[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

"THAT YOUNG MAN, I FORGIVE HIM"

4um Upgrade: Update News

Elon Musk at Charlie Kirk Memorial: "Charlie Kirk was killed by the DARK.."

Netflix as Jewish Daycare for Women

Warning America About Palantir: Richie From Boston

I'm not done asking questions about the killing of Charlie Kirk.

6 reasons the stock market bubble is worse than anyone expected.

Elon Musk: Charlie Kirk was killed because his words made a difference.

Try It For 5 Days! - The Most EFFICIENT Way To LOSE FAT

Number Of US Student Visas Issued To Asians Tumbles

Range than U.S HIMARS, Russia Unveils New Variant of 300mm Rocket Launcher on KamAZ-63501 Chassis

Keir Starmer’s Hidden Past: The Cases Nobody Talks About

BRICS Bombshell! Putin & China just DESTROYED the U.S. Dollar with this gold move

Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest flood-control corruption in Philippines

The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor)

The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding!

Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing

The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025

LadyX

Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show

1963 Chrysler Turbine

3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Back-Seat Big Brother? Tax-by-the-mile technology to be tested in Oregon
Source: Willamette Week
URL Source: http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6337
Published: May 26, 2005
Author: Pete Hunt
Post Date: 2005-05-26 12:31:28 by Mr Nuke Buzzcut
Keywords: Tax-by-the-mile, technology, Back-Seat
Views: 172
Comments: 33

Back-Seat Big Brother?
Tax-by-the-mile technology to be tested in Oregon.

BY PETE HUNT

Oregon is on track to road-test whether black-box technology now in cars could one day be used to slap a tax on mileage.

No other state taxes by miles driven. And Oregon's civil libertarians and environmentalists aren't wasting any time in throwing spikes on the road to stop the concept.

The American Civil Liberties Union warns that the technology developed by a research team at Oregon State University is ripe for surveillance abuse.

"This is the government insisting that you have technology that can track you," says Andrea Meyer, legislative director for ACLU of Oregon.

And enviros question doing away with the current system that taxes gasoline on a per-gallon basis now, benefiting fuel-efficient vehicles and punishing inefficient ones.

"Fuel economy has gotten worse, not better," says Chris Hagerbaumer, of the Oregon Environmental Council. "As long as cars are consuming large amounts of fuel, [the state] should be able to tax that."

Here's the rationale for considering a tax on mileage:

Thirty percent of the Oregon Department of Transportation's budget now comes from a 24-cents-per-gallon gas tax levied at the pump. But reduced auto travel because of skyrocketing gas prices means less tax money to repair state highways.

State Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, proposed a road user fee task force when he was chairman of the House Transportation Committee in the 2001 Legislature. Since then, the 12-member task force-assembled from state legislators, ODOT reps and others-has secured a $2.1 million, six-year grant from the Federal Highway Administration to study the idea. The state Highway Trust Fund has chipped in another $770,000.

This March, 280 volunteers in Portland will equip their vehicles with mileage-recording technology (a modem-sized device that can either be mounted on the dash or stored in the trunk).

Mileage tax would be assessed at fueling stations, as the on-board mileage counter communicates with mileage readers at the pump. For the pilot program, the gas tax will be deducted from the total sale and replaced with the mileage tax.

Task-force administrator Jim Whitty, an ODOT manager, knows a mileage tax would be a tough pitch. But he suspects policy makers in Salem might "start getting desperate" as highway funds continue to dwindle.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 30 million cars and trucks already are equipped with "black boxes" that store information about speed and seat-belt use for use in accident investigations.

In answer to ACLU concerns, Whitty says the software doesn't record or retain a vehicle's location. Instead, the software computes mileage traveled and distinguishes between in- and out-of-state commuting through a Global Positioning System device that receives location information but doesn't transmit.

"People immediately make assumptions that are not true,'' Whitty says. "They think we haven't thought it through, but we have. We'll honor the public's need for privacy protection in this technology.''

But the ACLU points out that the federal grant requires the state to test the ability to count separately miles traveled in congested areas during rush-hour time periods to perhaps charge higher rates for travel in those zones. The only way for such a charge to work, the ACLU's Meyer says, is to know "where and when people are driving.''

In answer to environmentalists' fears, program supporters say different rates could be created for different types of automobiles. But they also note that environmentally friendly hybrid cars take up just as much highway space and create just as much wear and tear as any other automobile.

