 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / March 2008Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists
I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those near me. Anyway, the first "accident" (see book "It's No Accident") happened to a neighbor of mine who, like me, rides a scooter. Well, she started from the green light when a car ran the light and... smashed leg and who knows what else. Beautiful lady, beautiful no more. And she was lucky it wasn't an SUV with their raised "macho" bumpers... Well, the guy did stop (wasn't she lucky?) and was very sorry. But chances are he was speeding, or on the cell phone or trying to beat the light or everything at once. Everybody does it, right? Well the second incident was really minor compared to this one, but happened to my girlfriend with whom I was riding bike on the road... First thing a car comes real close to her and cuts her off while turning. I guess people riding bikes are not worth losing a few seconds, and they are simply ignored. Well sometimes they get noticed... Second thing she gets yelled at from an SUV, "a.shole!"... and my girlfriend gives her the finger (yes, she does it too) before doing the smart move (?) and taking the sidewalk. It would be so easy to put speed cameras on traffic lights and catch all those terrorists with a License to Kill. And that would take some politicians who make an issue out of traffic safety... or a revolution (see below), but that's another issue. In the meantime here's a debate from the past about terrorists and speed cameras in civilized places like Germany... "Red light camera solution?" "Big Boy" <bigboy6...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message news:20021106022800.05358.00002719@mb-fw.aol.com... : These systems intrigue (and disgust) me. : : I was doing a deja.com search and noticed : that they have them in Arizona. I am : in Idaho where fortunately we don't have : **** taking away even more of our : freedom. Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the law" that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security cameras in your place of business to protect you and your property? Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill anyone else I haven't really violated the law"? The real solution is very simple - obey the law. Then you can drive with a clear conscience and not have to worry about getting your picture taken. You can even save the cost of the hair spray... --- jb3 http://groups.google.com/group/az.general/browse_thread/thread/8efbe0e5a32de216/ 342f792fe8027559?hl=en&lnk=st&q=%22car+ran+the+light%22#342f792fe8027559 *** http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revoluti on%21&l4= WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION? http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution (other people say) > > > I've been saying for years that criminal drivers are the real > > > terrorists. Your chances of being killed or maimed by a speeder or > > > DUI are a thousand times greater than by some mad bomber. Americans > > > are such idiots for buying into this arab terrorism crap. > > My family have been a victim of both. I had a cousin killed on 9/11, and his > > father was killed by a mindless driver who ran a red-light. I only have to > > know that the first one exists. The second, I have to worry about, and watch > > for on a daily basis. Especially when I'm traveling on 2 wheels. > That's my point. Most of us have never been endangered by a terrorist > but we are endangered by by criminal drivers every day. And yet which > is the idiot american most concerned with.? Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden. Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's like they don't care... > Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one > time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's > like they don't care... You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is extremely unlikely. So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths. What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years is car to car digital communications. The communications between cars will be used to prevent accidents and deaths. Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive action an what action should be taken. In extreme cases the electronics in the cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the accidents. Instead of "Its like they don't care..." we have exactly the opposite where people care a lot and are putting a lot of money into developing solutions industry wide to make driving potentially very safe. In your ignorance of present activities, you have done nothing while the world has many people actually solving the problems. >> Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one >> time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the > accidents.[...] How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.  SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and > animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses. > If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will > make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians. We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road. That should not be hard once transponders become common. Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. Zero death is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large passenger jets. >> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and >> animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large > passenger jets. All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians >>> and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating > behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors. Scheiss, imagine Jack's tv shouting out, "Mr May, stop that or you will go blind!" SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, >>>> pedestrians and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Scheiss, imagine Jack's tv shouting out, "Mr May, stop that or you will > go blind!" That would only happen during a GM commercial. WTF is this thread doing in a transit group anyway? Jack's a troll. > >>>> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, > >>>> pedestrians and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the road... Driving tests and real-life driving (...) Politically, it is unpopular to suggest somebody who is physically impaired, who is emotionally unbalanced, or who is just plain stupid should not drive. But the fact is; bad driving causes lethal accidents and huge traffic jams every day, all across America. Bad driving wastes millions of gallons of fuel and adds tons of pollutants to our air. America's urban freeways are no place for the incompetent, and it is thousands of times less expensive