Are you thinking of a trip to the DMV impound lot?

Exchange camp ideas, find places to perform, announce your events, etc.

Are you thinking of taking to trip to the impound lot to see the great art that was unreasonably denied access?

Poll ended at Tue Sep 07, 2004 6:21 pm

Yes - I want to see great art that the DMV denied
10
40%
No - it'll all be just golf carts and ATVs anyway
15
60%
 
Total votes : 25

Postby theBrooke » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:24 am

Ok there was this one a$$hole with a megaphone that I would have loved to beat the crap out of... He said some not so kind things to me and 3 of my friends as he rolled by on an artcar, pissed all of us off and changed the tone of the night considerably. What is it with pricks like that? This guy thought he was soooo cool, he could ruin others nights for a half hearted chuckle from the others on that car. They probally thought he was a prick too.

Off topic, but yeah If I coulda I woulda.
=(*o*)=(^-^)=(º0º)=(*.*)=(^_^)=(*_*)=
User avatar
theBrooke
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 11:04 am
Location: Los Angeles...

Postby Tricky » Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:06 am

Wendor:

can you cite some facts to back up your statements?

so far the majority of your posts (to me) seem to contain personal attacks along with a quote followed by "no."

I'm not sure how this is intended to refute someone elses opinion/observation.

in terms of weither the DMV could change to improve it's process... of course it can.

An appeal process could be helpful as well as greater transparency in how decisions are made.

It's tragic to think of some inspired burner spending X amount of time/money on their vehicle only to recieve a generic rejection after months of work. That's time AND money wasted.

A simple improvement could be the moving of the registration deadline forward enough to allow for an earlier reply; rejection or approval.

It doesn't seem realistice to argue against potential changes that may improve a beurocratic process.
User avatar
Tricky
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:51 am
Location: Oakland

Postby Badger » Wed Aug 25, 2004 1:44 pm

A simple improvement could be the moving of the registration deadline forward enough to allow for an earlier reply; rejection or approval.


Already in the works for next year.
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Postby unjonharley » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:00 pm

Badger wrote:
A simple improvement could be the moving of the registration deadline forward enough to allow for an earlier reply; rejection or approval.


Already in the works for next year.

/\ Theme art is going to take beating with these deadlines. My project for 05 is on the board. With most of the working parts on hand now. Guess I'll have to stick a little fur on here & there. So it can be call theme art.
I'm the contraptioneer your mother warned you about.
User avatar
unjonharley
 
Posts: 10012
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 11:05 am
Location: Salem Or.

Re: Head in the sand!

Postby Rian Jackson » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:45 pm

bdongray wrote:
As to vehicle "rights" - with the size of BRC, if people cannot bring their own motorized transport, then maybe people can bring vehicles to be part of a public transport system?
If the rangers cannot deal with all the incidents, then maybe BRC has too many people to be one city. BRC is far larger than a small village it seems many seem to remember it was. It has grown. In a village, people do indeed walk to the store, etc, and people cycle those slightly longer distances. But in a larger city (eg one of 30,000 people) motorized transportation becomes a necessity. If the goal is to keep walking or cycling the main mode of transport, then maybe a redesign of the city into smaller villages of a few thousand residents each - yet connected to the whole, maybe the way to go?



Please fuckin spare me.
Slow down. Walk. Talk to your neighbors.
What is it you NEED to get to so quickly?
Is it so much trouble to venture to live differently for a moment?

And before you scream about this, too, there are indeed provisions for those who need assistance to move around. That would be the injured or disabled, not the lazy.

Oi.

I love that it's mainly a ped city.
surlier than thou
Rian Jackson
 
Posts: 3905
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
Location: In Rob's Head

Re: Head in the sand!

Postby bdongray » Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:08 pm

Wendor wrote:
bdongray wrote: Yet the DMV changed to limit the vehicles, and do not hear of anything to address the problem of driver behavior.

Have you asked? No.
Have you done ANY research to find out? No.
There are policies in place to handle "driver behavior" and have been for years. But you, as seems to be normal for you, have assumed that just because you haven't seen it...it must not exist.

My statement is <b>true</b> - I have not heard anything. I made no assumptions that it does not exist. You made that up for yourself. I offered a suggestion, but I believe you are not interested in ideas for improvement, as you chose to only bitch, moan, complain, and send out general negativity!

I notice you make statements without knowing if (for example) I have asked or done ANY research. BUT... you are right I did not ask (actually I have in an earlier post, but it was not directly to any DMV person), but I did research via the BM website.
So you are wrong. I also see that you claim I should do one thing, and do not even stay within your own way of thinking.

Wendor wrote:
bdongray wrote: I am concerned about driver behavior, and it is disheartening to see people posting how it's ok to break the speed limit on a bicycle.

Since there is no speed limit for bicycles, how can he be breaking it?
Once again you are making foolish assumptions. In this case your assumption is that there is a speed limit currently in place for bicycles.
You complain of heavy-handedness but now want to start enforcing imaginary rules you made up on your own in addition to the real ones.


I have heard rangers telling bicycles the speed limit. I believe the rangers know the rules. I believe you do not. Either way, it is sad that you are not concerned about a possibility of danger by bicycles exceeding 5mph. My friend was quite hurt last year, but it seems you probably don't care.

I find it disappointing that someone at BurningMan does not seem to have any empathy, for people who get hurt, or for the feelings of those affected by "unreasonable denials". I guess I am starting to learn of the unfriendly types who attend. I do hope you leave all your negativity at home. If you cannot, then I hope you stay at home. Your closed mindedness is something the rest of us can do without, as many people would like BurningMan to be able to cope with growing numbers. So far all your postings do not offer any thoughts on how to deal with this growth, but just work on ways to throw up problems with ideas, without any positive feedback.

Wendor wrote:How many times does it have to be repeated for it to sink in? The issue is not whether or not the Ranges can handle the situation. The issue is that our land use permit REQUIRES us to restrict motor vehicle usage on the playa.


Then you are leading me to believe that an event with 30,000 people should not be held on the playa. I don't like the sound of that, but I am hearing that from the postings about the amount of damage that number of people is doing anyway, and maybe it does need to move. BUT...

Wendor wrote:
bdongray wrote: BRC is far larger than a small village it seems many seem to remember it was. It has grown. In a village, people do indeed walk to the store, etc, and people cycle those slightly longer distances. But in a larger city (eg one of 30,000 people) motorized transportation becomes a necessity. If the goal is to keep walking or cycling the main mode of transport, then maybe a redesign of the city into smaller villages of a few thousand residents each - yet connected to the whole, maybe the way to go?

The current design (circle) minimizes the distance between points in the city. So you want to handle the fact that things are too far apart by making them FARTHER apart? Right.


Wrong.

