Cul de Sacs Really Are Important
As an intro to his comment on China on IN THE NEWS – VOL I, Groveton said that the China problem “was slightly more important” than Cul de Sacs in Virginia. Well, China is important as the comments on IN THE NEWS – CHINA attest but so is the topic of Cul de Sacs.
The annals of Paleontology, Archeology, Zoology, Anthropology and Architecture are replete with evidence that animals, including Homo sapiens and their ancestors, favor cul de sacs – nests, borrows, caves, huts, pueblos – for many activities related to reproduction, eating, sleeping, safety and loafing.
Every human dwelling Unit is a combination of halls and cul de sacs. All Urban human settlement patterns – including scattered Urban dwellings in the Countryside – are combinations of cul de sacs and halls and Streets and Roads.
Almost every high value place of human activity of Cluster, Neighborhood or Village scale is a network of Streets with Cul de Sacs for people to live work and seek recreation. See Lewenz “How to Build a Village.”
On the other hand a GRID of Roads with a monoculture of Cul de Sac Units is little better than a “subdivision” of Cul de Sac mini-Roads for most economic, social and physical activities.
(NB: There is an important difference between Streets and Roads. These differences impact human activity at all scales of settlement form the Unit to the Planet. See GLOSSARY)
The PROBLEM with “sub”urban Cul de Sacs mini-Roads is that humans bring home their Large, Private Vehicles (aka, Autonomobiles).
Bringing home the Autonomobile results in three toxic conditions:
1. Disaggregation of human settlement patterns at both ends of the Autonomobile trip. Widespread use of Autonomobiles results in dysfunction at all scales of settlement patterns.
2. Having a Large, Private Vehicle gives humans the mistaken impression they need to share NOTHING with the adjacent Households or Enterprises. Social isolation and lack of critical mass to create economic prosperity are the cumulative results.
3. A large number of citizens having to rely on Large, Private Vehicles for Mobility and Access results in Regional transport dysfunction – The Mobility and Access Crisis.
The reliance on Large, Private Vehicles is made very clear in THE PROBLEM WITH CARS.
Virginia Cul de Sacs are a prime driver of The Mobility and Access Crisis, The Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis and The Helter Skelter Crisis – dysfunctional human settlement patterns. Virginia must evolve functional human settlement patterns soon because that is the most important and fastest step to shrink humans ecological footprint. For starters, functional settlement patterns allows citizens to drastically reduce importing and burning through Natural Capital. If citizens do not shrink their ecological footprint Collapse is on the horizon. So the Cul de Sac issue IS important.
There is no way to overestimate the impact of Cul de Sacs on the economic, social and physical disaggregation of society for the simple reason that lack of understanding of the impact of Cul de Sacs leads to activities that drive settlement pattern dysfunction.
EMR
Friday, March 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
http://www.thinkartificial.org/videos/anthill-metropolis-filled-with-cement-and-excavated-video/
Draw your own conclusion about the natural condition of pods and transportation .
RH
Do you have anything good to say about cars? Is tthee nothing we can do to improve how we integrate cars with our total transportation system, or airplanes for that matter?
Or do you just think we should rebuild everything in susch a way as to end their use?
RH
How would we pay the 10X cost of rail to Tysons with out al lthe cars on the DTR?
RH
is the reason why VDOT is opposed to cul-de-sacs... consistent with the reason why EMR opposes them?
Is there such a thing as a SMALL private car used to get someone to/from a large multi-passenger vehicle for home-to-work commuting?
Here's the basic issue for most folks.
Ideally , they'd like to get from exactly where they are right now to exactly where they want to be - exactly when they want to be there.
TRANSIT, on the other hand will not move you from where you are to where you want to be - when you want to be there.
The private car is personal mobility - the ultimate in freedom for most folks.
And this "freedom" is not merely a "feel good" nor a wanton consumption.
