There is a much better way of gaining the beneft of mobility: to depend less on machines, software and energy, less on travelling long distances, and, when we do move around, to do so on foot or cycle. The exercise is good for us. Of course, that also means gradually planning the evolution of settlements so that the distances to our dest…
There is a much better way of gaining the beneft of mobility: to depend less on machines, software and energy, less on travelling long distances, and, when we do move around, to do so on foot or cycle. The exercise is good for us. Of course, that also means gradually planning the evolution of settlements so that the distances to our destinations are shorter. But its also means not handing over the public spaces between our buildings to lethal projectiles controlled by Californian geeks, instead keeping them as our own human habitat. JM
Except 1 - carrying heavy things is really hard on foot or cycle. Especially if one is also moving with children, and 2 - "planning the evolution of settlements so that the distances to our destinations are shorter" is fine only as long as I only want to go to the same places all the time and never want, e.g. a day out or to go to a different shop.
In practice there is always going to be some need for some form of personal transport
1: Very few of us carry heavy things often. Most cars in the rush hour, when the congestion and air pollution created are at their worst, contain just one person, going to or from work.
2: And, while there is a long tail of other places, occasionally visited,most journeys – work again – connect the same origins and destinations.
3: Many live without 'some form of personal transport' (a pseudonym for a car?); and many others find that a cycle fills that need very well. If car users had to pay the external cost that they inflict on other people and on the global atmosphere, this 'need' would quickly evaporate. JM
Agree with this James. I’d also point out that our lives would be poorer without the social connections we make in meeting each other as we walk and share transport, and go to shops etc
There is a much better way of gaining the beneft of mobility: to depend less on machines, software and energy, less on travelling long distances, and, when we do move around, to do so on foot or cycle. The exercise is good for us. Of course, that also means gradually planning the evolution of settlements so that the distances to our destinations are shorter. But its also means not handing over the public spaces between our buildings to lethal projectiles controlled by Californian geeks, instead keeping them as our own human habitat. JM
Except 1 - carrying heavy things is really hard on foot or cycle. Especially if one is also moving with children, and 2 - "planning the evolution of settlements so that the distances to our destinations are shorter" is fine only as long as I only want to go to the same places all the time and never want, e.g. a day out or to go to a different shop.
In practice there is always going to be some need for some form of personal transport
1: Very few of us carry heavy things often. Most cars in the rush hour, when the congestion and air pollution created are at their worst, contain just one person, going to or from work.
2: And, while there is a long tail of other places, occasionally visited,most journeys – work again – connect the same origins and destinations.
3: Many live without 'some form of personal transport' (a pseudonym for a car?); and many others find that a cycle fills that need very well. If car users had to pay the external cost that they inflict on other people and on the global atmosphere, this 'need' would quickly evaporate. JM
Agree with this James. I’d also point out that our lives would be poorer without the social connections we make in meeting each other as we walk and share transport, and go to shops etc