Paris may ban SUVs - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about sports cars, aeroplanes, ships, rockets etc.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13670677
Paris is over-run with too many cars per square meter. The air there is sort of disgusting because of the chemical smell, and the sidewalk handicapped ramps are always blocked (so you never see anyone in wheelchairs trying to get around).

In Montreal, it's really obvious that car transportation is inappropriate in the winter.

In school or on the job, the drivers are the ones who have to leave "before the snow," who show up late after storms, and never have time to socialize because "I've got a long drive ahead of me."

Likewise, every spring, all the asphalt roads have potholes the sized of armadillos.

I have never been late on my bicycle (even right after a snowstorm) and - most importantly - I'm NOT a feminist. :lol:
Last edited by QatzelOk on 31 Mar 2011 01:42, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Dave
#13670685
The ClockworkRat wrote:Good, people are too fat.

This is another one of those situations where I say, "I don't disagree, but," and then point out a pretty important caveat.

Except this time, we're playing a game. Can YOU figure out what the caveat is? :)
User avatar
By Dave
#13670711
No, although that's a good point. Way too many smelly people, especially in the city.
User avatar
By Dave
#13670735
Slander! Have any of my "excuses" in this thread been twisted thus far?
By grassroots1
#13670820
There isn't a clear dividing line between suburban and urban, and it's upper-middle class people WITHOUT kids who tend to rant about suburbia. People with children usually (but not always) know better.


Maybe so.

I don't disagree with this, but I would hate for reurbanization to result in a major decline in living standards.


I was thinking, there's no reason some element of suburbs shouldn't be preserved if there were just more efficient methods of transportation like trains or a heavier emphasis on busing.

Got to say, Dave, it's good to have you back if only to see Libertarians get their asses handed to them from a new angle.
User avatar
By nucklepunche
#13670871
Let me put out a few facts for the various liberals on this board. I live in Michigan, USA. If you live in the European Union, like the one poster from Brussels or the UK, or even Paris where this debate stems from, you are probably used to mild oceanic weather not getting much about 70 Fahrenheit (about 20 C) in the summer and below freezing 32 Fahrenheit (0 C in the winter). I remember times this summer when the thermometer cracked ninety Fahrenheit and throughout July and August it was above 80 virtually every day, and during the winter I saw days of five Fahrenheit, well below freezing. In my lifetime I've seen it get above 100 once in the summer and numerous times I've seen sub-zero weather in winter. Also in a given winter the area I live in receives an AVERAGE of six feet of snow each winter, it isn't rare to see a foot fall in a single storm and sometimes snow banks get to be well taller than a human. Also if you calculate the AVERAGE means roughly half the winters we get more than six feet of snow. There are areas in rural Michigan, very poor areas mind you, where there are not paved roads. I would only have to drive twenty minutes to reach an area of roughly one hundred square miles with barely a paved road where many people live, some of them depends on two-tracks even. And I live in the southern half of Michigan. In the northern half there are areas far larger of unpaved roads and even paved roads, if rural, do not get plowed in the winter all the time. There are many areas of rural Michigan where a person simply has to have an SUV or truck or have no car at all in the winter, and having no car at all in the winter isn't feasible since there's no public transportation and they'd probably starve to death from lack of food or freeze to death walking ten miles to the store. Coincidentally many of these people in rural Michigan are members of the "poor" and "working class" you liberals like to hold up on a pedestal. Now that being said is it too bad we don't have decent public transportation in the USA? Yes, it is too bad. Yet more public transport is the answer. Higher CAFE standards on mileage for new cars are the answer. Many newer SUVs are being built in the past couple years that get better mileage than the cars of the 1990s. These SUVs will soon be the norm. This has nothing to do with the environment or economy, this has to do with a bunch of urban bourgeois liberals wanting to impose their lifestyles on people who they don't like, people they see as "boring middle class suburbanites" or "dumb rednecks."
User avatar
By Dave
#13671023
nucklepunche, great post but get ready for some dude who rides his bicycle in snowstorms to tell you about it. He thinks you should ride your bicycle in snowstorms, or at least that is the point I think he is making.

grassroots1 wrote:I was thinking, there's no reason some element of suburbs shouldn't be preserved if there were just more efficient methods of transportation like trains or a heavier emphasis on busing.

