If there’s one factor that most dims enthusiasm for cars, it’s probably traffic. The frustration, misanthropy and waste engendered by traffic are such that it would come as no surprise to learn that traffic-related stress causes a number of health problems. But, according to a study by the World Health Organization [PDF here], you don’t even need to be stuck in traffic to be negatively affected by it. According to a WHO press release,
Traffic-related noise accounts for over 1 million healthy years of life lost annually to ill health, disability or early death in the western countries in the WHO European Region. This is the main conclusion of the first report assessing the burden of disease from environmental noise in Europe, released today by WHO/Europe. Noise causes or contributes to not only annoyance and sleep disturbance but also heart attacks, learning disabilities and tinnitus.
Traffic: the not-so-silent killer?
The report’s release continues:
Among environmental factors in Europe, environmental noise leads to a disease burden that is second in magnitude only to that from air pollution. One in three people experiences annoyance during the daytime and one in five has disturbed sleep at night because of noise from roads, railways and airports. This increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases and high blood pressure.
Details? Using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), or “the sum of the potential years of life lost due to premature death and the equivalent years of healthy life lost by virtue of being in states of poor health or disability,” the report notes
It is estimated that DALYs lost from environmental noise in the western European countries are 61 000 years for ischaemic heart disease, 45 000 years for cognitive impairment of children, 903 000 years for sleep disturbance, 22 000 years for tinnitus and 587 000 years for annoyance. If all of these are considered together, the range of burden would be 1.0–1.6 million DALYs. This means that at least 1 million healthy life years are lost every year from traffic-related noise in the western European countries, including the EU Member States. Sleep disturbance and annoyance related to road traffic noise constitute most of the burden of environmental noise in western Europe. Owing to a lack of exposure data in south-east Europe and the newly independent states, it was not possible to estimate the disease burden in the whole of the WHO European Region.
The report itself extrapolates the impact of traffic noise through some complex epidemiological calculations that are well beyond my own ability to evaluate. But, the report does admit that
the exposure–response relationships may be based on extrapolation from a small number of studies with few subjects and perhaps even a measure of noise exposure that is not available on a population basis. This means that the estimates usually suffer from a considerable degree of uncertainty. This uncertainty is very difficult to quantify, although it is sometimes possible to provide low and high limits using sensitivity analyses
Regardless, the study will likely be the basis for future EU regulation of traffic noise.
In my suburban neighborhood the worst thing is the lawn services, especially the leaf blowers.
You mean whoooooooooOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? Yeah, they’re really noisy. 75dB @ 50 ft is about the norm, although they are getting quieter. The mix fuel they use burns the lungs and the dust that they generate might contain trace amounts of lead and asbestos when blowing next to houses. They make short work of leaves, though.
Amen. Some times they sound like the Luftwaffe on their way to bomb London again.
What is most annoying to me about leaf blowers and snow blowers is how pathetic they are. I recently watched a guy take about 30 minutes to clear a small section of sidewalk with a snow blower. For certain he could have done it in 5 minutes with a shovel. So all the noise and fumes are created for a net loss in human efficiency and the operator gets ear damage and lung damage and virtually zero exercise benefits.
Progress is a strange beast for sure.
Here in suburban Cali, yap trash, helicopters, vanity planes and backup beepers are more offensive, although lawn services are bad here as well. At least most lawn servicers don’t work at night.
In less tony neighborhoods; cop sirens, along with police helicopters, are the worst offenders. Darned shame our local gangbangers aren’t equipped half as well for dealing with the latter, as the Afghans mujaheddin was during the Soviet occupation.
And in the red corner we have those who say hybrids and EVs are too quiet and kill people !
At any kind of speed (35mph+), tire noise seems to dominate over engine noise for most newer cars, unless they are accelerating briskly, or is equipped with fart cans.
