Just say no to silly legislators
Let's face it, Markey's probably just a worthless politician trying to get back at amusement parks because, probably when he was a kid, he chickened out of going on some kiddie ride at his home park, and all his friends considered him a wuss and a loser. He was an outcast in school, couldn't get a date with even the ugliest girl, and has hated roller coasters and amusement parks for making him look like a complete loser ever since! Now, he's just trying to extract revenge on the amusement park industry for his years of torment by making up crap like this! Good work Jeff!
-------------
Word to your mothers
-------------
Word to your mothers
JBKoasterKrazed said:
"...probably when he was a kid, he chickened out of going on some kiddie ride at his home park, and all his friends considered him a wuss and a loser. He was an outcast in school, couldn't get a date with even the ugliest girl, and has hated roller coasters..."
I don't think anything has changed!
-------------
What's next at Knott's? Anyone know?
Ugh... don't even go there. Politicians are universally stupid and self-serving. Just ask that good ball in the White House who thinks that drilling for oil in Alaska is going to solve a non-existent energy crisis.
Skyboss said:
"And everyone said I was nuts when I warned of electing Democrats."
-------------
Jeff (who hasn't seen any lines around the block at the gas station)
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
Don't believe too many of the numbers that Markey quotes on his web site. It's obvious that he has read the classic book, "How To Lie With Statistics". (Get a copy from Amazon. It's worth the price.)
He says that the FAA spends $954,000,000 per year on airline safety. The FAA says only about 1/3 that much. He also credits all the spending to scheduled airlines and none to general aviation where most of the fatalities occur. The same is true for NTSB spending on accident investigation. He says 42 deaths on scheduled airlines which might be true for one particular year, but the actual average is about 120 for scheduled airlines. Add in charters, and private plains, and the total deaths rises to an average of 700 per year.
Similarly, he relates all of the spending on rail safety to 6 passenger fatalities, ignoring the 1000 fatalities per year the occur to railroad employees, grade crossing accidents, etc. which are actually what most of this money goes to.
Finally, his highway traffic statistics include only deaths in automobiles as defined by the Federal government. The government defines vans, minivans, SUVs, and pickups as light trucks not cars. Again, he puts all the safety money against the automobile only deaths. Include all highway deaths and the number of deaths is twice what Markey quotes.
The actual number is that the government spends $14,000 on highway safety for each traffic fatality. If you spent the same amount per death on roller coaster fatalities, you couldn't hire even one employee to due the job.
If you go to the park and ride coasters for a total of 10 miles, then you are more likely to be killed in a traffic accident on your way to and from the park if the park is more than 3 miles from home. *** This post was edited by Jim Fisher on 6/9/2001. ***
He says that the FAA spends $954,000,000 per year on airline safety. The FAA says only about 1/3 that much. He also credits all the spending to scheduled airlines and none to general aviation where most of the fatalities occur. The same is true for NTSB spending on accident investigation. He says 42 deaths on scheduled airlines which might be true for one particular year, but the actual average is about 120 for scheduled airlines. Add in charters, and private plains, and the total deaths rises to an average of 700 per year.
Similarly, he relates all of the spending on rail safety to 6 passenger fatalities, ignoring the 1000 fatalities per year the occur to railroad employees, grade crossing accidents, etc. which are actually what most of this money goes to.
Finally, his highway traffic statistics include only deaths in automobiles as defined by the Federal government. The government defines vans, minivans, SUVs, and pickups as light trucks not cars. Again, he puts all the safety money against the automobile only deaths. Include all highway deaths and the number of deaths is twice what Markey quotes.
The actual number is that the government spends $14,000 on highway safety for each traffic fatality. If you spent the same amount per death on roller coaster fatalities, you couldn't hire even one employee to due the job.
If you go to the park and ride coasters for a total of 10 miles, then you are more likely to be killed in a traffic accident on your way to and from the park if the park is more than 3 miles from home. *** This post was edited by Jim Fisher on 6/9/2001. ***
Very impressive finds Jim.
-------------
""Coaster riding is a disease and SFGAm is the cure!!!!!!!""
-------------
""Coaster riding is a disease and SFGAm is the cure!!!!!!!""
Jeff said:
"Ugh... don't even go there. Politicians are universally stupid and self-serving. Just ask that good ball in the White House who thinks that drilling for oil in Alaska is going to solve a non-existent energy crisis."
Skyboss said:
"And everyone said I was nuts when I warned of electing Democrats."
Dear Jeff. Try living in California where electrical bills average $300-400 a month. You probably don't even pay that in six months. It also has nothing to do with Gas lines. It's about our dependence on foreign oil (60%). A majority of what will come from Alaska is Natural Gas, that in affect will relax our energy bills. If you were in California, you would know the difference. Wait until you see your $3-4 a night charge for power from a hotel room when you buzz out here to SFMM, Knotts or Disney. Better yet, how about paying $2.20 for a gallon of gas. Maybe things are different back east, but to say that we don't have a problem is, how do you say... Goof Ballish? *** This post was edited by Skyboss on 6/11/2001. ***
Chitown said:
"Very impressive finds Jim.""
He's right too. If Mackass was really concerned about aviation safety he would ensure that the supposed $945B was spent on an air traffic control system. Come to think of it, thats about what it would cost for us to update all of our systems, which by the way are more antiquated than the systems found in Mexico. Maybe we should make flying illegal?
-------------
What's next at Knott's? Anyone know?
Seeing as how 53% of your electricity is generated by oil, that's the core of your problem. Ask France, where not only are they using nuclear power, they recycle the fuel until it doesn't exist, meaning no waste. (The US does not recycle its fuel, leaving 99% of its potential untapped, because of an ill-conceived fear that the fuel could be refined into weapons grade plutonium.) The point is that drilling and destroying a unique ecosystem for what might amount to a decade or two of energy is irrational in light of the technology that we have today. Our planet is already a late model, and we can't exactly trade it in.
More to the point, politicians are still universally stupid, whether they have offices in Sacramento or Washington.
-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
*** This post was edited by Jeff on 6/11/2001. ***
More to the point, politicians are still universally stupid, whether they have offices in Sacramento or Washington.
-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
*** This post was edited by Jeff on 6/11/2001. ***
Jeff, I know this is off topic, but a few square miles out of millions in ANWR is all Bush is talking about. Don't over state the situation.
-------------
Six Flags America? No, no! My name means "Sarcasm-For-All"
-------------
Six Flags America? No, no! My name means "Sarcasm-For-All"
Jeff, I think you really shut him up when you compared the Mil Force and Wildcat @ CP. Very good ammo :)
And I think the parks COULD fight back by showing how many takes are paid with the parks. I think if the gov. pushes the parks too far, something just might happen. *** This post was edited by bigkirby on 6/11/2001. ***
And I think the parks COULD fight back by showing how many takes are paid with the parks. I think if the gov. pushes the parks too far, something just might happen. *** This post was edited by bigkirby on 6/11/2001. ***
He needs to stick with what needs to be done, not with what he may-be-able-to-look-like needs to be done.
This guy makes us dem.'s look bad!
-------------
Live to have FUN!
Go Shamrocks!
Go Wolverines!
This guy makes us dem.'s look bad!
-------------
Live to have FUN!
Go Shamrocks!
Go Wolverines!
Isn't it great to prove people wrong Jeff... Fun, Fun!!!
-------------
Life is short, make it count...
-------------
Life is short, make it count...
SFA: I didn't overstate anything. The area tagged for drilling 1.5 million acres, of the 19 million in the refuge. Wells are not all drilled next to each other, and they must be connected by roads. That introduces a huge impact on the ecosystem, from the transportation and logistics alone.
Fact: It's 95% likely that the amount of recoverable oil totals 5.7 billion barrels. Compare that to the US annual consumption of around 6.5 billion barrels and it doesn't go very far, especially when the highest production levels are two decades out. Even at that peak, the Alaskan oil would only constitute 6% of total US consumption, and significantly less in years before and after that peak year.
