[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] OT License plates and covers.

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> If you look at pictures of cities from before the advent of the
> automobile, you will see that there were lots of roads then too. Should
> we get rid of buggies and horses too?

Nope.  They operate much closer to the human scale of mass and speed.  A
horse might weigh 1200 to 1600 pounds, say, but it's not travelling over
10 mph within town.  Runaways are the exception and a very small
percentage compared to automobile rundowns.

I think perhaps electric carts of a small size and low speed are probably
a better alternative for hustling freight around a city.  People don't
need externally powered carts to move just themselves, however, unless
they are exceptionally infirm (like the elderly or handicapped).

> > > > We give up our right to free mobility to the train tracks because
> > > > it's a small price to pay for the benefits of mass transit.
> > > The vast majority of train tracks are NOT for mass transit.
> > What kind of massless trains do you think we have in this city?
> > As I wrote earlier, I wasn't limiting that mass transit to human
> > transportation.
>
> Ah the vagaries of debate via email. I wrote my reply before reading
> that message.

I don't think you needed to do that much, even.  A little effort on your
part could have saved us from this whole discussion.  Think before you
react.

> The "common" definition of "mass transit" does not include freight
> trains. I am using the definition as it would be applied in the mass
> media; TV, Radio and Newspaper. When they refer to mass transit, they
> are referring to busses, Max trains and the like. They are not referring
> to Burlington Northern, Santa Fe and P&W.

Well, they're narrowing the term and I'm not.

But EVEN IF you go ahead and assume I'm ONLY writing about moving people
around, I would still say that he limited number of rail tracks used for
that purpose are totally reasonable exceptions to human mobility for the
benefit they give in human transportation.

The same is true for the old trolleys which ran the streets of Portland
nearly every major city in the past.  Those did not cross every single
street and intersection.  They were a minimal impediment for their
benefit.  Automobiles are an enormous impediment (such that I cannot walk
1/5 of a mile without having to accomodate the passing cars at least once)
for their very minimal benefit within the city.

> > Well, you're not going out enough.  They're freakin' everywhere.
> > They're given a huge percentage of the public space in almost every
> > region.  And in my neighborhood, MOST of that space is used for
> > automobile storage... fully subsidized by the public.
>
> Quit using the subsidy argument, as EVERYTHING is subsidized.

Hey, you're the one who wants to talk about the public being "forced" to
pay for things that aren't useful.

The real cost is ENORMOUS and the cost is totally out of scale with the
benefit.  A second look at the amount spent on parks versus road
maintenance would also show the that scale problem very well.

> Yes, cars are everywhere, and there are times when using mass transit is
> a better option. However, I do and SHOULD have a choice as to wether I
> own a car or not, and if I qualify to drive it, then I can. Honor my
> diversity to choose to own a car.

When did I write that you shouldn't be allowed to own a car?  You're
making that up, I think.  I just don't think you should use it within city
limits.  It's extremely dangerous and the small benefit you get for
yourself isn't worthwhile compared to the burden it puts on others.

> If the operator of a train, car or other large moving object is
> following the rules laid out for said vehicle, and some nit-wit walks in
> front of said vehicle where there is no way for the large moving object
> to avoid said nit-wit, then the operator of said large moving object is
> most definately NOT at fault.

Wow.  You're some kind of fascist.  You really believe the law supercedes
human values?  You think that the law is infallible in its ability to
judge right and wrong behavior?

The law exists to improve human life.  If following a law leaves a person
without his life, then the person acting within the law did wrong, not the
dead person.  If the law cannot accomodate people living their lives, then
the law must be changed or removed.

It's true that cars cannot interact with people safely and still appear
practical.  The cost of operating a motor vehicle safely among humans
(full attention to the task of driving, full experience of the external
environment including sound, and maneuvering at human-safe speeds -- those
below 15 mph) is high enough that even casual motorists would recognize
their impracticality.  So instead, we burden every citizen NOT in an
automobile to accomodate those who are at every intersection and crossing
every street all the time all day every day.  And as a result, we have
less public space, our streets are wider, but less usable and public funds
are diverted to the convenience of those few that continue to
inconvenience the rest of us with their motoring.  The city is more
spread-out and people are getting fatter and lazier by the year.

It's just not worth it.

> I believe maintaining the roads IS serving the humans. As you said, the
> car is inanimate.

You can serve the inanimate.  The inanimate just can't hold
responsibility.

Road maintenance serves those few humans who do serious damage to the
roads.  City roads that were used by human-scale vehicles wouldn't need
nearly as much maintenance.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org