[sustran] Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation

Daryl Oster et3 at et3.com
Tue Apr 25 03:18:30 JST 2006



> -----Original Message From: Francis Chu 
> Daryl,
> Just some clarification:
> Cost burden of kidney failure (Litman, fair to Daryl, I started to use
> kidney failure as a small example, refer to my post on April 21..)-
> Suppose my kidney fail today, I'd have to pay the S$31,200 annual cost for
> dialysis. This cost is not for "treatment" or cure, it merely clean my
> blood for a couple of days, there is no end to this until someone is
> willing to donate his kidney and if I have the money to pay for the
> operation. In such situation, I will most likely lost my job and can no
> longer support my family. (income lost ON TOP OF medical expenses). Not
> only that, my wife also have to quit her job because taking care of a
> kidney failure patient is a very demanding job. Therefore she will lost
> her income too. That's how I come to the total lost of S$60,000 (based on
> current GDP, double income family) in addition to the medical cost of
> S$31,200. I know I may be stretching the concept of "cost" too far here,
> but it should be reasonably within the scope of "lost value".

This assumes the car to be the real cause of the kidney failure -- it is
NOT!! The real and true cause in your example is said to be lack of
exercise, I accept this as fact.  The bike or walking can provide exercise,
and therefore have measurable value of doing so; Therefore the VALUE can be
properly attributed to walking or bike use; -- HOWEVER there are MANY
sources of exercise -- the fault of improper exercise is the blame for some
kidney failure - not the car - therefore the COST of that failure cannot
properly be attributed to the car, nor can any trickle down COSTS of kidney
failure be attributed to the car.  

This improper accounting is what bothers me the most about the anti car
people.  This type of accounting is good at generating an emotional
response.  About 80% of the people make decision based on emotion and not
logical examination of fact.  In the emotional anti-car rhetoric it is
always the car that gets the blame, even when it is NOT the direct fault of
the car.  Improper placing of blame is not going to change the facts -- even
if cars were to be eliminated, some would fail to get enough exercise, the
failure to exercise is a choice that may or may not be supported by car use.


Children who cannot drive, and who do not ride to school in a car, but
instead by walking, train, or bus are increasingly fat -- much due to choice
of playing computer games instead of engaging in sports that require
physical exercise.  Obesity IS a social problem -- and perhaps some is
supported by the car -- but the car is NOT the cause.  The causes are:
Improper foods
Overeating 
Insufficient exercise
Hormones used in dairy and meat products, etc.  

The car does NOT demand any of these choices as a condition of use,
therefore it cannot be held responsible - the fat person (or their parents)
is the one who is responsible for their condition through improper choice.

Education and will are what is needed to deal with the root cause to
eliminate the problem-- not elimination of cars - that are NOT the primary
cause.  

> 
> Health benefit (value) of cycling and walking (human power transport):
> I agree that the health value of walking and cycling is "only" applicable
> to those who don't get sufficient exercise otherwise.However, the
> unexpected fact is two third of the world population are physically
> inactive <http://tinyurl.com/gpffr>  (http://tinyurl.com/gpffr), the
> majority can benefit from integrating at least 30 minutes of fast walking
> or cycling into their daily life.

I agree, and I choose to get my exercise through physical work that also
earns money - such as building a house to sell.  Therefore I invest money
time and exercise for the highest return I am able to with the resources and
tools I have.    

> If the information here
> <http://www.activelivingleadership.org/pdf_file/TheFacts.pdf>
> (http://www.activelivingleadership.org/pdf_file/TheFacts.pdf) is reliable,
> the health value of walking+cycling is potentially US$117 billion and
> 200,000 human in US per year.

If all those who do not get proper exercise would instead drive their car to
a place where they can physically work to provide value for their daily
exercise investment, the economic impact would be much greater than the
$117B.  

> Perceived efficiency of car
> I can see where you come from - most people just check what are the
> available choices and car seems (especially in USA) the only sensible one.

Not the only sensible choice for all people -- just the most sensible choice
for most people, and the chart is simply a reflection of the biggest
reasons. -- reasons that the rail industry is so desperate to hide so they
can continue to convince government to buy trains that have been
marginalized to negative value for most people because the car offers better
value for most people. 

> This is also the mainstream opinion. Your Excel sheet try to illustrate
> the mainstream view through cost reasoning and that may be exactly how the
> majority see it, even it may not be the truth.

If it is not true, please show me what is false, and I will change it!
Reality IS true, and denial of fact will not change the facts.  It can not
be true that returning to old ways will provide greater sustainability --
this, as it is already proven false in the real and true world!  

Most on this list must agree that:
* We all depend on transportation for survival; 
* The rail network reached it's limits of expansion in the US by 1916. 
* The automobile and airplane have replaced 98% of train travel in the US. 
* The automobile is winning the global people transportation market;
* The automobile is reaching energy, and environmental, and social limits to
continued sustainability of present market expansion;
* Eventual collapse of the car is inevitable. 
* Progression and regression are two possible outcomes of collapse.  
.  

What we disagree on is what must be done.  
There are many on this list who believe that we must somehow force a return
to using the transportation modes that the car has displaced from the market
(bikes, walking, and trains).  I submit to the group that this belief is
false, and based on half-truths, lies and deception that are propagated and
fostered by the many existing industries and support professionals that
benefit from continued government gifts to artificially prop up the rail
industry.  

> On the other hand I'm optimistic that the mainstream view is likely to
> change, and the opinions on this cutting edge group will slowly become the
> norm.
> Francis Chu

This group may be on the cutting edge of awareness of the problems
associated with cars, yet many have a regressive attitude of ignoring
progressive solutions.  I believe that something progressive must be done to
arrest the expanding use of cars, and this progress must improve
transportation value by at least an order of magnitude over the car.  We
share the view that the truth will prevail in the long term.


Daryl Oster
(c) 2006  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310, et3 at et3.com , www.et3.com> 



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list