|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| , if you have to move 4 kids around, you'll want the car. |
If every private car journey included four passengers it'd be a much more efficient system and generate far fewer negative consequences. However, the reality is that the vast majority of private car journeys are, in fact, single occupant.
Your argument is highly disingenuous. |
Cars with 4 occupants constitute a significant number of cars, as this represents of families with children, and families with extended relatives, two of the most common demographics here. In addition we must consider taxis, busses, delivery vehicles, and other vehicles of business who could not otherwise conduct their services without motor vehicles. Also, we must consider those people who are traveling to and from destinations that are not serviced by public transport. Lastly, we have to consider those who may be single occupants at the moment, but will say, pick up children from daycare.
All told, I don't think "vast majority" is appropriate. "Significant number", probably, but no "vast majority". For "vast majority" to be true, then conversely that would meant that cars on the road that are composed of families are necessarily a "small minority" of the driving population and by extension, the population as a whole. A statement that is we can instantly disregard as obviously untrue.
My argument is not disingenuous. Your counterargument has been utterly disproven by simple logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sister Ray
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Location: Fukuoka
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Your counterargument has been utterly disproven by simple logic. |
Sorry, Mr. Rails. Your "logic" is just flat out wrong. Average car occupancy in the US is currently 1.38 occupants per vehicle.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/03/sivak-20130306.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| , if you have to move 4 kids around, you'll want the car. |
If every private car journey included four passengers it'd be a much more efficient system and generate far fewer negative consequences. However, the reality is that the vast majority of private car journeys are, in fact, single occupant.
Your argument is highly disingenuous. |
Cars with 4 occupants constitute a significant number of cars, as this represents of families with children, and families with extended relatives, two of the most common demographics here. In addition we must consider taxis, busses, delivery vehicles, and other vehicles of business who could not otherwise conduct their services without motor vehicles. Also, we must consider those people who are traveling to and from destinations that are not serviced by public transport. Lastly, we have to consider those who may be single occupants at the moment, but will say, pick up children from daycare.
All told, I don't think "vast majority" is appropriate. "Significant number", probably, but no "vast majority". For "vast majority" to be true, then conversely that would meant that cars on the road that are composed of families are necessarily a "small minority" of the driving population and by extension, the population as a whole. A statement that is we can instantly disregard as obviously untrue.
My argument is not disingenuous. Your counterargument has been utterly disproven by simple logic. |
The daily commute to work is usually done alone. Driving during the day when kids are in school is done alone or maybe in pairs. Taxis and buses are equivalent to public transportation.
Sister Ray is correct about drivership. Your statements are, in your words, "obviously untrue."
But I agree that a car can be mighty handy, even necessary, at times. What may well happen is we move to renting cars for short periods of time, something akin to Uber but on a much larger scale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But as I noted in my comment, I was referring to Korea.
| Quote: |
| Cars with 4 occupants constitute a significant number of cars, as this represents of families with children, and families with extended relatives, two of the most common demographics here. |
Extended family households are not nearly as common in the U.S. After all, we all note that many Koreans live with their parents until marriage. Also, given Korea's recent crackdown on drunk driving, yet its still going strong business drinking culture, many people opt not to drive to work as paying for drunk driver service night after night tends to hurt the pocketbook and rile up the Mrs. Many of those that do drive to work, do so because their job requires them to visit other sites directly and promptly, and those places might not be as accessible by public transportation.
Also, while automobiles may be relatively inefficient for the population as a whole, that does not mean that they are inefficient for every individual. There are tons of people, even in Seoul or Vienna, for whom taking public transportation would add time to their daily commute. Time is the most precious resource an individual has. It is finite and once gone, cannot be recovered. I see no reason why anyone should have to add 20 minutes a day to their commute just to satisfy someone's personal whims regarding their concepts of transportation.
As someone with a car, almost always my decision to drive here is based on time. If it is faster to drive and park somewhere, I will do so. If not, I will use other means. The other primary motivating factors are transportation of goods that cannot be easily carried on foot and extreme weather (also makes me not drive). I generally take public transportation for intercity travel as it is faster and more reliable (especially the KTX). The only reason I won't is if its on a mountainous route, in which case I'll drive myself so as to avoid motion sickness that comes from riding the bus.
The reasons for my driving are rational. Many people make the same choice. Yes, some are doing it to show off their car or because of status, but most do so because of practical reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sister Ray
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Location: Fukuoka
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
But as I noted in my comment, I was referring to Korea.
|
Well, I was clearly talking about cities in general having previously cited an auto-dependant dystopia (Atlanta) and more pleasant multi-modal based cities (Vienna.)
However, your "logic" is again just flat out wrong. The vast majority of private vehicle trips in Seoul are also single occupant.
| Quote: |
| Nearly 80 percent of vehicles roaming the streets of Seoul turned out to be driver-only, single-occupant vehicles, worsening the congestion further. |
http://policytransfer.metropolis.org/case-studies/no-driving-day-campaign-one-day-per-week.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
But as I noted in my comment, I was referring to Korea.
|
Well, I was clearly talking about cities in general having previously cited an auto-dependant dystopia (Atlanta) and more pleasant multi-modal based cities (Vienna.)
However, your "logic" is again just flat out wrong. The vast majority of private vehicle trips in Seoul are also single occupant.
| Quote: |
| Nearly 80 percent of vehicles roaming the streets of Seoul turned out to be driver-only, single-occupant vehicles, worsening the congestion further. |
http://policytransfer.metropolis.org/case-studies/no-driving-day-campaign-one-day-per-week.pdf |
I'd say that's strike three, but odds are sr won't leave the batter's box even after being called out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazzmaster
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
But as I noted in my comment, I was referring to Korea.
|
Well, I was clearly talking about cities in general having previously cited an auto-dependant dystopia (Atlanta) and more pleasant multi-modal based cities (Vienna.)
However, your "logic" is again just flat out wrong. The vast majority of private vehicle trips in Seoul are also single occupant.
| Quote: |
| Nearly 80 percent of vehicles roaming the streets of Seoul turned out to be driver-only, single-occupant vehicles, worsening the congestion further. |
http://policytransfer.metropolis.org/case-studies/no-driving-day-campaign-one-day-per-week.pdf |
I'd say that's strike three, but odds are sr won't leave the batter's box even after being called out. |
The boy doesn't even have a bat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
But as I noted in my comment, I was referring to Korea.
|
Well, I was clearly talking about cities in general having previously cited an auto-dependant dystopia (Atlanta) and more pleasant multi-modal based cities (Vienna.)
However, your "logic" is again just flat out wrong. The vast majority of private vehicle trips in Seoul are also single occupant.
| Quote: |
| Nearly 80 percent of vehicles roaming the streets of Seoul turned out to be driver-only, single-occupant vehicles, worsening the congestion further. |
http://policytransfer.metropolis.org/case-studies/no-driving-day-campaign-one-day-per-week.pdf |
As I mentioned before, you have to eliminate taxis, delivery vehicles, and a whole host of other drivers off of that list. They are classified as "single driver" vehicles. Also, your number might well be from 2004. The same publication, which clearly has an agenda, might well be recycling old data. There has been a major expansion of Seoul's public transportation since then.
http://policytransfer.metropolis.org/case-studies/seoul-public-transportation-reform-in-2004.pdf
The study cites an increase in satisfaction with bus service, something that no doubt has continued to rise since then even as Seoul's population has remained relatively flat.
Obviously, sensible public transportation is good. But your militant attitude towards cars and drivers is unwarranted. As I said, most people have a good reason for driving. If you can save 45 minutes by taking the subway, most people will. Conversely if you can save 45 minutes by driving, you likely will.
Also, your concepts only work for people living in cities, but that also leads to high land and rental rates. I think you're only looking at this through the narrow perspective of a single person who is working at a job where the tasks of work remain in a static location.
Lastly, your concepts require on other people having cars in order to assist you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
But as I noted in my comment, I was referring to Korea.
|
Well, I was clearly talking about cities in general having previously cited an auto-dependant dystopia (Atlanta) and more pleasant multi-modal based cities (Vienna.)
However, your "logic" is again just flat out wrong. The vast majority of private vehicle trips in Seoul are also single occupant.
| Quote: |
| Nearly 80 percent of vehicles roaming the streets of Seoul turned out to be driver-only, single-occupant vehicles, worsening the congestion further. |
http://policytransfer.metropolis.org/case-studies/no-driving-day-campaign-one-day-per-week.pdf |
As I mentioned before, you have to eliminate taxis, delivery vehicles, and a whole host of other drivers off of that list. They are classified as "single driver" vehicles. Also, your number might well be from 2004. The same publication, which clearly has an agenda, might well be recycling old data. There has been a major expansion of Seoul's public transportation since then.
http://policytransfer.metropolis.org/case-studies/seoul-public-transportation-reform-in-2004.pdf
The study cites an increase in satisfaction with bus service, something that no doubt has continued to rise since then even as Seoul's population has remained relatively flat.
