Pedestrians are endangered species

On 07-30-2012 20:14, James wrote:
On 31/07/12 09:58, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:

What were the engineers thinking about when they built America around
the automobile?

Was America built, or did it grow?

It was built around the rivers and buffalo paths.

Then the canals and railroads took control and moved stuff around to
suit them.

Finally, the cars and planes did the same.

Will bicycles ever ....?

--
Wes Groleau

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you
what can't be done and why. Then do it.
— Robert A. Heinlein

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:01:40 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
Cruiser Philosopher" wrote:

On Jul 31, 8:46*pm, John B. wrote:
rOn Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:09:27 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach









Cruiser Philosopher" wrote:
On Jul 31, 4:07*am, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:41:32 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Cruiser Philosopher" wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:14*pm, James wrote:
On 31/07/12 09:58, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:

What were the engineers thinking about when they built America around
the automobile?

Was America built, or did it grow?

Why America grew one way and Germany another?

In other words, why one grew smart and the other one not? Perhaps
because they failed one time and grew out of the ashes? Or why Hong
Kong grew around the scooter and not the automobile? Can we blame real
estate for the sprawl in America? London put a stop to growth in the
30's and that was a smart decision taken when we were really stupid.
Was it the politicians?

Perhaps we can name some names and be satisfied we found the guilty
party. At least we should be able to chart a better future, right?

I doubt engineers had a whole lot of say. *They are not usually the
decision makers.

They can certainly refuse to follow stupid orders.

We can not possibly blame the pedestrians and cyclists, right?

Nope. *Who can you blame? *Everyone does what they think is best for
them and theirs. *It's not a holistic approach.

--
JS.

It's a profiteering approach, that's all it is.

Blame Henry Ford and yourself, the American Public. Henry built a car
that was cheap enough for Mr. Average Man to buy and Mr. Average
immediately began to clamor for better roads to drive his new Ford on.
Cheers,
John B.

The American public could not have been that dumb. It needed to kill
the trolleys, public transportation, walking and biking as viable
options. Then advertising did the rest.

I hate to tell you, but you are imagining things. The reason trolley
lines and other forms of public transportation died is due to lack of
public use. Income dropped and the systems were abandoned. In locales
where it is less practical to drive the systems are still in use.
Think New York, London and other city subway systems.

Exactly, the sprawl made the walking, biking and public transportation
impractical. It is said that L.A. pioneered this model and all the
rest followed.

And again you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking
about. Prior to WW II what you call Los Angeles was a small town in
the general area of city hall. surrounded by open country and the
surrounding towns, Pasadena, Hollywood, Burbank, and so on, were
separate towns. If, for example, you traveled from Burbank to L.S. you
were in open country for much of the trip.

Then all the ex-GI's that had been posted through California decided
that it would be a nice place to live and moved there.

Nobody pioneered anything and hardly anyone planned anything.

NYC and London on the other hand prove that where density is high a
number of good things happen. At least walking is practical. Lack of
parking make this "miracle" happen as well.


The first bonds were issued to finance the construction of the N.Y
subway system in 1899, or thereabout. The first subway opened in 1904.

The population of NYC was approximately 3.4 million in 1900 and is
about 8.2 million (as of 2011). Are you trying to say that the city
planners foresaw this growth rate and planned for it?

But more to the point, I've walked in just about every major Asian
city, outside mainland China, I've walked in Miami Florida, and more
than a few other American cities, I've walked in rural New England.

Now how is it that I can do this and you can't? Am I some sort of
Super Man, tall buildings with a single bound and all that, or is
something the matter with you?

Sad thing is that the bike could manage the sprawl but brutal traffic
is often a deterrence.

God gave you two perfectly good legs. Why is it that you can't use
them?


As for the public's stupidity, I lived in a suburb of Los Angeles back
in the late 60's and early 70's and watched the citizens vote against
financing the building of a public transport system for the city, not
once, but twice.