Wendor wrote:Of course we don't even have to speculate whether or not this suggestion would work. You see, this is exactly how Burning Man worked BEFORE the changes that resulted in the current design of the city and the DMV. Changes that were made specifically to REDUCE the amount of motor vehicle usage. Going back to the previous system would therefore require MORE motor vehicle usage and therefore be a non-option because of the land use permit.


Going back to the "previous system" - who said that?

I'm not sure why I'm going to mention it, as you'll just be negative about it, maybe the other people here will welcome an alternative idea that could work. Maybe with some major reworking, but it's a starting point. Maybe. If you can draw yourself from just sending insults, you can also build on this, if you wish to contribute. Or, you can offer an idea to something that would reduce the need for people to want their own vehicles?

OK, I was thinking of several smaller towns, each with their own mini-center-camps, each with their own circular based streetmaps, each with their own smaller "man" to burn in their respective centers. For example, there could be 5 such towns each with their centers at (say) 2:00, 4:00, 6:00, 8:00, 10:00 and where todays Saturn street is today. They could shaped like smaller versions of the big C shape of what we have today with the one big city, ie they each have their own 2:00-10:00 streets, and maybe their respective 12:00's would be orientated to point to the Man at the center of all the towns. These towns would be sized to contain about 8,000 people each (assuming 40,000 total participants).
Each town could have a name, based on the theme. So for example, if it were this year, they could have the name: Sol, Vega, Sirius, Betelguese, Polaris (although that one would be the name for one at the 12:00 position to the man), or whatever.
Maybe their smaller center man burns would all happen Friday night, and the main man at the very center of it all would burn on Saturday as usual.

The point of the towns, is that for people generally could stay within their own town, building relationships with the other 7999 people there, with no longer any need to have private vehicles to go further afield. It could be setup that if there were several current villages/camps offering (say) a bar/nightclub, that each would be placed in a separate town. BUT... there could also be a public transport system (of art buses) that would drive from town to town, and also going to the man. Maybe attendees with the larger art vehicles (based on schools buses, vans and minivans) could be allowed a DMV license if they volunteered specific time to the bus service - and allowed people rides at other times they drove about.

It's just an idea. I see no reason that BLC is not able to have this or another town arrangement... or is there some BLM (or other) requirement that BLC must be shaped as it is? Earlier in the year the playa is a blank slate, and if the DPW wanted, they do not have to lay out the BLC the way we've seen it over the past few years.

Putting on my asbestos suit... 8)
--
Bryan
User avatar
bdongray
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:06 am
Location: MN, USA

Postby Wendor » Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:34 pm

Tricky wrote:Wendor:
can you cite some facts to back up your statements?

Yes. Start with the BLM land use permit for the event. It's public record. Start by reading it and seeing what it requires for regulation and control of motor vehicle usage on the playa.


Tricky wrote:so far the majority of your posts (to me) seem to contain personal attacks along with a quote followed by "no."

Then perhaps you are making assumptions instead of taking the time to read what was written.


Tricky wrote:I'm not sure how this is intended to refute someone elses opinion/observation.

I refuted no ones opinions. I refuted things that bdongray presented as facts. He did not say "I think that some of the DMV denials may have been unreasonable". He said "...great art that was unreasonably denied access".



Tricky wrote:in terms of weither the DMV could change to improve it's process... of course it can.

Yet someone else who has jumped straight to the conclusion "The DMV shoudl change" without having determined if a problem even exists first.


Tricky wrote:An appeal process could be helpful as well as greater transparency in how decisions are made.

COULD BE helpful. As in "maybe", "perhaps", or maybe even "let's wait until the event is over and see how the facts add up before jumping to conclusions"


Tricky wrote:It's tragic to think of some inspired burner spending X amount of time/money on their vehicle only to recieve a generic rejection after months of work. That's time AND money wasted.

And the process in place every year before this involved people spinging all their time and money building their vehicles, bringing them allt he way to the playa, and THEN getting rejected. So the process is already infinitely better than it was last year.

Unless you are suggesting that no one get denied at all. Because that brings us back to the land use permit. If the org decided to not regulate mutant vehicles and let anyone who wanted to drive, the BLM would not allow the event.



Tricky wrote:A simple improvement could be the moving of the registration deadline forward enough to allow for an earlier reply; rejection or approval.

Actually, based on feedback so far that would make it worse rather than being an improvement. More people have complained about the deadline being too early than it being too late. (For example, most people haven't gotten their projects completed enough for approval/denial desicions back in March)



Tricky wrote:It doesn't seem realistice to argue against potential changes that may improve a beurocratic process.

Yeah, change for the sake of change always improves a bureaucracy. All I'm saying is how about we wait and see if there is a problem before deciding we need to fix it.
bdongray, on the other hand, seems to have decided that solutions/changes are warranted, but will find out later if there ever was a problem that needed fixing.
Wendor
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:48 pm

Re: Head in the sand!

Postby Wendor » Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:17 pm

bdongray wrote:My statement is <b>true</b> - I have not heard anything. I made no assumptions that it does not exist. You made that up for yourself. I offered a suggestion, but I believe you are not interested in ideas for improvement, as you chose to only bitch, moan, complain, and send out general negativity!

But the suggestion you offered was to address the lack of a policy to deal with driver behavior. There is no such lack.

The only lack was your lack of having heard of it. Your suggestion did not address that. (You doing your research woudl have taken care of that part)



bdongray wrote:I notice you make statements without knowing if (for example) I have asked or done ANY research. BUT... you are right I did not ask (actually I have in an earlier post, but it was not directly to any DMV person), but I did research via the BM website.
So you are wrong. I also see that you claim I should do one thing, and do not even stay within your own way of thinking.

No. I knew for an absolute fact that you had not checked. Becuase if you had checked you would have known that a policy does exist and is implemented and wouldn't have tthen needed to make suggestion about how to handle there not being any policy.


bdongray wrote:I have heard rangers telling bicycles the speed limit. I believe the rangers know the rules. I believe you do not.

You would be wrong then.


bdongray wrote:Either way, it is sad that you are not concerned about a possibility of danger by bicycles exceeding 5mph. My friend was quite hurt last year, but it seems you probably don't care.

I care very much about someone being injured. That does not, however, justify you making things up out of thin air as a result. Your claims that the 5MPH speed limit applies to ALL forms of transportation (bike, foot, etc.) is absurd. For example you version would mean that running and jogging are not allowed, not to mention that it'll be real freakin' hard for sky divers to "fall slower" in order to make you happy.


bdongray wrote:I find it disappointing that someone at BurningMan does not seem to have any empathy, for people who get hurt, or for the feelings of those affected by "unreasonable denials".

What "unreasonable denials"? You are asking for empathy for a situation that does not exist outside of your own imagination.

But, for what it's worth, I do empathize and feel quite sorry for you and your inablity to escape your own delusions. It must be very depressing to create imaginary problems and then agonize over them.


bdongray wrote:So far all your postings do not offer any thoughts on how to deal with this growth, but just work on ways to throw up problems with ideas, without any positive feedback.

My suggestion for delaing with the growth is quite simple. Stick with the current system. Place stringent requirements on mutant vehicles and deny those that do not meet the requirements. Ignore those who whine and complain that they don't want to walk or bike the distances involved.

bdongray wrote:Then you are leading me to believe that an event with 30,000 people should not be held on the playa. I don't like the sound of that, but I am hearing that from the postings about the amount of damage that number of people is doing anyway, and maybe it does need to move.

Your statement would only be true if your assumption was true that vehicular transportation is a necessity in a city of this size. I say that it is not a necessity and that the city can survive and florish at this size and larger as a pedestrian city.

But, as always, feel free to organize your own event using whatever conditions and assumptions you wish. No one is requiring you to come to Burning Man.





bdongray wrote:
Wendor wrote:The current design (circle) minimizes the distance between points in the city. So you want to handle the fact that things are too far apart by making them FARTHER apart? Right.


Wrong.

Actually the question was sarcasm. Your statements are right there for anyone who wishes to read them. Your suggestion puts things farther apart than they are now.



bdongray wrote:Going back to the "previous system" - who said that?

You did actually. You didn't realize it because, again, you haven't done any research on the matter. Your suggestion of separate smaller cities at the same event is basically identical to the older system of separate smaller clusters of villages and theme camps grouped together into a larger "city"

bdongray wrote:Or, you can offer an idea to something that would reduce the need for people to want their own vehicles?

Why do you feel a need to reduce what people want? Many people want to leave their trash on the playa. Many want to use firearms on the playa. They aren't going to get what they want any more than the people who want unrestricted use of motor vehicles will. You seem to feel that there is a need to placate this small minority. I see no such need.



bdongray wrote:It's just an idea. I see no reason that BLC is not able to have this or another town arrangement... or is there some BLM (or other) requirement that BLC must be shaped as it is?

Nope. But the requirement to limit motor vehicle usage is still there. Your suggestion is almost certain to require MORE motor vehicle usage, not less.

If you want smaller events where people are encouraged to stay at their own smaller event, then please feel free to organize one yourself. I'm pretty sure that is not the vision of the organizers of THIS event.

I do seem to see a pattern in your suggestions though, you seem to be willing to sacrifice the good of the majority of BRC citizens for the benefit of the small minority that you are a member of. Remember, far more people have complained that there are too many mutant vehicles than have complained that there are too few.
Wendor
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:48 pm

Re: Head in the sand!

Postby unjonharley » Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:50 pm

Wendor wrote: Remember, far more people have complained that there are too many mutant vehicles than have complained that there are too few.


/\
AAAH Windy, Where is this information writen¿
I'm the contraptioneer your mother warned you about.
User avatar
unjonharley
 
Posts: 10012
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 11:05 am
Location: Salem Or.

Postby Badger » Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:57 pm

Below is a copy of a specail Jackrabbit Speaks re: Driving Policy. It was the first time in my memory that it was put out with a single topic send. Sent out in mid-July, the idea was that folks would (hopefully) see the degree of importnace and seriousness by which we viewed the escalating problem of vehicles on the playa given the overwhelming number of post-event complaints by participants. The rational of this particular message is directed at the problem of unregistered vehicles ambling about the playa but was also written in conjunction with the DMV is trying to highlight the problem of vehicles in general. It's not perfect. Things could have been changed but I believe the gist (jist?) of the subject gets the point across. Any criticisms can be placed on my shoulders as I wrote the final piece with input by my good friend Ranger Bob.

The basic rational for denial of entry of non-passenger carrying vehicles into the event was pretty much this:

"If you have problems with tigers in your house then it seems to me that one of the most prudent measures one can ake is to insure they don't ever make it inside in the first place.

A concerted effore by BM might start with a publicity blitz that informs folks that if they show up with four ATVs or golf carts on a trailer that they will denied admission to the event until they return without the vehicles.

Period.

Then, the burden falls on the folks to deal with storing (or returning) of the vehicles.

If you use this as a cornerstone for establishing a more restrictive vehicle policy then all other subsequent licensing requirements and policies can be more effectively put into place. - Badger"

Here's the original......

-----Original Message-----
From: Andie Grace [mailto:jackrabbitspeaks@burningman.com]
Sent: Wed 7/14/2004 12:34 PM
To: bman-announce@burningman.com
Subject: BManUpdate:V8:SPECIAL DRIVING EDITION

JRSV8:Special Driving Edition



Just one important message for today - the Rangers and DMV have delivered
very important information about DRIVING at this year's event:

2004 Vehicle Enforcement Policy

As the 2004 event draws closer many folks planning to make the sojourn
to Black Rock are asking lots of questions and seeking clarification
around the myriad issues that make coming to the event both challenging
and rewarding. One of the most repeated requests for clarification has
to do with issues related to mutant vehicles (i.e. 'art cars') and the
current policies regarding registration and approval of them. This
single-subject missive is an attempt to clear up some of the confusion
as well as to clarify current policies regarding [registration and
operation of] vehicles at Burning Man this year.

In response to the growing number of safety problems of vehicles being
operated in an unsafe manner during the event and the complaints
generated as a result, the driving regulations this year will be
strictly enforced. Note that these regulations do not reflect a mandate
imposed by LEOs (law enforcement organizations). Nor do they represent
collaboration with LEOs by the Black Rock Rangers. The decision to
place a greater emphasis on long standing regulations is in response
to the innumerable complaints expressed by participants both during the
event as well as input submitted throughout the year around issues of
safety. We're appealing to a higher instinct here folks. Simply put
the rules for driving on the playa have not changed. The amount of
emphasis being placed on those regulations has. It is about taking
responsibility for ourselves when we need to.

In their purest form mutant vehicles serve as a form of mobile
interaction with a great number of participants and contribute
dramatically to the surreal experience which many of us experience each
year during the event. They are, as DMV Manager Jewelz Cody notes "A
thread that binds Black Rock City together. They are 'visual sculpture
on wheels': radically, stunningly beautiful...and are core to the culture
and community of Burning Man."

A corollary to what mutant vehicles represent to our event can be found
in the annual Rose Bowl parade in California each New Year. The floats
in the annual Rose Parade represent a year of work by teams of people
dedicated to making this yearly promenade of beauty happen. While it's
true that the folks riding on the floats start at one end of Colorado
Boulevard and end up intact at the other, that's really not what the
whole float thing is about: it's about artistic expression in a form
that happens to move.

Likewise, that's the intent of having mutant vehicles in Black Rock
City. They are ideally no less artful than the beautiful static
sculptures we enjoy each year, but have the added benefit of being able
to move about the playa, offering another dimension to their expression.