and more effective to get lousy drivers off the road than it is to build ever-wider freeways and more elaborate junctions. A more difficult driving test will accomplish this. Driving tests can also reinforce common sense, patience, and respect for others... things which are increasingly rare on American roads. Current driving tests measure rudimentary knowledge of the rules of the road. At some point in a driver's life-usually very early- you must prove your ability to operate a vehicle under minimally difficult circumstances. Once licensed, many Americans are not road tested again for dozens of years. Adding cellular phones, babies, fast food, gigantic Sport Utility Vehicles, and other distractions on top of a general increase in traffic and average speeds-only brews more gridlock and carnage. (...) America must not shrink from hard decisions about where, when and who is fit to drive. We must get the incompetent, the angry, the thoughtless and the decrepit off the road. At the same time, we must provide the opportunity to learn driving skills for people who need to drive and are able to do it well, regardless of income level. Giving people options Increased transportation options for people who cannot drive must coincide with efforts to weed out lousy drivers. Forcing people out of their cars, with no way to get to work, breeds outlaws and joblessness. Some ways include: electric scooter and bicycle programs bike-trains high-speed rail By eliminating the small percentage of drivers who, for whatever reason, simply cannot cope with modern driving, we can reduce the estimated 6.6 billion gallons of gasoline wasted by Americans who were waiting in traffic in 1997, reduce the air pollution associated with that colossal waste, and reduce the amount of frustration on our roads in general. more... http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote44 On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Martin Edwards wrote: > > Tom Sherman wrote: > >> Jack May wrote: > >>>> Jack May wrote: >Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the >road... Wow what are really stupid goal. The public wants nothing to do with using bikes, public transportation, or any other alternative. All of those alternative are total failures with zero chance of replacing cars. Cars will be here long after you are dead. They will just being using alternative fuels instead of oil. The sophomoric crap at the end has been deleted... > On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The sophomoric crap at the end has been deleted... Yeah sure, just because fat lazy drivers are too stupid to consider other options, it doesn't mean they wouldn't change if traffic safety were to become a presidential issue or revolution whatever. "You can't fool all the people all the time" On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > >>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:fpiv5h$g12$5@registered.motzarella.org... >Yeah sure, just because fat lazy drivers are too stupid to consider >other options, it doesn't mean they wouldn't change if traffic safety >were to become a presidential issue or revolution whatever. Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of significance in life . As I said to you previously there is a lot of money and work going into developing cars that radically drop the death and accident rates. You have presented nothing that will be anywhere near as effective as what is now being developed. > On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of > significance in life . That's a reality they can see in the mirror. But they can always reverse it by riding a bike, walking whatever. Besides, some humor doesn't hurt. > As I said to you previously there is a lot of money and work going into > developing cars that radically drop the death and accident rates. You have > presented nothing that will be anywhere near as effective as what is now > being developed.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, the Germans and Nordics seem to emphasize *safety now*, not in some distant future. People are needless dying now as we speak. AND WE EVEN HAVE SOME HIGH TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE *NOT* PUT TO USE. Case in point is the steering wheel immobilizer that senses the alcohol in your breath. That would be a nice way to prevent DUIs, but like the book "It's No Accident" states, the government turns a blind eye to it. Too much money --and too many lawyers and MADD-- involved in that business. >> On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > reverse it by riding a bike, walking whatever. Besides, some humor > doesn't hurt. No, but where Jack is concerned, it is entirely superfluous. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just > call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > presented nothing that will be anywhere near as effective as what is now > being developed. Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. In the rest of the world, transit systems have been developed that are competitive with driving, and therefore render these expensive highway systems unnecessary in the first place. Signature-Glennl e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317. > > Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just > > call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. Another bald-faced lie. > In the rest of the world, transit systems have been developed that are > competitive with driving, and therefore render these expensive highway > systems unnecessary in the first place. And a second bald-faced lie. > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. > > In the rest of the world, transit systems have been developed that are > competitive with driving, and therefore render these expensive highway > systems unnecessary in the first place. What the hell are you talking about. In Europe cars are almost 90% of the travel and transit is only a little over 10%. What you are saying is totally nuts. As you look at poorer countries, the amount of transit or motorcycles goes up, but car usage goes up as individual income goes up. In the very poorest countries they can't even afford transit and people walk for most things which of course keeps them poor. Even in extremely dense Asian countries, the percent of travel using transit continues to drop. As I have said before, transit market share all over the world is dropping 10% to 15% per decade. No where , except in isolated cases, is transit seen as superior to roads and a replacement for roads. > > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > world is dropping 10% to 15% per decade. No where , except in isolated > cases, is transit seen as superior to roads and a replacement for roads. The comments are absurd and I think the poster knows it. However, he remains compulsively addicted to wishes not facts. >> > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are >> > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The comments are absurd and I think the poster knows it. However, he > remains compulsively addicted to wishes not facts. You're right. Jack's comments are wishful thinking. >> The comments are absurd and I think the poster knows it. However, he >> remains compulsively addicted to wishes not facts. > > You're right. Jack's comments are wishful thinking. Very childish cheap shot. What I presented are facts not the lies crap that you spew with absolutely no basis for what you say. >>> The comments are absurd and I think the poster knows it. However, he >>> remains compulsively addicted to wishes not facts. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Very childish cheap shot. What I presented are facts not the lies crap > that you spew with absolutely no basis for what you say. Cheap shot or not, it happens to be quite true. http://tinyurl.com/yvnacq >> Very childish cheap shot. What I presented are facts not >> the lies crap that you spew ... > Cheap shot or not, it happens to be quite true. =v= Jack is apparently unaware that, by definition, part of what makes a "cheap shot" so cheap is that it's not only quite true, but *obviously* quite true. (So obviously true, in fact, that it's considered unfair to bring up that truth.) <_Jym_> >>> Very childish cheap shot. What I presented are facts not >>> the lies crap that you spew ... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that it's considered unfair to bring up that truth.) > <_Jym_> Sorry <hanging head> > The comments are absurd and I think the poster knows it. However, he > remains compulsively addicted to wishes not facts. That's true. Jack is quite full of sh.t. But do you think he has you beat? You're a veteran! In Europe cars are almost 90% of the > travel Prove it. >> In Europe cars are almost 90% of the travel > Prove it. =v= Oooh, this is gonna be good. Remember the last time Jack May cited a source? It said the exact opposite of what he was arguing. (He was arguing against induced traffic/traffic evaporation.) <_Jym_> P.S.: Note that I've removed rec.bicycles.rides from the Newsgroups: header, as this is totally off-topic for that newsgroup. > In Europe cars are almost 90% of the > > travel > > Prove it. Data sources going back 20 years show the same intercity patterns. >> In Europe cars are almost 90% of the >>> travel >> Prove it. > > Data sources going back 20 years show the same intercity patterns. Intercity. What about intracity? Since most people in Western Europe don't like to commute from city to city, intracity is much more important to them. >>> In Europe cars are almost 90% of the >>>> travel [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like to commute from city to city, intracity is much more important to > them. You missed the important question: What data? > >> In Europe cars are almost 90% of the > >>> travel [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > don't like to commute from city to city, intracity is much more > important to them. Travel patterns in the USA and Europe show differences only on long-distance train travel vs. airline travel, with about less than 10% difference even there. Of course, if you can hide passenger travel by loading costs onto money-losing freight service (like used to be done in the USA too), you can start to "prove" all kinds of things. >>>> In Europe cars are almost 90% of the >>>>> travel [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > loading costs onto money-losing freight service (like used to be done in the > USA too), you can start to "prove" all kinds of things. So what you are saying is that people in Western Europe, have 2-3 SUV's in the driveway. Routinely drive 25 or more miles to work and on the weekends drive 100 miles to visit Grandma? > Travel patterns in the USA and Europe show differences only on > long-distance train travel vs. airline travel, with about less than 10% > difference even there. Of course, if you can hide passenger travel by > loading costs onto money-losing freight service (like used to be done in the > USA too), you can start to "prove" all kinds of things. This statement is ridiculous: you can't hide "passenger travel" by "loading costs", least of all onto alleged "money-losing" services. Would you care to restate it, assuming you meant something else? SignatureMy real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB > Of course, if you can hide passenger travel by loading costs > onto money-losing freight service (like used to be done in > the USA too), you can start to "prove" all kinds of things. =v= The _Wall_Street_Journal_ just had an article about rail freight and how it takes a third as much oil as using trucks, and how that makes it economical. But hey, what does the _WSJ_ know about economics, anyway? =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with rail in the first place, but rising oil costs are starting to make some things undeniable. <_Jym_> > =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that > wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with > rail in the first place, but rising oil costs are starting to > make some things undeniable. There's also the massive subsidies to maintain the highway system in the first place -- you constantly see complaints that trucking is responsible for 90% of road wear, but pays very little of thath cost. -Miles SignatureAlliance, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third. >> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >first place -- you constantly see complaints that trucking is >responsible for 90% of road wear, but pays very little of thath cost. Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want to share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own dedicated routes. Tough for them. We would be much better off if rail had competitive carriers on all trackage and the tracks were run by a utility. >>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do > have to share with others.[...] Does a 5-axle truck with a gross weight of 80,000 pounds pay 5000 to 10,000 times as much as a sedan in taxes and tolls? If not, the truck is getting subsidized on how much fatigue damage it causes to the pavement. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >10,000 times as much as a sedan in taxes and tolls? If not, the truck is >getting subsidized on how much fatigue damage it causes to the pavement. As I understand it, that particular claim has not been shown to be true. If the tax needs to be changed, by all means lets make it fair to everyone, but that does not excuse the foolishness of our legislatures in letting taxes fall so much that we cannot take care of our roads. >>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > As I understand it, that particular claim has not been shown to be true. Really? So all the pavement design methods used by engineers in the US are wrong to a gross extent? That I refuse to believe. > If the tax needs to be changed, by all means lets make it fair to > everyone, but that does not excuse the foolishness of our legislatures > in letting taxes fall so much that we cannot take care of our roads. Well, in terms of geometric design and traffic through-put, the truck is only the equal to a few cars which makes the equivalent cost harder to calculate, but in terms of pavement damage we are talking fact, not made up numbers. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >>>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Really? So all the pavement design methods used by engineers in the US >are wrong to a gross extent? That I refuse to believe. No, the cost of trucks on roads is not 5,000 greater than autos because the cost of better pavement is not that much compared with the entire cost of the highway. Adding a few extra inches of higher quality pavement can easily be charged to trucks alone, but for pennies per gallon, not dollars. >> If the tax needs to be changed, by all means lets make it fair to >> everyone, but that does not excuse the foolishness of our legislatures [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >calculate, but in terms of pavement damage we are talking fact, not made >up numbers. but not thousandfold costs. > >> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that > >> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > had competitive carriers on all trackage and the tracks were run by a > utility. It would raise costs. >> >> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >> >> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >It would raise costs. I wouldn't have expected any other response from you. Please explain how it is cheaper to have one monopoly carrier or two competing carriers with separate tracks. Show your work. > Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do > have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want to > share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own > dedicated routes. What a completely bizarre way to think of it... It's not like the trucking companies actually _built_ anything, the _government_ built, and maintains, the highways, the trucks just take advantage of them. The common complaint (I have no idea whether it's true) is that the trucking companies in fact _don't_ "pay their share" -- though they pay various taxes and fees, those are nowhere near enough to compensate for the wear caused by trucks, so in effect, government highway subsidies also (and particularly) subsidize trucking companies. Rail shipping companies, to the best of my knowledge, receive no subsidy at all from the government, and of course pay taxes on their huge infrastructure. -Miles Signature"Most attacks seem to take place at night, during a rainstorm, uphill, where four map sheets join." -- Anon. British Officer in WW I >>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > had competitive carriers on all trackage and the tracks were run by a > utility. The system that has failed so spectacularly in the British privatisation. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >The system that has failed so spectacularly in the British privatisation. Why did it fail in the UK? Did the regulators let the utility ignore its duty to maintain the tracks? Did it charge too much? >>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Why did it fail in the UK? Did the regulators let the utility ignore its > duty to maintain the tracks? Did it charge too much? Last time I was in the UK, the rail system looked to be working just fine... >>>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Last time I was in the UK, the rail system looked to be working just fine... There are some very good train operators, notably Chiltern Trains, but see the reply which should come in above. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that >>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Why did it fail in the UK? Did the regulators let the utility ignore its > duty to maintain the tracks? Did it charge too much? Both. Despite that the corporation called Railtrack went bust, and a lot of stock market virgins who had not been warned that share capital is risk capital got burned. In the great tradition of Friedmanism many of these were seniors who lost their life savings. In the few examples of train operators running competitive services, the cheaper ones were removed to make more slots for the big companies, notably the egregious Virgin Trains, not a corporation but a partnership of five people led by the notorious Richard Branson. The trackage was renationalized in all but name, while the routes were recently refranchised. The architect of this fiasco was the last Tory Prime Minister, John Major: it was actually a privatisation too far for Margaret Thatcher. The network of Womens' Institutes, well known for their cultural if not overt political conservatism, were investigated for Communist influences when they asked soem awkward questions about it. Mr Major still sits for the safest Tory seat in Parliament. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > Virgin Trains, not a corporation but a partnership of five people led by > the notorious Richard Branson. Is Richard Branson notorious? I thought he was rather admired in general... > The architect of this fiasco was the last Tory Prime Minister, John > Major: it was actually a privatisation too far for Margaret Thatcher. I never quite figured out why John Major was ever prime minister in the first place -- nobody seemed to like him, he didn't appear to be very smart, and he wasn't even charismatic or stylish (those huge glasses of his...)! He was just sort of .... there. -Miles SignatureP.S. All information contained in the above letter is false, for reasons of military security. >> Virgin Trains, not a corporation but a partnership of five people led by >> the notorious Richard Branson. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -Miles That's about it. Having the fewest discernible characteristics, he was the least hated. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, > but they do have to share with others. =v= Without any numbers (accurate ones), this is a completely meaningless observation. The standard design manual calculates road damage as proportional to the fourth power of the weight on the axle, and this is thought to be a low estimate (by an order of magnitude, even). =v= As for sharing with others, it's not the trucker suffering the most damage when that sharing doesn't work out -- and that damage additionally inflicts higher costs than those inflicted by other road users. <_Jym_> > Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do > have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want to > share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own > dedicated routes. Tough for them. Railroads are common carriers, and have to accept any cargo offered. They were set up that way to they have one operating/financial entity, and can avoid the chaos of multiple operators, which would reduce productivity. The competitors are the truckers. > We would be much better off if rail had competitive carriers on all > trackage and the tracks were run by a utility. No we wouldn't. >> Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do >> have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want to >> share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own >> dedicated routes. Tough for them. > >Railroads are common carriers, and have to accept any cargo offered. But they are not regulated as common carriers as they were. >They were set up that way to they have one operating/financial entity, >and can avoid the chaos of multiple operators, which would reduce >productivity. The competitors are the truckers. Now we have the chaos of poor handoffs from one carrier to another. >> We would be much better off if rail had competitive carriers on all >> trackage and the tracks were run by a utility. > >No we wouldn't. >>> Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they >>> do have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But they are not regulated as common carriers as they were. They are still common carriers, even if the economic regulation has been reduced from the time they were monopolies. With truck competition, such regulation is no longer necessary for the most part, and hadn't been necessary for 50 years prior to deregulation in the 1970s. >> They were set up that way to they have one operating/financial entity, >> and can avoid the chaos of multiple operators, which would reduce >> productivity. The competitors are the truckers. > > Now we have the chaos of poor handoffs from one carrier to another. So by adding more carriers, you feel that the additional handoffs would somehow be improved? I can just imagine the chaos of several operators trying to work in the same marshalling yard at the same time. > > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > travel and transit is only a little over 10%. What you are saying is > totally nuts. You have made this comment many times before and have been proven wrong. For the most part, this is because the numbers you choose to look at include eastern Europe, which is still in transition to a more wealthy society. Also, you are looking at statistics for entire countries, whereas when I say "successful transit systems" it means systems that operate in specific areas. Let's take the Stassbourg, France streetcar line: average speed 14 mph when operating in downtown streets. This is over twice as fast as the similar lines that have opened here in the northwest (Portland, Tacoma and Seattle all operate about 6 mph), mostly due to better route planning. For downtown street traffic, that 14 mph average speed is reasonably competitive with driving. Strassbourg's streetcar line gets about 10 times the ridership that our line here in Portland does. > As you look at poorer countries, the amount of transit or motorcycles goes > up, but car usage goes up as individual income goes up. In the very > poorest countries they can't even afford transit and people walk for most > things which of course keeps them poor. I'll bet I've spent far more time in such places than you ever will. > Even in extremely dense Asian countries, the percent of travel using transit > continues to drop. As I have said before, transit market share all over the > world is dropping 10% to 15% per decade. No where , except in isolated > cases, is transit seen as superior to roads and a replacement for roads. Naturally, in places where people are starting to own cars for the first time, their use is increasing. Looking at the entire continent of Asia (much of which is still developing) obscures the statistics of what has been done in places that actually have money (Japan, for example), and have developed good alternatives to driving. Signature-Glennl e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317. > > > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > > > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You have made this comment many times before and have been proven wrong. Now you are back to your "I've proven you wrong" rant, when your only evidence is your pathetic comments you know are fake from the start. Then you state everyone but you misquotes sources and so forth and so on. > > > > Your comments only apply to North America, where transit systems are > > > > designed to be failures by consultants who drive everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > evidence is your pathetic comments you know are fake from the start. Then > you state everyone but you misquotes sources and so forth and so on. Neither you nor Jack has quoted any sources, so I have not made any such claims about misquoted sources. One can't argue with statistics that appear out of nowhere. I am only providing a blanket statement as to why such a figure that covers "Europe" (which, by the geographical definition, nearly 50% of which is made of Russian farmland) which Jack provided isn't particularly relevant to urban areas of western Europe. OK, so maybe the correct way of phrasing what I wrote shouldn't be "You have made this statement before many times and been proven wrong." This is considerable oversimplification, but it is also in response to a statistic that is irrelevant to the statement I typed. What I should have said was "You have made this statement before many times, which has been proven irrelevant." The statement that Jack May has made before and has been proven incorrect has been the statements that "Transit use is declining all over Europe." He was able to prove that market share in all of Europe (including areas that are still transitioning out of communism) is decreasing, which is to be expected. However, what was shown to be true is that in many areas of western Europe (that is, locations where efforts are being made to improve the quality of transit and auto ownership is well established) that transit market share is actually increasing. So, the statement of cars being 90% of the travel in Europe isn't necessarily incorrect, but it is a completely inaccurate picture that is presented in response to my statements of what is really going on. Signature-Glennl e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317. On Feb 27, 12:44 pm, "Jeremy Parker" <JeremyPar...@compuserve.com> wrote: > How old is that movie? I thought that the Dutch had given up bicycle > master plans fourteen years ago. I didn't see any statistics later [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Jeremy Parker > London UK The goals at the end of the film are set for 2010... I reproduce here an article on what it would take for North America (or the UK) to become bicycle friendly. Short of a major overhaul of our roads (which would take nothing less than a revolution) I propose that cars are subject to a 20mph limit on the right (left) lane -- enforced by speed cameras. But that would take another revolution in priorities, wouldn't it? What "Bike Friendly" Looks Like (Bicycle Neglect #4) Posted by Alan Durning on 05/17/2007 at 06:30 PM What if cities had no sidewalks and everyone walked on the road? Or, for urban recreation, they walked on a few scenic trails? What if the occasional street had a three-foot-wide "walking lane" painted on the asphalt, between the moving cars and the parked ones? Well, for starters, no one would walk much. A hardy few might brave the streets, but most would stop at "walk?! in traffic?!" Fortunately, this car-head vision is fiction for pedestrians in most of Cascadia, but it's not far from nonfiction for bicyclists. Regular bikers are those too brave or foolish to be dissuaded by the prospect of playing chicken with two-ton behemoths. Other, less-ardent cyclists stick to bike paths; they ride for exercise, not transportation. Bike lanes, in communities where they exist, are simply painted beside the horsepower lanes. Cascadians react reasonably: "bike?! in traffic?!" And they don't. "It's not safe" is what the overwhelming majority of northwesterners say when asked why they bike so little. (As it turns out, it's safer than most assume--on which, more another day.) So what would Cascadia's cities look like if we provided the infrastructure for safe cycling? What does "bike friendly" actually look like? Good bicycling infrastructure is something few on this continent have seen. It doesn't mean a "bike route" sign and a white stripe along the arterial. It doesn't mean a meandering trail shared with joggers, strollers, and skaters. Bike friendly means a complete, continuous, interconnected network of named bicycle roads or "tracks," each marked and lit, each governed by traffic signs and signals of its own. It means a parallel network interlaced with the other urban grids: the transit grid on road or rail; the street grid for cars, trucks, and taxis; and the sidewalk grid for pedestrians. It means separation from those grids: to be useful for everyone from eight year olds to eighty year olds, bikeways on large roads must be physically curbed, fenced, or graded away from both traffic and walkers. (On smaller, neighborhood streets, where bikes and cars do mingle, bike friendly means calming traffic with speed humps, circles, and curb bubbles.) Picture a street more than half of which is reserved for people on foot, bikes, buses, or rail; on which traffic signals and signs, street design, and landscaping all conspire to treat bicycles as the equals of automobiles. This is what bike friendly--what Bicycle Respect-- looks like. Such "complete streets" are common in Denmark, the Netherlands, and other northern European countries. This photo is from Copenhagen, which has more than 200 miles of "bicycle tracks" and another 40 miles planned or under construction. (Photo courtesy of Jayson Antonoff, International Sustainable Solutions. See more photos here.) These tracks, which are typically above street grade and below sidewalk grade, can move six times more people per meter of lane width than motorized lanes of Copenhagen traffic. That's right: because cyclists can travel close together, bike tracks have higher traffic "throughput" than do car lanes. Copenhagen has even synchronized its traffic signals--for bikers. An average-speed bike commuter going downtown will rarely see a red light. more (pictures and comments)... http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/05/17/what-201cbike-friendly20 1d-looks-like-bicycle-neglect-4 On Feb 29, 11:22 pm, "David White" <wlightn...@att.net> wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > grocery store because we don't have any farms growing product to put in the > stores....... What we really need is OPTIONS... It's such a wonderful word, even more democratic than electing some president every 4 years, who, more often than not, ignores most of his electoral promises. In this case, it would mean a motorized vehicle for you, and a bicycle for me. But it can even mean some bicycling for you and some motoring for me. Also you must realize that most people who live in the boondocks don't farm anything nor have any other need for it. It's commonly known as the sprawl. It's a big problem in America as much as the car monopoly. > <gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > poorest countries they can't even afford transit and people walk for most > things which of course keeps them poor. If you were right, Miami (or any major American city) would be a car paradise, and Curitiba, Brazil, would be a total failure. Well, I got news for you: Miami is a traffic jungle and Curitiba is a model city. I guess you were joking, right? Sustainability in the Big City: What Chicago can learn from Curitiba Carmen Vidal-Hallett and Mark Hallett What would a city planned by architects look like? Imagine a city where plum public projects go to leading architects, resulting in stunning modern work. Where older buildings are protected by law but incentives are also in place to encourage development too. Old theatres, factories and even old train stations are renovated to become popular shopping malls. Municipal buildings such as public schools and even luxury hotels optimize the use of natural resources by maximizing natural light and utilizing all kinds of simple methods of energy conservation. Sound nice? But there's more: Imagine a public transit system so efficient that when you go to work in the morning you can jump on modern buses that go by every 30 seconds, speeding along commercial, high density streets in exclusive central lanes, stopping at futuristic tubular mini-stations. Imagine a city where you can ride your bike for over 100 km of routes through native forests. Through dedicated parks with cultural elements from both native and European immigrant cultures, past restored waterways, listening to birds along the way. Imagine that nearly everyone is careful about separating their trash into different recycling bins. Children learn about the environment in school and become enforcers on the domestic front. And the poor can can exchange recyclable garbage for organic produce from local farms. Well, the city exists. And it has done all of the above, largely turning around an unremarkable urban history to become a leading innovator in planning over the past 35 years. And it has done so while facing astronomical population growth, primarily an influx of rural poor. The city is Curitiba, Brazil. And architects have played a significant role there since the late 1960's: recent Mayors include several architects, and the city's department of planning employs hundreds of architects. In fact, when you talk with planners in Curitiba, more often than not they'll pull out pad and paper and begin to sketch what they're discussing. http://www.aia.org/nacq_a_051013_outside_vidalhallet > On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Martin Edwards wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > will be here long after you are dead. They will just being using > alternative fuels instead of oil.