The test program has already had several delays.

The start date was pushed back after setbacks in finalizing the contract between Oregon State University and the state Transportation Department. And the test location was moved from Eugene to Portland after administrators could not work out an agreement with Eugene gas-station owners.

Oil bigwigs who oversee the franchises weren't thrilled about letting the state tinker with their fueling software.

Brian Doherty, a lobbyist for the Western States Petroleum Association, wonders whether the task force is any more likely to come to a deal in Portland. "We have grave concerns about opening up our proprietary computer systems," Doherty says.

But if the program proves workable, a pitch to the Oregon Legislature could come within a few years.

Says task-force chairman Starr: "We're in the process of getting in front of the curve."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)

But they also note that environmentally friendly hybrid cars take up just as much highway space and create just as much wear and tear as any other automobile.

Good point.

Tauzero  posted on  2005-05-26   13:12:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)

But if the program proves workable, a pitch to the Oregon Legislature could come within a few years.

Says task-force chairman Starr: "We're in the process of getting in front of the curve."

The control all citizens curve? What has happened to Oregon?

robin  posted on  2005-05-26   13:24:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)

We're fucked.

Libs will love this for the enviro/americans out of cars/less hydrocarbons blah blah.

Bots will like the surveillance aspects.

In Mass, they're about to increase taxes on cigs again.

A avg pack is over 5 bucks now.

Wish they'd decide if they want smokers dead or paying taxes.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-05-26   13:26:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: swarthyguy (#3)

Wish they'd decide if they want smokers dead or paying taxes.

I'm postive they'd prefer we do both.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-05-26   13:38:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)

"People immediately make assumptions that are not true,'' Whitty says. "They think we haven't thought it through, but we have. We'll honor the public's need for privacy protection in this technology.''

What a lying MFer.

But they also note that environmentally friendly hybrid cars take up just as much highway space and create just as much wear and tear as any other automobile.

Pure unadulterated bullshit. By that logic a bicycle does as much damage as a semi. Wrong! A 2500 pound hybrid will only do a third of the damage to the surface as a 7500 pound Ford Expedition, and take up a lot less room. But since when is the amount of space a car takes up a factor in anything other than garage space?

Esso  posted on  2005-05-26   13:39:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Dakmar (#4)

Massachusets - the cradle of liberty, land of the free, home of the brave

YOU CAN MARRY A FAG, YOU JUST CAN"T SMOKE ONE IN A BAR.

no wonder the French, not to mention others, laugh at us.

As well they should.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-05-26   13:41:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)

Here's something to consider.

Oregon has massive immigration issues. There are places in Oregon where the street signs are in English, Spanish and Russian. They're adding Chinese and Japanese to the mix. That has to cost the taxpayers billions.

Then, there's the fact that Californians are driving up land prices like there's no tomorrow, because they're all fleeing Mexifornia. Couple this with the high unemployment, envirowackos, and overall welfare population, and you've got a stage set for all kinds of rampant taxations from the communists in charge.

Here's the other issue, if it passes on either cost, it's only a matter of time till it's everywhere.

TommyTheMadArtist  posted on  2005-05-26   13:44:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: TommyTheMadArtist, robin, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, swarthyguy, all (#7)

Texans are getting toll roads and checkpoints rammed down our throats--this in spite of the fact that 98% of us voted (hahahaha) against them. This and what's happening in Oregon and elsewhere is all part of the coming lock down. Get ready for martial law and total control.

christine  posted on  2005-05-26   13:51:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: christine (#8)

It's time to either leave this country before you can't, or revolt. This insanity, is because governments can't stop spending. They can't get their budgets under control. Not to mention the fact that they're taking away our freedom and prosperity, in order to pay the debts they owe to the Federal Reserve, The World Bank, and other satanic organizations.

When the day comes when you can't travel freely in this country, it's time to revolt, and end the tyranny.

The reason why the CIA is currently getting ready to relocate to Colorado, is because of the fact that NORAD is there, and it will consolidate intelligence, with the ability to track anyone, anywhere in the United States. Seriously, When people get the chips implanted, they'll be able to conveniently grab people at will.

This country is SOOOOO FAR GONE.

TommyTheMadArtist  posted on  2005-05-26   13:57:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#9)

Seriously, When people get the chips implanted, they'll be able to conveniently grab people at will.

