Χά�ων Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I don't think most people live out in the middle of nowhere and commute incredibly long distances each day because they want to; I think it's often because it's all they can afford, particularly if they work in a large city with a high cost of living. Housing is often much cheaper as you get farther away from the city. If gas prices increased dramatically, those people would be in a terrible bind. There is often no public transportation available, and no one with whom to carpool to get to work. In my case DS got really sick. Services are not available in my town or county so I have to commute into the city 3x/week. I hate it. I try to find fun stuff while we are out and about to make an hour plus drive each way for specialized pediatric therapy worth it but still, I hate it. I fight with my county disabled services over this all the time. The really think I should accept what is here. I really want my son to 1. Live, 2. Be pain free and 3. Have a future. Plus no one in my county feels comfortable treating DS because what he has is so rare... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I think you underestimate how many and how vast the rural areas are here in middle America. Not having access to mass transit is more the norm here than the exception. Nah. I know how remote people can be. My MIL lives on 100 acres in the boonies. You have to drive through lots of pretend boonies to even get close to her bonafide boonies. LOL She will most likely never have a bus/train stop anywhere near her. I've driven cross country enough times to know that it would be practically impossible to connect some people (and, ironically, wasteful rather than conserving). But certainly not most people. That's kind of irrelevant though, because no one has said that the goal should be to abandon personal vehicles altogether. In Europe, lots of people ride their bike or drive their car to the nearest train station. They view that as the first leg of their journey, and that in and of itself could be a big improvement in many areas. I do agree that not having access to mass transit is the norm rather than the exception. I just wouldn't agree that it can't be reversed to a meaningful degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I'm guessing the source for the claim about the knockout game supposedly being a "myth" is something like this Slate post: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/11/25/why_the_knockout_game_trend_is_a_myth.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Crime is rampant on MUNI (S.F. bus system) and BART (light rail). Having a bus full of witnesses didn't prevent this recent murder: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/09/27/man-accused-of-killing-sfsu-student-was-hunting-for-victim-da-says/ Is "rampant" really the word you want to use here? According to the stats I can find, there are 137,756 commuters who take public transit to work every day. Statistically few have a criminal act perpetrated against them. Most of the crime is stealing smart phones. One murder doesn't translate to rampant crime or implied rampant violent crime. And remember, what we're talking about is *improving* public transportation in every sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 In my case DS got really sick. Services are not available in my town or county so I have to commute into the city 3x/week. I hate it. I try to find fun stuff while we are out and about to make an hour plus drive each way for specialized pediatric therapy worth it but still, I hate it. I fight with my county disabled services over this all the time. The really think I should accept what is here. I really want my son to 1. Live, 2. Be pain free and 3. Have a future. Plus no one in my county feels comfortable treating DS because what he has is so rare... I know the feeling, truly. We travel to my son's doctor appointments too. I typically leave my house an hour and a half before his appointment. In my case, it's not distance that is the issue; it's congestion. The hospital is 17 miles away, but with traffic and parking (parking is a HUGE issue here) it typically takes between an hour and an hour and a half from home to walking into the office. Access to specialty doctors even plays a part now in where the army can and will move us. The problem with all of these issues is the same-oil is not a renewable resource. It *will* be a problem at some point in the future, no matter what any of us do now. The question is whether we start to try and mitigate that now. Lowering the oil subsidies (especially when oil companies are raking in the dough, I am from Oklahoma and dh is from Texas, we have *tons* of friends in the oil industry) to improve public transportation *and* other infrastructure (like aging bridges) should be something that is in the national conversation. It shouldn't be a taboo issue because you have to drive your kid to the doctor (again, my son has a severe medical issue too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 OK how many people died in cars on the day that one person was killed on a bus? That week? That month? Perception of risk is closely tied to feelings of control. In a car, we feel that we are in control of the situation. Of course we are not: the drunk in the car behind and the distracted mother at the next intersection are in control. Public transport - if one doesn't grow up with it - can feel frighteningly free-form. When my parents in law (from Dallas) came to visit us in Hong Kong, we automatically took them on the bus (ten minutes) to get to our home. It was clean, quick and - for people with their physical problems - the most comfortable and accessible option. It was clear that they were very uncomfortable sharing the space. My MIL asked Husband if they could take a taxi back, even though she knew that the taxis on that particular island were very uncomfortable mini-vans into which you had to climb. The physical discomfort was much less important to them than their angst about public transport. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolly Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 You know what, you are right, I am the problem. The problem is that I am lazy. I prefer going to the grocery store to growing my own. The fact that I have tried and seem to have a black thumb don't help. I could walk most places in my small town. I prefer to drive and leave the heavy hauling to my vehicle. I like making one trip to the grocery store instead of the 20 it would take on foot to get my groceries. I could live in a smaller house. I happen to enjoy each of us having our own bedroom. I could stop making any trips in my car at all. My dc could all stop all outside activities and just stay home. Hey, they could work the garden in the yard. Maybe one will be able to get something to grow! We could eat the squirrels we are currently trapping to get them out of the attic. Hell, ds would be happy to be allowed to shoot every critter that comes in the yard for dinner. not sure law enforcement or the neighbors would like that... I could never go visit my parents and siblings; they don't need me anyway. I could stop going boating in the summer. It is just for fun after all. I should take down these Christmas lights, or at least not ever allow them to be turned on. Very wasteful of me. No ordering online. Takes too much gas to have those packages delivered. Probably should look into converting the basement to a barn of some sort since that type of animal isn't allowed in the neighborhood. Dh is gonna want meat that isn't just critter. Then again, that is being selfish. Yep, I live in a too large house. I drive a mini-van. I kind of figure it is a gas saving measure. I'd have been making two trips or taking two vehicles up to this point. Dh does drive a fuel efficient car. Paid a #$#@ amount for it though. I don't sit in the dark (fil did in order to save electricity). I keep my home at a comfortable temp (generally 70 year round/I'd go lower but dh just can't stand it). I allow my dc to participate in activities that require driving distances. I enjoy traveling a little too much (always figured there some nomadic blood in me that can't stand to stay put). I am the problem. I even had more kids than I should have. Didn't aim for it, but just couldn't bring myself to kill any of them off. Oops. So sorry. I am just one of those over-consuming d#mned Americans. Funny thing, I really don't feel like I am a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 68 miles round trip here. Public transportation for DS brings up the same issue as with public school. DS is medically immunosupressed. I would be happy to use our technology to not leave the house and do everything via skype. I think it is stupid that I have to drive in for some of the stuff. I bring it up and "privacy" is cited as the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Lolly, I drive my Honda Pilot 40 minutes (which, again, is due to traffic congestion, not actual distance) to take my eldest to her theater group twice a week. I have a big house. I'm part of the problem too. It's not about blame. It's about what can we do as a society to move things forward and better for the future. Can things stay as they are or do things need to change? If we had a rail system, then I would probably be okay with my dd taking the train downtown. The planned rail system (set to open in 2017, I think?) would take 42 minutes for her to get to the theater, so close to the same time as driving, but with less stress. As it is? The bus she would need to take? It leaves at 2:30. Would improving the transportation system allow me to cut down on driving? Yes, it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 And remember, what we're talking about is *improving* public transportation in every sense. I'm all for having better public transportation here but I'm not sure that it's possible for U.S. public transit to ever become as safe as transit in Western Europe and Japan. Those places don't have the same kind of underclass where crime is glamorized and drug dealers like Jay-Z are lionized as "heroes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I'm all for having better public transportation here but I'm not sure that it's possible for U.S. public transit to ever become as safe as transit in Western Europe and Japan. Those places don't have the same kind of underclass where crime is glamorized and drug dealers like Jay-Z are lionized as "heroes". Disagree. All big cities like London or Rome have criminal rings in their lower class that are looked up to because they are the ones with money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 You know what, you are right, I am the problem. The problem is that I am lazy. So sorry. I am just one of those over-consuming d#mned Americans. Funny thing, I really don't feel like I am a problem. Being snarky doesn't change the fact that people will not be able to continue to live their current American lifestyles indefinitely. Deflecting the issues with snark doesn't make the issues go away. I have not seen anyone on this thread mention that we should immediately hike fuel pries to the point that most people can't afford them, cease trucking produce across the country to supermarkets, or force people to move to smaller dwellings. What we have