Motorists above the law.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Bridge 1:0 Bus
Next: Ford Fiesta Auto Wipe
From: Doug on 5 Jan 2010 04:41 On 3 Jan, 17:37, Chris Bartram <n...(a)delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > Indeed. Why build lots of tower blocks only connected by roads when > > you can have an integrated vertical city needing virtually no roads or > > cars? > > That's been tried. > > http://www.open2.net/modernity/3_12.htm > > From the web page: > > "But Park Hill's problems quickly became apparent. The streets allowed > some of the worst aspects of urban life to remain (muggers found they > made convenient getaway routes), whilst failing to preserve the better > aspects." > Nope. Not an integrated system of home, work, shops and leisure. Hopefully, in the distant future all cars, if they still exist, will be underground in tunnels polluting each other instead of everyone else. > > > People can move around in lifts and on conveyor belts instead, > > and electirc buggies and bicycles with goods moved by electric fork > > lift trucks. Just think of the money saved on petrol, insurance, > > parking fines, etc., and the much reduced pollution. > > What is going to generate the power for those buggies, conveyors and > forklifts? > One of them already has a massive wind generator and just think of all that energy saved on petrol at 10kWh per litre! Besides, it more efficient to heat one large structure than many widely scattered small structures. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Adrian on 5 Jan 2010 04:53 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >> > but I guess for the time being it is down to oil-rich nations to >> >> > pioneer them. >> >> <cough> >> >> Dubai, did you say? >> >> Mmmm... >> > Wherever. There is loads of oil money. >> You really don't have a clue about recent news, do you? > Pot kettle. Not at all. Oh, and btw, Dubai was never "oil-rich". That's the neighbours. IIRC, 6% of Dubai's GDP is oil. >> >> > Here is another one: >> >> >> > "OMA design multifunctional vertical city in Rotterdam >> >> >> > Part of an effort to regenerate the Kop van Zuid area of >> >> > Rotterdam, these three multifunctional towers will feature space >> >> > for corporate offices, residential apartments, a hotel, >> >> > restaurants, cinema and retail shopping – creating a bustling >> >> > vertical city that is active 24 hours a day..." >> >> This could be Rotterdam or anywhere. Liverpool or Rome. >> > Indeed. >> Whoosh. > What? Not my comment. Do try to learn to read properly. <sigh> Nobody's ever accused you of having a sense of humour, have they? >> You really don't have a clue about the pollution caused by >> construction, electricity generation, the infrastructure support for >> such a building, etc, etc, etc, do you? > I am sure that pollution would be exceeded by years of equivalent car > use. You would be, yes. Because your blinkers turn everything round to a comparison with your bete noire. Facts are irrelevant. >> > BTW Kingsnorth power station has been shut down by a fire. What >> > public protesters couldn't achieve the Gods the religious go on about >> > have instead. Good work Gods! >> You did say power cuts were your preferred option - looks like they'll >> happen. 2TW is a shitload of capacity to lose from the grid. > Hopefully. It would be so much better for consumers to learn to > economise and stop energy wastage in advance instead of doing things the > hard way.. Well, quite. Yet that's precisely what you're encouraging. Oh, and whilst we're on the subject of fires, have you considered what'll happen if a flat on floor 30 of a 160-floor megatower/"vertical city" catches fire? No? Perhaps, in the aftermath of the recent Elephant & Castle flats fire, you should.
From: Doug on 5 Jan 2010 10:43 On 5 Jan, 09:53, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > > >> >> > but I guess for the time being it is down to oil-rich nations to > >> >> > pioneer them. > >> >> <cough> > >> >> Dubai, did you say? > >> >> Mmmm... > >> > Wherever. There is loads of oil money. > >> You really don't have a clue about recent news, do you? > > Pot kettle. > > Not at all. > > Oh, and btw, Dubai was never "oil-rich". That's the neighbours. IIRC, 6% > of Dubai's GDP is oil. > Even better. Most develped countries should be capable of building vertical cities then. > > >> >> > Here is another one: > > >> >> > "OMA design multifunctional vertical city in Rotterdam > > >> >> > Part of an effort to regenerate the Kop van Zuid area of > >> >> > Rotterdam, these three multifunctional towers will feature space > >> >> > for corporate offices, residential apartments, a hotel, > >> >> > restaurants, cinema and retail shopping creating a bustling > >> >> > vertical city that is active 24 hours a day..." > >> >> This could be Rotterdam or anywhere. Liverpool or Rome. > >> > Indeed. > >> Whoosh. > > What? Not my comment. Do try to learn to read properly. > > <sigh> Nobody's ever accused you of having a sense of humour, have they? > How is your error humour? > > >> You really don't have a clue about the pollution caused by > >> construction, electricity generation, the infrastructure support for > >> such a building, etc, etc, etc, do you? > > I am sure that pollution would be exceeded by years of equivalent car > > use. > > You would be, yes. Because your blinkers turn everything round to a > comparison with your bete noire. Facts are irrelevant. > I imagine that expanding horizontal cities plus more cars is even worse than vertical cities without cars. > > >> > BTW Kingsnorth power station has been shut down by a fire. What > >> > public protesters couldn't achieve the Gods the religious go on about > >> > have instead. Good work Gods! > >> You did say power cuts were your preferred option - looks like they'll > >> happen. 2TW is a shitload of capacity to lose from the grid. > > Hopefully. It would be so much better for consumers to learn to > > economise and stop energy wastage in advance instead of doing things the > > hard way.. > > Well, quite. Yet that's precisely what you're encouraging. > Economising and saving energy is precisely what I am suggesting. > > Oh, and whilst we're on the subject of fires, have you considered what'll > happen if a flat on floor 30 of a 160-floor megatower/"vertical city" > catches fire? No? Perhaps, in the aftermath of the recent Elephant & > Castle flats fire, you should. > All buildings are similarly vulnerable. Fires can spread sideways as well as upwards. Any more excuses for your polluting car use? -- World Carfree Network http://www.worldcarfree.net/ Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
From: BrianW on 5 Jan 2010 12:49 On 5 Jan, 09:41, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 3 Jan, 17:37, Chris Bartram <n...(a)delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote: > > > > > Doug wrote: > > > Indeed. Why build lots of tower blocks only connected by roads when > > > you can have an integrated vertical city needing virtually no roads or > > > cars? > > > That's been tried. > > >http://www.open2.net/modernity/3_12.htm > > > �From the web page: > > > "But Park Hill's problems quickly became apparent. The streets allowed > > some of the worst aspects of urban life to remain (muggers found they > > made convenient getaway routes), whilst failing to preserve the better > > aspects." > > Nope. Not an integrated system of home, work, shops and leisure. > Hopefully, in the distant future all cars, if they still exist, will > be underground in tunnels polluting each other instead of everyone > else. > > > > People can move around in lifts and on conveyor belts instead, > > > and electirc buggies and bicycles with goods moved by electric fork > > > lift trucks. Just think of the money saved on petrol, insurance, > > > parking fines, etc., and the much reduced pollution. > > > What is going to generate the power for those buggies, conveyors and > > forklifts? > > One of them already has a massive wind generator and just think of all > that energy saved on petrol at 10kWh per litre! Besides, it more > efficient to heat one large structure than many widely scattered small > structures. Interesting. I have no doubt that you practise what you preach and live in a large tower block, and not in a house, unlike (say) the chap shown in this pic: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8737107(a)N04/3742474251/
From: Doug on 6 Jan 2010 03:19
On 4 Jan, 20:20, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > BrianW wrote: > > On 4 Jan, 10:21, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> In uk.rec.cycling PeterG twisted the electrons to say: > > >>> How 'green' would these cities be, given that there would be very > >>> littlt natural light, also what would the heating/cooling arrangements > >>> be? > >> Nb: I think this whole "vertical cities" thing is about as loony as the > >> rest of the stuff[1] posts. > > > It's not quite as loony as his "two types of ozone" theory. Or, for > > that matter, his "different types of dead, depending on how you are > > killed" theory. > > > Gollum is great entertainment, I'll give him that. > > He is also the most 'rammed' cyclist in the history of the world. > Who? Source? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |