Eric, Some of your interpretations are not what I had intended to convey:
> Below you seem to suggest that since the Governor wants to raid the > oil companies, that his actions VALIDATE a systemic problem with oil > companies in need of a fix. The systemic problem is with the Wisconsin's limited support of alternative forms of transportation and the inelasticity it produces in demand for gasoline. This in turn is the reason why gasoline prices go so high when there is a relatively small shortage. Clearly, the Governor's attempt to tax the oil companies to recover monies they have "gouged" from Wisconsin citizens is proof of a high level of irritation with price volatility. > And somehow a readjustment of priorities in spending the largesse > will help reduce the problem. And you suggest that by the > Governors announced decision, the raid is justified. Bringing Wisconsin citizens more viable transportation options will reduce gasoline demand inelasticity, and thus reduce the magnitude of price spikes. There is no "somehow" about it, it is all ECON-101 here. My thinking is that unless monies raised from an oil tax are spent to reduce the problem that prompted the tax, the tax is not justified. Using the money exclusively to build more roads can only increase inelasticity and make the "gouging" problem worse. Using the money to build alternative infrastructure will reduce inelasticity and help reduce the problem. > I agree there is a problem with automobile drivers in general as > well as the public at large not appreciating the vulnerability of > frail bicycles in sharing the roadway. I called THAT the SYSTEMIC > PROBLEM in need of psychologists of human nature. And I believe that simply providing more people with usable bicycle infrastructure will begin to address this problem. It's not that hard to understand: Unless people can identify with the situation of bicyclists, they won't fully appreciate the problems you point out. The best way to identify is to be given an opportunity to experience the situation themselves. > Matt, then you go on to suggest the Governor is then wrong headed > in increasing roadway spending, yet not parsing much to the > alternatives to cars---and the bicycle. Why doesn't the Governor's > action in this case--also justify--as in the oil profits scenario. The bicycle is the most obvious short-term fix for the reasons I stated a few e-mails ago. It is generally faster than the bus, and definitely more flexible than any mass transit. The big negative to the bicycle that I hear is "safety" - and that should be what building bicycle infrastructure addresses. > Why isn't he simply "representing" the peoples lack of concern for > the bicycle--the systemic problem in need of "pr." ----And again-- > not--in your face demonstrations at the most major auto show. I think there is a difference between a general lack of respect for the safety of bicyclists (as you seem to frame the discussion), and support of providing more transportation choice for Wisconsin's citizens (which is my priority). The documents I cited earlier suggest that people really do want to be able to use the bicycle more. This disparity leads me to believe the Governor is more interested in representing the road-builders desire for a government handout than he is in responding to the desires of Wisconsin's citizens. As to "in your face demonstrations" - please put that argument back in the closet until I advocate for "in your face demonstrations". I don't see why you keep bringing it up. _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
