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

Re: [carfree_cities] FAQ

Expand Messages
  • J.H. Crawford
    ... Bicycling is actually not required in a carfree city. Walking is, and public transport usage is, for longer distances, but a carfree city can exist without
    Message 1 of 11 , May 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Andras Toth said:


      >"Some people say we should cycle instead of driving a car in town. That
      >sounds like nonsense. Cycling is dangerous for your health because you
      >breathe in exhaust fumes from cars directly and more intensely, and also
      >because it does not shield you if there is an accident. In addition, the
      >bicycle requires effort, is slow, does not take you far, gets you sweaty
      >and dirty, cannot be safely parked, cannot transport your shopping and
      >children, and does not offer any protection against weather! How could it
      >be a realistic alternative?"

      Bicycling is actually not required in a carfree city. Walking is, and
      public transport usage is, for longer distances, but a carfree city
      can exist without bicycles, as does Venice.


      I'm keeping a list of this stuff so far, but I can't take on the
      long-term management of a FAQ. I've just got too much else to do,
      including finishing work on the book-length City Design section of
      Carfree.com. So, we need a volunteer.



      -- ### --

      J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
      mailbox@... Carfree.com
    • J.H. Crawford
      ... This appears to be because exhaust fumes somehow tend to concentrate in cars--the actual interior air quality is appreciably worse than the outside air.
      Message 2 of 11 , May 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Henning Mortensen replied:

        >>From: Andras Toth <toth_andras@...>

        >>" Cycling is dangerous for your health because you
        >>breathe in exhaust fumes from cars directly and more intensely, and also
        >>because it does not shield you if there is an accident.
        >
        >
        >I believe there is a study somewhere on carfree.com which contradicts the
        >health issue quite clearly indicating that people in cars actually suffer
        >more from car fumes.

        This appears to be because exhaust fumes somehow tend to concentrate
        in cars--the actual interior air quality is appreciably worse than
        the outside air.

        >As for the safety with regards to accidents, it must be noted that a bicycle
        >is a very safe vehicle.

        Not really. When forced to ride in traffic, biking is statistically
        considerably much more dangerous than driving (walking is worse still).
        This is, of course, because of vehicular traffic. (The statistics
        are on the basis of distance travelled, not years.)

        The Dutch have determined, however, that biking is a net pubilc health
        gain, because the extra exercize is so healthy. This is, of course,
        in a society where the air is generally fairly good (when the wind
        isn't blowing out of the Ruhr Valley), car traffic in cities is
        moderate, and there is a long tradition of biking, with virtually
        every family owning and using bikes regularly.




        -- ### --

        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
        mailbox@... Carfree.com
      • Mark Rauterkus
        Housekeeping @ FAQ Hi All, As to the FAQ, please make it FAQ & As. The questions are a start, but we need the answers.
        Message 3 of 11 , May 4, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Housekeeping @ FAQ


          Hi All,

          As to the FAQ, please make it FAQ & As. The questions are a start, but we
          need the answers. <;O

          The FAQ & A could be put into the public domain -- or put under a most
          liberal copyright and reuse license, such as the Design Science License
          (www.dsl.org). Then others can freely repost and make modifications.

          A WEB DAV or CVS tree can be established so others can be trusted users to
          add and adjust the contributions. Distributed editing and updates. A
          threaded discussion board may work less well as would a "moderated"
          NEWSGROUP.

          The email discussion group (this) could have a policy that folks working on
          the FAQ content make the sumbission with the Subject line: SUMMARY.

          We might be able to organize / maintain the publi FAQ & A with a new venture
          I'm pitching in my area -- a Community Learning Outreach Hub (
          http://CLOH.Org ). But, that hand-off won't come about until Sept-Oct 2003.

          Thanks for all you do!

          Ta.

          Mark Rauterkus
          mark@... http://Rauterkus.com
        • J.H. Crawford
          ... Let s just call it the FAQ, since that s the normal name. It always comes with answers! ... I agree, I don t think it should be copyrighted at all. ... I
          Message 4 of 11 , May 5, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Mark Rauterkus said:

            >As to the FAQ, please make it FAQ & As. The questions are a start, but we
            >need the answers. <;O

            Let's just call it the FAQ, since that's the normal name. It always
            comes with answers!

            >The FAQ & A could be put into the public domain.

            I agree, I don't think it should be copyrighted at all.

            >A WEB DAV or CVS tree can be established so others can be trusted users to
            >add and adjust the contributions. Distributed editing and updates. A
            >threaded discussion board may work less well as would a "moderated"
            >NEWSGROUP.

            I don't know how this works.

            >The email discussion group (this) could have a policy that folks working on
            >the FAQ content make the sumbission with the Subject line: SUMMARY.

            That's a big ambiguous, let's just use "FAQ", which is not.

            >We might be able to organize / maintain the publi FAQ & A with a new venture
            >I'm pitching in my area -- a Community Learning Outreach Hub (
            >http://CLOH.Org ). But, that hand-off won't come about until Sept-Oct 2003.