This year, vehicles on the playa will have a lot in common with floats
in the Rose Bowl Parade. Just as you wouldn't expect to tie a carnation
to your golf cart frame and pull in for your slot in the Rose Parade, so
this year the DMV is carefully reviewing the proposed art vehicles for
the playa. Mutant vehicles will have to be reviewed and approved for
the playa in advance of the event. If your mutant vehicle hasn't been
invited to the playa parade, it will not get in.

It would be great if folks would voluntarily leave non-mutant vehicles
(mopeds, golf carts, ATVs, etc.) parked at home rather than arrive at
the event only to have them turned away at the gate and placed in the
holding area outside the event boundary. Unfortunately that's not been
the case for the past several years. The past few events have seen a
substantial rise in the number of non-altered vehicles being brought to
the playa for no other purpose than a means to traverse the city for the
sake of personal convenience. That's not to say that certain vehicles
are automatically excluded. For instance, if a motorcycle is your
primary vehicle to get to the playa, you will be allowed to drive it to
your camp and park it. If you bring a cart or other means of alternative
transport due to being physically challenged you'll be allowed to
operate it but ONLY after showing appropriate documentation and
necessary placard identifying you as being handicapped.

Remember, Black Rock City is first and foremost an alternative city
where pedestrians and bicycles hold sway. Please remember, purchase of
your ticket does NOT entitle you to operate non-approved vehicles within
the event once you have set up camp.

In 2004, unauthorized vehicles (unmodified ones not registered with DMV)
caught driving in Black Rock City may be fined by outside law
enforcement agencies, removed by escort or towed by the Black Rock
Rangers. Repeat offenders may be evicted. Further, unsafe operation of
licensed mutant vehicles (speeding, recklessness, impaired driver, etc.)
can result in revocation of your ability to operate your vehicle and
will be subject to the same sanctions as outlined for non-approved
vehicles.

For those still sitting on the fence about whether or not to bring a
mutated vehicle to this year's event please remember that the DEADLINE
FOR REGISTRATION is 15 July 2004.

For further information on vehicle registration and driving protocols
please see the following:

Department of Mutant Vehicles:

http://www.burningman.com/on_the_playa/ ... _2004.html

Vehicles at Burning Man:

http://www.burningman.com/on_the_playa/ ... index.html

Black Rock City Vehicle Protocols:

http://www.burningman.com/on_the_playa/ ... iving.html

Registration Form for Mutated Vehicles:

http://forms.burningman.com/dmvq/
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Postby angrykittie25 » Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:47 pm

As to suggestions for improving the DMV system you are again making unwarranted assumptions without facts. Namely, you are assuming that there is something wrong with the current system and that it needs improvement. While that may prove to be true once the facts have been examined, it is most certainly not yet evident.


Yet someone else who has jumped straight to the conclusion "The DMV shoudl change" without having determined if a problem even exists first.




I'm probably going to get my ass flamed for this, but it is quite obvious to a lot of people that the dmv application process for mutant vehicles needs some work. They acknowledge this in the following letter sent to the art car community. Why jump on someone about not having all the facts and giving their opinions, when these opinions are being asked for. There is always room for improvement. The only way improvements can take place is if people come up with new ideas and identify the areas that could use more thought. Why not stop calling people fools until you have all the facts. At this point, I don't think anyone has all the facts, we have to work with what we are presented with.


Many of you have felt a giant void in communication with/by us during the
application process. You’re right. Because we were late in developing the
necessary technology we didn’t provide an effective way for you to contact us.
With more than 700 applications, we were not responsive with many of you, and when responsive, we were often not timely. We know that this failure to communicate during the application process made it hard for many of you to know whether to keep investing time and money into your project. This problem has been solved for 2005, but we apologize for the hardship it has created for this year.


On the upside, we were able to accomplish a great deal in revamping the entiresystem, and feel that this process is only going to get better for all of us.We are already talking about ways in which we can improve for future years, and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Feedback tells us that the most important thing you need is for us to be more responsive and available to you at all stages of the process. We are very committed to this effort and apologize for not being able to be more responsive during this difficult time.

User avatar
angrykittie25
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:00 pm

Re: Head in the sand!

Postby Wendor » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:27 pm

unjonharley wrote:
Wendor wrote: Remember, far more people have complained that there are too many mutant vehicles than have complained that there are too few.


AAAH Windy, Where is this information writen


Well, start with the Afterburn report and then contact the org for additional information.

Also see the JRS that Badger kindly reposted.

Plenty of data out there if you are willing to make an effort to get it
Wendor
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:48 pm

Postby Wendor » Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:16 pm

angrykittie25 wrote:I'm probably going to get my ass flamed for this, but it is quite obvious to a lot of people that the dmv application process for mutant vehicles needs some work. They acknowledge this in the following letter sent to the art car community.

Hmmm, I see statements that communication needs to improve, nothing about the current process needing to be replaced.


angrykittie25 wrote:Why jump on someone about not having all the facts and giving their opinions, when these opinions are being asked for.

Because, like it or not, not all opinions are equally valid or useful.

Some people are of the opinion that Burning Man tickets should be free, that federal and state laws should not be enforced at the event, or that they there should be no rules of any kind whatsoever on the playa. Those opinions are a waste of time and space in any discussion because they are not going to happen any more than if someone has the opinion that the sun should shine 24 hours a day or that gravity should turn off whenever they have to climb stairs.

bdongray's opinions regarding vehicles on the playa generally fall into that same category. He wants the event to change to accomodate his whims, regardless of whether they are even possible or not.

Also, his attitude didn't help his reception either. Let's see, in almost his first post related to the DMV this year he managed to call the folks at the DMV: Hotheads, fascists, unresonable, in conflict with what Burning Man is about, denying artistic creativity...and maged to insinuate that ticket prices have risen because someone is lining thier pockets. He then went on to declare that any mutant vehicle that was turned down was an "unreasonable denial" and that anyone who drives safely shoudl be allowed to do so on the playa. I feel very little incentive to be accepting and considerate to someone who started out by lashing out bitterly and then moved on to declaring that he can solve problems that don't actually exist and without even bothering to look up or read any of the relevant information. Even when he has been directed to the relevant information directly (afterburn report, land use permit, JRS vehicle edition, etc.) he has chosen instead to continue on blindly in the absence of facts.
(As a matter of fact I'd lay long odds that he hasn't yet checked any of the above except perhaps the JRS - and that only because Badger posted a copy of it in at least two separate threads today)



angrykittie25 wrote:There is always room for improvement. The only way improvements can take place is if people come up with new ideas and identify the areas that could use more thought. Why not stop calling people fools until you have all the facts. At this point, I don't think anyone has all the facts, we have to work with what we are presented with.

How about instead of "work(ing) with what we are presented with" which at this point is a lack of facts we actually GET the facts before working on it? As you said above, "identify the areas that could use more thought".
The folks I am calling fools are the ones who have skipped that step and gone straight to suggesting solutions without having determined if there is a problem and if so what areas need improvement.

You say "stop calling people fools until you have all the facts".

