"A sherman" is rhyming slang for masturbation where I come from.

 

[Pesqueeb]

I don't know if you are just a jerk that thinks to highly of yourself or someone that is so self conscious that you get a kick out of escalating friendly conversation.

 

[dante]

So, I'll totally admit I just skimmed your original post (kudos to Burley for actually reading and responding), but I'd like to hear more about your economic theory on disparaging oil prices:

We continue to buy oil from other sources at extremely high prices and sell our own oil to other countries for extremely low prices

I'm sure that modern economists would love to hear your theory on how oil is not fungible, how the price of Brent crude for American consumption is different than the price of Brent crude for international consumption, and how international companies like Exxon are able to get around the legal aspects of anti-competitive practices such as charging two different prices to two different consumers.

Kthxbai.

 

[Silver]

I'm sure that modern economists would love to hear your theory on how oil is not fungible

What I want to know is where is the source for that particular stupid? It's gotta be floating around out there somewhere. Sarah Palin, Alex Jones, Beck...I think he's too dumb for that spectacularly wrong theory to have been homegrown.