Paris may ban SUVs - Page 4 - 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 Oxymoron
#13671165
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?


How many people use Bikes....and how many people use cars?
By Pants-of-dog
#13671186
Dave wrote:Good for you, but these things are still all easier to carry in a car, especially if you have multiple items.


Moving in or into the city (not exactly common) would be more convenient with a truck. At this point, one could rent a truck or hire a moving company. It is not as convenient as having your friend drive you around in his SUV, but sometimes people have to sacrifice convenience so that others do not have to deal with harmful levels of pollution.

Dave wrote: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.


I live in Montreal.

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


There were eight theatres mentioned in those services, if I recall correctly. Two of them seemed to be live theatres. Chicago has a very vibrant cultural scene, and I am certain that most of thse cultural attractions are within walking distance of your neighbourhood or a subway station.

Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


Not if the issue is flanking noise, as you described. In that case, having resilient finishes is more effective, but people don't like carpet. Resilient furring strips would help in the manner you describe.

Dave wrote: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.


Personal attacks have no place in a reasoned debate.

Dave wrote: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.


To tie this back to urban transportation, my kids get a lot of socialising and interacting with the neighbours by playing outside. This includes ridingtheir bicycles with other kids.

Dave wrote: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.


Motorists are annoying for pedestrians and cyclists to deal with for the reasons you mention (i.e. they inhibit traffic flow and pose liability issues), as well as for the reasons I mention. For this reason, it makes sense to prioritise transportation systems that do not have these drawbacks where possible.

Oxymoron wrote:How many people use Bikes....and how many people use cars?


The ClockworkRat wrote:Perhaps a better question would be, what ratio of bike-bike, bike-car, and car-car accidents result in minor/serious/fatal injury?


I think we can safely say that cars would consistently score as the most dangerous.
User avatar
By Dave
#13671215
Pants-of-dog wrote:Moving in or into the city (not exactly common) would be more convenient with a truck. At this point, one could rent a truck or hire a moving company. It is not as convenient as having your friend drive you around in his SUV, but sometimes people have to sacrifice convenience so that others do not have to deal with harmful levels of pollution.

In other words, there are trade offs with every choice.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I live in Montreal.

Montreal has much higher density than Chicago and most other cities in North America, so that makes sense.

Pants-of-dog wrote:There were eight theatres mentioned in those services, if I recall correctly. Two of them seemed to be live theatres. Chicago has a very vibrant cultural scene, and I am certain that most of thse cultural attractions are within walking distance of your neighbourhood or a subway station.

You didn't mention theater before, but fair enough--that is a cultural service which smart people enjoy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Not if the issue is flanking noise, as you described. In that case, having resilient finishes is more effective, but people don't like carpet. Resilient furring strips would help in the manner you describe.

I despise carpet. The simplest solution is to install a resilient barrier between the hardwood flooring and the subfloor. This can be as easy as putting squishy tape on top of joists. The most effective solution is to mechanically separate the vibration of the floor from the structural subfloor and wall, ie a floating floor. This can be accomplished with neoprene pucks, or more effectively with structural springs. This method also has the advantage of increasing structural resistance to mechanical shocks (e.g. earthquakes, high intensity storms, water surges, and explosions).

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

Does restating yourself with no adjustment in content? :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:To tie this back to urban transportation, my kids get a lot of socialising and interacting with the neighbours by playing outside. This includes ridingtheir bicycles with other kids.

That's pretty solid, but suburbs provide this very well. They have more families to begin with, and with much less going on outside they can easily play in the streets, people's yards, etc. Because suburbs are safer and people usually know each other better, it is also easier to leave kids unsupervised.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Motorists are annoying for pedestrians and cyclists to deal with for the reasons you mention (i.e. they inhibit traffic flow and pose liability issues), as well as for the reasons I mention. For this reason, it makes sense to prioritise transportation systems that do not have these drawbacks where possible.

Inverting the relationship again and bringing us back to square one.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I think we can safely say that cars would consistently score as the most dangerous.