Got to say, Dave, it's good to have you back if only to see Libertarians get their asses handed to them from a new angle.

Trains and busing are not as convenient as automobiles. They require some level of pre-planning and take you longer to get to most destinations. Multi-stop trips, especially if not on the same route, are considerably more difficult. They are also not private and tend to involve more exposure to the elements.

They are, however, more efficient users of resources.

I wasn't actually referring to the transport situation, but actually to the lower quality of life in many respects that characterize cities in North America. There is no reason you can't have a car-oriented city (Detroit and many newer Sunbelt cities are good examples), and in fact mass transit oriented suburbs are even possible, e.g. the street car suburbs of the early 20th century.

Thanks for the welcome back.
By Pants-of-dog
#13671051
Dave wrote:That's nice, but most people are more interested in convenience than making silly statements. Riding your bicycle in a snowstorm exposes you to the elements, requires exertion, reduces your speed of travel (some exceptions), and precludes you from carrying passengers or anything more than minor cargo.


Why do you dismiss people's motives for riding a bicycle as "making a silly statement"? Since you cannot actually know what their motives are, it seems like it would be impossible for you to characterise them properly.

I think it is good to be exposed to the elements, to exert yourslef, and to move slowly in areas with lots of people. As for how much I can carry, I have taken two kids to school on my bike, at the same time that I carried everything I needed for my work day.

Dave wrote:I live in an urban centre and absolutely none of these things except places to shop (not a district), cafes, and parks are within walking distance. In most suburbs parks are less important since people have yards.

Almost no kids are actually interested in libraries, museums, galleries, or cultural centers. The exception is smart kids, who by definition are a fraction of the population.


Then the urban center you live in is atypical in its lack of community services. Where do you live?

The vast majority of urban communites have services for everyone, even dumb kids.

Dave wrote:-Noise
-Smells
-Pollution
-Lack of space, especially open space
-Much harder to drive
-Proximity to lower social classes
-Crime


To deal with noise, smells, pollution, and driving difficulty, many urban centres are enacting bans and regulations on private automobiles, such as Paris. Many cities are also creating car free spaces, increasing the amount of open space available to urban dwellers.

Your complaint about proximity to lower social classes will get the attention it deserves.

Yes, more people means more crime, but I doubt that the crime rate per capita is higher in urban centres than in suburban ones once you correct for socioeconomic factors.

Dave wrote:The only people who get rid of their TV sets are weirdos. Ordinary people like the simple, convenient entertainment it provides.


Then all these suburban people with their TV sets who complain at advertising directed at children should be more like the weirdos.

nucklepunche wrote:Let me put out a few facts for the various liberals on this board. I live in Michigan, USA.

If you live in the European Union, like the one poster from Brussels or the UK, or even Paris where this debate stems from, you are probably used to mild oceanic weather not getting much about 70 Fahrenheit (about 20 C) in the summer and below freezing 32 Fahrenheit (0 C in the winter).

I remember times this summer when the thermometer cracked ninety Fahrenheit and throughout July and August it was above 80 virtually every day, and during the winter I saw days of five Fahrenheit, well below freezing. In my lifetime I've seen it get above 100 once in the summer and numerous times I've seen sub-zero weather in winter. Also in a given winter the area I live in receives an AVERAGE of six feet of snow each winter, it isn't rare to see a foot fall in a single storm and sometimes snow banks get to be well taller than a human. Also if you calculate the AVERAGE means roughly half the winters we get more than six feet of snow.


The snowbank outside my home has melted a lot. Now it is down to about four feet high.