It can and does result in much more efficient and cost-effective - productivity.
goods & services provided where they are needed..when they are needed.. in the quantities that they are needed
is .. by definition - productivity.
EMR sees the invention that provides this highly valued capability as an evil foe to a sustainable civilization ...
.. which clearly borders on Ludditism because one could take virtually any modern technology and show.. the benefits to society as well as how wrong uses of it are not beneficial.
.. but we don't "ban" technology....
...at least most of us don't and even if we regret the advent of some technology because we know that there will be some misuse of it...but holding it back is thoroughly in finger-in-the-dike territory.
A small private vehicle that can travel 20 miles in 1/2 hour...and provide one with the personal mobility to go from the exact point A he wants to leave from to exactly the point B he needs to arrive at - at the exact time he wants to be there.
Would that be bad thing if done by bike?
by scooter?
by small car?
See.. EMR..apparently draws the line ... not at the private vehicle line... but at a certain size private vehicle and it begs the question.
If we used small vehicles for personal mobility and large shared vehicles for commuting... why is that ... not sustainable?
it's at this point in the dialog..that we start to see the emergence of pure, unadulterated dogma...
because clearly.. these are common-sense type questions that undo the phrase "large private vehicle" and start delving into ... vehicles ... small private vehicles... that integrate with large shared vehicles...
but in a dogmatic framework - this cannot be allowed.. apparently.. because if we allow for small private vehicles ...then some folks will inevitably "break" the rules... and so .. we just flat out - focus on the evils of large private vehicles .. rather than answer the question - begging to be answered... small private vehicles?
Ah yes, history is full of cul de sacs. Take the Oregon Trail. Masses of people using their Large Private Vehicles spread across the land, creating little hovels like Kearney, Casper, Laramie, Boise and Portland. Many others branched off to other cul de sacs, like Salt Lake City and San Francisco.
Then came Large Public Vehicles that were more efficient. They created places like Omaha or Denver, then added more congestion as other cul de sacs were built along the original trails. Only to be followed by I-80 and a host of other roads that opened the migration trail back to Large Private Vehicles.
I guess the whole mess started with two guys, Henry & Clement Studebaker. Their company's sleek prairie schooner phased out walking alongside the cumbersome Conestoga wagon and dominated the market for long distance commuters. H&C were the GM of their day, allowing thousands the freedom to take advantage of limitless opportunities. 160 years later, some still think only bipedalism can traverse the pathway to prosperity.
well.. don't confuse roads that everybody can use to get from point a to point b
to roads that dead-end in a subdivision that you can't use to get from point a to point b.
Virginia is but one of 5 states that uses everyone's gas tax money to maintain roads that not everybody can use to get from point a to point b and which really are.. an amenity for the subdivision residents.
If every single one of us lived ONLY in a subdivision and all the streets were maintained then we could justify a state level tax to do that.
The 46 other states say that if you live in a subdivision that your property taxes will be used to pay for the roads.
When you do it that way - there is a direct connection between the cost of maintaining the roads and your share of it.
Then when you lobby for improving that road or plowing it.. doing ditches.. curb and gutter.. you're lobbying to increase your own costs.
it's no longer "free".
and this is one reason why VDOT and the other 4 states that have their dots do subdivision roads - are basically out of money and really won't get anymore because.. every penny of your gas tax.. goes to pay for road maintenance.. of which subdivision roads comprise a significant percentage.
The State has made an initial attempt to deal with this by offering localities some incentives to take over their own roads - and allowed to charge a fee to maintain them.
Doing that would then free up money for VDOT to do more state roads ... more roads that do give people the ability to go from point a to point b.
as this plays out.. eventually each of us will get to decide if we want to start paying locally to maintain local roads ...or do we want to pay a higher gas tax to do it.
your basic problem is this:
you cannot build new roads for "free".
every new mile of road that you build...adds future annual maintenance costs...
the more roads you build..the more you'll have to pay...
the idea that you pay for roads one time is not the reality.
you pay for it - every year for as long as that road is around.
When VDOT runs outof money they will hae to make some choices. They could choose to do subdivisions last, meaning not at all.
Let the people who live there figure it out.
A lot of subdivisons already have private roads - but they are not built to state standards, either.
RH
EMR - Question for you. Were settlement patterns different (i.e., more functional) when the major source of transportation was horses? My understanding is that, in the days of horses & also carriages, many people had either private vehicles (carriages or wagons) or their equivalent -- horses. Of course, some did not.
If so, could you explain why? If not, could you explain why not? This not intended to be a trick question, but one designed to understand more about functional and dysfunctional living patterns from your perspective. I think I can anticipate your answer, but I'm not certain.
Thanks,
TMT
Now there is a road we shouldn't go down.
Tidewater is a cul de sac. Yet the gas tax money that is generated here goes to the Feds and state, to pay for someone else's roads or politically connected pet projects. Then when we need improvements to our local highways, we are supposed to cough up even more money to pay for them.
I've heard you voice this argument many times.
Seems to me that if VDOT should be only responsible for A/B roads, then it should not enjoy a state imposed windfall of gas tax money that rightly belongs to localities.
If VDOT is out of the picture, then take their hand out of our pockets.
Likewise, if the state owned ports place an unfair burden on localities, then any profits from deals like the one currently being discussed should directly support those localities. After all the port is nothing but another homeowner in the Tidewater subdivision.
But the fact that VDOT maintains local roads isn't the problem, it's an excuse. Every DOT in the nation is suffering from budget shortfalls because of a lack of accountable government, a concern that has been voiced on these blogs for years.
Here's what is missing.
do we know how much money HR/TW citizens generate each year in gasoline taxes?
do we know how much of it gets returned to HR/TW in the form of maintenance and new infrastructure?
I think until we know this, we'd not be able to say if VDOT "has their hands in your pocket" or not.
second -
if you think that VDOT actually does have their hands in your pocket - and you had a choice of which tax increase to support...would you:
1. support a statewide gas tax increase for VDOT to allocate
2. support a local or region-wide increase that VDOT would not allocate?
I suspect that HR/TW comes out ahead ..because of all the water ... bridges and tunnels are ungodly expensive compared to ordinary roads.
I think I saw a number of $100 per square foot for an ordinary two lane bridge.
and it must be true because we know some cost data about the replacement costs for the Jordan Bridge -right?
I know.. that this is a question that has no good answers if you don't trust VDOT and you also don't trust your local elected either but you're gonna be forced to choose I suspect.
as of now.. the vote has been no for local taxes and ... no way for state taxes.
At some point - ya'll are get presented with more Jordon Bridge proposals perhaps from VDOT.
but I've yet to see an accounting that shows how much of the gas tax revenues a locality actually ends up with along side how much they paid in gas taxes.
If you want to throw in the accounting for the Fed Gas tax.. following that money gets even more polluted..
so if I asked the TR/HR folks to provide two numbers - how much they paid in gas tax and how much they got back in dollar equivalent infrastructure - what would those numbers be?
I don't think 99 1/2 % of the folks in TR/HR know these numbers - not than anyone else in Va does either.
I know that I don't know these numbers for my county - and I have asked for them.
so.. no.. I could not tell you if VDOT has their hand in my pockets or not....
but I do know this.
I recently paid for 400 feet of one lane asphalt and dollar cost was breath-taking.
"But the fact that VDOT maintains local roads isn't the problem, it's an excuse. Every DOT in the nation is suffering from budget shortfalls because of a lack of accountable government, a concern that has been voiced on these blogs for years."
yes.. but not for local roads in 46 states - where the state DOT is not involved.
we send our taxes off to Richmond where a bunch of unelected folks make decisions on what to spend it on....with "local input" ... OF COURSE!
He's is what I suspect.
I suspect that there is a formula for secondary roads and that those funds are set aside for each locality and each locality gets to decide how to spend them.
Then VDOT gets the rest of it - to maintain State Primary Roads, Interstates.. and major bridges that connect Virginia.
What percent should they be getting?
Heckfire.. what percentage ARE THEY GETTING?
we're basically groping around in the dark here...
I can tell you how much money we get in the 6 year plan - but I haven't a clue how much in gasoline taxes.. titling and sales taxes.. and the 1/2% tax.
I sure wish Groveton would get on with it and do that website that is going to be a data vault... so we can.. "intelligently" discuss these issues.
we're basically groping around in the dark here...
Well of course we are. That's the way politicians like it. Back in 2002 then Gov. Warner had an audit done, and found VDOT to be a cluster f@#%. Was anything done? Nope. Even before then the GOBs were running their candidates on VDOT screwups. They won, we lost. How many JLARC reports were generated? How many ignored?
Yet here we are in 2009, debating the same issues that should have been taken care of a decade ago. Using the same amount of information we had then. ZERO.
I've been accused of being anti-tax for years now. I'm not. I am for sensible taxes. I would accept a regional tax earmarked for improved bus service for instance.
Instead what we have is a city by city allocation based upon the whims of politicians that don't trust HRT. Can't say I blame them because that agency has no accountability, much like so many other governmental entities.
Then there is the third crossing, a multibillion dollar project that spends all of our transportation money for decades, to allow more port trucks to jam the roads and open the farm land of N.Suffok to even more development. We spend all that money now and have nothing left for other more immediate projects.
Virginia is no different than any other state. Trust funds sound good in theory, but are really no safer than putting cash in a shoebox. Until VA citizens start taking control of their freewheeling politicians, there will be no end to backdoor deals at taxpayer expense.
recently paid for 400 feet of one lane asphalt and dollar cost was breath-taking.
So maybe VDOT management isn't so bad after all?
For reference, How much was it? I need a similar amount done.
RH
more than 4 and less than 8
TMT
Good question re horses! One can learn a great deal from man’s relationship with horses and houses relationship to settlement patterns over last 13.000 years. See “Learning From Horses” Chapter 13 Box 9. This material was expanded in PART THREE – THE PROBLEM WITH CARS. (The multi-column series on which this PART is based did not include material on horses.) The new material runs to 4 full pages and is thus too long to include here but you can get the essence from Chapter 13 Box 9 “The Carriageless Horse.”
Among the new information added is a review of recent transportation “research” that asks the question: “Are we better off with Autonomobiles than with horses?”
If you are interested, send me an email address and EMR will send you a version in WordPerfect of the section “Learning from Horses.”
Larry:
A lot of useful observations but you are still missing the overarching reality.
I only noticed one question that I have not answered before:
Is the reason VDOT is opposed to Cul de Sacs the same as EMR?
No. If VDOT had all the money in the world they would be very happy to plow non-through roads. Until they ran out of all the money in the world, they would continue to build more roadways in a vain attempt to convert the Large, Private Vehicle Mobility Myth into asphalt.
Most (but not all and EMR hears from them from time to time) VDOT staff are among the real true believers in the Large, Private Vehicle Mobility Myth.
Take another look at the three column series upon which THE PROBLEM WITH CARS is based. 11 and 25 Feb and 5 March 2008. That series also details what is right and useful about “cars.”
Darrell:
EMR is not sure where you were going down the Oregon Trail.
At the time the Oregon Trail was a primary ‘way West’ about 80 percent of the citizens in the US of A relied on agrarian pursuits for their likelihoods. (95 percent in 1800, 05 percent in 2000.) Almost all those on the Oregon Trail were planning to be farmers.
The key point is that those who drove a wagon on the Oregon Trail and then helped ‘settle’ places like Boise or Portland did not park their wagon on a 10 acre lot and feed their oxen and mules from the Village Southern States.
They sold their wagon and lived in an Urban Cul de Sac. They joined the children of farmers who left the farm as well as those who took a stage, a ship and after 1869 the train. They created Urban places where 85 percent of the population now live.
A place to drive and park a wagon has the same disaggregateing impact as driving and parking an Autonomobile. See note above to TMT.
What has always impressed EMR about the Oregon Trail is that one can still see the tracks that those wagons made in Wyoming and Idaho.
EMR
"...one can still see the tracks that those wagons made in Wyoming and Idaho."
indeed you can!
and talk about your large private vehicles - conestoga wagons!
I think EMR is correct about VDOT, The only reason they care about cul-de-sacs is that they are out of money and need to shed costly practices.
More than any other feature unique to suburbia - I think cul-de-sacs DEFINE what people want.... security or the perception of security - cul-de-sacs very much put a focus on "drive-through" folks up to no good.
they can get away with such skulking around on grid streets but cul-de-sacs put them at a disadvantage.
I note that in the urban areas that each apartment building can become it's own kind of cul-de-sac.. with limited entrances.. and "eyes" either a human door person or cameras.
and what makes people fell unsafe.. if the idea that anyone including those with less than pure motives can get pretty darn close to where you live - perfectly legally - whereas in a cul-de-sac.. there are "eyes" and no easy way to "pass through" and case the place.
It would be interesting to see some crime statistics relative to cul-de-sac locations.
Each cul-de-sac is essentially a little pod where neighbors look out for each other...
not an easily dismissed perception.
On buying car in Cuba:
"When the pipe that carried the subsidy from the Kremlin to here collapsed, the distribution of appliances and cars based on merit ended. It began to work in another way, with money as the medium of exchange to get a vehicle. However, a selective filter was maintained to get the right to buy one of the newcomers, such as a Citroen, Peugeot or Mitsubishi. The old cars acquired before 1959 can be sold, but transferring ownership of the cars obtained for labor or ideological qualities is prohibited. The regulations ended up stipulating that what was acquired in those years of “Real Socialism” is only half owned, non-transferable and easily confiscated.......no Cuban can order and buy a car simply by having the money; they must have a letter of authorization in advance, which takes years of paperwork. The process includes an exhaustive investigation into the origins of the funds, along with verification of the ideological purity of the buyer. "
Yoni Sanchez, Cuba
----------------------------
You must acquire the right to buy a car from the government, through some kind of meritorious service, but then you still have to buy the car on whatever passes for an open market in Cuba.
Would some plan like this relieve EMRs angst over the use of cars?
RH
"What percent should they be getting?
Heckfire.. what percentage ARE THEY GETTING?"
Sounds like a question of ownership and the right to ownership. maybe we should contact cuba and tap into their expertise.
RH
"Two decades ago, the chances of becoming the victim of a violent crime in Fairfax and Montgomery were just about equal.
That's no longer true.
Although the counties share a reputation for top-notch public schools, high family incomes and peaceful suburban cul-de-sacs, the violent crime rate in Montgomery is now more than twice as high as it is in Fairfax."
Maybe here is something else at work, or maybe Montgomery has been more successful with its cut-through regulations.
RH
"This paper from Blakely and Snyder "Separate places: Crime and security in gated
communities" (1998) - pdf suggests that gating / barricading neighborhoods uniformly brings a perception of increased safety, but appears to have slight or no actual reduction of crime.
A 2005 case study Evaluation of Traffic Barricade Impact on Crime in Pendleton: Cincinnati, Ohio (2005) - pdf is a pretty intensive look at one particular street closing. It states no neighborhood-wide reduction in crime that could be attributed to the barricade; while crime and drug activity on that block were reduced, an accompanying increase was seen on the next block parallel..
A paper from the Problem-Oriented Policing Center, Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go Down This Road? (2005) includes a discussion of about a dozen case studies, noting that street closings seem to generally reduce crime, and often with little to no displacement, though typically other measures were undertaken at the same time that may have been responsible for the effects. "
Found on a blog
RH
"TOPIC: Cul-de-sacs, less exposure means additional security
QUESTION: Are people living on cul-de-sacs less or more likely to be victimized?
ANSWER: Less likely.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The chances of your home being burglarized on a cul-de-sac are lower for several reason. First, access is limited to only one entrance, so a stranger walking in the immediate neighborhood will seem out of place to the neighbors. Second, people who live on cul-de-sacs tend to watch out for one another because their houses face one another. This makes it easier to spot strangers in the neighborhood. Strangers are more noticable in this environment because they are not as common here as they are in neighborhoods that are well-traveled."
Safety and Security Magazine
RH
Inevitably the discuassion of street design and security has turned into an "us vs them" debate with each side spouting statistics averse to the other side.
No one is looking for the "best" answer,,,,,
"An increasingly animated debate is taking place between two schools of thought on how
to design cities to minimise crime. The points at issue are aptly summarised by (Town
& O'Toole 2005) in a table of six points where the `new urbanist' position, as set out by
Zelinka & Brennan in their 2001 book `Safescape', is contrasted to the `defensible space'
position, originating in Oscar Newman's 1972 book `Defensible Space' (Newman 1972).
On some of the issues, for example the dangers of rear or courtyard parking, or the risks
introduced by footpaths and alleys, there is good recent evidence (including from space
syntax studies) that the critics of New Urbanism are right. But on the main strategic
issues of grid versus tree-like layouts, public versus private space, developmental scale,
permeability, mixed use and residential density evidence of the appropriate precision is
sporadic and inconclusive"
High Resolution Analysis of Crime Patterns in Urban Street Networks: an
initial statistical sketch from an ongoing study of a London borough
Bill Hillier and Ozlem Sahbaz
University College London, UK.
http://www.spacesyntax.tudelft.nl/media/Long%20papers%20I/hilliersahbaz.pdf
RH
perception has ZIP to do with reality to those that have fears.
People fear living in cities.
they triple-lock their apartments.. they have locked entrances guarded by doormen..cameras...and patrolling police....
When you asked a women if she wants to bring up children in that kind of an environment - she opt for the suburb everytime... regardless of the statistics...
Most of the "crime" in suburbs is by people you know... domestic violence is a biggie..
but crime in the cities is often done by strangers..
so a cul-de-sac in he suburbs is much like an enclave with a moat around it with one entrance... that can be monitored for people that are not recognized and have no business there.
In a city, you can have people standing around right outside where you live.. people you don't know who may well be a threat to you or your kids.
urban schools are even worse nightmares for many.. many urban schools use metal detectors and guards to keep order and keep the bad guys at bay.
even folks who have chosen to live in urban areas ...know.. not be at certain locations after dark...
cul-de-sacs are for many folks - close to the ultimate in security for the common man better only by a gated community.
I happen to know a fella who lives in a gated community and he locks ALL of his doors even when he is home..with 3 dogs inside... and he told me solemnly one day when I asked about "crime" that they have a chronic problem with "burglaries" that they "think" are done either by service folks or the sons/daughters of other residents.
think about this fellows attitude and think about selling him on the concept of living cheek by jowl next to a whole bunch of other folks of all stripes and colors and you realize that you can say "balanced community" to him in 72 different languages and it won't make one iota of difference in his perception.
And... his wife is even worse.
I went to the Wright Brothers Anniversary a couple years back where they collected everyone's pocket knife...
something I was particularly unhappy about until the women in the group were polled and to the last one they said that that kind of security made them feel "safer".
so.. EMR has a steep uphill "selling" places ...that have "balance" but perceived as not safe.
A suburb usually does not have an officer patrolling in front of your house... but in an urban area - a lack of a regular police patrol is not a good thing.