Fact: Production wouldn't have any impact on current energy problems because production couldn't start for at least another 7 to 10 years.
Fact: Production would rapidly decline after 20 years, causing a locally depressed economy due to reduced production.
Source: US Dept. of Energy
Opinion: Drilling there would be incredibly short sighted. It's only a band-aid for the bigger problems, namely that we're too dependent on fossil fuels and those crazy Californian politicians deregulated the electric industry without asking why.
-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
*** This post was edited by Jeff on 6/11/2001. ***
Fact: It's 95% likely that the amount of recoverable oil totals 5.7 billion barrels. Compare that to the US annual consumption of around 6.5 billion barrels and it doesn't go very far, especially when the highest production levels are two decades out. Even at that peak, the Alaskan oil would only constitute 6% of total US consumption, and significantly less in years before and after that peak year.
Fact: Production wouldn't have any impact on current energy problems because production couldn't start for at least another 7 to 10 years.
Fact: Production would rapidly decline after 20 years, causing a locally depressed economy due to reduced production.
Source: US Dept. of Energy
Opinion: Drilling there would be incredibly short sighted. It's only a band-aid for the bigger problems, namely that we're too dependent on fossil fuels and those crazy Californian politicians deregulated the electric industry without asking why.
-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
*** This post was edited by Jeff on 6/11/2001. ***
I'll reply in the spirit of good debate, no hard feelings or anything. ;)
- You said: "they must be connected by roads"
A common practice in icy areas is to make ice roads. They will stay solid and frozen enough for equipment to use and will melt to the point that you won't know they were ever there in a few months time.
- You said: "the amount of recoverable oil totals 5.7 billion barrels"
Yes, but the daily number of barrels is almost exactly what Iraq was exporting to us. They have since cut their supply to us. You can look at it two ways: We are making up for the loss of Saddam's oil, or, we are able to cut the support from another rogue nation (or whatever the politically correct term is now) instead of giving them needed capital.
- You said: "Production wouldn't have any impact on current energy problems"
Notice your closing statement....
"Drilling there would be incredibly short sighted. It's only a band aid for the bigger problems"
That, unfortunately, is a direct contradiction. No other way around it.
If you want me to stop talking about this, that's fine. I know I won't convince you to see my POV. I guess it's just a "fundamental difference of opinions" as the President would say.;)
-------------
Six Flags America? No, no! My name means "Sarcasm-For-All"
- You said: "they must be connected by roads"
A common practice in icy areas is to make ice roads. They will stay solid and frozen enough for equipment to use and will melt to the point that you won't know they were ever there in a few months time.
- You said: "the amount of recoverable oil totals 5.7 billion barrels"
Yes, but the daily number of barrels is almost exactly what Iraq was exporting to us. They have since cut their supply to us. You can look at it two ways: We are making up for the loss of Saddam's oil, or, we are able to cut the support from another rogue nation (or whatever the politically correct term is now) instead of giving them needed capital.
- You said: "Production wouldn't have any impact on current energy problems"
Notice your closing statement....
"Drilling there would be incredibly short sighted. It's only a band aid for the bigger problems"
That, unfortunately, is a direct contradiction. No other way around it.
If you want me to stop talking about this, that's fine. I know I won't convince you to see my POV. I guess it's just a "fundamental difference of opinions" as the President would say.;)
-------------
Six Flags America? No, no! My name means "Sarcasm-For-All"
that was beautifuly written, Jeff! while I think that there should be laws to regulate certain aspects of coasters (mainly maintnence and such) to re-inforce what most parks already do, I can find no reason to limit hight and/or speed. if you know how to design a coaster then you should be able to make a safe coaster that is tall and fast. though I wouldn't mind seeing a limitation to the number of boomerangs that there can be!
-------------
this park is not copless so please don't go topless
-------------
this park is not copless so please don't go topless
A few bits of data for the energy argument.
