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

Talking Points: The huge subsudy for driving

Expand Messages
  • Coast 2 Coast
    Hi All from Jerome in Tucson, Arizona, USA. I m mostly a lurker on this an other car-free bulletin boards. I ve been car-free and ped-centric for about 8
    Message 1 of 15 , Sep 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All from Jerome in Tucson, Arizona, USA.

      I'm mostly a lurker on this an other car-free bulletin boards. I've been
      car-free and ped-centric for about 8 years.

      Recently turpin had a provocative post regarding "the huge subsudy for
      driving."
      Is anyone aware of a site where this idea is fleshed out a bit more, perhaps
      in the form of talking points, or a strategy to engage other citizens?

      My reason for this is quite practical:

      Recently I met a husband/wife couple of what appeared to be mellow,
      utilitarian cyclists pedaling cross town in my direction. We started
      chatting about our various cycling habits, shared a few favorite scenic
      routes, short-cuts etc. I was feeling like I had made two new friends.

      Then out of nowhere came the following comment from one of my interlocuters:

      "I think we cyclists need to move over and give priority to the motorists,
      since they're the ones who are paying for the roads with their fuel taxes,
      unlike us, who are riding for free..."

      Needless to say, I was dumbfounded by this remark, such that I didn't even
      know what to say. I thought for a moment that this was an attempt at irony.
      I've heard comments like this from angry cagers, but never from what
      appreared to be evolved, reflective folks.

      Alas, it was near the end of our conversation, and both of us had to get on
      our ways, so I didn't say anything to the cyclists. Instead I rolled my
      tongue back into my mouth, picked my chin up from the kerb, and wished them
      good cycling.

      But if I ever happen upon either of them again, I would like to be ready and
      have an enlightened conversation. Any suggestions for how I might
      respectfully revisit this comment?

      Regards,

      Jerome

      _________________________________________________________________
      Help protect your PC: Get a free online virus scan at McAfee.com.
      http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
    • Richard Risemberg
      As always, http://www.vtpi.org is the place to start. Richard ... From: Coast 2 Coast Sent: 09/03/03 12:45 PM To:
      Message 2 of 15 , Sep 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        As always, http://www.vtpi.org is the place to start.

        Richard
        -------Original Message-------
        From: Coast 2 Coast <coast2coast2@...>
        Sent: 09/03/03 12:45 PM
        To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [carfree_cities] Talking Points: The huge subsudy for driving

        >
        > Hi All from Jerome in Tucson, Arizona, USA.

        I'm mostly a lurker on this an other car-free bulletin boards. I've been
        car-free and ped-centric for about 8 years.

        Recently turpin had a provocative post regarding "the huge subsudy for
        driving."
        Is anyone aware of a site where this idea is fleshed out a bit more,
        perhaps
        in the form of talking points, or a strategy to engage other citizens?

        My reason for this is quite practical:

        Recently I met a husband/wife couple of what appeared to be mellow,
        utilitarian cyclists pedaling cross town in my direction. We started
        chatting about our various cycling habits, shared a few favorite scenic
        routes, short-cuts etc. I was feeling like I had made two new friends.

        Then out of nowhere came the following comment from one of my
        interlocuters:

        "I think we cyclists need to move over and give priority to the motorists,

        since they're the ones who are paying for the roads with their fuel taxes,

        unlike us, who are riding for free..."

        Needless to say, I was dumbfounded by this remark, such that I didn't even

        know what to say. I thought for a moment that this was an attempt at
        irony.
        I've heard comments like this from angry cagers, but never from what
        appreared to be evolved, reflective folks.

        Alas, it was near the end of our conversation, and both of us had to get
        on
        our ways, so I didn't say anything to the cyclists. Instead I rolled my
        tongue back into my mouth, picked my chin up from the kerb, and wished
        them
        good cycling.

        But if I ever happen upon either of them again, I would like to be ready
        and
        have an enlightened conversation. Any suggestions for how I might
        respectfully revisit this comment?

