Paris may ban SUVs - Page 7 - Politics | 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 SolarCross
Pants-of-dog wrote:That’s nice.

My point was about how Parisian streets are often difficult to navigate in larger vehicles due to the narrowness and age of many Parisian streets, and the fact that most of the c8ty was built before cars were a thing.

Ok fine. Though it is a funny thing people say about old cities being built before "cars were thing" given they weren't built before the horse and cart was thing and generally the horse carriages have a larger footprint than most automobiles.

User avatar
By SolarCross
Pants-of-dog wrote:That is probably because carriages were a thing only for the more affluent. Most people walked.

Sure but there still would be carts and carriages needing to use most streets and have room to pass each other. A road wide enough to allow two carts to pass each other is as desirable as one that allows many carts to pass each other at the same time. US cities also were built in the horse drawn age before the car yet their initial planning did allow for high streets wide enough for passing.


I think there must be another reason for unreasonably narrow streets for old european cities and I think I know what it is: city walls. Before gunpowder made them futile walls were a really great way of keeping out roving bands of taxmen from robbing the place but they are expensive both in material and labour to make. The larger the city the longer the enclosing wall needs to be so that places a constraint on the size a city can spread out leading to a tendency to pile up buildings inside edging in on transit spaces.


Viking taxmen storming Paris.
You are assuming that cities were planned and built by people with overall city designs.

This is not the case. Most of these cities evolved organically with no planning at all, let alone central planning.
User avatar
By SolarCross
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are assuming that cities were planned and built by people with overall city designs.

This is not the case. Most of these cities evolved organically with no planning at all, let alone central planning.

Of course there is planning, the walls did not go up by accident. With or without planning the walls limit city spread out, especially as the population grows, like a fat man in a girdle.
Obviously, street widths were not planned to be small in order to reduce wall requirements and costs. The street widths grew organically from where buildings were located, and then walls were built to surround the city regardless of street width.

Street width is not a function of building city walls.

Except for when the walls are demolished and streets are built over them, which is actually the case in Paris.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
It's true that growing cities have always tried to create wider streets to allow for more concentrated urban activity, which included through traffic. But it also included outdoor kiosques for vendors, people stopping to converse with one another, the fronts of churches for more socialization, etc.

What is really noticable about modern North American cities is that all the streets are super wide, and have only one activity: moving heavy machinery.

European cities (and older cities everywhere) really showcase the two contrasting lifestyles of
1. Modern car-enclosure, and 2. Traditional participation in urban streetlife

The Modern machine-moving street has been deadly for children's play. This is obvious when you see how easily children play outside in traditional city centers when cars are banned from large enough areas.

User avatar
By QatzelOk
SSDR wrote:@QatzelOk, You don't like cars?

Or drinking poison, or sunburn, or having a rye neck.

I don't like any of these things.

Maybe drinking poison, sunburn and rye necks need to spend more on advertising.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
SSDR wrote:@QatzelOk, I like cars.

**car ad**]

You mean you like car ads.

Because cars certainly don't like you.

If a car ever runs into you, your bones will be shattered, your internal organs will be punctured, and you will die a painful death at a young age.

That's not a real friend, by the way, so stop watching advertising and find yourself some real friends who actually care about you.
User avatar
@QatzelOk, That picture wasn't an advertisement.

Cars don't need to "like" me. I don't need their emotions. Only religious people think like that lol.

And cars do transport people around.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
SSDR wrote:[And cars do transport people around.

I'm not kidding about your need to transfer your love of inanimate but powerful objects (like SUVs in Paris), and onto healthier objects more deserving of your feelings, and more capable of actually returning them.

Self-actualization cannot be reached by interacting with well-branded products. It's a wild goose chase you're on, and it's killing everyone and everything you love!!
Poison ivy will give you an itchy rash.

Automotive exhaust will give you a variety of lung diseases, many of which can be fatal.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
SSDR, in some ways, I envy your attitude.

You will be the person smiling her head off when an SUV crushes your frontal bone structure in a low-speed collision.

Myself, I'd be really pissed off, and really dead. Not you. Your positive attitude will save you from a sad death.

**hands her some kind of prize**
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Ah, so you'd take a forum avatar with a picture o[…]

:excited: Jackpot @Wong Ju As of Oct. 10, an[…]

@blackjack21 You are right. The Russians won’t f[…]

Really? Pulling troops out of Syria was what got […]