|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |