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.
Well, when you make comments about people who get into accidents that take park and rides are somehow the fault of transit, then I can only believe that you are trying to associate something you can't prove to transit.
The original point was intended to expose fallacies of the pro-transit argument when transit proponents use fatality rates to promote transit.
The original point was clear and so were each of the followups. Blind transit advocates are blind by choice. I appreciate your assistance in illustrating that.
Quote:
Actually no, it is easy to create safe routes for bike commuting, as well as it I'd easy for drivers to pay attention to their surroundings. Look before you turn.
You going to provide a special bike lane? Both sides? For how many miles and along which roads? Should there be a special walking lane too? Are you planning to add sidewalks? Should bicyclists pay something given the great cost and the few this would serve? Should a special taxing district be imposed only on the property owners within an area near the special lanes to pay for them? Why should folks further out be taxed to cover such things? What about the added "impervious cover"?
Urbanists continue to ignore the costs and efficiencies (or lack thereof). Think twice before planning to bicycle on a road designed and expected to carry 3,000 lb - 100,000 lb and up vehicles at 55 - 70 mph unless you don't mind being a culling statistic.
If drivers can't handle cyclists on the same road, they shouldn't be on the road. Most roads have some shoulder bicycles can use. And yes, there's a special walking lane called "sidewalks".
The original point was intended to expose fallacies of the pro-transit argument when transit proponents use fatality rates to promote transit.
The original point was clear and so were each of the followups. Blind transit advocates are blind by choice. I appreciate your assistance in illustrating that.
You going to provide a special bike lane? Both sides? For how many miles and along which roads? Should there be a special walking lane too? Are you planning to add sidewalks? Should bicyclists pay something given the great cost and the few this would serve? Should a special taxing district be imposed only on the property owners within an area near the special lanes to pay for them? Why should folks further out be taxed to cover such things? What about the added "impervious cover"?
Urbanists continue to ignore the costs and efficiencies (or lack thereof). Think twice before planning to bicycle on a road designed and expected to carry 3,000 lb - 100,000 lb and up vehicles at 55 - 70 mph unless you don't mind being a culling statistic.
No, your original point was trying to blame transit for potential accidents that might happen when someone is driving to and from a park and ride, we call that a strawman argument.
Portland doesn't seem to have a problem with building a bike infrastructure, and who said anything about letting bikes on the highway with 55-70mph vehicles? That is another strawman argument from you. If any form of bike lane is provided on an interstate, it should be a dedicated route for bikes to keep them separate from speeding cars, though most cities don't need to provide any bike system on our highways because there are usually better routes for bikes to go.
The original point was intended to expose fallacies of the pro-transit argument when transit proponents use fatality rates to promote transit.
The original point was clear and so were each of the followups. Blind transit advocates are blind by choice. I appreciate your assistance in illustrating that.
You going to provide a special bike lane? Both sides? For how many miles and along which roads? Should there be a special walking lane too? Are you planning to add sidewalks? Should bicyclists pay something given the great cost and the few this would serve? Should a special taxing district be imposed only on the property owners within an area near the special lanes to pay for them? Why should folks further out be taxed to cover such things? What about the added "impervious cover"?
Urbanists continue to ignore the costs and efficiencies (or lack thereof). Think twice before planning to bicycle on a road designed and expected to carry 3,000 lb - 100,000 lb and up vehicles at 55 - 70 mph unless you don't mind being a culling statistic.
this would generally seem silly unless dedicate ROW and a real reason (utility or recreational)
Many bike lanes work well in places that have given car lanes for bike lanes with very minimal change to drive wait times and enhanced biking friendliness and even pedestrian benefits. It should be evaluated based on need and where it works not mandatory IMHO
No I didn't "miss" your erroneous remark - that's what prompted the response. No one is "combining" the accident or trying to attribute such an accident directly to transit.
The error you make over and over again is presuming that transit inherently results in fewer deaths. It does not. Transit is hawked as transportation for the masses but transit is wholly incapable of solving the ultimate need of getting from start to destination for virtually everyone. Even if it provides transportation for part of the route, folks often have to take cars to get to or from a location where they would have access to transit. An intent to use transit for some part of a journey hardly insulates the prospective or actual riders the rest of the trip. Repeatedly refusing to acknowledge the simple reality that undermines your strawman argument simply makes the lack of logic in your argument obvious to others.
.
Honestly your posts are so laughably ignorant and wrong that it seems like you've never even visited a city before. That's how off base you are. It's like an alien from another planet trying and failing to accurately describe a culture he has no familiarity with.
First saying that city public squares appeal to no one but thugs and pickpockets, now saying that virtually no one can take transit to get from their start to their destination. Have you ever even been to cities like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, DC, Boston, etc.? Put together these cities have millions and millions of people who use transit for all of their daily transportation needs. They can easily live without a car, or if they do have a car, they drive much less frequently than they would if they didn't have transit near them.
I should know, I am one of them. I live within walking distance of multiple public transportation options. I do have a car but I only use it a couple times a week because it is much faster and convenient for me to take the Metro to work, and use public transit or walking for daily errands. I do drive, but I drive a lot less than I would otherwise, so as a result I am less exposed to a less safe form of transportation. My risk of getting into a car accident is a lot lower than if I drove everywhere.
Now is this a model for EVERYONE in the country, or even most people? No, I would never suggest that. But it works for a heck of a lot more people than virtually no one. How can it not work for "virtually everyone" when millions of people do it?
I've never suggested that we should expand an NYC model of transportation to sprawled out suburban "cities" like Houston, Phoenix, etc. But I will defend my lifestyle against the ignorant people who try to pretend like transit is no safer than driving and that it's an unworkable lifestyle. Yes it does work, and works very well for millions of people.
That's totally fine if a driving lifestyle works well for many millions more people.
Last edited by stateofnature; 04-06-2014 at 11:47 AM..
You missed the point entirely.
If your argument is that "fewer people die using transit therefore transit is preferable to motor vehicle as a mode of transport" the argument is fallacious. Transit isn't "to the doorstep" and therefore people often have to take a car and drive to a "park and ride" in order to use the transit. Transit doesn't "save lives" because it isn't eliminating car usage for those riding transit. Your argument is the "strawman" argument because it is based on a false presumption.
Of course transit isn't "to the doorstep". But you don't necessarily have to take your car there. You can walk too, you know. You can walk to bus stops, train stations, or whatever form of transport you take-as long as the area you live in is dense enough. And that's not necessarily a disadvantage-after all, you have to walk to your car to use it, don't you? (It might be a shorter distance but it could hardly be much different from a walk to the corner bus stop)
Also, if the person is spending less time in the car and more time on transit, which as stated is statistically safer, then they are reducing their risk by reducing their time in the automobile. The more time they spend riding transit as opposed to being in a car, the safer they will be over time. The statistics aren't in absolutes; it's not like the increased risk permanently applies through all of the journey as soon as you step in the car.
This argument over auto accidents vs. transit violence is going nowhere. The people who drive cars know the stats; they're posted on the alert signs in several cities as you drive along the highways. So the accident stat must not be significant enough to convince them to travel more by transit. There must be other reasons why they do not prefer using public transit, and my guess would be individualism. They want to be in absolute control of when, where, and how they get somewhere. Public transit can get close, but it cannot offer all of these things.
Also, I would like to see the auto accident numbers and public transit violent incidents as percentages rather than actual numbers. It is easy to make car travel seem worse by posting a bigger number, but I think a more accurate measure would be the percentage of people who use that mode of travel affected by these incidents. Maybe those percentages would be hard to gather; maybe they would just prove what the numbers already show. But at least it would no longer be disingenuous.
1. The number of automobile deaths has decreased by 21% since 2005
2. The number of vehicle miles traveled has remained about the same, meaning that the number of deaths per vehicle miles has decreased as well
3. The number of deaths per 100,000 people has decreased as well.
Automobiles may not be the safest form of travel, but reporting numbers without any context is disingenuous. The truth is that while somewhat dangerous, traveling individually by car has improved over time and continues to do so into the future.
If drivers can't handle cyclists on the same road, they shouldn't be on the road. Most roads have some shoulder bicycles can use. And yes, there's a special walking lane called "sidewalks".
Why shouldn't cyclists be on the road? I haven't had any issues with biking on the road where a bike belongs.
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.