I say "What more facts do I need to see that they are fools beyond their choice to go straight to suggesting solutions without determing what needs to be fixed, if anything."
Wendor
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:48 pm

Postby Mithra » Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:32 pm

FUCK!!!!

Um, ya'll are way too much in your head. Maybe let it rest till after the burn? When we will have more information. There have been lots of changes implemented this year to the DMV process and to the way the community will react to vehicles breaking the rules. Lets just see how it all plays out before we come down on one side or the other.

The hindsight thing will be handy, once we have it.

Happy Burn,
Mithra
User avatar
Mithra
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 11:04 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: Head in the sand!

Postby bdongray » Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:31 am

Thanks for the encouragement.

Well, I feel it is...
Wendor wrote:blah blah blah, bitch, moan, accuse, quote out-of-context, insult, flame, only focus on small points ignore the bigger overview, blah blah blah

I think the individual subjects of these last few postings describe Wendor well: <b>Head in the sand</b>.
I like the old phrase: "A stitch in time, saves nine" - as in don't let your car (art or not) to break if you can make repairs before the wheels fall off!
I also find it quite strange that someone who would attend Burningman (and I think is part of the organisation or very close to it), and I hope wants to contribute, would be so accepting of what seems like a dictatorship: Do as we say, we make the rules, follow them, no reasons, no appeal, if you don't like it piss off, go elsewhere, we don't care.
If anyone makes any suggestion to improve the process, we don't have any facts, even when we quote what has been posted, email'd and/or even in this forum by those "in the know".
Wendor is, quite obviously, an obnoxious windbag! I think I must have insulted them directly. I'm thinking they probably were maybe wholly responsible for the way it is, and suggestions to its lacking must quite touch a nerve, that they fight back agressively. Wendor didn't even accept my apology and admitting to being unreasonable when I posted due to being quite mad, and what had happened. I even apologized for equating the DMV with having fascist traits, but no, it was just further out of context quotation and abuse. I cannot be allowed to apologize.
I'd guess that maybe Wendor is one of the DMV approval people, and if so (but I hope not) it quite shows from that attitute why the DMV seem like they are judge, jury and executioner. I really hope not, and this is a misperception, but they way Wendor posts, it seems they want to make it so! Hmmm... maybe Wendor is NOT part of the DMV and is doing a darn good job in making people more aware of flaws in the system!

BUT... it is quite amusing how Wendor takes my statements so literally, instead of reading words I put in like "seemingly", "maybe", "apparently". I also find it a pity that Wendor only focuses on sending negativity, I hope outside the typed forum Wendor is a nicer person, as I know how people can be so different online to how they behave in reality.

bdongray wrote:I have heard rangers telling bicycle riders of the speed limit.

Yes, I will be asking the rangers, or better yet, the DMV for clarification if there is a bicycle speed limit. Although I could imagine my picture has a "<u>shoot on sight</u>" caption at the DMV camp! All because I am trying to improve things, but must be treading on their turf, and they don't like it (well at least Wendor - seemingly).

Personally I'd go for no motorized vehicles, except getting to your camp on arrival and departure, LEOs, Rangers on serious business, and people with a disability requiring a vehicle for mobility. I guess I don't like judgements without reasons. That <b>really</b> gets to me, and is something that quickly makes me see red - something must have happened in my childhood to make me so agressive against that behavior. Why did I jump on the cases of the rejected artists so strongly! Why should I care? Well... <i>it's an injustice</i> to quote a cute cartoon I used to see as a kid. Ha! I can blame the TV I saw as a kid! Funny! :lol:

Well, I believe the speed limit does apply to every vehicle, but if not, I believe it should - but that's me, and the way I'd vote <b>if</b> there was a vote. I understand why people like to hit the pedal out on the playa, although they're not going to break the sound barrier as has been done out there. Remember this:
Image
back on Oct 13, 1997. When the ThrustSSC vehicle did mach 1.020 (763mph).
Here is an artists impression so you can see the supersonic vehicle a little better:
Image
But the speeding bike (even though it's not doing 760mph) does produce significant dust. And someone posted a law a physics, ie force is proportional to the square of the velocity, so being hit by a bicycle at 10mph is four times as painful as at 5mph.

Wendor's amusing statement about the skydivers was very witty, I should send a congratulations on that one. Quite made me laugh... but I do believe the sky divers are subject to 5mph speed limit - but only once they are on the playa, and only if they use some form of transportation. I don't believe there is a foot speed limit, but I'll ask that one too next week! :)

Yes, my idea of the multiple towns is not perfect, and I hope people do contribute to it, or even give it a total rehaul, but it is not the disorganised village clusters of years ago Wendor suggested, as there would be structure to the entire city. It should be only marginally bigger in distances from one side of the city to the other, unless part of the towns were inside the current Esplanade distance, then it would be closer, and actually smaller if my thumbnail sketch is accurate. But in this forum I won't convince anyone. It would obviously be the same total area, same number of people overall, so same resources, rangers, etc. And I do feel that maybe people would perhaps be a little more inclined to stay in their town, or be able to take the public bus to the next town. So I feel that <u>would</u> lessen the need people have their own transport. Keeping it as several towns, and not one big city, where many people feel they do need their own vehicle (as was evident by the vehicular population last year). Having this does give a regional feel as Wendor mentioned, but each region (or town) is just 1/4 a mile (or so) from the neighbor, so you can go visit if you want (via the public transportation, if you didn't want to walk or cycle).

To be honest, I feel the current circular city is neat, but it's "<i>been there, done that</i>", and a new layout (not neessarily my posted idea) could be quite radical, with the idea to enable people feel a sense of community, and not a peon in a huge 30,000 person city (or bigger - we'll see the total population in the exodus paper).

Yes, maybe Wendor <b>is</b> one of those scared of change! I'll be quite surprised if Wendor will see things need fixing even if everyone else in the room sees it.
--
Bryan
User avatar
bdongray
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:06 am
Location: MN, USA

Re: Head in the sand!

Postby Wendor » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:43 am

bdongray wrote:I also find it quite strange that someone who would attend Burningman (and I think is part of the organization or very close to it), and I hope wants to contribute, would be so accepting of what seems like a dictatorship: Do as we say, we make the rules, follow them, no reasons, no appeal, if you don't like it piss off, go elsewhere, we don't care.

Depends what portion you are referring to as a dictatorship.

If you mean the parts where you can't have unlimited vehicle usage, can't drive without restrictions, can't use firearms, can't leave your trash behind, etc. then yes, I fully accept those. Those are conditions for being able to even hold the event. They are not subject to negotiation because they are conditions of being able to even use the land. You may not agree with them, but nothing is going to change them at all.

For any of the other policies...who do you think makes them? Participants who have volunteered their time and effort into WORKING to make this event and this city possible. I started to say "participants just like you" but refrained because they aren't just like you...they actually are willing to put the effort into DOING something rather than just sitting back and whining. They don't (and can't) change procedures and policies on whims. They don't (and can't) proceed on emotion without facts and evidence to back them up.

