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

Law Suit for Human Scale Access.

Expand Messages
  • paulparma <info@venetianpassage.com>
    In my own city, Austin, by court ruling, transients can no longer be awakened from sleep in public space except to allow space for walkers, and other traffic.
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In my own city, Austin, by court ruling, transients can no longer be
      awakened from sleep in public space except to allow space for walkers,
      and other traffic. My unstudied understanding of this ruling is that
      it is based most on the idea that sleeping is a natural and
      expected part of human life, unlike phones, which is the basis for not
      being allowed to deduct ones phone bill from your tax base.

      So i was thinking I would look into filing a suit, with a like minded
      attorney which I already have acquantance of a few of in austin, that
      the City, State and Federal governments by their laws and ac tions
      have deprived me of my right to pursue my happiness by a msot natural
      and expected manner -- by walking.

      They have forced me to purchase a rather expensive car, and only at
      great personal effort and threat to my safety have I been able to
      change to the statistically rare mode of bicycling. This mode change
      limits my range , hence my ability to pursue my happiness, or better,
      to live my life. Walking limits my range so much I would have to live
      on top of the food didtribution points, which in the non-mixed use
      zoning, would have to be without a home. And although one is allowed
      to sleep anywhere by the resent court rulings, one is not allowed to
      camp in public spaces. This is considered to be a home. So to be a
      walker, I must by current law be either a street person, or be wealthy
      enough to afford New York or San Fransico.

      I have to hurry off, bt be=fore I bother an attorney with this and
      with the statement that, hey I can't afford this but I must do this if
      possible, please let me know if it worth our trouble.

      I am serious.

      Paul Parma
    • Jason Davies
      ... I doubt very much you will get anywhere, though I am not a lawyer, nor an American. You can still walk reasonably. You would have to prove that walking has
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        >I have to hurry off, bt be=fore I bother an attorney with this and
        >with the statement that, hey I can't afford this but I must do this if
        >possible, please let me know if it worth our trouble.


        I doubt very much you will get anywhere, though I am not a lawyer, nor an
        American. You can still walk reasonably. You would have to prove that
        walking has become inherently very dangerous and I doubt you could manage
        to do that.
      • turpin <turpin@yahoo.com>
        ... Well-l-l. What the court did was strike down part of an ordinance against public camping. Prior to the court decision, sleeping in a public space was, by
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          "paulparma <info@v...>" wrote:
          > In my own city, Austin, by
          > court ruling, transients can
          > no longer be awakened from
          > sleep in public space .. My
          > unstudied understanding of
          > this ruling is that it is
          > based most on the idea that
          > sleeping is a natural and
          > expected part of human life ..

          Well-l-l. What the court did was
          strike down part of an ordinance
          against public camping. Prior to
          the court decision, sleeping in
          a public space was, by itself,
          enough to run one afoul of the
          ordinance. The court, quite
          reasonably in my lay opinion,
          said the city has no power to
          forbid sleeping in public. It
          can forbid making a camp, but
          not mere sleeping. This is an
          issue because the police still
          roust transients who are merely
          sleeping.

          > So i was thinking I would look
          > into filing a suit .. that the
          > City, State and Federal
          > governments by their laws and
          > actions have deprived me of my
          > right to pursue my happiness by
          > a most natural and expected
          > manner -- by walking.

          Ah, but the city has NOT forbid
          you to walk. Yes, I understand
          that the road infrastructure
          throws up some impediment. But
          that's quite different from an
          ordinance forbidding it.

          For the sake of the rest of the
          group, I would point out that
          Austin is actually pretty fair
          as a walkable city. Our geography
          blesses us with greenbelts along
          flood creeks, many of which
          become natural walkways with few
          roads crossing them. (These also
          are natural camping spots for
          transients.) The city maintains
          a hike and bike path around the
          bisecting river. And some of the
          older neighborhoods are
          themselves very walkable. That
          said, the larger metro area
          suffers suburban sprawl.

