I saw this email a bit late....so I'm responding out of sequence. > > Why would you like to submit that proposition why you have just > agreed that I am right?
I didn't. A conversion of 90% of the 8 km or less transits to active transportation (which I take to imply self propelled such as hiking, biking, skate board, etc. will require an enormous amount of walking, etc. > I live in London and drive a car. I think banning all private cars > from London would be incredibly difficult and could well have many of > the problems people have suggested in this thread. I don't think > anyone would disagree with this. > However there is nothing in that article (well, I think actually that > is a press release) that suggests anything about forcing people to > walk No, it is merely a practical consequence of the proposal. You snipped this part of my post, so I don't know if you think it is illogical to consider practical implications. Is that it? Is it ludicrous to look at a proposal, and then think of the inevitable requirements, based on one's knowledge of pertinent facts? Looking at the footnotes, I see a logical contradiction in their proposal...which doesn't surprise me. They state that cars would be banned in the main body of the article, but reference a study in which 90% of the journeys under 8 km would be converted to walking or cycling and 10% would be converted to taxies. I'm not sure why a car for hire is inherently better than a private car...I would think that there would be the extra fuel used getting to the pick up point from one's last drop off point. Again, anyone who's been in a Manhattan rush hour can testify that taxis do not eliminate traffic congestion....their main advantage is that they help with the parking problem. So, my temporary hypothesis is that deducing the practical implications of a proposal is illogical. But, that, by definition, is using logic to arrive at a conclusion from axioms (the initial proposal and the facts can be treated as axioms for the purpose of the logical exercise.) How is using logic illogical? That's what puzzles me. Now, it is very reasonable to argue that one of Ron's implied axioms was false, but that's different from saying he was illogical. At worst, it would be an understandable misread of the facts. > As an aside I would be extremely dubiously if most people with > mobility issues in London do, in fact, drive at the moment. Do they stay at home, get picked up by a special bus at their door, or use a car of some sort (friend or a car for hire: taxi)? Also, there are various forms of mobility problems. My wife has arthritis in her knees, making walking > 1/4 km at one time or so painful, and making walking > 1km total in a day result in a night of pain. On a practical level, her mobility problem is quite modest, she can get to almost any place she wants to here. As folks age, and their ability to walk a km or two in 100F heat decreases, modest mobility issues will increase. To include another post: > > (particularly most cities in the US) do not. So > > we naturally wonder if a car ban is implemented > > in London and proves successful in reducing > > emissions how soon it will be before it is > > suggested or implemented in other cities, > > including those which due to their layout and > > lack of public transportation pretty much require > > people to have access to a car to get around, and > > what will happen to those I have described above > > who because of medical conditions cannot swap > > their car for a bicycle. > > There is nothing "natural" about it. This sort of ludicrous paranoia > is exactly what I objected to in the original post. I tend to dislike the "slippery slope" argument in general, so I would tend to differ with Ron's conclusions. I think that "Slippery slope" has proven true in some cases, but false in many more...so I don't worry about them. But, IIRC, you have been perfectly content to accept slippery slope arguments in other cases....and not think them ludicrous. This inconsistency puzzles me. The best hypothesis I have is that you tend to believe that those who differ with your analysis are illogical and ludicrous. I'd tend to argue that reasonable people can differ in complex cases. There are times, as with Brin's argument that GWB follows orders from Saudi Arabia, that I believe that reasonable people should not accept such an argument. I would not, as a result of this, conclude that Dr. Brin is inherently illogical. Rather, I would argue that he is way off base on this particular argument. Even more so, I would not conclude that this is the type of illogic that one expects from science fiction writers, thus tarring a large group with a single brush simply because I find a particular argument unreasonable. I'm in the process of detailing how I think one can/should use reason and data to arrive at conclusions when considering empirical questions which cannot be addressed scientifically (politics, economics, etc.) I'd be interested in seeing your alternative or a critique of my analysis. I always find the variation in understanding of what a "reasonable argument" is quite fascinating. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
