NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to propose something but I want to see how it works out here first. How about a program that requires People to come to a certin building to recieve a bike voucher. The Bike Voucher provides 1 bike per voucher providing that the car in that persons use is given to the company providing the Vouchers. The cars are then melted down to become new bikes. It would really help the enviorment with less polution and less deaths and accidents. The only Vehicles allowed would be goverment vehicles and Vehicles used to haul heavy equipent and such. What does everyone think? Could it work? Please respond. Thankyou.

please respond. I would like to see peoples views on this

I want to propose something but I want to see how it works out here first. How about a program that requires People to come to a certin building to recieve a bike voucher. The Bike Voucher provides 1 bike per voucher providing that the car in that persons use is given to the company providing the Vouchers. The cars are then melted down to become new bikes. It would really help the enviorment with less polution and less deaths and accidents. The only Vehicles allowed would be goverment vehicles and Vehicles used to haul heavy equipent and such. What does everyone think? Could it work? Please respond. Thankyou.

How many bicycles does one vehicle produce? Why does the person who surrenders his vehicle only recieve one bicycle when their vehicle could produce more than one? What happens to these other bicycles? Are they sold? Does the person who surrendered the vehicle get the profits produced from the extra bicycles?

Just a few questions to answer.

------
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies

The Bicycles made from the vehicle would be given amongst the rest of the nation.There is no profits. The Vouchers are simply given in trade of a car. No one gets more then 1 bicycle UNLESS that person has a family. Then of course the each member of the family recieves a bicycle. And by the way if a child recieves a bycycle such as at the age of 9 or 10 then he will be eligible for another bike when he/she hets older, they are set for life, and of course free service will be done for bikes broken. The rest of the money that is made from pieces of the car that could not be used to make bikes will go towards the community, only after the people who make the bikes and and the people fixing the bikes are payed of course, so it is good for everyone.

I want to propose something but I want to see how it works out here first. How about a program that requires People to come to a certin building to recieve a bike voucher. The Bike Voucher provides 1 bike per voucher providing that the car in that persons use is given to the company providing the Vouchers. The cars are then melted down to become new bikes. It would really help the enviorment with less polution and less deaths and accidents. The only Vehicles allowed would be goverment vehicles and Vehicles used to haul heavy equipent and such. What does everyone think? Could it work? Please respond. Thankyou.

Let's say a guy owns a $20,000 car in a family of four okay? That's about standard. If he has to give away his car for bikes, each bike lets say costs $100... so he is trading something worth $20,000 for a total of $400. Not a very fair trade if you ask me.

I want to propose something but I want to see how it works out here first. How about a program that requires People to come to a certin building to recieve a bike voucher. The Bike Voucher provides 1 bike per voucher providing that the car in that persons use is given to the company providing the Vouchers. The cars are then melted down to become new bikes. It would really help the enviorment with less polution and less deaths and accidents. The only Vehicles allowed would be goverment vehicles and Vehicles used to haul heavy equipent and such. What does everyone think? Could it work? Please respond. Thankyou.

Let's say a guy owns a $20,000 car in a family of five okay? That's about standard. If he has to give away his car for bikes, each bike lets say costs $100... so he is trading something worth $20,000 for a total of $500. Not a very fair trade if you ask me.

And don't forget that this interference in market equilibrium will cause a surplus of bikes and a shortage of cars... so the guy's $20,000 car may very well end up being worth $100,000 on the black market while each of hte $100 bikes will only be worth $20 each since the market has been flooded by above-Quantity products. So you're asking him to trade $100,000 for ... $100. Most communists offer better deals than that.

well yes, but you cant put a price on saving the world for a little bit longer, cleaner air for your children's future, exercise, and the thought that you know your doing somthing right in the world.

How about just make cars more efficient for now and discourage people from using them for short or unnecessary trips through increased taxation (either direct tax on fuel which would also encourage people to use more efficient cars or something similar to the London congestion charge)

How about just make cars more efficient for now and discourage people from using them for short or unnecessary trips through increased taxation (either direct tax on fuel which would also encourage people to use more efficient cars or something similar to the London congestion charge)

How about we stop blowing everything out of proportion and just let people take care of it on their own? If they really love nature so much then they will buy cleaner fuels. If oil really is depleted its price will skyrocket and it will be cheaper to buy alternative fuels. You want something, you pay the market price for it. This should apply to nature.

It has shown in the past that sometimes humans need a little boost and being that we are appointed leaders of our nations we might as well boost them! I am coming up with a new, and better plan which will help use less energy and stop polution while keeping the people happy, i will post it soon.

How about just make cars more efficient for now and discourage people from using them for short or unnecessary trips through increased taxation (either direct tax on fuel which would also encourage people to use more efficient cars or something similar to the London congestion charge)

How about we stop blowing everything out of proportion and just let people take care of it on their own? If they really love nature so much then they will buy cleaner fuels. If oil really is depleted its price will skyrocket and it will be cheaper to buy alternative fuels. You want something, you pay the market price for it. This should apply to nature.

Ah but it doesnt work like that, even when fossil fuels do run out people will for the most part only think of themselves and only think short term thus if its cheaper in the short term to destroy the environment or whatever then they will do so. Capitalism teaches people to be self centered and greedy, to exploit as much as possible for personal gain. Thus the only way to stop unsustainable exploitation of the environment is initially at least to force people.

Ah but it doesnt work like that, even when fossil fuels do run out people will for the most part only think of themselves and only think short term thus if its cheaper in the short term to destroy the environment or whatever then they will do so. Capitalism teaches people to be self centered and greedy, to exploit as much as possible for personal gain. Thus the only way to stop unsustainable exploitation of the environment is initially at least to force people.


Great, more of this commie drivel. The true capitalist way of dealing with this problem would be to develop a more efficient design. Something that has equal performance, but would cost less to run. Such as a solar powered car, when an engine and long life battery are developed so that the consumer gets the same quality, but doesn't have the cost of gasoline. I can guarantee you, everyone would want that vehicle, and fossil fuel use would go the way of the dodo.

As for this resolution, I believe it is quite ludicrous.

Ah but it doesnt work like that, even when fossil fuels do run out people will for the most part only think of themselves and only think short term thus if its cheaper in the short term to destroy the environment or whatever then they will do so. Capitalism teaches people to be self centered and greedy, to exploit as much as possible for personal gain. Thus the only way to stop unsustainable exploitation of the environment is initially at least to force people.


Great, more of this commie drivel. The true capitalist way of dealing with this problem would be to develop a more efficient design. Something that has equal performance, but would cost less to run. Such as a solar powered car, when an engine and long life battery are developed so that the consumer gets the same quality, but doesn't have the cost of gasoline. I can guarantee you, everyone would want that vehicle, and fossil fuel use would go the way of the dodo.

As for this resolution, I believe it is quite ludicrous.

but by the time it is cheaper to research and produce solar powered cars for mainstream use the damage will have been done. Capitalists will use fossil fuels for as long as they can, they only reason they even consider cleaner alternatives is that eventually fossil fuels will run out. If people want clean efficient cars why do so many have this obsession with driving SUVs?

Ah but it doesnt work like that, even when fossil fuels do run out people will for the most part only think of themselves and only think short term thus if its cheaper in the short term to destroy the environment or whatever then they will do so. Capitalism teaches people to be self centered and greedy, to exploit as much as possible for personal gain. Thus the only way to stop unsustainable exploitation of the environment is initially at least to force people.


Great, more of this commie drivel. The true capitalist way of dealing with this problem would be to develop a more efficient design. Something that has equal performance, but would cost less to run. Such as a solar powered car, when an engine and long life battery are developed so that the consumer gets the same quality, but doesn't have the cost of gasoline. I can guarantee you, everyone would want that vehicle, and fossil fuel use would go the way of the dodo.

As for this resolution, I believe it is quite ludicrous.

If people want clean efficient cars why do so many have this obsession with driving SUVs?

The theory is that an SUV is a large enough vehicle that it won't disintegrate on impact like a much smaller more "eco-friendly" car might.

Personally I think the idea is a bit exagerated. A fairly new driver myself, it has still been my experience that people in the bigger cars tend to be more careless as they feel their huge castle of steel on wheels will save them when they eventually cause an accident with their carelessness, like a woman at school I encountered who blatently used her massive SUV to bully her way through traffic. I was in a minivan, and still her bumper would have gone right though my head if she'd actually hit me.

The van is my parents and it was on the weekend. Normally I take the public bus system. Now, if only they'd invent a public bus system that was on time and had drivers that didn't speed and/or bounce on the brakes, tossing passengers to the floor. :? :roll:

So must of you feel a new car design instead of safer bikes which lets one have exercise. Well, I will try to think about it, but i'm still working on a better proposal for my Bike Vouchers, thank you all for voting

Perhaps the bike they give out is a $20,000 bike that is protected from rain, has a/c and a radio, 4 seats, and a 172hp engine? Then We could see people going for this...

since i have time let me explain the rest of the plan. In return for the car a person will recieve a solar power system for their home, with free installation. Based on the going price for the car will decide which system the person will recieve. Thats killing 2 birds with one stone. Sound Good?

They'd have to be dirt bikes fer anyone in Alabammy to go fer it.

Even then, pickups are still just too danged useful.

But since what yer proposin' don't put us out, I ain't got no objections.

Except that givin' bikes fer cars ain't somethin' the U.N. exists fer.

Remember a lil' thing called WWII? U.N. were created to keep stuff like that from happinin' again.

So, explain how bikes'd prevent a world war?

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

This aint no RLUN, this is the NSUN, our jurisdiction is far more then preventing a war, it is to make the lives of the people of our nations better. taking cars away and giving bikes gets rid of alot of pollution and provides a better future for their children.

This aint no RLUN, this is the NSUN, our jurisdiction is far more then preventing a war, it is to make the lives of the people of our nations better. taking cars away and giving bikes gets rid of alot of pollution and provides a better future for their children.

So what you're saying is forcing us to get up an hour earlier and preventing us from travelling more than a few miles from home and shopping except at local minimarkets will improve our quality of life?

Well being that the world's average pant size is a 38 a little exercise wont hurt. It would not have to be an hour earlier. since everyone would have bikes everyone would show up at work a little later, office times can change. There would be no traffic. It would work.

Well being that the world's average pant size is a 38 a little exercise wont hurt. It would not have to be an hour earlier. since everyone would have bikes everyone would show up at work a little later, office times can change. There would be no traffic. It would work.

So instead of getting up an hour earlier... you get home an hour later. Okay.

I live four miles away from where I attend school. It would take over an hour for me to bike there.

Nor can I imagine doing weekend shopping without a car.

!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil: :evil: !!!!!!!!!!!!! You people are just trying to be difficult, the Bike Voucher idea is a very good idea.

I want to propose something but I want to see how it works out here first. How about a program that requires People to come to a certin building to recieve a bike voucher. The Bike Voucher provides 1 bike per voucher providing that the car in that persons use is given to the company providing the Vouchers. The cars are then melted down to become new bikes. It would really help the enviorment with less polution and less deaths and accidents. The only Vehicles allowed would be goverment vehicles and Vehicles used to haul heavy equipent and such. What does everyone think? Could it work? Please respond. Thankyou.


are you insane??

If you plan on offering any useful and/or intilligent comments to this thread i ask you to do so, but saying are you insane doesn't help me at all. How about you tell me whats wrong with the idea so i can work on it, now that sounds helpful, right?

Well being that the world's average pant size is a 38 a little exercise wont hurt. It would not have to be an hour earlier. since everyone would have bikes everyone would show up at work a little later, office times can change. There would be no traffic. It would work.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to know where you get your information, because from where we're standing there is quite a bit of starving people in our world and we don't think most of them are starving with a 38 pants size.

This aint no RLUN, this is the NSUN

Ya can go right on ahead and throw all the letters ya wants at me and it won't make a lick of difference in my opinion.

The U.N.'s here to prevent wars, not to tell me how I should be runnin' my country.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

It could work for nation states that have serious pollution problems. I have a question that might lead to others. My initial question is this, what about nations that aren't overly urbanized? Would this be a beneift to them? What about a Solar Vehicle and Bike Proposal. Many people make decisions for there nation states based on their own predispositions. So I think that if you would also include a Solar Vehicle portion to the Proposal, it would get more Yea votes than if you just stick with the Bikes alone proposal.

