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

Re: Carfree and Free Minded

Expand Messages
  • michelle@giansante.net
    ... Your posting is excellent! I totally agree with you! I think anybody who is true to themselves will agree with you! Thank you & welcome! Michelle *** ...
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 4 7:14 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      "demitriamondethraam" <monde@...> said:

      >Cars scare the crap out of me. Here I was sitting in this huge
      >contraption that I was supposed to actually maintain control of and
      >do it in tandem with all those other drivers in their great big metal
      >contraptions.

      >I can't understand why more people won't look beyond them.
      >God, the money saved alone not buying gas, mechanic services,
      >insurance, parking tickets and other car related crap is reason
      >enough for EVERYONE to go carless.

      Your posting is excellent! I totally agree with you! I think anybody who
      is true to themselves will agree with you! Thank you & welcome!

      Michelle
      ***

      "Louis-Luc" <exqmtl@...> said:

      >A goal is to make any given place accessible by some other transportation
      >mode than car. When it becomes true, then most people will find cars are
      >redundant and they can continue without them.

      Exactly! Let's do it! But how does one go about it? City council
      meetings? Letters to congresspeople? Let's come up with some ideas!
      Michelle
      ***

      "Louis-Luc" <exqmtl@...> also said:

      >So it means it is roughly 1 World Trade Center tragedy PER MONTH, that
      >repeats over and over and over again each month, and the governments feel
      >it's acceptable?

      That's exactly what bothers me. But not just that governments feel it's
      acceptable, but that moms and dads feel that's acceptable. Those stats
      include people's kids.
      Michelle
    • turpin
      ... I think the most important strategy is to expose and curtail the existing subsidies for sprawl. Most people do not realize the extent of these subsidies.
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 4 9:00 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In carfree_cities@y..., "michelle@g..." <michelle@g...> wrote:
        > Exactly! Let's do it! But how does one go about it? City
        > council meetings? Letters to congresspeople? Let's come up
        > with some ideas!

        I think the most important strategy is to expose and curtail
        the existing subsidies for sprawl. Most people do not realize
        the extent of these subsidies. Every bedroom community places
        a large cost on the city where its residents work, directly
        for roads and utilities, and also indirectly, in the cost
        of police, courts, and medical services to clean up the
        damage of daily commuting. The taxes most states allow
        cities to collect do not correlate with these costs. Most
        cities rely on ad valorum property tax, and because suburban
        land is less valuable than land in the city, outlying
        neighborhoods pay less in tax, despite imposing greater costs
        on the city. Most cities cannot tax at all the bedroom
        communities that lie outside their corporate limits.

        As long as the 'burbs are subsidized, they will continue to
        grow. Only changes in state law can redress this
        subsidization.

        Importantly, this is an economic argument. I think the folks
        who talk about urban planning in a way that de-emphasizes
        economics are making a tremendous error. Economics is the
        most important thing we have going for us in discussing
        these issues. It is the ONLY way that our concerns are
        anything more than the special desires of a minority. When
        people say "we want to de-emphasize economics," much of
        they're audience rightly wonders: Why do they want someone
        else to pay for what they want? And there is no need for
        this. The economics of these issues are largely on our
        side. Right now, EVERYONE subsidizes sprawl. The costs,
        direct and indirect, are LARGE. What we need to do is point
        that out, and argue for an end to a form of subsidy that
        has no rhyme or reason.
      • Louis-Luc
        ... Human health and well-being has (naturally) precedence over money, wealth, efficiency, etc..., anything else. Cars show a bundle of problems, like
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 4 5:00 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > "Louis-Luc" <exqmtl@...> also said:
          >
          > >So it means it is roughly 1 World Trade Center tragedy PER MONTH, that
          > >repeats over and over and over again each month, and the governments feel
          > >it's acceptable?
          >
          > That's exactly what bothers me. But not just that governments feel it's
          > acceptable, but that moms and dads feel that's acceptable. Those stats
          > include people's kids.
          > Michelle
          >
          Human health and well-being has (naturally) precedence over money, wealth,
          efficiency, etc..., anything else.

