Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, why not just sit in your house all day and not go outside at all because of inherent risks in just stepping outside the door, or hell, even in the house! C'mon dude, yeah people can be complete IDIOTS on the road, just today I saw a guy waiting at a red light reading the newspaper! But getting out on the roads and driving as defensively as possible, you can greatly lessen the risk of becoming entangled in an accident due to someone else's negligence. Sure there's always that possibility that something could happen, but by being cautious, observant, vigilant and using proper judgement of assuming that the guy in front of you who may stop short and turn left with no signal because he's on the phone....probably will stop short and make a left with no signal while he's on the phone...and being aware of this and other surroundings so that you can take appropriate reactionary measures and possibly prevent a collision that could have been very well someone else's fault, and most importantly, not getting totally worked up all the time about how stupid people are on the road...and you can actually enjoy using a car for transportation, at least in my opinion. The sacrifice of occasional sanity in exchange for the freedom and mobility that driving offers people, totally worth it in my opinion...and likely in a LOT of other people's as well.
I have to chuckle at this, because I've made similar arguments--about living in the city--to people who are still convinced that cities are nothing but crime-filled cesspools. (I know you're not one of them)
So then it is a new classification ... As Ohio girl is in her 50s.
Hey, hey, hey! Stop giving away my secrets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Perhaps we should get back to discussing streetcars and buses?
*scowl* Oh ... ohhhkay ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
Another reason to take the train. The epidemic of distracted driving. Too many fools not paying attention to their driving because they are texting, yakking on the phone, listening to an audio book, playing with their computer or whatever. They are making the roads more dangerous for everyone.
Today while I was sitting at a stoplight I saw some dipheaded pedestrian with her nose in her phone walk smack into the hood of a car ahead of me that was waiting at the light. The car was still; she was moving. She's making the road dangerous for motorists, dontcha think? Should we regulate walking?
Today while I was sitting at a stoplight I saw some dipheaded pedestrian with her nose in her phone walk smack into the hood of a car ahead of me that was waiting at the light. The car was still; she was moving. She's making the road dangerous for motorists, dontcha think? Should we regulate walking?
Today while I was sitting at a stoplight I saw some dipheaded pedestrian with her nose in her phone walk smack into the hood of a car ahead of me that was waiting at the light. The car was still; she was moving. She's making the road dangerous for motorists, dontcha think? Should we regulate walking?
Nah, the motorist isn't in danger from a pedestrian, he/she is protected by a ton of steel. Cars make crossing the road dangerous.
As for regulating walking, a New Jersey town followed your logic and did exactly that:
Nah, the motorist isn't in danger from a pedestrian, he/she is protected by a ton of steel.
Not protected from ticket-happy cops or lawyers, though. Or you get someone walking across the street in front of the car and the driver slams on his/her brakes, causing a chain reaction crash. Or ... give me a few minutes ...
Heck, I almost got into one of those the other day when the guy in front of me braked for a pair of geese. If it's me or the geese, the geese get it!
Quote:
Cars make crossing the road dangerous.
Especially when you don't notice you've walked into one!
I guess my point is that pedestrians are not always innocent. They need to pay attention every bit as much as drivers, and they can cause problems every bit as much as drivers.
I guess my point is that pedestrians are not always innocent. They need to pay attention every bit as much as drivers, and they can cause problems every bit as much as drivers.
TRUTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C
I have to chuckle at this, because I've made similar arguments--about living in the city--to people who are still convinced that cities are nothing but crime-filled cesspools. (I know you're not one of them)
Haha yeah I understand. I think it's a matter of how comfortable a person feels in an urban vs a suburban environment, and little to actually do with actual crime rates and threats (though not always). For example in my suburban NYC neighborhood, the worst crime we really have around here is kids smoking pot on the corner or traffic violations, with the occasional domestic disturbance...kind of like any old random actual suburb, really...lol. And I know some downright suburban feeling suburbs (if that even makes sense? lol) out in some parts of Jersey and Long Island where if you walk down the winding cul-de-sac streets after dark with your iPhone out, you're probably not going very far with it lol. I can roll with pretty much either urban or suburban style places, though I just tend to feel more comfortable in suburban ones. Something about the crowdedness and built form just gets to me after a while, and I usually head home and can find myself hanging out for a few hours in the local Dunkin Donuts parking lot with my friends for hours feeling right at home. Guess it's just me lol.
Second question first. Yes, sometimes I do, sometimes because I feel like not listening to NPR or music, sometimes because I don't need background noise I'm not going to pay attention to, and doubly so if the driving specifically requires my attention.
But, to your first point, qualifications only arise in discussions when one party doubts the other's argument, but have no satisfactory counterpoint. If the argument is fully formed, then the qualifications of the person making that argument are irrelevant to that argument.
As to your question on audiobooks, specifically, let's talk about books in general. If we are reading in a comprehensive way, regardless of the subject, we can't do another active function, such as a solve a math problem or navigate a maze, at the same time. At best, all we can do is switch between the two, but this has immediately degrading effects on both speed and accuracy.
Well, audiobooks are the same way. If one's brain is processing the material, not just letting it wash over you, then you are actively engaged in that activity and cannot be actively engaged in another. In our case, the other would be driving. And this has been my consistent point throughout.
What I haven't said, quite explicitly, is that one cannot do something and drive, but I have said that one cannot be attentive to that something and also to driving.
I disagree. You're trying to take the focus off your lack of credentials for saying this. You would not believe the foolishness I've heard from well-meaning patients over the years. I'd say you have no credentials for making your statement. It's just something you "know".
Beginning in 1907, the city and then the state began to regulate and tax street railways. The city and state continued the 1859 cap on fares at five cents despite inflation that drove up costs, and taxed profits at a 55 percent rate. The railways, which had been highly profitable in the last decades of the nineteenth century, had difficulty after 1907 raising capital to modernize or expand.
[] Fare Caps
[] Taxes on the land, on rolling stock, and profits
[] Subsidy to its competitors
Yup, streetcars aren't profitable - after government gets done with it.
One of the things I like about modern streetcars and light rail are the separate cabins that physically isolates the operator from the passengers. Allowing the driver to operate the train free from distractions from passengers, greatly improving safety. Passengers can board anywhere, front or rear of the train because they buy a ticket before boarding. The operator never has to deal with passengers and fares and can focus solely on operating the train.
I didn't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if somebody responded, but you could have "Bus Rapid Transit", where the people pay before they board, and the bus driver isn't involved in fare collection (some agenies also have them behind a plexiglass shield)
I didn't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if somebody responded, but you could have "Bus Rapid Transit", where the people pay before they board, and the bus driver isn't involved in fare collection (some agenies also have them behind a plexiglass shield)
I think BRT is great as a starter system but any route that is successful will quickly reach capacity (see LA Orange Line, Ottawa BRT, Brisbane Busway, etc, etc) and the operating costs quickly wind up exceeding the operating costs of light rail.
One light rail driver can easily haul 600 people where it would take 12 bus drivers to do the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
