Re: [carfree_cities] Re: They think everything together on one road is good?
- 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 email@example.com, 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.