[...] Too bad we are stuck with inferior people that prefer motor vehicles to bicycles. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >> On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Martin Edwards wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Too bad we are stuck with inferior people that prefer motor vehicles to > bicycles. Heh. Tom Sherman = Bizzaro Jack May? >>> On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Martin Edwards wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Heh. Tom Sherman = Bizzaro Jack May? I Ride Bike, Therefore I Am. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > [...] > Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public > transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the > road[...] Superior people prefer to ride a bicycle. I am counting down the days to a move that will allow to commute by bicycle! SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > That would only happen during a GM commercial. WTF is this thread doing > in a transit group anyway? Jack's a troll. Because "donquijote1954" likes to link to a large number of newsgroups. > All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders - > then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating > behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors. You mean like with present cell phones and WiFi which is much more powerful than is being planned for car to car communication over a short range of hundreds of feet. You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do. >> All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders - >> then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too > ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do. Despite the continued use of the word "democracy" SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>> All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the >>> transponders - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Despite the continued use of the word "democracy" Watch it. Subtlety flies over his amazing genius head too. OK, since the subject here is ROAD TERRORISM, it may be useful to know what the color code on our roads is... (quoted from 'It's No Accident') Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, officials in the Bush Administration have been issuing routine reminders about the threads posed by terrorists and urging us to be on the lookout for suspicious activity. In March 2002 the Department of Homeland Security introduced a color-coded terror system to alert law enforcement officials and the general public to increases in the level of "chatter" the goverment intercepts from suspected terror cells. We are urged to take extra precautions when the threat level is elevated. (...) Such efforts to alert the public to the potential for future attacks and encourage us to be prepared may indeed save some lives. On a day- to-day basis, however, the greatest threat to our individual safety is the same as it was before September 11th: DANGEROUS DRIVERS. If a color-coded system were adopted today to warn Americans of the risk of impending death or injury while traveling the nation's roads, we would have to be on CODE RED alert every single day. In spite of this reality, the government makes little effort to inform the public about the high crash rate on our roads, remind motorists of the rules of the road, warn them of the risks inherent in all forms of dangerous driving, encourage safe driving, or condemn dangerous driving. [Warning: These terrorists are on the loose] > >> All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders - > >> then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Despite the continued use of the word "democracy" This is the best definition I've found... "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens" -Alastair Farrugia >> All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders - >> then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too > ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do. The fundies are drooling over a chance to enforce their sexual mores on everyone else. SignatureTom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful >> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and >> animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to > be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses. In my 'umble station in life I carry a phone which is only a phone. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and > >> animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management > decisions. -From "Rollerball" Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. In the future people will travel through the telephone lines!!! Imagine all the space left open on our congested roads. And, of course, then bicycles and scooters will not only be safe, they'll also be redundant. Did you see "The Matrix," how the lady disappears right on time to escape the bad guys through the telephone lines? And all that technology is being developed at this very minute by a Republican Administration that knows the future is up in the air. ;) > Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. In the future people will travel > through the telephone lines!!! Imagine all the space left open on our > congested roads. And, of course, then bicycles and scooters will not > only be safe, they'll also be redundant. Transporters have been built and are working. They work through tens of miles of fiber optics, not wires. Of course they only transport the states of atoms now using particle entanglement. Transporting people is way beyond what can be done now. > > How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and > > animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road. > That should not be hard once transponders become common. Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes. Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car. Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!! Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want. Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you. Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red- light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you get on to the nightly news. Transponders. Yeah, great idea. > Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road > that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. Zero death > is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large > passenger jets. On Feb 21, 12:03 am, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote: > "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > road. > That should not be hard once transponders become common. Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes. Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car. Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!! Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want. Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you. Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red- light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you get on to the nightly news. Transponders. Yeah, great idea. ---------------------------------------- Scenario 6: You're cruising along at 90 and hit a deer that didn't get the memo about needing a transponder. Scenario 7: The government has some illicit activity going on somewhere (who knows what _already_ get up to, much less what they _would_ get up to if no one could get there) and they set up a set of transponders preventing anyone who might call it to the public's awareness from getting there. OK, as part of our presidential campaign (it's not for me: htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%... Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party... Banana Revolution. Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing accidents. I hope he's reading... ;) A drive toward fewer cars There are other ways to get from A to B By JANE HADLEY P-I REPORTER Steep gas prices. Flabby bodies cruising for diabetes and heart trouble. Global warming. Air pollution. If the pitfalls of automobiles aren't already enough to make you think about chucking your car for other ways of getting around, consider the growth that is in store for Seattle. In the next 19 years, the city expects 22,000 new housing units and 50,000 new jobs. Assuming the same percentage of people continued driving alone to work, the city estimates it would have to build 20 city blocks of 10- story parking garages downtown. "Nobody wants to do that," says Patrice Gillespie-Smith, chief of staff of the city's Department of Transportation. "We are very motivated to offer incentives to get people out of their cars." In 2000, 61 percent of all Seattle work trips were by someone driving alone. By 2020, the city's transportation strategic plan wants to knock that down to 55 percent. People tend to become more interested in shifting out of their cars if gas or parking prices escalate, and if alternatives to the car are reliable, affordable and convenient, experts say. But it often takes something unusual to inspire or shake people into the awareness of those alternatives, said David Allen, senior transportation planner for the city. A city program called "One Less Car Challenge" aims to do just that, Allen said. The program encourages people to give up use of one car for one month, offering commuters tips on getting around by bus, bike or foot and also providing the free use of a Flexcar when needed. Of the 86 people who signed up initially in the fall of 2003, 20 percent decided to give up a car and the rest have vowed to drive less, Allen said. "It proved people could do it," he said. And the city is hoping to encourage people to use cars less by making it more difficult to find places to park. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/258737_nocar08.html On Feb 21, 1:16 pm, "Christopher von Volborth" <cavolbo...@cinci.rr.com> wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So who is the ultimate judge of who is and who isn't capable of dealing with > the challenge of American motorized traffic? The jugde is common sense. Just get in line with what's being done in Western European countries. The Germans had a great idea > for dispensing with analogous social issues...they were called > concentration camps. So you think the SUV drivers are the poor victims of discrimination? The Germans also felt they were a superior race that was entitled to special rights --just like American consumers do. The soviets under Stalin were no less ambitious in > formulating the perfect society. You don't have to be ambitious, just practice the democratic principle that everyone is entitled to reasonable safety when doing the right thing. Not only they stay away from moral judgement, they make it impossible for those who want to do something (eg. ride a bike) for the environment. They Soviets are also spoke about a future that never came, just like Bush and his future "development of alternative energies," whatever that means. If he were a real leader he would encourage the people to SAVE and GET IN SHAPE. Why not? It's simply better to invade Iraq. No, the answer must be that everyone gets > the same opportunity to benefit from all that our culture has to offer. For > that reason we live in a society ruled by laws to ensure that we don't > descend into anarchy. The laws in my state says that bicycles are vehicles, which conflicts with the reality of unreasonable fear imposed on those who dare challenge our lawless roads. Those who break the law risk getting caught and > paying the consequences. When the possibilities are only 1 in 1000, people take chances. However if you were to put speed cameras, then would see real change. Some may not get caught, causing damage to others; > that is the inherent risk in humans being social animals. Some animals have much greater armor (SUVs) than others. Then you have to protect the little animals with special laws, not the big ones. They do it in Holland, for example. Therefore > intellectually motivated social engineering has, as far as I can glean from > my reading of human history, been a major repeated disaster. Are you talking about nation building in Iraq? By contrast, > Homo sapiens, like any other species, evolves by natural selection as it > strives to meet the challenges of environmental pressure, and that includes > the pressures of motorized traffic. Evolution is denied. New challenges have risen... only to be ignored by the powers that be. Case in point, CLIMATE CHANGE. The dinosaurs are ignoring this important law proposed by Darwin himself... "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." The call for "...eliminating the small > percentage of drivers...who cannot cope with driv |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message