Re: [carfree_cities] Any body else hear of this guy?
- Todd Edelman wrote:
>Andrew Dawson <m82a1_dawson@...> wrote: [...] When I was on theI'm just being honest and calling a spade a spade.
>Transport Policy list I dealt with this libertaryan fascist named John
>Finley Scott [...]
> *** Well, first of all, it probably is a good idea to start a
>deconstruction of this guy's ideas without labeling him.
> In the page http://www.labreform.org/anti-car.html and the links at theCivil libertarians are different from libert-aryan fascists. One is for
>bottom of that page, Scott and friends write about "vehicular cycling".
> He talks about sharing the roads, and I agree with, to a point - mainly
>that separate bikepaths in cities should not be created at the expense of
>making it so cyclists cant use the existing roads (e.g. I am very critical
>of Greenway organizations taking money from automobile companies), but
>beyond that point the reality of:
> * cars being much, much heavier than bikes
> * wanting to ride slow, even slower than many cyclists
> * the huge amount of space need for roads for cars...
> makes me disagree with him.
> In this article - and in the links I mention - the huge increase in
>cycling in places like Groningen and smaller increases in other places
>which are partly a result of automobile bans and separate facilities, the
>insane congestion everywhere, the environmental and health damage done by
>cars, the deaths caused by cars hitting each other because of their very
>encumbered nature, and the oncoming lack of easy energy - among other
>things - are completely ignored.
> Also, he perpetuates the idea that streets are mainly for mobility...
>rather than as a place in between dwellings for people to interact, and
>where mobility is a useful function only when it increases interaction in
>both quantity AND quality.
> But this is typical of... Libertarians(!), it seems: To ignore things
>like the huge amount of money spent on highways and the related external
>costs... and their near-religion of "this is what people want" as if
>fulfillment of human desire - no matter how uneducated - was always the
>right course for the universe.
individual freedom, the other are for death camps and gulags.
Real Conservatives, conserve the environment! Till later, Andrew Dawson
- Jym Dyer wrote:
>=v= John Finley Scott is well-known amongst CaliforniaI find him to be a hypocrite, he says he's a railfan, but hates passenger
>cyclists. He's a cohort of the better-known John Forester
>and shares with him
> (1) an inflexible stance regarding the principles of
> "Effective Cycling(R)" (which is Forester's trademarked
> and stringent version of vehicular cycling),
> (2) some time in courtrooms as an "expert" on bicycling
> matters that have not always led to conditions good for
> bicycling, and
> (3) a penchant for nasty flamewars on email lists and in
> other electronic fora.
>Indeed, a number of Forester dogmatists are nasty online, to
>the extent that their communication style has earned the title,
>=v= In 1999, after a large cross-posted flamewar across a bunch
>of cycling.org/cyclery.com email lists, many of those lists
>switched to a moderation-only policy, and the Foresterites made
>their home on the exclusive "Chainguard" list. Sometimes they
>make forays out onto other lists (most recently the Silicon
>Valley Bicycling Coalition list) and get thrown off.
>=v= Since Effective Cycling(R) is predicated on being on the
>roads with cars and acting exactly like them (with a blind eye
>to rampant motorist lawbreaking, that is), carfree movements
>are perceived as a threat. That's the context for that website
>Todd dug up. So it's no surprise that JFS is making common
>cause with Libertoonian types who think cars are somehow less
>a use of public sector resources than other modes.
trains. When it comes to cycling it's just recreational, nothing
utilitarian. He calls a lot of cities "OPACs" Obsolete Pre-Automotive Cities
and is favour of destroying them so more freeways can be built. He seems to
be a real sociopath, almost like some who feels bad that Hitler lost WWII.
Till later, Andrew Dawson
- --- Andrew Dawson <m82a1_dawson@...> wrote:
> He seems toI don't mean to play PC police here, but this is the
> be a real sociopath, almost like some who feels bad
> that Hitler lost WWII.
second Nazi reference today in regards to Vehicular
Cycling advocates. Scum that they are, they don't
rise to the level of evil of Nazis.
Maybe I'm a bit sensitive given my family's history
and the fact that I live in a hub for Holocaust
Denial, but can we chill on the Nazi crap?
- On Jan 22, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Dan Kliman wrote:
> --- Andrew Dawson <m82a1_dawson@...> wrote:And this here Jewboy's a Vehicular Cycling advocate. Bikepaths and
>> He seems to
>> be a real sociopath, almost like some who feels bad
>> that Hitler lost WWII.
> I don't mean to play PC police here, but this is the
> second Nazi reference today in regards to Vehicular
> Cycling advocates. Scum that they are, they don't
> rise to the level of evil of Nazis.
the like just give the auto-crats excuses to keep devoting the
preponderance of mobility resources to cars, cars, cars, cars, while
relegating all efficient modes to second-class or (worse)
recreational status. And myself, I'd hardly like to see bicycling be
the cause of yet more pavement....
For the record, I ride LA's rush hour traffic twice a day, five days
a week...in Hollywood. If you want to see what it's like here's a
link to an article (commissioned, & paid for, BTW) I wrote about it:
In dense cities that still have cars, there are two kinds of
bicyclists: vehicular cyclists, and the kind that load their bikes
into the SUV to drive them to a bike path on Sundays. (BTW, the
average population density in LA is the same as in NY's Five Boroughs.)
> Civil libertarians are different from libert-aryan fascists. One is forThanks for saying this Andrew. I was concerned with the previous
> individual freedom, the other are for death camps and gulags.
> Real Conservatives, conserve the environment! Till later, Andrew Dawson
statement because I consider myself libertarian for two important
reasons: I believe in the individual rights that both parties seem happy
to destroy, and (relevant to this list), I believe government
subsidizing roads and freeways is very detrimental to all aspects of life.
Don't blame libertarians just because some are hypocrites.
- On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Richard Risemberg wrote:
> And this here Jewboy's a Vehicular Cycling advocate. Bikepaths andOmeyn.
> the like just give the auto-crats excuses to keep devoting the
> preponderance of mobility resources to cars, cars, cars, cars, while
> relegating all efficient modes to second-class or (worse)
> recreational status. And myself, I'd hardly like to see bicycling be
> the cause of yet more pavement....
Also, the more the cagers have to share the roads with other (slower)
modes, the less "advantageous" operating a multi-zillion-pound iron
monster will seem.
(None of this is meant to imply that John Forester and Company aren't
royal pains in the ass -- they are, and they are almost totally
Streets are for kids to play in.
And, now, back to carfree cities...
-Doug (who has too many broken parts to cycle right now, but who
gleefully whacks 'em with his stick if they don't behave properly)
P.O. Box 1007
Larkspur, CA 94977
- Dear Richard
I am with you on integration without needing to be libertarian about it. My
preference is for the "naked street" option
"The Exhibition Road proposals aim to restore pedestrian priority to the
street. This will not be accomplished by excluding vehicles. Instead, the
streetscape will be designed differently to reduce the speed of vehicles to
below 20 m.p.h. At such speeds drivers engage far more with pedestrians and
with their surroundings in general. This leads to a better balance of the
relative priorities of vehicle and foot traffic. This approach reconciles
the often-competing demands of traffic engineering and urban design. It
should produce a streetscape of far higher quality and utility."
See also the point that it's all about eye contact speeds:
Hardly libertarian but at the same time encouraging humans to negotiate the
space among themselves so long as no-one goes faster than 20mph - which
seems reasonable given the average urban speed of traffic (in London) is
> From: Richard Risemberg <rickrise@...>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Reply-To: <email@example.com>
> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:12:42 -0800
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Any body else hear of this guy?
> For the record, I ride LA's rush hour traffic twice a day, five days
> a week...in Hollywood. If you want to see what it's like here's a
> link to an article (commissioned, & paid for, BTW) I wrote about it:
> In dense cities that still have cars, there are two kinds of
> bicyclists: vehicular cyclists, and the kind that load their bikes
> into the SUV to drive them to a bike path on Sundays. (BTW, the
> average population density in LA is the same as in NY's Five Boroughs.)