Well being that the world's average pant size is a 38 a little exercise wont hurt. It would not have to be an hour earlier. since everyone would have bikes everyone would show up at work a little later, office times can change. There would be no traffic. It would work.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to know where you get your information, because from where we're standing there is quite a bit of starving people in our world and we don't think most of them are starving with a 38 pants size.

We, the Free Land of Tipayimisoowin, would also like to know the answer to this question. As best as we can figure, this site (http://www.backwash.com/content.php?jouid=5435) says that the average pant size for American women is 14, which, according to [urel="http://members.aol.com/SuzanneHen/SizeConv.htm"]this page[/url] (in the "Converting Men's to Women's Sizes -- II From Measurements" section) is a medium. From that same chart, a mens 38 is a large or extra large, whereas a medium is a 32-34 waist. We feel that since these are "medium" measurements, they could possibly represent the "average" size.

Respectfully,
The FLOT

The name of this thread is not "whats the average pant size" ok? Antilusia, thats a good idea, i might look into it, see how i could fit it in.
Everyone else, you have thought way to much into it, bikes for cars is all the real thing had to be but no, it had to turn into "well so i will have to get up an hour earlier?" come on... :x it would help and you all know it, u all apply this stuff to real life which is not the case. In a computer game people could care less how early they have to wake up!

The name of this thread is not "whats the average pant size" ok? Antilusia, thats a good idea, i might look into it, see how i could fit it in.
Everyone else, you have thought way to much into it, bikes for cars is all the real thing had to be but no, it had to turn into "well so i will have to get up an hour earlier?" come on... :x it would help and you all know it, u all apply this stuff to real life which is not the case. In a computer game people could care less how early they have to wake up!

We, the Free Land of Tipayimisoowin, do not know what this computer game is that you refer to. Our citizens are hard-working, and while they realize that cars are not necessarily the best form of transport for commuting to and from, commuting is not their only purpose. An extensive public transportation system is in effect in all of the major cities in the FLOT, and cycling is an encouraged form of commuting. However, personal motor vehicles are convenient for shopping, moving, and long-distance travelling. The Tipayimi people are looking into alternative forms of fuel for vehicles, and are encouraging this as opposed to downright banning vehicles. The Tipayimi people do not like to waste time, and as such, what time they get up in the more is important to them.

The leaders of the Free Land of Tipayimisoowin feel that the leaders of the Toupsians nation need to lighten up.

Respectfully,
The FLOT

A more realistic proposal to reduce vehicle-related pollution would be to subsidize the use of non-polluting vehicles. Let's say that my country makes all purchases of zero-emisions vehicles tax-deductable. That would encourage consumers to purchase more such vehicles, which would in turn encourage manufacturers to produce more of them. Yes, it would result in a reduction of tax receipts for the government, but ANY action costs something to somebody--it's either the government, the manufacturers, or the consumers who have to pay.

If you want numbers on the costs, let's say that in my nation, income tax is a flat 20%, and the new all-electric cars sell for $20,000 each. If the cars are consumed at a rate of 50 per 1000 people per year (equivalent to a family of four buying one every five years), then the lost taxes comes out to $4000 per car, which means $200 per person per year. If my nation's average per capita income is $30,000 per year ($6000 in tax), then this results in a three percent loss of tax revenue. If any of you can think of an equally effective strategy that will cost less (less to everyone, not just less to the government--pushing off the cost on the consumers or the manufacturers does not count), then I would like to hear it.

A more realistic proposal to reduce vehicle-related pollution would be to subsidize the use of non-polluting vehicles. Let's say that my country makes all purchases of zero-emisions vehicles tax-deductable. That would encourage consumers to purchase more such vehicles, which would in turn encourage manufacturers to produce more of them. Yes, it would result in a reduction of tax receipts for the government, but ANY action costs something to somebody--it's either the government, the manufacturers, or the consumers who have to pay.

If you want numbers on the costs, let's say that in my nation, income tax is a flat 20%, and the new all-electric cars sell for $20,000 each. If the cars are consumed at a rate of 50 per 1000 people per year (equivalent to a family of four buying one every five years), then the lost taxes comes out to $4000 per car, which means $200 per person per year. If my nation's average per capita income is $30,000 per year ($6000 in tax), then this results in a three percent loss of tax revenue. If any of you can think of an equally effective strategy that will cost less (less to everyone, not just less to the government--pushing off the cost on the consumers or the manufacturers does not count), then I would like to hear it.

We the PROA think the bikes for cars proposal was meant to improve more than just air quality. There are also the number of deaths and injuries caused by auto accidents that would drop, the insane amounts of money the government spends on road and auto related infrastructure (lights, signs, parking lots etc.) that would be unnecessary. This proposal does a good job of adressing these otherwise unmentioned problems, however we the PROA still feel that this is a completely psychotic proposal. We feel that nobody who spent upwards of $10,000 on a car will be willing to give it away for a $50 bike (the good bikes are not made out of recycled steel). If these people wanted a $50 bike they would have bought one in the first place.

We thank you all to "stop the insanity"...

I think this bike thing is a great idea. After everyone turns in their cars and the streets are flooded with bikes i can hop into my gigantic SUV go barreling down the road spewing toxic gasses into the air and cut a bloody swath through all those pinko commie bike riders.

I think this bike thing is a great idea. After everyone turns in their cars and the streets are flooded with bikes i can hop into my gigantic SUV go barreling down the road spewing toxic gasses into the air and cut a bloody swath through all those pinko commie bike riders.

pinko?

I think this bike thing is a great idea. After everyone turns in their cars and the streets are flooded with bikes i can hop into my gigantic SUV go barreling down the road spewing toxic gasses into the air and cut a bloody swath through all those pinko commie bike riders.

pinko?

We the PROA believe that this is some sort of betting game involving a little platics disc that falls through a bunch of pegs.

From:
Nam Durian
UN Delegate representing the Disputed Territories of Baconasia

To: The Toupsians delegate

His Esteemed Highness the Pope Emperor Ape Puk has reviewed and authorized this rebuttal.

The Disputed Territories of Baconasia would like to point out the following fallacies in your "car for bikes" proposal:

1. You assume that the entire world is suitable for riding bikes. That is simply a ludicrous assumption. What about mountainous regions? Desert? Jungle? Arctic? Do you want to ride a bike through 110 F sun? Up the side of a mountain? In a -40 F snowstorm? Across a desert? Through a rainforest? Do you want to ride your bike through an inner city riddled with crime? Through a territory with no lights, and wild animals?

2. You make no considerations for distance: are you willing to ride your bike 10 miles? 50 miles? 100 miles? 500 miles? 1000 miles? Instead of taking you hours to go somewhere, it would take you days, weeks, months. Are you willing to bike 10 miles to school with 40 lbs. of books on your back? What about if you buy a TV, or refrigerator, or piano, or some other large appliance? Are you going to drag that behind your bike? What about something unwieldy, like a painting? Or a sculpture? Or a mobile home?

3. You make no consideration for physical differences between people. Do you think an 80 year old man who has to use a walker wants to ride a bike? Or someone who weighs 300 lbs? What about the handicapped? Do you think a person with no legs wants to ride a bike? Or is a paraplegic? What about an asthmatic? Or someone with respiratory, heart, etc. ailments, where physical exercise could kill them? Those people certainly would not ride a bike if it endangers their health.

The Disputed Territories of Baconasia does not, and will not, support your proposal. Much of our territory is mountainous and jungle, and it would be infeasible and dangerous for our citizens to trade in their cars for bikes. Also, there are minor skirmishes that break out between our City-States, and a citizen will certainly not ride a bike in an area where (s)he may be killed by intentional or errant gunfire.

Sincerely Yours,
Nam Durian
UN Delegate representing the Disputed Territories of Baconasia

I drive a Model 1944 Porsche Mouse. It has excellent off-road capabilities, a 88-mm high-velocity gun and 4-inch armor plating to defend against tree-huggers and a nice fuel efficiency of 3.2 gallons to the mile.

I think the extra money made from the recyceling of the cars can be put into creating a non-poluting public transportation system.

Also, without cars jobs will move to more centralized locations. This will cause the population to shift into these areas. Thus, bicycles may not even be necessary to get to work. More people would be within walking distance of their jobs.

With the population now concentrated in a smaller area, large tracts of land will be freed up and can be turned into public parks, athletic fields, and wilderness preserves.

