Grandmother who hit cyclists loses licence

Baka Dasai

On 16 Dec 2007 21:06:36 GMT, Zebee Johnstone said (and I quote):
> Aged people driving is a serious difficulty. When it's not you or
> someone you know and care about it is easy to say "ban them"! When
> reality hits it is harder to be so sure.
>
> Comes back to the larger difficulty - that the country and society is
> built around the car and its ease and convenience. Fixing that isn't
> cheap and it isn't easy.

No it's not easy, but you can't wait for the cities to be re-engineered
before doing anything. Instead you've got to start implementing policy
that will create a natural demand for the desired re-engineering.
Banning dangerous drivers from driving is one small step in that
direction, and the affected people who find themselves isolated in
suburban nowheresville will then become part of the solution.
--
What was I thinking?

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 18 Dec 2007 02:10:24 -0000
Baka Dasai <idontreadthis@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> No it's not easy, but you can't wait for the cities to be re-engineered
> before doing anything. Instead you've got to start implementing policy
> that will create a natural demand for the desired re-engineering.
> Banning dangerous drivers from driving is one small step in that
> direction, and the affected people who find themselves isolated in
> suburban nowheresville will then become part of the solution.

It is still complex.

HOusing in well-serviced areas is very expensive and has high demand.
It has always been so.

Services lag by many years. And are massively expensive. It has
always been so.

Basically you are saying "the ones who are already disadvantaged must
be more so, the ones with money will be fine".

If you live somewhere already well serviced then you are all right
Jack. Live somewhere else for a few years without a car, see if you
are still of the same mind....

In the case of the elderly it isn't quite the same as others. An
amployer might provide a shuttle bus (mine does, and a previous
employer did so) or teleworking. But older people have other needs
and no one to fill them. Doing their own shopping is hard work, but
important to keep them mentally alert. They have to visit kids
because kids damn well won't visit them... THey go to visit friends.

And they aren't young and strong, a km walk from my place to the train
station was fine for me, severely taxing for my elderly stepmother.
1km to a train station is "well serviced"...

Zebee

Baka Dasai

On 18 Dec 2007 02:32:09 GMT, Zebee Johnstone said (and I quote):
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 18 Dec 2007 02:10:24 -0000
> Baka Dasai <idontreadthis@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No it's not easy, but you can't wait for the cities to be re-engineered
>> before doing anything. Instead you've got to start implementing policy
>> that will create a natural demand for the desired re-engineering.
>> Banning dangerous drivers from driving is one small step in that
>> direction, and the affected people who find themselves isolated in
>> suburban nowheresville will then become part of the solution.
>
> It is still complex.
>
> HOusing in well-serviced areas is very expensive and has high demand.
> It has always been so.

I'm familiar with the situation in cities like Tokyo where people are
happy to live in genuinely tiny apartments, even with a family of 4,
because they value being close to public transport rather than the size
of their home.

Anybody can afford to live in the inner-city.

> Services lag by many years. And are massively expensive. It has
> always been so.

Transport infrastructure is always built before housing - it's just a
question of which form of transport infrastucture. In fact I'd say
that the transport infrastucture determines the sort of housing that is
subsequently built.

> In the case of the elderly it isn't quite the same as others. An
> amployer might provide a shuttle bus (mine does, and a previous
> employer did so) or teleworking. But older people have other needs
> and no one to fill them. Doing their own shopping is hard work, but
> important to keep them mentally alert. They have to visit kids
> because kids damn well won't visit them... THey go to visit friends.
>
> And they aren't young and strong, a km walk from my place to the train
> station was fine for me, severely taxing for my elderly stepmother.
> 1km to a train station is "well serviced"...

Back to my example of Tokyo - one of the main features of ads
for apartments there is the "minutes to station", which is measured to
the minute. An apartment with a 3-minute walk is considered
vastly more desirable than one with an 8-minute walk. If somebody
can't do a 3-minute walk then they're probably need a nurse as much as
they need a car
--
What was I thinking?

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:10:00 -0000
Baka Dasai <idontreadthis@operamail.com> wrote:
> I'm familiar with the situation in cities like Tokyo where people are
> happy to live in genuinely tiny apartments, even with a family of 4,
> because they value being close to public transport rather than the size
> of their home.
>
> Anybody can afford to live in the inner-city.
>

This changing of socoety will take how long?

