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

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: They think everything together on one road is good?

Expand Messages
  • Jeremy Hubble
    I disagree on the automobile vs. drugs assertion. Take for instance cigarettes: many indoor public places prohibit smoking. But, because of this, nonsmokers
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I disagree on the automobile vs. drugs assertion. Take for instance
      cigarettes: many indoor public places prohibit smoking. But, because of
      this, nonsmokers have to travel through a clouds of smoke outside the
      entrances. Some places have gone further to prohibit smoking near the
      entrances. But nonsmokers still pass smokers as they are walking on the
      sidewalks. Even if smoking were restricted to private residences,
      neighbors would still be affected by the odors and fumes traveling
      through common walls, floors, and ceilings. The only real solution
      would be to totally isolate smokers from non-smokers, or assimilate on
      in to the other.

      Smoking allows people to more easily reach a psychological state. Cars
      allow people to more easily reach a new physical state. Society
      thrives on making things easier. It is only as the negative
      consequences start to outnumber the positive that usage declines.

      As for everyone on one road, an important point that I noticed in Delhi
      was the natural 'traffic calming'. Most roads seemed about the width of
      a typical 2 lane road in the United States, though many appeared to
      carry about 6 lines of traffic, plus bicycles, pedestrians, horses,
      cows, motorcycles, etc. With so much traffic on the road, the average
      speed of the traffic was extremely slow. Thus damage caused by
      accidents would be lower than expected. However, as India has been
      modernizing, roads have been 'improved' and 'expanded'. More cars have
      taken their place on the road. This results in a decreased carrying
      capacity of the road. (1 car traveling at 20 miles/hour carrying 1
      person takes up the space of 10 bikes at 10 mph, carrying 10 people.)

      Road anarchy only works well where road demand greatly exceeds road
      demand and there is a large variety of vehicle types.

      It's interesting to note that NYC has one of the lowest traffic fatality
      rates in the US, while also having one of the most shared road spaces.
      In Manhattan, pedestrians, cars, and even bicycles compete for scarce
      road space.

      dubluth wrote:
      >
      > Steve Geller's analogy suggests something about the nature of what is
      > in need of fixing.
      >
      > Psychoactive drugs, including cigarettes, liquor, and caffeine,
      > directly affect the user. Secondary effects can be mitigated without
      > the total prohibition that would deny the addict legal access to his
      > or her drug. The effects of the serious abuse of alcohol and some
      > other drugs is tragic, but the best management usually isn't the
      > outlawing of all intake.
      >
      > Automobile use is pernicious. I don't think that those of us who have
      > no use for automobiles would be doing ourselves a favor to ignore
      > them. It is a recipe for getting run over. Accomodating automobiles
      > also has a bad effect on the organization of public space. The noise
      > and air pollution they produce aren't good things, as we all know.
      >
      > In summary, it is my belief that drug intake is primarily a private
      > activity. Automobile use is a public activity. If driving were a
      > private activity, those of us who haven't begun to worry about what a
      > driving habit does to the driver couldn't be seeing it as a problem.
      >
      > Bill Carr
      >
      > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Steve Geller <stgeller@c...> wrote:
      > > At 11:45 AM 5/31/2004, J.H.Crawford wrote:
      > > >This "creative anarchy" can work fairly well, but
      > > >remember that whenever anything goes wrong you will
      > > >have, at best, an injured pedestrian or cyclist.
      > > >I simply don't believe that cars mix with people,
      > > >and for many reasons, not just safety.
      > > >
      > > >I'll stick by my guns: the way to fix our cities is
      > > >to get cars completely out of them.
      > >
      > > Right. And it's about as likely to happen and getting
      > > rid of cigarettes, liquor or drugs.
      >
      > 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/
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • J.H. Crawford
      ... That may (or may not) be so, but the pedestrian fatality rate in New York is very high and is not responding to any effort to reduce it. (See Carfree Times
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeremy Hubble said:

        >It's interesting to note that NYC has one of the lowest traffic fatality
        >rates in the US, while also having one of the most shared road spaces.