          It's quite reasonable to go
          mostly or entirely car-free if
          you work in one of the inner
          areas. On the other hand, if
          you work for one of the companies
          far north or far south, or along
          360 or 183, then you're firmly
          screwed into commute by car.
        • J.H. Crawford
          Paul Parma threatened to sue the &*^&^#)@#. I think a better case can be made, as was recently successfully done in Tokyo, for suing for damage to health. The
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Paul Parma threatened to sue the &*^&^#)@#.

            I think a better case can be made, as was recently successfully
            done in Tokyo, for suing for damage to health. The grounds you
            proposed don't seem promising to me, although your lawyer may
            have other ideas. The health effects are pretty well demonstrated.

            Regards,





            -- ### --

            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
            mailbox@... Carfree.com
          • look384 <kevin.barton@t-online.de>
            I was quite surprised to see this question, as I was considering the same issue just today. What triggered my thought was the fact a pedestrian was hit by a
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              I was quite surprised to see this question, as I was considering the
              same issue just today. What triggered my thought was the fact a
              pedestrian was hit by a car yesterday less than a block from my
              office. My thought was basically the same as yours, could a person
              sue simply for being denied reasonable safety? Not whether you're
              prohibited from walking, but if city design and city ordinances make
              walking or cycling dangerous. One of the other replies pointed out
              you can walk in Austin, although they conceded there are parts of the
              developed city that aren't truly accessible by walking. Their
              example of walking was more recreational in nature than
              transportation. I believe a lawsuit based on inadequate or dangerous
              access for walking as a mode of transportation would have to be
              proven to be successful. I see two possible approaches.

              1) Driving is not a right or an obligation. Therefore those who
              choose to walk or ride a bike but don't have reasonable or safe
              access are being harmed, especially if you can show some physical
              (health) or economic harm.

              2) The American with Disabilities Act was my second thought, and may
              have better chance for success. However, I suspect you'd have to
              find someone with a disability who has been harmed by zoning laws and
              city design. I suppose that would be possible among the elderly,
              blind, deaf, or anyone who has been denied a drivers license simply
              for health or handicap reasons. The next step would be proving they
              don't have the same access as motorists.

              That's my suggestion as a laymen with one college class in business
              law. Personally, I would absolutely love to see someone win such a
              case, it might well set a precedent for every city in the country.
              If the zoning laws can be beat down, carfree or walkable communities
              could have a chance to prove their worth.

              Kevin

              --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "paulparma <info@v...>"
              <info@v...> wrote:
              > In my own city, Austin, by court ruling, transients can no longer
              be
              > awakened from sleep in public space except to allow space for
              walkers,
              > and other traffic. My unstudied understanding of this ruling is
              that
              > it is based most on the idea that sleeping is a natural and
              > expected part of human life, unlike phones, which is the basis for
              not
              > being allowed to deduct ones phone bill from your tax base.
              >
              > So i was thinking I would look into filing a suit, with a like
              minded
              > attorney which I already have acquantance of a few of in austin,
              that
              > the City, State and Federal governments by their laws and ac tions
              > have deprived me of my right to pursue my happiness by a msot
              natural
              > and expected manner -- by walking.
              >
              > They have forced me to purchase a rather expensive car, and only at
              > great personal effort and threat to my safety have I been able to
              > change to the statistically rare mode of bicycling. This mode
              change
              > limits my range , hence my ability to pursue my happiness, or
              better,
              > to live my life. Walking limits my range so much I would have to
              live
              > on top of the food didtribution points, which in the non-mixed use
              > zoning, would have to be without a home. And although one is
              allowed
              > to sleep anywhere by the resent court rulings, one is not allowed
              to
              > camp in public spaces. This is considered to be a home. So to be a
              > walker, I must by current law be either a street person, or be
              wealthy
              > enough to afford New York or San Fransico.
              >
              > I have to hurry off, bt be=fore I bother an attorney with this and
              > with the statement that, hey I can't afford this but I must do this
              if
              > possible, please let me know if it worth our trouble.
              >
              > I am serious.
              >
              > Paul Parma
            • Donna Lewandowski
              Hm. Somebody ought to contact John Banzhaf at GWU. See if one of his classes on legal activism would be interested... -donna. ... From: look384
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Hm. Somebody ought to contact John Banzhaf at GWU. See if one of his
                classes on legal activism would be interested...