If you think the policies are wrong, then VOLUNTEER...get involved...find out the FACTS and then try to improve the process. Don't just sit back slinging accusations, misinformation, and ridiculous off-the-wall ideas around. Become PART of the process.


bdongray wrote:I think I must have insulted them directly.

You "think"? Your claims of misquotes aside, please go back and read your ACTUAL post and see. There were no maybes involved, you were directly insulting.


bdongray wrote:Wendor didn't even accept my apology and admitting to being unreasonable when I posted due to being quite mad, and what had happened.

Apologizing later on is no excuse whatsoever for the level of attack you initiated. And to be 100% clear, all you apologized for was "your negativity", at no point did you ever apologize for any of the unwarranted attacks and insults you were so quick to sling about.



bdongray wrote:I even apologized for equating the DMV with having fascist traits, but no, it was just further out of context quotation and abuse. I cannot be allowed to apologize.

Actually you said "PS Maybe "fascist" is a little over the top! Sorry (see "venting")." I do not consider that a sufficient apology to those you leveled the term "fascist" at in the first place. At no point did you ever offer an apology for any of your other attacks and insinuations.


bdongray wrote:BUT... it is quite amusing how Wendor takes my statements so literally, instead of reading words I put in like "seemingly", "maybe", "apparently". I also find it a pity that Wendor only focuses on sending negativity.

This one is a real knee-slapper coming from the person who not only called the DMV fascists, but decided and publicly declared that ALL of the rejections or denials issued by the DMV were "unreasonable" even though he had no actual information to base such a statement on. It seems to me that you are the one who has consistently focused on the negative and has applied the worst possible interpretation to every situation:
1. Ticket prices have gone up --> Is someone lining their pockets?
2. Vehicles were denied by the DMV --> Those denials were unreasonable, arbitrary, and unwarranted. The DMV are fascist dictators.
3. You have your facts wrong about speed limits --> You don't care about people's safety or people getting hurt.



bdongray wrote:Yes, I will be asking the rangers, or better yet, the DMV for clarification if there is a bicycle speed limit.

You see, this just continues to show how little effort you are willing to put forth to correct your own misconceptions. If you take the time to read either the bike or the DMV information on www.burnignman.com you will see that the DMV has *NOTHING* to do with bikes whatsoever (or enforcing speed limits either)



bdongray wrote:Although I could imagine my picture has a "<u>shoot on sight</u>" caption at the DMV camp!

Not at all. As a matter of fact I'll even issue you a challenge. Come by and volunteer to work at the DMV during the event. The help is needed and you would actually learn something about the situation you have been so vocal about. I'm betting that you won't though. You seem far happier to sit back and criticize the work of others rather than putting any effort in yourself.



bdongray wrote:Personally I'd go for no motorized vehicles, except getting to your camp on arrival and departure, LEOs, Rangers on serious business, and people with a disability requiring a vehicle for mobility.

A pretty big reversal from your previous declaration that *ALL* vehicles should be allowed to drive on the playa as long as they do so safely. At this rate sooner or later you'll see the fault in both of these extremes and reach the compromise in the middle where we already are...that mutant vehicles on the playa are a good thing, but have to be limited.



bdongray wrote: I guess I don't like judgements without reasons. That <b>really</b> gets to me, and is something that quickly makes me see red - something must have happened in my childhood to make me so agressive against that behavior. Why did I jump on the cases of the rejected artists so strongly! Why should I care? Well... <i>it's an injustice</i> to quote a cute cartoon I used to see as a kid. Ha! I can blame the TV I saw as a kid! Funny! :lol:

Cute. But this is where your blindness comes in. You say that you "don't like judgements without reasons" but fail to realize that there ARE reasons in these cases. You personally may not be aware of them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Again, come by the DMV, volunteer, get trained, work a couple of shifts. Find out what the reasons actually are.



bdongray wrote: Yes, my idea of the multiple towns is not perfect, and I hope people do contribute to it, or even give it a total rehaul, but it is not the disorganised village clusters of years ago Wendor suggested, as there would be structure to the entire city. It should be only marginally bigger in distances from one side of the city to the other, unless part of the towns were inside the current Esplanade distance, then it would be closer, and actually smaller if my thumbnail sketch is accurate. But in this forum I won't convince anyone. It would obviously be the same total area, same number of people overall, so same resources, rangers, etc.

I think you may need to go back and brush up on your high school geometry. You can't take the total area of the current city's camping areas, break it up into disconnected clusters with the same total volume, and end up with the same (or less) distance between the farthest points. (Unless of course you sacrifice the entire open playa art area inside of Esplanade which then pretty much defeats the purpose since you could reduce the distances in the city by doing that without breaking the city into clusters)




bdongray wrote: And I do feel that maybe people would perhaps be a little more inclined to stay in their town, or be able to take the public bus to the next town. So I feel that <u>would</u> lessen the need people have their own transport.

Why do you feel this? In the current city people do not seem to feel inclined to stay in their own theme caps or villages, so why do you think that in your plan people would feel any less desire to see more of the city just the same as now? People are still going to want to see art and theme camps in other clusters just as they want to see art and theme caps on the far side of the city currently.


If you want to continue this, it'll have to be on the playa as it's time for me to hit the road. But my offer still stands, come by the DMV, volunteer, get trained, work a couple of shifts and find out WHY things are set up the way they are.

Wendor (see y'all on the playa)
Wendor
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:48 pm

Logic errors

Postby Tricky » Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:35 am

Wendor wrote:
Tricky wrote:Wendor:
can you cite some facts to back up your statements?

Yes. Start with the BLM land use permit for the event. It's public record. Start by reading it and seeing what it requires for regulation and control of motor vehicle usage on the playa.


Well I actually asked if you would site them with-in your arguements (see Badger's posts for an example. I'm aware of the public record, and you can simply say "no, look it up yourself."


Wendor wrote:
Tricky wrote:so far the majority of your posts (to me) seem to contain personal attacks along with a quote followed by "no."

Then perhaps you are making assumptions instead of taking the time to read what was written.


Perhaps I'm not the only one making assumptions here. Tell me, how does one quantify the statement as being more than you own opinion?
"Because, like it or not, not all opinions are equally valid or useful."
the nature of this dialogue demands that all opinions share equal time and that it ultimately up to the reader to take the time to read what was written.


Wendor wrote:
Tricky wrote:I'm not sure how this is intended to refute someone elses opinion/observation.

I refuted no ones opinions. I refuted things that bdongray presented as facts. He did not say "I think that some of the DMV denials may have been unreasonable". He said "...great art that was unreasonably denied access".