I could be wrong here, but I would bet that bicycling carriers a much higher incidence of minor injuries, while automobiles have a greater incidence of major injuries and fatalities. Trade offs again.
By Pants-of-dog
#13671270
Oxymoron wrote:I dont think so Pants.


KE=1/2(m)(v^2)

The kinetic energy of a moving object is equal to one half of the product of the mass and the square of the velocity.

This law of physics shows that the amount of energy transferred to an object being hit by a moving object is directly proportional to the mass of said moving object. It is also proportionate to the square of the velocity.

Cars are far heavier than bicycles, so they transfer a lot more energy. Cars move faster than bicycles, so they transfer a lot more energy.

This larger amount of energy creates a proportionately larger amount of damage.

Dave wrote:In other words, there are trade offs with every choice.


Yes, I made that point earlier. Since then I have developed it a bit by pointing out that bicycles have a series of advantages and drawbacks that are particularly suited for urban centres. The main drawback is carrying capacity, but as I already pointed out, the number of times a person has to do some heavy hauling, (s)he can hire a professional or rent a vehicle.

Dave wrote:Montreal has much higher density than Chicago and most other cities in North America, so that makes sense.


Montreal has a population density similar to New Orleans. Los Angeles has a much higher population density. Why does everyone drive there?

Dave wrote:You didn't mention theater before, but fair enough--that is a cultural service which smart people enjoy.


The theatres were clearly listed on the website.

Dave wrote:I despise carpet. The simplest solution is to install a resilient barrier between the hardwood flooring and the subfloor. This can be as easy as putting squishy tape on top of joists. The most effective solution is to mechanically separate the vibration of the floor from the structural subfloor and wall, ie a floating floor. This can be accomplished with neoprene pucks, or more effectively with structural springs. This method also has the advantage of increasing structural resistance to mechanical shocks (e.g. earthquakes, high intensity storms, water surges, and explosions).


Unless you live in a seismically active area, most developers will not include resilient mechanical separations in the floor structure due to cost reasons.

Dave wrote:That's pretty solid, but suburbs provide this very well. They have more families to begin with, and with much less going on outside they can easily play in the streets, people's yards, etc. Because suburbs are safer and people usually know each other better, it is also easier to leave kids unsupervised.


Staying with the motif of urban transportation, I notice that many suburbs have no sidewalks. I also notice that many suburban teenagers like to drive fast because they finally have a car and can go do things other than watch TV or get driven to a friend's house.

Do you think that teenagers driving fast and kids playing (literally) on the street is a good mix?

Dave wrote:Inverting the relationship again and bringing us back to square one.


No. I am saying that cars cause the same problems for pedestrians as pedestrians cause for cars, as well as other problems.

Dave wrote:I could be wrong here, but I would bet that bicycling carriers a much higher incidence of minor injuries, while automobiles have a greater incidence of major injuries and fatalities. Trade offs again.


Add in the number of major illnesses and fatalities due to car pollution and I bet the number of major and fatal injuries and illnesses is higher than the number of minor injuries.

What is a minor fatality?
User avatar
By Dave
#13671310
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I made that point earlier. Since then I have developed it a bit by pointing out that bicycles have a series of advantages and drawbacks that are particularly suited for urban centres. The main drawback is carrying capacity, but as I already pointed out, the number of times a person has to do some heavy hauling, (s)he can hire a professional or rent a vehicle.

Other drawbacks were mentioned earlier: exposure to the elements and physical exertion.

There are some other drawbacks related to haulage. For instance, it is much more convenient to purchase non-perishables in bulk, in which case you need cargo capacity. I purchase my non-perishables in large quantities at discount big box retailers like Costco, which saves me time and money. Granted, you could still rent a vehicle for this. U-Haul rents cargo vans for $20 a day and 99 cents a mile, and most car rental companies will rent you a car for less than $30 a day with no mileage charges on weekends.

It basically all comes down to convenience v. costs, both personal (cost of a car, gas, maintenance, etc.) and social.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Montreal has a population density similar to New Orleans. Los Angeles has a much higher population density. Why does everyone drive there?