        That may (or may not) be so, but the pedestrian fatality rate in
        New York is very high and is not responding to any effort to
        reduce it. (See Carfree Times #34 for more on this.)

        Regards,


        -- ### --

        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
        mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
      • Steve Geller
        ... Kind of like a pedestrian or bicyclist threading his way among parked cars or trying to cross the street, while breathing all the auto exhaust. ... So the
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          At 07:29 AM 6/1/2004, you wrote:
          >I disagree on the automobile vs. drugs assertion. Take for instance
          >cigarettes: many indoor public places prohibit smoking. But, because of
          >this, nonsmokers have to travel through a clouds of smoke outside the
          >entrances.

          Kind of like a pedestrian or bicyclist threading his way among
          parked cars or trying to cross the street, while breathing all
          the auto exhaust.

          >It's interesting to note that NYC has one of the lowest traffic fatality
          >rates in the US, while also having one of the most shared road spaces.
          >In Manhattan, pedestrians, cars, and even bicycles compete for scarce
          >road space.

          So the lesson is that everything together makes it slow and safe
          for all? If speed is desired, the roadways can't be shared.
          If they can't be shared, then the motorists should be paying
          proportionately more money for access.

          Following the same reasoning, I favor toll roads and charging
          for access to a "carpool" lane.
        • dubluth
          In message 7338 Jym Dyer pointed us to an article about this second generation traffic calming by David Engwicht.
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            In message 7338 Jym Dyer pointed us to an article about this "second
            generation traffic calming" by David Engwicht.
            <http://www.lesstraffic.com/Articles/Traffic/SGTC.htm>
            It is much more thoughtful than the salon article that inspired this
            thread.

            Responding to Jeremy's points, it is true that people sometimes engage
            in annoying and damaging behaviors. Some annoyances and damage can
            result from drug intake habits. That doesn't make drug use the same
            as driving.

            Because of the way an automobile transportation system's shapes a
            city's physical structure, accomodating personal automobiles in the
            city results in harm to third parties. On the other hand, allowing
            an addict to intake the drugs they desire isn't necessarily allowing
            them to harm others.

            Smokers and injectable drug users may not care that they are creating
            a cloud of smoke or littering the pavement with used needles. At the
            same time, presumably sober people burn logs in fire places in the
            city causing serious respiratory distress to many others.

            Drug use isn't the issue. I think Jeremy's issue is with people being
            exposed to cigarette smoke they don't want to breath. I sympathize
            with that concern.

            -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

            I was actually thinking that the purpose of driving was to reach a
            different mental state through a change in physical location or
            through movement.

            For example, a person may be having the thought "I'm out of peanuts.
            The store has peanuts. ..." Soon they could be thinking, "I have them
            in my basket. I want them in my pantry. ..." Eventually their
            mental state might be completely off the subject of how well stocked
            their pantry is and they on to other things. That is probably their
            hope anyway.

            Our hero may or may not have used his car in reaching that "peanut
            contented" mental state. That is largely a matter of preferences and
            costs. Costs are partly determined by accessiblity, and accessibility
            is influenced by city design.

            From peanuts back to tobacco: A nicotine dependant person may achieve
            the physiological state they crave by using cigarettes that produce
            nuisence smoke or by using a nicotine patch that bothers no-one. That
            is normally a matter of how they view their smoking and whether they
            can afford the patch.

            I'm missing the meaning of the sentences about making things easier
            and usage declining.

            Bill

            --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Hubble <jhubble@c...> wrote:
            > I disagree on the automobile vs. drugs assertion.
            <SNIP>
            >
            > Smoking allows people to more easily reach a psychological state. Cars
            > allow people to more easily reach a new physical state. Society
            > thrives on making things easier. It is only as the negative
            > consequences start to outnumber the positive that usage declines.
            >
            <SNIP>
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.