From: turnkey@q.com   
      
   On Thursday, December 18, 2014 1:26:28 AM UTC-8, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most   
   Humble Philosopher wrote:   
   > On Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:48:13 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:   
   > > On 2014-12-18 02:27:53 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher   
   said:   
   > >   
   > > > On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:37:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:   
   > > >> On 2014-12-17 19:30:50 +0000, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic   
   Enterprises said:   
   > > >   
   > > >>> In the process they have killed many communities, giving rise to the   
   > > >>> infamous gated communities. Are you willing to pay to live in a   
   > > >>> community where the kids can play? Then go to a gated communities.   
   > > >>   
   > > >> I'm sorry, but what evidence do you have that cars have "killed many   
   > > >> communities"?   
   > > >   
   > > > You can't have communities without pedestrians/cyclists.   
   > >   
   > > 1. That's unsupported.   
   > >   
   > > 2. You can't support that cars have removed the ability for people to   
   > > walk and bicycle.   
   >   
   > Well, make the distances impossible to walk and make riding a bike grinding   
   and suicidal, and you get cities without people. That would probably be life   
   outside of NYC and a few downtown areas.   
   > >   
   > > >  What you get is sprawl where nobody meets anyone. You must drive   
   > > > everywhere, and public transportation is nearly dysfunctional.   
   > >   
   > > You might get NEW areas like that, but that wouldn't change old areas.   
   >   
   > The old areas become ghettoes, where crime and squalor take over once   
   vibrant areas.   
   > >   
   > > >   
   > > > It's a desert with an oasis here and there. And you must drive from   
   > > > here to there.   
   > >   
   > > Examples?   
   >   
   > Anywhere in America where the sprawl became prevalent. It's better to say   
   where it did NOT take place.   
   > >   
   > > >>   
   > > >>>   
   > > >>> I believe there's a medium ground between unleashed traffic and   
   > > >>> controlled traffic, where the pedestrians feel safer. It may be argued   
   > > >>> that the SUV (the American supersized SUV) has no place in civilized   
   > > >>> cities.   
   > > >>>   
   > > >>> In many ways, I think the trend is toward feudalism. The knights and   
   > > >>> lords rule over the land. We just need to get rid of the terminology of   
   > > >>> "democracy." The lords rule from gated communities and castles. They   
   > > >>> don't live with the commoners, whose concerns are always ignored.   
   > > >>>   
   > > >>> I don't think the "freedom of movement" is negotiable. It's not that   
   > > >>> you don't accept certain risks involved with walking/riding a bike,   
   > > >>> just that many solutions are really common sense. Speed cameras are   
   > > >>> just one example.   
   > > >>   
   > > >> Speed cameras are simply a revenue grab. One can tell this because   
   > > >> they're typically placed where almost everyone is exceeding the posted   
   > > >> limit, and as has been studied and revealed, where that is happening,   
   > > >> it is almost always the limit that is wrong and not the drivers.   
   > > >   
   > > > They are but they may accomplish something worthwhile. DUIs are also a   
   > > > revenue grab but they somewhat mitigate the problem of drunk drivers.   
   > >   
   > > No. DUIs are NOT a revenue grab.   
   > >   
   > > You can tell this because the penalties for DUI...   
   > >   
   > > ...aren't monetary.   
   >   
   > I hear it costs you around $8000 to get past such ticket. If that's not   
   about money, then what is.   
      
   And that figure does not include any judicial fines,  It is all the ancilliary   
   costs - traffic school, drug/alchohol treatments, restrictions on driving,   
   paying for the mandatory 'Blow in here before he car will start' thingy, etc.   
      
   Harry K   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)