From Wikipedia

Montreal
Density 4,439/km2 (11,496/sq mi)

New Orleans
Density 1,965/sq mi (759/km2)
(no metro density listed)

Los Angeles
Density 8,205/sq mi (3,168/km2)

Montreal is 40% denser than Los Angeles and nearly six times denser than New Orleans.

The difference in transit patterns between Montreal and LA are therefore more interesting, given that the difference isn't enormous. I believe it is because LA was originally laid out as a street car city, which transitioned like other street car cities into an auto-oriented city. Lately density has increased due to the huge, unplanned population growth since 1970 in LA.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The theatres were clearly listed on the website.

Right, but it's not one of the cultural services you originally named. You omitted it from your original point, so I wasn't thinking of it even though it is a cultural service.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Unless you live in a seismically active area, most developers will not include resilient mechanical separations in the floor structure due to cost reasons.

Naturally, but fortunately we have regulations. Resilient mechanical separations should become standard practice in urban building codes to increase livability and enhance the amount of building stock which would remain usable in the event of a military attack.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Staying with the motif of urban transportation, I notice that many suburbs have no sidewalks. I also notice that many suburban teenagers like to drive fast because they finally have a car and can go do things other than watch TV or get driven to a friend's house.

Do you think that teenagers driving fast and kids playing (literally) on the street is a good mix?

Suburbs have less need of sidewalks due to their much lower traffic flow. Fast driving teens and kids playing in the street aren't a good mix, but it really doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. In any case, some suburbs address this with traffic calming techniques like speed bumps and serpentine roads (which are also more aesthetically pleasing).

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I am saying that cars cause the same problems for pedestrians as pedestrians cause for cars, as well as other problems.

I never disputed that and even spelled it out (pollution).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Add in the number of major illnesses and fatalities due to car pollution and I bet the number of major and fatal injuries and illnesses is higher than the number of minor injuries.

What is a minor fatality?

I didn't say minor fatality, and I am surprised you would take the statement, "major injuries and fatalities" to mean major fatalities even though that is a grammatically correct interpretation.
By Pants-of-dog
#13671334
Dave wrote:Other drawbacks were mentioned earlier: exposure to the elements and physical exertion.


I am focusing on things that most people would consider drawbacks. Those could both be (and often are) considered advantages.

There are some other drawbacks related to haulage. For instance, it is much more convenient to purchase non-perishables in bulk, in which case you need cargo capacity. I purchase my non-perishables in large quantities at discount big box retailers like Costco, which saves me time and money. Granted, you could still rent a vehicle for this. U-Haul rents cargo vans for $20 a day and 99 cents a mile, and most car rental companies will rent you a car for less than $30 a day with no mileage charges on weekends.

It basically all comes down to convenience v. costs, both personal (cost of a car, gas, maintenance, etc.) and social.


My friend does a lot of canning. In the fall, we go to the farmer's market and he buys large quantities of perishable goods. We haul the equivalent of one of those Costco shopping carts each. Most haulage issues are easily resolved.

Dave wrote:
From Wikipedia

Montreal
Density 4,439/km2 (11,496/sq mi)

New Orleans
Density 1,965/sq mi (759/km2)
(no metro density listed)

Los Angeles
Density 8,205/sq mi (3,168/km2)

Montreal is 40% denser than Los Angeles and nearly six times denser than New Orleans.


http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/la ... y-125.html

Los Angeles (people per square kilometer): 2,750
New Orleans: 1,950
Montreal: 1,850

The difference in transit patterns between Montreal and LA are therefore more interesting, given that the difference isn't enormous. I believe it is because LA was originally laid out as a street car city, which transitioned like other street car cities into an auto-oriented city. Lately density has increased due to the huge, unplanned population growth since 1970 in LA.


Interesting.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Suburbs have less need of sidewalks due to their much lower traffic flow. Fast driving teens and kids playing in the street aren't a good mix, but it really doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. In any case, some suburbs address this with traffic calming techniques like speed bumps and serpentine roads (which are also more aesthetically pleasing).


These measures can also be placed in urban settings. In fact, some city centres (like Paris) lend themsleves naturally to some traffic calming measures.

Dave wrote:I didn't say minor fatality, and I am surprised you would take the statement, "major injuries and fatalities" to mean major fatalities even though that is a grammatically correct interpretation.


I misread. Sorry.
User avatar
By Dave
#13671345
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am focusing on things that most people would consider drawbacks. Those could both be (and often are) considered advantages.

Most people do consider effort and exertion to be drawbacks, which is why shelter, automobiles, and heated and enclosed mass transit are common. They are especially drawbacks when the weather is poor and a person is tired, old, fat, or lazy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:My friend does a lot of canning. In the fall, we go to the farmer's market and he buys large quantities of perishable goods. We haul the equivalent of one of those Costco shopping carts each. Most haulage issues are easily resolved.

Your haulage issues, yes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/la ... y-125.html

Los Angeles (people per square kilometer): 2,750
New Orleans: 1,950
Montreal: 1,850

Source dispute. The wiki ones are all footnoted, but I don't really feel like looking into it. It sure doesn't seem like Montreal is less dense than LA and New Orleans.

Pants-of-dog wrote:These measures can also be placed in urban settings. In fact, some city centres (like Paris) lend themsleves naturally to some traffic calming measures.

Cities in general lend themselves to traffic calming simply because of the high flow of traffic in confined areas, forcing drivers to travel at a moderate speed to avoid crashing into each other.
By Pants-of-dog
#13671724
Dave wrote:Most people do consider effort and exertion to be drawbacks, which is why shelter, automobiles, and heated and enclosed mass transit are common. They are especially drawbacks when the weather is poor and a person is tired, old, fat, or lazy.


If the argument for cars in an urban area has boiled down to indulging people when they are tired, fat, or lazy, then I have no problem supporting a ban on most private automobile use in city centres.

Old people and people who use wheelchairs are a different story. Any such ban on cars would have to come with some sort overhaul of the public transport system to make it easy for people with specific mobility requirements to use, as well as other changes arising from discussions with people who actually use wheelchairs and walkers and such.

Dave wrote:Your haulage issues, yes.


If you wish, I will concede that hauling stuff is a problem. I will even say it is the biggest problem with bicycles in particular, and car free urban centers in general. There are slopes to contend with. Going uphill on a bike is hard, especially when hauling a trailer. You can slip into an easy gear; you can attach more than one bike to a trailer; you can haul any weight up any hill on a bike if you have the time. You can just imagine what this would do for delivery of construction materials. I would hate it if I was a site superintendent. You could conceivably get around this by using horse drawn carriages, lots of bike-riding moving crews, or canal barges if you happen to live in Venice.

And then there is the hauling of perishable goods. Bikes can't easily haul fridges. Bikes cannot haul operational fridges with a large fuel source.

One easy way of getting around this is to make one certain street a car-free zone, but the streets that intersect it are still accessible by car. Businesses along the street also have vehicle access through a back alley to accommodate deliveries. Another way is to simply not let cars drive between certain hours, forcing businesses to have deliveries during a certain time.

But SUVs and the cars that the Paris ban are looking at are not intended for hauling either. You could use them for that, and people who are not urbanites probably do, but in the city the only thing these things are hauling are single commuters. In that respect, bicycles fare far better.

And if we look at drawbacks and and advantages, hauling problems are far less damaging than problems like traffic deaths and increased fatalities due to pulmonary diseases.

Dave wrote:Cities in general lend themselves to traffic calming simply because of the high flow of traffic in confined areas, forcing drivers to travel at a moderate speed to avoid crashing into each other.


I am aware of this every day as I slowly cruise by all the cars on my bicycle.

Most of the time I don't even pay attention. Sometimes it bothers me. Usually when an emergency vehicle is trying to pass in order to save lives and the traffic is simply too congested to let the ambulance or fire truck pass. Once, the ambulance went up the bike path because the bikers were able to simply hop off their bikes quickly and step up onto the sidewalk. The ambulance still went slowly, but at least it was moving.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13671805
Those population densities don't mean very much that show Los Angeles as having a high density. Those are Greater Metropolitan areas, which in Montreal's case includes a lot of farms, forests, and undeveloped rural areas. In the case of Los Angeles, it's wall-to-wall bungalows and roads. The metropolitan density is high (because totally suburbanized), but the urban core is what is served by great transit.