            Keep us posted. I think for now it should be fairly simple, not more
            than 20 questions, and as far as I'm concerned, it could go on the
            new Carfree Institute site. Carfree.com would host it, of course, if
            need be.

            Regards,



            -- ### --

            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
            mailbox@... Carfree.com
          • T. J. Binkley
            ... Yes. It has been demonstrated that exhaust fumes get concentrated in a car s interior---therefore a pedestrian standing outside the car may be breathing
            Message 5 of 11 , May 5, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              >
              >I believe there is a study somewhere on carfree.com which contradicts the
              >health issue quite clearly indicating that people in cars actually suffer
              >more from car fumes.

              Yes. It has been demonstrated that exhaust fumes get concentrated in a
              car's interior---therefore a pedestrian standing outside the car may be
              breathing in less toxic air. Not so sure about a vigorously breathing
              cyclist or jogger though...

              >I believe the hypothesis is that because you are
              >breathing deeper and more vigorously the crud does not settle in your lungs.

              ...actually breathing deeper and more vigorously DOES cause more of the
              crud to irritate your lungs. This was demonstrated by recent studies
              linking increased asthma incidence in urban children, and even higher
              incidence in urban children who participate in lots of outdoor sports.

              >Anyone have the citation?

              Data on air quality inside cars:
              Gee I.L. and Raper D.W., 'Commuter exposure to respirable particles inside
              buses and by bicycle', The Science of the Total Environment, 235, 403-405
              (1999)
              Kingham S., Meaton J., Sheard A. and Lawrenson O., 'Assessment of exposure to
              traffic-related fumes during the journey to work', Transpn Res.-D, vol 3 no
              4, 271-274 (1998)
              Lawryk, N. J. and Weisel, C. P., 'Concentrations of volatile organic
              compounds in
              passenger compartments of automobiles', Environmental Science Technology
              30, 810-816 (1996)
              Van Wijnen, J. H., Verhoeff, A. P., Jans, H. W. A. and van Bruggen, M.,
              'The exposure of cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians to traffic-related
              air pollutants', International Archives of
              Environmental Health 67, 187-193 (1995)
              --
              Dr Adrian Croucher
              Department of Engineering Science
              University of Auckland
              New Zealand
              tel 64-9-373-7599 ext 4611


              A. Exclusive Official study shows that air pollution causes the
              disease affecting 5m Britons
              By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
              Pollution from car exhausts causes asthma, dramatic new official research
              shows.
              A massive study, backed by the Californian and US governments, has
              demonstrated for the first time that ozone, the main component of smog, can
              cause healthy children to develop the life-threatening condition. Top
              British scientists believe it has provided the "smoking gun" that finally
              links pollution to the disease.
              The conclusion - which vindicates an Independent on Sunday campaign that
              began more than eight years ago - is likely to have an explosive effect on
              transport and health policy in Britain, which suffers from the highest
              incidence of asthma in Europe.
              It comes as the Government's own chief scientific adviser, Professor David
              King, calls for a ban on the sale of petrol and diesel, a measure that
              would drastically reduce the pollutants that cause asthma and global
              warming. He says announcing a ban to take effect some years in the future
              would force companies to develop "green" cars running on electricity and
              hydrogen.
              More than one in every seven children in the country now suffers from
              asthma - six times as many as 25 years ago - and, in all, five million
              Britons have the disease: 18,000 new cases are diagnosed each week, and
              1,500 people die from it every year.
              Yet the Government has done little to tackle the pollution now being
              identified as one of the causes of the epidemic. Ozone is excluded from
              national measures being implemented by local authorities to tackle
              contaminated air.
              Scientists have long agreed that ozone exacerbates the disease in those who
              have it, and many have suspected that it causes it in the first place. But
              in the absence of proof there has been little political interest in
              tackling it. The new study breaks the impasse.
              "We have known for some time that smog can trigger attacks in asthmatics,"
              says Alan C Lloyd, California's top air pollution official. "This study
              has shown that ozone can cause asthma as well."
              Professor Rob McConnell of the University of Southern California, the
              leading author of the study, and his colleagues made the connection by
              mounting the first study of its kind into the disease in children. They
              identified 3,535 children aged nine and over, with no history of asthma,
              living in both smoggy and relatively unpolluted towns and suburbs, and
              recorded what happen to them over the next five years.
              Uniquely, they took particular notice of how much sport the children
              played. Sporty children are exposed to more air pollution, both because
              they spend more time outdoors and because vigorous exercise makes them
              breathe 17 times faster, and draws air deeper into the lungs.
              They found that children who played three or more sports in smoggy areas
              were more than three times more likely to get asthma than equally active
              children in relatively unpolluted ones. Less sporty children in polluted
              towns and suburbs were also more likely to get the disease, though not to
              the same extent.
              Top British experts last week hailed the study as a breakthrough. "It is
              very, very important - the first paper I know of that suggests that
              pollution may cause asthma," said Dr John Ayres, professor of respiratory
              medicine at the University of Birmingham.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.