What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands



B

Bolwerk

Guest
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a viable
>> goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, then
>> you
>> are abusing yourself.


I guess any work that involves physical exertion is "abusive." Like,
say, construction, carpentry...um, farming?

> George believes that everyone in the US should be free...
> to do things George approves of.


I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
George Conklin wrote:
> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which

> you
>>>>> obviously do not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological

> Society:
>>>>> http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.
>>>> I don't see any reason to open that URL.
>>> Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity.

>> He can't help it... it's chronic.


Failing to follow your red herring isn't "ignorance and stupidity."
Maybe I have better ways to spend my time.

> Agreed. He should open the URL and look at the real facts. Ron gave a
> presentation of several hours with even more current data in April in
> Atlanta. He had cartograms of USA counties which were amazing. They will
> be in Social Forces in a few months.


Oh, so now I'm supposed to prove your point for you? You're not even
addressing the initial point.
 
S

Scott M. Kozel

Guest
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > George Conklin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you
> > > > > obviously do not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any reason to open that URL.
> > >
> > > Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity.

> >
> > He can't help it... it's chronic.

>
> Agreed. He should open the URL and look at the real facts. Ron gave a
> presentation of several hours with even more current data in April in
> Atlanta. He had cartograms of USA counties which were amazing. They will
> be in Social Forces in a few months.


Bolshevik is not interested in facts...
he wants to maintain his preconceived notions.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
Joe the Aroma wrote:
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx?

>
> Do they? Don't mistake dysfunction for poverty.


Rural poverty doesn't include "dysfunction"?
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Free Lunch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:20:05 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
> >
> >"Free Lunch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:45:56 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit
> >> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> <[email protected]>:
> >> >
> >> >"Free Lunch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]
> >> >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit
> >> >> Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> >> <[email protected]>:
> >> >> >George Conklin wrote:
> >> ...
> >> >> >> Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven

> >the price
> >> >> >> of food down, down, down.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The

> >Bronx?
> >> >>
> >> >> George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can.
> >> >
> >> > I just know demographic facts, unlike the ignorant like you.
> >>
> >> And you selectively simplify them to the point that they are no longer
> >> accurate.

> >
> >You are wrong again. You need to use some of the international data

sources
> >which are out there. But, for the United States, poverty is now

concentrated
> >in rural areas, and there are more poor people in the suburbs than in the
> >city. You are the one with old data.

>
> Since when do you get to redefine suburban as rural?


Only you do that.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>>> George Conklin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which

> > you
> >>>>> obviously do not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological

> > Society:
> >>>>> http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.
> >>>> I don't see any reason to open that URL.
> >>> Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity.
> >> He can't help it... it's chronic.

>
> Failing to follow your red herring isn't "ignorance and stupidity."
> Maybe I have better ways to spend my time.
>


You always find ignorance a good way to spend you time.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > > George Conklin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days,

which you
> > > > > > obviously do not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological

Society:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see any reason to open that URL.
> > > >
> > > > Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity.
> > >
> > > He can't help it... it's chronic.

> >
> > Agreed. He should open the URL and look at the real facts. Ron gave a
> > presentation of several hours with even more current data in April in
> > Atlanta. He had cartograms of USA counties which were amazing. They

will
> > be in Social Forces in a few months.

>
> Bolshevik is not interested in facts...
> he wants to maintain his preconceived notions.


He finds ignorance comforting.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
> > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a

viable
> >> goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, then
> >> you
> >> are abusing yourself.

>
> I guess any work that involves physical exertion is "abusive." Like,
> say, construction, carpentry...um, farming?
>
> > George believes that everyone in the US should be free...
> > to do things George approves of.

>
> I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of.


Pushing third world abuses into the USA is no victory for anyone but this
fool.
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]
>> >> Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a

> viable
>> >> goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself,
>> >> then
>> >> you
>> >> are abusing yourself.

