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

[Russ Johnson]

* Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-12-11 15:16]:
> 
> 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.

Again, I have no problem staying out of the way. Sidewalks work well.

> 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).

So you are saying that it should take me over an hour to get to work?

> > 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.

You aren't using the commonly held definition. We've had this discussion
before. You have to debate with common definitions. If you don't, then
everyone ends up chacing their tails just trying to figure out what was
said.

> 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.

I want to travel from Wilsonville to Troutdale at 2am, without using my
own vehicle. How am I to get there? 

> > 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.

There's also a big difference in how those things are paid for. Roads,
for the most part, are paid for through registration fees and gas taxes.
(http://www.odot.state.or.us/ruftf/pdfs/HowOrRoadsFinanced.pdf)

Parks are paid for by the municipality they exist in. 

> > 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?

Where did I say any of that?

> 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.

So the nit-wit has the right to dance on the train tracks, and make the
train wait until the music in his head stops?

> It's true that cars cannot interact with people safely and still appear
> practical.

In your opinion.

> 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.

In your opinion.

Opinions vary.

-- 
Russ Johnson
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
http://www.dimstar.net

Top post? http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Random thought #11 (Collect all 22)
"Every year, back comes Spring, with nasty little birds yapping their fool heads off and the ground all mucked up with plants." - Dorothy Parker