Advocacy & Safety - I hate cars -- no apology

Yesterday, I rode home through some heavily trafficked areas during a "smog-alert day."

Today, I have that sensation like the beginning of bronchitis, in which I have to struggle to suppress a cough a few times a minute.

The air conditioning isn't helping much, either.

I do not apologize for hating what other people's convenient form of transportation is doing to my lungs. Go ahead: call me a "lung-hugger."

I just appreciate breathing fresh air and healthy bronchial tubes.
Gas-powered cars are about the worst invention the world has ever seen. I hate them.

Now electric cars, those are cool...

Aw, come on. Electric cars will run us over just as often as gas-powered cars. :D

Wherever it was yesterday that I saw the sentence about simple face masks with "Cars Stink" written in black on them, I think I'm going to make one of those too. Apart from the ambient smog, I get diesel exhaust spewed right in my face several times a day and have to hold my breath, sometimes without having taken a good 'clean' breath in the first place. It is definitely getting a little old.

"lung hugger". i'm lovin' that term; mind if i use it, pete?

as for electric cars: these things are only as clean as the electricity that powers them. just b/c the electricity seems to come out of big ol' "outlet" thingie in your garage where there is no pollution doesnt eman it's necessarily clean! round here, most of our electricity comes from nukes. and electric cars run on lots of electricity. powering those things would rely on lots of nuclear power, and while my lungs may(or may not) be ok with that, i'm not into nuclear waste.

to be sure, electric cars are better for air quality than gasoline- or deezle-powered vehicles. but until the majority of civilians begin to take walks/rides for reasonably short distances, we're still gonna be plagued by dirty motorized vehicles. of course, another important step is to plan necessary destinations (shopping, PO, pub<haha>, work, school, etc) within reasonable distances of housing. but everyone already knows that. =)

i work with this kid. he got into some trouble, and his folks are making him ride his dad's bike everywhere. no more rides in the car. anyway, he's leaving work one night, and he wants to go to a convenience store before he goes home. the convenience store is 6 blocks in one direction; his home is 8 in the other direction. the kid cant get a ride home, or he'll be in trouble. so what's he do? he bums a ride off of another coworker to the convenience store and back, leaving just the 8 block ride home. 20 blocks is too much fr him, i guess. it's this kid of thinking that makes cars seem "necessary" for so many ppl. it just makes me sad.

-rob

Yes, electric cars can cause more pollution than the equivalent gas powered car. But where is that pollution being created. Out at a power plant. Not in a city. It gets the pollution out of the cities. Also, it is easier to enforce a anti-pollution initiative if you have one really big power plant to control rather than millions of little powerplants to control (read cars).

Originally posted by surreal
i work with this kid. he got into some trouble, and his folks are making him ride his dad's bike everywhere. no more rides in the car.Riding a bike as punishment! Now that's surreal!

And in addition to "lung hugger," let's add a phrase to slang like "Osama lover" for someone who drives everywhere!

I can´t say I hate them, but I dislike them specially when theire drivers don´t behave. Sometimes they can save the life of a cyclist in form of the ambulance. The problem is not the cars and the pollution, it´s peoples attitude towards using theire cars at all times and to all costs (environment). As for electric cars they are as dangerouse in traffic as gasoline cars plus they never will be cleaner then the way the electricity is made. Nuclear powerplant...no thanks.

Anders K

while pollution is an annoying aspect of motor vehicles, it's not the main problem.

and if we had clean-burning vehicles, autos would still be a problem::

it's how people use them and how they endanger people (and cyclists) and degrade our social space...

so many deaths from auto accidents, parents who won't let their kids walk or bike to school or cross the street because of the danger of getting run over (plus the socially perceived "safety" risk of kidnapping or whatever, but that's another issue)

something like 30% of our public space (i forgot the exact number, but see Asphalt Nation) is devoted to cars: roads, parking, freeways, etc.

automobiles use massive amount of energy, create lots of pollution, AND inconvenience all other users of public space...

cars would truly be a great thing IF they were used in a limited capacity for those things which really require lots of energy or flexible long distance transportation (like Ambulances, police, freight and cargo, etc.)--- but not everyday personal transportation like going to work, the grocery store and the mall when most of the time one or maybe 2 people are riding around in a huge otherwise empty vehicle.

Originally posted by Feldman
And in addition to "lung hugger," let's add a phrase to slang like "Osama lover" for someone who drives everywhere!

I was being given a bad time by someone about the fact that my bike was Italian and he drives a good old american ford (hmm made in Canada) then I asked him where he thought the fuel came from and said at least the fuel I run on is home grown!

I have never and will never drive a car. No interest. For any and all reasons. :)

The nuclear power plants arent as bad as those burning high sulphur coal.

The way you guys in Europe talk makes me want to move to Europe.

Over here, Cars = Walking. Everyone who would be walking in Europe is driving a car, over in America. Oceans of vehicles.