          Cars show a bundle of problems, like pollution, city land invasion,
          dependance, lack of physical activity, etc. Pro-car people will state the
          advantages of cars which are speed, performance, social status (according to
          these fanatics), ability to carry loads, etc.

          We must terminate the brainwashing task car, gas and other money-sucking
          car-related companies (including governments) are making to all of us, poor
          innocent people. Even pro-car people will admit cars are a PERPETUAL
          TRAGEDY. THEY KILL, KILL, KILL and KILL each day. If one doesn't see that,
          then that person will realize it too late when him or a family member is
          injured or killed by a car (or truck or other gas guzzler).

          A situation: assume the Ministry of Transports is in favor of building roads
          and more roads to accomodate cars. Then one, two or more people in his close
          family are suddenly killed by car accidents. Will he make is mind and become
          pro-transit, pro-walking or cycling?

          Today's load of Tears:
          The life of an innocent 5-year-old young girl ended dramatically after her
          school day when she has been hit by one of those "children carrier" minivans
          driven by an unexperimented person, as she stepped out of her school bus.

          Ask me tomorrow, the day after, and I'll dig one of these for you. Sometimes
          we even have to choose between many because there are too many to relate...

          Awful...

          Ask the question: "Do you prefer a slow healty lifestyle or no life at all,
          or handicapped life forever?".

          Louis-Luc
        • Vincent Hedger
          Jouis-Luc, Michelle, others, If you want to move beyond where we are, I urge you (at the risk of redundancy) to look at the INTRANET (Integrated International
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 5 5:28 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Jouis-Luc, Michelle, others,
            If you want to move beyond where we are, I urge you (at the risk of
            redundancy) to look at the INTRANET (Integrated International Transport
            Network) initiative on the home page of the Harrisonburg school's website-
            http://www.hburgsc.org I'm quite confident that if you take the time to
            understand the scope/sequence of this initiative, you'll appreciate that
            this is a key element in bringing about the changes that we are clammoring
            for.

            In order to move beyond this obsession with cars, we need a viable option.
            INTRANET is that viable option. what is needed to make it a reality is more
            voices speaking out in favor of implementation. YOur voices can help with
            this task. You can also help by telling others about this effort, and
            enlisting their help.

            Please look at this initiative.
            Most sincerely,
            Vincent Hedger


            >From: "Louis-Luc" <exqmtl@...>
            >Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
            >To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
            >Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Re: Carfree and Free Minded
            >Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:00:59 -0500
            >
            > > "Louis-Luc" <exqmtl@...> also said:
            > >
            > > >So it means it is roughly 1 World Trade Center tragedy PER MONTH, that
            > > >repeats over and over and over again each month, and the governments
            >feel
            > > >it's acceptable?
            > >
            > > That's exactly what bothers me. But not just that governments feel it's
            > > acceptable, but that moms and dads feel that's acceptable. Those stats
            > > include people's kids.
            > > Michelle
            > >
            >Human health and well-being has (naturally) precedence over money, wealth,
            >efficiency, etc..., anything else.
            >
            >Cars show a bundle of problems, like pollution, city land invasion,
            >dependance, lack of physical activity, etc. Pro-car people will state the
            >advantages of cars which are speed, performance, social status (according
            >to
            >these fanatics), ability to carry loads, etc.
            >
            >We must terminate the brainwashing task car, gas and other money-sucking
            >car-related companies (including governments) are making to all of us, poor
            >innocent people. Even pro-car people will admit cars are a PERPETUAL
            >TRAGEDY. THEY KILL, KILL, KILL and KILL each day. If one doesn't see that,
            >then that person will realize it too late when him or a family member is
            >injured or killed by a car (or truck or other gas guzzler).
            >
            >A situation: assume the Ministry of Transports is in favor of building
            >roads
            >and more roads to accomodate cars. Then one, two or more people in his
            >close
            >family are suddenly killed by car accidents. Will he make is mind and
            >become
            >pro-transit, pro-walking or cycling?
            >
            >Today's load of Tears:
            >The life of an innocent 5-year-old young girl ended dramatically after her
            >school day when she has been hit by one of those "children carrier"
            >minivans
            >driven by an unexperimented person, as she stepped out of her school bus.
            >
            >Ask me tomorrow, the day after, and I'll dig one of these for you.
            >Sometimes
            >we even have to choose between many because there are too many to relate...
            >
            >Awful...
            >
            >Ask the question: "Do you prefer a slow healty lifestyle or no life at all,
            >or handicapped life forever?".
            >
            >Louis-Luc
            >
            >
            >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/
            >
            >




