| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<a5lsdjtl1gmniin50jgap10rfm11t1t8d1@4ax.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: BOLO pervert cyclist Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:01:29 +0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 155 Message-ID: <a5lsdjtl1gmniin50jgap10rfm11t1t8d1@4ax.com> References: <vbhq2m$1dkbr$1@dont-email.me> <vbhqdj$1dnp0$2@dont-email.me> <vbi2vi$1ev12$1@dont-email.me> <h9tpdj5rb1pkdq4mn4stg17jps7br03qkt@4ax.com> <vbj38n$1pico$1@dont-email.me> <qi4qdjlntjk9i0ogdr67ta8t3kh5onl82e@4ax.com> <vbj5t7$1pico$8@dont-email.me> <2ubqdjdof7vkbrcmijhnnm7gicoh1lajl3@4ax.com> <vbktb2$216mu$2@dont-email.me> <89urdjpe5p0t28t1g2adr815r0ak0mtm47@4ax.com> <ra4sdj9afnv17qvujsnfeeubbucfkjv51t@4ax.com> <vbl5sq$22i6i$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 04:01:34 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5dc1029c63b1f20024d80cd3b4d680f9"; logging-data="2380480"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/43EGoIkSvSYYttc/XrXV4PNH2JiQ57ew=" User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.10.32.1212 Cancel-Lock: sha1:UMrlBZrYJvLVz6oYoOwmmt2sdeU= Bytes: 9458 On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 16:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >On 9/8/2024 4:08 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 12:56:35 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:18:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/8/2024 1:14 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> America is different. See >>>>>> https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume >>>>>> >>>>>> Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck >>>>>> owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to >>>>>> Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one >>>>>> time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners >>>>>> go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck >>>>>> owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its >>>>>> ostensible raison d’ętre—once a year or less." >>>>> >>>>> Nope. The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light duty" >>>>> trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax". >>>>> >>>>> "Energy Tax Act" >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax> >>>>> >>>>> "Gas Guzzler Tax" >>>>> <https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax> >>>>> "The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required >>>>> fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks, >>>>> minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because >>>>> these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely >>>>> used for non-commercial purposes." (hah-hah-hah) >>>>> >>>>> "Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax" >>>>> <https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax> >>>>> "The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs, minivans, or >>>>> other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger vehicles when >>>>> the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty trucks” has >>>>> been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax collection. >>>>> This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity of these >>>>> vehicle types among consumers." >>>>> >>>>> "Gas Guzzler Tax" >>>>> <https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp> >>>>> "Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a loophole in the >>>>> gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory agencies >>>>> like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law. >>>>> Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by the U.S. in >>>>> the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million." >>>> >>>> The (absence of) the gas guzzler tax motivated the manufacturing >>>> companies to make and promote the trucks. >>> >>> True. The manufacturers find a market and produce a machine that >>> sells in that market. Promotion (mostly based on the image the buyer >>> is trying to emulate) is automatic for every type of vehicle. You may >>> have bought an EV because you believe that you're environmentally >>> conscious and want everyone who sees you in your EV to know it. >>> >>>> The buyers don't say "I'm >>>> buying a grossly huge pickup because it bypasses the gas guzzler tax." >>> >>> Correct. Nobody admits to hidden motivations. You ran into that when >>> you repeatedly asked if owning a gun has a practical purpose in our >>> society. You got silence for an answer. Nobody replied. I watched >>> it develop and finally got sick of your repetitious questions. So, I >>> provided a real answer. They want to have a gun in case something >>> goes wrong while praying they have to use it. The gun buyer doesn't >>> know when or how he may eventually be forced into using a gun. He >>> just doesn't want to be the only person in the room that can't defend >>> himself. If that's paranoia or irrational fear, that fine. This >>> country was founding on our (irrational) fear of British domination. >>> The problem is that's not an acceptable justification for owning a >>> gun, so you don't hear that from many gun owners. >>> >>> Now, back to the monster trucks. There are few rational reasons for >>> buying a monster truck. One reason is money. When they first started >>> to appear, the dealers were having problems clearing their inventory. >>> You could buy one of these trucks at a substantial discount on good >>> terms. The prospective buyer was faced with a difficult choice. He >>> could buy a more conventional and practical new car and pay the tax, >>> or he could buy a discounted gas guzzler for about the same price. The >>> monster truck seems like the best value (in the short run). Add to >>> that the promotional advertising portraying the buyer as being very >>> macho, hard working, etc exactly like the now dead lumberjack look. >>> Perception is everything and for those who are perceived as lacking >>> they will do almost anything, including buying impractical pickup >>> trucks, to change how they are perceived. >>> >>>> They certainly don't buy them to save money, given their inflated costs. >>> >>> I'm not sure, but I think that price inflation started after Covid >>> officially ended. Prior to that, you could price such pickup trucks >>> by their price divided by their curb weight. I'll need to do the math >>> before I'm claim that with certainty. >>> >>>> They buy them because they're in fashion, and that fashion makes the >>>> dudes buying them feel a bit more masculine. Or makes the relatively few >>>> ladies that buy them feel either more "cool," or safer - by imposing the >>>> danger externalities on others, in a size and mass arms race. >>> >>> Yep. That's a fair summary of what I wrote. Saving a few thousand on >>> the tax was an added bonus, but also one of the few tangible bonus's. >>> If you want how it really works, read anything by Vance Packard: >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard> >>> Start here: >>> <https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Persuaders-Vance-Packard/dp/097884310X> >>> Ouch, that's expensive. >>> >>>> Note the survey results in the top paragraph. With rare exceptions, >>>> people are not buying these trucks to do the special things that trucks >>>> can do. >>> >>> Duly noted. Also note that most surveys do not even being to scratch >>> the surface of the buyers real motivations and through processes. My >>> favorite example was running a survey of whomever I could convince to >>> answer my questions just after the Watergate mess became an >>> embarrassment. Mixed into the questions was "Did you vote for Nixon >>> in the Nov 1972 election". I asked about 60(?) people, mostly from >>> the neighborhood where I was living. Everyone claimed that they voted >>> in that election and nobody admitted to voting for Nixon. So much for >>> the validity of opinion polls. >>> >>> If you also ask a random mob of monster truck buyers why they bought >>> such an impractical vehicle, I suspect you won't get any honest >>> answers. Same with asking the same random mob why they own a gun. >> >> If a pollster asked me who I voted for or why I did something and I'd >> probably tell them to go f*** themselves. (censorship is because >> someone on RBT has indicated they are offended by obscenities) >> > >An excellent point. >I often wonder nowadays who exactly responds to polls and >surveys. No one I know wants to volunteer for the Lois >Lerner list du jour. As I've posted before, a good friend did financial studies - Is it practical to sell refrigerators on a time purchase pay plan and Is it financially logical to establish a copper processing plant in Thailand, was two I remember. He once pointed out that a "survey" can be constructed to produce any result that you want to produce. Since then I've been very leery about surveys :-) -- Cheers, John B.