[sustran] Re: a bias against drivers?

[Konstantinos Tsourlakis]

  There are two reasons why a bias against drivers is justified:
  The first reason for this bias (more accurately a pro
pedestrian-friendly-modes-of-transport bias) is that walking is the
natural way of transport and has to have priority over the rest modes of
transport. It is actually a human right (the freedom of safe movement) and
as such it has to be protected, and a bias in favor of it is justified,
the same way as a bias for general education or a bias for public health
is justified.
  The second reason for this bias (more accurately an anti pro-auto bias)
is to counterbalance the ideology which created (and still creates in many
countries) the present private auto centered transportation model. Once
this model is established there is a positive feedback which reinforce it
through the deterioration of public transit (and of non motorized ways of
transport). In fact this model is not the outcome of market forces (in the
sense of free choices), but the result of planned political actions. In
Germany for example the private car was popularized by Hitler (Volkswagen)
who also constructed the first freeways. In USA sprawling is also an
outcome of urban planning. And in many Asian (and other developping)
countries (among them huge ones like India and China) the private car is
actively supported and presented as progress (in an attempt to follow the
development path of North America and Europe), as is often reported in the
present listserv. The way the GNP is measured helps this progress
presentation: for example road accidents increase GNP (they increase
demand for health services, insurances, lawyers, police e.t.c) though they
are of course a disaster, while pollution and environment deterioration
are not taken into account.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/