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

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

Expand Messages
  • dubluth
    In message 7338 Jym Dyer pointed us to an article about this second generation traffic calming by David Engwicht.
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 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.