said is that these things will need to gradually change by choice unless we wish to reach the point where they abruptly change without choice because we have ignored their impacts for too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Ok. This might be a stupid question, but why aren't you guys dobbing hoons in? Do it often enough and some bright spark will think of fining erratic and speeding drivers, and people will start being a bit more careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I haven't read all the responses, but I have to say *I* have no desire to mimic Europe in any way. Particularly not anything economic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 saywhatnow? Ok. This might be a stupid question, but why aren't you people reporting speeding and erratic drivers? Surely if you do, someone will notice that fining them is a lucrative endeavour and such drivers will make an effort to be a little more careful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Ahh ok haha sorry I didn't understand! People get speeding tickets left and right. You can't get one because someone called and told the police you were speeding, though. The police have to actually see it AND clock it. Police will pull over a car that's been reported as being erratic, but there's a (very good imo) burden of proof issue to get a ticket for that as well. You don't have speed cameras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I haven't read all the responses, but I have to say *I* have no desire to mimic Europe in any way. Particularly not anything economic. Yeah, who would want to learn anything from Europe, what with their superior schools and their universal health care and their fuel efficient cars and their lower crime rates and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Disagree. All big cities like London or Rome have criminal rings in their lower class that are looked up to because they are the ones with money. London had 105 murders last year in a population of 7 million. Italy had 526 in the entire country of 61 million (I wasn't able to find the numbers for Rome on the first page of Google results). San Francisco had 68 in a population of 825k, San Jose had 46 in a population of 985k, and Oakland had 131 in a population of 400k. Not even remotely comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 London had 105 murders last year in a population of 7 million. Italy had 526 in the entire country of 61 million (I wasn't able to find the numbers for Rome on the first page of Google results). San Francisco had 68 in a population of 825k, San Jose had 46 in a population of 985k, and Oakland had 131 in a population of 400k. Not even remotely comparable. We were talking about CRIME, yes? You specifically referenced Jay-Z? Jay-Z is not a murderer, as far as I am aware. Yes, Europe has fewer murders. That is *largely* due to their heavily enforced strict gun laws. That doesn't mean that there is no criminal activity. And I can't even find an article or statistic on *violent* crime on SF's public transportation system except for the one murder. You're talking hundreds of thousands of people taking the public transport system each year. It's not significant from a statistical standpoint. It's comparable to someone refusing to go in the water here because of shark attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I am 'loling' at the incredulity! Things that are so *duh* to people elsewhere in the world... Not even CLOSE to everywhere. Or most places. Barely even "some" places, really. So I am being stupid to think the people on this thread who are afraid to walk locally because of maniacs nearly knocking them over at intersections ought to lobby for some speed and red light cameras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 London had 105 murders last year in a population of 7 million. Italy had 526 in the entire country of 61 million (I wasn't able to find the numbers for Rome on the first page of Google results). San Francisco had 68 in a population of 825k, San Jose had 46 in a population of 985k, and Oakland had 131 in a population of 400k. Not even remotely comparable. Right. 0.000015 and 0.0000086 are not even remotely comparable to 0.0000824, 0.0000467, or .0003275. If you are a statistician, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Yeah, who would want to learn anything from Europe, what with their superior schools and their universal health care and their fuel efficient cars and their lower crime rates and all... If the U.S. had the same demographics as Europe, our schools and crime rate would be a lot better. Minnesota (where I believe you reside, correct?) has demographics far closer to those of Europe than California does and surprise, surprise- MN has better schools and less crime than CA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 If the U.S. had the same demographics as Europe, our schools and crime rate would be a lot better. Minnesota (where I believe you reside, correct?) has demographics far closer to those of Europe than California does and surprise, surprise- MN has better schools and less crime than CA. Exactly what do you mean when you say, "demographics?" Are you talking about population density or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 This is a good question with no easy answers. The size of the U.S. combined with how our population is spread out (I didn't quote but am thinking of Mrs. Mungo's response about Australia's population being mostly along the coastline) makes it difficult but not impossible. We need to do something. I don't think we should continue to rely on fossil fuels, for a number of reasons. I think gas prices should be raised and used to improve infrastructure, including some sort of national mass transit system. It would need to be done incrementally and concurrently. An immediate large increase in gas prices would be financially devastating for too many people. But if prices were raised incrementally, AND work on infrastructure/mass transit went along with those increases it could be done. It would probably take 10-20 years but in the long run would be a good thing. I would love to see better public transportation. Heck, if we had sidewalks in my neighborhood I could walk to the library and the grocery. Our streets are narrow and curvy, though, and people drive on them like bats outta h-e-double hockey sticks. The problem is that our political class wastes money on infrastructure. The politicians lavishly fund pet projects that fill their buddies' pockets and leave taxpayers on the hook.(Boston's Big Dig, Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere, millions of Byrd projects across West VA., etc. It's bipartisan.) You can vote one group out and the next group just doubles down. Even if you could actually get a well thought out, necessary infrastructure project planned, it would be held up for years in different bureaucracies waiting for approval (see all the shovel ready jobs that still haven't started 'cause they are languishing in some bureaucratic purgatory.) Until we can fix these problems, raising taxes to fund projects seems like just enabling the corruption and dysfunction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Right. 0.000015 and 0.0000086 are not even remotely comparable to 0.0000824, 0.0000467, or .0003275. If you are a statistician, maybe. Would you rather have a 1 out of 700k chance of being murdered in the next year or a 1 out of 40k chance? Both are unlikely, but one is a lot more unlikely than the other. And murder is only one possible violent crime- there is rape, attempted murder, assault, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Ok. This might be a stupid question, but why aren't you guys dobbing hoons in? Do it often enough and some bright spark will think of fining erratic and speeding drivers, and people will start being a bit more careful. I have to figure out a way to appropriately work the expression "dobbing hoons" into conversation this week. Rosie, I adore your posts!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 London had 105 murders last year in a population of 7 million. Italy had 526 in the entire country of 61 million (I wasn't able to find the numbers for Rome on the first page of Google results). San Francisco had 68 in a population of 825k, San Jose had 46 in a population of 985k, and Oakland had 131 in a population of 400k. Not even remotely comparable. When people in Britain get cross, they swing a punch. They don't have a gun in their pockets. Crossness isn't usually fatal to the crosser or the crossee. If you compare levels of other crimes between the UK and the US, then I believe the statistics are comparable. Public transport works in the UK, despite the general level of crime (theft, assault, etc.). I don't feel unsafe, and travel at all hours in London and elsewhere. Are there lots of murders on public transport in the US (compared to at shopping malls or on the street)? Or do a lot of mobile phones get stolen? ETA: I found this on Wikipedia: Expansion of public transportation systems is often opposed (particularly in the United States) by critics who see them as vehicles for violent criminals and homeless persons to expand into new areas (to which they would otherwise have to walk).[33] According to the Transportation Research Board, "[v]iolent crime is perceived as pandemic .... Personal security affects many peoples' [sic] decisions to use public transportation."[34] Despite the occasional highly publicized incident, the vast majority of modern public transport systems are well designed and patrolled and generally have low crime rates. Many systems are monitored by CCTV, mirrors, or patrol.[35] Nevertheless, some systems attract vagrants who use the stations or trains as sleeping shelters, though most operators have practices that discourage this.[35] Though public transit accidents attract far more publicity than car wrecks, public transport has much lower accident rates. Annually, public transit prevents 200,000 deaths, injuries, and accidents had equivalent trips been made by car. The National Safety Council estimates riding the bus as over 170 times safer than private car.[36] L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Would you rather have a 1 out of 700k chance of being murdered in the next year or a 1 out of 40k chance? Both are unlikely, but one is a lot more unlikely than the other. And murder is only one possible violent crime- there is rape, attempted murder, assault, etc. Well, if we are going to play this game, I'd like a smaller chance of dying from heart disease so I'd like more biking and walking paths. I'd like to be less likely to die from cancer, so I would like to decrease emissions. I'm sure I could think of many other ways I'd not like to die (or all of them! LOL) and how we could prevent those too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Whoa whoa whoa I am *very* sorry I said that in such a way it made you think I was calling you stupid!! Not at all. It's so obvious those kinds of things are needed, but we still don't have them. It's just ridiculous that we don't have what other people take for granted! You didn't call me stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Gunsgunsgunsgunsgunsguns Gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs. Guns owned by law-abiding