Been saying that for a while.

HMO's or State Med will demand it, for your health of course. to monitor your bodily functions and intake of leafy greens.

And then the killer, CHips for kids - the Digital Angel.

No parent will be able to resist the societal pressure to implant kids.

What do you mean NO - don't you love and care for your kids.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-05-26   14:01:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: swarthyguy (#10)

And then the killer, CHips for kids - the Digital Angel.

No parent will be able to resist the societal pressure to implant kids.

What do you mean NO - don't you love and care for your kids.

And the state will know what to do with parents who don't "love and care" for their children "enough" to chip them.

robin  posted on  2005-05-26   14:10:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: christine (#8)

This and what's happening in Oregon and elsewhere is all part of the coming lock down. Get ready for martial law and total control.

And get ready to be arrested and ticketed everytime you fill up with gas and your little black box tattles on you for speeding, a simple feat if you have time and location info.

The police here are starting to outfit their cars with the devices to interrogate the on-board computers in cars during routine traffic stops or enforcement checkpoints, if you're stupid enough to let them, (Believe me, plent are.) and ticket or arrest based on what your car tell them.

It's all about new and improved ways of fleecing the flock, but take heart. It's for the safety of the kiddies.

Esso  posted on  2005-05-26   14:14:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)

I wouldn't have a problem with this if it were a private agency instead of a government.

The basic idea is that if everyone pays for what he uses, then people can save money by modifying their practices.

I'll give you an example. I'm a private pilot, but I'm nowhere near rich enough to own a plane; so I rent the planes I fly from a flight school. The flight school rents the planes "wet;" that is, the rental fee includes fuel.

Now, there are certain things a pilot can do to reduce the amount of fuel he uses. As just one example, he can lean the fuel-air mixture above 5000ft to achieve a more efficient fuel burn. But it's kind of a twitchy adjustment that for reasons that don't belong in this thread most pilots have been trained to be unduly nervous about, and if you just leave the mixture full rich all the time you may lose just a fraction in airspeed and pay just a fraction more for time in the air; but you'll burn considerably more fuel, and the excessively-rich mixture will leave carbon all over the engine that results in more frequent oil changes and less time between (very expensive!) major overhauls.

If we all paid for fuel separately, we would have an incentive to use as little fuel as possible, which would make for significantly less maintenance costs as well and allow the rental agency to lower the per-hour price it charges, which would be a good thing for everybody. But it creates a few logistics headaches that way (what do you charge if the plane isn't empty when it's taken out or brought back (light plane fuel gauges are notoriously inaccurate)? What if a renter takes the plane beyond its fuel range and buys fuel off the field?), so the rental agency has chosen to rent the planes wet, eliminate any motivation for conserving resources, ignore the shorter lifetime of the airplanes, and dump the extra expense for fuel and maintenance on the customers.

Which is exactly the same thing that happens when you charge everybody the same for road use. There's no motivation to minimize the amount of damage you do to the road, because it's not going to save you an appreciable amount of money unless everybody else does it too. Charge each person an amount proportional to what he costs you, and suddenly all your customers are helping you economize, so everybody's price comes down.

The only problem with this scheme is that it's the government proposing it. The government A) will coercively use the information it obtains in whatever manner it wants, and you have no recourse; and B) will determine the various tax rates in a purely political fashion that has nothing to do with concrete value.

If it were a collection of competing private companies that were doing this, the market would decide A) and B) and probably everybody would be happy with the result--and if enough people weren't, the market would lead one company and then all the rest to offer plans whereby you wouldn't have a GPS device in your car, and you'd drive however many miles you wanted to, wherever you wanted to, and pay a single fixed (high!) monthly fee for road use.

The obvious solution is for the Oregon state government to sell the highways to private investors. There'd be a tremendous reduction in government expenditures, plus they'd get a big chunk of money from the sale, plus the people would end up paying less money overall because private companies would run the roads much more efficiently than the government.

Barak  posted on  2005-05-26   14:23:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Barak (#13)

a private agency instead of a government.

Ah, yes, a private police state is so much better than a govt one.

More efficient that.

Keeps buying the public private divide.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-05-26   14:27:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: swarthyguy (#14)

Ah, yes, a private police state is so much better than a govt one.

More efficient that.

Keeps buying the public private divide.

Hey, Christine, we got a live one! [grin]

Please, amigo, elaborate. I'd like to take a look at your private police state.

Barak  posted on  2005-05-26   14:35:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Barak (#15)

Privatisation is not a panacea.

All you do is substitue the corporate for the government. SImple.

You see no problem with restrictions on liberty and freedom as long as its done by a private entity.

Two sides of the same Control Coin.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-05-26   14:40:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: All (#0)

Mileage tax would be assessed at fueling stations, as the on-board mileage counter communicates with mileage readers at the pump. For the pilot program, the gas tax will be deducted from the total sale and replaced with the mileage tax.

Here's an idea. Keep an old junk car around, outfit it with an oversize gas tank, and only drive it to and from the gas station then siphon the gas out of it and into the vehicles you normally drive. The junker shows only a couple of miles driven so there would be almost no gas tax paid.

Guess what? I'll bet they pass a law making it a felony to transfer gas from car to car.

Esso  posted on  2005-05-26   14:56:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Esso (#17)

Control of transportation is already extensive, via "easy-pass" type toll systems. If you have "easy-pass" the government can easily follow you from one end of the country to the other. Even if you don't have "easy-pass", a toll booth clerk can i.d. you at the speed of light by video scanning of your license plate. This is already being done at border points between the United States and Canada and Mexico. Soon, it will be implemented domestically also.

Only a few short years ago I said the following was coming in the future, but it's already here: All cars now have a remote-controlled ignition cut-off system which can be activated from a distance. If you insist on asking about it, you'll be told it's an "anti-theft device". A mass test was recently performed in the southwest, where hundreds of cars were brought to a complete standstill by a signal from an overhead helicopter. Verily, you cannot escape from Big Brother in an automobile.

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-05-26   15:04:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: swarthyguy (#16)

All you do is substitue the corporate for the government. SImple.

Limited-liability corporations and government are so entwined with one another that it's frequently difficult to tell where one leaves off and the other begins. I agree with you: corporate control of the roads is not what anybody wants.

You see no problem with restrictions on liberty and freedom as long as its done by a private entity.

If I could understand how a private entity (not a corporation) could achieve a restriction on liberty or freedom, I might have a problem with it; but I can't. Can you help me out?

Barak  posted on  2005-05-26   15:11:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Barak (#19)

but I can't.

Figures. {grin} Why am I not surprised.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-05-26   15:18:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: swarthyguy (#20)

Figures. {grin} Why am I not surprised.

Look, we really don't have to play this mean and nasty unless you want to, in which case you can pretty much talk to yourself because I have better things to do.

If you're interested in carrying on a civil conversation, please describe to me a scenario in which a private company can take away its customers' liberties--as opposed to convincing them to give them up of their own free will.

Barak  posted on  2005-05-26   16:02:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Barak (#21)

we really don't have to play this mean and nasty unless you want to

as opposed to convincing them to give them up of their own free will.

Oh Christ, another thinskinned pussy.

You started it amigo.

You called me a live one to Christine. Whatever.

Now if you are too damn stupid to comprehend that whether a private entity, a corporation or some organ of the govt takes away your liberties, it doesn't matter who that is.

Yourliberty is gone. Does it make you feel better that it's a privateentity?

Fine. Same thing. If people are stupid enough to give them up, that's even better than coercion.

After all, domesticated sheep are easier to herd.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-05-26   16:08:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: swarthyguy (#22)

Oh Christ, another thinskinned pussy.

[shrug]

Have a nice day...

Barak  posted on  2005-05-26   16:32:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: christine (#8)

Texans are getting toll roads and checkpoints rammed down our throats...

They're going after toll roads in Oregon, too.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-05-26   16:33:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Barak (#13)

There's no motivation to minimize the amount of damage you do to the road, because it's not going to save you an appreciable amount of money unless everybody else does it too. Charge each person an amount proportional to what he costs you, and suddenly all your customers are helping you economize, so everybody's price comes down.

But the way government works, economizing to reduce costs is unacceptable. They would simply increase the per unit charge to fund the mandatory budget increases that bureaucrats demand. It's the same thing that happens during a drought when the government requires rationing. They raise the rates to guarantee their income.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-05-26   16:39:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: swarthyguy (#14)

Ah, yes, a private police state is so much better than a govt one.

The current form of privatization where the government still mandates and regulates, but simply contracts out to supposedly private companies is effectively a fascist private police state.

However, that is not properly called private. In a true private environment, the property owner would set the rules independent of any government influence.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-05-26   16:41:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: swarthyguy (#16)

You see no problem with restrictions on liberty and freedom as long as its done by a private entity.

It's no violation of your rights if it is done by the property owner.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-05-26   16:42:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Barak (#19)

If I could understand how a private entity (not a corporation) could achieve a restriction on liberty or freedom, I might have a problem with it; but I can't. Can you help me out?

Only by initiating force, which is only legal when done in cahoots with government.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-05-26   16:44:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: swarthyguy (#22)

Oh Christ, another thinskinned pussy.

Actually, he's being quite civil and you are being flippant and rude -- most likely because you are fully aware that your position is not logically defensible.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-05-26   16:46:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#26)

that is not properly called private. In a true private environment, the property owner would set the rules independent of any government influence

Agreed.

But we're a long way removed from that.

In essence, we have the contracting out.

same result in the end.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-05-26   17:32:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Barak (#13)

I wouldn't have a problem with this if it were a private agency instead of a government.

The basic idea is that if everyone pays for what he uses, then people can save money by modifying their practices.

I'll give you an example. I'm a private pilot, but I'm nowhere near rich enough to own a plane; so I rent the planes I fly from a flight school. The flight school rents the planes "wet;" that is, the rental fee includes fuel.

Now, there are certain things a pilot can do to reduce the amount of fuel he uses. As just one example...

I don't know about all that. What I do know, is that a tax on mileage will greatly impact tourism. Tourism is a major lifeblood in several areas, and I happen to live in one of them. People will not come to where I live and spend money because of the tax.

Government has never met a tax it did not like; nor has it yet to discover one it did not love to increase. And you and I both know a state tax on per gallon of gas isn't going anywhere. How will a mileage tax be administered. Will there be any difference in state and out of state?

Let's do some math and assume it is a flat rate regardless of where you drive. Say the tax is 10 cents per mile driven. It is roughly 613 miles from Tampa, Florida to Cherokee, North Carolina where the entrance to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is. This is a very likely trip as I worked part-time for a Chamber of Commerce during college (many, many moons ago) Your one way tax is $61.30. Round trip is $122.60. At 5 cents, roundtrip is $61.30. At 2 cents per mile, $24.52 roundtrip. If Flordia is really draconian and says 20 cents per mile, roundtrip is $245.20. Or say it is 10 cents in state and 5 out of state. Let's split the difference as Yahoo says it is 355 miles from Tampa to Atlanta via I-75 leaving 177.5. At 10 cents that is $35.50 roundtrip plus another $3.40 (17 miles, 34 roundtrip) for the other routes Yahoo suggests in state. $40 roundtrip just to leave Florida. That leaves 419 miles out of state driving which is $41.85 roundtrip. A total of about $82 roundtrip tax. And this is assuming, of course, you don't detour ANY along the way. No excursions. Nothing. You just get to the hotel and walk the rest of your vacation. Putting on 120 miles for a week's vacation and you are suddenly pushing $100 tax for your trip.

Still planning on making that trip now? Just wait for the day that computer in the car not only counts the miles, but how long your car is running (ie- sitting in traffic) and taxes you for both.

scooter  posted on  2005-05-26   19:33:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: scooter (#31)

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

If you're going to use the road, you're going to create wear on it. Somebody's going to have to fix that wear. And whoever that somebody is, he's going to want money for fixing it. That money has to come from somewhere.

Right now it comes from taxes. In the private-road scenario, it would come from road-use fees. Either way, you pay to use the road. It's not a question of whether you pay or whether you don't; it's a question of how you pay, when you pay, and how much you pay.

I can make a reasonably good argument that private roads would cost less than government roads. I can make an even better argument that on private roads the cost burden would be more fairly distributed (that is, people who tear up the road more would shoulder more of the burden of fixing it). I'm not sure I see the problem.

And--provided the roads are privately owned--if the day comes that your little on-board computer charges you money for the time the engine runs, it'll be because the market has demanded it in preference to something worse, not because the environmentalists have successfully lobbied for it.

Barak  posted on  2005-05-26   21:34:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Barak (#32)

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

Yep. We were on two different wavelengths there. My fault. I will have to contemplate private roads, what you have said and get back to you.

scooter  posted on  2005-05-27   19:42:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]