        Regards,

        Jerome

        _________________________________________________________________
        Help protect your PC: Get a free online virus scan at McAfee.com.
        http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


        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/


        >
      • Louis-Luc
        Furthermore, cyclists do not damage the road when using it (as do cars, and even more SUVs). And motor vehicles are more a threat to life quality notonly on
        Message 3 of 15 , Sep 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Furthermore, cyclists do not damage the road when
          using it (as do cars, and even more SUVs). And motor
          vehicles are more a threat to life quality notonly
          on the roads, but around them, with their nuisance
          to the environment and public safety. Before the
          invasion of cars, people had much more space available
          as public, and were not stressed by traffic when
          walking.

          My uncle also made me that surprizing remark that
          cyclists do not deserve a full road access. I told
          him that he was wrong totally. That's surprising,
          because my uncle walks and cycles a lot (but also
          drives) and is for full pedestrian rights on sidewalks
          (as I am), but wants to confine cycling to bicycle
          paths...
          The fear I have about bicycle paths is that drivers
          may wrongly think cyclists don't have the full access
          to the road as well. Bicycles are vehicles, and I'm
          in favor of giving them full road space, but not
          sidewalks. Sidewalks are for walking not vehicles.
          We have so little space for walking, so until we get
          more, we have to keep what we have.

          Louis-Luc

          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: dubluth [mailto:dubluth@...]
          > Sent: 3 septembre, 2003 22:21
          > To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: Talking Points: The huge subsudy for
          > driving
          >
          >
          > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Coast 2 Coast"
          > <coast2coast2@h...> wrote:
          > > Hi All from Jerome in Tucson, Arizona, USA.
          > <SNIP>
          > >
          > > Then out of nowhere came the following comment from one of my
          > > interlocuters:
          > >
          > > "I think we cyclists need to move over and give priority to the
          > > motorists, since they're the ones who are paying for the roads
          > > with their fuel taxes, unlike us, who are riding for free..."
          > >
          > > Needless to say, I was dumbfounded by this remark, such that I
          > > didn't even know what to say.
          >
          > <SNIP>
          >
          > We have as much legal entitlement to use the public road as anyone
          > regardless of whether we contribute to its upkeep or not. Anyone can
          > legally suck oxygen out of the air regardless of whether they are
          > doing anything to support its regeneration (or harming oxygen
          > regeneration, for that matter).
          >
          > We may act to the full extent of what is legal or we may curb or
          > activities if we feel that is what fairness dictates. Your
          > interlocuters felt it fair to give cars and trucks the priority since
          > motorists pay more into road upkeep.
          >
          > I'm not compelled to cede any of my rights as a bicyclist, when
          > automobiles are spewing pollutants and causing much more uncompensated
          > harm.
          >
          > One subsidy which may not be mentioned at vtpi is the tax write-off
          > small businesses can caim on the purchase of gas-guzzling SUVs.
          > Drivers and non-drivers alike who pay income taxes will be making up
          > for the budget shortfall expanded by this give-away. You can be sure
          > that the people who took advantage of this windfall aren't getting off
          > the road when they see a less subsidized vehicle wanting to use the
          > same road space.
          >
          > Bill Carr
          >
          >
          > 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/
          >
          >
        • dubluth
          ... ... We have as much legal entitlement to use the public road as anyone regardless of whether we contribute to its upkeep or not. Anyone can
          Message 4 of 15 , Sep 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Coast 2 Coast"
            <coast2coast2@h...> wrote:
            > Hi All from Jerome in Tucson, Arizona, USA.
            <SNIP>
            >
            > Then out of nowhere came the following comment from one of my
            > interlocuters:
            >
            > "I think we cyclists need to move over and give priority to the
            > motorists, since they're the ones who are paying for the roads
            > with their fuel taxes, unlike us, who are riding for free..."
            >
            > Needless to say, I was dumbfounded by this remark, such that I
            > didn't even know what to say.

            <SNIP>

            We have as much legal entitlement to use the public road as anyone
            regardless of whether we contribute to its upkeep or not. Anyone can
            legally suck oxygen out of the air regardless of whether they are
            doing anything to support its regeneration (or harming oxygen
            regeneration, for that matter).

            We may act to the full extent of what is legal or we may curb or
            activities if we feel that is what fairness dictates. Your
            interlocuters felt it fair to give cars and trucks the priority since
            motorists pay more into road upkeep.

            I'm not compelled to cede any of my rights as a bicyclist, when
            automobiles are spewing pollutants and causing much more uncompensated
            harm.

            One subsidy which may not be mentioned at vtpi is the tax write-off
            small businesses can caim on the purchase of gas-guzzling SUVs.
            Drivers and non-drivers alike who pay income taxes will be making up
            for the budget shortfall expanded by this give-away. You can be sure
            that the people who took advantage of this windfall aren't getting off
            the road when they see a less subsidized vehicle wanting to use the
            same road space.

            Bill Carr
          • mtneuman@juno.com
            These things are true, too. Sidewalks are generally unsafe for bicyclists to be riding on, since cars backing out of their drive-ways seldom see them coming.
            Message 5 of 15 , Sep 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              These things are true, too. Sidewalks are generally unsafe for
              bicyclists to be riding on, since cars backing out of their drive-ways
              seldom see them coming. Streets are better, as long as speeds of motor
              vehicles driving them are not too great and room for both exists.

              One thing your uncle and Jerome's friend misses is that people who don't
              drive still pay fuel taxes to some extent. They pay them in the form of
              "add ons" to the price of food and things that they buy that are
              delivered by truck. The trucks have to pay the fuel taxes, so their
              charges for hauling the goods has to cover those costs (or they'll go
              belly under). In the end, the consumer pays for the cost of delivery,
              which includes the tax on the fuel used to ship the goods.

              Mike

              On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:39:33 -0400 "Louis-Luc" <exqmtl@...>
              writes:
              > Furthermore, cyclists do not damage the road when
              > using it (as do cars, and even more SUVs). And motor
              > vehicles are more a threat to life quality notonly
              > on the roads, but around them, with their nuisance
              > to the environment and public safety. Before the
              > invasion of cars, people had much more space available
              > as public, and were not stressed by traffic when
              > walking.
              >
              > My uncle also made me that surprizing remark that
              > cyclists do not deserve a full road access. I told
              > him that he was wrong totally. That's surprising,
              > because my uncle walks and cycles a lot (but also
              > drives) and is for full pedestrian rights on sidewalks
              > (as I am), but wants to confine cycling to bicycle
              > paths...
              > The fear I have about bicycle paths is that drivers
              > may wrongly think cyclists don't have the full access
              > to the road as well. Bicycles are vehicles, and I'm
              > in favor of giving them full road space, but not
              > sidewalks. Sidewalks are for walking not vehicles.
              > We have so little space for walking, so until we get
              > more, we have to keep what we have.
              >
              > Louis-Luc
              >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: dubluth [mailto:dubluth@...]
              > > Sent: 3 septembre, 2003 22:21
              > > To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: Talking Points: The huge subsudy for
              > > driving
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Coast 2 Coast"
              > > <coast2coast2@h...> wrote:
              > > > Hi All from Jerome in Tucson, Arizona, USA.
              > > <SNIP>
              > > >
              > > > Then out of nowhere came the following comment from one of my
              > > > interlocuters:
              > > >
              > > > "I think we cyclists need to move over and give priority to the
              > > > motorists, since they're the ones who are paying for the roads
              > > > with their fuel taxes, unlike us, who are riding for free..."
              > > >
              > > > Needless to say, I was dumbfounded by this remark, such that I
              > > > didn't even know what to say.
              > >
              > > <SNIP>
              > >
              > > We have as much legal entitlement to use the public road as anyone
              > > regardless of whether we contribute to its upkeep or not. Anyone
              > can
              > > legally suck oxygen out of the air regardless of whether they are
              > > doing anything to support its regeneration (or harming oxygen
              > > regeneration, for that matter).
              > >
              > > We may act to the full extent of what is legal or we may curb or
              > > activities if we feel that is what fairness dictates. Your
              > > interlocuters felt it fair to give cars and trucks the priority
              > since
              > > motorists pay more into road upkeep.
              > >
              > > I'm not compelled to cede any of my rights as a bicyclist, when
              > > automobiles are spewing pollutants and causing much more
              > uncompensated
              > > harm.
              > >
              > > One subsidy which may not be mentioned at vtpi is the tax
              > write-off
              > > small businesses can caim on the purchase of gas-guzzling SUVs.
              > > Drivers and non-drivers alike who pay income taxes will be making
              > up
              > > for the budget shortfall expanded by this give-away. You can be
              > sure
              > > that the people who took advantage of this windfall aren't getting
              > off
              > > the road when they see a less subsidized vehicle wanting to use
              > the
              > > same road space.
              > >
              > > Bill Carr
              > >
              > >
              > > 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/
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > 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/
              >
              >
              >


