Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:36:58 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Various replies to Mike Bartman
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

At 10/7/2007 11:31 PM, you wrote:
>Mike Bartman wrote:
>
> >> Most people want to get to a particular place, rather than to
> >> travel for some particular number of hours or to take some
> >> particular number of trips.  If I want to get from my home to, say,
> >> the Denver Worldcon, and want to know the safest method, passenger
> >> miles are the appropriate measure.
>
> > If it makes you feel good to look at it that way, fine.  I'd be more
> > interested in what my chances of getting there and back alive are.
>
>That *is* what I'm interested in.  I'm one passenger for however
>many miles it is to Denver and back.  Hence passenger miles.  I'm
>less interested in my risk per hour, since the number of hours varies
>enormously -- it takes longer to get to Colorado by bicycle than by
>jet plane, so knowing that each hour on a jet is, say, twice as likely
>to kill me as each hour on a bicycle doesn't tell me which is the
>safer way to get to Denver unless I first convert the numbers to
>passenger miles.

It's a valid way to look at it, but it's not necessarily the best
when comparing different forms of travel...especially when looking at
long distance travel.  For instance, car stats tend to be for all car
trips, not broken down by local/long distance and I doubt that the
risks are the same for those two.  They also vary with driver
experience, and vary hugely with alcohol use, which is not generally
a factor with commercial air travel.  The commercial air stats are
likely to vary with location and time of year as well (Colorado has
risks that don't exist here for instance), but you don't generally
see them broken down that way...they aggregate all flights world-wide.

What your risks are depend on what stats you look at.  For any given
trip they are pretty low no matter how you go.  Most people get there
most of the time whether flying, driving, taking the train, or whatever.

> > Mine is not the largest vehicle on the road by a long shot.  The bus
> > you ride in is much larger and gets much lower gas mileage.
>
>Lower for the whole vehicle, but a lot higher per passenger.

Depends how full it is.  I frequently see busses running with only a
couple of people on board (outer areas, late evening for instance).

Also depends on how many extra miles it runs to get people where they
are going.  My car tends to go by the shortest available route from
where I am to where I want to go.  Busses just follow routes, so most
passengers spend a fair bit of time going places they don't want to
go before they get where they do want to go.  No matter how good the
mileage per passenger might be, all of that mileage is wasted.

> > I am, however, a lot more agile in mine.
>
>But I can read on the bus.  I couldn't safely read while driving.

Audio books?

> > I've wondered if polarizing filters on the headlights, and
> > polarizing filters in the windshields or on the drivers, might
> > not help that problem.
>
>Everyone going north would have vertically polarized headlights
>and windshields, and everyone going south would have horizontally
>polarized headlights and windshields?  It might work if it were easy
>to switch when changing direction.  But what about people going east
>or west?  And what about cyclists and pedestrians, who don't have
>windshields?

No, I was counting on the polarization being rotated on
reflection.  Lights are horizontal and glasses/windshields are
vertical.  That blocks the direct glare, but everyone can see the
reflected light, which is less intense and a lot more
useful.  Nothing stopping those outside of cars from using the same
trick.  That's the idea anyway, but I'd need to do more research to
see if the polarization really gets rotated or randomized on
reflection.  Maybe I'll check on this tomorrow.

>Several PRSFSans plan to be at Capclave.  If I see one of them and you
>at the same time, I'll introduce you.

Thanks!

On the store rent issue, I wonder how much of that is due to property
taxes?  With the recent skyrocketing in property values, and with
property taxes tied to estimated market value rather than purchase
price, an increase in real estate price will result in a large tax
increase on property owners...it's certainly happened to mine.  So my
house would sell for more...I get nothing from that until and unless
I sell it...so where am I supposed to come up with more tax
money?  Even if I do sell, the government is going to take a big
chunk of the proceeds in capital gains tax, transfer tax, recordation
fees and income tax from the agents and brokers involved
anyway.  Who's paying for this place anyway?  Whatever happens to the
owners is going to get passed along to the renters, so whether you
own or rent it still affects you.

-- Mike B.
--
"A `decay in the social contract' is detectable; there is a growing
feeling, particularly among middle-income taxpayers, that they are
not getting back, from society and government, their money's worth
for taxes paid.  The tendency is for taxpayers to try to take more
control of their finances."

                                     - IRS Strategic Plan, (May 1984)