The public parks and athletic fields can be located just on the edge of the densly populated areas, putting everyone within a few minutes distance. Beyond these public park areas would be wilderness.

The densly populated cities can be broken up into mini-cities of their own, each with a shopping district and city services all within a 10-15 minute walk of anyone living there.

The only automobiles allowed into these areas would be trucks making deliveries.

Transportation between these population adjacent centers would be via light rail.

Support the bike vouchers, it's a step in the right dirrection.

You can walk to the mall but what if you buy say a computer or something? Surely you would need a motorized veichle to take it home.

I am with Schim to a certain extent.
First of all, I think bikes are dumb.
Second of all, I think mass transit is good.
Third of all, the way The Toupsians explains it only works for socialist countries, so WHY BOTHER POSTING ON NSUN? introduce it into your own country but you haven't thought out how it will mesh with other countries.
Finally mass transit works best with exceedingly high density populations but bikes can be used to supplement it for more extensive population bases. Non-poluting is a fallacy. Nothing is non poluting, not even trees. Do your best and never settle for taking the polution out of the tailpipe and you should be alright.

Finally, for The Global Market.
In Azariel only the church have petrol driven conveyances. The peasants use a horse and dray or for upwardly mobile people there are bikes with a set of trainer wheels and a small cart attached. (EDIT: That is for transport heavy things. I can't believe I forgot this bit)

High Cardinal Raziel, Arch-Magus of Azariel

I think the extra money made from the recyceling of the cars can be put into creating a non-poluting public transportation system.

What exactly are we going to recycle the cars into? A steel bike is not very much fun to ride on a daily basis, espically for any legnth of time and the majority of expense for the car is electronics and machine parts which loose alot of value when melted down.


Also, without cars jobs will move to more centralized locations. This will cause the population to shift into these areas. Thus, bicycles may not even be necessary to get to work. More people would be within walking distance of their jobs.

This will also cause the skyrocketing of land values and drive most wharehousing and low profit margin industries to look for locations outside the city in some sort of bizarre un-surburbia. This is the basis of such businesses as costco and wal-mart they build on cheaper industrial land, not downtown.

With the population now concentrated in a smaller area, large tracts of land will be freed up and can be turned into public parks, athletic fields, and wilderness preserves.

The public parks and athletic fields can be located just on the edge of the densly populated areas, putting everyone within a few minutes distance. Beyond these public park areas would be wilderness.

How about a little farm land, or perhaps industrial land? (See Above)

The densly populated cities can be broken up into mini-cities of their own, each with a shopping district and city services all within a 10-15 minute walk of anyone living there.

The only automobiles allowed into these areas would be trucks making deliveries.

We suppose that these trucks will come from where? Warehouses outside the cities and industries outside the cities? Farms outside the cities? How will those people get to work if they all live in the city?

Transportation between these population adjacent centers would be via light rail.

Support the bike vouchers, it's a step in the right dirrection.

There is also the issues of farm vehicles, small delivery vehicles (we can imagine a lot of mostly empty truck replacing those small delivery vans) police vehicles. We support the intent of this legislation, however still maintain the position that it is psychotic.

Wow! That was a smack in the teeth with a sad smile and an apology.

What exactly are we going to recycle the cars into?

Make cans, make art, make machine parts. Anything that pollutes less than the car would be better.

This will also cause the skyrocketing of land values and drive most wharehousing and low profit margin industries to look for locations outside the city in some sort of bizarre un-surburbia. This is the basis of such businesses as costco and wal-mart they build on cheaper industrial land, not downtown.

Wal-marts are more about cheap plastic crap than anything else. And the build out in suburbia because that's where the people who like cheap plastic crap live. If you can get a few thousand people to move into a neighborhood where every cheaply constructed house looks the same, then you can probably also sell them all the same all the same cheap plastic crap too. Plus, they're all overextended on their mortgage payments so they can't afford anything other than cheap plastic crap anyway.

How about a little farm land, or perhaps industrial land?

Sure, there'll be room for that too.

We suppose that these trucks will come from where? Warehouses outside the cities and industries outside the cities? Farms outside the cities? How will those people get to work if they all live in the city?

I don't think I ever said that everyone will live downtown in the cities.