Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Living Car Free (https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/)
-   -   What is the "proper and restrained use of an automobile"? (https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/941678-what-proper-restrained-use-automobile.html)

Roody 04-07-14 08:34 PM


Originally Posted by ro-monster (Post 16651108)
Yes, self-discipline is definitely in order. Getting back to the original topic, here is roughly how my metric for that works.

For distances less than 5 miles, personal motor vehicles are never an appropriate choice, with 2 exceptions -- you're too ill or incapacitated to use any other transport right then, or you have to haul something large (by which I mean furniture-sized, not grocery bag-sized).

For distances 5-50 miles, personal motor vehicles are sometimes an appropriate choice, if other means of transportation are simply unavailable or require so much time that they just aren't feasible.

For traveling more than 50 miles, personal motor vehicles are often appropriate, though we could certainly have better public transportation options for this than we have now.

Another way to use restraint (if you have a car) is not to just drive it whenever you feel like it.
  • Plan your trips well in advance, combine trips, wait to go shopping until you need a lot of things.
  • Plan your purchases so you run out of everything at the same time.
  • Get friends and neighbors together in a car pool for shopping.
  • Find stores on your commute route so you don't have to make extra trips.
  • Make a commitment to do all short and spontaneous trips on your bike or on foot.

yote223 04-07-14 08:43 PM

Raising the ocean levels would at least get rid of two of this country's biggest problems; Both the East and West Coasts. Imho.

cooker 04-07-14 09:06 PM


Originally Posted by yote223 (Post 16651154)
Raising the ocean levels would at least get rid of two of this country's biggest problems; Both the East and West Coasts. Imho.

Welcome back! It's hard to stay away, isn't it?

What are your thoughts on the topic under discussion?

cooker 04-07-14 09:12 PM


Originally Posted by ro-monster (Post 16651013)
There is now evidence to suggest that the Earth's largest extinction event, the end-Permian extinction, was probably biological in origin, with volcanism only a contributing factor.

Quote from one of numerous articles on the subject:
"The team's research indicates that the catastrophic event was in fact triggered by the tiniest of organisms, a methane-releasing microbe called Methanosarcina. New evidence suggests that at the time of the extinction, the microbes appeared in massive numbers across the world's oceans, spreading vast clouds of the carbon-heavy gas methane into the atmosphere. This had the effect of altering the planet's climate in a way that made it inhospitable to most other forms of life inhabiting Earth at that time.

It was previously believed that the mass extinction, known as the end-Permian extinction, was due to either vast amounts of volcanic activity, a devastating asteroid strike or prolific all-consuming coal fires....
"

Just to be clear, this is a completely different event than the miocene epoch warm period you're talking about, but it does demonstrate how little we know for certain about the causes of past climate fluctuations, and it indicates that biological factors can indeed overshadow the influence of geological factors. Plus it's a fascinating discovery!

There's a hypothetical possiblity the earth could have a methane burp of epoch-ending significance. I wonder what happened to all that end-Permian methane if that actually was a real event.

I-Like-To-Bike 04-07-14 09:20 PM


Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16651210)
Welcome back! It's hard to stay away, isn't it?

What are your thoughts on the topic under discussion?

What is that topic?

yote223 04-07-14 09:27 PM

With numerous Trails within 20-50 miles of home, I'll be keeping my 04 Silverado. With 3 bikes in the back and 2 more on the hitch rack we are off for a day of adventure.

cooker 04-07-14 10:05 PM


Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16651235)
What is that topic?

The proper and restrained use of the automobile. And how to file taxes.

cooker 04-07-14 10:15 PM


Originally Posted by yote223 (Post 16651260)
With numerous Trails within 20-50 miles of home, I'll be keeping my 04 Silverado. With 3 bikes in the back and 2 more on the hitch rack we are off for a day of adventure.

Do you think there need to be any voluntary or imposed limits on car use, for the common good?

yote223 04-07-14 10:46 PM

Voluntary? that is up to the individual. Imposed? NO WAY.

"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Tyrants and Patriots. For that is it's natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson.

I-Like-To-Bike 04-07-14 11:33 PM


Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16651341)
The proper and restrained use of the automobile. And how to file taxes.

Oh, based on your and others' posts, I thought the topic being discussed was just another in a long list of thread hijacks for ranting about climate change, fossil fuels and other environmental issues. I must have been misinformed.

I-Like-To-Bike 04-07-14 11:56 PM


Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16651362)
Do you think there need to be any voluntary or imposed limits on car use, for the common good?

I think it far more likely that, if there is going to be any popular push and associated political push for "involuntary restraining" the use of a transportation mode for the "common good" (as seen by the voting public), it will be to limit, restrict or ban use of bicycles on various public streets.

B. Carfree 04-08-14 12:26 AM


Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16651504)
I think it far more likely that, if there is going to be any popular push and associated political push for "involuntary restraining" the use of a transportation mode for the "common good" (as seen by the voting public), it will be to limit, restrict or ban use of bicycles on various public streets.

Attempts at such bans do crop up from time to time. The one in Colorado was struck down last year. There is an attempt in Misery going on right now. I don't think there is as much citizen support for those as their supporters imagine, but we may get to see when one finally passes.

It does pose an interesting legal conflict. The right to use the public right of way to travel is a basic common law right that predates the Constitution. The privilege to drive on the public right of way is not a right. On the surface of it, a privilege does not seem to carry nearly as much weight as a right, but a bike is not the only way to exercise such a right to travel. Fun times.

I think that if we merely required motorists to follow the law or be banned from driving we wouldn't need to have any further discussion since it doesn't appear that very many people can drive lawfully. Of course there would be other impacts from that like underutilized emergency rooms and unemployed cardiologists, but I can live with that.

Roody 04-08-14 01:53 AM


Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16651218)
There's a hypothetical possiblity the earth could have a methane burp of epoch-ending significance. I wonder what happened to all that end-Permian methane if that actually was a real event.

I don't know what happened to prehistoric methane, but modern methane turns into carbon dioxide within 10 years of being in the atmosphere. So my guess is that's what happened to the Permian stuff.

In today's world, methane exists in a form (called clathrate, IIRC) where it is frozen solid with water. This occurs in the tundra and on the floor of deep oceans. There is concern that it could melt as the climate warms and contribute even more to atmospheric warming.

Roody 04-08-14 01:59 AM


Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16651504)
I think it far more likely that, if there is going to be any popular push and associated political push for "involuntary restraining" the use of a transportation mode for the "common good" (as seen by the voting public), it will be to limit, restrict or ban use of bicycles on various public streets.

That's a good point.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion. Leaving aside what you think will happen, what do you think should happen as regards restrictions on car usage--whether voluntary or mandated?

Roody 04-08-14 02:07 AM


Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16651474)
Oh, based on your and others' posts, I thought the topic being discussed was just another in a long list of thread hijacks for ranting about climate change, fossil fuels and other environmental issues. I must have been misinformed.

I (the OP) don't see it as a hijack. Environmental problems are clearly a result of car usage, and a major reason for both voluntary and mandated restrictions on car usage.

Machka 04-08-14 05:18 AM


Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16650635)
If I don't respond to posts in this thread for a while it's because of some kind of internet glitch where my browser won't open the last page of the thread.

Rowan is having the same glitch but he has figured out a workaround.

Machka 04-08-14 05:19 AM


Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16651598)
Environmental problems are clearly a result of car usage, and a major reason for both voluntary and mandated restrictions on car usage.

Or not.

cooker 04-08-14 07:12 AM


Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16651474)
Oh, based on your and others' posts, I thought the topic being discussed was just another in a long list of thread hijacks for ranting about climate change, fossil fuels and other environmental issues. I must have been misinformed.

Those are possible reasons to restrict automobile use, thus, very appropriate to this thread.

cooker 04-08-14 07:14 AM


Originally Posted by yote223 (Post 16651407)
Imposed? NO WAY.

What about imposed restrictions and regulations already in place - speed limits, emission standards, traffic lights, no U-turn signs, safety belts, licensing of drivers and vehicles, etc. - should we remove some or all of them?

Machka 04-08-14 07:33 AM


Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16651889)
What about imposed restrictions and regulations already in place - speed limits, emission standards, traffic lights, no U-turn signs, safety belts, licensing of drivers and vehicles, etc. - should we remove some or all of them?

Sure ... why not?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that an experiment was done where most of those rules were removed ... and people managed traffic situations better than when they had all those rules. Self-preservation kicked in.

You see it in places like Taiwan where it looks like the traffic is utter chaos, but there's actually a method to the madness.

There is already a bit of an overload of rules and regulations in today's society ... the nanny state situation. We don't really want more rules and regulations!

cooker 04-08-14 07:55 AM


Originally Posted by Machka (Post 16651945)
Sure ... why not?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that an experiment was done where most of those rules were removed ... and people managed traffic situations better than when they had all those rules. Self-preservation kicked in.

You see it in places like Taiwan where it looks like the traffic is utter chaos, but there's actually a method to the madness.

There is already a bit of an overload of rules and regulations in today's society ... the nanny state situation. We don't really want more rules and regulations!

Yes, there are experiments in removing controls at some intersections and having people "negotiate" their way through. I'm not sure it would work at high speed highway interchanges - perhaps there we should retain some combination of traffic lights and cloverleafs. As well, multi-lane roads probably will still need defined lane striping, so you can pass traffic in the slower lane without worrying they will drift into your path. Mind you, they manage to use "virtual lanes" on motor race tracks, passing "high" and "low" etc. with hardly any fatal collisions, so maybe lane markings can be dispensed with too.

Or not.

The bottom line is that pretty well everybody is going to agree on some level of regulation or restriction of car use.

lenA 04-08-14 08:18 AM

kinda works in big parking lots when they aren't to busy......folks don't always follow the pavement markings

cooker 04-08-14 08:22 AM


Originally Posted by lenA (Post 16652101)
kinda works in big parking lots when they aren't to busy......folks don't always follow the pavement markings

Even there, if I cut across marked spots, I would still be expected to yield to people in the defined driving lanes.

Roody 04-08-14 01:55 PM


Originally Posted by Machka (Post 16651945)
Sure ... why not?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that an experiment was done where most of those rules were removed ... and people managed traffic situations better than when they had all those rules. Self-preservation kicked in.

You see it in places like Taiwan where it looks like the traffic is utter chaos, but there's actually a method to the madness.

There is already a bit of an overload of rules and regulations in today's society ... the nanny state situation. We don't really want more rules and regulations!

You would probably feel differently if you were blind or handicapped. Busy streets are already very hard to cross when your sensory skills and mobility are limited in any way. Removing crosswalks and signals would make a bad situation much worse.

No serious people actually advocate removal of traffic controls on busy streets or high speed roads. Maybe you were referring to the concept of shared space, which has been tried on smaller roads that have a lot of pedestrian traffic.

Shared space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:10 PM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.