              ________________________________________________________________
              The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
              Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
              Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
            • Andie Miller
              There s an interesting paper by Phillip Goff with a section on The subsidizing of the American motorist, at
              Message 6 of 15 , Sep 5, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                There's an interesting paper by Phillip Goff with a section on 'The
                subsidizing of the American motorist,' at
                http://www.monoculartimes.co.uk/texts/architexts/carculture_1.shtml

                The stats may be a little dated (published September 1997), but an
                interesting overview. This always makes an impression on me:

                "Ample cheap and free parking is a significant way in which motorists are
                subsidized. Real estate values in urban areas are costly, yet motorist are
                allowed to use up to 100 square feet of public space for the storage of
                their vehicles. What reserves the side of the street to be used for the sole
                purpose of parking cars? Could one use the space for storage instead? To put
                a trampoline, maybe? Could one open up a futon in a parking space and sleep
                overnight? What privileges car owners to eat up such valuable urban space,
                when others pay hundreds of dollars for apartments hardly bigger than a
                parking space?"
              • dubluth
                Another reason not to move to the side for motorists benefit is that cagers shouldn t be deprived an education in the legal and proper use of the road. I ve
                Message 7 of 15 , Sep 7, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Another reason not to move to the side for motorists benefit is that
                  cagers shouldn't be deprived an education in the legal and proper use
                  of the road. I've read somewhere that in cities with significant
                  bicycle traffic, motorists demonstrate better road sharing skills than
                  their counterparts in bicycle bereft cities.

                  If, as a result of familiarity, automobiles become better operated
                  with regard to bicycle traffic, more bicycles may take to the road.
                  The person whose sympathies lie with the motorist may think that more
                  bicycles would be awful. However, more bicycles instead of more cars
                  competing for parking spaces and road space might be a better deal for
                  the motorist. If some of those people in their single occupancy
                  automobiles had taken a bike, some gas tax hikes to pay for costly
                  road expansions would have been avoided.

                  The "free" parking (street and retail) provided to motorists comes at
                  tremendous costs. Part of that is paid by people who don't own,
                  operate, or benefit from automobiles.

                  I feel there is a strong safety argument against giving automobiles
                  priority. It feels unsafe to me when a car or truck passes within
                  inches at speeds approaching or in excess of 40mph. When this happens
                  I invariably move away from the curb to the center of the lane to
                  unequivicably claim the full lane since I am reminded that a few
                  people don't yet know that bicycles ARE a part of traffic.

                  Bill Carr
                • Alex Farran
                  ... Another benefit of not hugging the kerb is that you are more visible in heavy traffic. The cars may not see you, but they will see other cars pulling out
                  Message 8 of 15 , Sep 9, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    dubluth writes:

                    > I feel there is a strong safety argument against giving automobiles
                    > priority. It feels unsafe to me when a car or truck passes within
                    > inches at speeds approaching or in excess of 40mph. When this
                    > happens I invariably move away from the curb to the center of the
                    > lane to unequivicably claim the full lane since I am reminded that a
                    > few people don't yet know that bicycles ARE a part of traffic.

                    Another benefit of not hugging the kerb is that you are more visible
                    in heavy traffic. The cars may not see you, but they will see other
                    cars pulling out for something.

                    --

                    __o Alex Farran
                    _`\<,_ Analyst / Programmer
                    (_)/ (_) www.alexfarran.com
                  • dubluth
                    In a city used for multiple modes of travel, and that would include a carfree city which gives priority to pedestrians, people would learn to see one another
                    Message 9 of 15 , Sep 9, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a city used for multiple modes of travel, and that would include a
                      carfree city which gives priority to pedestrians, people would learn
                      to see one another and their vehicles.

                      "I didn't see him" seems to be the inevitable response when a motorist
                      is called on for intruding into a bicyclist's space. Strangly, the
                      driver seems to think this puts any blame on the bicyclist, who is
                      implied to be invisible. All licensing jurisdictions require
                      motorists to pass a vision test -- a fact that reinforces the idea
                      that people have an obligation to use their good eyes when operating a
                      car or truck.

                      I'm warry of lending support to the claim that bicycles driven in
                      daylight or at night with proper lights are ever invisible. Curb
                      huggers aren't making themselves as obvious as they may need to be.
                      However, automobile drivers shouldn't be given a pass for missing what
                      is in plain view.

                      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Alex Farran <alex@a...> wrote:
                      > Another benefit of not hugging the kerb is that you are more visible
                      > in heavy traffic. The cars may not see you, but they will see other
                      > cars pulling out for something.
                      >
                      > --
                      >
                      > __o Alex Farran
                      > _`\<,_ Analyst / Programmer
                      > (_)/ (_) www.alexfarran.com
                    • turpin
                      ... Amen! Paying attention is the first obligation of anyone operating a car or truck. ... That, however, brings up the unfortunate fact that many bicyclists
                      Message 10 of 15 , Sep 9, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "dubluth" <dubluth@y...> wrote:
                        > All licensing jurisdictions require
                        > motorists to pass a vision test --
                        > a fact that reinforces the idea
                        > that people have an obligation to
                        > use their good eyes when operating
                        > a car or truck.

                        Amen!

                        Paying attention is the first
                        obligation of anyone operating a car
                        or truck.

                        > I'm warry of lending support to
                        > the claim that bicycles driven in
                        > daylight or at night with proper
                        > lights are ever invisible. ..

                        That, however, brings up the
                        unfortunate fact that many bicyclists
                        at night are NOT properly lighted.
                        A bicyclist without good reflectors
                        or light, and often wearing dark
                        clothes, can seem to appear out of
                        nowhere. I've never had a close call,
                        between me driving and someone else
                        bicycling, because I do keep my eyes
                        on the road when driving, and give
                        bicyclists their safe distance. But
                        I have noticed many bicyclists at
                        night, with no reflector or light,
                        who would have been very easy not to
                        notice until too late.

                        When I bicycled at night, I always
                        wore yellow reflective leg bands,
                        and turned on two lights, a white
                        headlight and a red strobe light in
                        rear. I may have looked a bit like a
                        brightly lighted clown. But I wanted
                        to be seen. And in the unfortunate
                        happenstance that some idiot ran me
                        down anyway, I wanted my heirs'
                        lawyer to be able to put up a
                        picture of me brightly lit up, as he
                        asked the idiot who ran me down,
                        "THIS is what you failed to see?!?"
                        ;-)

                        Seriously, if you bike at night,
                        take some effort to make yourself
                        visible. And even in bright day,
                        watch out for the idiots who are
                        driving a car without paying
                        attention.
                      • lockhughes
                        ... I have driven a scooter over a couple of hundred km s of *empty* suburban sidewalks since March. By empty I mean pedestrian counts of maybe a dozen an
                        Message 11 of 15 , Sep 23, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > The fear I have about bicycle paths is that drivers
                          > may wrongly think cyclists don't have the full access
                          > to the road as well. Bicycles are vehicles, and I'm
                          > in favor of giving them full road space, but not
                          > sidewalks. Sidewalks are for walking not vehicles.
                          > We have so little space for walking, so until we get
                          > more, we have to keep what we have.

                          I have driven a scooter over a couple of hundred km's of *empty*
                          suburban sidewalks since March. By "empty" I mean pedestrian counts
                          of maybe a dozen an hour. Less than 1% of these folk have objected to
                          me or given any signs of displeasure as I go by. The vast majority
                          of comments (about my vehicle) are always very positive.

                          So, are *any* wheeled modes appropriate on sidewalks?
                          eg
                          rollerblades?
                          rollerskis?
                          rollerskates?
                          skateboards?
                          scooters?
                          bicycles?
                          tricycles?
                          mobility scooters?
                          motorized luggage carts?


                          Just curious how much diversity of opinion there is out there, in
                          car-free land. Just what is a "car"? Is a Twike a "car"?
                          (link to twike:)
                          <http://twike.cjb.net/>

                          Is the Panasonic folder a bicycle?
                          (link to folder:)
                          http://www.electricvehiclesnw.com/main/panasonic.htm

                          How will we know when our city is "car free"?

