Boycott Recreational Travel the Week of July 4th!
Jun 14th, 2000, 09:58 AM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Noach (!) says above, "Smaller cars may be more efficient but they are less crash-resistent" than SUVs. Well, Noach, SUVs are the problem. Several recent studies (amply reported in the media, show that SUVs increase auto crash fatalities because their high profiles and weight basically d4estroy smaller cars they hit. What's more, drivers of SUVs feel sfae in their tank-like vehicles, so they drive less safely and initiate more collisions.
Jun 14th, 2000, 10:57 AM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you'll reread my first post you'll see that I was not talking about transport safety in terms of possible auto accidents, I was referring to safety in terms of a virtual guarantee of becoming a victim of a crime, maybe a violent crime.
Jeannette pointed this out as well. We have a melting pot of have nots, both foreign and domestic, crowded together in every U.S. city. There are some modes of public transportation in this country that will have you risking your life if you take it. And why is it that every city that's implemented public transportation still has gridlock on their roads? Because people expect everyone ELSE to take it and so the roads will be clear for THEIR cars. Nobody wants to ride the rails with all those homeless and gang members, especially women, when they could be sitting in the comfort and safety of their own car.
And like I said earlier, public transport to the suburbs not only brings suburbanites to their city jobs, it brings the city dwellers (i.e. drug addicts and prostitutes) to the suburbs. Then you'll have to move to a rural area to escape it, one without public transport!
Not PC, but telling it like it is.
Jeannette pointed this out as well. We have a melting pot of have nots, both foreign and domestic, crowded together in every U.S. city. There are some modes of public transportation in this country that will have you risking your life if you take it. And why is it that every city that's implemented public transportation still has gridlock on their roads? Because people expect everyone ELSE to take it and so the roads will be clear for THEIR cars. Nobody wants to ride the rails with all those homeless and gang members, especially women, when they could be sitting in the comfort and safety of their own car.
And like I said earlier, public transport to the suburbs not only brings suburbanites to their city jobs, it brings the city dwellers (i.e. drug addicts and prostitutes) to the suburbs. Then you'll have to move to a rural area to escape it, one without public transport!
Not PC, but telling it like it is.
Jun 14th, 2000, 11:23 AM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Telling,
Your post is so interesting. Could you please advise where you live that public transportation is so dangerous? (Forgive me if it is in this thread and I missed it.) I live in the D.C. area, and our subway is clean and safe. I am unaware of prostitutes or gang members using it to come into the suburbs; if they showed up on my suburban street, I might have to gather the kids out front to have a look. Ironically, to the extent any people with evil intent come to the suburbs, I suspect they drive here so they can make a quick get-away.
Public transit, like anything else, can be horrible. But it is undoubtedly better when well run and well funded. And it is more likely to be well run and funded when the alternative (l person per car) is too expensive.
As for D.C. having a serious traffic problem despite the Metro, that is true. But obviously it would be worse without the subway. Those who choose to sit in traffic (or have no decent choices due to where they chose to live and work) do so; the rest of us do not.
And on the safety question, I feel safe in my car and safe on the Metro. I sometimes feel unsafe walking to my car and unsafe walking to the Metro. It's basically a wash.
Your post is so interesting. Could you please advise where you live that public transportation is so dangerous? (Forgive me if it is in this thread and I missed it.) I live in the D.C. area, and our subway is clean and safe. I am unaware of prostitutes or gang members using it to come into the suburbs; if they showed up on my suburban street, I might have to gather the kids out front to have a look. Ironically, to the extent any people with evil intent come to the suburbs, I suspect they drive here so they can make a quick get-away.
Public transit, like anything else, can be horrible. But it is undoubtedly better when well run and well funded. And it is more likely to be well run and funded when the alternative (l person per car) is too expensive.
As for D.C. having a serious traffic problem despite the Metro, that is true. But obviously it would be worse without the subway. Those who choose to sit in traffic (or have no decent choices due to where they chose to live and work) do so; the rest of us do not.
And on the safety question, I feel safe in my car and safe on the Metro. I sometimes feel unsafe walking to my car and unsafe walking to the Metro. It's basically a wash.
Jun 14th, 2000, 11:34 AM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
I love my Saturn and will always continue to drive fuel-friendly small cars. But it did NOT make it through the snow last winter. Had to have it towed out once too from my work parking lot. We don't have the constant plowing near me that they have in more urban areas. We have much more distance for nearly everything we do than on the east coast. My mate will not take the small car at all. It can be absolutely dangerous here on our SUV / truck laden expressways. I don't feel for the SUV and full sized van owners (like all my relatives) who knew what they were getting in for- but for all those in places like NW Indiana who are traveling for basic groceries and have a lifestyle that believe me, they can not scale "down" much more. I don't even think my sister could fit all her kids and their car seats in a small car! My grandchildren all ride in a Windstar as they couldn't all fit with the required seats in a regular sedan with 2 adults. Maybe we need some more birth control in my family besides a good replacement for the internal combustion engine. HA-HA! Yes we are being GOUGED here. Europeans have a different playing field and knew the rules all along. They are changing a lot of the rules half way through the game here. Especially if you have a fuel dependent small business in one of
our bread basket small midwestern communities- not necessarily in a large urban area (like Chicago) which can at least weather the costs. Finally I do use public transportation in Chicago and my friends think I am nuts and will be in the paper as a "victim" some day.
Some places are just too far here to ever be accessed by public transportation. They often are the best places at all to travel too. Koontz Lake, Indiana is one. t
our bread basket small midwestern communities- not necessarily in a large urban area (like Chicago) which can at least weather the costs. Finally I do use public transportation in Chicago and my friends think I am nuts and will be in the paper as a "victim" some day.
Some places are just too far here to ever be accessed by public transportation. They often are the best places at all to travel too. Koontz Lake, Indiana is one. t
Jun 14th, 2000, 11:54 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Not PC": I don't know where it is you're referring to where public transport is full of gang members and homeless people and prostitutes, but it's not any city I've ever been to. In every city I've every been to where there is a good system of public transport, the public transportation is full of people going to and from school or work, going shopping, going to visit friends, etc. I get the impression you must think that the only people who use public transportation are those who can't afford to drive -- well, that's ridiculous -- in many major cities (New York, Washington) it's actually faster and easier to go places on the subway than it is to sit in traffic. Furthermore, if you think gang members and prostitutes don't own cars, you're crazy!
In Chicago I have seen Gold Coast "grand dames" riding the bus in all their finery. In Washington I have seen Members of Congress riding the metro. In New York I have seen famous actors riding the subway just like everybody else. Why do they do this? It's often faster, more convenient, and easier than getting around any other way.
By the way, I fail to understand the distinction you're making about the relative "safety" of cars vs. public transportation. Cars are definitely the least safe means of transportation. You seem to be saying, "I'm not talking about being killed or injured in an accident, I'm talking about being killed or injured in a violent crime." In other words, you're making a distinction between injuries or death occuring by a person wielding a knife or gun, as opposed to injuries or death occuring by a person wielding a vehicle? If you're injured or dead, what difference does it make how you got that way? Either way it's an injury or death -- and the bottom line is, you're more likely to end up injured or dead in a CAR than you are on public transportation (P.S. Have you ever heard of carjackings?)
In Chicago I have seen Gold Coast "grand dames" riding the bus in all their finery. In Washington I have seen Members of Congress riding the metro. In New York I have seen famous actors riding the subway just like everybody else. Why do they do this? It's often faster, more convenient, and easier than getting around any other way.
By the way, I fail to understand the distinction you're making about the relative "safety" of cars vs. public transportation. Cars are definitely the least safe means of transportation. You seem to be saying, "I'm not talking about being killed or injured in an accident, I'm talking about being killed or injured in a violent crime." In other words, you're making a distinction between injuries or death occuring by a person wielding a knife or gun, as opposed to injuries or death occuring by a person wielding a vehicle? If you're injured or dead, what difference does it make how you got that way? Either way it's an injury or death -- and the bottom line is, you're more likely to end up injured or dead in a CAR than you are on public transportation (P.S. Have you ever heard of carjackings?)
Jun 14th, 2000, 12:25 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
I disagree with your so-called statistics Michele. I've already been the victim of crimes on and near public transport. I have never been involved in a car accident. Perhaps the East Coast transport is different than my experience, but I rode light rail in Long Beach, CA and other cities and will never ride public transport again. I have never been the victim of crime inside or near my car.
You all do whatever you want, but don't be hypocritcal about it. Most of you own cars, no doubt, and do not use public transport all the time, even if you are near it. Would you ride it at night after the commuters were back in suburbia? Would you let your kids ride it alone instead of chauferring them everywhere? Come on now, don't lie!
You say there's no transport in suburbia. And why exactly do you even live in suburbia if you could cut back on gas bills, get rid of your car altogether and take the metro everywhere? You could buy a place in an urban renewal neighborhood, prevent further sprawl and destruction of open land, send your kids to existing urban schools instead of building new schools farther and farther away from cities, and get rid of all costs associated with a car. But middle class America doesn't do that, do they? They move to get away from all that. That's why urban sprawl is such a huge issue.
