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

RE: [carfree_cities] Re: Talking Points: The huge subsudy for driving

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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/
      >
      >
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.