                          Lock
                        • autofrei-wohnen.de
                          Hi Lock, ... For me these vehicles have to be on the streets or better if possible: on bike-lanes on the streets. Have you ever realised the shock of old
                          Message 12 of 15 , Sep 23, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Lock,
                            you asked:

                            | So, are *any* wheeled modes appropriate on sidewalks?
                            | eg
                            | rollerblades?
                            | rollerskis?
                            | rollerskates?
                            | skateboards?
                            | scooters?
                            | bicycles?
                            | tricycles?
                            | mobility scooters?
                            | motorized luggage carts?

                            For me these vehicles have to be on the streets or better if possible: on bike-lanes on the streets. Have you ever realised the shock of old people, when you passed by from behind with higher speed than they walk ?! If we want to encourage people for walking, the sidewalks should be a "taboo" for all who are faster than pedestrians. Of course, there are special rules for little children, but they have to be teached to pass very slow !

                            In Germany and other countries exist different possibilties of street-use like
                            - "bicycle-street" ("Fahrradstrasse"), means: ciyclist are privileged, and only cars of street`s inhabitants are allowed
                            - "play-street" ("Spielstrasse"), means: playing children are privileged, and cars have to drive VERY slow (speed of pedestrians)
                            - "youth-street" ("Jugendstrasse"), means: the street is closed for cars and filled up with installations to play and do sport activities, see Berlin`s new example www.jugendstrasse-berlin.de (german only)
                            - "traffic-reduced commercial-area" ("verkehrsberuhigter Geschaeftsbereich"), means: speed of e.g. 10 km/h with other rules in the special case
                            - "flaneur-zone" ("Flanierzone", developped in Burgdorf, CH), or new official term: "meeting-zone" ("Begegnungszone") (new case in Switzerland`s Building Law Code, in case of interest I can fax the related law paper, I have only the german version), means pedestrians are privileged and can use the whole street space; maximum speed 20 km/h
                            - "30 km/h-zone" ("Tempo 30 Zone"), means maximum speed of 30 km/h
                            up to
                            - "pedestrian zone" ("Fussgaengerzone"), means: I hope you all know this very well.

                            ... so for every situation there is an instrumentarium for the best solution. Our goal should be the implementation of more of these solutions in the public consciousness and urban reality.

                            I don`t like the (direction of this) subtle discussion about permissions for the use of sidewalks.
                            In general, I wish there would be more discussion in this newsgroup about new carfree areas or carfree action (like these days) in our environment, more reports and exchange of experiences.
                            **********************
                            | Just curious how much diversity of opinion there is out there, in
                            | car-free land. Just what is a "car"? Is a Twike a "car"?
                            | (link to twike:)
                            | <http://twike.cjb.net/>

                            I know one of the owners of a Twike in Berlin: He classifies it as a Car.

                            Any vehicle is a car, if it has the usual size of cars, is faster than pedestrians and needs non-human energy. The problem with them is not only its pollution and noise, but also the big consumption of space (that can be used much better and makes housing more expensive than it could be) and the danger of its speed for people on the streets (last point see together with the problem of hard metal against human flesh).
                            Isn`t this clear enough ?
                            **********************
                            | How will we know when our city is "car free"?

                            If you see there no cars during most of the day- and nighttime. Usually in our pedestrian areas are special & short time-zones for commercial & private delivery and inhabitants (only if they have a garage in the zone). A good example is the innercity of Freiburg in Germany. Read this english article about:
                            "Freiburg's green transport policies are central to the city's development, reports Rolf Böhme"
                            http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/121/bohme.html

                            The definition of "carfree" says: if you have only 0.1-0.2 parking places per dwelling and no traffic in the related area, except some serious exceptions ("blue-light"-traffic, delivery, handicapts).
                            If you have more you can call it "low car housing" and "traffic-reduced", and there are more other terms for it.
                            See more about carfree definitions:
                            http://www.autofrei-wohnen.de/Definition.html (sorry, still german only)

