Re: [carfree_cities] Car Free Cities
- At 06:07 PM 2/7/2001, Andrew wrote in part:
>Andy Morris wrote:Hi, Andrew.
> > Being a car-free individual in a car-addicted city is
> > hard. Once you own a car, the perceived incremental cost per journey is
> > lower than public transport.
> >> This is not true- the car is still very expensive to maintain and if
> you put a
>cost on life, it is definitely cheaper to take public transportation,
>when every 40 seconds somebody dies from an automobile (American Public
I don't think Andy meant that the per-journey cost of auto operation is
lower than public transit. He was reminding us that, once a car owner is
paying all of the other costs of ownership, it may *seem* to that owner
that the additional (incremental) cost of hopping into the car for a trip
to the store is very low, perhaps even cheaper than taking the tram or bus.
This problem of perceived cost is a major barrier to discussing the
relative economies of auto operation vs. public transit. So many of the
costs of automobility are either hidden or paid by society as a whole that
it often seems much cheaper than it really is.
- J.H. Crawford wrote:
>>One last point, if someone its me at speed, in a car that exceeds the'farty
>>car' spec, can we not make the manufacturer and retailer take someDo you think speed governors or photo radar would help? Dawson
>>responsibility? They sold a machine that was dangerously over powered and
>>encouraged an irresponsible attitude in the driver.
>I've often wondered why the manufacturers are not routinely
>sued in any case in which speeds in excess of the posted
>65 mph (in the USA) are involved. It would be simple to prove
>in court that the manufacturers are encouraging illegal
>behaviour. Take this quote (from the book):