Let's look at that statement. "great art"; there is no way that such a phrase can be anything but opinion. How is it possible to empirically determine what"great art" is? It's a subjective value.
"unreasonably"; again another subjective value, who's to determine what's reasonable or not? Certainly it can be accepted that those who established the rules by which "access" is granted or "denied" are likely to be reasonable, by virtue of having established these rules in the first place. Still, we all just need to look at a newspaper to see examples of organizations behaving unreasonably. Does this mean the DMV is behaving in such a fashion? Not to me; but this is part of the discussion.
So getting back to the initial statement it may or may not be empirically true that great art ...was unreasonably denied access. Still, it's a valid opinion and can still be subjectively true even if only ATVs and Golfcarts are in the impound lot. To someone, that 1978 cushman utility cart is a work of art as is. Not me, but that's besides the point.


Wendor wrote:
Tricky wrote:in terms of weither the DMV could change to improve it's process... of course it can.

Yet someone else who has jumped straight to the conclusion "The DMV shoudl change" without having determined if a problem even exists first.


Speaking jumping straight to conclusions where did I say "SHOULD?"
By virtue of the fact we're having this discussion there's an already identifiable need for some level of "improvement," you said so yourself here:
How about instead of "work(ing) with what we are presented with" which at this point is a lack of facts we actually GET the facts before working on it? As you said above, "identify the areas that could use more thought".
Wouldn't it be nice to have more facts available now?

Once again, I'm not saying the process as it is now should be replaced, simply that it could be improved.

can .
aux.v. Past tense could:
1
    [1] Used to indicate physical or mental ability: I can carry both suitcases. Can you remember the war?
    [2] Used to indicate possession of a specified power, right, or privilege: The President can veto congressional bills.
    [3] Used to indicate possession of a specified capability or skill: I can tune the harpsichord as well as play it.
2.
    [1] Used to indicate possibility or probability: I wonder if my long lost neighbor can still be alive. Such things can and do happen.
    [2] Used to indicate that which is permitted, as by conscience or feelings: One can hardly blame you for being upset.
    [3]Used to indicate probability or possibility under the specified circumstances: They can hardly have intended to do that.





Wendor wrote:
Tricky wrote:An appeal process could be helpful as well as greater transparency in how decisions are made.

COULD BE helpful. As in "maybe", "perhaps", or maybe even "let's wait until the event is over and see how the facts add up before jumping to conclusions"


Very astute. The fact remains that a % of the people "polled" feel dissatisfied with the process as it is. So in observing an organization ment to serve the community, there is already a need evident. That need must first be, to determine how large a % of the population is dissatisfied and how "valid" is such dissatisfaction in relation to the greater dynamics.

Next, and this is where a visit to the impound lot along with all other fact checking is important, is determining what & where (if any) are the weak points in the procedure and how they can be redressed.


Wendor wrote:
Tricky wrote:It's tragic to think of some inspired burner spending X amount of time/money on their vehicle only to recieve a generic rejection after months of work. That's time AND money wasted.

And the process in place every year before this involved people spinging all their time and money building their vehicles, bringing them allt he way to the playa, and THEN getting rejected. So the process is already infinitely better than it was last year.


Again a subjective value, Not one I'm refuting mind you. However how can you, on the one hand, acknowledge that the process has improve from previous years and still argue that there's not already room for further improvement?

Wendor wrote:Unless you are suggesting that no one get denied at all. Because that brings us back to the land use permit. If the org decided to not regulate mutant vehicles and let anyone who wanted to drive, the BLM would not allow the event.


Nope nowhere did I suggest that. are you looking to jump to a conclusion there as well?

Wendor wrote:
Tricky wrote:A simple improvement could be the moving of the registration deadline forward enough to allow for an earlier reply; rejection or approval.

Actually, based on feedback so far that would make it worse rather than being an improvement. More people have complained about the deadline being too early than it being too late. (For example, most people haven't gotten their projects completed enough for approval/denial desicions back in March)


This may or may not be valid. As you seem to have pointed out several times, just because people are complaining about it, THAT is not reason enough to acquiesce to such complaints. The ticket pricing structure is already based on rewarding those who commit and plan early. Burners are already used to this concept. It could easily carry over to DMV where those who plan out proposals early are more likely to make it through a more transparent approval system. Meanwhile those who "wait" must then be more on target with their proposals.

Of course the above is theoretical but the point remains that;
A) This message board & this tread in particular is ment to provide space for ideas, opinions and the opportunity for people to better inform their opinions.
B) The Mutant vehicle approval process can withstand healthy refinement


Wendor wrote:
Tricky wrote:It doesn't seem realistice to argue against potential changes that may improve a beurocratic process.

Yeah, change for the sake of change always improves a bureaucracy. All I'm saying is how about we wait and see if there is a problem before deciding we need to fix it.
bdongray, on the other hand, seems to have decided that solutions/changes are warranted, but will find out later if there ever was a problem that needed fixing.


More jumping to conclusions... who's advocating "change for the sake of change"? I'm not.
Yet you're attempting to use that statement as a basis to argue against what I actually did say.
Seems to me that this is another on of your inductive fallacies. You're using a false analogy to make it appear that I am argueing for something much more easily discredited than the actual point of my statement. At the same time you're appealing to the sympathies of others (argumentum ad misercordiam) buy suggesting that your only request is that we should simply "wait and see"; you've obviously said alot more than just that.
User avatar
Tricky
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:51 am
Location: Oakland

Limits

Postby bdongray » Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:36 am

Wendor wrote:If you mean the parts where you can't have unlimited vehicle usage, can't drive without restrictions, can't use firearms, can't leave your trash behind, etc. then yes, I fully accept those. Those are conditions for being able to even hold the event. They are not subject to negotiation because they are conditions of being able to even use the land. You may not agree with them, but nothing is going to change them at all.

Well, no. Not those parts. I do agree with those rules. They are not dictator-like as I can see the reasons, some are common sense, or may be cause for concern of safety, and other reasons are well explained.
I was referring to the DMV licensing <u>seeming</u> to be judging art. But as I said before, I maybe (and hopefully am) wrong. I just want to see denials given reason, and a chance for appeal after fixing the problem (if it's possible).

Wendor wrote:For any of the other policies...who do you think makes them? Participants who have volunteered their time and effort into WORKING to make this event and this city possible. I started to say "participants just like you" but refrained because they aren't just like you...they actually are willing to put the effort into DOING something rather than just sitting back and whining.

You make an assumption that I am not DOING anything?
I am putting significant effort into doing a large piece of playa, and as the other 3 (could have been 4, but #4 pulled out early on) from my group have all backed out (due to other commitments), I'm now doing it single handedly. I made a serious committment to LadyBee, and I am sticking to it. I was advised by other burners that once I make the commitment I needed to follow through, otherwise in subsequent years, my name would be associated with someone who may let them down, and I'd perhaps not get a spot for future art playa.

Wendor wrote:They don't (and can't) change procedures and policies on whims. They don't (and can't) proceed on emotion without facts and evidence to back them up.

