Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

(other people say)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've been saying for years that criminal drivers are the real
terrorists. Your chances of being killed or maimed by a speeder or
DUI are a thousand times greater than by some mad bomber. Americans
are such idiots for buying into this arab terrorism [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My family have been a victim of both. I had a cousin killed on 9/11, and his
father was killed by a mindless driver who ran a red-light. I only have to
know that the first one exists. The second, I have to worry about, and watch
for on a daily basis. Especially when I'm traveling on 2 wheels.

Quoted message said:

That's my point. Most of us have never been endangered by a terrorist
but we are endangered by by criminal drivers every day. And yet which
is the idiot american most concerned with.?

Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.

Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.

Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is
extremely unlikely. So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths.

What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years is car
to car digital communications. The communications between cars will be
used to prevent accidents and deaths.

Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive action
an what action should be taken. In extreme cases the electronics in the
cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the
accidents.

Instead of "Its like they don't care..." we have exactly the opposite where
people care a lot and are putting a lot of money into developing solutions
industry wide to make driving potentially very safe.

In your ignorance of present activities, you have done nothing while the
world has many people actually solving the problems.

Jack May said:

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.

Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is
extremely unlikely. So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths.

What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years is car
to car digital communications. The communications between cars will be
used to prevent accidents and deaths.

Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive action
an what action should be taken. In extreme cases the electronics in the
cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the
accidents.[...]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May said:

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

Quoted message said:

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road.
That should not be hard once transponders become common.

Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road
that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. Zero death
is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large
passenger jets.

Jack May said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May said:

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

Quoted message said:

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road.
That should not be hard once transponders become common.

Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road
that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. Zero death
is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large
passenger jets.

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders
- then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman said:

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with
transponders?

I think in Jack's ideal world, everybody's body is grafted onto an
automobile from birth...

-Miles

--
Virtues, n. pl. Certain abstentions.

Tom Sherman said:

Jack May said:

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.

Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is
extremely unlikely. So you don't have any approach to reduce road
deaths.

What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years
is car to car digital communications. The communications between
cars will be used to prevent accidents and deaths.

Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive
action an what action should be taken. In extreme cases the
electronics in the cars will automatically take actions to control the
cars to prevent the accidents.[...]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

Back in the 1950s in cycle training I was told to take up a space on the
road and not ride in the gutter. The result was that I was constantly
hooted by motorists for being in their way. Imagine that combined with
a system where they can whizz about ad lib in no danger of hurting
themselves or each other.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Jack May said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May said:

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

In my 'umble station in life I carry a phone which is only a phone.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Tom Sherman said:

Jack May said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with
transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most
people carry a cell phone with them these day with location
electronics, maybe the law requires a transponder capability like the
law now require location to be determined by each cell phone for 911
responses.

Quoted message said:

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that
will make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit
anything with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will
automatically brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs
out into the road. That should not be hard once transponders become
common.

Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the
road that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections.
Zero death is probably impossible even though we are getting near that
for large passenger jets.

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders
- then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

Scheiss, imagine Jack's tv shouting out, "Mr May, stop that or you will
go blind!"

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Martin Edwards said:

Tom Sherman said:

Jack May said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Jack May wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>
> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists,
> pedestrians and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped
> with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most
people carry a cell phone with them these day with location
electronics, maybe the law requires a transponder capability like the
law now require location to be determined by each cell phone for 911
responses.

> If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that
> will make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit
anything with a transponder, including people and pets. The car
will automatically brake for example to keep from hitting a child
that runs out into the road. That should not be hard once
transponders become common.

Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the
road that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections.
Zero death is probably impossible even though we are getting near
that for large passenger jets.

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the
transponders - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal
of regulating behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

Scheiss, imagine Jack's tv shouting out, "Mr May, stop that or you will
go blind!"

That would only happen during a GM commercial. WTF is this thread doing
in a transit group anyway? Jack's a troll.

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

donquijote1954 said:

I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM.

That's a laudable quest, but how exactly
are you going to go about it? What means
and methods have you toward that end?
What is your strategy?

It has to be more effective than just
playing Usenet prophet.

You'd have to be something like RoboCop,
going around & fscking up road terrorists
("Freeze, scum."😉

If you could make spike belts shoot out
of your wrists like Spiderman, than would
be something.

Watch out for The Green Hornet (& Kato.)
He /is/ a road terrorist. And I have my
suspicions about The Punisher and
Fat Freddie's cat.

