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

Re: C02: cycling vs. driving

Expand Messages
  • Guy Berliner
    Let s take up the challenge concerning cycling vs. driving as to which produces more C02 with a back-of-the-envelope calculation. The trick is to make rough
    Message 1 of 15 , Oct 26 11:21 AM
      Let's take up the challenge concerning cycling vs. driving
      as to which produces more C02 with a back-of-the-envelope
      calculation. The trick is to make rough approximations that
      are at least within an order of magnitude of the correct result.
      Thus, for example, if a liter is 1.057 quarts, we can round this
      to 1, as it won't affect the order of magnitude of the results.
      Then, we can make firm conclusions about quantities that differ
      by one or more orders of magnitude, as the difference can't be
      accounted for by mere error in approximations of the basic inputs.
      Here goes:

      Let's make some generous assumptions. First off, we'll assume
      we're using among the most fuel efficient cars on the market,
      say a Geo Metro, getting some 50mi/gal. We'll assume that the
      fully loaded Geo Metro with four passengers still gets the same
      mileage. How much carbon is each occupant responsible for per
      mile? Gasoline consists of a variety of hydrocarbons, like benzene,
      for example. Each passenger is responsible for 1/200 gal per mile.
      I think gasoline is heavier than water, but assuming it's at least
      no lighter than water, with specific gravity 1, then 1/200 gal of
      gasoline = (1/200)(~4 liter)(1000cc/liter)(1g/cc) = 20g gasoline.
      Taking benzene (C6H6) as a typical constituent hydrocarbon, that
      comes out to ((6x12)/(6x12+6x1)) x 20 g = 18.46 g of carbon available
      for conversion to C02 in combustion, for which each passenger is
      responsible.

      Now, the cyclist. I can go at least a hundred miles on a thousand
      calories of food, from personal experience. That's 10kcal/mi. Food
      is broken down into glucose (C6H12O6), to produce energy. Refined
      sugar is converted almost completely to such simple sugars, and
      according to the USDA nutrient database (www.nal.usda.gov), it
      provides 3.89 kcal/g. So, I need
      ((10kcal/mi)/(3.89kcal/g))x(6x12/(6x12+12x1+6x16)) = 1.028 g/mi
      carbon.

      That's nearly twenty times more carbon for a carpooler in the efficient
      vehicle than for the cyclist. Even assuming electric vehicles, which
      get the equivalent of some 150 mi/gal in energy consumption, the
      cyclist doesn't even come close to the auto passenger in carbon
      utilization.

      Guy
    • Henning Mortensen
      An interesting argument. BTW water is heavier then gas. ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free
      Message 2 of 15 , Oct 26 12:10 PM
        An interesting argument. BTW water is heavier then gas.


        >From: Guy Berliner <guy@...>
        >>I think gasoline is heavier than water, but assuming it's at least
        >no lighter than water, with specific gravity 1, then 1/200 gal of

        _________________________________________________________________________
        Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

        Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
        http://profiles.msn.com
      • Wilson, Jeff J
        You need to subtract from the carbon generated by the cyclist the amount he would have spent anyway just sitting in a car. ... From: Guy Berliner
        Message 3 of 15 , Oct 26 12:40 PM
          You need to subtract from the carbon generated by the cyclist the amount he
          would have spent anyway just sitting in a car.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Guy Berliner [mailto:guy@...]
          Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 11:21 AM
          To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
          Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: C02: cycling vs. driving


          Let's take up the challenge concerning cycling vs. driving
          as to which produces more C02 with a back-of-the-envelope
          calculation. The trick is to make rough approximations that
          are at least within an order of magnitude of the correct result.
          Thus, for example, if a liter is 1.057 quarts, we can round this
          to 1, as it won't affect the order of magnitude of the results.
          Then, we can make firm conclusions about quantities that differ
          by one or more orders of magnitude, as the difference can't be
          accounted for by mere error in approximations of the basic inputs.
          Here goes:

          Let's make some generous assumptions. First off, we'll assume
          we're using among the most fuel efficient cars on the market,
          say a Geo Metro, getting some 50mi/gal. We'll assume that the
          fully loaded Geo Metro with four passengers still gets the same
          mileage. How much carbon is each occupant responsible for per
          mile? Gasoline consists of a variety of hydrocarbons, like benzene,
          for example. Each passenger is responsible for 1/200 gal per mile.
          I think gasoline is heavier than water, but assuming it's at least
          no lighter than water, with specific gravity 1, then 1/200 gal of
          gasoline = (1/200)(~4 liter)(1000cc/liter)(1g/cc) = 20g gasoline.
          Taking benzene (C6H6) as a typical constituent hydrocarbon, that
          comes out to ((6x12)/(6x12+6x1)) x 20 g = 18.46 g of carbon available
          for conversion to C02 in combustion, for which each passenger is
          responsible.