>>
>> I guess any work that involves physical exertion is "abusive." Like,
>> say, construction, carpentry...um, farming?
>>
>> > George believes that everyone in the US should be free...
>> > to do things George approves of.

>>
>> I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of.

>
> Pushing third world abuses into the USA is no victory for anyone but this
> fool.


You have failed to convince anyone (except maybe your alter ego, Scott) that
bicycle taxis are abusive as practiced in the US. Your line of logic seems
to be something like this:

Rhubarb leaves are often red, and can be poisonous.
Tomatoes are often red, and are always poisonous.

Do you not see the flaw in this kind of "logic"?

-Amy
 
N

Nobody

Guest
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Nobody <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
>>>> wish or function.
>>>
>>>It is for me, and for many others.

>>
>>
>> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
>> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

>
>We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics
>for numerous North American cities.
>
>> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
>> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
>> in the closest pond.

>
>10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider.
>But it doesn't take long to be able to easily
>and routinely ride that distance, and even further.
>
>> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
>> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

>
>Who exactly /is/ "most of us"?
>
>And why are you so vehement about discouraging people
>from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability?


***********, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts"
dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing.

I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything.

So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride
a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a
time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather
unpleasant.

I, as a fine, upstanding citizen, might grind my butt away.. and be
very happy with that.

But a helluva lot of others won't be. YOU quantify that proportion,
be it 95 or 75 or 50 or 25%! Given the paucity of two-wheelers versus
even puiblic transit vehicles, I think you'll discover the percentage
of negatives will be way closer to the High Mark than lower.

Of course, your next suggestion might be that I move my home location
to be closer to my ultimate destination.

Sure... I move... and then I negotiate a more beneficial employment
contract elsewhere. So I have to move? And probably have to SELL
then re-buy? Simply to satisfy the quirks of the Huff-And-Puff crowd?

Give us all a break
 
B

Baxter

Guest
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> That there's disproportionate poverty in rural areas is well known, and
> nobody is denying it, near as I can tell. The point was that George
> blames urban areas for failings of rural economies. Many of these
> failings go back generations.


And then when richer people move to the rural area and buy up the property,
George complains again - railing about "horse farms". In short, all George
has to offer is jealousy and NO solutions.
 
S

Stephen Sprunk

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> George believes that everyone in the US should be free...
>> to do things George approves of.

>
> I'm starting to wonder if George knows what George approves of.


George approves of everyone owning at least one car per person and never
walking, riding a bike, or using passenger rail. In fact, he wants everyone
to drive their cars from their bedrooms to their cubicles, because even
walking to and from their cars might threaten his car fetish.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> That there's disproportionate poverty in rural areas is well known, and
>> nobody is denying it, near as I can tell. The point was that George
>> blames urban areas for failings of rural economies. Many of these
>> failings go back generations.

>
> And then when richer people move to the rural area and buy up the
> property, George complains again - railing about "horse farms". In short,
> all George has to offer is jealousy and NO solutions.


Tsk, tsk. You are totally not paying attention to what George says. He is
completely ok with people who have more money than the rural people buying
up the property so that they can build subdivisions and the area is no
longer rural. So then the _rest_ of the rural area is poor, and he still
has something to complain about. I think if George got everything he
advocates (impossible, since he's so logically inconsistent), he' do a
complete 180 so he'd have more to complain about.
 
D

donquijote1954

Guest
On May 25, 4:04 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> > > Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and
> > > tandems.-

>
> > They know how to drive. The avarage semi driver is well above the
> > average Joe SUV.

>
> When there is an accident with an 18-wheeler, the car driver is 9 times more
> likely to be killed.-


If it is 16 times for an SUV vs. car, it must be like 160 times more
deadly in a semi vs. car. Imagine what it would be if semi drivers
were as poorly trained and as careless as SUV drivers. Probably worse
than Iraq.
 