                -donna.



                -----Original Message-----
                From: look384 <kevin.barton@...>
                [mailto:kevin.barton@...]
                Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:05 PM
                To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: Law Suit for Human Scale Access.


                I was quite surprised to see this question, as I was considering the
                same issue just today. What triggered my thought was the fact a
                pedestrian was hit by a car yesterday less than a block from my
                office. My thought was basically the same as yours, could a person
                sue simply for being denied reasonable safety? Not whether you're
                prohibited from walking, but if city design and city ordinances make
                walking or cycling dangerous. One of the other replies pointed out
                you can walk in Austin, although they conceded there are parts of the
                developed city that aren't truly accessible by walking. Their
                example of walking was more recreational in nature than
                transportation. I believe a lawsuit based on inadequate or dangerous
                access for walking as a mode of transportation would have to be
                proven to be successful. I see two possible approaches.

                1) Driving is not a right or an obligation. Therefore those who
                choose to walk or ride a bike but don't have reasonable or safe
                access are being harmed, especially if you can show some physical
                (health) or economic harm.

                2) The American with Disabilities Act was my second thought, and may
                have better chance for success. However, I suspect you'd have to
                find someone with a disability who has been harmed by zoning laws and
                city design. I suppose that would be possible among the elderly,
                blind, deaf, or anyone who has been denied a drivers license simply
                for health or handicap reasons. The next step would be proving they
                don't have the same access as motorists.

                That's my suggestion as a laymen with one college class in business
                law. Personally, I would absolutely love to see someone win such a
                case, it might well set a precedent for every city in the country.
                If the zoning laws can be beat down, carfree or walkable communities
                could have a chance to prove their worth.

                Kevin

                --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "paulparma <info@v...>"
                <info@v...> wrote:
                > In my own city, Austin, by court ruling, transients can no longer
                be
                > awakened from sleep in public space except to allow space for
                walkers,
                > and other traffic. My unstudied understanding of this ruling is
                that
                > it is based most on the idea that sleeping is a natural and
                > expected part of human life, unlike phones, which is the basis for
                not
                > being allowed to deduct ones phone bill from your tax base.
                >
                > So i was thinking I would look into filing a suit, with a like
                minded
                > attorney which I already have acquantance of a few of in austin,
                that
                > the City, State and Federal governments by their laws and ac tions
                > have deprived me of my right to pursue my happiness by a msot
                natural
                > and expected manner -- by walking.
                >
                > They have forced me to purchase a rather expensive car, and only at
                > great personal effort and threat to my safety have I been able to
                > change to the statistically rare mode of bicycling. This mode
                change
                > limits my range , hence my ability to pursue my happiness, or
                better,
                > to live my life. Walking limits my range so much I would have to
                live
                > on top of the food didtribution points, which in the non-mixed use
                > zoning, would have to be without a home. And although one is
                allowed
                > to sleep anywhere by the resent court rulings, one is not allowed
                to
                > camp in public spaces. This is considered to be a home. So to be a
                > walker, I must by current law be either a street person, or be
                wealthy
                > enough to afford New York or San Fransico.
                >
                > I have to hurry off, bt be=fore I bother an attorney with this and
                > with the statement that, hey I can't afford this but I must do this
                if
                > possible, please let me know if it worth our trouble.
                >
                > I am serious.
                >
                > Paul Parma


                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/
              • turpin <turpin@yahoo.com>
                ... I m that respondent, and that is not what I said or implied. For two years, I walked to work. I still do most of my daily chores by foot. I drew a
                Message 7 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  <kevin.barton@t...>" wrote:
                  > One of the other replies
                  > pointed out you can walk in
                  > Austin, although they
                  > conceded there are parts of
                  > the developed city that
                  > aren't truly accessible by
                  > walking. Their example of
                  > walking was more recreational
                  > in nature than transportation.

                  I'm that respondent, and that
                  is not what I said or implied.
                  For two years, I walked to work.
                  I still do most of my daily
                  chores by foot.