I agree. Of course they cannot change them on a whim! I am very interested in finding out the reasons why, especially as I got emotionally affected by what SEEMED to be unfair.
Through these discussions (over and above what can be found in the online information) you have provided information I did not know about. Thank you.

Wendor wrote:
bdongray wrote:I think I must have insulted them directly.

You "think"? Your claims of misquotes aside, please go back and read your ACTUAL post and see. There were no maybes involved, you were directly insulting.
bdongray wrote:I even apologized for equating the DMV with having fascist traits, but no, it was just further out of context quotation and abuse. I cannot be allowed to apologize.

Actually you said "PS Maybe "fascist" is a little over the top! Sorry (see "venting")." I do not consider that a sufficient apology to those you leveled the term "fascist" at in the first place.


I have just re-read it. I apologize if it came over as such, but I did not mean to imply ALL DMV folks were in the category I would be concerned about , as my worry was around if I was unlucky enough to be rejected by someone at the more harsh end of the scale of the DMV people, and I'd get no reason, no appeal, and would feel how I'd wasted a lot of time and money. I came up with the word fascist from doing a thesaurus lookup on control of people through process without appeal. Even in my state of mind/emotion I felt that word a little over the top, as there are a whole bunch of other connotations of that style of rule. So I added my apology.
And by the way, that posting did say "<u>seeming</u> unreasonable" - but it was not the word "<u>maybe</u>" as you say.
So what can I do that would be of sufficient apology for you to be ok?

I do not believe I have ever claimed ALL denials were unreasonable.

Wendor wrote:1. Ticket prices have gone up --> Is someone lining their pockets?

It's a valid question. Someone might be. I do have a thought with income being 30%-40% higher (assuming the same numbers of people as last year) yet I do not believe there are expected to be more of the large item costs, such as BLM fees, DPW costs.
Consider the ticket prices of a few years ago. What happened!?
Are the finances of BMorg available?
Or is it something obvious I am unaware of, such as the BLM fees also jumped significantly since last year?
Wendor wrote:2. Vehicles were denied by the DMV --> Those denials were unreasonable, arbitrary, and unwarranted. The DMV are fascist dictators.

Yes, I do think some rejections seem to be unreasonable. I would be more accepting than what seems to be rejected by the DMV, such as with couches on wheels (as in what got me on this topic) and probably golf carts with fur - I have posted an example of one I thought was good, but it had not been taken down to the frame and radically rebuilt so would fall into the category of rejection. On vehicles being rejected, I would tell the artist why.
Wendor wrote:3. You have your facts wrong about speed limits --> You don't care about people's safety or people getting hurt.

After seeing my friend last year, I do feel strongly that bicycles need to adhere to the speed limit, as well needing to be operated in a safe and responsible way. A bicycle is a vehicle. In the USA, bicycles are supposed to follow the rules of the road just as other vehicles do, but many cyclists don't. Cyclists have been known to get speeding tickets. So as this is the case for the USA road (ie that all vehicles, motorized or not, follow the rules of the road), then when the BM guidelines say the speed limit is 5 mph, I conclude that it applies for bicycles too. Especially when I know I heard a ranger shout at a bicycle to slow down, stop causing dust, there is a 5 mph speed limit in BLC! Another time a bicycle was cycling on Esplanade too fast, weaving in and out of people, and pedestrians were shouting about the 5 mph speed limit at Burningman. OK, the pedestrians were not as authoritative as a ranger, but my observations led me to believe that a speed limit applied to all vehicles, including a bicycle.

Wendor wrote:
bdongray wrote:Personally I'd go for no motorized vehicles, except getting to your camp on arrival and departure, LEOs, Rangers on serious business, and people with a disability requiring a vehicle for mobility.

A pretty big reversal from your previous declaration that *ALL* vehicles should be allowed to drive on the playa as long as they do so safely.

Once again, I am sure I'd not say *ALL* vehicles should be allowed. I said I'd like to see golf carts and couches. And then I suggested the idea of a fee based on the lack of art of a vehicle. Not a good idea, but I do try to offer ideas, even if they are shot down, it's great, as I feel it gets other people to perhaps come up with a good idea derived from my immediate thought, which would need much tuning. If I stayed silent, it's impossible for my idea to be significantly massaged into something good.

What you see as a reversal is not a reversal at all. I'd like to see golf carts, etc. But if the rule was simply, absolutely nothing motorized to stay within the BLM requirements, that's ok too. I do not like the <u>seemingly</u> judgemental process without giving back a reason.

Wendor wrote:You say that you "don't like judgements without reasons" but fail to realize that there ARE reasons in these cases. You personally may not be aware of them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Again, come by the DMV, volunteer, get trained, work a couple of shifts. Find out what the reasons actually are.


That's the best thing I've heard. There are reasons!
OK, I'm not aware of them, but neither are the artists (so it seems in quite a few cases), and that's a big failing (OK, I don't need to know, but the artists do - IMO).

Interesting offer...............
OK... I would like to contribute some time to working the DMV. Yes!
I do have my major commitment of my large playa art, and I expect to be working on that until probably Tuesday, if I can keep to my construction work schedule. But the elements may slow me down, or I maybe over estimating time to do certain things.
But once I'm done there, I will stop by the DMV with the intent to offer my time. I hope that's not too late?

Wendor wrote:I think you may need to go back and brush up on your high school geometry. You can't take the total area of the current city's camping areas, break it up into disconnected clusters with the same total volume, and end up with the same (or less) distance between the farthest points. (Unless of course you sacrifice the entire open playa art area inside of Esplanade which then pretty much defeats the purpose since you could reduce the distances in the city by doing that without breaking the city into clusters)

Ah... the furthest distances would be more.
But my thought is people may spend a day a each town. Catch the bus to the town of their choice to visit, see friends there, make new friends, help, participate, etc, and not need to drive around the entire city randomly everyday as many people seem to!
Maybe some would stay local everyday.
OK, some people might want to do all towns everyday, but they'd have to take the bus, if there was a no private motorized vehicles allowed rule, but allow the public transit (artbus) idea?
Just brainstorming, with a hope that someone will take some good points and draw on my extremes to form something radical, yet functional!

Wendor wrote:If you want to continue this, it'll have to be on the playa as it's time for me to hit the road.

I leave tomorrow to head out (well, I have a 2000 miles drive, so I don't get there until Sunday or Monday), but I only head out after I sign my life to a mortgage, and hopefully all goes well in doing that! When I get back, I then have the fun of moving - at least I have all of September to do that, as I have the apartment until then. Lots of small trips I guess, with boxes in my car, instead of a few massive hauls with a big rental truck (or paying someone to move me).

PS I thought my last posting was a private message. :( I guess I don't operate a computer at 5am very well - especially after doing some late night work on my project.
--
Bryan
User avatar
bdongray
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:06 am
Location: MN, USA

Previous

Return to 2004 Camps, Art & Activities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest