 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / April 2007What does RV stand for?
I think it stands for Recreational Vehicle. Unless I'm mistaken, everybody who operates an RV needs to keep that fact in mind. You aren't in business. You don't make money like professional truckers. It's not your job to drive your RV. You do it in the name of recreation. It's your fun, your escape, your freedom to go where you like to go and see what you like to see in the comfort and convenience of your own personal vehicle. I can see the attraction in it all. But, what I can't see is the attitude some of you have. Like you have more right to your recreation than other vehicles have to their job. My job is cycling and not one subscriber here seems to realize that road use for a job should take precedence over road use for recreation. So the next time your driving down the road and have to slow down for a backhoe, a farm tractor, a crane, etc. try to keep in mind that you're a RECREATIONAL vehicle and stop being so damned impatient. Slow down and give the working man a break. And try to remember that some of the cyclists out there use their bikes to commute to and from work. Some cyclists use their bikes to train for their work like I do. So slow down. Enjoy your vacation. Enjoy your travels. Be happy that you don't have to be somewhere to punch the old time clock. Develop a sane and rational attitude towards others using the highways and byways. Shad O'Shay It's really hard to picture you in your spandex leotard as a working man/lady. >I think it stands for Recreational Vehicle. Unless I'm mistaken, > everybody who operates an RV needs to keep that fact in mind. You aren't [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Shad O'Shay >I think it stands for Recreational Vehicle. Unless I'm mistaken, > everybody who operates an RV needs to keep that fact in mind. You aren't [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Shad O'Shay Do you pay road use taxes with that bicycle? No? Then shut up your girly whining. GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >Do you pay road use taxes with that bicycle? No? Then shut up your girly >whining. Not that I'm about to get into this argument, but it is not necessary to pay "road use taxes" to have the right to ride a bicycle on a public road. What IS required is to follow the laws and rules of the road. Most cyclists -- at least the ones I know personally -- try very hard to blend in to traffic and not cause problems. Certainly, there are exceptions, and i've seen some of them too. GB in NC >>Do you pay road use taxes with that bicycle? No? Then shut up your girly >>whining. > > Not that I'm about to get into this argument, but it is not necessary to > pay "road use taxes" to have the right to ride a bicycle on a public > road. Why not? Motorcycles pay road use taxes through license and fuel taxes. So should someone on a bicycle. The license fee should be more than a motorcycle because they do not pay fuel taxes. Pricks like Shad should pay their fair share. ":o) GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth." > What IS required is to follow the laws and rules of the road. Most > cyclists -- at least the ones I know personally -- try very hard to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > GB in NC SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>Do you pay road use taxes with that bicycle? No? Then shut up your girly >>>whining. >> Not that I'm about to get into this argument, but it is not necessary to >> pay "road use taxes" to have the right to ride a bicycle on a public >> road. >Why not? Motorcycles pay road use taxes through license and fuel taxes. My bad. I thought we were talking about (non-motorized) bicycles. When did we switch to motorcycles? Motorcycles are classed as motor vehicles, subject in most places to similar licensing and insurance regulations as other motor vehicles. Of course they should -- and do -- pay their share of road taxes. >So should someone on a bicycle. The license fee should be more than a >motorcycle because they do not pay fuel taxes. (So now we're switching back to bicycles again. Okay.) Bicycles cause virtually zero measurable wear and tear on the roadway, as far as I can tell. But I have no problem requiring them to pay the same taxes as everybody else on every gallon of motor fuel they use on the public roads <g>, just on principle. In fact, maybe I'll write my state legislators and propose that. That should even things up. (Now let's take this in yet another direction.) Just for the record, do you believe people should have to pay some kind of road use tax before they can walk on a public roadway? (I'm serious.) GB in NC >>>>Do you pay road use taxes with that bicycle? No? Then shut up your >>>>girly [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > GB in NC Good point. Use of the public highways is not dependent on the taxes one pays. The taxes one pays are dependent upon license fees and fuel usage. The more fuel one uses, the more tax one pays. The heavier the vehicle the more fuel it uses. Fair tax built right into the system if there is such a thing as a fair tax. Saying somebody should pay "their fair share" is nonsensical. What if a pedestrian or cyclist also owns a car or a truck and pays just as much fuel tax as the next guy? Should they be penalized for walking or cycling when doing so is way less damaging to the atmosphere via less pollution produced? These road hog RV drivers don't think about that. And, if "fair share" was based on weight of the vehicle, these RVers would have to pay much more than they do already for "their fair share". If they are smart (very doubtful), they will drop this "fair share" nonsense like a hot potato. Why? Simply because they already don't pay their fair share. Turnabout is fair play! The same dumb argument is often used for property tax. Homeowners say a homeless person doesn't pay his fair share of the taxes. Duh! Why should somebody who doesn't own property have to pay property tax? By the same token, if you hate paying property taxes so much then sell your property. Shad O'Shay >>>>>Do you pay road use taxes with that bicycle? No? Then shut up your >>>>>girly [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Saying somebody should pay "their fair share" is nonsensical. You should pay a tax for using the roadway. What if a > pedestrian or cyclist also owns a car or a truck and pays just as much > fuel tax as the next guy? You are paying for your use of the road in your car when you fuel it. You are not paying for your use of the road on your bicycle. Your bicycle should be inspected and licensed to keep unsafe bicycles and unsafe riders off of the public roads. Should they be penalized for walking or > cycling when doing so is way less damaging to the atmosphere via less > pollution produced? You are adding to the CO2 level. These road hog RV drivers don't think about that. > And, if "fair share" was based on weight of the vehicle, these RVers would > have to pay much more than they do already for "their fair share". If they > are smart (very doubtful), they will drop this "fair share" nonsense like > a hot potato. Why? Simply because they already don't pay their fair share. > Turnabout is fair play! Are you paying your fair share for the use of the roads while on your bike. > The same dumb argument is often used for property tax. Homeowners say a > homeless person doesn't pay his fair share of the taxes. Duh! Why should > somebody who doesn't own property have to pay property tax? Property tax pays for your public services. Why should a homeowner pay for your police protection? By the same > token, if you hate paying property taxes so much then sell your property. You pay it through your rent of a home or apartment also. > Shad O'Shay GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth." SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >The same dumb argument is often used for property tax. Homeowners say a >homeless person doesn't pay his fair share of the taxes. Duh! Why should [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Shad O'Shay There you go again, shad. Most property tax is for schools. Should I not have to pay prop tax if I have no kids in school? Should a person with 1 kid pay the same rate as a person with 5? >>The same dumb argument is often used for property tax. Homeowners say >>a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > not have to pay prop tax if I have no kids in school? Should a person > with 1 kid pay the same rate as a person with 5? Illogical. It doesn't matter what taxes are for. What matters is what's taxed. You have no more say about what property tax is used for than what income tax is used for. If you can't stand paying taxes then you have options. You can sell your property and you can stop working. Get an RV and drive around seeing the sights. So stop trying to re-write the tax codes. It certainly be an exercise in futility. As bad as the taxes are here in the USA you should be on your hands and knees praying they never go up to what they are in Europe. They literally rape you in most EU countries. But you will find socialism is alive and well in most European countries. Let it be a lesson to you. Never vote for higher taxes. Never vote for people who want to raise your taxes. Shad O'Shay >They literally rape you in most EU countries. ROFL. That statement means that they actually have forced sexual intercourse with you. I doubt that's what you meant. That's like saying it's "literally raining cats and dogs," which I've heard weatherjerks on TV say more than once. No, it's NOT literally doing that, or we'd be hearing about it on the real news. *Figuratively*, maybe, but not literally. They're not the same thing. Nothing personal, but it's been a while since I "pedanted" here. Don't want to lose my reputation <g>.... GB in NC >>They literally rape you in most EU countries. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > GB in NC No offense, GB in NC, but open a dictionary to "literally." You will most likely find a second definition for literally listed as "virtually." Then look up virtually and you will find it says something like "almost entirely, nearly, for all practical purposes. Sounds like your pedant needs some larning (sic). ;-) Shad O'Shay >No offense, GB in NC, but open a dictionary to "literally." You will >most likely find a second definition for literally listed as >"virtually." Then look up virtually and you will find it says something >like "almost entirely, nearly, for all practical purposes. Sounds like >your pedant needs some larning (sic). ;-) Dance around the semantics all you want, but in my book if you say it's "literally raining cats and dogs" that means actual felines and canines are falling from the sky. I'll leave it at that. GB in NC Yes, and if he'd looked up the definition of "rape" he would have seen that it doesn't have to involve sex. SignatureSteve Barker > No offense, GB in NC, but open a dictionary to "literally." You will most > likely find a second definition for literally listed as "virtually." Then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Shad O'Shay > >>>Do you pay road use taxes with that bicycle? No? Then shut up your girly > >>>whining. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > GB in NC GB Just ignore the ignoramus. He/She has made up his/her mind and nothing will change it. Just another troll that should be posting on the "other" forum. RVC, USMC (Ret) RV, bike, bicycle, et.al., owner >> (Now let's take this in yet another direction.) Just for the record, do >> you believe people should have to pay some kind of road use tax before >> they can walk on a public roadway? (I'm serious.) >> >> GB in NC >GB > >Just ignore the ignoramus. He/She has made up his/her mind and nothing will >change it. Just another troll that should be posting on the "other" forum. Yep. I'm on the edge of being fed up with him anyway. GB in NC >> >>>Do you pay road use taxes with that bicycle? No? Then shut up your > girly [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > RVC, USMC (Ret) > RV, bike, bicycle, et.al., owner I'm an RV'r also making fun of Shaddy's absurdness by being absurd. He is lamenting about his "right" to obstruct the flow of traffic with his bike. We need people like him for organ donations. ":o) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>Do you pay road use taxes with that bicycle? No? Then shut up your girly >>>>whining. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > similar licensing and insurance regulations as other motor vehicles. Of > course they should -- and do -- pay their share of road taxes. Bicycle should be licensed, inspected and taxed if they use the roadway. >>So should someone on a bicycle. The license fee should be more than a >>motorcycle because they do not pay fuel taxes. > > (So now we're switching back to bicycles again. Okay.) Bicycles cause > virtually zero measurable wear and tear on the roadway, as far as I can > tell. Just like a motorcycle. But I have no problem requiring them to pay the same taxes as > everybody else on every gallon of motor fuel they use on the public > roads <g>, just on principle. In fact, maybe I'll write my state [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > GB in NC Only if you walk in the roadway and claim a right of way. <beg> SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > (Now let's take this in yet another direction.) (I'm serious.) So am I. The OP typifies the arrogant, sometimes militant attitude of many of these holier-than-thou-in-your-fuel-guzzling-motorvehicle clowns who take pleasure from blocking the orderly flow of other vehicles. They often have their little rear-view mirrors on, and can see vehicles approaching from the rear, but just as often absolutely REFUSE to get single-file or even move over on the shoulder on narrow roads to allow traffic to pass. It's a real attitude issue reflecting poorly on their parents. Where I live, we often drive on secondary roads due to congestion on the major ones, and that's where these pillars of society like to ride. Roads are often twisty, two-lane affairs with little or no shoulder, and passing other vehicles is difficult due to curves in the road. There is a proposal before the legislature which would make it an offense to pass a bicyclist unless 3 feet of clearance can be maintained, 6 for a truck, with a $500 fine for violation. If passed, such a law would essentially make it legal for cyclists to block all other vehicular traffic for as long as they desire. This kind of legislation is idiocy at its best, but shows how bad things can get when sanity is overtaken by political correctness. > Just for the record, do you believe people should have to pay some kind of road use tax before they can walk on a public roadway? That one's a non-issue. Darwin was right; natural selection will take care of the ones that do that. >>Do you pay road use taxes with that bicycle? No? Then shut up your >>girly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > GB in NC Finally, a reasoned response. Thank you. Too bad you're outnumbered about ten to one by the unreasonable, belligerent types. But, this alt.rv so I guess expecting a dollop of rationality is hoping for way too much. I can't believe they let some of this bunch drive at all, let alone drive large, hard to handle vehicles. Shad O'Shay |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.