NationStates Jolt Archive

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/29/BAGAEKRCO55.DTL

Yes, another person on a rampage with a car. If it isn't some old person who can't tell the difference between the accelerator and the brake running people over, it's something equally stupid or bad.

50,000 vehicle deaths per year in the US, and hundreds of thousands injured - some for life.

By comparison, there are only around 16,000 firearm deaths per year in the US. Cars are more than twice as deadly.

They walk more and use public transport in Europe - in Germany, it's harder to get a license than it is here (you have to take a lot more training, for instance).

SAN FRANCISCO -- As many as 14 people were injured this afternoon by a motorist who drove around San Francisco deliberately running them down before being arrested by police, who believe the same driver struck and killed a man earlier today in Fremont.

"It was like 'Death Race 2000,' " firefighter Danny Bright said at California and Fillmore streets as an ambulance stood nearby. "Guys were walking down the sidewalk, and the guy just came up and ran them over. The guy went crazy."

I know you're being snarky, but I happen to think it's a lovely idea. I'd be delighted to get rid of all the cars and trucks and stupid SUVs, in favor of mass transit, bikes, and walking.

It's Carmageddon. :eek:

It's Carmageddon. :eek:

KIIILLLLL FRENZYYY!

sorry, thats GTA, my bad

I award him 175 points. *nod*

I know you're being snarky, but I happen to think it's a lovely idea. I'd be delighted to get rid of all the cars and trucks and stupid SUVs, in favor of mass transit, bikes, and walking.

Maybe I'm not so snarky. I walk to work (a little under 2 miles) in a town full of bike paths.

good idea.

If we can do it, I am all for it, but I don't know if it's feasible to get rid of cars...in my city, public transport is barely existent and doesn't go on highways. Unless something good goes in, I need my car. (If something good goes in, I am all for it, but this is Columbus, OH here, not NYC.)

Added benefits:

1. Reduced dependence on foreign oil, i.e., those Arabs I'm always ranting about.
2. Reduced pollution (and who knows how many people that kills).

Sounds better every minute...

And imagine the look on Chavez's face when he gets a letter saying we don't need his oil anymore.

Perhaps people should only be allowed concealed cars

50,000 vehicle deaths per year in the US, and hundreds of thousands injured - some for life.
Is that figure accurate? It seems crazy-high; in the UK it's about 3,500 road deaths per year. That's 14 times as many deaths from only a five-times population increase.

Overall, though, banning cars would be... Interesting. I'm not particularly opposed to the idea, even though my car is an occasionally useful tool. For environmental reasons, though, not those of conserving life; the human race is hardly in danger of extinction.

It's Carmageddon. :eek:

Did he get a cunning stunt bonus?

I know you're being snarky, but I happen to think it's a lovely idea. I'd be delighted to get rid of all the cars and trucks and stupid SUVs, in favor of mass transit, bikes, and walking.

I agree. Cars are horrendously inefficient when it comes down to it (for city usage, anyway.)

Cars do have a useful meaning apart from killing people. They are meant for transportation, not as weapons. That's why you couldn't ban them because people get killed by them.

I am personally involved against roadkills, but banning cars would be extreme.

Guns, in the other hand, are useless apart from the fact that they are designed to kill things. Hunting could be one, but after all it is killing.

Remember the knife thread? You jumped in against the banning of long knives because thy had uses apart from stabbing people. I use the same argument here regarding cars. You should ban then any instrument that could possibly turn into a weapon, and that would mean even banning hammers.

to outlaw them isn't a real solution. that will just create the attraction of forbiden fruit as with marajana and recrational halucinogens.

but there is a reall solution to the car problem. and to coin a pun, it's just down the road.

as fuel resources become scarce thair cost can only go up. when only the fortunate few can afford to drive anymore people will realize it's the car that's in the way of real transportation.

what we do in cameroi is we don't build paved roads. long ago it was determined that if other modes of transportation must provide or provide for their own rights of way, the oil and automotive industries could shurely do so as well, instead of being subsidised at the public trough and at the expense of more environmentaly harmonious modes.

thus today in camaroi you will find almost no paved roads, the few that remain being reminders of a thankfully forgotten era. with no paved roads, no gas stations and no wholesale production or importing of automobiles, they became sufficiently unpopular that outlawing them became totaly unneccessary.

today a few hobbiest still build them and have parks and clubs where they meet and run them arround small closed tracks, but to the public at large they are a musium curriosity, that parents show their children about how thoughtlessly shortsighted humans once were.

now adays, there are little people sized 'ultra light rail' trains, running on 30"/762mm and narrower gauged tracks. with multiple unit cars of a similar form factor to the ancient minivans. these are typicly propelled by batteries or flywheels and automaticly 'recharged' from a wind/solar and hydro power grid at their stopping places.

where environmentaly sensitive areas just absolutely have to be traversed, modest scale 'monorail' type systems are used and in places too remote and sparcely populated for even the lightest 'hernia gauge' (less then 12" between the rails) systems, robotic yard tractors are often ridden to the nearest stop.

with the return to daily walking average life span and general health well into old age has greatly increased as well. another benifit we have found is that people no longer tear up comfortable places to stop and rest, and everyone lives in greater harmony with their natural surroundings, realizing, as in the 20th century they once denied themselves, their individual and collective dependence on the will being of nature's cycles of renewal.

cars in cities never did make sense, though personal transport in more rural areas was understandable. if you drive to cameroi today you come to an end to pavement once you cross our borders. instead you will be greeted by parking structures with railway stations integral too them.

don't be alarmed. our borders are still open and you are perfectly welcom. and no one in cameroi will steal your car, as there are no connected places over distance here to drive it.

=^^=
.../\...

Some would argue that cars are needed much more then guns.

Leave the poor cars and guns alone. Outlaw people.

Is that figure accurate? It seems crazy-high; in the UK it's about 3,500 road deaths per year. That's 14 times as many deaths from only a five-times population increase.

Overall, though, banning cars would be... Interesting. I'm not particularly opposed to the idea, even though my car is an occasionally useful tool. For environmental reasons, though, not those of conserving life; the human race is hardly in danger of extinction.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Read it yourself.

Or, ban having people fly home to do them, if it "stresses" them so much.

Wow. If I knew that doing something as simple as getting married would "stress" me to the point that I went on a killing rampage, I probably wouldn't do it.

I mean, I've been in a war, and I didn't come home and ambush over a dozen people with my car...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/15395887.htm

to outlaw them isn't a real solution. that will just create the attraction of forbiden fruit as with marajana and recrational halucinogens.

The point of this thread is to provide another point for a pro-gun spiel. He could care less about the dangers of cars.

The point of this thread is to provide another point for a pro-gun spiel. He could care less about the dangers of cars.
Really? I'm the one who walks to work.

The cars in my neighborhood have killed more people than the guns.

Is that figure accurate? It seems crazy-high; in the UK it's about 3,500 road deaths per year. That's 14 times as many deaths from only a five-times population increase.


Perhaps they include the victims of drive by shootings as road accident victims to appease the gun nuts.

Yeah, lets go overboard. Destroy our economy and way of life because of some fools who decide to drive like idiots. I bet however that outlawing guns would bring cries of outrage. After all, guns are built from the start to kill.
I say ban guns. At least that will cut back the violence in America.

I'm curious. Which war?

I'm curious. Which war?

1991 Gulf War.

Here's another guy who claimed to have come from a "wedding".

http://www.turkishpress.com/nw.asp?s=u&i=060216233949.ehu0y74e&t=US+trial+opens+on+terror+charges+against+Pakistani-American

Interesting. Which unit?

Interesting. Which unit?

2/502nd Infantry (2nd Brigade)

Wow. I'm impressed.

Really? I'm the one who walks to work.

The cars in my neighborhood have killed more people than the guns.

Gee, that sure countered my point. :rolleyes:
See if you can make a point about the dangers of x without throwing in guns. I bet you can't.

Gee, that sure countered my point. :rolleyes:
See if you can make a point about the dangers of x without throwing in guns. I bet you can't.

I put it in only as a comparison in the OP. You're the one who keeps bringing it up.

Why not discuss the dangers of cars?

I put it in only as a comparison in the OP. You're the one who keeps bringing it up.
A comparison that had shit to do with the topic of cars. You are just inserting your overwhelming obsession with guns into everything.

Why not discuss the dangers of cars?

Because we all know cars kill people because there are so god damn many.

Because we all know cars kill people because there are so god damn many.
Haven't you said the same about guns? There are 300 million guns in the US - far more than the number of cars. Shouldn't they be far more of a problem, killing far more people?

Haven't you said the same about guns? There are 300 million guns in the US - far more than the number of cars. Shouldn't they be far more of a problem, killing far more people?
Well, in msot states there are laws on guns. Like where you can carry them, and what you can carry, and, you know, about it being against the law to randomly take them out and shoot at birds or mice or Arabians/Hispanics.

Haven't you said the same about guns? There are 300 million guns in the US - far more than the number of cars. Shouldn't they be far more of a problem, killing far more people?

Do you actually believe you should outlaw cars? Yes or No.

Let's see, two threads on the same news story. On the same day no less. Looks like an agenda set up to me.

Well, in msot states there are laws on guns. Like where you can carry them, and what you can carry, and, you know, about it being against the law to randomly take them out and shoot at birds or mice or Arabians/Hispanics.

There are laws about cars, too.

You actually have to take driver's training in most states in the US. You have to pass a test. You have to obtain insurance. You have to stay inside the lines (perhaps that's why they teach "color inside the lines" when you're a kid).

Vehicular homicide is illegal. So is "reckless driving". So is "drunk driving". Obviously, it's not working.

And cars would be easy to round up. It's not like you can hide your SUV.

Let's see, two threads on the same news story. On the same day no less. Looks like an agenda set up to me.

Hey, I thought it was news, and there are two aspects to this story that have nothing to do with Islam. So I'm going with it.

Are you saying that you would like for me to post threads about Islam?

Really? I'll get right on it.

Hey, I thought it was news, and there are two aspects to this story that have nothing to do with Islam. So I'm going with it.

Are you saying that you would like for me to post threads about Islam?

Really? I'll get right on it.

Looks like your back on the gun agenda, I might have to start referencing the thread in my sig.

There are laws about cars, too.

You actually have to take driver's training in most states in the US. You have to pass a test. You have to obtain insurance. You have to stay inside the lines (perhaps that's why they teach "color inside the lines" when you're a kid).

Vehicular homicide is illegal. So is "reckless driving". So is "drunk driving". Obviously, it's not working.

And cars would be easy to round up. It's not like you can hide your SUV.

You didn't address the "it's illegal to take your gun out and shoot at birds, mice, cans, or well anything in public."

He was still a newlywed?!? Usually it takes a few years of marriage to make someone go that nuts. :p

He was still a newlywed?!? Usually it takes a few years of marriage to make someone go that nuts. :p

Maybe he had been living with her for a few years already then realized what a horrible mistake he made and snapped.

Maybe he had been living with her for a few years already then realized what a horrible mistake he made and snapped.

Maybe it's the opium in Afghanistan, and he was having withdrawal symptoms.

You didn't address the "it's illegal to take your gun out and shoot at birds, mice, cans, or well anything in public."

That's because I'm talking about cars. You're the one talking about guns.

Maybe he had been living with her for a few years already then realized what a horrible mistake he made and snapped.

Perhaps, or perhaps it was something else. Here's a photo of the lovely lady:

click (http://sightsonics.cf.huffingtonpost.com/osama.jpg)

50,000 vehicle deaths per year in the US, and hundreds of thousands injured - some for life.

By comparison, there are only around 16,000 firearm deaths per year in the US. Cars are more than twice as deadly.


Kimchi, I do not blame you for having an agenda and lobbying for it in your threads. It's ok, most of us have similar schemes. What I do not apprecciate is the lack of honesty denying it. You take some of us as idiots if you think we do not realize it. :p

I'm not siding with Teh_pantless_Follower here. Just pointing out the obvious.

Perhaps, or perhaps it was something else. Here's a photo of the lovely lady:

click (http://sightsonics.cf.huffingtonpost.com/osama.jpg)

AAAAAAAUUUGH! MY EYES!

First, pantless has mentioned guns more often than DK in this thread. WHO has the agenda now?

