LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending

Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:

But now lets go back to the 1950s. Back then, it was unanonimous
consent, that the private car would move us into a bright future. I'm
not aware of any opposition to speak of, over here. Was there any, in
the USA?

For the most part this was correct. The problem was that the political
right felt the need to help things along by destroying much of the mass
transit infrastructure in places where it was needed. This
infrastructure is now being replaced at tremendous expense.

Even today, if not for the political right wing in the U.S., the
negatives about the private car could easily be mitigated. Higher MPG
standards would move people out of unnecessary SUVs into smaller
vehicles, and would reduce the environmental impact of private cars.
Plug-in hybrids, combined with nuclear power generation could eliminate
much of the oil used for transportation, but with oil people in the
White House, the chance of this happening is nil. Look at Exxon-Mobil's
profits for 2006, and you'll understand that the right wing will never
allow fuel efficiency to become public policy.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:


As was pointed out the 50s in particular had significant problems.
Particularly with the idea of freedom in the US.

Consider again the concepts of McCarthyism & segregation for starters.


The 50s were FAR freer in the US than now. Really. I was living then.

For example, political correctness had not been invented, so we
still had true freedom of speech.

But that was not what I was talking about ... I was talking about,
for example, that intentionally making traffic more congested
had not been thought of. No "diamond lanes" for example. No
"traffic calming" to make drivers furious. No 55 mph speed limit.
No seat belt or child seat laws. That is, we were freer.

Doug McDonald

SMS wrote:


Even today, if not for the political right wing in the U.S., the
negatives about the private car could easily be mitigated. Higher MPG
standards would move people out of unnecessary SUVs into smaller
vehicles,

and reduce freedom ... the left just LOVES to reduce freedom

See my "freedom" posts.

The Right at least sometimes tries to protect freedom.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald writes:

No seat belt or child seat laws. That is, we were freer.

If you want to endanger yourself, be my guest as far as I'm
concerned. But don't endanger your child.

-- Patrick

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:17:49 -0600, in misc.transport.urban-transit
Doug McDonald wrote in
:
Frank F. Matthews wrote:


As was pointed out the 50s in particular had significant problems.
Particularly with the idea of freedom in the US.

Consider again the concepts of McCarthyism & segregation for starters.


The 50s were FAR freer in the US than now. Really. I was living then.

You know nothing. Bigotry was not only pervasive but enforced by law.
Jim Crow made an attempt to keep our society from integrating. Fascism
was all the rage, though it was called anti-Communism. If you weren't
anti-Communist enough, then you were denounced as a Communist. A drunk
from Grand Chute, Wisconsin terrorized people and wiped his butt with
the Bill of Rights.

For example, political correctness had not been invented, so we
still had true freedom of speech.

Like the freedom to kill black men just because they existed?

But that was not what I was talking about ... I was talking about,
for example, that intentionally making traffic more congested
had not been thought of. No "diamond lanes" for example. No
"traffic calming" to make drivers furious. No 55 mph speed limit.
No seat belt or child seat laws. That is, we were freer.

No freeways to speak of either. Even with a lack of adequate
construction in the past two decades, it is still faster to drive than
it was fifty years ago.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:19:39 -0600, in misc.transport.urban-transit
Doug McDonald wrote in
:
SMS wrote:


Even today, if not for the political right wing in the U.S., the
negatives about the private car could easily be mitigated. Higher MPG
standards would move people out of unnecessary SUVs into smaller
vehicles,

and reduce freedom ... the left just LOVES to reduce freedom

See my "freedom" posts.

The Right at least sometimes tries to protect freedom.

Please name one well-known right-winger who supports the expansion of
freedom.

Doug McDonald wrote:
Frank F. Matthews wrote:


As was pointed out the 50s in particular had significant problems.
Particularly with the idea of freedom in the US.

Consider again the concepts of McCarthyism & segregation for starters.


The 50s were FAR freer in the US than now. Really. I was living then.

For example, political correctness had not been invented, so we
still had true freedom of speech.

But that was not what I was talking about ... I was talking about,
for example, that intentionally making traffic more congested
had not been thought of. No "diamond lanes" for example. No
"traffic calming" to make drivers furious. No 55 mph speed limit.
No seat belt or child seat laws. That is, we were freer.

There is no 55 MPH speed limit anymore in the U.S.. It was a temporary
thing. In fact, Nixon wanted a 50 MPH speed limit back in 1973, which
was so low that at least it wouldn't have lasted any longer than
necessary. Congress thought that they were doing motorists a favor by
moving it up to 55, when in fact 55 was just high enough that the
insurance industry and other safety groups, latched onto it. At the
time, most interstates were 60 MPH, with some toll roads at 70 MPH.

Reagan may have been a poor president in terms of economics, but at
least he dumped the 55 MPH limit.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:51:37 -0800, in misc.transport.urban-transit
Scott en Aztlán wrote in
:
"sharx35" said in misc.transport.urban-transit:

Or, better still, use public transit for commuting, and *rent* the SUV
when you actually need one.

That doesn't really work. Families often need the larger vehicle every
weekend, and several times during the week. Where they don't need it, is
in everyday commuting. The SUV or minivan has become the defacto
replacement for the large station wagons of the past. At least they get
better mileage.

So, who put a gun to their heads and forced them to have that many children
that they NEED a SUV? 2 or 3 children can EASILY be transported in the back
seat of even a medium-sized car.

And who put a gun to their heads and forced them to buy a house that's
so far away from school, activities, and everything else that the kids
need to be driven EVERYWHERE?

The interesting problem is that in some cities, the center city area may
have schools at least as far apart as the places built up in the past
two decades. Madison is a bit peculiar for geography, but people who
live in the downtown/campus area are at least a mile from any public
elementary school.

SMS wrote:


There is no 55 MPH speed limit anymore in the U.S..

You are utterly wrong. It's still 55 mph in Illinois on non
freeways.

Doug McDonald

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

And who put a gun to their heads and forced them to buy a house that's
so far away from school, activities, and everything else that the kids
need to be driven EVERYWHERE?


The left-wingers who invented FORCED SCHOOL BUSING, that's who.

People had to move farther than bus range away from people they
didn't want their kids going to school with.


That's the bottom line.

Doug McDonald