=v= Here's a "Bicycle Genius" T-shirt design,
sort of a takeoff on the Smart Car logo:

http://fatamerican.tv/ride-bicycles/

| The "Smart Car" isn't smart; it gets the same
| fuel efficiency as other economy cars but only
| seats 2 passengers. When compared to bicycles,
| all cars tend to look down right idiotic.
| Where's the logic in working tons of hours to
| pay for a car to get to work to pay for a car?
| What's the sense in driving to the gym to pay
| a membership to get some exercise?
|
| Move within biking distance to work, sell
| your car, cancel your gym membership and start
| living smarter. Increase your quality of
| life while not contributing to the political,
| environmental, social calamity created by the
| world's dependency on oil.

=v= I can only add that when I first saw one of
these it was parked in a crosswalk in Paris.
Now that they're sold (and eco-hyped) in the U.S,
I see them parked illegally everywhere. Because
hey look, it fits!
<_Jym_>

The number of US traffic deaths continues to fall. However I still
find the number alarmingly high and cannot think of any other case
where a nation would tolerate such carnage.

Case 1.
Me: 40,000 Americans died on US roads last year.
Response: A small price to pay to live in a free society.

Case 2.
Me: 40,000 Americans died in 9/11-style attacks on US soil last year.
Response: You can probably guess, but it wouldn't be the same as case 1.

But to my main question. The federal government compiles numbers
provided to it by the states. What criteria do the states use? I've
heard that some states, including Texas, only include deaths of people
inside motor vehicles. So if a driver plowed through a school bus
stop killing 9 students, but the driver was safe, the state would
report zero deaths from that incident. Is this true? You would think
it would be simple finding the criteria states use to compile
statistics, but I haven't found anything conclusive either way.

I hope I'm wrong and it's been a while since I first heard of this (in
my more pro-car days). Just wondering about the validity.

John

--
John Mayson <john-6SgOuUQPRl/1P9xLtpHBDw@public.gmane.org>
Austin, Texas, USA

=v= Chevron keeps replacing its old greenwash campaigns with
new ones, so it's hard to keep up. The latest one is called
"Finding Common Ground" and the tagline is:

We Agree. Do You?

I imagine it must be rough to find a tagline applicable to
the many and varied forms of pollution and other ills that
Chevrons spews and dumps on people. For example, "Finding
Common Ground" only refers to the groundwater they poison,
not to the crap they spill into the ocean, or all the carbon
and other pollutants they pump into the air.
<_Jym_>

• New Members 1

http://moneyning.com/life-style/5-reasons-a-walkable-neighborhood-is-valuable/

-- Shared with Google Share Button

--- In CarFree-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org, Jym Dyer <jym <at> ...> wrote:
>
> > I wanted to see if folks might have some recommendation
> > without the negative crap that sometimes goes along with this.
>
> =v= The "crap" starts with the greenwash, actually. People who
> make grandiose claims about the supposed ecological benefits,
> and then try to recruit the already-carfree to start polluting.
>
> =v= Just deal with what is, and maybe try recruiting motorists
> instead, and there will be no crap.
> <_Jym_>

TF: This list has plenty of motorists on it (the last I checked, the rules allowed it). I, for one, actually learned something from this thread (or from the part of it before the negative crap started) that might be useful in helping to enable me to leave my cars/trucks at home in more situations than I do.

"Pure"-carfree is easy when you live in suburbs/cities. I more or less (but certainly NOT less than Mr. Dyer!) graduated to such "pure" carfreedom too when I lived in such dense areas as he does. But then I moved out of them, long ago, partly because I found that being devoted to transportational cycling in those types of areas/situations (which - news flash! - can't exist without the rural areas) wasn't challenging enough!

To wit: More recently, I've added even more transportation-requiring challenges to my routine (such as but not limited to my earlier-boasted Sunday paper route), which, so far, has caused me to motor even more, BUT I don't apologize for it, because the REASON that I keep on adding/keeping these extra transportational challenges (even though I no longer really need the money from a lot of them) is to see how many of them I can figure out how to weed the motoring - or next best, the fossil-fuel use - out of.

- TF

• New Members 1

You might want to look at this discussion:

http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-370737.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

• New Members 1

=v= Hybrid cars have saved the planet. In fact, their
hybridy goodness is so Earth-saving that it's totally
treehuggy to have a hybrid SUV now, like the Ford Escape.

=v= Car-shares have ALSO saved the planet. Nothing like
a car-rental plan with a different business model to keep
carfree folks from driving, and by tallying up all the
miles they would have driven the cars that don't exist,
car-shares demonstrate that increasing the number of
car journeys have reduced them in number. (Wait, what?)

=v= At this point you might be wondering how the planet could
possible need any more saving, but the folks at Zipcar have an
answer: A car-share with a hybrid SUV that has a bike rack on
the roof:

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/zipcar-to-offer-ford-escape-with-bicycle-racks-34834.html

[Note: The vehicle in the photo is smaller than the hybrid
SUV they're offering.]

=v= But wait! There's more!!! Offer is valid in Manhattan
and Brooklyn. Because hey, where better to provide more car
use than in 2 of the most carfree counties in the U.S.?
Feel the Earth Heal!
<_Jym_>

• New Members 1