And now they are trying to change that. People is stupid while they
are guided in the wrong direction. They also had to live in that
filthy smog. San Francisco went some other way and I understand it's
more livable.









Anyway let's lay out what we need and what we don't:

(in my humble opinion)

On Jul 31, 11:25*am, "possum" wrote:
"Julian" wrote in
...

On 31/07/2012 09:52, qzwxec wrote:
"Julian" wrote in
message
...
On 30/07/2012 14:40, TibetanMonkey, the
Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
(I may have given up my dream of riding
a bike in America, but
walking... walking is the ultimate
necessity of the human being.

Are paraplegics not human?

Cannot see the point.

All are very sorry for paraplegics.

Do you mean that because of paraplegics
other healthy more lucky humans
should not practice & enjoy walking?

No.

there's the issue that monkey's claim that
"walking is the ultimate necessity of the
human being" can't stand up, if you'll
pardon the pun.

possum

To make it dangerous, to make it stupid, to make it impractical
doesn't mean walking is not the ultimate need of the human being.

In most places around the world --those who dismiss the American way
of life-- walking is still the way to go. But not only that, walking
allows socialization, which is another human necessity.

And once again your pipe dreams overcome reality.

In most places around the world people, as soon as they earn a bit of
money, buy a bicycle. A few years later, when salaries increase a bit
they buy a motorbike and then a bit later on as the economy gets even
better they buy an automobile. In a really dynamic economy the whole
process takes less then 50 years to happen.

Not necessarily. The Netherlands, Germany and Japan are going in some
other direction. Perhaps because they got strong cultures not
permeated by individualism.


When we want to punish people we put them in solitary confinement in a
3' by 3' cell. "Roaming free" is the ultimate necessity, which
includes the bike, the scooter, the motorcycle and anything that is
not a cage. Grab a donkey if you will and go exploring your world.
That's what Jesus would do.

People aren't confined to cells. You can walk, or ride a bike, in any
city. I walk/ride in Bangkok which has some of the most hectic traffic
in the world. You could do the same if you would only open the front
door and go out "there".

That advice can get people killed. Not to be practiced in Miami Beach
and most other sprawls. Most people try to survive by riding the
sidewalk which is not even safe. Then there's a conflict with
pedestrians --if they are found at all. Most American cities are ghost
towns.

Perhaps Bangkok can be compared with NYC where many cyclists brave the
streets. They are not the same type of winos and immigrants that you
find in the sprawl, but real respectable cyclists. Make no mistake:
It's still a dangerous jungle out there. There's safety numbers, so
the more the better. Let the fallen be awarded our eternal gratitude.

I may be taking a real revolutionary step and go where I can be a
human being whether I'm on foot or bike. I feel my humanity is being
denied here so it may be time to leave...

My war against traffic, corruption and plain stupidity is over. Not
even the boondocks is the solution. It's worse than anything. No
trails, no people. Once I'm in Nirvana (hopefully with a bike and a
banana) my struggle is over. I know the grass is greener on the other
side.

Amsterdam!
Cheers,
John B.

rOn Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:09:22 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
Cruiser Philosopher" wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:08*am, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:01:40 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach









Cruiser Philosopher" wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:46 pm, John B. wrote:
rOn Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:09:27 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Cruiser Philosopher" wrote:
On Jul 31, 4:07 am, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:41:32 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Cruiser Philosopher" wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:14 pm, James wrote:
On 31/07/12 09:58, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:

What were the engineers thinking about when they built America around
the automobile?

Was America built, or did it grow?

Why America grew one way and Germany another?

In other words, why one grew smart and the other one not? Perhaps
because they failed one time and grew out of the ashes? Or why Hong
Kong grew around the scooter and not the automobile? Can we blame real
estate for the sprawl in America? London put a stop to growth in the
30's and that was a smart decision taken when we were really stupid.
Was it the politicians?

Perhaps we can name some names and be satisfied we found the guilty
party. At least we should be able to chart a better future, right?

I doubt engineers had a whole lot of say. They are not usually the
decision makers.

They can certainly refuse to follow stupid orders.

We can not possibly blame the pedestrians and cyclists, right?

Nope. Who can you blame? Everyone does what they think is best for
them and theirs. It's not a holistic approach.

--
JS.

It's a profiteering approach, that's all it is.

Blame Henry Ford and yourself, the American Public. Henry built a car
that was cheap enough for Mr. Average Man to buy and Mr. Average
immediately began to clamor for better roads to drive his new Ford on.
Cheers,
John B.

The American public could not have been that dumb. It needed to kill
the trolleys, public transportation, walking and biking as viable
options. Then advertising did the rest.

I hate to tell you, but you are imagining things. The reason trolley
lines and other forms of public transportation died is due to lack of
public use. Income dropped and the systems were abandoned. In locales
where it is less practical to drive the systems are still in use.
Think New York, London and other city subway systems.

Exactly, the sprawl made the walking, biking and public transportation
impractical. It is said that L.A. pioneered this model and all the
rest followed.

And again you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking
about. Prior to WW II what you call Los Angeles was a small town in
the general area of city hall. surrounded by open country and the
surrounding towns, Pasadena, Hollywood, Burbank, and so on, were
separate towns. If, for example, you traveled from Burbank to L.S. you
were in open country for much of the trip.

Then all the ex-GI's that had been posted through California decided
that it would be a nice place to live and moved there.

Nobody pioneered anything and hardly anyone planned anything.

Yeah, sure. We have city planners or we don't? Are they taking into
account that every community needs a sidewalk and possibly a bike
path?

You don't know much about Los Angeles, do you.

What you call "Los Angeles", the so called Los Angeles Basin, was,
historically, not a single city but rather an area made up of a
number of separate cities. Burbank, Pasadena, et al. To believe that
there was some sort of coordinated city planning that incorporated the
desires and needs of all of the municipalities is infantile.

Or they count on everybody walking on the road like here?

NYC and London on the other hand prove that where density is high a
number of good things happen. At least walking is practical. Lack of
parking make this "miracle" happen as well.

The first bonds were issued to finance the construction of the N.Y
subway system in 1899, or thereabout. The first subway opened in 1904.

The population of NYC was approximately 3.4 million in 1900 and is
about 8.2 million (as of 2011). Are you trying to say that the city
planners foresaw this growth rate and planned for it?

But more to the point, I've walked in just about every major Asian
city, outside mainland China, I've walked in Miami Florida, and more
than a few other American cities, I've walked in rural New England.

Now how is it that I can do this and you can't? Am I some sort of
Super Man, tall buildings with a single bound and all that, or is
something the matter with you?

Remember, I'm not Superman. I'M ONLY A WISE MAN.


Sad thing is that the bike could manage the sprawl but brutal traffic
is often a deterrence.

God gave you two perfectly good legs. Why is it that you can't use
them?

God gave me two legs and a brain, but the brain says that dying on the
road, fighting along the way, is not the smart thing to do.

God's people don't have a problem with that because they usually sit
on the couch and go shopping in their SUV. Then they go to church on
Sundays --or whatever day-- and rejoice.


People ride bicycles every day. Some of them are
riding bicycles from one side of the country to the other, I provided
you with references to both N.Y. Highway Department bicycle routes and
several groups that organize long distance rides in the state.

People walk every day. Some even walk across the U.S., more then 50
individuals in the past 10 years, or so. You, on the other hand can't
seem to walk or bike to the corner market without some sort of panic
attack.

Your problem is reality and your inability to face it. Rather then
admit that you are too timid to go out doors you concoct some sort of
pseudo philosophy in order to justify your fears and hide away from
life.


Around here it's the Jews that do that and they walk long distances on
the road, next to cars, family and all. But they are happy, terribly
happy.
Cheers,
John B.