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

RE: [carfree_cities] Advertisements in mass transit

Expand Messages
  • J.H. Crawford
    I think the buswrap is the single most offensive method of advertising I ve ever seen. The punch millions of little holes through it, so people inside the bus
    Message 1 of 37 , Jun 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I think the buswrap is the single most offensive method of
      advertising I've ever seen. The punch millions of little
      holes through it, so people inside the bus can see out...
      sort of. Man, talk about traveling third class.

      The way NYC does ads in the subway doesn't bother me too
      much--there is a back-lit strip of them up high.

      Here in Amsterdam we sold off the beauty of the city to
      an outfit that put in bus shelters... with back-lit ads,
      huge ones, that sometimes make it less safe. Entire trams
      are sometimes painted with ads (although they spare the
      windows, at least). My understanding is that the revenues
      from tram advertising roughly equal the cost of painting
      and installing the ads, so there's no benefit.

      In any case, the front end of any large street-running
      public transport vehicle should be bright red, orange,
      or yellow, so people can see them coming.



      -- ### --

      J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
      postmaster@... Carfree.com
    • Boileau,Pierre [NCR]
      Hi Chris, Again, sorry for the late response. Could you point me to some of the references on in-car-air-quality? I ve been working closely with a number of
      Message 37 of 37 , Oct 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Chris,

        Again, sorry for the late response.

        Could you point me to some of the references on in-car-air-quality?

        I've been working closely with a number of auto design engineers who deal
        with climate control systems (heating, ventilation and air conditioning).
        They pay very close attention to the inside air quality of their designs and
        must meet their company standards for minimising build-up of pollutants
        inside the car (unfortunately, I don't know of any government standard in
        this area).

        It would be interesting to see if the engineering standards actually 'do'
        what they are supposed to do.

        Many thanks

        Pierre.

        P.S. Unfortunately, these designers haven't put a proposal through for the
        'spike in the steering wheel', nor the 'exhaust venting through the
        passenger compartment'.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:chris@...]
        Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 12:02 AM
        To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Advertisements in mass transit


        On June 26th, "Boileau,Pierre [NCR]" wrote:

        > . . . . It is often difficult for the human mind to comprehend that a
        > choice to drive our car on a Monday morning, rather than ride the bus,
        > affects the health of a Nepalese family because their climate changes and
        > this creates a greater risk of vector-borne diseases. These messages are
        > too surreal for even an intelligent person to comprehend. The messages
        > need to be more localised and need to deal with our choices affecting the
        > health of our neighbours and ourselves.

        And, immediately afterwards, Richard Mosely wrote:

        Simon,

        > . . . . I mean in today's urban cities it is the
        > non-car user that inhales the fumes, hears the noise, . . .

        The driver of the car only _thinks_ (along with many car-free people)
        that he is externalizing the fumes, noise, and danger to others. In
        fact, he is only _sharing_ them.

        Studies have shown that the air quality _inside_ cars is worse than that
        along the street edge (perhaps the cyclist sitting near the exhaust pipe
        is in the worst location, but not the pedestrian).

        As far as noise is concerned, the car noise is not externalized, only
        overwhelmed by the stereo.

        And the danger? Well, although the motorist has the benefit of safety
        gear inside the car he bought, he is the one person whom he most
        endangers (although I enjoy the hypothetical rules that cars should
        have a spike in the steering wheel and that exhaust should pass through
        the cabin on the way to the exterior).

        That point should be pressed with the public much more. It brings the
        environmental arguments as close to the local/personal as can be.

        Also, cars should be required to carry a warning: "Danger to self and
        others increases with distance and speed driven."

        Chris Bradshaw
        Ottawa

        p.s., For those who still want to point out that the force of the car is
        still more chilling for the vulnerable users outside the vehicle, I
        would point out that drivers indeed feel guilt and stress over that
        imbalance of power. Hitting a pedestrian or cyclist does alot more than
        "ruin your day." When police and society try to console drivers, saying
        that the assault was really "an accident," they only drive the guilt
        even deeper. I wish someone would study the long-term psychological
        effects on drivers involved in such collisions.

        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/



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