One thing we learn form horses is that they take a LOT of space, relative to cars.
RH
I think Larry is right. Perception has zip to do with reality.
So why is it that the design folks on both sides of this issue seem to be trying to CHANGE or REINFORCE our perceptions?
My suggestion? Follow the money.
RH
On the safety issue, be sure to Google
Lucy death at the hands of strangers
Recent VA data
Higher density areas (Arlington) much safer than lower density areas inspite of space, distance, Cul de Sacs.
"Higher density areas (Arlington) much safer than lower density areas inspite of space, distance, Cul de Sacs."
Is that safer per area or safer per capita?
If you read the paper "high resolution analysis" listed above it suggests that it isn't one or another. For example Arlington may have some dead end streets that are less safe than other places, or it may have some walking paths that are cut throughs that are less safe.
The problem is to find out what is dangerous, not to promote one general type of development over another.
RH
Safety - the perception - is a potent force that works against "functional settlement patterns"
The chances of being "mugged" in a subdivision cul-de-sac compared to the chances of being "mugged" in a "functional settlement pattern" are ...at the least... PERCEIVED to be infinitesimally tiny...
some savy veteran city/urban dwellers might consider such a thing to be equivalent to getting a traffic ticket but many folks - especially those who either grew up in rural or suburban areas are traumatized by that experience.
I would imagine even EMR.. would find such an experience to produce a visceral response.
Things like hearing gunshots.... screams... and rapes and murders within earshot also tend to rattle hose with more fragile constitutions.
It can be the most super-efficient settlement pattern every built but if people feel threatened.. it's gonna be a ghost town at night.
I was mugged in a typical small town environment Ocean Park, in Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts if anyone knows it. near the Ferry Terminal, broad daylight, lunchtime.
The attack lasted 20 seconds and I was sore for two weeks. From that I learned the value of surprise and numbers. You are right, I raged internally for several days until I found out who they were and wer later caught.
It is traumatizing. You blame yourself for not being observant, allowing yourself to be vulnerable, you want revenge, you feel violated, and then you get around to resignation and acceptance.
The next time someone tried, was in Georgetown, Wisconsin Ave., but I saw him coming out of a doorway out of the corner of my eye or a reflection, kicked him in the ribs, and split before he got up.
I always hoped he wasn't just a panhandler, but if he was he probbly won't approach someone fast from the side again.
In both cases there were people nearby, but not close enough to help or identify - even if they were willing and observant. It is hard to realize how fast it happens: I got in a lucky blow the second time, and I was young.
If the same thng happened today, I'd be a victim.
Even if you carry a gun, this sort of attack is over before you know what happened, let alone react. We aren't accustomed to, or looking for, the vicious predator attack, as say a rabbit is. You might get it out and hit them in the back when they are running away, if you can hit a moving target with severely bruised ribs, and shaking hands.
I think the most common form of "mugger" is the purposely aggressive driver. Not just the usual oblivious tailgater or lane changer, but the ones that are truly vicious and consistent about it.
RH
and the moral of that story is that muggers need an enabling environment and suburbs and cul-de-sacs are not particularly well-suited for such activities since you can be spotted as you approach - and there is little way for someone to approach - at least during the day without be assured that someone behind a window has seen you and is already on the phone.
And most important ...and most ironic...
since the suburbs are a car-centric settlement pattern - bad guys on foot without a car are relatively easy to spot and be apprehended.
Burglaries in the suburbs are usually not random exploitation of the nearest handy victim...
..but in more urbanized areas ... that usually the mode of attack...
you happen along..blundering into danger usually without a clue (unless you've been mugged before) ... and the bad guy as the element of surprise.. and since it is familiar territory to him usually.. a easy way to escape.
There are all sorts of ideas and suggestions as to how to deal with this kind of crime in urbanized areas... some of it.. basically advise to be aware of your surroundings and don't wander into areas where there are not others like yourself.. and be extra careful at night.
This drives the moms who LIKE post-911 "security" that "locks down" things like airports... towards suburbia and cul-de-sacs.
RH mentions he was a young guy when he fended off a mugger.
Imagine yourself he physical size of most females with one or two children in tow...
it's a no go...
further.. a car is yet another level of protection.
Ever been at a traffic signal and had some guys walk up to you while you waited for the signal offering you a quick wash and wipe down?
I have and the folks in front of me.. ran the light...
EMR sells a "balanced community" where there are no criminals waiting in doorways but the average person's PERCEPTION is otherwise.
I don't think suburbia is as much about the car and autoNObility than it is about safety.
A car buys you security as you travel.. allows you to get to where you are going without having to be exposed to the bad guys....
the outer suburbs are what happens in the inner suburbs fill up and demand drives the price up.
so.. folks who want the perceive relative safety of the suburb cul-de-sac... just drive til they qualify.
Notice that I'm using the word - perception to acknowledge that some of this is more perception than reality.
For instance, violent crime on a per capita basis seems to high in some suburbs... but I still wonder if such crime in the suburbs is in large part - domestic where the victims know their attackers.
I know in our area - I think we had ONE burglary - and after that a neighborhood watch was formed and now.. unknown and unfamiliar vehicles rarely show up and linger.. and if the neighbors see a strange vehicle in someone's driveway.. inquiries are made.
I think in most urban areas, this is accomplished with locked doors... security guards and buzzer systems....but once you out onto the streets.. the guys who hide in the doorways are watching and waiting..
"Ever been at a traffic signal and had some guys walk up to you while you waited for the signal offering you a quick wash and wipe down?"
I was sitting at a traffic light and had a very threatening and spacy looking dude lean in the window and ask me why white guys come to his neighborhood to steal the women.
After that, air conditioning and trip routing became safety items.
-------------------------
I never actaully KNEW if the second story was a mugger or a panhandler, and I felt bad about it later, but at the time, after the first round, I wasn't taking any chances, and the reaction was remarkably automatic.
RH
"and if the neighbors see a strange vehicle in someone's driveway.. inquiries are made."
I accosted a stranger lurking in a car one night - and it turned out ot be the neighborhood watch. Oops. I didbn't even know we had one.
Now I have a huge dog -- who never met an ntruder she didn't like.
-------------------------
A lot of stuff is about perception. That's why the scientist in me wants some way to measure.
RH
yup. PERCEPTION is why the credit markets are locked...
the costs of suburban subdivision roads -
On our BOS agenda.. approval for a PH so that 78 property owners in a subdivision and the county can agree to each of them paying 10K to have their subdivision road -paved and accepted into the State System.
they can either pay cash or spread it out over 20 years.
but here's the point - it will cost them the equivalent of $400 a year to have their roads and most folks pay about $200 a year in gas taxes.
Now you know why VDOT is broke.
and we also know that if we talk about gas tax increases that much of it will go for new subdivision roads.
Va is one of but 5 states where the gas tax pays for subdivision roads.
In the other 46 states, local real estate taxes pay for subdivision roads.
and thus.. local folks get to decide how much tax they want to pay verse how much road they want... and also are much more sensitive to who pays for new roads associated with new development.
We are at that point now in Va as VDOT is broke and on the table is whether or not we are going to have a gas tax increase and if so..whether it will be at the state level or the local level.
So... all those cul-de-sacs are not free.. not even cheap.. very expensive in fact...
and if you divide up the costs of a cul-de-sac 4 ways verses 40 ways..(for an apartment "cul-de-sac" it's a huge difference because whether it's 4 people or 40 - each of them contributes to the gas tax proportional to their driving..not their parking.
Yeah, well, maybe you or EMR would like to comment on what that REALLY means when you have a shared house or apartment, as in this article.
http://www.slate.com/id/2212784/
RH
Post a Comment