Yeah tires are much noiser than anything else. Stand next to a busy highway sometime. What you’ll largely hear is the hum of the tires. Exhaust is generally only heard when the car is at idle. Even my 150cc scooter (which sounds like a combo of an angry chainsaw and a riding mower at idle) the engine noise fades away once you hit about 35+mph. I hear the wind and the dang tires buzzing on the pavement.
What a load of left wing horse excrement!!! Shall we go back to the pre-traffic days, when people died during child-birth at home, or contracted polio, small pox, or any number of other diseases that are easily treated in our modern world.
Sure our technology has caused a few problems, but come on… life expectency keeps on going up. And we all keep getting richer. 20 yeas ago the richest man in the world couldn’t have the computer or TV I buy today for a few hundered bucks (just an example, not saying computers and TV’s are a great measure of happiness).
This “study” is just such a waste of time!!! And yes traffic annoys me, but I’ll take a 30 mile ride in a modern automobile over traversing a dirt road in a horse drawn buck-board any day!!!
Hilarious. That comment reads like a case study in logical fallacies.
And besides, there’s huge money to be made in improving the technology we have today. Always has been, always will be.
Lemmy-powered,
Where is the logical fallacy? I simply asked a question. The study says people are dying because of traffic noise. Traffic noise is the result of traffic. However cars, and the resulting traffic, provide huge benefits to us. Therefore to avoid the small number of deaths caused by traffic noise should we give up the huge benefits of cars and traffic?
And do you deny my assertion we are vastly wealthier than in times past? Another example; 100 years ago it would take me a huge percentage of my income and two weeks for me to get from North America to Europe. I this day and age I could be there tomorrow for less than 0.25% of my annual income.
As for your comment, “And besides, there’s huge money to be made in improving the technology we have today. Always has been, always will be,” is there something wrong with there being money in it? Isn’t there money in it because people find a lot of value in technology?
You’re right. I owe you an explanation. I wasn’t gonna, but here goes.
First, you decided you didn’t like what you read, so you called it left-wing horse crap, when really there’s nothing in there to suggest there’s political bias of any kind.
Second, you went on to suggest that the study wants us all to return to horse-and-buggy days, which you can’t logically infer from what’s here. And no, you did not just “ask a question.”
Finally, in your reply to me, you had somehow deduced that I disagreed with your statement about being wealthier than in times past.
There you go.
Anyway, I still stand by my original (misunderstood) statement, which is that there’s money to be made in improving technology. We all know that traffic noise sucks. And now we know that some people are saying it’s unhealthy. Rather than dismiss the study as left-wing hogwash, let’s consider it, and if it has merit, let’s see if there’s a technological solution.
WE shouldn’t go back to anything, but people who spill noise onto other people’s property should compensate those whose land and lives they pollute. Or, at the minimum, they shouldn’t expect a bunch of government apparatchics to protect them, when those whose property is being violated, decide to silence them on their own. In case you haven’t noticed, the leftists are the pro noise guys, at least when it comes dow to whether I can silence a noisy helicopter with a silenced rifle or not.
While everyone makes some noise, and expecting every whimper to be muted to nothing at your property’s border is probably a bit utopian, there is absolutely no reason on the planet why those too darned incompetent to take care of a dog, move a lawn, remove some snow or back up a delivery van without making more of a racket than us competent people do doing the same thing, should somehow be granted license to noisily flaunt their incompetence to our detriment. And neither is there any reason why anyone too incompetent to protect themselves without an army of government goons buzzing overhead like retarded bird apes, should bother us, instead of simply living (or dieing) woefully unprotected in quiet.
There are a lot of motorcycles and diesel pickups with noisy straight pipes in the US, so I suspect the problem is worse here (there seems to be no enforcement).
Yep, here in Canada too. Spring-like weather has finally broken out here and, oh joy of joys, the biker-wannabees (i.e. 50 plus year old middle class, pudgy guys) are out and about with their literally ear shattering pieces of garbage.