            _________________________________________________________________
            Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
            http://www.hotmail.com
          • Robert Hines
            I ve been thinking about property tax reform a lot and its place on dismantling the suburban establishment. There are a lot of ideas on how existing suburbs
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 5 6:55 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              I've been thinking about property tax reform a lot and its place on
              dismantling the suburban establishment. There are a lot of ideas on how
              existing suburbs could be converted but I believe property tax is the
              first step to take.

              Upping the taxes on gas so that it covers the negative influence on our
              environment is a step to take eventually but then suburbanites would
              still be living in the suburbs and municipalities will have to provide
              more inefficient public transportation to carry them downtown and back
              unless the taxes would be raised so high that it would force people to
              move closer to efficient transit. Does anyone know what a litre of gas
              would cost if the taxes reflected its negative impact?

              Metrics would outlaw most homes in the suburbs and many in the city but
              it could work after we harness sprawl by making people pay for the
              benefits of open space, personal transportation, false sense of
              security, and a lackluster social life. But it would be chaos to impose
              this organized idea on paradigm which is the complete opposite.

              Money definitely talks in this profit margin world, people do not and
              will not pay for an expensive place to live and if they decide to, they
              will pay accordingly. I wholeheartedly support property tax reform but
              at the same time if these laws were adopted people would react in
              protest; these reforms would effect millions of people where it hurts
              the most, their pocketbook. They will argue that they will have to live
              in crime filled streets in the city, that it is their right to live in
              the suburbs, and that they will have to protect their children &
              families. These suburbanites have massive numbers, voting power, and
              money to spend on legal fees to protect their kingdom. How are planners
              and advocates going to deal with this?

              I'm all for a suburban relocation program, counselling would have to be
              provided free of charge of course.
            • Simon Baddeley
              Too often even the bereaved don t blame the car. They persist in thinking of what has happened as a tragic accident . This is a piece I have just written
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 5 2:02 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Too often even the bereaved don't blame the car. They persist in thinking of
                what has happened as a tragic "accident".

                This is a piece I have just written about our "Royal Society for the
                Prevention of Accidents" - RoSPA - which works with the car industry and
                perpetuates the idea of the "accident" and blames the victims of the car
                rather than the car and its drivers.


                RoSPA MYOPIAS
                The word "accident" contains a presumption. Shortly after the Selby crash,
                and
                long before the guilty verdict on the driver who caused it, the Bishop of
                Doncaster, said "Accidents are part of life. Tragically, accidents occur.
                And when they do occur I think we simply all have to be here, you know,
                pulling together and working with the people involved." He was seeking to
                convey a spirit of conciliation amid grief, but his words didn't feel right
                at the time and certainly not to a jury.

                "Accident" fixes a meaning which, in the case of death on the roads, is
                under pressure. I sat in a meeting a few weeks ago with the Attorney
                General, Peter Goldsmith, and the Solicitor General, Harriet Harman, as a
                two parent RoadPeace lobby asked gently but firmly why the courts are still
                delivering penalties for speeding way below the statutory limits. You can
                never quite gauge how seriously you are being taken at these events.
                Conversation is circumspect. The rationale for the meeting is that it is
                being held. What I noticed in the hour we were together was that neither
                politician nor the civil servants once used the word "accident". The concept
                and what it denotes are as real as ever, but in the case of deaths on the
                roads the great and the good are becoming cautious about the word
                "accident". Its use is becoming infrequent, and its growing conditionality
                may create difficulties for individuals and organisations who still believe
                they rely on an agreed and stable concept.

