Re: [carfree_cities] Re: They think everything together on one road is good?
- 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
> 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 email@example.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
- Jeremy Hubble said:
>It's interesting to note that NYC has one of the lowest traffic fatalityThat may (or may not) be so, but the pedestrian fatality rate in
>rates in the US, while also having one of the most shared road spaces.
New York is very high and is not responding to any effort to
reduce it. (See Carfree Times #34 for more on this.)
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
- At 07:29 AM 6/1/2004, you wrote:
>I disagree on the automobile vs. drugs assertion. Take for instanceKind of like a pedestrian or bicyclist threading his way among
>cigarettes: many indoor public places prohibit smoking. But, because of
>this, nonsmokers have to travel through a clouds of smoke outside the
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 fatalitySo the lesson is that everything together makes it slow and safe
>rates in the US, while also having one of the most shared road spaces.
>In Manhattan, pedestrians, cars, and even bicycles compete for scarce
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.
- In message 7338 Jym Dyer pointed us to an article about this "second
generation traffic calming" by David Engwicht.
It is much more thoughtful than the salon article that inspired this
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
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.
I was actually thinking that the purpose of driving was to reach a
different mental state through a change in physical location or
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
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.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jeremy Hubble <jhubble@c...> wrote:
> I disagree on the automobile vs. drugs assertion.
> 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.