[Leanan]

According to this survey, more Americans can name the characters on "The Simpsons" than can name our First Amendment rights.

We have some peculiar ideas about our constitutional rights:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he right to own pets, for example, which 21 percent of respondents said was listed someplace between "Congress shall make no law" and "redress of grievances." Seventeen percent said that the amendment contained the right to drive a car.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'B')ut 17% of Americans think the Constitution guarantees them the right to drive a car???

[UIUCstudent01]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')It's obvious what should happen here," Dorf said. The Constitution "should be featured in an episode of 'The Simpsons.'"

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', ' ')But 17% of Americans think the Constitution guarantees them the right to drive a car???

[Grimnir]

Probably what they really believe is that it would be unconstitutional to outlaw driving.

And as with any of these "duh" surveys, a certain percentage of the yes's come from would-be comedians annoyed at being interrupted during dinner.

[handforged]

i think the basic flaw that is being overlooked is the inability of the average american to read, retain, comprehend, analyze, and basicly think in general.

but seriously, this isn't surprising. i'm 30 and we went over the US Constitution in a vague way 1 time in 9th grade. you can't teach the basic laws of your land in a memorize-and-reguritate-for-the-test-and-then-forget-it manner. you can't expect people incapable of retaining facts to know anything about a document that we are never exposed to.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('handforged', 'i') think the basic flaw that is being overlooked is the inability of the average american to read, retain, comprehend, analyze, and basicly think in general.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'S')ort of blows economic theory out of the water, which assumes people are rational.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'S')ort of blows economic theory out of the water, which assumes people are rational.

[Dreamtwister]

Look at it another way. 83% of the people surveyed are too stupid to pose serious competition for resources.

I predict a prosperous future of picking the gold fillings out of the skulls of dead idiots.

[Kickinthegob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'W')e have some peculiar ideas about our constitutional rights:

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kickinthegob', '�')��Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

[HonestPessimist]

Why not get the Simpsons to teach and promote the First Amendments to these uninformed Americans in a public awareness campaign?

[kevincarter]

Well… can you stay alive in America without a car?

[peaker_2005]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kickinthegob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'W')e have some peculiar ideas about our constitutional rights:

[gg3]

I'm going to take this issue from an entirely different angle, beginning with the provocative statement that driving a car is a basic human right.

I'll start with the definition of car as any enclosed wheeled vehicle powered in part or in whole by an onboard source of stored energy, capable of speeds beyond those achievable by a human in average physical condition who is running the same distance on foot. This is not the same thing as "car" defined by the automobile industry. Specifically, by "car" I also mean "velomobile," generally a human/electric hybrid that can carry two people and some cargo.

There are four components involved here.

One is the wheel. Is there a basic human right to use the wheel? The wheel is one of three elemental machines (the others being the lever and the inclined plane). These are the common heritage of humans. I will assert without qualification that there is a basic human right to use these elemental machines. Without them we are barely capable of providing for our own subsistence except under conditions of abundant natural resources and highly cohesive cultures.

Two is the roof. The enclosure of the vehicle. I could split hairs by arguing for the roof based on the fact that it is usually a form of inclined plane designed to shed rain and snow, but there is another case to be made, that shelter is also a basic human right since it is a necessary condition for life itself: there is no right to life without a right to shelter. By this I am not going to get into the usual left/right arguement about welfare states vs. capitalism. Instead I'll take this down one notch to the level of mammalian rights: every mammal has the right to build its own shelter with its own labor and the labor of freely-cooperating mammals. For most mammals we don't even think of this as a "right" but as inherent nature, instinct, whatever word that boils down to "it's what these mammals *do*." Humans are one species of mammals that build shelters; now we are putting our shelter on a platform with wheels.

So far we have a device with wheels and shelter. If we were to power it with pedals it would be a pedicab; with horses, it could be a stage coach or a buggy.

Does the law allow individuals to freely utilize horse-drawn carriages on city streets? If not, then the law is denying them the right to use the most basic combination of the roof and the wheel. So what is offered in replacement for this...?

Thus we get to point three, an onboard source of stored energy. Remove the horse, replace with a motor. It could be an electric motor powered by batteries that are kept charged by a small steam engine powered in turn by wood that one cuts in one's back yard.

Part four is the road. In its most basic form this is nothing more than a path that is sufficiently smooth and of flat enough grade, as to be navigable by a wheeled vehicle using any reasonable power source. A "road" that is accessible to 4-wheel-drive Jeeps is not necessarily a "road" as far as our horse and buggy is concerned. In fact our horse and buggy could do far better on roads that are properly paved and maintained, but for purposes of arguement a dirt or gravel road will do as long as it too is properly maintained.

There is nothing inherently unsustainable about this combination of four components: the wheel, the enclosure, the motor, and the road. What has become absolutely unsustainable is our culture's radical abuse of these things, and on this basis the proponents of sustainability usually argue that they cannot stand. But if we strip the "car" down to its basics, the sustainability issue vanishes unless we also assert that all combinations of stored power and motors are intolerable. (After all, if you can have photovoltaics and batteries powering the motor in your washing machine, you can take the same bateries and motor, and produce a device that is technically an automobile.)

Now interestingly enough it would appear that the law recognizes something like a right in this area.

In California, the motor vehicle laws carve out a category for "motorized bicycles" defined as any 2 or 3 wheeled vehicle powered by any combination of pedals, electric motor, or other motor, where the maximum power does not exceed 2 hp or 1,000 watts, and the speed does not exceed 20 mph on level ground.

A driver's license is not required to operate such a vehicle. Note here that a driver's license is legally a "privilege" rather than a "right." The driver's license can be taken away for violation of motor vehicle laws, but in theory could also be denied or taken away for any other reason the state chooses to establish, for example failure to pay child support, or refusal to submit to random urine tests, or refusal to provide a sample of DNA to a state database.

The motorized bicycle becomes a "car" under my original definition by simply adding an enclosure (at this point it needs to have three wheels for stability, but it is still legally a motorized bicycle). 20 mph is after all a speed in excess of that achievable by a human in average physical condition on foot over any reasonable distance, particularly when carrying any cargo whatsoever (even a knapsack with a few groceries). The state, however, continues to define it as a motorized bicycle: no license, no legal restrictions other than those needed for operational safety.

If we were to substitute these contraptions for conventional "cars" in any application where they are usable, we would certainly achieve major reductions in fuel consumption and resource throughput. And it would appear that state law recognizes something like a right to use them, as opposed to a "privilege."

So: agree, or disagree, or modify...?

And: I suspect there could be an interesting project to be done here, in designing and building vehicles that legally fit into the "motorized bicycle" category, have three wheels, and are fully enclosed. At some point, some bureaucrat might take a fancy to regulating these as a potential source of state revenue and requiring deniable or revocable licenses to operate them. *That* would make an interesting court fight.

[dooberheim]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'I')n California, the motor vehicle laws carve out a category for "motorized bicycles" defined as any 2 or 3 wheeled vehicle powered by any combination of pedals, electric motor, or other motor, where the maximum power does not exceed 2 hp or 1,000 watts, and the speed does not exceed 20 mph on level ground.

[mgibbons19]

[quote="gg3"
In California, the motor vehicle laws carve out a category for "motorized bicycles" defined as any 2 or 3 wheeled vehicle powered by any combination of pedals, electric motor, or other motor, where the maximum power does not exceed 2 hp or 1,000 watts, and the speed does not exceed 20 mph on level ground.
[/quote]

I know it's out ofcontext, but how fun to recognize that a strong cyclist on a good roadie can exceed these speed standards (most likely not horsepower though).

[Revi]

I got one of those electric bikes and I would like to charge it off of solar. I think that takes care of many of my transportation worries. If there is no gas, I use the bike. No electricity, I charge it off of solar. Just knowing that we've got some kind of transportation is a great thing.

I would love to have a bigger version, with a lithium ion battery and seats for two. Maybe a GEM car. I wonder what you would need to charge one of them with solar? Anybody know?

[Leanan]

As Jared Diamond has pointed out, the wheel was unknown in the Americas. Some civilizations reached a high degree of complexity, especially in Central and South America...but all without the wheel. (Well, they did use wheels as toys for children, but not as transportation.)

He argues that the reason for this was that there were no large domesticable beasts of burden in the Americas. The closest they had was the llama, and it's too small to be of much use pulling carts.

Millions of people have lived and died never using the wheel. I suspect millions more will.