1)Corrected for inflation, gasoline is cheaper than at most times during the last 50 years. It seems expensive because it has risen suddenly from a historical low. It also seems expensive and has been driven up in price because so many people are driving giant SUV's that guzzle it. The price doesn't bother me much with my 35 mpg Honda.
2) Most of the energy crunch in California is due to stupid legislation, not real shortages. The state government forced utilities to buy on the spot market rather than secure their sources with long term contracts. It saved a few pennies when the laws were passed during an energy glut, but it cost dearly when the crunch came. (No, Markey did not sponsor these laws.)
1)Corrected for inflation, gasoline is cheaper than at most times during the last 50 years. It seems expensive because it has risen suddenly from a historical low. It also seems expensive and has been driven up in price because so many people are driving giant SUV's that guzzle it. The price doesn't bother me much with my 35 mpg Honda.
2) Most of the energy crunch in California is due to stupid legislation, not real shortages. The state government forced utilities to buy on the spot market rather than secure their sources with long term contracts. It saved a few pennies when the laws were passed during an energy glut, but it cost dearly when the crunch came. (No, Markey did not sponsor these laws.)
Jim... no argument, just debate! I agree with everything you said. The problem in California is compounded by the strict (read: silly) environmental policies that won't allow any new power plants. Hasn't it been over a decade since one was built?
-------------
Six Flags America? No, no! My name means "Sarcasm-For-All"
-------------
Six Flags America? No, no! My name means "Sarcasm-For-All"
Jeff said:
"Seeing as how 53% of your electricity is generated by oil, that's the core of your problem. Ask France, where not only are they using nuclear power, they recycle the fuel until it doesn't exist, meaning no waste. (The US does not recycle its fuel, leaving 99% of its potential untapped, because of an ill-conceived fear that the fuel could be refined into weapons grade plutonium.) The point is that drilling and destroying a unique ecosystem for what might amount to a decade or two of energy is irrational in light of the technology that we have today. Our planet is already a late model, and we can't exactly trade it in.
More to the point, politicians are still universally stupid, whether they have offices in Sacramento or Washington.***"
Once again, I'm in California. Try to get a nuke plant of any kind out here.
Jeff said:
"Politicians are universally stupid and self-serving."
Just as all attorneys are ambulance chasers, all physicians are self-absorbed and careless, and all journalists are biased and fact exaggerators/fabricators...
In every profession and walk of life, there are good people, and there are deceitful people. I do not believe that stereotyping all politicians as "self-serving and stupid" just because of Markey's stupidity is fair. With political science as my major and a career in law and politics as a viable option for myself, I have met several of this nation's legislators and judges (from both parties), and I have found most of them to be hard-working with the best interest of the people and their constituents in mind. The truth is that, on the whole, these people shell over loads of their own time, money (in helping to fund their own campaigns), and grief to get a position that pays much less than most other employment opportunities. They then try to help make things better for the rest of us, despite the fact that usually around 40% of their constituents voted against them and that they will be hated by many no matter what they do. I am tired of hearing all of the politician bashing, just as I'm tired of hearing doctors, lawyers, journalists, and others having their professions ravaged upon by the public. Stereotypes are a very dangerous thing.
Despite the politician bashing, I very much enjoyed the letter to Markey, and I am interested to hear if you have received any sort of response. His position is ludicrous, and I view it as a classic example of how government sometimes gets itself involved in areas where it is not needed nor wanted. Does he actually believe that the coaster manufacturers and theme parks want to hurt their patrons? Theme parks realize that having injuries occur on their rides is bad business, and they work hard to ensure that this does not happen. Jeff, thank you for trying to help set the record straight with the editorial.
-------------
According to the "official" count, next year's new coaster lineup will feature 17 Arrow 4-Ds, 21 TA2Ks, 34 B&M floorless's, 17 Intamin Gigas, 12 beemer flyers, and 247 CCIs. And oh yeah, CP will receive one of all of these.
You must be logged in to post