          Now, the cyclist. I can go at least a hundred miles on a thousand
          calories of food, from personal experience. That's 10kcal/mi. Food
          is broken down into glucose (C6H12O6), to produce energy. Refined
          sugar is converted almost completely to such simple sugars, and
          according to the USDA nutrient database (www.nal.usda.gov), it
          provides 3.89 kcal/g. So, I need
          ((10kcal/mi)/(3.89kcal/g))x(6x12/(6x12+12x1+6x16)) = 1.028 g/mi
          carbon.

          That's nearly twenty times more carbon for a carpooler in the efficient
          vehicle than for the cyclist. Even assuming electric vehicles, which
          get the equivalent of some 150 mi/gal in energy consumption, the
          cyclist doesn't even come close to the auto passenger in carbon
          utilization.

          Guy


          To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
        • Guy Berliner
          Oops, correction. The specific gravity of benzene is of course lower than water. It s about .88, giving 16 g /mi of carbon for the vehicle passenger, vs. 1.0
          Message 4 of 15 , Oct 26 12:51 PM
            Oops, correction. The specific gravity of benzene is of course
            lower than water. It's about .88, giving 16 g /mi of carbon for
            the vehicle passenger, vs. 1.0 g/mi for the cyclist. The order of
            magnitude of the result is unchanged. (Actual gasoline doesn't
            consist of benzene, but of similar hydrocarbons; the differences
            also shouldn't much affect the result).
          • Mike Lacey
            This is an intersting academic argument. But I doubt whether anyone would seriously entertain the notion that a car converts fuel to motion more efficiently
            Message 5 of 15 , Oct 26 12:56 PM
              This is an intersting academic argument.
              But I doubt whether anyone would seriously entertain the notion that
              a car converts fuel to motion more efficiently than a human being.

              Mike

              --- In carfree_cities@egroups.com, "Wilson, Jeff J"
              <Jeff.Wilson@U...> wrote:
              > You need to subtract from the carbon generated by the cyclist the
              amount he
              > would have spent anyway just sitting in a car.
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Guy Berliner [mailto:guy@s...]
              > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 11:21 AM
              > To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
              > Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: C02: cycling vs. driving
              >
              >
              > Let's take up the challenge concerning cycling vs. driving
              > as to which produces more C02 with a back-of-the-envelope
              > calculation. The trick is to make rough approximations that
              > are at least within an order of magnitude of the correct result.
              > Thus, for example, if a liter is 1.057 quarts, we can round this
              > to 1, as it won't affect the order of magnitude of the results.
              > Then, we can make firm conclusions about quantities that differ
              > by one or more orders of magnitude, as the difference can't be
              > accounted for by mere error in approximations of the basic inputs.
              > Here goes:
              >
              > Let's make some generous assumptions. First off, we'll assume
              > we're using among the most fuel efficient cars on the market,
              > say a Geo Metro, getting some 50mi/gal. We'll assume that the
              > fully loaded Geo Metro with four passengers still gets the same
              > mileage. How much carbon is each occupant responsible for per
              > mile? Gasoline consists of a variety of hydrocarbons, like benzene,
              > for example. Each passenger is responsible for 1/200 gal per mile.
              > I think gasoline is heavier than water, but assuming it's at least
              > no lighter than water, with specific gravity 1, then 1/200 gal of
              > gasoline = (1/200)(~4 liter)(1000cc/liter)(1g/cc) = 20g gasoline.
              > Taking benzene (C6H6) as a typical constituent hydrocarbon, that
              > comes out to ((6x12)/(6x12+6x1)) x 20 g = 18.46 g of carbon
              available
              > for conversion to C02 in combustion, for which each passenger is
              > responsible.
              >
              > Now, the cyclist. I can go at least a hundred miles on a thousand
              > calories of food, from personal experience. That's 10kcal/mi. Food
              > is broken down into glucose (C6H12O6), to produce energy. Refined
              > sugar is converted almost completely to such simple sugars, and
              > according to the USDA nutrient database (www.nal.usda.gov), it
              > provides 3.89 kcal/g. So, I need
              > ((10kcal/mi)/(3.89kcal/g))x(6x12/(6x12+12x1+6x16)) = 1.028 g/mi
              > carbon.
              >
              > That's nearly twenty times more carbon for a carpooler in the
              efficient
              > vehicle than for the cyclist. Even assuming electric vehicles, which
              > get the equivalent of some 150 mi/gal in energy consumption, the
              > cyclist doesn't even come close to the auto passenger in carbon
              > utilization.
              >
              > Guy
              >
              >
              > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@e...
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@e...
            • Henning Mortensen
              Let s add to the mix, the other emissions which are unique to cars, like for example carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, etc. As far as I know the only other
              Message 6 of 15 , Oct 26 1:03 PM
                Let's add to the mix, the other emissions which are unique to cars, like for
                example carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, etc. As far as I know the only
                other possible foul emission from a cyclist is the cyclist's bad breath.

