Re: Illegal Street Photography? - last from Cotty

2001-12-05 Thread SudaMafud

In a message dated 12/5/01 8:08:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> "One last thing, though - cars are cheap only because you (or fuel
> companies) don't pay the real costs - that in direct contrary to
> theory of market economics. With cars are associated many
> externalities like roads, wars over oil, degradation of human rights
> and nature and death of people from pollution, et cetera et cetera.
> These externalities are paid for by the nature and people not using
> cars (like genocidal practices against Ogoni tribe in Nigeria,...). If
> free market economics, than with externalities included in the price
> of product. Otherwise, it is all one big hypocrisy."
> 

Yup. I filled up last night at SAM'S CLUB for 90.9 cents per gallon (member 
price). Cheap fuel helps drive the SUV market too.

Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .




Re: Illegal Street Photography? - last from Cotty

2001-12-02 Thread Cotty

>you not only kill
>much more on the planet with exhalations and gas for your big SUV, but you
>will certainly kill ANY pedestrian or cyclist you happen to bump into.
>SUVs are mostly fatal to pedestrians - mostly children (who tend to
>run into street more than the careful adults - even at just 20
>MPH... car culture, car death.

In the interest of not annoying much longer with OT postings, for which I 
must apologise in contributing towards, I'll finish with this one.

My 'big' SUV is a 1993 Range Rover Tdi with an engine size of 2.5 litres, 
diesel. All cars pollute, diesels arguably more so. It does NOT have a 
bull bar on the front, and one could also argue that most car-pedestrian 
accidents will have a major tragic influence on the pedestrian. I'm 
afraid I don't personally buy into the 'cars are safer hitting 
pedestrians than 4X4' concept. In the Oxfordshire countryside where we 
live, there aren't estates with kids appearing unanounced into the 
street, so I put that as a low priority risk. I do live in an area that 
floods in the winter, and cars become useless, hence the tall vehicle. I 
used to race 4X4s years ago, and know the Rangey inside out (having built 
one from scratch) - and yes, statistically it is a safer vehicle to be 
involved in an accident in. When it comes to the safety of my family 
travelling about (as they must - only 8K miles per year though), then I 
guess I *am* guilty of 'car culture, car death' as you put it, but I am 
certainly not proud of it. When it comes to an idiot in a stolen car with 
no insurance screaming down our narrow country lanes, and my family in 
our necessary mode of transport, I'm afraid I unashamedly rest assured in 
the choices I have made.

I'm sure you disagree Frants, but if we want to debate this further, as 
you said, let's take it off the list.

Good light to you sir!

Cotty

___
Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check out the UK Macintosh ads 
http://www.macads.co.uk
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .