Pedal power vs. motor vehicle slugfest

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

If you are not willing to change the way you are living now, then of course you can't operate if something changes that forces you to change also.

You still haven't answered my basic question:

How do you imagine any of the things you buy and use would get produced and shipped without motor vehicles?

C'mon, quit acting like a troll. Answer the question.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

You still haven't answered my basic question:

How do you imagine any of the things you buy and use would get produced and shipped without motor vehicles?

C'mon, quit acting like a troll. Answer the question.

I don't imagine anything of the sort. And I never said such things would or could be possible.

If you want to go vehicle-free then changes have to be made in the way you live. That was, and is, my answer. But at no time did I say you can have your cake and eat too.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

I don't imagine anything of the sort. And I never said such things would or could be possible.

If you want to go vehicle-free then changes have to be made in the way you live. That was, and is, my answer. But at no time did I say you can have your cake and eat too.

What you said, exactly, was (my emphasis)

Originally Posted by retina

You almost got the REAL solution but then fell short. I agree that mtorists now have to stop. Full stop. That is the solution. Ban motorised vehicles. 100% human powered ONLY.

Your statement does not admit of any exceptions. Trucks, buses, even things not usually on the roads, like tractors and bulldozers -- all are motorized vehicles. According to your statement, they've got to go.

Would you care to clarify your meaning?

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

What you said, exactly, was (my emphasis) Your statement does not admit of any exceptions. Trucks, buses, even things not usually on the roads, like tractors and bulldozers -- all are motorized vehicles. According to your statement, they've got to go.

Would you care to clarify your meaning?

It would be my pleasure.

Originally Posted by retina

But, you also appear to have gone much further than I was intending. For that one intersection, with low traffic, we can make THAT 100% human power only.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Would you care to clarify your meaning?

It would be my pleasure.

Originally Posted by retina

But, you also appear to have gone much further than I was intending. For that one intersection, with low traffic, we can make THAT 100% human power only.

And Uncwilly turning his life upside-down so as not to drive to work would address that how, exactly?

BTW, you can't ban motor vehicles just at one intersection. You would have to designate all roads leading to that intersection as "no motor vehicle" roads at least as far back as the next road on every side. So now you're mandating that everyone who currently drives through that crossing has to change their routes. Oh, wait. You said "human power only." So, no vehicles drawn by animals, either.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

BTW, you can't ban motor vehicles just at one intersection. You would have to designate all roads leading to that intersection as "no motor vehicle" roads at least as far back as the next road on every side. So now you're mandating that everyone who currently drives through that crossing has to change their routes. Oh, wait. You said "human power only." So, no vehicles drawn by animals, either.

Yes. And, so what? Those are just excuses to make sure cars rule every road everywhere forever.

Like I said if you are unwilling to accommodate changes then such things can't happen. If you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

Yes. And, so what? Those are just excuses to make sure cars rule every road everywhere forever.

Like I said if you are unwilling to accommodate changes then such things can't happen. If you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.

Why shouldn't cars rule roads that were built for them?

I'd be more than willing that a few changes be made at the crossroads in question to make it less bicycle-hostile.

Here in the good ol' USA, a lot of bicyclists, unfortunately, are asking for trouble. I've seen one heck of a lot more cyclists run stop signs than cars. Red lights, too. Also, cyclists obstructing traffic, then cursing at drivers who have the temerity to give them a little toot on the horn. I'd say that they had better learn to do a little accommodating.

You're not going to realize your dream of a car-free world through state compulsion. People are going to keep buying and driving cars until they see something else as a better alternative, and are also willing to give up the autonomy that having your own wheels provides.

You haven't made the argument that people who own and drive cars would be better off without them. Just that they'd have to go to a lot of effort to restructure their lives in order to get along without them. Why should they, and who are you to be telling them this?

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

You're not going to realize your dream of a car-free world ...

That is a strawman. I didn't say that. You are arguing from a false premise.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

For example we could all live like the Amish and eschew all technology. It is possible. But as you suggest, very few people are willing to go that far. But just because people don't want to go there doesn't mean it is impossible

If by "we" (emphasis added above) you mean all ~7 billion of us,we can't. At least, not for very long.

A cull of, say, 90% of the population would make it feasible.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

You almost got the REAL solution but then fell short. I agree that mtorists now have to stop. Full stop. That is the solution. Ban motorised vehicles. 100% human powered ONLY.

And when uncwilly reasonably inferred you meant this to apply universally, and asked how he might deal with the consequences, did you say, "Oh, no, I just meant that one crossroads"? You did not!

Originally Posted by retina

Anyhow, like I mentioned above, you can still keep your car. Don't panic just yet.

And who are you to be granting permission? Any reasonable person would infer from your "Don't panic just yet" that banning cars is exactly what you have in mind.

xilman raises an excellent point: without motorized transport, it wouldn't be possible for anything like the world's present population to live on earth.

In 1900, we had trains but very few motorized vehicles. The earth's population is estimated as having been 1.6 billion. Now it's estimated at 7.8 billion. So the 1900 human population was about 20% of the current human population.

Of course, there have been other technological advances, such as the Haber process for synthesizing ammonia, that have helped increase the food supply.

Would it be feasible for everyone to live within biking distance to their place of employment? No. Grocery shopping? No.

Would it be feasible to create a new set of alternative bike paths separate from the current system of roadways? Not in the US. It would require a massive condemnation of private property via "eminent domain" that people would simply not stand for. I'm not even sure at what level or levels of government you imagine this could be done.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

xilman raises an excellent point: without motorized transport, it wouldn't be possible for anything like the world's present population to live on earth.

In 1900, we had trains but very few motorized vehicles. The earth's population is estimated as having been 1.6 billion. Now it's estimated at 7.8 billion. So the 1900 human population was about 20% of the current human population.

In my view a train (however powered) is a motorized vehicle. (Though I concede that there might be a few animal-drawn examples used primarily for the entertainment of tourists.)

The same goes for almost all cargo and passenger ships/boats in use today. Wind and human powered vessels exist but they are of negligible economic significance.