Second, to get back to the real topic, while I wouldn't agree to banning cars, I'd love it if my city was organized so I could get anywhere I needed to go without my car. Right now, a 30 minute drive to work would be 90 or more on the bus, and there are very few places to go within walking distance of my house. It would be great if I could limit my car usage to weekend drives with my GF, but I don't see that happening.

Well this is a better defense then saying eating too many Twinkies made you snap. :p

even if the public transportation here didn't suck a big one I would still need my car.

Well this is a better defense then saying eating too many Twinkies made you snap. :p

Or that "the glove don't fit". Oh wait, that worked...

First, pantless has mentioned guns more often than DK in this thread. WHO has the agenda now?

Again, my quote from Kimchi is from the OP. Kimchi mentioned guns first

Again, my quote from Kimchi is from the OP. Kimchi mentioned guns first

But I didn't go on to repeat it.

I find that here where I live, only a fool drives a car to work - I can get to work faster by walking than anyone in a car (going from my home to my work, a distance of less than 2 miles).

The traffic is incredible.

And the town is already laid out with a plethora of bike paths and pedestrian bridges over the roads.

We're also located on the W & OD trail - a bike path that goes from here to Washington, D.C. During rush hour, noticeably faster than driving on the highways into DC, if you're on a bicycle.

Pretty hard to kill someone by walking into them, or even by riding a bike into them.

I mean, I've been in a war, and I didn't come home and ambush over a dozen people with my car...



...that we know of - Just rant about muslims incessantly....

...that we know of - Just rant about muslims incessantly....

This is not a muslim thread. Go to the other thread that Pantless made me post about Muslims.

That's because I'm talking about cars. You're the one talking about guns.

Because this is obviously an agenda topic.

I find that here where I live, only a fool drives a car to work - I can get to work faster by walking than anyone in a car (going from my home to my work, a distance of less than 2 miles).
Besides an overwhelming and unhealthy obsession with firearms, Kimchi has this thing where forrests cannot be seen due to an excess of trees. He thinks everything that happens not only where he lives, but to him specifically, is the national norm.

But I didn't go on to repeat it.

I find that here where I live, only a fool drives a car to work - I can get to work faster by walking than anyone in a car (going from my home to my work, a distance of less than 2 miles).

The traffic is incredible.

And the town is already laid out with a plethora of bike paths and pedestrian bridges over the roads.

We're also located on the W & OD trail - a bike path that goes from here to Washington, D.C. During rush hour, noticeably faster than driving on the highways into DC, if you're on a bicycle.

Pretty hard to kill someone by walking into them, or even by riding a bike into them.



Ah yes... but you're in a city that's actually set up for pedestrians and bikers.
There are cities where that is definitely and afterthought.

Bicycle in NYC streets and you are literally taking your life into your hands.

BEcause this is obviously an agenda topic.

If you'll notice, your advice for me to post an agenda topic has spawned another Muslim thread.

Besides an overwhelming and unhealthy obsession with firearms, Kimchi has this thing where forrests cannot be seen due to an excess of trees. He thinks everything that happens not only where he lives, but to him specifically, is the national norm.
I know it's not the national norm.

But it should be.

If you'll notice, your advice for me to post an agenda topic has spawned another Muslim thread.

This is your regular bullshit gun agenda topic, as well as the other thread by you on this same damn topic posted half an hour afterwards.

This is not a muslim thread. Go to the other thread that Pantless made me post about Muslims.

I believe that doubles as spam and flame-baiting.

Yes, another person on a rampagThey walk more and use public transport in Europe - in Germany, it's harder to get a license than it is here (you have to take a lot more training, for instance).

Dude...in Europe, you can drive for half an hour and pass through 3 countries...Going without a car in Europe is fine, but in North America you'd probably have to live in a mid-to-large urban centre to be able to find a house or apartment within comfortable walking distance of your place of employment, as well as being nearby to shops and services.

Dude...in Europe, you can drive for half an hour and pass through 3 countries...Going without a car in Europe is fine, but in North America you'd probably have to live in a mid-to-large urban centre to be able to find a house or apartment within comfortable walking distance of your place of employment, as well as being nearby to shops and services.

Not to mention, there are no or are very, very few public transportation trains in America, and only subways in very large urban centers.

Not to mention, there are no or are very, very few public transportation trains in America, and only subways in very large urban centers.

There used to be more, until the 1950s, when GM bought up a lot of the public transport trains and immediately scrapped them.

I believe that doubles as spam and flame-baiting.

I doubt it. You're the one who stepped into my threads with perfectly valid topics and immediately started flaming me.

There used to be more, until the 1950s, when GM bought up a lot of the public transport trains and immediately scrapped them.
Thanks for the irrelevant history lesson.

I doubt it. You're the one who stepped into my threads with perfectly valid topics and immediately started flaming me.

The thread posted half an hour before this one on the same time topic makes an outrageous and hyperbolous statement about what we should do about cars due to a news article about some guy in a car. Then you directly compared car deaths to gun deaths to show firearms in a favorable light.

Nope, no agenda there, just a topic about cars.

Thanks for the irrelevant history lesson.

It's not irrelevant. If we had not allowed GM to do that, we might be less dependent on cars today.

It's not irrelevant. If we had not allowed GM to do that, we might be less dependent on cars today.
And MAGICALLY Southern California will be right on the border of Massachusetts and no one will ever need cars again and it shall be a beautiful, happy world filled with love and peace and ballons and kittens and...stop me please.

And MAGICALLY Southern California will be right on the border of Massachusetts and no one will ever need cars again and it shall be a beautiful, happy world filled with love and peace and ballons and kittens and...stop me please.

No. But it would be better than it is now.

The thread posted half an hour before this one on the same time topic makes an outrageous and hyperbolous statement about what we should do about cars due to a news article about some guy in a car. Then you directly compared car deaths to gun deaths to show firearms in a favorable light.

Nope, no agenda there, just a topic about cars.

It's pretty obvious that you aren't reading any of my other posts this morning.

I know you're being snarky, but I happen to think it's a lovely idea. I'd be delighted to get rid of all the cars and trucks and stupid SUVs, in favor of mass transit, bikes, and walking.

What about those of us who don't live in a metropolitan area? I have to drive for an hour to get to the next city of over 20,000 people.

What about those of us who don't live in a metropolitan area? I have to drive for an hour to get to the next city of over 20,000 people.

We need to change the pattern of our cities and towns over decades.

Personally, I agree with this. If you've ever been to Ottawa, then you will have seen the brilliant Transitway, which is a road strictly dedicated to busses, as well as the O-Train, which covers a lot of ground vertically.

We should cut back on cars for all the aforementioned reasons.

You should ban then any instrument that could possibly turn into a weapon, and that would mean even banning hammers.

and even paper, pens, and locks... (ever get hit in the face by a combo lock? ouch...)

Personally, I agree with this. If you've ever been to Ottawa, then you will have seen the brilliant Transitway, which is a road strictly dedicated to busses, as well as the O-Train, which covers a lot of ground vertically.

We should cut back on cars for all the aforementioned reasons.

I am also thinking that a lot of the US foreign policy would be radically different if we weren't driving so many cars.

If we weren't importing foreign oil, we wouldn't give a crap what happened in the Middle East, and Venezuela would be a permanently impoverished backwater with no exports.

There wouldn't have been fighting in Angola. Nigeria. Iraq. Iran. Kuwait.

And, if we hadn't been involved in any Middle East stuff, it's likely that there wouldn't have been a 9-11.

They walk more and use public transport in Europe - in Germany, it's harder to get a license than it is here (you have to take a lot more training, for instance).
Yes, we do. And please don't forget that many of us rely on their bikes for transportation as well. But if you have ever been to Germany you know the reason why!

Not only do we have 80 million people living in a country the size of Maine, but there are also approximately 44 million cars on the roads.
Now, these roads are by no means as broad as those in the U.S. and it takes some getting used to the denseness of German car traffic. And we do have the Autobahn where many sections of the road don't have a speed limit.

Your figures got me interested in a comparison with the German statistics, which have been steadily declining when it comes to injury and deaths.

Death on the road (including those deceased 30 days after accidents):
2003 - 6,613; 2004 - 5,842; 2005 - 5,361

Injured on the road:
2003 - 462,170 ; 2004 - 440,126; 2005 - 433,443

Number of traffic accidents registered by the police:
2003 - 2,259,567; 2004 - 2,261,689; 2005 - 2,253,992

Source: http://www.destatis.de/themen/e/thm_verkehr.htm

Intersting that your numbers are that much higher! For it can't really be the safety of the cars which has also improved tremendously. With about 3,75 times as many people, they somehow manage to produce almost 10 times the number of people killed in car accidents. Huh.
My conclusion? You guys don't know how to drive safely and you also rely on your cars much more than we do here. Where it is a priviledge to own and drive a car in Germany, it seems a dreadful necessity in the U.S. - as I experienced first hand. Hell, there aren't even any sidewalks in many places, which is ridiculous! Not even considering the meaninglessness of a car in a huge city.

I don't believe that banning cars would be the answer to that. More and better training and drivers' education would be a start, I believe. As would be the introduction of a better public transport system. I mean, how come that anytime you mentioned AmTrack - all you get is a stifled laugh?

What the U.S. would need is an equivalence to the Federal-Aid Highway Act, adapted to modern times and public transport. With something like the Maglev train (first patented in Germany 1941) big cities like Chicago and New York City would be connected by a little bit more than a 2,5h train ride. And that is with the trains in use today, travelling around 270mph. You'd reach Boston from New York City in 45 minutes, and speeds as high as 400mph are technically possible.

So instead of condemning the use of cars, use them where it's practical and think beyond the car when it becomes unpractical. That would be a useful approach to reduce dependancy on (foreign) oil, as well as reducing the impact of cars on the pollution levels.

For a country as prone to technical advance as the U.S. wants to make everyone believe, that sure is a sad sign.

We need to change the pattern of our cities and towns over decades.

So you think we should be more like Canada, with a number of large urban centers with absolutely nothing in between?

I drove from Sault Sainte Marie to Sudbury (both in Ontario) once. I thought Upper Michigan was empty, but it's crowded compared to that stretch.

A car is a necessity in the US. Unfortunately we also have fairly lax requirements for getting a drivers license because they do not want to deny anyone the ability to drive – no matter how incompetent – because a car is necessary to get around.

Very few people live downtown in a major city, and they are the only ones that can really do without a car. Public transportation is a pain in the ass – I could drive 10 min to the bus station and then spend the next two hours to get to work, or I could drive for one hour. Additionally, the last bus leaving for my suburb leaves at 6:40pm but I sometimes can’t get out of the office until 7. If I miss that last bus I am sleeping on a park bench. Most people would rather drive.

Even when I stay with a friend who lives within the beltway, I would rather drive through bad traffic to get to work than take public transportation. I had a long walk to the bus, took the bus to the subway, then another bus to get to work. Public transportation was a pain in the ass and took at least an hour and a half, while driving took about 20 min.

What I think would be the best way to deal with the problem is to get rid of suburban sprawl. Instead of endless miles of tightly packed single-family homes, we should have tightly packed housing. If we had tightly packed blocks of large apartment buildings, with retail centers and office blocks, surrounded by parkland and all connected with a simple rail system, we would eliminate most of the problems. There is no rational reason for having endless masses of single-family homes.

With such urban centers we could eliminate the need for most cars around big cities. If you had far greater ability for people to live, work, and shop all within walking distance, and had simple mass transport to other such centers, personal cars would be unnecessary. We could even expand the car-sharing services to fill whatever residual need people may have for cars (and some limited garaging for those who want to keep a personal vehicle).

The majority of small towns, where most Americans live, would be unaffected but urban areas would be drastically transformed. We could eliminate a few hundred thousand cars very easily, drastically increase the amount of parkland, reduce pollution, and improve most people’s standard of living.

Added benefits:

1. Reduced dependence on foreign oil, i.e., those Arabs I'm always ranting about.
2. Reduced pollution (and who knows how many people that kills).

Sounds better every minute...
Surely we have found another issue, much like legalising weed, to unite most on both right and left!

If we can do it, I am all for it, but I don't know if it's feasible to get rid of cars...in my city, public transport is barely existent and doesn't go on highways. Unless something good goes in, I need my car. (If something good goes in, I am all for it, but this is Columbus, OH here, not NYC.)
Ever heard of a bicycle?

lets ban cars! *Grabs his webbing and ruck pack* YAY! now every time I go shopping for food or other moderate purchases, its like a forced march in full fighting order!

and since I do construction/real estate for a civilian living (Im a reservist) when I need to go buy 45 bundles of shingles, I can walk them back 1 bundle at a time for 10 km? taking me about a week to get all my shingles to the job site? and I can carry maybe 3 2x4's at a time?

YAY what a great idea. :rolleyes:

Creepy. I was driving at the exact same roads in SF, just a little while earlier to the time the mad driver went on a rage. *shudders*

Some would argue that cars are needed much more then guns.

I see, so it's "needed" that 50,000 a year die because of cars. Good to know, maybe we can put that on their tombstones.

Ever heard of a bicycle?

Bicycles are a bit rough when it's -10, snowing, and windy. Which is about 3-4 months out of the year where I live.

Ever heard of a bicycle?

yes we can all just get bicycles, I am sure I can duct tape my $800 worth of groceries, both of my kids, and my 75lbs of odds and ends that I need for work to that little basket in the front. :rolleyes:

Surely we have found another issue, much like legalising weed, to unite most on both right and left!

Ever heard of a bicycle?

Less than 2 miles is walking distance for me. The bike would be a pain in the ass to lock up, etc.

Legalizing weed would be good, too.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/29/BAGAEKRCO55.DTL

Yes, another person on a rampage with a car. If it isn't some old person who can't tell the difference between the accelerator and the brake running people over, it's something equally stupid or bad.

50,000 vehicle deaths per year in the US, and hundreds of thousands injured - some for life.

By comparison, there are only around 16,000 firearm deaths per year in the US. Cars are more than twice as deadly.

They walk more and use public transport in Europe - in Germany, it's harder to get a license than it is here (you have to take a lot more training, for instance).


Arranged marriages? I've gotta be missing something.

Bicycles are a bit rough when it's -10, snowing, and windy. Which is about 3-4 months out of the year where I live.

Where I live, if you eliminate the time when it's below freezing, the time it's around 100, and the time it's pouring down rain, that probably leaves 2-3 months of good bicycling weather. :(

Arranged marriages? I've gotta be missing something.

Pantless complained, so two of my threads were merged this morning into one (two separate concepts based on the same news story).

germany has a total area of 357,021 sq km

United States has a total area of 9,631,420 sq km

It is much different living in a place that has had over 1000 years of development vs somewhere that has only 200+ years of development

in the midwest especially it is very spread out and alot easier to get from point a to point b in the comfort of your own car and doing it in your own time. where if you were to take public transportation you would end up waiting at stop a then getting on the bus and gettting to point b where you have to wait and get the bus to point c where you have to wait again and then get the bus to your finally destination point d.

people in urban areas where public transportation is much easier can say that it needs to be used more all they want, but as soon as they try living in a non urban enviroment they will realize that it just isnt practical

germany has a total area of 357,021 sq km

United States has a total area of 9,631,420 sq km

It is much different living in a place that has had over 1000 years of development vs somewhere that has only 200+ years of development

in the midwest especially it is very spread out and alot easier to get from point a to point b in the comfort of your own car and doing it in your own time. where if you were to take public transportation you would end up waiting at stop a then getting on the bus and gettting to point b where you have to wait and get the bus to point c where you have to wait again and then get the bus to your finally destination point d.

people in urban areas where public transportation is much easier can say that it needs to be used more all they want, but as soon as they try living in a non urban enviroment they will realize that it just isnt practical

From my house it is a little more then 15 miles to the store to get food and back ... in minnesota

I dont know about anyone else but when it is -20 F out I hardly want to walk to the store and back for food

I am also thinking that a lot of the US foreign policy would be radically different if we weren't using so many resources.

If we weren't importing a disproportiante amount of the world's resources, we wouldn't give a crap what happened in the Middle East, and Venezuela would be allowed to have a leftist government without US interference.

There wouldn't have been US involvement in fighting in Angola. Nigeria. Iraq. Iran. Kuwait.

And, if we hadn't been involved in any Middle East stuff, it's likely that there wouldn't have been a 9-11.

Fixed. Bolded parts are mine.

As for the OP, ignoring all of Deep Kimchi's usual obfuscations, I think that all urban centers with a dense, centralised population should outlaw cars within certain areas. Emergency vehicles and vehicles transporting perishable goods would be exempt. I do not think it would be feasible anywhere else without a sharp change in both transportation technology and our consumer paradigm.

And just to let you know where I'm coming from, I commute every weekday on my bicycle. It's a twenty minute drive, which would be thirty minutes to an hour in a car, and 60 to 90 minutes using public transport. It takes about 5-10 minutes longer in the winter, because of the snow and the wheel bearings. But life's easier for me, because I live in Montreal...
http://www.tourisme-montreal.org/download/bs199905.pdf

You also forget that American cities (having actually been planned) are more easy to turn areas into pedestrian area, try doing it some where like London, or Italy, there are two many old buildings in the way of everything, twisty roads where you can see 10 yards to the next corner, but no further, the only way to remove cars, is to tear down all towns and cities, and then rebuild them, in a more efiiciant way...

like this

Kcilc (http://www.victorycities.com/)

Bicycles are a bit rough when it's -10, snowing, and windy. Which is about 3-4 months out of the year where I live.


Get snow tires...
http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_detail.jsp;jsessionid=G1Zn2D1fJn4GnDVyylKQZG2VyHgKv95tyQQ8hqvYVhlrv5Gy5nSn!-1239582078?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442420071&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302693791&bmUID=1156962791748
These are expensive. I bought mine for 40$ each.

It's Carmageddon. :eek:


Haha fantastic game. Any one played it?!

It's Carmageddon. :eek:


Haha fantastic game. Any one played it?!

Get snow tires...
http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_detail.jsp;jsessionid=G1Zn2D1fJn4GnDVyylKQZG2VyHgKv95tyQQ8hqvYVhlrv5Gy5nSn!-1239582078?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442420071&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302693791&bmUID=1156962791748
These are expensive. I bought mine for 40$ each.

Still would not be fun 15 miles each way when the last 2 miles are not even a road (sort of a homade one through the fields)

I know iti s possible but it would be useless as fuck for me I cant waste that sort of time each day and about half the time I am hauling a load in my truck ANYWAYS

I am also thinking that a lot of the US foreign policy would be radically different if we weren't driving so many cars.

If we weren't importing foreign oil, we wouldn't give a crap what happened in the Middle East, and Venezuela would be a permanently impoverished backwater with no exports.

There wouldn't have been fighting in Angola. Nigeria. Iraq. Iran. Kuwait.

And, if we hadn't been involved in any Middle East stuff, it's likely that there wouldn't have been a 9-11.
This has got to be one of the most profound statements that you have ever made on NS. I actually agree with everything you state. :eek:

Given those statements, then it would be obvious that there would have been no blood for oil wars and perhaps you wouldn't be using the words genocide and Muslims in the same sentence?

It is much different living in a place that has had over 1000 years of development vs somewhere that has only 200+ years of development
When it comes to modern development like railroad and road systems, the U.S. and a place like Germany are not that far apart.
Those 1000 years of development you talk about have not really had much to do with completed roads and the like - travelling through Europe 200 years ago was a real pain in the ass!

in the midwest especially it is very spread out and alot easier to get from point a to point b in the comfort of your own car and doing it in your own time. where if you were to take public transportation you would end up waiting at stop a then getting on the bus and gettting to point b where you have to wait and get the bus to point c where you have to wait again and then get the bus to your finally destination point d.
That is why I said that while the car should be used where it is practical, its use should be reconsidered where it becomes impractical.
people in urban areas where public transportation is much easier can say that it needs to be used more all they want, but as soon as they try living in a non urban enviroment they will realize that it just isnt practical
I have used the public transport system in many U.S. capital cities and I'm amazed how bad and run-down they usually were. Bad schedules, especially for the working class citizens.

What still puzzles me is the fact that while the U.S. was developed and drawn together by the railroad, once the car and planes came into use, that means of transport has been severely neglected. Future developments really should take the railroad or the Maglev train into consideration. Not only is it very practical, it is also time-efficient, energy efficient, and can compete with the plane and, to a certain extend, with the car in distances that do not span the continent.