There is no "Right to Drive" in the United States

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Also unlikely the state will prevent you from driving a car without a license on your own private land. 

 

I'll concede that point.  The difference is this, it is possible to fish the creek on your private land and only fish there.  While it is also possible to only drive on your own land it significantly reduces the utility of driving as such the State licensing the act of driving is potentially more restrictive than licensing fishing.

[DunderMifflin]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'll concede that point.  The difference is this, it is possible to fish the creek on your private land and only fish there.  While it is also possible to only drive on your own land it significantly reduces the utility of driving as such the State licensing the act of driving is potentially more restrictive than licensing fishing.

If your creek on your land doesn't have many fish in it then the ulitity of fishing on your own land is greatly reduced.

What you are proposing seems to be that humans in America are only entitled to like 4 or 5 things that are specifically granted by government and law.

I mean are people not entitled to use the bathroom of their own gender if the state says they cant?

At some point there should be some acknowledgement that there's an idea that "Hey we are entitled to thing (free speech, freedom etc) let's go get the law to support our entitlement. Rather than, it's not an entitlement unless a government says so.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

If your creek on your land doesn't have many fish in it then the ulitity of fishing on your own land is greatly reduced.

What you are proposing seems to be that humans in America are only entitled to like 4 or 5 things that are specifically granted by government and law.

I mean are people not entitled to use the bathroom of their own gender if the state says they cant?

At some point there should be some acknowledgement that there's an idea that "Hey we are entitled to thing (free speech, freedom etc) let's go get the law to support our entitlement. Rather than, it's not an entitlement unless a government says so.

DM,

Not in North Carolina they aren't.  The State acted to regulate Bathroom use much to many's chagrin.

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DM,

Not in North Carolina they aren't.  The State acted to regulate Bathroom use much to many's chagrin.

Yet I'm willing to support anyone that claims they are entitled to share the same bathroom privileges as anyone else. Regardless of what NC law has to say about it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

If your creek on your land doesn't have many fish in it then the ulitity of fishing on your own land is greatly reduced.

What you are proposing seems to be that humans in America are only entitled to like 4 or 5 things that are specifically granted by government and law.

I mean are people not entitled to use the bathroom of their own gender if the state says they cant?

At some point there should be some acknowledgement that there's an idea that "Hey we are entitled to thing (free speech, freedom etc) let's go get the law to support our entitlement. Rather than, it's not an entitlement unless a government says so.

I'll just be over here licking this mousetrap.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Yet I'm willing to support anyone that claims they are entitled to share the same bathroom privileges as anyone else. Regardless of what NC law has to say about it.

Morally entitled, not legally entitled.  If you want to differentiate between a moral entitlement and a legal entitlement I'm willing to concede that there is a difference there.  

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Datepalm said:

Personal/household vehicle ownership is a relatively efficient solution for mobility in a low density area though. Public transport isn't viable because there aren't enough people, and the efficiency of driving isn't limited - or limited less than in an urban enviornemnt - by congestion. A broader argument is the efficiency of living in the countryside at all, but since some people are going to do it, them owning cars kind of makes sense. (though there's a whole other exclusion issue where if you can't drive - for whatever reason - your alternatives, particularly your efficient alternatives, are very limited compared to being in a dense area, true.) It's all about the cities.

I think that's true, but only because of the systems that aren't there to replace them. Buses aren't sufficient by a long shot for rural areas. But if you can call an autonomous uber or zipcar and use it for a couple hours to do stuff, and have it drive back, that solves a LOT of problems.

And if you can afford to buy one of these cars and use it for autonomous driving it becomes an important part of your income, too. 

[Guy Kilmore]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'll concede that point.  The difference is this, it is possible to fish the creek on your private land and only fish there.  While it is also possible to only drive on your own land it significantly reduces the utility of driving as such the State licensing the act of driving is potentially more restrictive than licensing fishing.

Just curious Scott, wouldn't property ownership also be something granted by the State, we aren't entitled to own property.  We either do it through Leases, Deeds and Titles; so while practically we "own" it; in reality we only own it because the State allows it?  Or is this me misunderstanding some of the rules around Titling and what not....

[Datepalm]

The question is, are you minimizing trips? (Technically, Vehicle Miles Travelled and Vehicle Fill Rate.) Whether a household owns a car or ocassionally orders a car, there's no real minimization of traffic volumes, emissions, etc, assuming the two modes are used to fulfill the same mobility functions (to the contrary, instead of the car being used to go home-activity-home, it's now going previousplace-home-activity-home-nextplace, which is a rural area, might be a substantial distance addition.)

For people who can't drive or own a car having an affordable no-driving option for car use would be great, but that's the case everywhere. Having better/worse access to different modes often affects people's behaviour and travel choices, but if we're talking about a rural area then we're fairly limited, because a car really is the best option for them by a long measure. An urban household with easy car-sharing options to hand, might subscribe to them instead of owning a car, and then modify their behaviour as each hour of car use becomes costlier (in terms of opportunity cost, at least) or just more complicated - they'll walk and use public transport more, with the car as supplementary. If we simply replace all current private vehicle trips with shared vehicle trips we've done nothing for improving mobility (there's emerging statistics that Uber is leading to increased vehicle miles in some cities.) Maybe we've managed to reduce parking a little - also not a substantial consideration in a rural area.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Datepalm said:

The question is, are you minimizing trips? (Technically, Vehicle Miles Travelled and Vehicle Fill Rate.) Whether a household owns a car or ocassionally orders a car, there's no real minimization of traffic volumes, emissions, etc, assuming the two modes are used to fulfill the same mobility functions (to the contrary, instead of the car being used to go home-activity-home, it's now going previousplace-home-activity-home-nextplace, which is a rural area, might be a substantial distance addition.)

Depends a lot on how it is implemented and the volume, but the answer is 'maybe'. You could envision a ridesharing system that allows for carpooling when it makes most sense to do so. Ultimately it depends on whether or not you want to maximize savings, minimize miles, minimize wait times, etc.

2 minutes ago, Datepalm said:

For people who can't drive or own a car having an affordable no-driving option for car use would be great, but that's the case everywhere. Having better/worse access to different modes often affects people's behaviour and travel choices, but if we're talking about a rural area then we're fairly limited, because a car really is the best option for them by a long measure. An urban household with easy car-sharing options to hand, might subscribe to them instead of owning a car, and then modify their behaviour as each hour of car use becomes costlier (in terms of opportunity cost, at least) or just more complicated - they'll walk and use public transport more, with the car as supplementary. If we simply replace all current private vehicle trips with shared vehicle trips we've done nothing for improving mobility (there's emerging statistics that Uber is leading to increased vehicle miles in some cities.) Maybe we've managed to reduce parking a little - also not a substantial consideration in a rural area.

We've done something, which is allow people who cannot drive access to mobility, and that's becoming an increasingly large part of the society. We also allow things like delivery as options in more frequent ways. An example here that I see all the time is delivery of feed and farm supplies. We allow for things like shared driving to school - and banishment of things like bus routes. 

Ultimately it largely depends on what variables you're going for, but my experience with rural areas is that they're dominated by fairly unused vehicles which are also largely a requirement because you can't go anywhere without one. The vehicles are in poor repair, aren't super reliable and are often badly efficient. They're also one size fits all, meaning that if you have a family of 6 you have a minivan or SUV, even if you rarely put all 6 in the car at one time. 

[Datepalm]

I think rural transport problems, from a kind of broad policy/planning point of view, are just not a big deal. New technologies are great because they'll allow increased mobility for a population that is currently limited largely to private cars and things like ineficcient school bus routes. It will absolutely probably fill a good niche for the rural poor, young, old and those with limited mobility of all sorts. By all means, adding autonomous vehicle-on-demand services, electric cycles and smart ridesharing will help. I doubt they'll significantly lower car ownership rates, but thats not a huge issue, because rural areas generally don't have transport demand-management problems, they have transport supply problems, that are inherent to their, well, geometry. (In a strict save-the-planet sense, maybe you actually don't want to make country living easier and more comfortable, because it will bring more people out there, and they will always be more of an ecological drain than the city people.) The arguments about autonomous vehicles revolutionizing mobility are based on city life though, and there I think it's iffy.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Testicle Bovaries!  

 

That's Spanish for summon Rawmilkmike!

ps DM are you the poster formerly known as the guy who told someone they could "pry [his] Walkman from [his] cold, dead, fingers"?

[DunderMifflin]

15 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Testicle Bovaries!  

 

That's Spanish for summon Rawmilkmike!

ps DM are you the poster formerly known as the guy who told someone they could "pry [his] Walkman from [his] cold, dead, fingers"?

A walkman?

[Swordfish]

11 hours ago, Darzin said:

Dude language only functions based on shared meanings, without that we're all just gibbering at each other madly. 

Even with that we are often just gibbering at each other madly.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

A walkman?

Yeah I think it was a teacher tried to take his walkman and he told them they could pry it from his cold dead fingers.

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah I think it was a teacher tried to take his walkman and he told them they could pry it from his cold dead fingers.

"Give me AA batteries, or give me death!"

[DunderMifflin]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah I think it was a teacher tried to take his walkman and he told them they could pry it from his cold dead fingers.

 

 

What a badass. 

U Betta not be eyeballin my vcr neither

[DunderMifflin]

14 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah I think it was a teacher tried to take his walkman and he told them they could pry it from his cold dead fingers.

 

 

What a badass. 

U Betta not be eyeballin my vcr neither

[Stubby]

9 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

It still seems ludacris to me, if someone else wants to set out to prove or disprove that lawyers read and understand things better than anyone else no matter the career then they can go ahead and do that.

"Ludicrous": the notion that when talking about a legal concept - which a licence discussion can only be - that someone can refuse to accept the legal definition of the term without justifying the refusal.

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, Stubby said:

"Ludicrous": the notion that when talking about a legal concept - which a licence discussion can only be - that someone who refuses to accept the legal definition of the term because reasons.

Or the notion that you get to decide that a discussion about something I said is a legal concept.