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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.