Thank goodness we have anti-road-terrorist
guys like you to defend us good people.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Short of calling Superman or Batman, we can catch the bad guys in SUVs
by sticking together. Same strategy developed by the sardines 300
million years ago. Bicycles can get together and ride the lane, just
like any other vehicle. Similar to Critical Mass but without
antagonizing the motorists who in the end are also trapped in the
cages. And also, unlike Critical Mass, we would ride the road every
day for real transportation.

This T-shirt can fit the bill (I've renounced to any profit on it)...

http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories

Then if everything fails, we call on Clark Kent. 😉

On Feb 20, 11:37 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jack May said:

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

Quoted message said:

You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is
extremely unlikely.  So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths.

Quoted message said:

What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years iscar
to car digital communications.   The communications between cars will be
used to prevent accidents and deaths.

Quoted message said:

Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive action
an what action should be taken.   In extreme cases the electronics in the
cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the
accidents.[...]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The new technology the stupid and careless to drive. Well, they
already do, but they won't have accidents.

But unless the new techonologies allow them to fly high above, I don't
see them bringing any relief.

Miles Bader said:

Tom Sherman said:

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with
transponders?

I think in Jack's ideal world, everybody's body is grafted onto an
automobile from birth...

-Miles

--
Virtues, n. pl. Certain abstentions.

In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't
kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams
and dreary reality.

Martin Edwards said:

Jack May said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Quoted message said:

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

In my 'umble station in life I carry a phone which is only a phone.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From "Rollerball"

Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. In the future people will travel
through the telephone lines!!! Imagine all the space left open on our
congested roads. And, of course, then bicycles and scooters will not
only be safe, they'll also be redundant.

Did you see "The Matrix," how the lady disappears right on time to
escape the bad guys through the telephone lines? And all that
technology is being developed at this very minute by a Republican
Administration that knows the future is up in the air. 😉

Bolwerk said:

Martin Edwards said:

Tom Sherman said:

Jack May wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists,
>> pedestrians and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped
>> with transponders?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Probably.  I think we are talking about a single chip.  Since most
> people carry a cell phone with them these day with location
> electronics, maybe the law requires a transponder capability like the
> law now require location to be determined by each cell phone for 911
> responses.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that
>> will make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit
> anything with a transponder, including people and pets.   The car
> will automatically brake for example to keep from hitting a child
> that runs out into the road. That should not be hard once
> transponders become common.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the
> road that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections.  
> Zero death is probably impossible even though we are getting near
> that for large passenger jets.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the
transponders - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal
of regulating behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

Quoted message said:

Scheiss, imagine Jack's tv shouting out, "Mr May, stop that or you will
go blind!"

That would only happen during a GM commercial.  WTF is this thread doing
in a transit group anyway?  Jack's a troll.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public
transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the
road...

Driving tests and real-life driving

(...)

Politically, it is unpopular to suggest somebody who is physically
impaired, who is emotionally unbalanced, or who is just plain stupid
should not drive. But the fact is; bad driving causes lethal accidents
and huge traffic jams every day, all across America. Bad driving
wastes millions of gallons of fuel and adds tons of pollutants to our
air.

America's urban freeways are no place for the incompetent, and it is
thousands of times less expensive and more effective to get lousy
drivers off the road than it is to build ever-wider freeways and more
elaborate junctions. A more difficult driving test will accomplish
this. Driving tests can also reinforce common sense, patience, and
respect for others... things which are increasingly rare on American
roads.

Current driving tests measure rudimentary knowledge of the rules of
the road. At some point in a driver's life-usually very early- you
must prove your ability to operate a vehicle under minimally difficult
circumstances. Once licensed, many Americans are not road tested again
for dozens of years. Adding cellular phones, babies, fast food,
gigantic Sport Utility Vehicles, and other distractions on top of a
general increase in traffic and average speeds-only brews more
gridlock and carnage.

(...)

America must not shrink from hard decisions about where, when and who
is fit to drive. We must get the incompetent, the angry, the
thoughtless and the decrepit off the road. At the same time, we must
provide the opportunity to learn driving skills for people who need to
drive and are able to do it well, regardless of income level.