I'm sensing a great deal of middle class, suburban hypocrisy here.
You all do whatever you want, but don't be hypocritcal about it. Most of you own cars, no doubt, and do not use public transport all the time, even if you are near it. Would you ride it at night after the commuters were back in suburbia? Would you let your kids ride it alone instead of chauferring them everywhere? Come on now, don't lie!
You say there's no transport in suburbia. And why exactly do you even live in suburbia if you could cut back on gas bills, get rid of your car altogether and take the metro everywhere? You could buy a place in an urban renewal neighborhood, prevent further sprawl and destruction of open land, send your kids to existing urban schools instead of building new schools farther and farther away from cities, and get rid of all costs associated with a car. But middle class America doesn't do that, do they? They move to get away from all that. That's why urban sprawl is such a huge issue.
I'm sensing a great deal of middle class, suburban hypocrisy here.
Jun 14th, 2000, 12:55 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
The truth is that there are few public means of transportation to the south and southwest sides of Chicago. I have taken most of the ones available. I am 52 now. When I was 17 and a student at UIC I was raped on a el platform and my chest was gouged (I still have the scar)and it was by TWO boys who were complete strangers and who did not even speak my language. I fought like hell and have never forgotten it for one second of my life. I have never told my family or anyone that was very close to me, only professionals. My brother is a homicide detective in the city of Chicago. We have wonderful sections of our city and surrounding area that are
full of culture, beauty and great interest. I will not miss them. BUT to pretend that this has an easy "public
transportation" answer is absolutely
ludicrous. I would have to take a ride of nearly 10 miles by car in any direction to even approach public transportation. Why do I live here? I have a wonderful home, real nature and not concrete. I can plant what I want and have lots of space. I have always supported the public school systems and interestingly enough have never gotten my personal livelihood out of the "city." I took the D train to the Bronx to see the Sox play the Yankees just a month ago. Even my kids thought that was nuts until I convinced them and they enjoyed it. We never felt threatened by a group as I have experienced on Chicago buses in my
youth. But it was confusing and since it was rush hour- they had us transfer to another train as ours became an express. I've been in Boston and it's quite excellent. Some lines in Chicago are ok. (The Gold Coast is a tiny, tiny fraction of Chicago.) I think most are better than they used to be but not everyone LIVES in the city. Some of the most rude people here sound like they hate suburbanites. Isn't that a huge prejudice against one group?
full of culture, beauty and great interest. I will not miss them. BUT to pretend that this has an easy "public
transportation" answer is absolutely
ludicrous. I would have to take a ride of nearly 10 miles by car in any direction to even approach public transportation. Why do I live here? I have a wonderful home, real nature and not concrete. I can plant what I want and have lots of space. I have always supported the public school systems and interestingly enough have never gotten my personal livelihood out of the "city." I took the D train to the Bronx to see the Sox play the Yankees just a month ago. Even my kids thought that was nuts until I convinced them and they enjoyed it. We never felt threatened by a group as I have experienced on Chicago buses in my
youth. But it was confusing and since it was rush hour- they had us transfer to another train as ours became an express. I've been in Boston and it's quite excellent. Some lines in Chicago are ok. (The Gold Coast is a tiny, tiny fraction of Chicago.) I think most are better than they used to be but not everyone LIVES in the city. Some of the most rude people here sound like they hate suburbanites. Isn't that a huge prejudice against one group?
Jun 14th, 2000, 01:07 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was in the Canadian Rockies in January it was icy and snowy. Guess what kind of cars were spun out along side the highway? SUV'S. They lull a driver into a false sense of security in ice and snow conditions. They think they are invincible. Guess what? They are not!
And Noah-Get your facts straight. SUV's are not safer. They are more expensive to fix, cause extensive damage to cars and roll over! There have been lawsuits against them that the automakers have kept quiet. Ralph Nader's group has pretty much condemned them.
And Noah-Get your facts straight. SUV's are not safer. They are more expensive to fix, cause extensive damage to cars and roll over! There have been lawsuits against them that the automakers have kept quiet. Ralph Nader's group has pretty much condemned them.
Jun 14th, 2000, 01:36 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's absolutely obvious. They are charging $2.00+ for gas BECAUSE THEY CAN. They are selling gas-guzzling, polluting, road-hogging, indefensibly indulgent SUVs BECAUSE THEY CAN. It's the system, lacking any long-range sanity.
If I had any faith in the efficiency of conspiracies (which I don't), I'd be sure that vehicle manufacturers entered into an agreement with oil producers such that the oil guys would keep prices down while America got hooked on SUVs, trucks, vans, etc. and then the oil guys could raise prices for a period of several years -- after which the car guys could start to sell the little, fuel efficient cars again -- and the whole cycle would start over again. But no conspiracy is needed when consumers and voters are gullibly greedy and short-sighted idiots.
