Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

brevity

Expand Messages
  • Simon Norton
    I think that part of the problem with putting the car-free argument is that it simply does not lend itself to brevity. The pro-motoring organisations can state
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I think that part of the problem with putting the car-free argument is that it
      simply does not lend itself to brevity.

      The pro-motoring organisations can state their wants concisely. They want cheap
      motoring, free parking at their destination, enough road capacity to take them
      without jams, and the right to travel at whatever speed they consider safe
      (irrespective of what anyone else thinks). If these desiderata cannot all be
      achieved, no matter; just cut motoring taxes, build more car parks and roads,
      and progressively remove speed restraint.

      However, we have much more trouble describing our ideal society. The majority of
      us, I think, accept that it isn't possible to have a totally car-free society.
      But if we say something like "cars to be used only when there is no alternative"
      we render ourselves vulnerable to questions like "who decides ?" and "how is
      this to be enforced ?". It is therefore necessary for us to go into great detail
      to describe how the kind of society we want can be put into practice.

      There are of course some of us who have as a result given up on adapting society
      as a whole to human needs. Their remedy is to ignore everyone who isn't willing
      to enter the lion's cage and cycle among traffic, claiming that if they do it
      properly it's reasonably safe.

      I suggest that such people (and I'm sure that the rest of this list will wish to
      follow them) go to http://www.independent.co.uk and search for "Rhyl". This will
      lead them to an article dated 21 Aug 2006 about a cycling tragedy that has, if I
      remember rightly, been featured before on this list, bringing the story up to
      date.

      Simon Norton
    • Simon Baddeley
      Agreed. S From: Simon Norton Reply-To: Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:15:12 +0100 To:
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Agreed. S



        From: Simon Norton <S.Norton@...>
        Reply-To: <CarFree@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:15:12 +0100
        To: <carfree@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [CF] brevity





        I think that part of the problem with putting the car-free argument is that
        it
        simply does not lend itself to brevity.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.