You will require someone to throw away all their lives so they can
live in a shoebox? How big a place do you live in now? How long
will it take to grow a generation who *can* live in those conditions,
without stress levels? Or perhaps how long to generate a culture that
will not take those stresses out in dangerous ways?

(What's the suicide rate in Japan, how has the treatment of the
elderly changed, what are the stress relievers, what's the rape
reporting rate, what has changed in Japanese society in the last 20
years?_)

Like I say.. not simple.

Now, if everyone in aus.bicycle who reckons older people should live
in a shoebox and never go anywhere is willing to do the same....

Zebee

brucef

On Dec 18, 12:10 pm, Baka Dasai <idontreadt...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Anybody can afford to live in the inner-city.

I don't know where you live, but here in Perth inner-city is some kind
of desolation. Nowhere to do your grocery shopping, very limited
social facilities, and almost devoid of people outside of business
hours. Inner Fremantle might be a better bet, if you are wealthy and
aren't worried about violent crime. The best solution is not to live
in the inner city, but on a major public transport artery. Generally
expensive of course...

Theo Bekkers

Baka Dasai wrote:

> Transport infrastructure is always built before housing - it's just a
> question of which form of transport infrastucture. In fact I'd say
> that the transport infrastucture determines the sort of housing that
> is subsequently built.

Really, I live in a semi-rural estate of 600 x 2-hectare blocks, most of
which now have houses on them. The "Transport Infrastructure" is a 5 metre
wide strip of bitumen. We do have a school bus for the kids. No vehicle, you
can't live there.

> Back to my example of Tokyo - one of the main features of ads
> for apartments there is the "minutes to station", which is measured to
> the minute. An apartment with a 3-minute walk is considered
> vastly more desirable than one with an 8-minute walk. If somebody
> can't do a 3-minute walk then they're probably need a nurse as much as
> they need a car

I don't want to live in Tokyo thanks.

Theo

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:07:20 +0900
Theo Bekkers <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> Baka Dasai wrote:
>
>> Transport infrastructure is always built before housing - it's just a
>> question of which form of transport infrastucture. In fact I'd say
>> that the transport infrastucture determines the sort of housing that
>> is subsequently built.
>
> Really, I live in a semi-rural estate of 600 x 2-hectare blocks, most of
> which now have houses on them. The "Transport Infrastructure" is a 5 metre
> wide strip of bitumen. We do have a school bus for the kids. No vehicle, you
> can't live there.

I presume that's the point. That in the ideal world the train would
come first.

Of course that gets to be a bit interesting when trying to move things
to and from trains...

(such as earthmoving equipment)

Then once you have got your stuff off the train, what then? How do
you get that fridge to your house? Those bricks?

(my mate Phil has a BSA Bantam in his shed that was used as transport
by a bod who built his house by himself. A house many miles from a
train I might add. The Bantam carried bricks and anything else that
could be squeezed on it but large bits of timber had to be brought in
by truck.)

If there are trees you can cut down you can build yourself a house
without a truck. You'd probably want to carry the corrugated iron for
a roof via some kind of transport other than your own two feet, but
hey, it could be done.

I think a bicycle mounted septic tank pumping vehicle would be a bit
of a worry though!

I am unsure how many people have lived in places that don't have good
transport, and don't have the things that transport brings like
sewerage, water, appliances, medical help, and access to schooling.
Been there, done that, prefer to have the mod cons.

Zebee

Baka Dasai

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:05:37 -0800 (PST), brucef said (and I quote):
> I don't know where you live, but here in Perth inner-city is some kind
> of desolation. Nowhere to do your grocery shopping, very limited
> social facilities, and almost devoid of people outside of business
> hours. Inner Fremantle might be a better bet, if you are wealthy and
> aren't worried about violent crime. The best solution is not to live
> in the inner city, but on a major public transport artery. Generally
> expensive of course...

Inner-city Perth sounds a bit like the Sydney CBD about 25
years ago, but now it's crammed with apartments and the streets
are filled with people night and day, with plenty of supermarkets, bars,
nightclubs, and gyms.
--
What was I thinking?

Baka Dasai

On 18 Dec 2007 03:27:17 GMT, Zebee Johnstone said (and I quote):
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:10:00 -0000
> Baka Dasai <idontreadthis@operamail.com> wrote:
>> I'm familiar with the situation in cities like Tokyo where people are
>> happy to live in genuinely tiny apartments, even with a family of 4,
>> because they value being close to public transport rather than the size
>> of their home.
>>
>> Anybody can afford to live in the inner-city.
>
> This changing of socoety will take how long?

However long it takes

> You will require someone to throw away all their lives so they can
> live in a shoebox? How big a place do you live in now? How long
> will it take to grow a generation who *can* live in those conditions,
> without stress levels? Or perhaps how long to generate a culture that
> will not take those stresses out in dangerous ways?

Trapped between the pincers of oil depletion and climate change I don't
think people have much of a choice. I think it's sensible to get a
head start on the changes that need to be made.
--
What was I thinking?

brucef

On Dec 18, 2:03 pm, Baka Dasai <idontreadt...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Inner-city Perth sounds a bit like the Sydney CBD about 25
> years ago, but now it's crammed with apartments and the streets
> are filled with people night and day, with plenty of supermarkets, bars,
> nightclubs, and gyms.

There are actually heaps of apartments in inner-city Perth these days,
but they are horribly expensive. I think the sort of people who own
these million-dollar properties do so to be close to their work, but
recreate elsewhere. I don't know where they go actually, but they
certainly can't be seen in the CBD on a Sunday...

Theo Bekkers

Baka Dasai wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone said

>> You will require someone to throw away all their lives so they can
>> live in a shoebox? How big a place do you live in now? How long
>> will it take to grow a generation who *can* live in those conditions,
>> without stress levels? Or perhaps how long to generate a culture
>> that will not take those stresses out in dangerous ways?

> Trapped between the pincers of oil depletion and climate change I
> don't think people have much of a choice. I think it's sensible to
> get a head start on the changes that need to be made.

I don't think it's sensible to live in a shoe-box. Here I am with an
increased eco footprint because of where I live, but my 20,000 metres has
enough trees on it to balance out a small apartment block, and we've planted
another 250 or so since we got there.

Those trees wouldn't be there but for us, and all our neighbours have
planted enough trees to pretty much block most of the view. I can't see my
front gate from the verandah anymore.

Theo

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:09:49 -0000
Baka Dasai <idontreadthis@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> Trapped between the pincers of oil depletion and climate change I don't
> think people have much of a choice. I think it's sensible to get a
> head start on the changes that need to be made.

hard to know. I think that there is due to be a lot of money on
personal transport that can manage without oil.... Or on oil
substitutes.

because to go back to 1900s cities without power and transport
requires 1900s population levels and standards of living.

Zebee

Baka Dasai

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:27:38 -0800 (PST), brucef said (and I quote):
> On Dec 18, 2:03 pm, Baka Dasai <idontreadt...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> Inner-city Perth sounds a bit like the Sydney CBD about 25
>> years ago, but now it's crammed with apartments and the streets
>> are filled with people night and day, with plenty of supermarkets, bars,
>> nightclubs, and gyms.
>
> There are actually heaps of apartments in inner-city Perth these days,
> but they are horribly expensive. I think the sort of people who own
> these million-dollar properties do so to be close to their work, but
> recreate elsewhere. I don't know where they go actually, but they
> certainly can't be seen in the CBD on a Sunday...

Yep, when apartments first became popular in the Sydney CBD it was
exactly those sort of people that lived there. Now the apartments
seem to be more commonly filled with students, and I mean filled -
anywhere between 4 and 10 of them sharing a 2-bedroom apartment.
Makes the rent affordable, and makes the CBD quite an interesting
place these days.
--
What was I thinking?

Baka Dasai

On 18 Dec 2007 05:31:07 GMT, Zebee Johnstone said (and I quote):
>
> because to go back to 1900s cities without power and transport
> requires 1900s population levels and standards of living.

I think that's a bit of a straw man. There will still be power and
transport. There's enough coal and uranium and wind and solar etc to
have power stations running, although that power might be more
expensive than it is now. But the lack of oil will make car
travel difficult and/or exceedingly expensive. Living standards might
fall, but probably not back to the level of 1900.

But that's all a helluva lot of speculation, and not too much about
bicycling except that bicycling can only help the situation. And the
original point? I think it was to move away from the assumption that
driving was an essential part of modern living, which if removed could
result in social, and actual, death.
--
What was I thinking?