Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

dino001

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

Why don't the car manufacturers just say.........here is our $40,000 MSRP car, but for you we are going to discount it by $4000. Don't do it as a rebate. Even put it on the window sticker, a $40000 value, now selling for $36000, or can you just say for this week only get 10% off when you buy a new Acmemobile?. Do people really like the sound of "rebate" that much more?

I asked the same question and was told it is because some buyers will take the cheque instead. Why I do not know.

When you have no money in the bank, some income every two weeks, and everything "on a card", or on installment a cashback check sounds like nirvana. Actual money. Since banks will finance face value of the retail price (and more), this is another way to put a repossession off. Another scenario is if the interest rate is below market, you could take the check and invest it to arbitrage the interest.

houdini1

dino001 said:

driver100 said:

If you buy dish detergent and it costs $5, and you have a $1 coupon, do you pay tax on $5 or $4?
No wonder people cheat on their taxes, it is like us against them, only they hold all the cards.

Not disputing the fact that taxing money that actually did not exchange hands is unjust, "us versus them" is a bit more complicated. Everybody declares they just want to be "left alone" and the government should "stop wasting" money. One the same token, everybody expects their part of government benefit will be delivered on time, in high quality and of course completely "free of charge", because they "already paid" for it. As a bonus, they also want to be able to tell their neighbors how to raise or feed their children (including government enforcement), how tall should their grass be and what is acceptable color for their window frames. In other words - as a nation, we are bunch of hypocrites. We want the stuff, we want others to pay for it, we constantly think we paid too much and even in face of simple math, we all deny its existence. Just a few examples:

1. Has anybody read their Medicare (and Social Security) statement, looked how much money they actually paid in last 10-20 years (or lifetime) and compared it to cost of some common medical procedures performed on old folks? I'm sure, they didn't, otherwise nobody would say with a straight face "I paid my dues on that". I did and the comparisons are simply laughable - even if we consider bunch of "unclaimed" money from the folks who died before it was their turn, the money simply doesn't add up - in fact it's not even close. BTW, I've been in over median annual income for at least last 10 years and I think the total Medicare money I paid since I started in 2001 is a joke vs. what a senior expects to be delivered to them. Even adding another 20 years of contributions on top at levels now close to Social Security maximum, it will pay for couple of things maybe.
2. Has anybody really made a math on new improved gas mileage on their vehicles vs. say 10 or 20 years ago and thought of an impact that has on the Federal Transportation Trust? Take all those hybrids, now electric cars, and simple midsize sedans that went from low 20s to high 20s or low 30s, adjust for growth in population, infrastructure deterioration, etc. - can anybody with a straight face say nothing needs to be done into that funding scheme? Of course not.

I could go on and on, item by item. We all want to believe we paid "our share" and now it's time for somebody else to pick up the rest of the growing tab. It's always "them" - the rich, or the welfare mooches, never me.

OK, rant over. Now - dish it out.

I mostly agree with you, but will raise just a few points. 1. Overall healthcare costs are probably at least 3 or 4 times higher than they should be. 2. The social security fund would look much better if the SS contributions had been used only for SS. 3. There are a lot more people paying those gasoline taxes than there was 20 years ago. 4. If you took out the waste, poor political decisions, and theft, that 20 trillion dollar national debt would mostly disappear.

dino001

1. Agreed - however, it is Medicare that's really in trouble - Social Security would be OK-ish for 50-100 years with a just a few tweaks done now. What's really painful, is short-term politicians not willing to tell the truth to the people and those who do being demonized by both sides (with different demons). Medicare, however, is an absolute disaster - and soon, with no solution other than severe cuts, huge premium/tax increases and rationing, all done at the same time. Again, neither side has guts to tell the truth. If they can't solve relatively easy SS, they won't touch really toxic Medicare. Elections are much more important. The only ones who sometimes say what they really think and push for real solutions are those who everybody knows don't seek a reelection. You can recognize those guys miles ahead. They suddenly change their minds on almost everything that really matters. It's not even whether they are right or wrong - they simply become honest with their opinions on solutions, rather than party line expected in their district.
2. Absolutely agreed - there are other problems with that fund,such as below market interest rate it was getting on its savings (of course during times when interest rates were actually real).
3. More people pay, but there are also more roads to maintain, bridges to revitalize/rehabilitate/replace, etc. The overall numbers are negative with severely negative projections. I know a few state mid-level transportation officials and they say the math does not add up at all on the fund.
4. Not to sound too defeatist, waste is fact of life. Comparing to other countries, USA is relatively clean, well run and frugal government. It can always improve, but politicians claiming "all you need is eliminate waste and fraud" are simply lying. Unless of course you define "waste" as actual spending, from defense, to welfare, to Social Security/Medicare, etc. What I mean - hard choices mean, the missing dollars are not just in the Pentagon (Dems) or Medicare (Reps). They are in both, plus everywhere else. Promising more free stuff, or increased superpower presence in the world is not making hard choice - it's pandering. And we all like be pandered (and hate others being pandered, of course).