P

Pat

Guest
On May 29, 10:17 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > -
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]

>
> >> That there's disproportionate poverty in rural areas is well known, and
> >> nobody is denying it, near as I can tell. The point was that George
> >> blames urban areas for failings of rural economies. Many of these
> >> failings go back generations.

>
> > And then when richer people move to the rural area and buy up the
> > property, George complains again - railing about "horse farms". In short,
> > all George has to offer is jealousy and NO solutions.

>
> Tsk, tsk. You are totally not paying attention to what George says. He is
> completely ok with people who have more money than the rural people buying
> up the property so that they can build subdivisions and the area is no
> longer rural. So then the _rest_ of the rural area is poor, and he still
> has something to complain about. I think if George got everything he
> advocates (impossible, since he's so logically inconsistent), he' do a
> complete 180 so he'd have more to complain about.


Why don't you-all go back to the city, ride your transit, live in your
towers, walk your busy sidewalks, eat at your funky cafe's, make your
big paychecks, ride your bikes, and leave me (and maybe Amy) alone in
the rural areas. I live in the middle of nowhere because I want to
live in the middle of nowhere. When you discover it and make it
"somewhere", I'll have to move again.

I want my swimming pool in my yard next to my BBQ. I want my minivan
in my driveway next to my wife's car. I want to look out my back door
and see trees (a.k.a. indefensible space) and mountains.

I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want
culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and
concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth"
because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth.

I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind
police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon
Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the
Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the
names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another
Reservation.

I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't.

I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and
snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much
as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll
all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my
tomato plants.
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On May 25, 4:04 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> > > Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and
>> > > tandems.-

>>
>> > They know how to drive. The avarage semi driver is well above the
>> > average Joe SUV.

>>
>> When there is an accident with an 18-wheeler, the car driver is 9 times
>> more
>> likely to be killed.-

>
> If it is 16 times for an SUV vs. car, it must be like 160 times more
> deadly in a semi vs. car. Imagine what it would be if semi drivers
> were as poorly trained and as careless as SUV drivers. Probably worse
> than Iraq.


Are there a lot of SUV drivers in Iraq?
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On May 29, 10:17 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Tsk, tsk. You are totally not paying attention to what George says. He
>> is
>> completely ok with people who have more money than the rural people
>> buying
>> up the property so that they can build subdivisions and the area is no
>> longer rural. So then the _rest_ of the rural area is poor, and he still
>> has something to complain about. I think if George got everything he
>> advocates (impossible, since he's so logically inconsistent), he' do a
>> complete 180 so he'd have more to complain about.

>
> Why don't you-all go back to the city, ride your transit, live in your
> towers, walk your busy sidewalks, eat at your funky cafe's, make your
> big paychecks, ride your bikes, and leave me (and maybe Amy) alone in
> the rural areas. I live in the middle of nowhere because I want to
> live in the middle of nowhere. When you discover it and make it
> "somewhere", I'll have to move again.
>
> I want my swimming pool in my yard next to my BBQ. I want my minivan
> in my driveway next to my wife's car. I want to look out my back door
> and see trees (a.k.a. indefensible space) and mountains.
>
> I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want
> culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and
> concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth"
> because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth.
>
> I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind
> police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon
> Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the
> Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the
> names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another
> Reservation.
>
> I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't.
>
> I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and
> snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much
> as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll
> all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my
> tomato plants.


What you don't get, though, is that New Urbanism is probably our greatest
hope in rural areas. Because it is very much about containing growth and
trying to encourage that if there *is* growth in area A that that growth
will house more people than would otherwise happen under conventional
suburban sprawl. If area A has twice as many residents that wanted to move
into the locality than otherwise would, then Area B does not have to absorb
such a large population influx, and can remain more rural than it otherwise
would have. If Area B *does* have to grow, if it encourages that most of
that growth is concentrated in a relatively small area and applies zoning
and other controls to discourage growth in areas that the community has
decided should be protected, then Area B may be able to somewhat maintain
its character.