                            More links about worldwide carfree vacation destinations and carfree initatives & projects:
                            http://www.autofrei-wohnen.de/projects.html (Introduction page of the related chapter in English)

                            best,
                            Markus Heller, Berlin
                            http://www.autofrei-wohnen.de/homeEngl.html (Introduction page in English)



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • mtneuman@juno.com
                            We have a state law in Wisconsin that requires that if a bicyclist rides by (passes) a pedestrian on a bicycle path or a sidewalk (if local govt. allows riding
                            Message 13 of 15 , Sep 23, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              We have a state law in Wisconsin that requires that if a bicyclist rides
                              by (passes) a pedestrian on a bicycle path or a sidewalk (if local govt.
                              allows riding on the sidewalks), that the bicyclist must first make an
                              "audible" when he/she approaches to pass, so that the pedestrian or
                              bicyclist is aware that a bicyclist is going to pass by. The audible is
                              usually: "bicycle passing on your left".

                              Mike

                              On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:19:45 +0200 "autofrei-wohnen.de"
                              <info@...> writes:
                              > Hi Lock,
                              > you asked:
                              >
                              > | So, are *any* wheeled modes appropriate on sidewalks?
                              > | eg
                              > | rollerblades?
                              > | rollerskis?
                              > | rollerskates?
                              > | skateboards?
                              > | scooters?
                              > | bicycles?
                              > | tricycles?
                              > | mobility scooters?
                              > | motorized luggage carts?
                              >
                              > For me these vehicles have to be on the streets or better if
                              > possible: on bike-lanes on the streets. Have you ever realised the
                              > shock of old people, when you passed by from behind with higher
                              > speed than they walk ?! If we want to encourage people for walking,
                              > the sidewalks should be a "taboo" for all who are faster than
                              > pedestrians. Of course, there are special rules for little children,
                              > but they have to be teached to pass very slow !
                              >
                              > In Germany and other countries exist different possibilties of
                              > street-use like
                              > - "bicycle-street" ("Fahrradstrasse"), means: ciyclist are
                              > privileged, and only cars of street`s inhabitants are allowed
                              > - "play-street" ("Spielstrasse"), means: playing children are
                              > privileged, and cars have to drive VERY slow (speed of pedestrians)
                              > - "youth-street" ("Jugendstrasse"), means: the street is closed for
                              > cars and filled up with installations to play and do sport
                              > activities, see Berlin`s new example www.jugendstrasse-berlin.de
                              > (german only)
                              > - "traffic-reduced commercial-area" ("verkehrsberuhigter
                              > Geschaeftsbereich"), means: speed of e.g. 10 km/h with other rules
                              > in the special case
                              > - "flaneur-zone" ("Flanierzone", developped in Burgdorf, CH), or new
                              > official term: "meeting-zone" ("Begegnungszone") (new case in
                              > Switzerland`s Building Law Code, in case of interest I can fax the
                              > related law paper, I have only the german version), means
                              > pedestrians are privileged and can use the whole street space;
                              > maximum speed 20 km/h
                              > - "30 km/h-zone" ("Tempo 30 Zone"), means maximum speed of 30 km/h
                              > up to
                              > - "pedestrian zone" ("Fussgaengerzone"), means: I hope you all know
                              > this very well.
                              >
                              > ... so for every situation there is an instrumentarium for the best
                              > solution. Our goal should be the implementation of more of these
                              > solutions in the public consciousness and urban reality.
                              >
                              > I don`t like the (direction of this) subtle discussion about
                              > permissions for the use of sidewalks.
                              > In general, I wish there would be more discussion in this newsgroup
                              > about new carfree areas or carfree action (like these days) in our
                              > environment, more reports and exchange of experiences.
                              > **********************
                              > | Just curious how much diversity of opinion there is out there, in
                              > | car-free land. Just what is a "car"? Is a Twike a "car"?
                              > | (link to twike:)
                              > | <http://twike.cjb.net/>
                              >
                              > I know one of the owners of a Twike in Berlin: He classifies it as a
                              > Car.
                              >
                              > Any vehicle is a car, if it has the usual size of cars, is faster
                              > than pedestrians and needs non-human energy. The problem with them
                              > is not only its pollution and noise, but also the big consumption of
                              > space (that can be used much better and makes housing more expensive
                              > than it could be) and the danger of its speed for people on the
                              > streets (last point see together with the problem of hard metal
                              > against human flesh).
                              > Isn`t this clear enough ?
                              > **********************
                              > | How will we know when our city is "car free"?
                              >
                              > If you see there no cars during most of the day- and nighttime.
                              > Usually in our pedestrian areas are special & short time-zones for
                              > commercial & private delivery and inhabitants (only if they have a
                              > garage in the zone). A good example is the innercity of Freiburg in
                              > Germany. Read this english article about:
                              > "Freiburg's green transport policies are central to the city's
                              > development, reports Rolf B�hme"
                              > http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/121/bohme.html
                              >
                              > The definition of "carfree" says: if you have only 0.1-0.2 parking
                              > places per dwelling and no traffic in the related area, except some
                              > serious exceptions ("blue-light"-traffic, delivery, handicapts).
                              > If you have more you can call it "low car housing" and
                              > "traffic-reduced", and there are more other terms for it.
                              > See more about carfree definitions:
                              > http://www.autofrei-wohnen.de/Definition.html (sorry, still german
                              > only)
                              >
                              > More links about worldwide carfree vacation destinations and carfree
                              > initatives & projects:
                              > http://www.autofrei-wohnen.de/projects.html (Introduction page of
                              > the related chapter in English)
                              >
                              > best,
                              > Markus Heller, Berlin
                              > http://www.autofrei-wohnen.de/homeEngl.html (Introduction page in
                              > English)
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              > 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/
                              >
                              >
                              >


                              ________________________________________________________________
                              The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
                              Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
                              Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
                            • Richard Risemberg
                              I agree--no wheeled vehicles on sidewalk except for wheelchairs and the scooter-chairs that disabled people use. (Speaking of adult users only here, of
                              Message 14 of 15 , Sep 23, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I agree--no wheeled vehicles on sidewalk except for wheelchairs and the
                                scooter-chairs that disabled people use. (Speaking of adult users only
                                here, of course.)

                                I realize most peoples' experiences in sidewalk mixing come from
                                suburban-plan areas where no one walks. In the carfree city--and that
                                is what we must build toward--every who can walks walks at least
                                sometimes.

                                In other words, images riding your bicycle/scooter/skateboard/whatever
                                down Fifth Avenue in Manhattan...wheels belong on the street. (And cars
                                belong on roads, outside of town.)

                                Richard

                                autofrei-wohnen.de wrote:

                                > Hi Lock,
                                > you asked:
                                >
                                > | So, are *any* wheeled modes appropriate on sidewalks?
                                > | eg
                                > | rollerblades?
                                > | rollerskis?
                                > | rollerskates?
                                > | skateboards?
                                > | scooters?
                                > | bicycles?
                                > | tricycles?
                                > | mobility scooters?
                                > | motorized luggage carts?
                                >
                                > For me these vehicles have to be on the streets or better if possible: on bike-lanes on the streets. Have you ever realised the shock of old people, when you passed by from behind with higher speed than they walk ?! If we want to encourage people for walking, the sidewalks should be a "taboo" for all who are faster than pedestrians. Of course, there are special rules for little children, but they have to be teached to pass very slow !

                                --
                                Richard Risemberg
                                http://www.living-room.org
                                http://www.newcolonist.com

                                "I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity,
                                an obligation; every possession, a duty."
                                John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
                              • Mark Jaroski
                                ... Actually, in a real carfree city there is no need for sidwalks. For instance in the carfree sections which most European cities have there are no curbs,
                                Message 15 of 15 , Sep 24, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Richard Risemberg wrote:
                                  > I realize most peoples' experiences in sidewalk mixing come from
                                  > suburban-plan areas where no one walks. In the carfree city--and that
                                  > is what we must build toward--every who can walks walks at least
                                  > sometimes.

                                  Actually, in a real carfree city there is no need for
                                  sidwalks. For instance in the carfree sections which most
                                  European cities have there are no curbs, and no sidwalks.

                                  The exception is the carfree area around Forum Les-Halles in
                                  paris, but that was only recently converted to carfree.

                                  --
                                  --
                                  =================================================================
                                  -- mark at geekhive dot net --
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.