Montreal's central areas are uniformly dense at about three stories with no lawns or spaces between six-plexes, so this gives you medium density in the central areas.

These central areas are what many would consider urban in character. But not very high.

In its urban core, Montreal is second to New York City in North America, and much smaller so more concentrated. This is what makes it feel European even though it's full of ugly American buildings and platoons of SUVs which also need some serious banning.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13671935
Another important point in the bike situation is the dork factor. I mean driving a bike in a snow storm wearing your silly helmet just is uncool, another thing is a bike with a thingy attached to hold groceries that is uber dorky. Just sayin
User avatar
By Dave
#13672001
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the argument for cars in an urban area has boiled down to indulging people when they are tired, fat, or lazy, then I have no problem supporting a ban on most private automobile use in city centres.

Perhaps you should just drive a vehicle powered by your own sense of self-satisfaction. :roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish, I will concede that hauling stuff is a problem. I will even say it is the biggest problem with bicycles in particular, and car free urban centers in general. There are slopes to contend with. Going uphill on a bike is hard, especially when hauling a trailer. You can slip into an easy gear; you can attach more than one bike to a trailer; you can haul any weight up any hill on a bike if you have the time. You can just imagine what this would do for delivery of construction materials. I would hate it if I was a site superintendent. You could conceivably get around this by using horse drawn carriages, lots of bike-riding moving crews, or canal barges if you happen to live in Venice.

And then there is the hauling of perishable goods. Bikes can't easily haul fridges. Bikes cannot haul operational fridges with a large fuel source.

One easy way of getting around this is to make one certain street a car-free zone, but the streets that intersect it are still accessible by car. Businesses along the street also have vehicle access through a back alley to accommodate deliveries. Another way is to simply not let cars drive between certain hours, forcing businesses to have deliveries during a certain time.

You basically seem to be trying to figure out a way to ban cars in urban areas for everything except purposes you deem "necessary", for which you have extraordinarily high standards. How incredibly unpleasant.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But SUVs and the cars that the Paris ban are looking at are not intended for hauling either. You could use them for that, and people who are not urbanites probably do, but in the city the only thing these things are hauling are single commuters. In that respect, bicycles fare far better.

And if we look at drawbacks and and advantages, hauling problems are far less damaging than problems like traffic deaths and increased fatalities due to pulmonary diseases.

How many traffic deaths are in urban areas? Motorists rarely travel at very high speeds in built up urban areas. I'm thinking fender benders.

I've heard that 25,000 people die in the USA of respiratory illnesses caused by fossil fuel burning each year. Not a very big number, but definitely something worth cutting down on. Unfortunately I have no idea which sorts of fossil fuel burning are causing illnesses. There are a lot of motor vehicles, but their emissions are pretty tightly regulated and they don't put out many particulates. Transport trucks? Power plants? :?:
By Pants-of-dog
#13672067
Dave wrote:Perhaps you should just drive a vehicle powered by your own sense of self-satisfaction. :roll:


Personal attacks have no place in a reasoned debate.

Dave wrote:You basically seem to be trying to figure out a way to ban cars in urban areas for everything except purposes you deem "necessary", for which you have extraordinarily high standards. How incredibly unpleasant.


Yes, that is the underlying purpose of such bans as those mentioned in the OP: to reduce the negative influences of automobiles as much as possible. And you are also correct that the feelings of pleasantness that car drivers currently enjoy are not high on the priority list of considerations informing such legislation.

Dave wrote:How many traffic deaths are in urban areas? Motorists rarely travel at very high speeds in built up urban areas. I'm thinking fender benders.


Chicago had 437 traffic fatalities in 2008.

Dave wrote:I've heard that 25,000 people die in the USA of respiratory illnesses caused by fossil fuel burning each year. Not a very big number, but definitely something worth cutting down on. Unfortunately I have no idea which sorts of fossil fuel burning are causing illnesses. There are a lot of motor vehicles, but their emissions are pretty tightly regulated and they don't put out many particulates. Transport trucks? Power plants? :?:


The link between automobile exhaust and respiratory problems is clearly established in the medical literature.
User avatar
By Dave
#13672163
Pants-of-dog wrote:Personal attacks have no place in a reasoned debate.

Blah blah blah blah

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, that is the underlying purpose of such bans as those mentioned in the OP: to reduce the negative influences of automobiles as much as possible. And you are also correct that the feelings of pleasantness that car drivers currently enjoy are not high on the priority list of considerations informing such legislation.

Reducing negative influences of automobiles comes with tradeoffs. These tradeoffs are not relevant to you since apparently you don't drive, unlike the vast majority of people in North America. And you don't care...

I am all for regulating urban traffic to improve quality of life, but many proponents of it seem to be unlikeable, auto-hating zealots.

Dave wrote:How many traffic deaths are in urban areas? Motorists rarely travel at very high speeds in built up urban areas. I'm thinking fender benders.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Chicago had 437 traffic fatalities in 2008.

Around the same as the number of murders. :lol:

Doesn't address on what sort of roads these fatalities took place. I'm sure the freaking Irving Park Junction is responsible for a lot of these... :knife:

The pedestrian deaths almost certainly took place on local roads, however.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The link between automobile exhaust and respiratory problems is clearly established in the medical literature.

No shit Sherlock, but that doesn't address how it compares to respiratory problems caused by other fossil fuel combustion.
By Pants-of-dog
#13672178
Dave wrote:Reducing negative influences of automobiles comes with tradeoffs. These tradeoffs are not relevant to you since apparently you don't drive, unlike the vast majority of people in North America. And you don't care...


The main trade-off to radically reducing automobile traffic in city centres is haulage. I discussed it at length. It seems odd to then claim that I see it as irrelevant when you consider the fact that I discussed it more than you did.

I am not the only person who does not drive in the city centre. My neighbour has a Honda SUV which she only drives when she goes out of town or when she has to park it on the other side of the street. Motorists also find driving in city centres to be inconvenient and expensive.

I am all for regulating urban traffic to improve quality of life, but many proponents of it seem to be unlikeable, auto-hating zealots.


The validity of a message is independent of the likability of the messenger.

Dave wrote:Around the same as the number of murders. :lol:

Doesn't address on what sort of roads these fatalities took place. I'm sure the freaking Irving Park Junction is responsible for a lot of these... :knife:

The pedestrian deaths almost certainly took place on local roads, however.


You seem to be trying to make some sort of claim about how traffic fatalities come about. Could you please clarify what you are arguing?

Dave wrote:No shit Sherlock, but that doesn't address how it compares to respiratory problems caused by other fossil fuel combustion.


I suggest looking it up on Google or any other search engine if you are looking for specific information.
User avatar
By Dave
#13672209
Pants-of-dog wrote:The main trade-off to radically reducing automobile traffic in city centres is haulage. I discussed it at length. It seems odd to then claim that I see it as irrelevant when you consider the fact that I discussed it more than you did.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I raised numerous other trade-offs, none of which you accepted because of some odd Puritan desire to make people suffer. Oxy raised how he drove him in a snowstorm and in the cold, then you babbled about riding your bike a snowstorm and said they people should be exposed to the elements. We're going around in circles here, having agreed on some things but basically ended up at an agree-to-disagree stance on others.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not the only person who does not drive in the city centre. My neighbour has a Honda SUV which she only drives when she goes out of town or when she has to park it on the other side of the street. Motorists also find driving in city centres to be inconvenient and expensive.

Duh, I don't normally drive unless distances are significant. On the other hand, everything you've posted suggest you don't drive all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The validity of a message is independent of the likability of the messenger.

No, but acceptance of said message is highly dependent on that. Good luck...

Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to be trying to make some sort of claim about how traffic fatalities come about. Could you please clarify what you are arguing?

It's physics. Relatively low speeds are involved on local roads, so I would expect most traffic fatalities to take place on highways--particularly highways that do not have restricted access.
By Pants-of-dog
#13672222
Dave wrote:No, you're putting words in my mouth. I raised numerous other trade-offs, none of which you accepted because of some odd Puritan desire to make people suffer. Oxy raised how he drove him in a snowstorm and in the cold, then you babbled about riding your bike a snowstorm and said they people should be exposed to the elements. We're going around in circles here, having agreed on some things but basically ended up at an agree-to-disagree stance on others.


I have responded to every single rational point you made. The issue of snowstorms was dealt with when I pointed out that the most effective transport system in a snowstorm is a combination of walking and subway. Would you like me to repeat it?

Are there other issues you would like to look at again?

Dave wrote:...I don't normally drive unless distances are significant. On the other hand, everything you've posted suggest you don't drive all.


The last time I drove was last summer, when we went out of town for a week. i have no idea how this is relevant to the debate.

I am judging your arguments based on their logic and consistency with reality, not your bicycling experience.

Dave wrote:No, but acceptance of said message is highly dependent on that. Good luck...


Thank you, I also wish you luck for the same reasons.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It's physics. Relatively low speeds are involved on local roads, so I would expect most traffic fatalities to take place on highways--particularly highways that do not have restricted access.


The fatalities involving cyclists and pedestrians obviously did not take place on highways. Consequently, reducing automobile traffic in city centres would reduce these fatalities. I would like to point out that these fatalities are a significant drawback that is associated with car use, and a drawback that is not suffered by motorists but externalised onto other members of the population.
User avatar
By Dave
#13672237
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have responded to every single rational point you made. The issue of snowstorms was dealt with when I pointed out that the most effective transport system in a snowstorm is a combination of walking and subway. Would you like me to repeat it?

Are there other issues you would like to look at again?

Not sure why I would want that, since you will draw exactly the same conclusions and state them in the same insufferable my-shit-doesn't-stink manner. It's the progressive way.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The last time I drove was last summer, when we went out of town for a week. i have no idea how this is relevant to the debate.

I am judging your arguments based on their logic and consistency with reality, not your bicycling experience.

It's relevant because it shows how out of touch and disconnect you are from the experiences of most other people in North America. No wonder they don't want to be lectured by you and your bicycle.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fatalities involving cyclists and pedestrians obviously did not take place on highways. Consequently, reducing automobile traffic in city centres would reduce these fatalities. I would like to point out that these fatalities are a significant drawback that is associated with car use, and a drawback that is not suffered by motorists but externalised onto other members of the population.

Yes, like many other things.

-Fossil fuel burning power stations
-Natural gas pipelines (explosions)
-Almost every extractive industry

Doesn't mean we shouldn't work to minimize harm, but it's not that big of a deal. People get freaked out by small chance occurrence disasters, like nuclear meltdowns and natural disasters. People adjust well to routine fatalities.
By Pants-of-dog
#13672275
Dave wrote:Not sure why I would want that, since you will draw exactly the same conclusions and state them in the same insufferable my-shit-doesn't-stink manner. It's the progressive way.


I am trying to be polite with you. I do not see why you should not treat me in a similar manner.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It's relevant because it shows how out of touch and disconnect [sic] you are from the experiences of most other people in North America. No wonder they don't want to be lectured by you and your bicycle.


I think that most North Americans would find a lecturing bicycle interesting. It would be enough to get a reality show.

But to address your point, what would it matter if I was "out of touch"? Would congestion and pollution and traffic fatalities be any less?

Dave wrote:
Yes, like many other things.

-Fossil fuel burning power stations
-Natural gas pipelines (explosions)
-Almost every extractive industry

Doesn't mean we shouldn't work to minimize harm, but it's not that big of a deal. People get freaked out by small chance occurrence disasters, like nuclear meltdowns and natural disasters. People adjust well to routine fatalities.


Please note that these three things are either not present in city centres or, in the case of the pipelines, buried undergound. This is what zoning bylaws are for. The Paris ban can then be seen as an extension of such laws.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Really? Did man create... :lol: :lol: :lol: […]

Let me put myself in shame this time. As I said, […]

Very Serious People

I wonder, Sivad, if you actually take time to read[…]

@Verv , Youtube is not bound by "freedom of[…]