If I had any faith in the efficiency of conspiracies (which I don't), I'd be sure that vehicle manufacturers entered into an agreement with oil producers such that the oil guys would keep prices down while America got hooked on SUVs, trucks, vans, etc. and then the oil guys could raise prices for a period of several years -- after which the car guys could start to sell the little, fuel efficient cars again -- and the whole cycle would start over again. But no conspiracy is needed when consumers and voters are gullibly greedy and short-sighted idiots.
Jun 14th, 2000, 01:39 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
In an ideal world everyone would live close enough to everywhere they wanted to go, or to convenient public transportation to go to those places. It is not, however, an ideal world. Some people seem to be saying that we consciously "choose" to live places that require a car or make public transportation inconvenient, but who can predict where their job will be located, or what places they will need to go?
I live in north suburban Chicago, in a suburb served by both buses and subway and rail. My office is located near norh Michigan Avenue. If I wanted to take one of the trains, I would have to either drive to the station and park--and places are not always to be found--or use a connector bus, which would add 20 more minutes to my commute. Then the train ride--30 minutes if on the rail or an unpredictable time ranging from 50 to 75 minutes if on the city subway. The train ride is shorter, but twice as expensive, and leaves me with at least a 20-minute crosstown bus ride, the el ride far less pleasant, and still leaves me with a 15-minute walk to my office. Yes, maybe I could bike or rollerblade somewhere along the line here, but let's get real: I am a 52-year-old who is interested in arriving at my office looking reasonably professional. I don't feel I really "chose" to live somewhere that makes public transportation less attractive than driving to my free parking place at work (at least my husband and I carpool!) I "chose" a pleasant, tree-filled community with great schools, etc--jobs come and go.
Another example: my daughter drives to high school (again, at least she car pools!), even though parking is difficult, because she can get thee in ten minutes. The bus? 45 minutes, because she needs to transfer, and schedules are not always predictable. That 35-minute difference is HUGE for a teenager who needs to be at school at 6:55 and rarely is home in less than 12-14 hours, what with after school activities.
This is a very long-winded way of saying that people shouldn't make moral judgments about other people's commuting choices! And boy, people really have it in for SUV owners--almost as much vitriol as is directed against babies, etc.
I live in north suburban Chicago, in a suburb served by both buses and subway and rail. My office is located near norh Michigan Avenue. If I wanted to take one of the trains, I would have to either drive to the station and park--and places are not always to be found--or use a connector bus, which would add 20 more minutes to my commute. Then the train ride--30 minutes if on the rail or an unpredictable time ranging from 50 to 75 minutes if on the city subway. The train ride is shorter, but twice as expensive, and leaves me with at least a 20-minute crosstown bus ride, the el ride far less pleasant, and still leaves me with a 15-minute walk to my office. Yes, maybe I could bike or rollerblade somewhere along the line here, but let's get real: I am a 52-year-old who is interested in arriving at my office looking reasonably professional. I don't feel I really "chose" to live somewhere that makes public transportation less attractive than driving to my free parking place at work (at least my husband and I carpool!) I "chose" a pleasant, tree-filled community with great schools, etc--jobs come and go.
Another example: my daughter drives to high school (again, at least she car pools!), even though parking is difficult, because she can get thee in ten minutes. The bus? 45 minutes, because she needs to transfer, and schedules are not always predictable. That 35-minute difference is HUGE for a teenager who needs to be at school at 6:55 and rarely is home in less than 12-14 hours, what with after school activities.
This is a very long-winded way of saying that people shouldn't make moral judgments about other people's commuting choices! And boy, people really have it in for SUV owners--almost as much vitriol as is directed against babies, etc.
Jun 14th, 2000, 01:47 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
"not PC" -- It takes a lot of gall to call some total strangers you know nothing about "suburban hypocrites." FYI, I live in a city, take public transportation to work, and sold my car when I moved from the suburbs (where it was possible to get around without a car, but difficult) to the city (where a car is actually a burden). My point is, car ownership and cheap gasoline are not rights guaranteed in the Constitution, they are luxuries, and over time, they come with really high costs to our environment and our society as a whole (and even to our national defense -- remember the Gulf War? Does anyone really believe there was any American interest at stake there other than fuel prices?). I'm not arguing that everyone can get around without cars no matter where they live, just that we all make choices about where we live and how we get around, and those who choose to live in areas where cars are a necessity and choose to drive gas guzzlers pay the price for that choice when gas prices go up. And by imposing low taxes on gasoline, our federal and state governments are doing virtually nothing to discourage fuel consumption or encourage more efficient means of transportation. That's all. Regarding crime -- I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that it is exceedingly, exceedingly rare on public transportation. For those who have experienced crime -- or traffic accidents, for that matter -- that's a terrible thing and noone would wish it on anyone -- but "Not PC," you can question my statistics all you want; however, I promise you, after July 4 weekend the newspapers and television will report (as they always do) on the number of "highway traffic deaths," not on the number of "subway deaths."
Jun 14th, 2000, 02:10 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
As one of those who said people "choose" to live and work places where public transportation is difficult or unavailable, I feel I must clear something up. Of course folks like xxxxxx "choose" to live and work where they do. I mean, who else would have made that choice? I sure chose to live where I do. But in most urban areas, one typically buys a home or rents with knowledge of where one works. One can choose a bigger home with more land farther out, or one can settle for less closer in with a shorter commute. Pick your poison, but don't complain if your choice starts to cost you some money in higher gas prices.
As for the idea that someone "changed the rules" so everyone was suckered into buying huge gas guzzlers, well, not everyone was suckered, so I question whether there were any such rules. Unless someone lied to SUV owners and told them their vehicles would consume gas like a Yugo, I have a hard time being sympathetic (at least for people who don't live in the snow belt and chose to buy them for status and style reasons).
When I am President, I will outlaw free parking because it badly skews the economic incentives when one is weighing where to live and how to commute. I will make public transport much cheaper (Metro costs about $3 daily to go downtown roundtrip from my location), and I will make sure there is plenty of parking near public transport for park-n-riders.
As for the idea that someone "changed the rules" so everyone was suckered into buying huge gas guzzlers, well, not everyone was suckered, so I question whether there were any such rules. Unless someone lied to SUV owners and told them their vehicles would consume gas like a Yugo, I have a hard time being sympathetic (at least for people who don't live in the snow belt and chose to buy them for status and style reasons).
When I am President, I will outlaw free parking because it badly skews the economic incentives when one is weighing where to live and how to commute. I will make public transport much cheaper (Metro costs about $3 daily to go downtown roundtrip from my location), and I will make sure there is plenty of parking near public transport for park-n-riders.
Jun 14th, 2000, 03:42 PM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
In no particular order:
I live in Boston. Mass transit is excellent and safe. Not PC doesn't appear to have a clue about what he's talking about (I've lived in and rode mass transit in most of the few US cities that have it). If you don't like paying for gas, vote for politicians who favor mass transit.
Second: I own an SUV, a fairly big one.
ANd I don't see anything wrong with higher gas prices - I made my choice, and I should pay for it. If higher gas orices are killing you, get a fuel efficient car. Even at 2 dollars a gallon the cost of filling the tank on my girlfriends Honda Civic is tiny. And
yes, we drive it all winter long in the Colorado Rockies - she lives in Denver. The brown smog over denver isn't from industry or mass transit - its from everybody driving around the sprawl.
So don't whine - you get what you buy. If you don't want traffic, and you don't want to pay for gas, live in a place with good mass transit. If you buy a place way out in the country, hey, that's nice but you'll have to pay.
I live in Boston. Mass transit is excellent and safe. Not PC doesn't appear to have a clue about what he's talking about (I've lived in and rode mass transit in most of the few US cities that have it). If you don't like paying for gas, vote for politicians who favor mass transit.
Second: I own an SUV, a fairly big one.
ANd I don't see anything wrong with higher gas prices - I made my choice, and I should pay for it. If higher gas orices are killing you, get a fuel efficient car. Even at 2 dollars a gallon the cost of filling the tank on my girlfriends Honda Civic is tiny. And
yes, we drive it all winter long in the Colorado Rockies - she lives in Denver. The brown smog over denver isn't from industry or mass transit - its from everybody driving around the sprawl.
So don't whine - you get what you buy. If you don't want traffic, and you don't want to pay for gas, live in a place with good mass transit. If you buy a place way out in the country, hey, that's nice but you'll have to pay.
Jun 14th, 2000, 04:15 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Remember now, the first rule of this forum is to slam everyone with whom you disagree. If you haven't experienced what they have, or if you don't share their opinion, they obviously have their heads up their asses and you should waste no time in telling them so. Tell Jeanette she wasn't raped either, it was all in her head. Hey, if you don't experience it personally it obviously didn't happen! Your opinion is the only on that counts, make sure everyone knows that. Call 'em names with they disagree. You're a rude, aggressive, opinionated but at the same time very, very tolerant American. You're Number One!!!
