A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Do bicycles and cars mix?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 27th 03, 08:20 PM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do bicycles and cars mix?

"George Conklin" writes:


minimize all travel. This is no different from the old British nobles who
were against railroads because it would encourage the peasants to move
around too much. No difference today. Environmentalists are white elitists.

^^^^^
It would appear the George Conklin is a racist: you don't have to be
from any particular ethnic group to be an environmentalist.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
Ads
  #12  
Old July 28th 03, 01:47 PM
George Conklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Generated Traffic (do bikes and cars mix?)


"Automator" wrote in message
...
Someone who has given up on real change wrote:
Well if you listen to environmentalists without using any critical
thinking skills, I could see that.

Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the
growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because
we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving
as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births
and from immigration.


How about your critical thinking skills. You've looked at a single
dimention: "More people MUST mean more traffic, so we need more roads!"

Go to your local library (how about riding a bike there?) and grab five
books on traffic planning. Maybe even one of your locality's

transportation
plans. Get a variety, not just ones written by pro-roadies. Look up the

term
"generated traffic".


The generated traffic term was made up to justify the fear that as people
have become more affluent, they like to travel more. This goes all the way
back to the British aristocrats who said the same thing about railroads:
they were opposed to railroads because the peasants would move around too
much. Nothing has changed, except transit advocates don't want today's
peasants moving around so much....like YOU.


  #13  
Old July 29th 03, 06:57 AM
Marc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do bicycles and cars mix?

"George Conklin" wrote:

Environmentalists are white elitists.


But the conservatives are white elitists. And conservatives don't seem to
be environmentalists, and environmentalists don't seen to be conservative
(at least the current political definition).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
  #14  
Old July 30th 03, 11:59 AM
Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do bicycles and cars mix?

DTJ wrote:


Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the
growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because
we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving
as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births
and from immigration.

It amazes me how stupid their argument is


Before you accuse people of stupidity, you should get your facts right.
In most western societies, population is not only not increasing, it is
actually shrinking. Population growth is now mainly a problem of 3rd
world countries, and even there in many cases at least the growth rates
are going down.

Increase in traffic in western countries over the last couple of decades
is due to two factors:

1) More cars exist in a given population. Increased income means that
many families now have two or even more cars, were one used to suffice.

2) More milage per car. This is an effect that is accelerated by road
building programs. As I mentioned before there are a couple of examples
were motorways were build to relieve traffic congestions in neuralgic
areas. These had been calculated to allow traffic increase for 2-3
decades at observed rates. What actually happend was that these new
motorways were clogged after a few days by people doing journeys for
which public transport had been used before.

Interestingly, reducing available roads actually has the opposite
effect, as was shown in London (England) recently. An important bridge
had to be closed, and it was feared that this would increase traffic
problems on other bridges. What actually happend was that car numbers in
the inner city decreased.

So the solution for traffic problems is not to build new roads, but to
close existing ones, counterintuitive but experimentally proven.
  #15  
Old July 30th 03, 12:00 PM
Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do bicycles and cars mix?

John David Galt wrote:


This sort of red neck car driver attitude does not get you anywhere.
First of all, population is shrinking, not growing in most western
societies, only the number of cars is growing.


Not true in "most western societies", just backward old Europe.


If you look at the statistics published by the UN, population is
shrinking in most western societies. The US are in so far an exception
as the decline in birth rate is slightly overcompensated by immigration.

If one looks at recent developments one could argue that it is the US
that are backward, but that is OT.


I laugh as the EU tries to federalize more and more functions in a
pathetic attempt to imitate the economic success of the USA, when it
can never work as long as the residents of Europe insist on clinging
to its two biggest trade impediments: its high degree of socialism
and its multiple languages. But I digress.


Very few countries in Europe are socialist any more, this economic
theory has been discredited 10-15 years ago. Maybe some US citizens,
with their well documented interest in international affairs, have
failed to notice.


Second, experience shows that building new roads does not solve the
problem of congestion, because as soon as a new road opens, it gets
clogged by additional traffic.


This only shows that the roads built were too few and too late. You
need to build enough to catch up with all the pent-up demand. So do
we, lately; the Greens are starting to ruin the US as they have
already ruined Europe.


If that were the correct explanation, shutting down roads should
increase traffic problems. Experience however shows that it improves the
situation (for examle London).


Thirdly, appart from financial considerations there are other limits on
road building. Pollution levels and land use for roads can not be
increased indefinetly, in particular in the densely populated areas of
Europe.


Road space can be increased indefinitely without expanding land use
simply by stacking them up several levels high, as in Chicago's Loop
district.


At considerable expense. Goverments should spend their money on more
useful things than megalomanic traffic projects, which only increase the
problems (see above).


Or all of your obsolete, pre-automotive cities can start
making room for needed roads by taking a good dose of wrecking-ball
therapy .


This would be an act of barbaric vandalism. You should actually travel
to some of those cities with medeval core, and see the character and
living quality they have, especially those were motorised traffic has
been reduced. Then you can come back here.


As for pollution, the bureaucrats who plan land use should figure out
that causing congestion by not building enough roads only worsens
pollution. If I can drive straight to my destination and park, I
pollute a lot less than if I have to sit in traffic with my engine
idling for an extra hour.


As we have demonstrated above, building more roads does not reduce
congestion, instead you get more cars ideling around, hence more
pollution.

It simply isn't reasonable to insist that people walk or bike. It's
needless work, and anyone with a brain will move, or break the law,
rather than comply.


This may be true for a small minority of brain-amputated red necks, but
the vast majority of people will enjoy the environment thus created. My
suggestion would be that you spend a week or two in one of those cities
that have limited car traffic and encouraged cicling and public
transport (Muenster/Germany comes to mind), and see for yourself.

  #16  
Old July 30th 03, 04:11 PM
Steven Goodridge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do bicycles and cars mix?

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote
As we have demonstrated above, building more roads does not reduce
congestion, instead you get more cars ideling around, hence more
pollution.


I wouldn't agree with that; more roads connecting the same nearby
destinations tends to disperse traffic without increasing it. This
improves conditions for drivers of all vehicles, be they bicycles or
cars.

Some urban arterial projects designed to move cars long distances may
induce traffic by making geography less relevant to people's travel
habits, but this is of little concern to cyclists.

It simply isn't reasonable to insist that people walk or bike. It's
needless work, and anyone with a brain will move, or break the law,
rather than comply.


This may be true for a small minority of brain-amputated red necks, but
the vast majority of people will enjoy the environment thus created.


Not everybody wants to travel by bicycle, and not everybody wants to
travel by car. Fortunately, we live in a free country where we are at
liberty to choose the travel mode that works best for us, and the
traffic laws are written to allow safe sharing of roadways by a
diversity of vehicle types. I believe that cyclists' interests are
best served by jointly celebrating this freedom with drivers of every
other type of vehicle and building understanding of one another's
needs. Mutual respect is the foundation of safe, lawful, and efficient
roadway sharing.

- Steven Goodridge
Bicycle Commuter
NC Coalition for Bicycle Driving
http://humantrasport.org/bicycledriving/
  #17  
Old August 1st 03, 08:25 AM
Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do bicycles and cars mix?

John David Galt wrote:


This sort of red neck car driver attitude does not get you anywhere.
First of all, population is shrinking, not growing in most western
societies, only the number of cars is growing.


Not true in "most western societies", just backward old Europe.


If you look at the statistics published by the UN, population is
shrinking in most western societies. The US are in so far an exception
as the decline in birth rate is slightly overcompensated by immigration.

If one looks at recent developments one could argue that it is the US
that are backward, but that is OT.


I laugh as the EU tries to federalize more and more functions in a
pathetic attempt to imitate the economic success of the USA, when it
can never work as long as the residents of Europe insist on clinging
to its two biggest trade impediments: its high degree of socialism
and its multiple languages. But I digress.


Very few countries in Europe are socialist any more, this economic
theory has been discredited 10-15 years ago. Maybe some US citizens,
with their well documented interest in international affairs, have
failed to notice.


Second, experience shows that building new roads does not solve the
problem of congestion, because as soon as a new road opens, it gets
clogged by additional traffic.


This only shows that the roads built were too few and too late. You
need to build enough to catch up with all the pent-up demand. So do
we, lately; the Greens are starting to ruin the US as they have
already ruined Europe.


If that were the correct explanation, shutting down roads should
increase traffic problems. Experience however shows that it improves the
situation (for examle London).


Thirdly, appart from financial considerations there are other limits on
road building. Pollution levels and land use for roads can not be
increased indefinetly, in particular in the densely populated areas of
Europe.


Road space can be increased indefinitely without expanding land use
simply by stacking them up several levels high, as in Chicago's Loop
district.


At considerable expense. Goverments should spend their money on more
useful things than megalomanic traffic projects, which only increase the
problems (see above).


Or all of your obsolete, pre-automotive cities can start
making room for needed roads by taking a good dose of wrecking-ball
therapy .


This would be an act of barbaric vandalism. You should actually travel
to some of those cities with medeval core, and see the character and
living quality they have, especially those were motorised traffic has
been reduced. Then you can come back here.