Last year one of these morons blasted away from the lights alongside my open drivers side window and I had a ringing in my ear for the next 24 hours. Seriously, if there were not laws against it I’d just shoot every one of them off their hogs just for the fun of it.
What really amazes me is how so many people have bought into this “biking is cool” marketing machine. Guys, you don’t look cool.
And don’t get me started on “monkey bars”.
Nice jab at left wingers, jjster6. Some of us are actually science types.
Anyhow, this left-winger calls BS on this report, too. It sounds like something derived by statistics, and very loosely so. There may well be some correlation here…but no evidence of causation beyond some misguided opinions.
Now, if there was a study saying cicada noise caused heart attacks, I might be far more inclined to buy into it.
Population density is a lot higher on average in Europe than in the US. On the other hand, they do more about it–stricter standards for truck noise, more road surfaces that are designed to reduce road noise–about two thirds of which is the tires hitting the road surface.
I thought all left-wingers were poets. Must be my logical fallacies acting up again.
I live 500 feet from a freeway. Except on rare occasions, I don’t hear it.
On the other hand, flights coming into DCA and firetrucks — oh, lord, the firetrucks, the violence I can imagine to firemen. If I hear another one….
Trucks/Buses are pretty bad when you’re walking in a city.
Euro peons are weak………………….No not really Brussels just wants some more money…..
Without even to attempting to check the details, I only need to read “WHO” in combination with “estimates” plus other “OMG” messages in addition with “basis for future EU regulation of”, I do know that it will be another very expensive blunt for anybody paying taxes.
Sitting on Lake Geneva, their main job (75% of their budget) is to feed themselves on a very high level of income by top-notch scare-mongering, thus providing input and help for other professional scare-mongers in politics (as, e.g., the EU commission), saving their asses for another couple of years.
Thankfully, you have pointed out the dubious factual basis.
BTW: Does anyone remember any facts & figures by the WHO that were not falsified or wrong?
Remember the EPA had vehicle noise standards from mid-70’s until early ‘80’s. 90dba if I recall correctly.
A lot of money went into quieting vehicles down, from piston slap to tire tread. The automotive manufactures spent millions getting those laws lifted, claiming it was adding thousands of dollars to each vehicle cost. The reality was they had almost all cost out of it by the time they got it lifted but they went ahead fighting it anyway.
Within hours of the repeal, all manufacturers shut down all noise-level testing. All that knowledge slowly dissipated. If the law is again re-instated, how much of that will need to be re-learned?
While I don’t know if it really causes health issues, the constant drone of background noise sucks and it certainly reduces the quality of life. But noise is relative. As a kid I was fortunate enough to live in a wealthy suburb on a big estate so there was virtually no man made noise, save for the odd plane. The sound of nature at night in the summer was soothing and relaxing. Since I followed the overwhelming trend of kids not doing as well as their parents (isn’t globalization great) I live on a street that has traffic all morning on the weekends. I can say with certainty the sound of cars whizzing by irritates me, let alone the piggish people who throw $hit out the window. So I can say with certainty that excess noise degrades quality of life. Early grave? Not so sure about that. I will say that I look forward to retiring where there are far less people, noise, and lights…
There is probably just a much science in this study a there is in the global warming scam. None.
Scientific literacy 101: Anyone who airily dismisses a heavily peer-reviewed theory in sweeping, simplistic and absolute terms does not understand how real science actually works.
That seems to be going around lately. I like to call it the Bill O’Reilly effect.
Since your raised the issue of scientific literacy, it’s pretty clear that the proponents of AGW have been fiddling with the figures and eliminating anything that doesn’t fit their theory.
After the release of the “climategate” emails, anyone that isn’t skeptical of AGW and the activists (it’s hard to call them scientists when they corrupt science so) who promote the theory is credulous.
What legitimate scientist uses a phrase like “hide the decline”?