                  I drew a distinction between
                  the inner parts of the city,
                  which is mostly walkable, for
                  recreation or transportation,
                  and the outer parts, which are
                  much less so. If you live in
                  an inner neighborhood like
                  Hyde Park or Bouldin, and work
                  in downtown, you can walk
                  wherever you need to go. If
                  you live in a bedroom community
                  such as Oak Hill, and work on
                  the 360 loop, then you have to
                  drive.

                  Distance dictates that as much
                  as anything else. I live four
                  miles from downtown, and three
                  from west Austin, where I once
                  worked. Those are reasonable
                  distances for daily commuting
                  by foot. In contrast, Oak Hill
                  is ten or twelve miles from
                  the 360 bridge. That's too far
                  for a daily commute, EVEN IF
                  there were a walking route.

                  That's the result of sprawl,
                  of course. Every decade,
                  developers built and sold
                  houses on "cheap" land outside
                  whatever was then considered
                  "near," and left the city to
                  deal with the transportation
                  problems that caused. The city
                  did the usual thing, building
                  highways to the various
                  neighborhoods, enabling the
                  next round of development.
                  But arguing that sprawl is,
                  by itself, a municipal
                  decision that prevents access
                  would be a subtle (and likely
                  untenable) argument. We all
                  know how it would be defended.

                  The old city is still in the
                  center, and still pretty
                  walkable. It's not the "old
                  Austin," of course. That died
                  with the Armadillo World
                  Headquarters. Or when Janis
                  Joplin died. Or when the
                  person telling the story
                  graduated college and had to
                  find employment.
                • Steve <esdol@sprint.ca>
                  Kevin, I m a person with a disability, born with Cerebral Palsy and use a wheelchair or two (I have two, one manual and a motorrised chair). Your second
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Kevin,

                    I'm a person with a disability, born with Cerebral Palsy and use a
                    wheelchair or two (I have two, one manual and a motorrised chair).
                    Your second possibility had my ears going straight up at attention,
                    here's why.

                    I often go for walks and roll with my wife and we were close few
                    times of being hit by motorists who don't obey the pedestrian only
                    light or signal that goes on before the green one for motorists on
                    Sacré-Coeur Blvd which has four lanes to cross. If we were hit, we
                    would have definitely take both the motorist and maybe the city of
                    Gatineau (amalgamated Gatineau), Quebec, Canada - across from Ottawa,
                    Ontario) for not doing enough to advertise to motorists not to turn
                    on a pedestrian only light or signal.

                    You don't need to be an "abled-person" instead of abled-bodied person
                    to become more disabled.

                    Steve Dolesch
                  • Tom Tromey
                    ... At least twice in the last few years some Boulderite has written anti-cycling letters to the local paper from this point of view. Her contention is that
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >>>>> ">" == "look384 <kevin.barton@...>" <kevin.barton@...> writes:

                      >> 2) The American with Disabilities Act was my second thought, and may
                      >> have better chance for success. However, I suspect you'd have to
                      >> find someone with a disability who has been harmed by zoning laws and
                      >> city design. I suppose that would be possible among the elderly,
                      >> blind, deaf, or anyone who has been denied a drivers license simply
                      >> for health or handicap reasons.

                      At least twice in the last few years some Boulderite has written
                      anti-cycling letters to the local paper from this point of view. Her
                      contention is that driving is simpler and more enabling for those who
                      have physical difficulties. As I recall she also opined that biking
                      would only ever be reasonable for young, healthy males.

                      Tom
                    • paulparma <info@venetianpassage.com>
                      ... This is a sticky point here I think. Is four miles a reasonable distance to walk? To bike ride it, it definately is, timewise. But I have more safety
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "turpin <turpin@y...>"
                        <turpin@y...> wrote:
                        > .....
                        > I drew a distinction between
                        > the inner parts of the city,
                        > which is mostly walkable, for
                        > recreation or transportation,
                        >.....
                        > If you live in
                        > an inner neighborhood like
                        > Hyde Park or Bouldin, and work
                        > in downtown, you can walk
                        > wherever you need to go.
                        > ....
                        > Distance dictates that as much
                        > as anything else. I live four
                        > miles from downtown, and three
                        > from west Austin, where I once
                        > worked. Those are reasonable
                        > distances for daily commuting
                        > by foot.
                        > ......
                        > The old city is still in the
                        > center, and still pretty
                        > walkable. It's not the "old
                        > Austin," of course.

                        This is a sticky point here I think. Is four miles a reasonable
                        distance to walk? To bike ride it, it definately is, timewise. But I
                        have more safety and accomodation as a walker over any arbitrary four
                        mile trip from the center of downtown Austin than I do as a bike
                        rider; a four inch curb or a do nothing police attitude towards autos
                        parked on sidewalks (or even a lack of sidewalks) is more safely
                        managed on foot then with a much faster, clumsier and larger bike and
                        rider. The faster speed of a bike makes a tendancy of drivers to not
                        be looking for a non-auto all the more likely to end in a bike rider
                        tragedy than a pedestrian, i think.

                        J.H. has consitantly used a .25 mile distance to well managed and
                        frequent service metro stops; I use this as my target distance in my
                        make work projects, this would only be a datum in a court case
                        however. I wouldn't think it would be held as a standard though I
                        think it should; But a four mile walk for the average, in shape human
                        is a 1 hour and twenty minute walk. Robert Moses walked six miles to
                        work each day in Manhatten before he moved to Albany; maybe this is
                        why he trained an entire generation of highway engineers (just kidding
                        about the connection.). Robert Caro meantioned this datum because it
                        seemed more hyperbole or legand than true - but it was true. You are
                        suggesting that this is a reasonable option for folks i believe. I
                        respectfully don't think it is. You and Robert Moses are exceptional
                        walkers. I walked an hour and a half two nights ago to Northcross
                        transit center from further up northwest and I ached all over. "Tot I
                        was gonna die!" Okay I had just pulled an all nighter, but I am a
                        relatively strong walker, and I ride a bike daily. Its not a
                        reasonable distance. If it was, a real percentage of people would be
                        doing it. I doubt if 0.01 percent, that's 1 out of every 10,000 of
                        the people in central Austin choose to walk to work. Much less so if
                        their walk is more than three miles. I don't even see other people
                        walking when my wife and I go on our recreational walks in our central
                        austin neiborhood (just north of French place) except for folks with
                        dogs. This is the real sticky point; is it an unresonable distance?
                        If it is unreasonable, is that enough legally? And if you live
                        there, you would reasonably be expected to work outside of the central
                        area. Do you have a choice of where you work? I choose to work in
                        downtown! Hey I don't work downtown? But I choose to... I still don't
                        work downtown... #$%&*$% Darn it, this choosing thing ain't working
                        out. If we had more density, there would be more job options in a
                        given area then my reality would more likely match my wish.

                        The distances and lack of density even in old Austin in this central
                        region you speak of in fact can not and could not support a true
                        walkable option, as I define a walkable option. The old Trams or
                        Electric Trolleys as we call them here, rarely made money in Austin
                        even in the pre-auto era. Why? Because there wasn't enough density in
                        my studied opinion. Never had it. In I believe 1941, Austin grew to
                        the scale we are talking here, to fill in what we generally refer to
                        as Central Austin; they tore up all the trolley tracks and overheads
                        that year. Low densities limit headways to keep ridership up which
                        increases passenger waits at stops, which deters potential riders
                        which further increases headway... until a steady state point is
                        reached (suppose the bus folks have table for this
                        psycologically/density driven system, in which the there is no 'until'
                        , people see the 30 minute or longer headways on the routes and say
                        "to heck with that, its not a reasonable option!"). So that even when
                        supplimented by buses, it is not a resonable proposition without a
                        car, for a big percentage of us.

                        Not providing a mechanism for a walkable option, that is requiring 25
                        foot setbacks over regions as close as one mile from the center of
                        downtown, is only part of the problem (BTW, where ther is no such
                        setback and cars are still parked in front, the tails of the cars
                        usually are in the sidewalk area). Since the cities, states and US
                        government didn't commit so much public money to Highways via the '56
                        Act, and since they didn't commit any public money to transit or
                        density accomodation (thereby limiting auto road permeation into ALL
                        CITY REGIONS, including DOWNTOWN) there is no reasonable walkable
                        option in Austin. Anyway I'm still leaning towards burdening an
                        attorney's time.

                        He or she may tell me the same thing you just said ofcourse. So thanks
                        for trying to talk me out of what may seem like a waste of time to
                        you.


                        > But arguing that sprawl is,
                        > by itself, a municipal
                        > decision that prevents access
                        > would be a subtle (and likely
                        > untenable) argument. We all
                        > know how it would be defended.
                        >

                        I hope suing the city, state and US jointly would handle that. I
                        haven't a clue obviously about the real legal issues.
                      • Jason Davies
                        ... lucky for her eh? what a bunch of lunatics they can be..:-)
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >As I recall she also opined that biking would only ever be reasonable
                          >for young, healthy males.


                          lucky for her eh?

                          what a bunch of lunatics they can be..:-)
                        • Chris Bradshaw
                          ... I think there are a number of matters that a lawyer -- or a law class -- could work on if they decided to specialize on promoting walking. For instance,
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Donna Lewandowski wrote:

                            > Hm. Somebody ought to contact John Banzhaf at GWU. See if one of his
                            > classes on legal activism would be interested...

                            I think there are a number of matters that a lawyer -- or a law class --
                            could work on if they decided to specialize on promoting walking.

                            For instance, what about the equal-protection amendment of the U.S.
                            Constitution and the fact that federal funding of roadways doesn't
                            provide all citizen fair access to them?

                            If the police are to protect the weak from the strong, doesn't that mean
                            they need to protect the vulnerable from those driving motor vehicles?

                            Doesn't the equal-protection law make the highway traffic act illegal to
                            the extent that pedestrians can be ticketed for entering a crosswalk
                            during the time the DON'T-WALK signal is flashing, even though drivers
                            can enter when the amber light (the equavalent of the DON'T-WALK) is on?

                            And does the rule that a driver must yield to a pedestrian in a
                            crosswalk only if the ped is in his "half" of the roadway offer proper
                            protection? Why doesn't the pedestrian approaching the path of the
                            motorist from the other half or from the sidewalk not constitute
                            "approaching traffic" as applied to motor traffic? Do motor vehicles
                            have "a path" ahead of them and not pedestrians?

                            If laws require all deaths in workplaces, in prisons, or in hospitals to
                            be investigated as to cause, why are not deaths of persons on public
                            roadways, especially pedestrians, always followed by inquests. Will
                            they even be reduced without such follow-up?

                            If one person threatens another with harm with a weapon, why isn't it
                            considers assault when a motorist uses his vehicle to intimidate a
                            pedestrian not to exercise his right to use a crosswalk?

                            If there are standards for sidewalks being level (within 2% of level),
                            why is this standard sacrificed at places where the adjacent building
                            owner needs to access his property with a motor vehicle (which have all
                            the capability -- pneumatic tires, springs, etc. -- to mount curbs,
                            albeit at walking, not driving speed)?

                            Why are the penalties for colliding with a pedestrian so small, or
                            non-existent?

                            Is the law blind as to travel mode?

                            Chris Bradshaw
                          • Louis-Luc
                            Hi. That s a good point to sue city planners and even those unfair governments who base everything on cars. Your near accident would have been avoid if that
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jan 30, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi.
                              That's a good point to sue city planners and even
                              those unfair governments who base everything on cars.

                              Your "near accident" would have been avoid if that
                              stupid Quebec gov't wouldn't introduced that unfair
                              right turn on red "priviledge" for drivers which
                              becomes an obstacle for carfree road users.

                              Let's DENOUNCE those TERRORISTS (hey, let's
                              qualify them properly) ruling our province,
                              as well as Maine State just south of the border
                              who intend to take off the act that gives ROW to
                              peds on crosswalks. They're FOOLS!!! I'm sure other
                              states, provinces or countries gov'ts deteriorate
                              rights to accomplish natural transportation mode usage.

                              I'm a low vision person. I see enough in front of me
                              to walk where ever I want to go, ... until you
                              introduce cars in the environment. Then I need to
                              be with someone, to have a cane, and even then it
                              is not 100% safe like a firewall. I'll always remember
                              the day I was guiding a totally blind person with me
                              when one of those stupid motorists rolled his red
                              frightening me... Normally, I see enough to guide a
                              blind person, but with that motorist, both my
                              cane and his were not sufficent to identify or protect
                              us.

                              Since my childhood, I've dreamed of crosswalks with
                              6" thick steel wall that pop out on either side as
                              a pedestrian steps into the crosswalk. Beware drivers,
                              if you don't want to end your journey into the wall,
                              you'd better watch for pedestrians when you approach
                              a crosswalk.

                              Sorry, but my feeling of anger against all these injustices make me write
                              the ideal case, but I'm not
                              shy of showing it to people who are able to understand
                              the point.

                              Sincerely,
                              Louis-Luc

                              P.S.: I think a good lawyer would understand all these
                              injustices, and be able to win a cause.
                            • Steve <esdol@sprint.ca>
                              Louis-Luc, You are wrong when you say: Your near accident would have been avoid if that stupid Quebec gov t wouldn t introduced that unfair right turn on
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jan 31, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Louis-Luc,

                                You are wrong when you say:

                                "Your "near accident" would have been avoid if that stupid Quebec
                                gov't wouldn't introduced that unfair right turn on red "priviledge"
                                for drivers which becomes an obstacle for carfree road users."

                                For one thing I forgot to mention that it's when they turn LEFT not
                                RIGHT. Second, it's the motorists (or pedestrians and cyclists) who
                                drive and may cause accidents not because of certain laws. It's like
                                blaming the cell phone when it's the person that is the cause of an
                                accident, not an object held by a hand of a person!

                                Steve
                              • Simon Baddeley
                                Who s most dangerous? Hannibal Lecter on a bicycle or Mary Poppins in an SUV? Simon (:-)) ... From: Jason Davies To:
                                Message 15 of 17 , Feb 2, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Who's most dangerous? Hannibal Lecter on a bicycle or Mary Poppins in an
                                  SUV?
                                  Simon (:-))
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Jason Davies" <jason@...>
                                  To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 11:28 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Law Suit for Human Scale Access.

                                  . So you will also be launching against any kind
                                  > of vehicle that could harm people or cost anything. The only difference is
                                  > one of degree so finding a cut -off point is going to be very hard to get
                                  > any consensus on.
                                • Valentin Serrano
                                  LOL!!!! ... From: Simon Baddeley To: Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:21 AM Subject: Re:
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Feb 2, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    LOL!!!!

                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: "Simon Baddeley" <s.j.baddeley@...>
                                    To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:21 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Law Suit for Human Scale Access.


                                    > Who's most dangerous? Hannibal Lecter on a bicycle or Mary Poppins in an
                                    > SUV?
                                    > Simon (:-))
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > From: "Jason Davies" <jason@...>
                                    > To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 11:28 PM
                                    > Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Law Suit for Human Scale Access.
                                    >
                                    > . So you will also be launching against any kind
                                    > > of vehicle that could harm people or cost anything. The only difference
                                    is
                                    > > one of degree so finding a cut -off point is going to be very hard to
                                    get
                                    > > any consensus on.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > 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/
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Jason Davies
                                    ... he:-) Well, in my experience, I wouldn t like to choose. I ve been done more harm by pedestrians and cyclists than cars so far, *and* I do a school run
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Feb 2, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      >Who's most dangerous? Hannibal Lecter on a bicycle or Mary Poppins in
                                      >an SUV?


                                      he:-) Well, in my experience, I wouldn't like to choose. I've been done
                                      more harm by pedestrians and cyclists than cars so far, *and* I do a school
                                      run with a trailer bike to a raod with a school at each end (we of course
                                      go to the opposite end...). So toss a coin for me...:-)

                                      I have also been the lucky boy a few times; I owe especial thanks to one
                                      driver, who was almost obliged to kill me because of the actions of another
                                      motorist, managing to pull off a miracle stop/avoid me.
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.