jmonroe

'andres3' said:

I'm not the one that broke the Parking Police laws; this is how the car was delivered to me.
____________________________________________________________________

Nice car but the driver needs some work !

Good luck with it and let us know how it does after you break it after the break-in.

jmonroe

henryn

Here in Texas, we do not pay sales tax on the rebate(s). My new truck, purchased last September, was $42k MSRP, and I paid $32k. $5k in rebates /incentives, and another $5k in dealer discount. Leaving $32k. I got about $26k on my trade, and I paid 6.25% sales tax on the difference between $32k and $26k (about $375).

On the subject of job growth in Texas: 2 items are responsible. Number one, the oil industry. (Which has, at least for now, gone away completely.) And number 2, incredibly low wages due to "right to work" and large number of illegal aliens willing to work below federal minimum wage.

jmonroe

'driver' said:

No wonder people cheat on their taxes, it is like us against them, only they hold all the cards.
_____________________________________________________________________

How many times have you heard me say, "it's un-American not to cheat on your taxes" ?

You can add one more time to that count !

It sounds like Canadians might make good Americans.

jmonroe

berri

Don't forget all the other smoke and mirrors gov uses to hide taxing. How about when a city or county brags it has held taxes steady, but has really done it by instituting things like garbage or sewer "fees" that used to be included in your property taxes.

andres3

berri said:

Don't forget all the other smoke and mirrors gov uses to hide taxing. How about when a city or county brags it has held taxes steady, but has really done it by instituting things like garbage or sewer "fees" that used to be included in your property taxes.

Or worse yet, red-light scameras.

andres3

driver100 said:

stever said:

Some states consider a rebate "income". It's not a price adjustment from the dealer but free money from the manufacturer.

"When it comes to cash-back rebates, many car buyers are surprised to learn that most states do tax them.
This seems unfair, but most states view cash rebates as a form of payment from the manufacturer and conclude that it does not affect the purchase price of the car." There's a list of states that don't tax rebates at this realcartips.com link.

The feds don't agree with the states and don't consider rebates to be taxable income. (IRS)

Why don't the car manufacturers just say.........here is our $40,000 MSRP car, but for you we are going to discount it by $4000. Don't do it as a rebate. Even put it on the window sticker, a $40000 value, now selling for $36000, or can you just say for this week only get 10% off when you buy a new Acmemobile?. Do people really like the sound of "rebate" that much more?

I thought rebates were getting a negative association tied to them thanks to all of the companies that existed with the sole purpose of denying claims on rebates that should have arrived in anywhere from 8 to 16 weeks.

ab348

berri said:

Don't forget all the other smoke and mirrors gov uses to hide taxing. How about when a city or county brags it has held taxes steady, but has really done it by instituting things like garbage or sewer "fees" that used to be included in your property taxes.

Around here the favorite tactic is to take advantage of the annual increase in the property assessment roll, which in my city has been quite vibrant due to increases in property value along with lots of new construction, and use that to help generate a lot of extra revenue by keeping the tax RATE the same year over year. Then the politicians trumpet, "we froze taxes!" while most everyone's bill has gone up, lots of new developments start paying significant taxes for the first time, and the politicians are sitting on a bundle of extra cash to to burn on wasteful things..

abacomike

Up where my brother lives (Ponte Vedra FL), there is a big golf tournament at TPC Sawgrass which is just down the road from his house.  There isn't a hotel room to be had anywhere near the course and traffic is building quickly.