As for pollution, the bureaucrats who plan land use should figure out
that causing congestion by not building enough roads only worsens
pollution. If I can drive straight to my destination and park, I
pollute a lot less than if I have to sit in traffic with my engine
idling for an extra hour.


As we have demonstrated above, building more roads does not reduce
congestion, instead you get more cars ideling around, hence more
pollution.

It simply isn't reasonable to insist that people walk or bike. It's
needless work, and anyone with a brain will move, or break the law,
rather than comply.


This may be true for a small minority of brain-amputated red necks, but
the vast majority of people will enjoy the environment thus created. My
suggestion would be that you spend a week or two in one of those cities
that have limited car traffic and encouraged cicling and public
transport (Muenster/Germany comes to mind), and see for yourself.

  #18  
Old August 6th 03, 01:04 PM
Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do bicycles and cars mix?

George Conklin wrote:

The more radical environmentalists have
published letters in our local newspaper saying that the goal of the
enviromental movement is to STOP TRAVEL or at least make it expensive and to
minimize all travel. This is no different from the old British nobles who
were against railroads because it would encourage the peasants to move
around too much. No difference today. Environmentalists are white elitists.



The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
without heavy luggage, this is the bike. This is probably the most
comman type of trip.

For other journeys, it may be bus, train, ship or plane. And for some
journeys, it's the car. Even I get into situations were I use a car,
about once a month on average. Of course I do not keep a car for that,
but call a taxi.

The problem is not travel per se, but the missuse of an inappropriate
mode of transportation.

And certainly it has nothing to do with race.

  #19  
Old August 6th 03, 01:05 PM
Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do bicycles and cars mix?

DTJ wrote:

YOU MORON.


Idiot.


With such phrases you exclude yourself from the discussion of educated
people. Only those who do not have no real arguments need to resort to
shouting and name calling.


  #20  
Old August 7th 03, 10:31 PM
Tanya Quinn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do bicycles and cars mix?

Dave Head wrote in message

Damn, I live just about that far from work. 24 miles of biking per day? I
don't think so. Not only would I kill someone to avoid that sort of
imposition, it would also waste about 2 hours per day, not including the
necessary shower after each ride. I get to work and home in about 22 minutes
with the car.


Obviously there is a limit that varies from person to person. In some
cases people would have faster trips by bicycle than car given the
current level of congestion where they live. And in cases where they
don't many people do not see it as a "waste of time", its also
exercise which is good for you. And if someone is driving to work and
then drives to the gym to work out for an hour, they've saved their
work out time by biking.

Plus, on the roads around here with the blind corners and sharp hill crests,
biker would get killed. I see _nobody_ biking these roads. No one is that
stupid.


That just points to the fact that better road design is needed to
accomodate a variety of users.

For other journeys, it may be bus, train, ship or plane.


Fatal flaw on all these: They run on a schedule. That means you have to wait
for them to get to where you are in order to ride them. Efficiency of travel
would go down, as would our overall productivity. Recreational travel would
probably be nearly completely discouraged.


I don't see how this is diminishing productivity. Its not so hard to
plan your schedule around the transport schedule so you aren't wasting
time "waiting" but there when you need to be. Often they are faster
than the car as well so the time you give up waiting is made up for
the time you save travelling. More eficient then.

And for some
journeys, it's the car. Even I get into situations were I use a car,
about once a month on average. Of course I do not keep a car for that,
but call a taxi.


Last taxi I took was from the airport in Indianapolis to home, across town.
$50. I am not that rich! Fortunately, it was for work, and they paid for it.


Most taxi trips are cheaper than that, and if as the OP says they only
need to use a car about once a month its much cheaper to use the taxi
than to pay maintenance, insurance etc on the car. (not to mention it
is depreciating in your driveway)

The problem is not travel per se, but the missuse of an inappropriate
mode of transportation.


Anything you have to wait for in order to ride is "inappropriate", in my
opinion.


Is it so terrible to have to wait five minutes while reading a paper
or book to get on a vehicle where you can then continue to read since
you don't have to pay attention to the road, and depending on the mode
of transportation avoid getting stuck in a traffic jam?

Want to get public transport actually accepted in this country? Build it so
you don't have to wait for it. See the "personal rapid transit" mode of


I'm not sure what you have against waiting so much since I'm sure you
do a lot of it at stop lights.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do bicycles and cars mix? wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX General 62 September 13th 03 03:24 AM
why did moths change color? was Do bicycles and cars mix? Dr Engelbert Buxbaum Social Issues 0 July 18th 03 08:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.