                Oh and lets talk about auditory emisions. Just the other day I was almost in
                an accident biking to work... I nearly hit another bike. Why, because I had
                become so used to listening for cars that I failed to recognize the bike.
                Well anyways, after this I became atuned to the noice of cars and I would
                like to point out that you can hear a car far away where a bike is virtually
                silent. (well except for that rattle I gotta fix). I have sat at a quiet
                intersection and counted the number of blocks away I could hear the car
                after it passed me. I have been able to hear the car up to two miles away.
                Note. this was a normal car not one missing a muffler or such.

                >From: "Wilson, Jeff J" <Jeff.Wilson@...>
                >
                >You need to subtract from the carbon generated by the cyclist the amount he
                >would have spent anyway just sitting in a car.
                >
                >From: Guy Berliner [mailto:guy@...]
                >
                >Let's take up the challenge concerning cycling vs. driving
                ...
                _________________________________________________________________________
                Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

                Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
                http://profiles.msn.com
              • Simon Baddeley
                ... In the arena of adversarial debate anything is possible and one of the most difficult thing for academics to do is to engage seriously with the absurd in a
                Message 7 of 15 , Oct 26 1:41 PM
                  > This is an intersting academic argument.
                  > But I doubt whether anyone would seriously entertain the notion that
                  > a car converts fuel to motion more efficiently than a human being.
                  >
                  > Mike

                  In the arena of adversarial debate anything is possible and one of the most
                  difficult thing for academics to do is to engage seriously with the absurd
                  in a public place called democracy.

                  In political debate you have to impress "a jury" who may well include people
                  who will "seriously entertain" the most absurd notions. In politics as in
                  court you have to win hearts as well as minds and the former requires you to
                  find a language and style of refutation that owes little to the rational
                  debate of the academy.

                  Your observation contains a paradox. You suggest that Guy's is an
                  "interesting academic argument" but that it lacks weight because no-one
                  "would seriously entertain the notion that a car converts fuel to motion
                  more efficiently than a human being." Guy lays out the issues in
                  conscientious detail for the jury (if you will) and so indicates that just
                  assuming that this is a matter of "common sense" might not be sufficient e.g
                  he humbly allows that the absurd assertion might be correct and dignifies it
                  with a far greater level of detailed refutation than you believe the claim
                  deserves.

                  Here he says "is the detail". To continue after that to claim that "a car
                  converts fuel to motion more efficiently than a human being" the claimant
                  must respond with the same amount of detail to the jury if they are to
                  maintain a credibility.

                  That would be much more difficult than just continuing to assert that
                  position as the ABD and others so frequently do. The jury will begin to
                  doubt that validity of the (to you and me - absurd) assertion that cyclists
                  produce more CO2 than motorists. QED

                  Simon
                • Mike Lacey
                  When faced with a complex algebraic equation, a mathematician will attempt to clarify the problem by removing common factors from both sides. By suggesting
                  Message 8 of 15 , Oct 26 6:18 PM
                    When faced with a complex algebraic equation, a mathematician will
                    attempt to clarify the problem by removing common factors from both
                    sides. By suggesting that the essence of the argument was the ratio
                    between the efficiency of the human and the internal combustion
                    engine I was hoping to do the same thing.

                    If we re-serve the more fanciful statements of the auto lobby in base
                    terms we may help to expose the absurdities of their beliefs without
                    giving them the opportunity to hide behind "fuzzy math" (sorry,
                    couldn't resist that one)

                    That being said, I also admire the attempts by Guy and co. to refute
                    their logic more scientifically.

                    There's more than one way to skin a cat

                    --- In carfree_cities@egroups.com, "Simon Baddeley"
                    <s.j.baddeley@b...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > This is an intersting academic argument.
                    > > But I doubt whether anyone would seriously entertain the notion
                    that
                    > > a car converts fuel to motion more efficiently than a human being.
                    > >
                    > > Mike
                    >
                    > In the arena of adversarial debate anything is possible and one of
                    the most
                    > difficult thing for academics to do is to engage seriously with the
                    absurd
                    > in a public place called democracy.
                    >
                    > In political debate you have to impress "a jury" who may well
                    include people
                    > who will "seriously entertain" the most absurd notions. In politics
                    as in
                    > court you have to win hearts as well as minds and the former
                    requires you to
                    > find a language and style of refutation that owes little to the
                    rational
                    > debate of the academy.
                    >
                    > Your observation contains a paradox. You suggest that Guy's is an
                    > "interesting academic argument" but that it lacks weight because no-
                    one
                    > "would seriously entertain the notion that a car converts fuel to
                    motion
                    > more efficiently than a human being." Guy lays out the issues in
                    > conscientious detail for the jury (if you will) and so indicates
                    that just
                    > assuming that this is a matter of "common sense" might not be
                    sufficient e.g
                    > he humbly allows that the absurd assertion might be correct and
                    dignifies it
                    > with a far greater level of detailed refutation than you believe
                    the claim
                    > deserves.
                    >
                    > Here he says "is the detail". To continue after that to claim
                    that "a car
                    > converts fuel to motion more efficiently than a human being" the
                    claimant
                    > must respond with the same amount of detail to the jury if they are
                    to
                    > maintain a credibility.
                    >
                    > That would be much more difficult than just continuing to assert
                    that
                    > position as the ABD and others so frequently do. The jury will
                    begin to
                    > doubt that validity of the (to you and me - absurd) assertion that
                    cyclists
                    > produce more CO2 than motorists. QED
                    >
                    > Simon
                  • Louis-Luc Le Guerrier
                    ... Cyclists are nearly quiet, but when cars are removed you can hear the cyclists, as well as birds and footsteps, a basketball player getting back home
                    Message 9 of 15 , Oct 26 6:27 PM
                      > Oh and lets talk about auditory emisions. Just the other day
                      > I was almost in
                      > an accident biking to work... I nearly hit another bike. Why,
                      > because I had
                      > become so used to listening for cars that I failed to
                      > recognize the bike.
                      > Well anyways, after this I became atuned to the noice of cars
                      > and I would
                      > like to point out that you can hear a car far away where a
                      > bike is virtually
                      > silent.
                      Cyclists are nearly quiet, but when cars are removed you can hear the
                      cyclists, as well as birds and footsteps, a basketball player getting back
                      home dribbling his ball, etc. You hear the sound of life and people you
                      cannot feel when only a single car can pull out your attention, because you
                      need to locate its position and determine its direction to make sure there
                      is no potential danger.

                      Moving cars draw the attention of your sight, your hearing, your breathing,
                      your heart rate (stress), and your mobility. That's the reason why a totally
                      carfree area provides highly superior life quality w/r a place with cars
                      (even just a few cars).


                      > (well except for that rattle I gotta fix). I have sat
                      > at a quiet
                      > intersection and counted the number of blocks away I could
                      > hear the car
                      > after it passed me. I have been able to hear the car up to
                      > two miles away.
                      > Note. this was a normal car not one missing a muffler or such.

                      2 miles away! There should be very few cars where you were standing. I can't
                      hear the noise of a car that far because there are always other cars
                      passing. That's virtually a constant noise.

                      Louis-Luc
                    • Simon Baddeley
                      By suggesting that the essence of the argument was the ratio ... by Guy and co. to refute ... I found both contributions helpful not only because I am (as a
                      Message 10 of 15 , Oct 27 12:39 AM
                        By suggesting that the essence of the argument was the ratio
                        > between the efficiency of the human and the internal combustion
                        > engine I was hoping to do the same thing.>
                        > If we re-serve the more fanciful statements of the auto lobby in base
                        > terms we may help to expose the absurdities of their beliefs without
                        > giving them the opportunity to hide behind "fuzzy math" (sorry,
                        > couldn't resist that one).> > That being said, I also admire the attempts
                        by Guy and co. to refute
                        > their logic more scientifically.> There's more than one way to skin a cat

                        I found both contributions helpful not only because I am (as a
                        non-mathematician) better informed but I am also better armed with both
                        complex and simple arguments to refute the assertion that a cyclist does
                        more damage to the environment than a car driver.

                        Simon
                      • Henning Mortensen
                        fortunately my early morning commute takes me through a gridwork of blocks boardered by major arteries. The number of cars I see in this particular part is
                        Message 11 of 15 , Oct 27 7:33 AM
                          fortunately my early morning commute takes me through a gridwork of blocks
                          boardered by major arteries. The number of cars I see in this particular
                          part is only a handful. On this particular day there was not a car moving in
                          the residential area so I could hear this lone car as it sped it's way up to
                          join the major artery.

                          I get a lot of incredulity, about the fact that I bike to work. The most
                          common concern raised is having to fight traffic on a bike. Funny that
                          people don't understand that by biking I am not bound to the high speed
                          arteries and can amble through parks, down quiet residential streets, along
                          paths (both bike oriented and the impromptu paths of pedestrians seeking the
                          shortest path across an expanse). But once again, I am preaching to the
                          converted.


                          >2 miles away! There should be very few cars where you were standing. I
                          >can't
                          >hear the noise of a car that far because there are always other cars
                          >passing. That's virtually a constant noise.
                          >
                          >Louis-Luc
                          >


                          btw. Always thought the way we lay out paths across parks, universities etc
                          is wrong. Instead of some planner deciding that a path needs to go from a to
                          b, what we should do is plant the entire area in grass, wait for the
                          telltale paths of foot traffic to occur and then lay the paths there. Then
                          get rid of most of the grass and plant something more interesting. Of course
                          this is Regina, Sk and we start out with an empty field. This would not work
                          in the mountains.


                          _________________________________________________________________________
                          Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

                          Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
                          http://profiles.msn.com
                        • Roy Preston
                          My Transport 2000 newsletter arrived this morning and I thought you d like to read an item which I found disturbing for the BBC s credibility for impartiality.
                          Message 12 of 15 , Feb 28, 2001
                            My Transport 2000 newsletter arrived this morning and I thought you'd like
                            to read an item which I found disturbing for the BBC's credibility for
                            impartiality.

                            Roy P



                            TOP GEAR the BBC programme for road-hogs, joyriders and members of the
                            Association of British Drivers has received a series of blows to its
                            credibility -- if it ever had any in the first place. In November 1999 it
                            broadcast a programme about the Oxford Transport Strategy, a visionary
                            scheme through which the city's High Street has been closed to through
                            traffic during the day-time, the main shopping area of Cornmarket
                            completely pedestrianised and bus priority measures introduced wherever
                            possible. The aim has been to cut traffic, which was choking the city
                            centre, get more people on buses and improve the conditions for pedestrians
                            and shoppers.

                            The Oxfordshire County Council plan has been remarkably successful. More
                            people are using the buses, more people are visiting the city centre in
                            general, traffic congestion has been cut in most areas and air quality is
                            better. The majority of people who live, work or shop in the city are
                            supportive and, according to the Chamber of Commerce, companies are queuing
                            up to take shop and office space.

                            However, the Top Gear 'journalists' sent to the city to cover the story
                            missed all this. In a blatant attack on integrated transport in general and
                            the restrictions on cars in particular, the programme scoffed at the whole
                            scheme. To discredit it they showed film of empty buses, supposedly
                            rejected by shoppers, without saying they had waited until the buses had
                            dropped off all their passengers outside the shops before turning on the
                            cameras. Top Gear also said that business was on the point of collapse,
                            whereas in fact 200 retailers were waiting for retail space, and that most
                            county council staff were driving to work in the city themselves while
                            trying to stop others doing the same, again not true. The final straw came
                            in a series of street interviews with passers-by in which clips of anyone
                            voicing support for the scheme ended up on the floor of the editing room,
                            including a piece with an employee of the city council who had popped out
                            of the office to do a hit of lunchtime shopping.

                            The county council complained to the BBC, which was forced to admit the Top
                            Gear piece was biased, inaccurate and unfair. The Top Gear team was sent
                            back to Oxford to do the report again, which was broadcast in February
                            2000. This was mainly a heavily edited snippet from an interview with the
                            council's Director of Environmental Services, who felt the new item was
                            still biased. The council complained again, and the complaint was again
                            upheld.

                            The motoring hacks were faced with the ignominy of having to return a third
                            time to Oxford to redo the piece. This was finally put out in December and
                            consisted purely of a Top Gear presenter reading out some positive points
                            made by the county council.

                            Staff at the county council have resigned themselves to this being probably
                            the best they're going to get, but the whole episode raises yet another
                            question mark over whether the BBC, with its public service remit and duty
                            to report issues with impartiality and fairness, should be broadcasting
                            motoring propaganda at all. Many people believe it is time this
                            irresponsible and unsavoury programme was involved in a fatal car accident
                            itself or taken to the scrapyard and left quietly to rot in a corner.

                            As for the Oxford traffic scheme, people are now calling for an extension.
                          • J.H. Crawford
                            Dawson, got some URLs for us? ... ### J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities postmaster@carfree.com
                            Message 13 of 15 , Feb 28, 2001
                              Dawson, got some URLs for us?

                              >My Transport 2000 newsletter arrived this morning and I thought you'd like
                              >to read an item which I found disturbing for the BBC's credibility for
                              >impartiality.
                              >
                              >Roy P



                              ###

                              J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                              postmaster@... Carfree.com
                            • Ronald Dawson
                              I m a member of Transport 2000 Canada & Transport 2000 Quebec, but I haven t really heard of any thing until now. http://www.topgear.beeb.com/ Dawson ...
                              Message 14 of 15 , Mar 1, 2001
                                I'm a member of Transport 2000 Canada & Transport 2000 Quebec, but I haven't
                                really heard of any thing until now. http://www.topgear.beeb.com/ Dawson

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: J.H. Crawford [mailto:postmaster@...]
                                Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 1:14 PM
                                To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Neutral Gear?



                                Dawson, got some URLs for us?

                                >My Transport 2000 newsletter arrived this morning and I thought you'd like
                                >to read an item which I found disturbing for the BBC's credibility for
                                >impartiality.
                                >
                                >Roy P



                                ###

                                J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                postmaster@... Carfree.com


                                To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                                To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                                Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/

                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              • Simon Baddeley
                                Yes - but you can join in the forum on this web site and it s a helpful conduit for feeding moderate criticism into car culture (e.g spooking them). Drivers
                                Message 15 of 15 , Mar 4, 2001
                                  Yes - but you can join in the forum on this web site and it's a helpful
                                  conduit for feeding moderate criticism into car culture (e.g spooking them).
                                  Drivers are deeply divided among themselves - a broad church. As for your
                                  point about the BBC - it went commercial a long time ago ... caught a
                                  Transatlantic virus via Mrs T about 20 years ago ... but there are still
                                  people there who value the "impartiality" tag.

                                  Simon


                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Ronald Dawson <rdadddmd@...>
                                  To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 4:40 AM
                                  Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Neutral Gear?


                                  > I'm a member of Transport 2000 Canada & Transport 2000 Quebec, but I
                                  haven't
                                  > really heard of any thing until now. http://www.topgear.beeb.com/ Dawson
                                  >
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: J.H. Crawford [mailto:postmaster@...]
                                  > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 1:14 PM
                                  > To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Neutral Gear?
                                  > Dawson, got some URLs for us?
                                  > >My Transport 2000 newsletter arrived this morning and I thought you'd
                                  like
                                  > >to read an item which I found disturbing for the BBC's credibility for
                                  > >impartiality.
                                  > >Roy P
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.