There are areas in rural Michigan, very poor areas mind you, where there are not paved roads. I would only have to drive twenty minutes to reach an area of roughly one hundred square miles with barely a paved road where many people live, some of them depends on two-tracks even. And I live in the southern half of Michigan. In the northern half there are areas far larger of unpaved roads and even paved roads, if rural, do not get plowed in the winter all the time. There are many areas of rural Michigan where a person simply has to have an SUV or truck or have no car at all in the winter, and having no car at all in the winter isn't feasible since there's no public transportation and they'd probably starve to death from lack of food or freeze to death walking ten miles to the store. Coincidentally many of these people in rural Michigan are members of the "poor" and "working class" you liberals like to hold up on a pedestal.


Then it's a good thing that the discussion has limited itself to the urban context. I have not seen any liberals espouse bans on cars for rural communites.

Now that being said is it too bad we don't have decent public transportation in the USA? Yes, it is too bad. Yet more public transport is the answer. Higher CAFE standards on mileage for new cars are the answer. Many newer SUVs are being built in the past couple years that get better mileage than the cars of the 1990s. These SUVs will soon be the norm. This has nothing to do with the environment or economy, this has to do with a bunch of urban bourgeois liberals wanting to impose their lifestyles on people who they don't like, people they see as "boring middle class suburbanites" or "dumb rednecks."


The Parisian authorities are aware of the high fuel efficiency of new SUVs. This is why the proposed ban in Paris is not a blanket ban on SUVs. It is a ban on those cars that pollute too much. If a SUV can pass the required emissions standrads, that SUV will not be banned.

There is the problem that this law may affect the poor the most as they are the ones who are most likely to own a crappier, older car. The Parisian authorities are aware of this problem as well and hope to construct the legislation in such a way that the poor will not be so affected.

Dave wrote:Trains and busing are not as convenient as automobiles. They require some level of pre-planning and take you longer to get to most destinations. Multi-stop trips, especially if not on the same route, are considerably more difficult. They are also not private and tend to involve more exposure to the elements.

They are, however, more efficient users of resources.


Yes. Pros and cons. Public tranportation will never be as convenient as private tranportation, but it does utilise resources most effectively. A bicycle has the convenience of private tranportation, but it has drawbacks in terms of maximum speed, range, and carrying capacity. Each tranportation option has advantages and drawbacks and users will choose their option based on their needs.

Any viable plan for improving urban congestion and polution must therefore have several options for any user. I would live to ban all automobiles from city centres, but I also realise that city centres need stuff delivered, and some of it must be frozen. Venice has done it, but Venice has canals.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13671058
Again, I ride my bicycle in a snowstorm.


And some people use sled dogs...it doesnt mean its intelligent or safe.

While I understand it is more convenient for people to each have an individual off road vehicle for the few days each year that prevent normal cars from being used, there are more environmentally friendly options for city centers.


You would allow your kids to ride bikes in a snow storm?
By Pants-of-dog
#13671065
Oxymoron wrote:And some people use sled dogs...it doesnt mean its intelligent or safe.


And some people use cars...it doesn't mean it's intelligent or safe.

You would allow your kids to ride bikes in a snow storm?


When they get older I will. My children are currently too small to operate any vehicle in a snow storm. In a snow storm, the easiest methods of getting around are walking and using a subway system.
User avatar
By Dave
#13671082
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do you dismiss people's motives for riding a bicycle as "making a silly statement"? Since you cannot actually know what their motives are, it seems like it would be impossible for you to characterise them properly.

What snobbery. Your motive is to show that personal transportation in inclement weather is possible without an SUV or even an automobile as all. Additionally, there is probably a subconscious motive to demonstrate silly environmentalist virtue, given that you're a progressive.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I think it is good to be exposed to the elements, to exert yourslef, and to move slowly in areas with lots of people. As for how much I can carry, I have taken two kids to school on my bike, at the same time that I carried everything I needed for my work day.