citizens are no particular threat to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Ok. This might be a stupid question, but why aren't you guys dobbing hoons in? Do it often enough and some bright spark will think of fining erratic and speeding drivers, and people will start being a bit more careful. Possibly because we don't know what a hoon is or how to dob one in. :lol: Ok. This might be a stupid question, but why aren't you people reporting speeding and erratic drivers? Surely if you do, someone will notice that fining them is a lucrative endeavour and such drivers will make an effort to be a little more careful? Oh, whew! Okay. :D Actually many cities are starting to install red light cameras, but I think they're still in the minority. I see people speeding all the time on the highway I regularly travel as well as in my small city (in neighborhoods and business districts). As far as reporting, there's no real way to do that without calling 911 (our emergency number). However, that should only be used for a true emergency and not to report speeders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Well, if we are going to play this game, I'd like a smaller chance of dying from heart disease so I'd like more biking and walking paths. All the sidewalks and bike paths are useless when the crime rate is high that it isn't safe to use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 We were talking about CRIME, yes? You specifically referenced Jay-Z? Jay-Z is not a murderer, as far as I am aware. Yes, Europe has fewer murders. That is *largely* due to their heavily enforced strict gun laws. That doesn't mean that there is no criminal activity. And I can't even find an article or statistic on *violent* crime on SF's public transportation system except for the one murder. You're talking hundreds of thousands of people taking the public transport system each year. It's not significant from a statistical standpoint. It's comparable to someone refusing to go in the water here because of shark attacks. Exactly what do you mean when you say, "demographics?" Are you talking about population density or something else? This I didn't know. You don't have speed cameras ? Wow. Footpaths and speed cameras. That's what I'd be agitating for. Some areas have speed cameras, but we have a lot more populated land to cover and TONS more people. So, percentage-wise, there are fewer speed cameras. Gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs. Gangs exist in other countries. Guns owned by law-abiding citizens are no particular threat to me. Disagree. Plenty of people are accidentally shot each year by law-abiding citizens. In 2010 *alone* there were 606 people killed in unintentional shootings. There were 14,675 people in 2011 who survived an unintentional shooting. There was an accidental shooting of a teenager at a mall in the last town we lived in when someone dropped their gun out of their pocket. Two soldiers likely saved her life by treating her sucking chest wound with makeshift materials they got from the store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Oh, whew! Okay. :D Actually many cities are starting to install red light cameras, but I think they're still in the minority. I see people speeding all the time on the highway I regularly travel as well as in my small city (in neighborhoods and business districts). As far as reporting, there's no real way to do that without calling 911 (our emergency number). However, that should only be used for a true emergency and not to report speeders. Over here it is appropriate to call the emergency police number to report people speeding. Though it isn't much use unless you get a registration number or something. My brother gets plenty of calls over "someone driving erratically on the freeway." Despite that, he called up about an erratic driver himself. It might be that you have higher ideas about what constitutes an emergency than what the call takers do. Or maybe "don't call 911 about speeding drivers" is part of your high school civics class and I don't know. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 All the sidewalks and bike paths are useless when the crime rate is high that it isn't safe to use them. I am just not seeing rampant/ random crime. Yes, there are gangs (who mostly kill each other), there is theft, and yes sometimes people get their cell phones snatched, but it's not the Wild West. (Get rid of illegal guns, I say.) I bike and walk and take the train. I feel safe almost all of the time. Cars need to be aware of bikes; that's one of my issues. Don't drive fast. You will kill someone. They ticket like crazy where I live, and I am grateful. For years I have taken the subway to all areas of Manhattan and all the boroughs without incident. Put me on a MegaBus with internet and it's a mini vacation. :) I lived in Boston and took the T daily. No issues (except lack of speed- especially in Boston). Crime is not as random as you've implied. Murders are mostly committed by people known to the victim. I seriously think CSI has distorted reality. It's not sunshine and roses, but it's not the Apocalypse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolly Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Lolly, I drive my Honda Pilot 40 minutes (which, again, is due to traffic congestion, not actual distance) to take my eldest to her theater group twice a week. I have a big house. I'm part of the problem too. It's not about blame. It's about what can we do as a society to move things forward and better for the future. Can things stay as they are or do things need to change? If we had a rail system, then I would probably be okay with my dd taking the train downtown. The planned rail system (set to open in 2017, I think?) would take 42 minutes for her to get to the theater, so close to the same time as driving, but with less stress. As it is? The bus she would need to take? It leaves at 2:30. Would improving the transportation system allow me to cut down on driving? Yes, it would. See, this I can relate to. What changes can be made in order for us to keep our lifestyle the same, but decrease fuel consumption. The notion that people are going to just give up their lifestyle is not sensible. It isn't going to happen. Not unless it is forced. The solution isn't to increase fuel prices; it is to make viable alternatives that aren't hugely expensive, time consuming, or dangerous. If you give most people the choice, they will even pay a little more (if they can afford it) to use less. So far, that hasn't happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Exactly what do you mean when you say, "demographics?" Are you talking about population density or something else? I'd still like the answer to this question. Because I think your argument actually hinges on what you are hinting at but not saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 See, this I can relate to. What changes can be made in order for us to keep our lifestyle the same, but decrease fuel consumption. The notion that people are going to just give up their lifestyle is not sensible. It isn't going to happen. Not unless it is forced. The solution isn't to increase fuel prices; it is to make viable alternatives that aren't hugely expensive, time consuming, or dangerous. So far, that hasn't happened. It will become forced if people insist on keeping their lifestyle the same, because keeping the same lifestyle isn't a long-term option. The reason there are no alternatives that aren't expensive or time-consuming is because there are no easy fixes to the mess we've muddled ourselves into. As long as the goal is "live the same lifestyle," there will be no solution. The solution will have to come from a place of "modifying lifestyle." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I'm all for having better public transportation here but I'm not sure that it's possible for U.S. public transit to ever become as safe as transit in Western Europe and Japan. Those places don't have the same kind of underclass where crime is glamorized and drug dealers like Jay-Z are lionized as "heroes". No idea on how bad the crime and drug problem in in your place but I do know that in my country we are having a major drug problem with meth. The town 50 km away form me is reportedly one of the worst spots in Vic for it. In my small country town of a population of not quite 2000 Three meth labs were found this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 See, this I can relate to. What changes can be made in order for us to keep our lifestyle the same, but decrease fuel consumption. The notion that people are going to just give up their lifestyle is not sensible. It isn't going to happen. Not unless it is forced. The solution isn't to increase fuel prices; it is to make viable alternatives that aren't hugely expensive, time consuming, or dangerous. If you give most people the choice, they will even pay a little more (if they can afford it) to use less. So far, that hasn't happened. What I'm saying is that it will eventually be forced, one way or the other because we don't have an unlimited supply of oil. Again, I'm not advocating making our fuel prices equal with Europe's. But, I could see cutting out some of the subsidies to oil companies in order to help fund new infrastructure/public transportation. But, cutting subsidies to oil companies will raise fuel prices, despite the fact that they are raking in record profits and paying their execs big money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 You're right, it would be devastating. Unfortunately, the current state of things is unsustainable, so either way it will be devastating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 You don't have speed cameras? Rosie suggest speed cameras and they will all jump on us Aussies as not understanding freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolly Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 It will become forced if people insist on keeping their lifestyle the same, because keeping the same lifestyle isn't a long-term option. The reason there are no alternatives that aren't expensive or time-consuming is because there are no easy fixes to the mess we've muddled ourselves into. As long as the goal is "live the same lifestyle," there will be no solution. The solution will have to come from a place of "modifying lifestyle." Then, it isn't going to happen. Personally, I believe that as the need arises, alternatives will be found. The solution you seek seems to be to step back in time to a place where people lived more in isolation. The bulk of our society isn't going to be willing to go there. The modifications you ask of people have to be small and over a large time. It is the only way they will ever be accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Possibly because we don't know what a hoon is or how to dob one in. :lol: Oh, whew! Okay. :D Actually many cities are starting to install red light cameras, but I think they're still in the minority. I see people speeding all the time on the highway I regularly travel as well as in my small city (in neighborhoods and business districts). As far as reporting, there's no real way to do that without calling 911 (our emergency number). However, that should only be used for a true emergency and not to report speeders. A hoon is a crazy driver honing around dictionary definition 1. a lout or hooligan, especially a young man who drives recklessly. "the whole family was wiped out because some drunken hoon had to drive his car" Dobbing is reporting someone to authoroties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 You think there are no gangs in London ? or anywhere else in the world? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I have to figure out a way to appropriately work the expression "dobbing hoons" into conversation this week. Rosie, I adore your posts!! I googled the expression for the definition and found out there is a Hoon Hotline Hoon Hotline Dob-in drivers who engage in street racing, burn outs, fish tailing and other dangerous hoon activity. Love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Then, it isn't going to happen. Personally, I believe that as the need arises, alternatives will be found. The solution you seek seems to be to step back in time to a place where people lived more in isolation. The bulk of our society isn't going to be willing to go there. The modifications you ask of people have to be small and over a large time. It is the only way they will ever be accepted. That's exactly what people are advocating for-small changes over time because otherwise things will all come crashing down at some point. At some point, people won't have a choice whether or not they accept what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 The solution you seek seems to be to step back in time to a place where people lived more in isolation. Not at all. I lived in Europe when I was in my twenties. We weren't living back in time or in isolation. We even had access to better computers and better operating systems (in the day when Mac was more common in Europe than in the US)! ;) It's just the decisions were made with more thought to sustainability and common good and less thought to personal convenience and enrichment. The modifications you ask of people have to be small and over a large time. It is the only way they will ever be accepted. I KNOW!! That's my whole point. If we don't make modifications gradually, we are going to reach the point where we have to make them quickly and drastically. We should have started making modifications decades ago, but, as is perfectly well illustrated in this thread, many people refuse to make any changes to their unsustainable lifestyles, either because they have a million reasons why they couldn't or they have a million reasons why they simply don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Rosie suggest speed cameras and they will all jump on us Aussies as not understanding freedom. We have speed cameras. If there is one thing we love more than freedom, it's money, and the cameras bring in revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 See, this I can relate to. What changes can be made in order for us to keep our lifestyle the same, but decrease fuel consumption. The notion that people are going to just give up their lifestyle is not sensible. It isn't going to happen. Not unless it is forced. The solution isn't to increase fuel prices; it is to make viable alternatives that aren't hugely expensive, time consuming, or dangerous. If you give most people the choice, they will even pay a little more (if they can afford it) to use less. So far, that hasn't happened. Lifestyles evolve. Look at the standard home size of today compared to when you were a child. The median home size peaked a couple of years ago (I think) and has started to decline a bit. I know that near me there are a number of golf course communities that attract retirees. When we bought our house twenty years ago, the houses in the gated golf club communities were around 2000-2500 square feet. Ten years ago they grew to 2800-3000 sq ft. I think retirees realized that they really didn't want to clean all those bathrooms so now the new houses are getting smaller. Is this asking a retiree to give up his lifestyle? I think that they are just coming to their senses and are realizing that they don't need that much house and it is nuts to pay for heating and cooling a house you really don't need. Similarly warehouses that were abandoned in urban areas have become trendy apartments. Things change. One of my friends sold her house near me and is renting a tiny place in the city where she works in order to forgo the commute. She gambled that this lifestyle change would improve the quality of her life and it has. She lives in a historic area and can walk about everywhere. Crime? Yes, there is more in her new neighborhood but she is taking the risk for what she sees as a better life for a single woman. This was not forced. It was a conscious change. And I don't think she is alone. Look at all of the refurbished downtown areas in cities large and small. Lots of people are questioning the time they waste in a long commute--let alone the money spent on fuel. I don't see life as static. Natural resources are not infinite. All of us have a finite amount of money in our wallets and a finite amount of time in our days so we all get to decide how to spend it. When commodity prices rise, I guess you could say that change is being forced upon you. For example, if Congress doesn't get it together on the Farm Bill, milk supports are going away and we will all be paying $7 a gallon for milk. So we all will have to decide if we are going to consume as much dairy or if we are going to move funds from one budget line to another. A lot of people don't like government intervention so I suppose they are cheering the end of dairy support. I'm rambling...I hope that I have made some sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts