Still very much a thing, seems to be quite popular in Canada of all places. I've only seen videos but even then watching the immense torque that those trucks have lifting one or both front tires off the ground is damn impressive.
Chuck: this is MURICA, people should be allowed to do/buy/own/make/shoot whatever they want!!1! Also Chuck: if you do/buy/own/make/shoot X, then you are LITERALLY killing Y culture!!!!!111!!!!1! Seems as though you've forgotten once again that the world does not revolve around you, and your actions have the ability to negatively impact others—but that shouldn't matter to you, seeing as though you only care about yourself and your own well-being.
The two aren't incongruous. Even with the bicycles - you do technically have a right to ride a bicycle on any road that takes general-tax funding, but if you have access to a functional motor vehicle, then either your desire to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on others, your loyalty to car-enthusiast culture, or both should motivate you not to. But then, that seems to be the perspective of this forum. "Exposing yourself to risk is wrong and the government has the moral right to decide for you how much is acceptable... unless you're doing it in such a way that it will be someone else's fault if/when you actually get hurt, then it's perfectly alright and anyone who thinks you're negatively impacting them is just selfish!" "Maximum Efficiency is all that matters and individuality should be subjected to its dictates... unless someone decides to be different and individual by riding a bicycle on a road full of cars, then they're perfectly fine and everyone else is the problem!" This is literally the exact thing country road cyclists-by-choice have forgotten. Not sure where you got that I only care about myself.
Why ruin? There is a ton of interesting things that aren't risky. Exactly. We're on a path of destruction, and even financial institutions realize that. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51581098 I do know about it, and I do realise that living standards will have to drop greatly, to 2nd World levels. But I am fully prepared for that, and prefer an ugly truth to white lies. And it will still be better than most people live, if we distribute resources in a more equal way. If you need an angry child and not scientists to convince people, this is another problem with people. If my late grandpa could build a small barn with just a compact car with a trailer, then anyone who isn't actually using his truck as a serious tool of trade isn't really more than a poser. Well,,I live on the planet they are ruining, and in the global economy their debt poses a problem to, so it kind of is my problem. So public transport is the only place where people contact with each other? And epidemies will be forever? Oh yeah, it's better to have a million ways of bad living than one of good living. /s If they're ruining the world for everyone else by doing that, then no. Have a commute long enough for a subcompact car to be impractical. --- Post updated --- Well, I'm going to side with the vehicles that don't pollute and do over a thousand times less damage to the road.
That's why environmentalists' propaganda, because of money, money, money. Regulators, environmentalists and the so-called "certified technicians" are in the same profit. Saying the world is going to be ruined is one of the best(or worst) form of fear mongering. In terms of vehicles, electric ones are cheaper to produce but have a higher price tag.
Honestly, I think the idea of "[insert random thing here] is killing car culture" is kind of stupid. I have said the past that bikes going on roads that have a speed limit of 55 mph or more is dangerous. However, I think people have the right to ride bicycles if they want to. So, you're saying that environmentalists care about profit?
A lot more short-term profit will be lost through the degrowth of the economy. Less cars sold (and fewer luxury models), less clothing sold, less consumption in general... And the high EV prices are due to a lack of economics of scale - since far fewer units are sold, the development cost is divided by a smaller number. --- Post updated --- If they cared about profit, they would get into the economy as it is working. But these people, including me, want change. And even if they wanted profit, isn't it better to get profits from doing good, instead of doing it from polluting the environment?
Well, you do make a good point there. It's better to get money from fixing the environment versus destroying the environment.
Do you really believe what those corporate medias say? You can decrease your living standard if you really want, to pursuit your "green" ideology where everyone else persuit their happiness. Better not try to convince others to behave like you, it's meaningless. You are a car enthusiast and you're in a vehicle discussion forum, you shouldn't side with the so-called environmentalists or their idologies, they are not beneficial. Note: I didn't deny global climate change, what I said is about follow your heart, not others propagandas. If you want V8s then drive a V8 vehicles regardless of what they said about climate changes because it's their business, not yours.
Dude, this post is awesome. I do think environmentalists have good intentions and I'm glad they're trying to fix the planet, but I think people should be allowed to drive V8 vehicles and I also think they should be allowed to think for themselves.
Well, I believe the professionals more than random schmucks. It's meaningless to try to help our future? And how are car enthusiasts beneficial? Tragedy of the commons. --- Post updated --- Most people are too stupid to understand problems the world is facing, and what does the average person actually need a V8 car for?
Well, corporate media are most likely professionals, but they can be biased or even flat out wrong on some things. Dude, I understand that the world is facing climate change and people may not actually need V8s, but if they like V8s. That's their business.
Most people are far more biased and incompetent. It's the business of the whole biosphere they are polluting.
Everyone, including you and me, care about profit because without it we'll starve to death. However some of them cover their thirst of profit by using phases like "Doing [insert something good for your well-being] is ruining us" and other forms of fearmongering, to make others benefit the propagandaists. They can delibrately post wrong things if they are paid enough to do so. --- Post updated --- Agreed. Bikes, compacts, sedans, SUVs and pickups should coexist. Changing people's(including but not limited to consumers) behaviors via propaganda is unethical. BTW, I usually commute by bike, only to drive cars for long-distance travels.
At least there is the corruption threshold (if there is one), as opposed to the usualy biased citizen journalists. Is polluting ethical?
Doing things that not your taste = polluting. CO2 is produced simply by breathing, if the environmentalists continue their paths. In 2050 wearing a mask-like catalytic converter on everyone's mouth will be mandated.
I totally agree with this statement, especially about the profit part. People do need at least some profit to survive. Again, I agree =) I think people should allowed to use whatever they want for travel whether it's bikes, trucks, suvs, cars, buses, trains, etc. Um, okay then =P Well, alright then. Um, no. It isn't.
This is biomass CO2 returned to the atmosphere, a normal cycle. What isn't a normal cycle is digging it up in fossil fuels and putting it in the atmosphere.