Giving people options
Increased transportation options for people who cannot drive must
coincide with efforts to weed out lousy drivers. Forcing people out of
their cars, with no way to get to work, breeds outlaws and
joblessness. Some ways include:

electric scooter and bicycle programs
bike-trains
high-speed rail

By eliminating the small percentage of drivers who, for whatever
reason, simply cannot cope with modern driving, we can reduce the
estimated 6.6 billion gallons of gasoline wasted by Americans who were
waiting in traffic in 1997, reduce the air pollution associated with
that colossal waste, and reduce the amount of frustration on our roads
in general.

more...
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote44

Jack May said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May said:

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]....

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably.  I think we are talking about a single chip.  Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

Quoted message said:

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets.   The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road..
That should not be hard once transponders become common.

Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation
as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes.

Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell
phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land
of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from
the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on
the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car.
Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell
if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in
your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the
road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end
crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!!

Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic
stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but
nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep
turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your
lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want.

Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the
limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You
kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you.

Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put
direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red-
light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and
realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is
coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the
red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you
can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you
get on to the nightly news.

Transponders. Yeah, great idea.

Quoted message said:

Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road
that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections.  Zero death
is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large
passenger jets.

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Jack May said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May said:

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe
the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

Quoted message said:

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit
anything
with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the
road.
That should not be hard once transponders become common.

Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation
as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes.

Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell
phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land
of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from
the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on
the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car.
Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell
if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in
your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the
road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end
crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!!

Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic
stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but
nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep
turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your
lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want.

Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the
limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You
kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you.

Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put
direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red-
light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and
realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is
coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the
red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you
can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you
get on to the nightly news.

Transponders. Yeah, great idea.

----------------------------------------
Scenario 6: You're cruising along at 90 and hit a deer that didn't get the
memo about needing a transponder.

Scenario 7: The government has some illicit activity going on somewhere
(who knows what _already_ get up to, much less what they _would_ get up to
if no one could get there) and they set up a set of transponders preventing
anyone who might call it to the public's awareness from getting there.

OK, as part of our presidential campaign (it's not for me:
htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a
campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the
road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%...

Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and
transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our
challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party...
Banana Revolution.

Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing
accidents. I hope he's reading... 😉

A drive toward fewer cars
There are other ways to get from A to B

By JANE HADLEY
P-I REPORTER

Steep gas prices.

Flabby bodies cruising for diabetes and heart trouble.

Global warming.

Air pollution.

If the pitfalls of automobiles aren't already enough to make you think
about chucking your car for other ways of getting around, consider the
growth that is in store for Seattle.

In the next 19 years, the city expects 22,000 new housing units and
50,000 new jobs.

Assuming the same percentage of people continued driving alone to
work, the city estimates it would have to build 20 city blocks of 10-
story parking garages downtown.

"Nobody wants to do that," says Patrice Gillespie-Smith, chief of
staff of the city's Department of Transportation. "We are very
motivated to offer incentives to get people out of their cars."

In 2000, 61 percent of all Seattle work trips were by someone driving
alone. By 2020, the city's transportation strategic plan wants to
knock that down to 55 percent. People tend to become more interested
in shifting out of their cars if gas or parking prices escalate, and
if alternatives to the car are reliable, affordable and convenient,
experts say.

But it often takes something unusual to inspire or shake people into
the awareness of those alternatives, said David Allen, senior
transportation planner for the city.

A city program called "One Less Car Challenge" aims to do just that,
Allen said. The program encourages people to give up use of one car
for one month, offering commuters tips on getting around by bus, bike
or foot and also providing the free use of a Flexcar when needed.

Of the 86 people who signed up initially in the fall of 2003, 20
percent decided to give up a car and the rest have vowed to drive
less, Allen said. "It proved people could do it," he said.

And the city is hoping to encourage people to use cars less by making
it more difficult to find places to park.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/258737_nocar08.html

Have you noticed how the lion has a set of priorities different from
the little animals --even when it means life or death to them?

"United States - The death toll on our highways makes driving the
number one cause of death and injury for young people ages 5 to 27.
Highway crashes cause 94 percent of all transportation fatalities and
99 percent of all transportation injuries, yet *traffic safety
programs receive only one percent of the funding of the U.S. DOT
budget*. The staggering loss of life and the incidence of life-
threatening injuries occurring each year is best described as a public
health crisis."

http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm

Here's the story of the lion... 😉

HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY

One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and
complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that
every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances
to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for
them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the
kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of
the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack
of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that
it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite
words...

Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life
in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season
the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the
Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would
have had to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more
importantly, the little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as
the quick way out of poverty..."

And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in
the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle --
to the effect of exploring life in other planets...