Obviously, sensible public transportation is good. But your militant attitude towards cars and drivers is unwarranted. As I said, most people have a good reason for driving. If you can save 45 minutes by taking the subway, most people will. Conversely if you can save 45 minutes by driving, you likely will.
Also, your concepts only work for people living in cities, but that also leads to high land and rental rates. I think you're only looking at this through the narrow perspective of a single person who is working at a job where the tasks of work remain in a static location.
Lastly, your concepts require on other people having cars in order to assist you. |
Since the study says 2012 and the percentage has increased from 79 in 2004 to 80 in 2012 your doubt, like the rest of your argument, seems to be ill founded.
And why do you continue to insist you have to strip out a variety of vehicles that have only a single passenger? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
Since the study says 2012 and the percentage has increased from 79 in 2004 to 80 in 2012 your doubt, like the rest of your argument, seems to be ill founded.
And why do you continue to insist you have to strip out a variety of vehicles that have only a single passenger? |
The results just seem like a rehash of the 2004 paper I linked. They did put a period in between the two and they didn't seem to include any links or the study with them. It's not uncommon for focus groups to rehash the most favorable old data. You'd think with the increase in subway lines and the apparent increase in popularity and availability of busses, there would be some decrease in cars, especially given Seoul's population growth being flat.
Also, you have to eliminate all those vehicles because we are attempting to find people driving who "should" be using public transportation. If someone has to drive because their work demands it or they are not conveniently serviced by public transport, then they should be driving. I really would like to see how they classified "single driver vehicles". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
Since the study says 2012 and the percentage has increased from 79 in 2004 to 80 in 2012 your doubt, like the rest of your argument, seems to be ill founded.
And why do you continue to insist you have to strip out a variety of vehicles that have only a single passenger? |
The results just seem like a rehash of the 2004 paper I linked. They did put a period in between the two and they didn't seem to include any links or the study with them. It's not uncommon for focus groups to rehash the most favorable old data. You'd think with the increase in subway lines and the apparent increase in popularity and availability of busses, there would be some decrease in cars, especially given Seoul's population growth being flat.
Also, you have to eliminate all those vehicles because we are attempting to find people driving who "should" be using public transportation. If someone has to drive because their work demands it or they are not conveniently serviced by public transport, then they should be driving. I really would like to see how they classified "single driver vehicles". |
thus you can only surmise regarding the two studies and so make the assumption which supports your view. Not very convincing.
As to your assertion that better public transportation has driven a decrease in driving, I'd counter that changes in auto taxation, rising prosperity, better roads and highways, new suburbs and the pride of car ownership would move the needle in the opposite direction.
Your mileage may vary.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
As to your assertion that better public transportation has driven a decrease in driving, I'd counter that changes in auto taxation, rising prosperity, better roads and highways, new suburbs and the pride of car ownership would move the needle in the opposite direction.
Your mileage may vary. |
Well you make a good point. I'd say that auto taxation and rising prosperity are probably not significant impacts because the taxes aren't deterring anyone from owning a car and I think prosperity has been somewhat stagnant in Korea. Better roads and highways might alleviate some of those conditions as well.
However, I really don't know what to make of the suburb factor. It could work either way. How many of those cars are people driving into town from a suburb? Surely a significant number. But how many drivers are just sticking to the suburbs only?
Also, I wonder what the numbers are on weekdays vs. weekends and how much it varies by neighborhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sister Ray
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Location: Fukuoka
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| But your militant attitude towards cars and drivers is unwarranted. |
Perhaps militancy is what is needed to counter idiot statements and prejudices like this pearl from Stan?
| Stan Rogers wrote: |
Besides public transportation is full of freaks and it smells bad. |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| As I said, most people have a good reason for driving. |
In Atlanta? Sure. Because the city provides no alternative. In Seoul. Absolutely disagree. Driving in Seoul is all too often about status and massaging one's ego.
Cars are undeniably convenient *sometimes*. However, the North American 1950s dream of one car for every family member over the age of 16 is just absolutely unsustainable. However, far too many cities in the US offer no other reasonable alternative to private vehicle ownership.
That's why I say the rise of the private motor vehicle was a huge mistake. It has forced terrible, inefficient design on New World cities in the form of suburban sprawl and locked our citizenry into a a mindset where they can't conceive of life without an automobile.
Free your mind and try to imagine a city not so wholly given over to the freedom of movement of large, four wheeled metal boxes. More emphasis put on enhancing place, less on optimising throughput. How does it look? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
As to your assertion that better public transportation has driven a decrease in driving, I'd counter that changes in auto taxation, rising prosperity, better roads and highways, new suburbs and the pride of car ownership would move the needle in the opposite direction.
Your mileage may vary. |
Well you make a good point. I'd say that auto taxation and rising prosperity are probably not significant impacts because the taxes aren't deterring anyone from owning a car and I think prosperity has been somewhat stagnant in Korea. Better roads and highways might alleviate some of those conditions as well.
However, I really don't know what to make of the suburb factor. It could work either way. How many of those cars are people driving into town from a suburb? Surely a significant number. But how many drivers are just sticking to the suburbs only?
Also, I wonder what the numbers are on weekdays vs. weekends and how much it varies by neighborhood. |
You're wrong on taxation. It's a very strong tool in Korea. The tax on autos used to be quite high, especially on a second car. That has changed and auto ownership has increased in kind.
Those that have in Korea have more. Some university students now drive. Families have two, even three cars. Having a car is part of being successful in Korea.
Your other questions don't address the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
In Atlanta? Sure. Because the city provides no alternative. In Seoul. Absolutely disagree. Driving in Seoul is all too often about status and massaging one's ego.
|
I disagree. As someone who owns a car, and knows other Korean people in Seoul who own cars, driving a car is about saving time, running errands, and going from point A to point B more quickly than public transportation allows for. Yeah you've got Mr. Sexarossa driving his Audi in Hongdae and Mr. Manager rolling in the Benz to make a point, but for every one of those, you've got 5 people in hatchbacks or Bongo trucks doing their business.
Now, laziness is a more valid point.
| Quote: |
| Cars are undeniably convenient *sometimes*. |
Well, I'd say frequently. If I have to go grab lunch in the middle of work. My work is not conveniently located near public transportation, despite being in Seoul. I'd waste 15 minutes each way by using public transport instead of driving. If I have to go buy groceries, its more convenient.
When I worked in a provincial area, it was more convenient for getting to the nearest big city as the bus travel time was nearly double because they used an indirect route with multiple stops. It also went on local roads and not the highway and often led to bouts of motion sickness. It was also more convenient to reach the other rural villages nearby.
| Quote: |
| However, the North American 1950s dream of one car for every family member over the age of 16 is just absolutely unsustainable. |
Only if energy is unsustainable. If renewable, clean energy is found, then it absolutely can be.
| Quote: |
| That's why I say the rise of the private motor vehicle was a huge mistake. It has forced terrible, inefficient design on New World cities in the form of suburban sprawl and locked our citizenry into a a mindset where they can't conceive of life without an automobile. |
Uhm, cities and such aren't created like Sim City. They usually begin as informal settlements with haphazard central planning and evolve over decades. Even as a formal government sets in, they can grow of their own accord. You can't just go in and bulldoze areas and such.
What exactly should have been done about the car? Outlaw it? You do realize that in large countries, such as the US and Canada, there are vast distances and low density populations for which the motor vehicle is a necessity. You need farmers and people working in those areas in order to enable your urban utopia that you dream of. Those people need cars.
As far as not conceiving of life without the automobile, again that has as much to do with family and transportation of goods as it does design.
You seem to only be able to conceive of this through the perspective of a single, able-bodied, city dweller, whose residence and work is conveniently located nearby public transportation and whose work does not require frequent movement during the day and the carrying of tools. That's a significant part of the population and you make a good point there, but you make sweeping condemnations about millions of people.
Your tune will change if your job changes to one where you have to go around during the day to random locations and involves carrying a laptop, blueprints, files, and material samples. Or perhaps if you have three kids and need to buy groceries for all of them. Or have to take grandpa and his wheelchair someone.
"Died of a theory". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