What New Urbanism is about is for a community to be able to decide what
future it wants for itself and take some steps to try to encourage that
future to come about, while at the same time realizing that in some areas
you can't stick your fingers in the dike to prevent a flood of new
residents. Sometimes those steps do not have the desired results.
Sometimes things get derailed by other political and economic realities.
Sometimes the results turn out to be the opposite of what you intended. But
then sometimes bugs eat your tomatoes. One thing's for sure. You seldom
get tomatoes if you don't plant any in the first place.

-Amy
 
P

Pat

Guest
On May 29, 1:41 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 10:17 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Tsk, tsk. You are totally not paying attention to what George says. He
> >> is
> >> completely ok with people who have more money than the rural people
> >> buying
> >> up the property so that they can build subdivisions and the area is no
> >> longer rural. So then the _rest_ of the rural area is poor, and he still
> >> has something to complain about. I think if George got everything he
> >> advocates (impossible, since he's so logically inconsistent), he' do a
> >> complete 180 so he'd have more to complain about.

>
> > Why don't you-all go back to the city, ride your transit, live in your
> > towers, walk your busy sidewalks, eat at your funky cafe's, make your
> > big paychecks, ride your bikes, and leave me (and maybe Amy) alone in
> > the rural areas. I live in the middle of nowhere because I want to
> > live in the middle of nowhere. When you discover it and make it
> > "somewhere", I'll have to move again.

>
> > I want my swimming pool in my yard next to my BBQ. I want my minivan
> > in my driveway next to my wife's car. I want to look out my back door
> > and see trees (a.k.a. indefensible space) and mountains.

>
> > I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want
> > culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and
> > concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth"
> > because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth.

>
> > I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind
> > police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon
> > Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the
> > Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the
> > names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another
> > Reservation.

>
> > I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't.

>
> > I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and
> > snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much
> > as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll
> > all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my
> > tomato plants.

>
> What you don't get, though, is that New Urbanism is probably our greatest
> hope in rural areas. Because it is very much about containing growth and
> trying to encourage that if there *is* growth in area A that that growth
> will house more people than would otherwise happen under conventional
> suburban sprawl. If area A has twice as many residents that wanted to move
> into the locality than otherwise would, then Area B does not have to absorb
> such a large population influx, and can remain more rural than it otherwise
> would have. If Area B *does* have to grow, if it encourages that most of
> that growth is concentrated in a relatively small area and applies zoning
> and other controls to discourage growth in areas that the community has
> decided should be protected, then Area B may be able to somewhat maintain
> its character.


My problem is that almost all zoning is fundimentally flawed. Instead
of being a blueprint for the future, it is a compilation of past
mistakes in the community. Instead of being fair and open, it is rife
with politics and intrigue. There is no zoning that money cannot
change.

>
> What New Urbanism is about is for a community to be able to decide what
> future it wants for itself and take some steps to try to encourage that
> future to come about, while at the same time realizing that in some areas
> you can't stick your fingers in the dike to prevent a flood of new
> residents. Sometimes those steps do not have the desired results.
> Sometimes things get derailed by other political and economic realities.
> Sometimes the results turn out to be the opposite of what you intended. But
> then sometimes bugs eat your tomatoes. One thing's for sure. You seldom
> get tomatoes if you don't plant any in the first place.


True, but the same cannot be said for zucchini.

>
> -Amy
 
D

donquijote1954

Guest
On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my
> > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive.
> > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess
> > only buses protect me from the big predators out there.

>
> I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks,
> we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son
> was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid-
> gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling.
> Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to
> drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and
> the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe,
> but maybe not as safe as I had thought.-


Though nothing is absolutely safe, they are the only ones that don't
bow to SUVs or at least the only ones where you don't feel like a
sitting duck...

You know how I feel in any other vehicle out there???

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg

Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the
ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down
the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to
boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this
driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process
(something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in
the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows
the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead
and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped
some feet further to shout something at me.

So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the jungle.
Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the hunting
season..."