Congrats, now try carrying a week's worth a groceries, furniture, appliances, or more than two passengers on your bicycle. Or, for that matter, try going a distance that exceeds 50 miles--routinely and quickly. You know it isn't possible, so stop with this pedantic splitting of hairs. A bicycle is less convenient than an automobile, which is why more people drive than bike.

I agree with your other points. Exposure to the elements has a hormetic affect, and the constant climate control people have these days has a negative effect on their health, immune system, and vigor. The benefits of exertion speak for themselves. However, sometimes speed and comfort are more important. After a long day of work, especially if the work is physical, a lot of people don't want to immediately exert themselves, especially in the cold.

I sometimes dream of a Spartan society in which the measure of a man is the pain he can endure, but that's not a realistic option that people are going to accept. People like the bourgeois, middle-class virtues of ease and comfort.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then the urban centre you live in is atypical in its lack of community services. Where do you live?

The vast majority of urban communites have services for everyone, even dumb kids.

Chicago, not a city known for its lack of services. I live in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, which has a high concentration of affluent white people so there is a demand for "cultural" services. The museum campuses and art galleries (barring a commercial one that sells garbage abstract "art") simply aren't within walking distance.

Pants-of-dog wrote:To deal with noise, smells, pollution, and driving difficulty, many urban centres are enacting bans and regulations on private automobiles, such as Paris. Many cities are also creating car free spaces, increasing the amount of open space available to urban dwellers.

A lot of the noise, smells, and pollution is simply a factor of density. You live closer to other people and other activities, so noise is more concentrated. There are two construction sites within 50 yards of my apartment. For that matter, I also hear people walking in the stairwell in my apartment building, something which obviously wasn't an issue in the suburbs. Effectively dealing with this would require extensive investment in sound dampening materials, increased cleaning maintenance, and a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels (something that can be served by regulating motor vehicle traffic). I don't really see any of this happening.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your complaint about proximity to lower social classes will get the attention it deserves.

Get off your high horse. Your progressive denial of the realities of lower social classes doesn't remove the problem for the rest of us who aren't religious fanatics with a blank slate view of human nature and a noble savage view of the underclasses. They're noisy, rude, fat, ugly, loud, and criminally inclined. No one wants to live in proximity to them.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, more people means more crime, but I doubt that the crime rate per capita is higher in urban centres than in suburban ones once you correct for socioeconomic factors.

Irrelevant. Because cities have public transit, services within walking distance, and tend to have more welfare services they attract more of those lower "socioeconomic factors", so you are always in greater proximity to populations with inclinations to criminal behavior. I live in the safest police beat in the city of Chicago and despite that property crime is much more prevalent here than in typical suburban communities, most of which feature lower median "socioeconomic factors" than this neighborhood.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then all these suburban people with their TV sets who complain at advertising directed at children should be more like the weirdos.

This is an unreasonable demand to make of people. The vast majority of people have televisions and use them, including people who live in urban centers. Most parents would like a helping hand from government here, not arrogant suggestions on how they should live their lives.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes. Pros and cons. Public tranportation will never be as convenient as private tranportation, but it does utilise resources most effectively. A bicycle has the convenience of private tranportation, but it has drawbacks in terms of maximum speed, range, and carrying capacity. Each tranportation option has advantages and drawbacks and users will choose their option based on their needs.

Any viable plan for improving urban congestion and polution must therefore have several options for any user. I would live to ban all automobiles from city centres, but I also realise that city centres need stuff delivered, and some of it must be frozen. Venice has done it, but Venice has canals.

Now we get to something that I agree with you completely on. :lol:
By Pants-of-dog
#13671119
Dave wrote:What snobbery. Your motive is to show that personal transportation in inclement weather is possible without an SUV or even an automobile as all. Additionally, there is probably a subconscious motive to demonstrate silly environmentalist virtue, given that you're a progressive.