He told me he sold his big boat because he just wasn't using it very much.  Too bad - I loved his boat and it was nice to get out on the inter coastal waterway and the St. John's River in South Jacksonville.  But having $200,000 tied up in a boat that sits in the marina most of the time doesn't make sense and doesn't include the cost of storing the boat at the marina.

explorerx4

Spent parts of the last 2 days charging up the battery in the Mustang.
Started it today and sent an email to our insurance agent to reinstate coverage as of Wednesday.
The smart charger takes a long time, but everything works great when I go to start it.
We should each get one good day to drive it before the forecast has rain again.

oldfarmer50

bwia said:

12-year old steals a school bus, and according to police he is not a bad driver either. Scroll down to view short video. *old farmer is this your bus?
http://www.motortrend.com/news/12-year-old-takes-school-bus-joyride-wvideo/?_wcsid=02ECE72CE01AC7191928FC6AA9692666C642981F76BF3D97

LOL. If he drives that good my place will hire him. That's how short handed we are. People are quitting right and left because of the regulations we have to endure. They have the senior drivers doing two runs at once.

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

nyccarguy said:

I think here in the US you pay tax on the rebate.  Maybe it is dependent on what state you live in.  You buy a $40,000 car for $36K, then there is a separate $2K rebate on top of that.  You pay sales tax on $34K, then sales tax on the $2K.

I think that would be almost the same idea. Why should you pay tax on money you didn't really spend?

If you buy dish detergent and it costs $5, and you have a $1 coupon, do you pay tax on $5 or $4?

No wonder people cheat on their taxes, it is like us against them, only they hold all the cards.

Coupons and rebates are two different animals. With the coupon you are getting a $1 discount on the price of the detergent at the time of sale, so your are paying $4 for the detergent. SO you pay tax on $4.

With a rebate that is given to you after the sales. So you have to pay $5 for the detergent and then send in for the $1 from the manufacturer. So you pay $5 for the detergent and therefor pay tax on that $5.

So when you buy that $40K car for $36K plus a separate $2K rebate you are technically paying $36K today for the car and getting $2K cash back later, so you pay taxes on $36K not $34K.

snakeweasel

stever said:

Some states consider a rebate "income". It's not a price adjustment from the dealer but free money from the manufacturer.

"When it comes to cash-back rebates, many car buyers are surprised to learn that most states do tax them.
This seems unfair, but most states view cash rebates as a form of payment from the manufacturer and conclude that it does not affect the purchase price of the car." There's a list of states that don't tax rebates at this realcartips.com link.

The feds don't agree with the states and don't consider rebates to be taxable income. (IRS)

No state considers rebates to be taxable income. Please do not confuse sales tax with income tax.

snakeweasel

oldfarmer50 said:

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?

Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved:
Gambling is ok if the government is involved.
No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.

By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.

I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.

Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.

I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.

You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.


If he has it, it's likely not what the NMA promotes it as.

driver100

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

nyccarguy said:

I think here in the US you pay tax on the rebate.  Maybe it is dependent on what state you live in.  You buy a $40,000 car for $36K, then there is a separate $2K rebate on top of that.  You pay sales tax on $34K, then sales tax on the $2K.

I think that would be almost the same idea. Why should you pay tax on money you didn't really spend?

If you buy dish detergent and it costs $5, and you have a $1 coupon, do you pay tax on $5 or $4?

No wonder people cheat on their taxes, it is like us against them, only they hold all the cards.

Coupons and rebates are two different animals. With the coupon you are getting a $1 discount on the price of the detergent at the time of sale, so your are paying $4 for the detergent. SO you pay tax on $4.

With a rebate that is given to you after the sales. So you have to pay $5 for the detergent and then send in for the $1 from the manufacturer. So you pay $5 for the detergent and therefor pay tax on that $5.

So when you buy that $40K car for $36K plus a separate $2K rebate you are technically paying $36K today for the car and getting $2K cash back later, so you pay taxes on $36K not $34K.

Good explanation, but why offer a rebate instead of a discount?

Does the manufacturer get a better tax break by offering rebates?

Slightly different topic but I saw an investigative report about stores that ask you to donate $2 for some cause when you buy groceries or go to a Drug store. In many cases the store donates that money and gets the tax break. Or in the case of a Canadian Bookstore chain they take your donation, and offer books to schools or kids who can't afford books.....and they give those books to those places and charge full retail price for the books they are donating....so they make full profit on those books.

