Paul  considered Mon, 9 Nov 2009 00:32:28
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

>On 9 Nov, 07:40, Doug  wrote:
>> On 9 Nov, 00:50, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mike Ross  considered Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:43:07
>> > -0500 the perfect time to write:
>>
>> > >On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:15:36 -0000, "mileburner" 
>> > >wrote:
>>
>> > >>"Mike Ross"  wrote in message
>> > >>news:9fqaf55jjubvn740b4st99bpldeusn8j4a@4ax.com...
>> > >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:59:53 -0800 (PST), Doug  wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>Yes but my reason is we hear so often on newsgroups about cyclists on
>> > >>>>pavements and so rarely about motorists on pavements, despite the huge
>> > >>>>difference in danger caused.
>>
>> > >>> Ahh well that's a different question entirely; let's face it, it's hardly
>> > >>> unknown for cyclists to deliberately cycle on the pavement. It's very rare
>> > >>> indeed for a car to be driven on the pavement *deliberately*.
>>
>> > >>It is fairly common to drive a car on the pavement *deliberately*.
>>
>> > >That's on *to* the pavement, or *across* the pavement - not driving *along* the
>> > >pavement, as if it was a road! Some cyclists do at times ride *along* the
>> > >pavement as if it were a road; car drivers do this far far less often. That's
>> > >all I was saying, nothing more nothing less.
>>
>> > Unless you have a design of car which can move sideways, driving onto
>> > the pavement to park necessarily includes driving along it, unless you
>> > park at right angles to the road.
>> > I'm not saying this is impossible, but it's certainly not what I see
>> > happening.
>>
>> Another thing you see is parking on pavements which have continuous
>> kerbs which means the cars have to bump up the kerbs to get there.
>>
>> The great big enormous problem with cars is always where to put them
>> when you are not using them.
>
>Thats solvable, build a building, a bit like a bike shed, only
>slightly bigger, and call it.....now lets see....i know a GARAGE.

And you can carry it with you, to use at your destination?
No?
What a waste of space, taking up all that valuable land area just to
store a cage, when by definition, either the cage or the garage are
useless.
>
>A garage is similar to a stable, only no shit to shovel.
>
Nothing of value is produced then.
>
>If everyone turned en-masse to the bicycle, dont you think there would
>be similar problems with where to store them ?
>
No.

>There's 5 in my family, we'd all need a bike each, therefore requiring
>more actual space to park them than is taken up by our one car.  

Utter bollocks.
Have you seen how many bicycles can be stored in a small garage?
You could probably have 5 EACH!
>                                                                I've
>also got 3 work vehicles, all required, and would need probably over a
>hundred adults to pull the weights, and carry the goods that these 3
>do, HOW DO I SOLVE THAT PROBLEM ??
>
Better gearing, and more trips.
See Vietnam for details on how cycles can carry big loads more
efficiently than motor vehicles - it helped beat the yanks in the
little unpleasantness there.
But how the hell do you drive 3 work vehicles at once?
Or rather, what on earth REQUIRES 3?

I suppose I can understand that you'd be against controls on excessive
vehicle use - no turkey looks forward to Christmas.

It's never stopped it coming though.
>
>>
>> --
>> Car Free Citieshttp://www.carfree.com/
>> Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
>> to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.