RE: [carfree_cities] Speeding records... let's take it to the limit!
> I agree with you completely. Being only 16 and living withYes, I agree too. Have you asked your council to make the regular roads
> my parents, I
> rarely walk or bike places simply because I live in a car
> dependent town. Next
> school year I am praying that I will be able to bike to school if
> a bike path link
> is built between my school and Tammany Trace, the main bike path
> that runs though
> my the parish and is close to my house (Our parish president has
> promised me that
> it will be completed but school is less than a month away and I
> have yet to see any
> progress). I think everybody would be more healthy if they lived
> in a carfree city
> not only because you would get exercise from walking, but you
> would be healthier
> because you would not be forced to breath in the emissions of cars.
safer for biking (if it isn't already ok), so that cyclists are not forced
(or encourageed) to rely only on bike paths? (while continuing your quest to
complete the bike path). Tell them your only way of tranportation is bike,
and you require to have at least one route possible. Behave like the "broken
vinyl disc", i.e. repeating them bike is your only way to get around and you
do not want to rely on the car, until they actually do the necessary to
> On a side note... walking or exercising can be extremelyYup. Trees are needed for humans to live comfortably in hot regions,
> unpleasant here in the
> south (near New Orleans) during the summer months because of the
> extreme heat. I
> my small town which claims to have a 50% shade coverage it is
> much cooler than the
> neighboring town which has very little trees. I have found that
> the only thing I
> can do to get exercise is to swim daily in the artesian pool in
> my back yard. So
> hopefully the ideal carfree city should be well landscaped with many trees
> providing shade cover.
therefore the need to tear down parking lots and highways, to plant trees.
Trees give oxygen and freshness, cars remove oxygen and freshness.
Keep us informed of any success, we'll pray for you as well.
- 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
It would be interesting to see if the engineering standards actually 'do'
what they are supposed to do.
P.S. Unfortunately, these designers haven't put a proposal through for the
'spike in the steering wheel', nor the 'exhaust venting through the
From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:chris@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 12:02 AM
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:
> . . . . 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."
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:
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]