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

nyccarguy said:

I think here in the US you pay tax on the rebate.  Maybe it is dependent on what state you live in.  You buy a $40,000 car for $36K, then there is a separate $2K rebate on top of that.  You pay sales tax on $34K, then sales tax on the $2K.

I think that would be almost the same idea. Why should you pay tax on money you didn't really spend?

If you buy dish detergent and it costs $5, and you have a $1 coupon, do you pay tax on $5 or $4?

No wonder people cheat on their taxes, it is like us against them, only they hold all the cards.

Coupons and rebates are two different animals. With the coupon you are getting a $1 discount on the price of the detergent at the time of sale, so your are paying $4 for the detergent. SO you pay tax on $4.

With a rebate that is given to you after the sales. So you have to pay $5 for the detergent and then send in for the $1 from the manufacturer. So you pay $5 for the detergent and therefor pay tax on that $5.

So when you buy that $40K car for $36K plus a separate $2K rebate you are technically paying $36K today for the car and getting $2K cash back later, so you pay taxes on $36K not $34K.

Good explanation, but why offer a rebate instead of a discount?

Does the manufacturer get a better tax break by offering rebates?

Slightly different topic but I saw an investigative report about stores that ask you to donate $2 for some cause when you buy groceries or go to a Drug store. In many cases the store donates that money and gets the tax break. Or in the case of a Canadian Bookstore chain they take your donation, and offer books to schools or kids who can't afford books.....and they give those books to those places and charge full retail price for the books they are donating....so they make full profit on those books.

By offering the rebate the manufacturer can get information from the consumer that they cannot simply by offering discounts and/or coupons. This helps for data mining.

It allows companies to decrease the price without the stigma of raising it later on.

There is a turn around time in which the manufacturer can use the rebate money or earn interest.

Not everyone will qualify for the rebate and not everyone will claim the rebate (interesting note; having a short window of opportunity to claim the rebate actually increases the redemption rate).

stever

snakeweasel said:

stever said:

Some states consider a rebate "income". It's not a price adjustment from the dealer but free money from the manufacturer.

"When it comes to cash-back rebates, many car buyers are surprised to learn that most states do tax them.
This seems unfair, but most states view cash rebates as a form of payment from the manufacturer and conclude that it does not affect the purchase price of the car." There's a list of states that don't tax rebates at this realcartips.com link.

The feds don't agree with the states and don't consider rebates to be taxable income. (IRS)

No state considers rebates to be taxable income. Please do not confuse sales tax with income tax.

Thanks. Taxes are so easy to understand I don't know how I messed that up.

oldfarmer50

snakeweasel said:

oldfarmer50 said:

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?

Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved:
Gambling is ok if the government is involved.
No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.

By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.

I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.

Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.

I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.

You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.

If he has it, it's likely not what the NMA promotes it as.

Actually it's pretty close. Here in Albany they are proposing restricting motor vehicle lanes in favor of bikes which will cause tremendous headaches for drivers.

I've always suspected that some of the "safety" measures politicians are taking is really an agenda to harass drivers. Part of a larger campaign against hydrocarbon energy.

driver100

oldfarmer50 said:

snakeweasel said:

oldfarmer50 said:

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?

Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved:
Gambling is ok if the government is involved.
No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.

By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.

I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.

Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.

I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.

You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.

If he has it, it's likely not what the NMA promotes it as.

Actually it's pretty close. Here in Albany they are proposing restricting motor vehicle lanes in favor of bikes which will cause tremendous headaches for drivers.

I've always suspected that some of the "safety" measures politicians are taking is really an agenda to harass drivers. Part of a larger campaign against hydrocarbon energy.



Right on!

The bike lane advocates love screwing up the roads so car drivers get frustrated, and eventually say they won't even bother driving their car in that town.

An adjoining town took out a lane on each side of the road to make bike lanes. That road is needed if there is an accident on the highway that runs beside it. Now when there is an accident that road gets all jammed up, all for the sake of 6 bike riders a day who use those bike lanes.

There is a street in town with a lot of small businesses. They survived because there was free parking right in front of their stores. They put in bike lanes and had to remove the parking spaces. Those "tax paying businesses" are closing so that 6 bikes can drive by in a day. And, we have winter for 5 or 6 months a year!

bwia

Wow! is this a Buick, Cord, Packard, Chrysler or Ford? This is such a beautiful design perhaps one of the US auto makers should revive or an interpretation as GM did with the Camaro,

http://st.automobilemag.com/uploads/sites/11/2016/05/Pinehurst-Concours-17.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&fit=around|640:427&crop=640:427;*,*

snakeweasel

oldfarmer50 said:

snakeweasel said:

oldfarmer50 said:

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?

Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved:
Gambling is ok if the government is involved.
No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.

By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.

I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.

Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.

I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.

You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.

If he has it, it's likely not what the NMA promotes it as.

Actually it's pretty close. Here in Albany they are proposing restricting motor vehicle lanes in favor of bikes which will cause tremendous headaches for drivers.

I've always suspected that some of the "safety" measures politicians are taking is really an agenda to harass drivers. Part of a larger campaign against hydrocarbon energy.



Actually the link that Andres linked to was a traffic engineer talking about traffic calming measures designed to reduce traffic speed when entering a more congested area which would require slower speeds. Totally different than what Andres was implying.

bwia

I tried to post the image of a 1936 Cord but I forgot how to that. Can someone re-post the pic? Edit: did it

snakeweasel

bwia said:

I tried to post the image of a 1936 Cord but I forgot how to that. Can someone re-post the pic? Edit: did it

A Cord 810, not sure it would appeal to many here as it is front wheel drive.

graphicguy

OK...is it a punch if my son buys a new car? He's not "one of us" here at Edmunds.

PF_Flyer

Maybe it's a punch', like a first derivative in calculus

Of course, he could always go through the stringent initiation rituals and become "one of us"

driver100

graphicguy said:

OK...is it a punch if my son buys a new car? He's not "one of us" here at Edmunds.

I think it should get a pass. Many of us by cars for our wives and they don't post here. They are probably too busy doing other stuff for us while we post.

28firefighter

PF_Flyer said:

Maybe it's a punch', like a first derivative in calculus Of course, he could always go through the stringent initiation rituals and become "one of us"

Thank you, sir. May I have another [car]?

abacomike

snakeweasel said:

I tried to post the image of a 1936 Cord but I forgot how to that. Can someone re-post the pic? Edit: did it

A Cord 810, not sure it would appeal to many here as it is front wheel drive.

Beautiful vehicle, FWD or not!  

abacomike

graphicguy said:

OK...is it a punch if my son buys a new car? He's not "one of us" here at Edmunds.

On CCBA, it would not be a punch - first he is not a Chronic Car Buyer like many of us and second, he needs to be a poster.

Here on our thread, I'd give both of you a punch because it's FAMILY here! 

isellhondas

driver100 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

snakeweasel said:

oldfarmer50 said:

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?

Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved:
Gambling is ok if the government is involved.
No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.

By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.

I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.

Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.

I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.

You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.

If he has it, it's likely not what the NMA promotes it as.

Actually it's pretty close. Here in Albany they are proposing restricting motor vehicle lanes in favor of bikes which will cause tremendous headaches for drivers.

I've always suspected that some of the "safety" measures politicians are taking is really an agenda to harass drivers. Part of a larger campaign against hydrocarbon energy.

Right on!

The bike lane advocates love screwing up the roads so car drivers get frustrated, and eventually say they won't even bother driving their car in that town.

An adjoining town took out a lane on each side of the road to make bike lanes. That road is needed if there is an accident on the highway that runs beside it. Now when there is an accident that road gets all jammed up, all for the sake of 6 bike riders a day who use those bike lanes.

There is a street in town with a lot of small businesses. They survived because there was free parking right in front of their stores. They put in bike lanes and had to remove the parking spaces. Those "tax paying businesses" are closing so that 6 bikes can drive by in a day. And, we have winter for 5 or 6 months a year!

Same thing here! Seattle caters to bicycles and they pay NOTHING as far as yearly license fees. Bike lanes and paths everywhere.

PF_Flyer

28firefighter said:

PF_Flyer said:

Maybe it's a punch', like a first derivative in calculus

Of course, he could always go through the stringent initiation rituals and become "one of us"

Thank you, sir. May I have another [car]?

Sure... get that movie stuck in my head
To keep it about cars, how about IDs on this parking area?

stickguy

My favorite movie!

Is the vette a 62? Corvair about the same. I assume the yellow pickup is a crosley. No clue what year the Lincoln is.

prowler_mq5qm_

I'm guessing the rust bucket with the hood and trunk open is a '58 Plymouth (AKA "Christine") and the graffiti covered wagon is an Oldsmobile? As for the Lincoln, '66?

isellhondas

No, not a '66 Lincoln. Hard to tell without seeing the front end but I'm thinking a 62 or 63.

oldfarmer50

PF_Flyer said:

Maybe it's a punch', like a first derivative in calculus

Of course, he could always go through the stringent initiation rituals and become "one of us"

roadburner

oldfarmer50 said:

Actually it's pretty close. Here in Albany they are proposing restricting motor vehicle lanes in favor of bikes which will cause tremendous headaches for drivers.

I've always suspected that some of the "safety" measures politicians are taking is really an agenda to harass drivers. Part of a larger campaign against hydrocarbon energy.

You are absolutely right- Vision Zero is an attempt to make operating anything more than a bicycle very inconvenient. Among other things, the standards suggest a speed limit of no more than 43 mph on rural two lane roads...

Mr_Shiftright

Cars and bikes don't co-exist very well. The only way is to have one or the other dominate a given space.

nyccarguy

The Vette IS NOT a '62.  

PF_Flyer

stickguy said:

My favorite movie!

Is the vette a 62? Corvair about the same. I assume the yellow pickup is a crosley. No clue what year the Lincoln is.

I think the rust on the fins on the one with the open trunk will buff right out!

PF_Flyer

The rust bucket struck me as a Dodge, but turns out to be a '58 Plymouth Belvedere

jmonroe

PF_Flyer said:

The rust bucket struck me as a Dodge, but turns out to be a '58 Plymouth Belvedere

My father had a '58 Plymouth but it was a Sports Wagon not a car.

That was the car I learned to drive on. I remember distinctly that it had the infamous push button drive system.

That car was the definition of a POS and it was the third and last Chrysler product that my father ever owned.

jmonroe

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

Cars and bikes don't co-exist very well. The only way is to have one or the other dominate a given space.

We stayed at the hotel just behind that bike lot....in downtown Amsterdam. There is also an indoor bike garage and they do repairs and service for you while you are at work.

It will be a while before bikes get that popular here.

driver100

jmonroe said:

PF_Flyer said:

The rust bucket struck me as a Dodge, but turns out to be a '58 Plymouth Belvedere

My father had a '58 Plymouth but it was a Sports Wagon not a car.

That was the car I learned to drive on. I remember distinctly that it had the infamous push button drive system.

That car was the definition of a POS and it was the third and last Chrysler product that my father ever owned.

jmonroe

I owned a 58 Dodge that looked exactly like that Plymouth...only that was in 1970, and I will agree with your assessment of the car. The pushbuttons were fun when stuck in snow.....just keep pressing D and then R and burn out your transmission.
My Dodge had those blue lights around the windshield....installed by the previous owner (what were those lights called?). I paid $200 for it, and sold it for the same.

snakeweasel

Mr_Shiftright said:

Cars and bikes don't co-exist very well. The only way is to have one or the other dominate a given space.

Looks almost like the lot next to the hotel we will be staying at in a couple of months (that lot is slightly smaller than the one pictured though). It's the only area that I have stayed that you get your luggage delivered by horse drawn wagons.

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Cars and bikes don't co-exist very well. The only way is to have one or the other dominate a given space.

We stayed at the hotel just behind that bike lot....in downtown Amsterdam. There is also an indoor bike garage and they do repairs and service for you while you are at work.

It will be a while before bikes get that popular here.

There is a bike garage just off of downtown Chicago where you can park your bike and even have work done on it while you're at work.

explorerx4

I thought that Silver Special was Christine's lesser known cousin Crusty.
Also, one of these days, I'm going to visit the Auburn/Cord/Duesenberg museum.

carnaught

The pictured Lincoln Continental is either a '61 or '62.

tjc78

The Lincoln is a 64. It has the little piece of trim from the wheel arch to front bumper.