"Oh, I can't get there. I don't have a CAR." :cry:

(Care for some Smog? Just mix exhaust and sunshine/heat. Presto! Chlorine Gas.)

<cough>

I don't have the exact figures anymore but I read an article once (I believe US News) that since its invention the automoblie has cost society more money than any other invention before or since. They had it broken down in infrustructure, pollution clean up, heath cost, and legal costs. To add a couple of other things it was mentioned that the power plants outside the city do not add pollution to the city well thats not true pollution is a world wide problem now on a hot sunny day I can barley see Mt Rainer anymore. And one more thing, what people over look the most with electric cars is the batteries disposal is expensive and very very harmful to the enviroment.

In the mid 80's there was a TV show (in AUS) called Beyond 2000, it showed all the latest technology available at the time, and a lot of prototype stuff. One story I remember seeing was of an English guy that had converted an old Ferrari to run on water, yep straight old H20, with a slight vapour trail of steam. I guess the oil companies had him taken out, as I have never seen anything about this since.

Is anyone else familiar with this guy's invention?

CHEERS.

Mark

Although I must admit, i'm going to get my drivers license soon, I dont think I want to cut back on bicycling. Its very healthy, its quick in traffic, and it helps to somewhat prevent polution. I only want to use a car when its is absolutely necessary (i have to go to Omaha in a couple of weeks). Bicycling is a lot more fun than driving also. I used to be a "little" pudgy, but i'm losing fat, gaining more muscle especially in my legs and I feel really relaxed while I bicycle.

I hate auto's because of the way it makes people behave and when out driving in the car anymore, it is a miserable experience. Finally, it detracts from my cycling experience.
The state resists fully funding cycling lanes adjacent highways- maybe when energy crisis' worsen, they could just build us our own,' seperate but equal cycle freeways.

Originally posted by cyclezealot
The state resists fully funding cycling lanes adjacent highways- maybe when energy crisis' worsen, they could just build us our own,' seperate but equal cycle freeways.

I would even be willing to pay a user fee/toll for something lkike that by freeway I am 27 miles from work it would take me just over an hour to get to work now if I ride it is 35 miles too many traffic lights so it is almost 2 hours

Originally posted by Dutchy
snip snip ...I remember seeing was of an English guy that had converted an old Ferrari to run on water, yep straight old H20, with a slight vapour trail of steam. I guess the oil companies had him taken out, as I have never seen anything about this since.

At first thought, it would appear to be a good idea but what would happen if all vehicles emitted a trail of steam? Would we live in a sauna type environment or would it rain everyday? I don't know myself, just posing some questions.
:beer:

Originally posted by Stor Mand


At first thought, it would appear to be a good idea but what would happen if all vehicles emitted a trail of steam? Would we live in a sauna type environment or would it rain everyday? I don't know myself, just posing some questions.
:beer:

Plus there is a looming water shortage ahead as more people comnsume more water. Case in point I am old enough to remember when there was always snow on the Olympic mountains and the Cascades now in the middle of the summer it is not there. there is no real enviromentaly sane mode of transport wnen it comes to single vehicle use. (except bicycle of course) Mass transit is a help and should be required in all major metropolitan areas (exceot if you cycle)

A couple years ago many European cities cloesd the downtown cores to all vehicules (read cars/trucks). What if more cities did that more often, but allowed delivery trucks. No cars in downtown area, but buses were allowed in too?

Gah! Only if, in exchange for the massive favor that would be to the commercial delivery companies, they were required to do everything necessary to clean up their exhaust as well. They are some of the worst polluters out there. ;->

remember comercial deleveries are the ones tha deliver your food, bikes, parts clothing etc etc and of course busses no privat autos maybe scooters

I really approve of the mayor of Paris, France. He is a bicycle fanatic. He has succeeded in closing down highways including the expressway adjacent the Seine to auto traffic and letting cyclists and skateboarders take over and ban the dam auto's. Like to make him governor of California. I'd like to see highway 1 adjacent to Big Sur used for bicycles only on Sunday mornings. Way to go Mayor..

ngateguy, did the end of your message get garbled? I didn't understand the last part. ["of course busses no privat autos maybe scooters"]

Yes, I know they supply the needs of the metropolis, but they have enjoyed decades of massive subsidies. They also deserve an inordinate amount of the blame for the poor air quality of out cities, compared to modern private automobiles. They should be forced to update their vehicles.

Originally posted by Dutchy
In the mid 80's there was a TV show (in AUS) called Beyond 2000, it showed all the latest technology available at the time, and a lot of prototype stuff. One story I remember seeing was of an English guy that had converted an old Ferrari to run on water, yep straight old H20, with a slight vapour trail of steam. I guess the oil companies had him taken out, as I have never seen anything about this since.

Is anyone else familiar with this guy's invention?

CHEERS.

Mark

I used to love Beyond 2000 but I never saw that episode. I have heard many rumors about miracle inventions being buried by big corporations but I'm skeptical.

Originally posted by morsen
ngateguy, did the end of your message get garbled? I didn't understand the last part. ["of course busses no privat autos maybe scooters"]

Yes it got gabled my typing skills are weak, must edit before I post meant to say yes busses should be alowed but no private autos, maybe let scooters use the metropolitan areas, more efficient and no mater how hard we try or hope. Not everyone is going to ride a bike or take a bus.

Originally posted by morsen
Yes, I know they supply the needs of the metropolis, but they have enjoyed decades of massive subsidies. They also deserve an inordinate amount of the blame for the poor air quality of out cities, compared to modern private automobiles. They should be forced to update their vehicles.

I maybe wrong but I don't think the trucking industry get subsidies? as far as polluters just by numbers autos are the number one polluters in the world. And yes they(trucks and busses) should have the same standards as far as emmisions as everyone else. A properly cared for diesel engine burns cleaner than a car.

Plus there is a looming water shortage ahead as more people comnsume more water.

I guess it is a matter of which one we have more of water or oil. There is no reason why sea water can't be turned into fresh water and used. I would rather have a steam powered car than an oil one. The steam was minimal and it evaporates anyhow.

CHEERS.

Mark

Originally posted by Dutchy
I guess it is a matter of which one we have more of water or oil. There is no reason why sea water can't be turned into fresh water and usedYes but this is extremely expensive. A far better solution is to conserve our current supply of fresh water.

Originally posted by Dutchy


I guess it is a matter of which one we have more of water or oil. There is no reason why sea water can't be turned into fresh water and used. I would rather have a steam powered car than an oil one. The steam was minimal and it evaporates anyhow.

CHEERS.

Mark
the attitude amongst us humans is use use use not conserve conserve, if we start turning sea water int fresh water what impact is that going to have on the base of our food chain? and what do we do when we start running low on sea water, of course maybe this should be for another thread?

Just got back from our Saturday ride. Just about home we three were moving about 15 mph on the flats. Just ahead was a restaurant. Two cars behind us, the last one was impatient. Warm -all windows were down. The rear car was adjacent the last in in line of our group..
They were fat slobs- redneck types.. Shouted out the window to the advance car- "screw them, they are just cyclists.. " They were raring up their engine and swerving about in their lane... The car ahead was taking his time, before he made a right turn,so not to turn into our front cyclist. It was in a school district and the speed limit was 25.
Well, the guy looked like he had not eaten in 20 minutes andstopped at the restaurant up ahead.
The point- all that impatience and just up ahead was a red light with backed up traffic- holding up the dude from entering the restaurant driveway anyway.
Rear cyclist shouted back 'screw everybody'. What is wrong with people with all that horsepower in congested traffic, anyway..

Originally posted by Dutchy
There is no reason why sea water can't be turned into fresh water and used.

If this was practical, the Gold Coast would not be resorting to buying water from other parts in order to have enough left to survive the tourist season in this time of extreme drought.

I have been thinking about different energy sources and have come to the conclusion that most of our man made attepts make use of energy that nature has stored.

Then I took an inventory of options that people have learned to use to create energy. Some follow:

Coal/Gas/Oil- Nature has stored gravitational energy (pressure to form the substance) in a chemical form. We have added further chemical energy in the form of processing.

Hydroelectric- Combination of our energy in building the dam and natural gravitational energy.

Nuclear- Stored energy in the form of large, unstable atoms. Would seem to be the panacea if fission could be made to produce non-radioactive components, but where does uranium come from?

Wind/Solar- Both together because both energy sources are ultimately from the sun.

Biological- Simply the conversion of chemical energy in food to other forms. Very efficient though. ;)

The purpose of this exercise is to note that all energy must come from somewhere. It is a fact all too often forgotten in the argument. The best we can do is convert energy from one form to another in the most efficient way possible.

Sorry for rambling on too much. This is a more philosophical post, but something to think about.

Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
I have been thinking about different energy sources and have come to the conclusion that most of our man made attepts make use of energy that nature has stored...


Nuclear- Stored energy in the form of large, unstable atoms. Would seem to be the panacea if fission could be made to produce non-radioactive components, but where does uranium come from?
Keep thinking, Brian.

the attitude amongst us humans is use use use not conserve conserve, if we start turning sea water int fresh water what impact is that going to have on the base of our food chain? and what do we do when we start running low on sea water

I never thought using water was going to solve the car problem, but eventually (100years maybe) there won't be any oil and people are still going to drive cars. I hardly think we could possibly use all the water out of the sea, or even make a dent in it.

I was just making a point that cars could run on clean burning fuel if the parties interested were willing to invest money into the process.

If not water, they will use electricity, I know which I would prefer. Besides when oil is removed from the ground don't they backfill it with water anyway?

CHEERS.

Mark