                The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) - whose mission
                and name enshrine the word "accident" - is fixed in the amber of an
                abandoned view of causality. The growing extraction of the word "accident"
                in discourse on road safety must be troubling to an institution with that
                word so prominent a part of its name and mind-set.

                RoSPA believe in accidents where more and more can see fault and
                liability.They see solutions in technical fixes, where others note the need
                for a change in attitudes to mobility, liability and duty to others.

                RoSPA tends, in the case of roads, to respond to symptoms instead of
                strategic sources of danger. Like doctors when they say "we must treat this
                symptomatically because we are at a loss to know from what you are
                suffering", RoSPA see as a series of separate and distinct events what
                others with no less scientific an approach recognise as epidemic.

                I wrote to RoSPA's patron, HM The Queen, about this, thinking, after the
                failure of other attempts to get into any sort of dialogue with RoSPA, that
                this would be a way to get a letter (or even a leaflet) answering my
                reproaches about their unwillingness to acknowledge road speed as a major
                public health problem causing widespread collateral damage across
                populations. The Palace responded politely thanking me for my letter and
                saying my observations and questions would be forwarded to RoSPA. RoSPA did
                not reply.

                Perhaps they are institutionally incapable of seeing what stares most of us
                in the face. Go back a century or so and you can imagine the position RoSPA
                might take in relation to waterborne disease. Faced with the statistics of
                infant mortality amongst the populations of our cities, RoSPA would be
                concentrating on the habits of the poor. I suspect that they would have been
                unable to get excited about the "excessive vision" of damming lakes in Wales
                and piping clean water over a 100 miles via a massive sanitation
                infrastructure that would pipe away foul water to unprecedently large sewage
                works. Their reflexive institutional focus is on the behaviour of victims
                and their personal hygiene.

                Such myopia had it been applied to waterborne disease would have made RoSPA
                a natural ally of those opposing so massive a public works programme as
                would be required to bring clean water to Birmingham (or less toxic forms of
                mobility to the whole UK).There were after all public voices claiming 19th
                century child mortality could be put down to the fecklessness of the poor.
                (see Asa Briggs' account in his histories of Birmingham for examples of
                fervent opposition mounted against plans to bring clean water to Birmingham
                and other industrial cities).

                If you looked at the sudden downward slopes in the child mortality rate
                graphs after the sewers and supply systems were completed you see that, by
                their attitude, people who took such "victim-blaming" stances were failing
                to ally themselves with - even directly opposing - one of the most dramatic
                improvements in quality of life of any public works programme in the last
                150 years.

                The Road Danger Reduction Forum, which split from those allied to RoSPA on
                these grounds, includes - formally and informally - all those
                individuals and groups committed to promoting a new agenda for road safety.
                It aims to reduce road danger at source, promoting equity and accessibility
                for non-motorised road users. Taming motorised traffic is not on RoSPA's
                agenda.

                It will claim deep concern about lives lost or damaged on the roads, but it
                does not - as an institution - recognise the notion of road danger as a
                public health problem causing blight and tragedy in the same way as did
                waterborne disease over a century ago. It does not recognise the
                impact of auto-dependency on air quality, noise pollution, community
                severance, urban sprawl, the distance between producers and consumers,
                energy waste and personal health, especially children's.

                This inability to respond to the pathological impact of our travel habits
                will be noted by historians of our times, but it would be so exciting
                if they could add a final paragraph attesting to the courage of people
                within RoSPA who caused it to make a major shift in strategy at the start of
                a new century.

                Simon Baddeley
                34 Beaudesert Road
                Handsworth
                Birmingham B20 3TG
                0121 554 9794
                07775 655842




                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Louis-Luc" <exqmtl@...>
                To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:00 AM
                Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Re: Carfree and Free Minded
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.