On 9/19/07, Dan Minettte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
That isn't what you said though, is it? What you said was: "Well, technically, the proposal doesn't force people to walk." And you are right. And that was my point. > > 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. It isn't a practical consequence of the proposal. It is your assumption and the assumption of the original poster that this is true but that does not make it so. <more snipping of stuff that does not pertain to the matter at hand> > > 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)? Yes, all those things plus using mobility aids (wheelchairs, buggies, etc). However they also undertake normal activities such as taking public transport and walking. It is just a lot longer and more unpleasant than for those without mobility issues. > > 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. Indeed. > But, IIRC, you have been perfectly content to accept slippery slope > arguments in other cases....and not think them ludicrous. This > inconsistency puzzles me. You will have to remind me of these cases. Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