Since your raised the issue of scientific literacy, it’s pretty clear that the proponents of AGW have been fiddling with the figures and eliminating anything that doesn’t fit their theory.
It’s called “normalization”. I know it makes good copy to scream about “throwing out data that doesn’t fit their model” but there is a very, very good reason for doing it. Most people who dug casually into it, and especially those with an agenda, didn’t look further than “throwing out data” as it supported what they already felt to be true, anyway.
That 24-hour journalists and axe-grinding bloggers didn’t take, or didn’t understand, statistics doesn’t give them credence.
And sure, you’ll probably make an anti-intellectual claim, which of course I won’t be able to counter because it’ll amount to “Well, what do they know? They’re close-minded liberal intelligensia”. It’s about as valid as the anti-wealthy bent you’ve accused me of: so either both of us are right, or both of us need to realize that we’re spouting opinion spiced by vitriol.
Psar, what part of normalization is “hide the decline”?
Maybe everyone should ride a Harley over there, because every Harely rider around here states
“Loud pipes saves lives” (Best said in the tone of “I pick things up and put them down”)
I don’t think there is anything more obnoxious on the roads today than a Harley, except maybe a screeching sport bike.
I live about 1000 feet from the NJ Turnpike. There are lots of trees between my house and the Turnpike, so during spring and summer, the noise isn’t too bad.
During the winter, however, the noise can be quite loud – but I knew this when I bought my house. I made the trade-off between noise, size of house and yard, school district and neighborhood. In the end all of those other things outweighed the negatives of the noise.
Granted the “rich” on the other side of the neighborhood that paid well over $100,000 more than I paid have less traffic noise than I do, but the reduction in noise wasn’t worth the cost.
Is there a technological solution? Sure, noise walls (by all the engineering estimates I’ve read) would reduce the noise in our neighborhood by around 10db. The Turnpike is now considering noise walls due to the expansion of the road from 6 lanes to 12.
The only problem is cost. The cost of the walls divided by the “benefiting” homes must be less than $50,000 per house to qualify for consideration.
Will that $50,000 per house result in better health? Studies like this may help answer this question.
-ted
Scientific Literacy 102. I spent 40 years making both long and short chain hydrocarbons dance to my tune. I can hand anyone with enough intelligence the instuctions on how to do it and they would be able to do the same. Try that with the WHO study or the global warming scam “theories” and what you get is nothing. A “peer reviewed” lie is still a lie.
You can have your own opinion but you can’t have your own facts. Just because you don’t happen to believe something doesn’t mean you can wave a magic wand and make a huge and diverse body of research disappear.
Global warming has been researched by thousands of scientists from around the world in dozens of disciplines writing for hundreds of peer-reviewed journals and scholarly publishing houses. They can’t all be lying.
You are trying to have your own facts too, there is an equally large body of scientists who don’t believe AGW is a fact. One big difference is that they haven’t been caught fudging studies to prove their point. Some are lying and others just aren’t very good scientists. As in most everything, follow the money and you will know why global warming is a popular theory now.
Mike, I flatly challenge you to prove your point that there is an equally large body of scientists who don’t believe (what follows are my words) that there is strong and compelling evidence that global warming is a significantly human-caused threat to the planet.
I get that you believe strongly in your view. But, dude, the scientific body of knowledge on global warming is simply too wide and deep to be wished away.
And BTW, if you’re going to follow the money you also need to acknowledge the millions and millions of dollars that the fossil fuel industry has been dumping into astroturf organizations, right-wing think tanks and research grants to a few carefully chosen scientists.
Dr. Lemming,
What part of “hide the decline” isn’t lying?
All this talk about conspiracies and scams is getting a little tiresome and old. Most scientists that I know and work with are not interested in scams or conspiracies, but are driven by a strong desire to understand how our world actually works. If many think human actions are contributing to global warming, it’s because the evidence surrounding current theories about climate change generally support that claim. It may be true that not all scientists accept the dominant theoretical models or interpret the evidence in exactly the same way, but so what? That happens in all fields of science all the time, and is certainly not unique to debates about global warming.
The peer review process is pretty reliable in the long run, and those who claim that certain scientists are lying need to produce some actual evidence to support their claims by showing where and how the data in question is actually being fudged (or some other such thing). Otherwise such claims are little more than defamatory hot air.
Haven’t you heard, you don’t have to provide any so called ‘evidence.’ All you have to do is dismiss theories with sweeping generalizations and then scream down you opponents on TV when they try to speak. That is the level of discourse in our American culture now.
@ Ronnie It’s nice to see that you were able to arrive at such a definitive interpretation of the so-called “hide the decline” fiasco, especially when there is such a fog of information surrounding the entire affair. I wish I had your interpretative skills.
In the peer review process, when there is evidence of data or results being fudged, or if purported observations or claims are not repeatable by other scientists, then the work is often retracted or removed from the scientific publications in question. The recent case of non-repeatable results surrounding the possible links between autism and certain kinds of vaccinations is a good case in point. While there is certainly much discussion about how to best interpret the data relating to climate change (e.g., about how to interpret tree rings at different latitudes and altitudes and so on), I have yet to see any peer-reviewed process indicating that the scientists involved in the tree-ring confusion (as well as most climatologists who think there is evidence for or against global warming) have been found guilty of lying. Perhaps you have some inside information that most of us are not aware of, but if you do then please post your peer-reviewed source. I personally would welcome a definitive source (honestly). As it stands, all I see is a bunch of politically charged advocates trying to interpret these e-mails in whatever way suits their own predisposed beliefs.
So please explain what “hide the decline” means. Does a legitimate scientist “hide” anything?
@ Ronnie As my earlier reference to the “fog of information” that surrounds this case suggests, I don’t know what it means. I’ve read many accounts from both sides. Some say it means exactly what normal language conventions would suggest (which is the way you were using it), while others say it is more specialized ‘science talk’ referring to special kinds of statistical problems associated with certain kinds of data. My problem is that I don’t have a strong enough background in statistics, dendrology, or climatology to be able to say with any certainty what the phrase could mean in that context, and since I haven’t seen anything yet that has convinced me as to its meaning one way or the other, I haven’t yet passed any judgment on the matter and so remain undecided as to what it actually means (that’s why I added in my previous post that I would honestly like to find something that provided a decisive, reliable, trustworthy reading of the matter one way or the other).
If you are interested in a thoughtful, nonpartisan discussion of climate science by actual climate scientists, check out: http://www.realclimate.org/
Leave it to the WHO and the Euroweenies to come up with an ironclad, peer reviewed, unchallengable study that cars will kill off mankind.
The automobile is the most liberating piece of machinery the world has ever seen. It has allowed us to move out of fetid, corrupt and confining cities. It has allowed us to choose an employer and not be limited to those who are within walking distance or public transportation. The noise of traffic is a killer? Where do these folks live? Certainly not in the suburbs.
I can’t speak for Europe, but the noisiest places I have visited are central cities, especially NYC, where it’s not traffic noise per se. It’s the emergency vehicles, the garbage trucks with their hydraulic lifts and clunkity clunks at 5:00 AM. It’s the taxicabs using thier horns.
There is a concerted effort by liberals to force everyone into public transportation “for the good of all.” This study is just one more effort to do just this. When Ray LaHood or any other liberal tells the public to use public transportation, they mean everyone but themselves.
Just look at how efficient Europeans transportation systems are to blow your theory out of the water. The ‘euroweenies’ overall standard of living and happiness is much higher than in the US. Their energy consumption is also much lower. How does using less energy make one a ‘weenie?’ Only a fool would dismiss their ideas without consideration.
Pleae provide evidence that liberals are trying to “force everyone into public transportation.”
Ah, the old, “too bad those crude, crass Americans can’t be more like their moral betters in other countires” trope.
It’s taken different forms over the past 2 and a half centuries. It’s usually Europe that the hate-America-firsters pine for, but in the sixties it was India and more recently Japan and China have been presented as exemplars. The NYT’s Tom Friednman’s articles fellating Chinese leaders is but one example.
If you read what anti-car activists are saying, as I have done, you will see that those involved in the planning and road use arenas very much want to force people into using public transportation. They don’t advocated adding bus and bike lanes, they advocate reducing traffic lanes and setting aside those lanes for transit and buses. They explicitly call for making driving more of a hassle, specifically to get people to use public transit. They want to eliminate free parking and simultaneously reduce the number of and increase the cost of curbside parking.
In Toronto they overreached, and the backlash elected a conservative mayor who campaigned against the war on the car.
The anti-car activists bemoan the development of the personal automobile and look back fondly to a time when development was constrained by available public transit. Before the automobile, urban development could only spread as far as a 30 minute walk from the nearest street car line or tramway. The anti-car activists speak disparagingly of how the car lets people live and work where they want to, not where they have to. Since the nannies hate the notion of individual freedom, cars must be constrained.
Last time I looked, there were at least an order of magnitude more Europeans wanting to immigrate t the US, than vice versa. And that was during the Bush years (in relation to the release of that “move to Canada” if Bush wins movie, in fact). Of course, maybe Obama has made things here so much worse as to completely turn that trend on it’s head, but I doubt it.
My impression is the only people who feel Europe in general has a higher standard of living than the US, are poorly paid faculty at less than top ranked colleges over here, as well as a smattering of young people whose quality of life is almost entirely dependent on easy access to Amsterdam coffee shops. For virtually anyone else, America still seems to have more to offer.
There are pockets in Europe, like Monaco, Luxemburg, Norway and (My favorite) Switzerland, where the comparison may, for some, tilt the other way, but in general the Euros still haven’t caught up, despite America spending most of the later half century making it easy on them.
In Toronto they overreached, and the backlash elected a conservative mayor who campaigned against the war on the car.
Not true. Anti-car feelings were barely a small fraction of the issue. Most of it was, largely, apathy mixed with “throw the bums out”. David Miller lost a lot of support from the Left for forcing an end to the garbage strike and Rob Ford benefitted largely from a split of the centrist vote and the leading left-wing candidate stepping out because he slept around.
Not sure what is wrong with letting the market decide how much personal transportation should cost. You know by removing the huge subsidies given to parking, roads, pollution control, oil subsidies, etc… paid for by EVERY tax payer, not just those that drive. I’m not an anti-car person by any means, but I have no problems with sharing the road with buses and bikes (that I also use) and who’s passengers paid for the same roads that I am using.
@ Ronnie The fact that you interpret advocates of alternative forms of transportation as “anti-car activists” is interesting to say the least. There may well be some amongst those groups who are “anti-car,” but to paint all such people with the same brush likely says more about your own perspective and predispositions than anything else. I would prefer to view most of these people as pro-bicycle, or pro-mass-transit rather than anti-car. After all, these are not exclusive notions (i.e., one can like both cars and bicycles as illustrated by some of the very people who post on this site).
It seems to be historically true that most cities in North America have been designed around the automobile as the primary means of transportation. The large, horizontal distribution of most communities (e.g., suburbs) is evidence of this (for good and for bad). Recently there has been an increase in interest in alternative forms of transportation such as bicycles, mass transit, and so on. The problem is that the automobiled manner in which our communities have been designed makes it extremely difficult to accommodate these alternate forms of transportation. Adding bicycle lanes to city streets, for example, is not only very costly, but it can also be a logistical nightmare, especially in places that have been designed in the past solely and exclusively with the automobile in mind (after all, it’s not easy to simply add a bicycle lane in an already congested downtown environment). I live in an automobiled community where the local council is trying to add a bicycle lane to a major thoroughfare, and the local residents are fighting this tooth and nail because they say it will infringe upon their property and disturb the local beauty and heritage of their particular part of town.
Now as a car enthusiast you may be tempted to reply by asking why we need to add these alternative modes of transportation in the first place, for the tone of your comments suggests that cars are obviously more important than bikes, and roads are made for cars, and so on. But this is to overlook the fact that the people who ride bikes and seek other forms of transportation help pay for the same roadways that you do, but don’t have the same kind of access to them as automobile users do. It’s a tough situation that’s not easy to solve, but accusing all those who are simply advocating for alternative modes of transportation as “anti-car” seems to privilege your own perspective and preferences for no good reason.
@ Ronnie The fact that you interpret advocates of alternative forms of transportation as “anti-car activists” is interesting to say the least. There may well be some amongst those groups who are “anti-car,” but to paint all such people with the same brush likely says more about your own perspective and predispositions than anything else.
I’ve read the material from the other side and their antipathy to the personal automobile is explicit. While the public spokesmen deny that there is any such thing as the war on the car, if you look at what the activists who drive the movement say, they are rather open about their hostility to private transportation.
I would prefer to view most of these people as pro-bicycle, or pro-mass-transit rather than anti-car. After all, these are not exclusive notions (i.e., one can like both cars and bicycles as illustrated by some of the very people who post on this site).
Unlike most of the so-called alternative transportation activists I actually use a bicycle for transportation. In a light year I right 2500 miles, sometimes close to double that. This cyclist believes that if the activists were really pro-bicycle as opposed to anti-car, they’d be advocating for additional bike lanes, not taking lanes away from cars and giving them to bikes. Invariably the proposed transit and bike lanes come at the expense of drivers.
Now as a car enthusiast you may be tempted to reply by asking why we need to add these alternative modes of transportation in the first place, for the tone of your comments suggests that cars are obviously more important than bikes, and roads are made for cars, and so on.
As a cyclist I can easily say that cars are more important than bicycles because the vast majority of people use cars for transportation. The roads are indeed made for cars, and they are subsidized by drivers, through gasoline taxes. Cyclists pay nothing for the roads.
But this is to overlook the fact that the people who ride bikes and seek other forms of transportation help pay for the same roadways that you do,
What road and gasoline taxes do cyclists pay?
but don’t have the same kind of access to them as automobile users do. It’s a tough situation that’s not easy to solve, but accusing all those who are simply advocating for alternative modes of transportation as “anti-car” seems to privilege your own perspective and preferences for no good reason.
As I said earlier, I have yet to see a proposal by alternative transportation activists that doesn’t incorporate some kind of restriction on drivers. I came to the conclusion that those activists were anti-car after reading their proposals (and those of the academics whose work underlays those activists). They often explicitly say that their goal is to make driving less convenient. If their goal is alternative transportation, why do they campaign against free parking?
It’s never, “let’s encourage people to ride bikes”, it’s always “let’s get people out of their cars on onto bikes, buses or subways”.
My guess is that I use bicycles and walking for transportation far more than you do. Though I love to drive, I’ve always hated driving very short distances. It’s precisely because I have experience using a bicycle for transportation that I’m skeptical of those you say are not anti-car. Nothing they say or do helps me as a cyclist.
Exactly. There has been a concerted effort to engineer our cities, towns, and suburbs around the car. Without the favorable zoning, road construction, tax breaks, etc… that make the real cost of owning and operating a car artificially inexpensive we woundn’t have inefficient, sprawled out cities. If people had to actually pay for what a personal automobile actually costs to the society, more people would opt to live closer to where they work and take alternate transportation. The suburban culture that relies on personal automobiles is simply not sustainable. I have no problem with someone wanting to live in a suburban mcmansion and drive their 3/4 ton truck 40 miles to work everyday… they just have to pay for it, I mean really pay for what it REALLY costs to do so.
@ Ronnie I have little doubt that you ride more than I do, and I think it’s great that you do. Part of the reason I don’t ride as much as I used to is precisely because the roads (and drivers) in the place where I currently live are simply not bicycle friendly. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that many of the roads near where I happen to live are actually quite dangerous for bicyclists in general. I don’t make a big deal about this (because it’s often very difficult to change existing infrastructure), I just don’t ride my bike as often as I’d like.
As I said above, I don’t doubt that some of the people and groups you cite are anti-car, but I think you may be overstating the case a little. One could very easily counter that many governments and automobile drivers are ‘anti-bike’ (and have been that way for some time). I don’t know how many drivers I’ve seen over the years who seem to think that roads are for cars only and bicyclists should not be out there (which is surely more prevalent than the ‘anti-car’ lobby). Fortunately, some people in local governments are becoming a little more conscious of the automobiled ways in which our roads and communities have been designed, and are trying to do something to make them a little more amenable and accessible to other kinds of uses (though I would add here that there are many people and governments who are so car-oriented that they still think that roads are for cars and cars alone). But as I said, logistically this is not an easy task. Widening roads to add car lanes is simply not viable in some areas, and even when it is it can still be very expensive (especially if the municipalities have to expropriate the needed land). We are fortunate in our small town to have a very forward-thinking town planner who tries to incorporate these various interests into his designs. But even he still has to work with already existing roadways and transportation systems that were designed with only automobiles in mind. The automobiled orientation of much existing infrastructure leaves many town planners with few real options when it comes to making roadways more amenable to alternative modes of transportation. Sometimes they need to experiment with various design options, not all of which work. But that doesn’t mean that attempts to accommodate these alternative forms of transportation are necessarily “anti-car.”
So if I start wearing earplugs, I no longer have to watch my cholesterol? Sweet.
Here’s a brief look into how our future may look if the enviro-nazis, socialists and other nannies are allowed to dictate how we live— in the form of the front page of a typical New York Times-like newspaper, circa 2035:
BROOKLYN MAN SENTENCED TO DEATH
In a unanimous ruling by jury, 47-year-old James MacDonald was found guilty of first-degree tree murder for cutting down a healthy tree in his back yard.
The conviction carries an automatic sentence of death by chainsaw which, due to previous sweeping ammendments to the constitution after pressure from environmental lobbyists in the 2020s, can only be overturned by a judge in good standing with the David Suzuki Memorial Foundation (DSMF).
But this is not likely to happen because MacDonald has a prior felony conviction for failing to surrender his gasoline-powered car to authories when such vehicles were outlawed in July, 2023, a crime for which he served seven years in prison.
Prosecuting attourney Percy Nopenis was elated with the verdict. “This is a very good day for American environmental justice. It sends a message that we defend those who cannot speak for themselves, and it sends a message to would-be perps who have no regard for plant life or the health of our environment. Mr. MacDonald clearly sees himself as being above the law and besides, he’s fat. That has also been illegal for several years now. Yet Mr. MacDonald is still twenty pounds overweight and continues to eat more than his fair share.”
MacDonald’s lawyer Diane Bluetestes was defiant. “My client has been convicted unfairly and of course, we will seek clemency from the DSMF. This trial was rigged from the start. He was outed by a prosecution witness as a conservative. Had he been a liberal it is likely that he would have only been found guilty of involuntary tree slaughter and served no more than 15 years. Besides, he planted that tree himself just after inheriting that property in 2015. He only cut it down after a windstorm partially uprooted it and tilted it in the direction of his neighbor’s home.”
Of course I’m exaggerating. It is my sincerest hope that I’m wrong. But judging by the ultra-flaky lobbying of certain special-interest groups over the last four decades I’m very afraid that I may be at least 10% correct with this forecast…
http://www.myfoxal.com/story/14048891/2011/02/17/arrest-made-in-auburn-toomers-corner-trees-poisoning?redirected=true