RE: [carfree_cities] driving: fun vs not & other rants
- Matt wrote:
>Like many Americans, I consider driving to be fun. To an extent.I guess one could also consider a Suzuki Swift, as a glorified Go-Cart.
>I periodically enter my car in "autocross" racing, in which
>contestants are timed individually on a course set with orange cones
>on an abandoned airport parking lot--doing cone slaloms, hairpin
>turns, threshhold braking, and such--similar to the training course
>that police use.
>Also fun is driving, say, 55-65 mph on a 2- or 4-lane country highway,No offence but, what you wrote kind of reminds me of Audi ad.
>with the car in top gear and windows down, heading to, say, a remote
>beach that hardly anyone goes to (ie, a beach for which mass transit
>from the city would be hard to set up due to the small amounts of
>traffic). I'm on the road alone, save the occasional car coming the
Though riding in a pickup truck, with your family, on a 2-lane road through
the prairies and badlands of Alberta (Calgary to Drumheller) is also an
A great place to check out in Drumheller. http://www.tyrrellmuseum.com/
>I have a 1988 Honda Civic with no air conditioning, noIn other words, no flying by wire for you?
>power steering, and a manual transmission. Although I take a lot of
>insults for having "that POS", I actually enjoy it more than I do a
>"feature-equipped" car--I get an actual feel of the driving. My car
>gets 40 miles per gallon in such driving conditions, and existing,
>not-yet popular technologies in nat gas/hybrid (and budding
>zero-emission electric or fuel cells) will only make this better as
>model years progress.
>A type of driving i do NOT find fun and would rather do without isOnly dealing with the symptoms?
>that with which we're the most familiar: city driving. Stop. Go.
>Yield. Let these people cross in front of me. Mind the cyclist. Stop.
>Go. 10 mph--does wonders on gas mileage and the clutch.
>It is these types of conditions that actually put the "features" in a
>car. Power steering, automatic transmission, and air conditioning are
>included in cars these days because people spend so much time driving
>in stop-and-go traffic that a "basic" car would be a pain. While I've
>gotten used to it, I'll have to admit that a manual steering rack,
>5-speed, and no air are no fun in the city--but neither are the
>"features"--it just makes it slightly more pleasant.
>I guess this is a nice way of saying: leave the car to the country,The more things change, the more they stay the same?
>and leave the city to mass transit. Pick the most effective solution
>for everything. ZEVs don't mean a thing if it still takes you two
>hours to get home from work and you still can't let your kids
>skateboard in the street--a ZEV hits just as hard as a gas car.
>I'm not against cars--I'm against their inappropriate use. Any inputI say the same in regards to the use of alcohol. Dawson
- Actually, that's an excellent comparision. Some people want nothing
do with alcohol, and some peopke want to exercise the RESPONSIBLE use
of alcohol for personal enjoyment. So can we compare road-ragers to
alcoholics? Someone who doesn't know how to handle (a car | alcohol)
and causes problems with it?
I've also heard cars compared to guns: if you are trained, mentally
stable, and restrict its use to rural areas, there will be very few
problem exhibited with it. What happens is that licensing is too lax,
and everyone feels like they HAVE to have one, and a lot of people
them without really knowing how to properly and safely use them.
The state of (crime | mass transit) in many cities is so deplorable
that people feel compelled to have one because of a lack of reasons
not have them (police | mass transit).
> >I'm not against cars--I'm against their inappropriate use. Anyinput
> I say the same in regards to the use of alcohol. Dawson
> > >I'm not against cars--I'm against their inappropriate use. AnyCars may also be compared to cigarettes. Most non-smokers mind about their
> > >welcome.
> > I say the same in regards to the use of alcohol. Dawson
health and life quality if they are constantly exposed to smoke from smokers
in public. Same with cars. except they can potentially kill or hurt much
more quickly and much more severely than ten years of living with a smoker
in the same home. Again this weekend, a cyclist has been hit by a fuckin'
(pardon this word in public) drunk drive, and that jerky escaped. Imagine
this driver at the same place at the commands of a bicycle or on foot. I'm
sure he would swerve all over the road, zigzag or hit poles (take extreme
drunk), but if he happens to hit a cyclist, or even a child, both parties
would just stand up with at most light injuries and continue each other's
Governments made a good job to regulate the usage of tobacco in public, even
in some cities it is not allowed to smoke in some outdoor streets! Still
smokers can continue to smoke at home, or in smoking rooms, in places just
for them, where they feel they don't disturb the public. Why can't we ask
the same to regulate something much more harmful to the life quality? When
governments are going to understand some people just want to live in some
carfree place where one can move around without the hassle of any car
traffic in any of his casual displacement. I know it's possible eliminate
cars from significant areas to enhance life quality, and keep other places
as is so other people can continue to use cars.
This week-end is the Grand Prix of Canada on Notre-Dame Island. A great
number of people will watch car racing at ligntning speeds. This is great,
racers have their road to show what they can do, and we carfree people need
our peaceful road to get to see them.
- Matt wrote:
>Actually, that's an excellent comparision. Some people want nothingQuite so, drunk driving is another related problem. Dawson
>do with alcohol, and some people want to exercise the RESPONSIBLE use
>of alcohol for personal enjoyment. So can we compare road-ragers to
>alcoholics? Someone who doesn't know how to handle (a car | alcohol)
>and causes problems with it?