You have no way of verifying what anyone's motives are. They are also irrelevant to the deabte. If you wish to continue making unprovable and somewhat insulting statements about other people, feel free to do so, but I will ignore them from now on.

Dave wrote:Congrats, now try carrying a week's worth a groceries, furniture, appliances, or more than two passengers on your bicycle. Or, for that matter, try going a distance that exceeds 50 miles--routinely and quickly. You know it isn't possible, so stop with this pedantic splitting of hairs. A bicycle is less convenient than an automobile, which is why more people drive than bike.


I have carried most of these things on my bicycle, or more realistically, on a bicycle with a trailer.

I have already pointed out that two of the drawbacks of a bicycle are the low maximum speed and the short range. However, in a city centre, which is what we are discussing, there is rarely opportunity to go fifty kilometers an hour or to go a distance of fifty miles. Consequently, bicycles are more convenient in city centres.

Dave wrote:I agree with your other points. Exposure to the elements has a hormetic affect, and the constant climate control people have these days has a negative effect on their health, immune system, and vigor. The benefits of exertion speak for themselves. However, sometimes speed and comfort are more important. After a long day of work, especially if the work is physical, a lot of people don't want to immediately exert themselves, especially in the cold.

I sometimes dream of a Spartan society in which the measure of a man is the pain he can endure, but that's not a realistic option that people are going to accept. People like the bourgeois, middle-class virtues of ease and comfort.


I consider the pulmonary health of urban residents to be more important than the ease and comfort of the middle class.

Dave wrote:Chicago, not a city known for its lack of services. I live in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, which has a high concentration of affluent white people so there is a demand for "cultural" services. The museum campuses and art galleries (barring a commercial one that sells garbage abstract "art") simply aren't within walking distance.


http://www.walkscore.com/nearby/620-W.- ... nois-60614

Apparently, you have many services within walking distance, if you live near the vet office near the north east corner of Oz Park.

Dave wrote:A lot of the noise, smells, and pollution is simply a factor of density. You live closer to other people and other activities, so noise is more concentrated. There are two construction sites within 50 yards of my apartment. For that matter, I also hear people walking in the stairwell in my apartment building, something which obviously wasn't an issue in the suburbs. Effectively dealing with this would require extensive investment in sound dampening materials, increased cleaning maintenance, and a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels (something that can be served by regulating motor vehicle traffic). I don't really see any of this happening.


You probably lived in a building that was not built to code. Most multi-family dwellings are built with partitions between suites that act as fire separations, confining the fire and heat to one suite in order to protect the rest of the occupants as they leave the building. This fire separation usually requires enough insulating materials that sound transmission is not a problem.

Dave wrote:Irrelevant. Because cities have public transit, services within walking distance, and tend to have more welfare services they attract more of those lower "socioeconomic factors", so you are always in greater proximity to populations with inclinations to criminal behavior. I live in the safest police beat in the city of Chicago and despite that property crime is much more prevalent here than in typical suburban communities, most of which feature lower median "socioeconomic factors" than this neighborhood.


My personal experience is that there is less violent crime where I live. But most of the violent crime where I used to live was racially based, and there are simply less racist people in cities.

Dave wrote:This is an unreasonable demand to make of people. The vast majority of people have televisions and use them, including people who live in urban centers. Most parents would like a helping hand from government here, not arrogant suggestions on how they should live their lives.


The easiest way to limit the advertising your children see is to limit their access to TV.

Dave wrote:Now we get to something that I agree with you completely on. :lol:


This is consistent with everything else I have said so far.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13671126
And some people use cars...it doesn't mean it's intelligent or safe.


It does mean its safe and intelligent. Its warm, its four wheel drive, protects you from elements, and no manual labor needed. Wow what a concept a vehichle that runs without manual labor. Progress what a strange Idea. :lol:
User avatar
By Dave
#13671132
Pants-of-dog wrote:You have no way of verifying what anyone's motives are. They are also irrelevant to the deabte. If you wish to continue making unprovable and somewhat insulting statements about other people, feel free to do so, but I will ignore them from now on.

I have an excellent way of knowing what other people's motives are, which is to rely on experience with how motives tend match up to statements made and beliefs held. I can verify it by the other person stating what his motives are. This however would require honesty and an ability to get the joke, not characteristics in abundance among progressives.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have carried most of these things on my bicycle, or more realistically, on a bicycle with a trailer.

Ever carry a refrigerator? A desk? A television? Oh wait, you don't have a TV. :roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have already pointed out that two of the drawbacks of a bicycle are the low maximum speed and the short range. However, in a city centre, which is what we are discussing, there is rarely opportunity to go fifty kilometers an hour or to go a distance of fifty miles. Consequently, bicycles are more convenient in city centres.

Outside of rush hour 20-30 miles per hour is fairly average local road speed in urban centers. During rush hour you're definitely right.

However, in low density housing situations which provide many already discussed benefits, bicycles become much slower than automobiles.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I consider the pulmonary health of urban residents to be more important than the ease and comfort of the middle class.

False dichotomy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:http://www.walkscore.com/nearby/620-W.- ... nois-60614

Apparently, you have many services within walking distance, if you live near the vet office near the north east corner of Oz Park.

Duh, which is one reason I live in the city and not the suburbs. The services you referred to are not, however, in walking distance. They are just as inconvenient to get to from here as they are from the suburbs.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You probably lived in a building that was not built to code. Most multi-family dwellings are built with partitions between suites that act as fire separations, confining the fire and heat to one suite in order to protect the rest of the occupants as they leave the building. This fire separation usually requires enough insulating materials that sound transmission is not a problem.

Noise between units is not an issue in my building, but noise in the stairwell is. The stairwell is concrete and has concrete block walls. Concrete is an excellent transmitter of vibration and has poor acoustic characteristics, leading to echo. Even if this building were not built to code (it is), the fact remains there is a lot of building stock which has exposure to noise, and we're not even talking about noise from outside. The building was built in 2000 for high-income renters, so we're not talking about a slum tenament.

There is another, newer, noise issue in multiple-unit dwellings as well. Hardwood flooring has become very popular in the market, and it is an excellent transmitter of vibrations. As such, between level noise has become a greater issue. Effective techniques for dampening these noises do exist, but of course increase building costs and are not incorporated into most building codes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:My personal experience is that there is less violent crime where I live. But most of the violent crime where I used to live was racially based, and there are simply less racist people in cities.

You are so full of shit. :roll:

You did not address my points of lower social classes, likely because it contravenes your religious-fundamentalist beliefs about lower social classes.

Your personal experience is not relevant, there exists a statistically significant correlation between both housing density and proximity to lower social classes for crime.

Suburbs are more racially homogeneous and thus have less "racist" crime. Cities have higher concentrations of more criminally inclined races, especially in the United States, and therefore more "racist" crime. As example, the black population has a violent crime rate about eight times the national average and is heavily concentrated in urban areas.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The easiest way to limit the advertising your children see is to limit their access to TV.

Indeed, but most parents are not particularly active and may have limited time to engage given how many two-income and single parent families now exist. Additionally, many are perfectly vulnerable to the "everyone else" is doing it argument: parents largely tend to do what other parents do. If other parents let their kids which TV, which most do, then parents will tend to follow the crowd and let their kids watch TV. There is also the matter of not wanting your kids to become weirdos and social outcasts, which means you want them to have some similar experiences to other kids.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is consistent with everything else I have said so far.

Yes, and it is also consistent with what I have said, which is why we're arguing about other things.
By Pants-of-dog
#13671152
Dave wrote:Ever carry a refrigerator? A desk? A television? Oh wait, you don't have a TV. :roll:


Not a full size refirgerator. Mind you, the compressor is the only heavy bit.

The desk I carried measured about 36" x 72", was made of hardwood, had steel hardware, and had five drawers and one of those sliding shelf thingies. TVs are even easier to carry.

Dave wrote:Outside of rush hour 20-30 miles per hour is fairly average local road speed in urban centers. During rush hour you're definitely right.

However, in low density housing situations which provide many already discussed benefits, bicycles become much slower than automobiles.


In city centers, cars rarely outpace me on my bicycle no matter what time of day it is.

Dave wrote:False dichotomy.


How is it a false dichotomy when I am simply listing my priorities? I never suggested that we have to choose between these two.

Dave wrote:Duh, which is one reason I live in the city and not the suburbs. The services you referred to are not, however, in walking distance. They are just as inconvenient to get to from here as they are from the suburbs.


Can you walk a mile? The vast majority of services listed on that website are less than a mile from that location.

Dave wrote:Noise between units is not an issue in my building, but noise in the stairwell is. The stairwell is concrete and has concrete block walls. Concrete is an excellent transmitter of vibration and has poor acoustic characteristics, leading to echo. Even if this building were not built to code (it is), the fact remains there is a lot of building stock which has exposure to noise, and we're not even talking about noise from outside. The building was built in 2000 for high-income renters, so we're not talking about a slum tenament.


Flanking noise is an issue in buildings with concrete structures. Still, that is not a big deal in the overall scheme of things.

There is another, newer, noise issue in multiple-unit dwellings as well. Hardwood flooring has become very popular in the market, and it is an excellent transmitter of vibrations. As such, between level noise has become a greater issue. Effective techniques for dampening these noises do exist, but of course increase building costs and are not incorporated into most building codes.


Yes, non-resilient surfaces will transmit flanking noise effectively. Again, this is not really a big deal.

Dave wrote:You are so full of shit. :roll:


Personal attacks have no place in a reasoned debate.

Your personal experience is not relevant, there exists a statistically significant correlation between both housing density and proximity to lower social classes for crime.

Suburbs are more racially homogeneous and thus have less "racist" crime. Cities have higher concentrations of more criminally inclined races, especially in the United States, and therefore more "racist" crime. As example, the black population has a violent crime rate about eight times the national average and is heavily concentrated in urban areas.


I would ask you to provide evidence for your claims, but since none of them have anything to do with urban transportation issues, I will leave that discussion for another thread.

In terms of urban transportation, the needs of the poor must also be addressed. This is another reason why cities need good public transportation systems, as you do not see many rich people on the bus.

Dave wrote:Indeed, but most parents are not particularly active and may have limited time to engage given how many two-income and single parent families now exist. Additionally, many are perfectly vulnerable to the "everyone else" is doing it argument: parents largely tend to do what other parents do. If other parents let their kids which TV, which most do, then parents will tend to follow the crowd and let their kids watch TV. There is also the matter of not wanting your kids to become weirdos and social outcasts, which means you want them to have some similar experiences to other kids.


This started with your assertion that people in the suburbs are more civic minded and want less advertising for their children. Now, you seem to be describing them as not particularly active. Which is it?

Dave wrote:Yes, and it is also consistent with what I have said, which is why we're arguing about other things.


One of the interesting thing about the drawbacks associated with cars (when compared to the drawbacks of other systems) is how most of the drawbacks are externalised onto others. Pollution, the associated health problems, pedestrian and cyclist deaths from being hit by cars, and congestion are some of the things that others have to deal with each time one person uses a car.

Oxymoron wrote:It does mean its safe and intelligent. Its warm, its four wheel drive, protects you from elements, and no manual labor needed. Wow what a concept a vehichle that runs without manual labor. Progress what a strange Idea. :lol:


How many people die each yera from automobile collisions?

How many people die each year from bicycle collisions?

Now, considering the answers to those questions, which is safer?
Last edited by Pants-of-dog on 31 Mar 2011 17:28, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Dave
#13671164
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not a full size refirgerator. Mind you, the compressor is the only heavy bit.

The desk I carried measured about 36" x 72", was made of hardwood, had steel hardware, and had five drawers and one of those sliding shelf thingies. TVs are even easier to carry.

Good for you, but these things are still all easier to carry in a car, especially if you have multiple items.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In city centers, cars rarely outpace me on my bicycle no matter what time of day it is.

What city do you live in and how is local traffic organized? With halfway decent traffic planning cars should move faster than bicycles. Here in Chicago there are a lot of one-way streets, and streets with higher traffic loads have fewer controlled intersections. Thus you can get around faster than a bicycle.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How is it a false dichotomy when I am simply listing my priorities? I never suggested that we have to choose between these two.

This may be my error in interpretation then, but it certainly suggests a dichotomy. Health, within reason, is certainly a priority over convenience--that I agree on completely.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you walk a mile? The vast majority of services listed on that website are less than a mile from that location.

Yes, but those services still don't include the cultural services you originally pointed out.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Flanking noise is an issue in buildings with concrete structures. Still, that is not a big deal in the overall scheme of things.
[...]
Yes, non-resilient surfaces will transmit flanking noise effectively. Again, this is not really a big deal.

Obviously, or people would avoid cities like the plague. However, it is a quality of life issue which I think should be addressed, especially if we're looking to reurbanize people who chose not to live in urban centers in the first place. The technologies exist and not particularly expensive. Drywall is the one of the cheapest parts of construction, and simply having two layers of drywall with an air gap minimizes noise substantially.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Personal attacks have no place in a reasoned debate.

That would be the case if this was a formal debate in which we were observing rules of rhetoric and logic, attempting to convince each other or win in some sort of points system. That isn't the case, and I have no expectation you will be convinced. This is thus for personal enjoyment and perhaps for convincing members of the audience, therefore exposing you has a very strong place.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I would ask you to provide evidence for your claims, but since none of them have anything to do with urban transportation issues, I will leave that discussion for another thread.

In terms of urban transportation, the needs of the poor must also be addressed. This is another reason why cities need good public transportation systems, as you do not see many rich people on the bus.

It is relevant, since we're discussing urban quality of life and as well as reurbanization.

The fact that you're asking for a source shows how incredibly out of touch you are and committed to your religion. Consult the race and crime, race and crime in the United States, or causes and correlates of crime article on Wikipedia. You can also consult Department of Justice crime statistics, which have been broken down by race since data were first measured. Another option is a book length treatment like The Color of Crime.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This started with your assertion that people in the suburbs are more civic minded and want less advertising for their children. Now, you seem to be describing them as not particularly active. Which is it?

I fail to see how these are in conflict. That suburbs are more civic minded and that parents want less advertising for their kids doesn't contradict that parents' go with the flow (like everyone else) and don't necessarily a lot of time.

Pants-of-dog wrote:One of the interesting thing about the drawbacks associated with cars (when compared to the drawbacks of other systems) is how most of the drawbacks are externalised onto others. Pollution, the associated health problems, pedestrian and cyclist deaths from being hit by cars, and congestion are some of the things that others have to deal with each time one person uses a car.

Ignoring the (important) pollution issue, the relationship can be inverted. Pedestrians and especially cyclists are annoying for motorists to deal with, as they inhibit traffic flow and pose liability issues. Of course, this is why traffic planning needs to balance and prioritize the needs of multiple users. Some transportation corridors must prioritize motorized traffic, some bicycle and/or foot traffic, and others must mix the uses. I suppose we both know that's all very obvious but it is difficult to resolve in a lot of situations.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
EU-BREXIT

@snapdragon mcdonnel is now pushing for full on […]

Atheism is Evil

@SSDR As mentioned before, there is no fixed h[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Deficit $22 Trillion and rising. I rest my case.

Cis heterosexual males have suffered massive disc[…]