Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Roger Hicks -- Author of The Rangefinder Book

Roger Hicks -- Author of The Rangefinder Book

Roger Hicks is a well known photographic writer, author of The Rangefinder Book, over three dozen other photographic books, and a frequent contributor to Shutterbug and Amateur Photographer. Unusually in today's photographic world, most of his camera reviews are film cameras, especially rangefinders. See www.rogerandfrances.com for further background (Frances is his wife Frances Schultz, acknowledged darkroom addict and fellow Shutterbug contributor) .


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #41
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 59
Posts: 19,441
Instead of making cars go slower, how about making bicycles go faster? Put a motor in them and call them ... motorcycles.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Back to the future?
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #42
Tim Murphy
Registered User
 
Tim Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 131
Back to the future?

Dear Roger,

Personally I think the bigger issue, at least here in the US, is land use.

I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia. When I was very young, and up until I graduated HS and moved on to college, there were still active working farms in my hometown. That said, I could walk into the Philadelphia city limit within 20 minutes.

Since that time virtually every square inch of my hometown has been either built upon or paved. The physical dimensions of the city of Philadelphia haven't changed in those 50 years but the population has decreased by almost half. Meanwhile the suburbs have seen population increases of nearly 100%.

Commuting times have increased greatly over the years but that is due in the most part to the fact that people no longer seem to be willing to live near where they work? In many cases that is because they do not make enough money to be able to afford to live close to work.

When people making $ 100,000.00 a year cannot afford to live within walking distance of their work it's a huge problem. That may be because of income or it may be because of community and quality of live issues but either way it's a huge problem.

Around Philadelphia that problem was solved by bulldozing forests and cornfields and repurposing them with subdivisions full of cookie cutter $ 300,000.00 houses.

Cities get emptier, uglier, and more expensive to live in and former nice peaceful places become the equivalent of new cities even if they have bucolic names like "Windswept Acres."

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to change that, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing from anyone who does?

Regards,

Tim Murphy
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #43
radi(c)al_cam
Registered User
 
radi(c)al_cam's Avatar
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
Now I see the problem. I use "terror", "terrorize" as it was always used in the German language before some folks in politics and media tried to give these words a very specific meaning.

When a guy leaves the house every day at 6 in the morning and he says goodby to the wife by using the horn every day, he terrorizes the whole neighborhood. So it could be used for describing repeated and extremely annoying behavior and not necessarily for violence.

Even today if I use the word terrorize, everyone around me knows what I mean and no one thinks about some crazy islamic killers.

Btw: my definition for something I don't understand is art...


Sorry, that's utter nonsense; or «vernacular», to be very polite.

Factual is, the German language adopted the words in question in the 18th century, and already then they meant quite the same as today: It was and is a political term.

cf.: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror
__________________
bump for this scarce item:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot.../21207/cat/500

Cheerio from the Austrian Alps,
Alexander

A platoon of breech-block is a cock.
(evilB item 120540033981)
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #44
hap
Registered User
 
hap is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
We'll all be in autonomous vehicles before too long, and road accidents will be uncommon...
Ha.....but not lawsuits
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #45
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
Now I see the problem. I use "terror", "terrorize" as it was always used in the German language before some folks in politics and media tried to give these words a very specific meaning.

When a guy leaves the house every day at 6 in the morning and he says goodby to the wife by using the horn every day, he terrorizes the whole neighborhood. So it could be used for describing repeated and extremely annoying behavior and not necessarily for violence.

Even today if I use the word terrorize, everyone around me knows what I mean and no one thinks about some crazy islamic killers.

Btw: my definition for something I don't understand is art...
Ah: sorry. I wish my German were as good as your English. Or indeed any good at all.

Mit freundlich Grueßen,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #46
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Murphy View Post
Dear Roger,

Personally I think the bigger issue, at least here in the US, is land use.

I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia. When I was very young, and up until I graduated HS and moved on to college, there were still active working farms in my hometown. That said, I could walk into the Philadelphia city limit within 20 minutes.

Since that time virtually every square inch of my hometown has been either built upon or paved. The physical dimensions of the city of Philadelphia haven't changed in those 50 years but the population has decreased by almost half. Meanwhile the suburbs have seen population increases of nearly 100%.

Commuting times have increased greatly over the years but that is due in the most part to the fact that people no longer seem to be willing to live near where they work? In many cases that is because they do not make enough money to be able to afford to live close to work.

When people making $ 100,000.00 a year cannot afford to live within walking distance of their work it's a huge problem. That may be because of income or it may be because of community and quality of live issues but either way it's a huge problem.

Around Philadelphia that problem was solved by bulldozing forests and cornfields and repurposing them with subdivisions full of cookie cutter $ 300,000.00 houses.

Cities get emptier, uglier, and more expensive to live in and former nice peaceful places become the equivalent of new cities even if they have bucolic names like "Windswept Acres."

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to change that, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing from anyone who does?

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Dear Tim,

Well, yes, I was more interested in getting people to think about such issues than in imposing a 12 mph limit tomorrow.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #47
radi(c)al_cam
Registered User
 
radi(c)al_cam's Avatar
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Ah: sorry. I wish my German were as good as your English. Or indeed any good at all.
I must disagree, dear Roger.

Tom's «vernacular» usage of «Terror», «Terrorismus», «terrorisieren» etc. is political, too: it's a very dangerous belittlement of the true meaning.

Not unlike when some German native speakers — certain goody-two-shoes in particular — call a chicken farming a «Hühner-KZ». Again, a very dangerous (and also politically shocking) belittlement what a KZ really was: a place where people were murdered under horrible circumstances.
  Reply With Quote

Whooooooooo-hooooooooooo!
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #48
Tim Murphy
Registered User
 
Tim Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 131
Whooooooooo-hooooooooooo!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Tim,

Well, yes, I was more interested in getting people to think about such issues than in imposing a 12 mph limit tomorrow.

Cheers,

R.
Dear Roger,

I can't believe it, I guessed correctly!

Seriously though, land use is a real pet peeve of mine. It took until I left the Philadelphia suburbs and moved to upstate NY. There I learned what rural people always knew, land only has value as land. Once it's built upon it's worthless.

Meanwhile the bulldozers are running and the houses further out in the country away from the nasty cities where Americans are forced to work are still being slapped up quickly. Only now they cost $ 500,000.00.

Such a waste.

I'll go on record and admit that I'm one of the people I complain about. I live 10 miles from Harrisburg proper and though I share the town name in my mailing address I enjoy sharing my yard with bears and deer far more than I'd ever enjoy living in town.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #49
radiocemetery
Registered User
 
radiocemetery's Avatar
 
radiocemetery is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: central Illinois on the prairie
Posts: 381
Well no. I wouldn't favor even more regulations and more loss of freedom.

Steve
__________________
FUBAR Leica IIIb
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #50
zauhar
Registered User
 
zauhar's Avatar
 
zauhar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Murphy View Post
Dear Roger,

Personally I think the bigger issue, at least here in the US, is land use.

I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia. When I was very young, and up until I graduated HS and moved on to college, there were still active working farms in my hometown. That said, I could walk into the Philadelphia city limit within 20 minutes.

Since that time virtually every square inch of my hometown has been either built upon or paved. The physical dimensions of the city of Philadelphia haven't changed in those 50 years but the population has decreased by almost half. Meanwhile the suburbs have seen population increases of nearly 100%.

Commuting times have increased greatly over the years but that is due in the most part to the fact that people no longer seem to be willing to live near where they work? In many cases that is because they do not make enough money to be able to afford to live close to work.

When people making $ 100,000.00 a year cannot afford to live within walking distance of their work it's a huge problem. That may be because of income or it may be because of community and quality of live issues but either way it's a huge problem.

Around Philadelphia that problem was solved by bulldozing forests and cornfields and repurposing them with subdivisions full of cookie cutter $ 300,000.00 houses.

Cities get emptier, uglier, and more expensive to live in and former nice peaceful places become the equivalent of new cities even if they have bucolic names like "Windswept Acres."

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to change that, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing from anyone who does?

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Hi Tim,

I guess you missed all those decades when the 'inner city' was about the cheapest place you could live. In fact, it is my distinct impression that white people flocked to the suburbs not because life in the city was so terribly expensive, but because they were sold on an image of a shiny new plywood house with no black people in sight. Only in the last decade has my neighborhood been gentrified - so yeah, now it has become expensive to buy a house here.

Roger , glad to see that you continue to stir things up with provocative eco-terror ideas! In the words of Thoreau, 'why must man go thirty miles an hour?'

Randy
__________________
Philadelphia, PA
Leica M3/50mm DR Summicron/21mm SuperAngulon/
90mm Elmarit
Canon 7/50mm f1.4
Leica IIIf/Summitar/Collapsible Summicron
Yashica Electro 35
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #51
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 691
It was interesting riding a motorbike on holiday in Bhutan, Roger, which has up to 20 kmh speed limits in towns and 50 kmh on the open road. In the context of their roads which were bumpy, hilly and crowded, it didn't seem a problem to travel so slowly. In fact, on a 350 Royal Enfield it was difficult to go any faster uphill. They had three things making going slower more pleasant in this Buddhist kingdom than here in Australia: a more forgiving attitude to other human and animal road users, slower types of vehicles on the road and shorter distances to the next town. Of the three I think culture is the biggest barrier to lower speeds being acceptable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #52
radi(c)al_cam
Registered User
 
radi(c)al_cam's Avatar
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by zauhar View Post
I guess you missed all those decades when the 'inner city' was about the cheapest place you could live. In fact, it is my distinct impression that white people flocked to the suburbs not because life in the city was so terribly expensive, but because they were sold on an image of a shiny new plywood house with no black people in sight. Only in the last decade has my neighborhood been gentrified - so yeah, now it has become expensive to buy a house here.

Roger , glad to see that you continue to stir things up with provocative eco-terror ideas! In the words of Thoreau, 'why must man go thirty miles an hour?'
Thank you, dear Randy, for this account.

Of course, it's much more lucrative for the construction companies to build cardboard — er, «plywood» or «plasterboard» — dwellings, than to renovate good old brick buildings.

Didn't someone mention «freedom»? Well, it's the economic «freedom» of the companies that counts, not any health, or ecology, or any similar concerns
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #53
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 55
Posts: 2,249
My main route between work in East New York Brooklyn and home in Rockaway is Cross Bay Boulevard.
For much of its length it's four lanes plus safety zones and a median, and the speed limit is 40 mph.

We had several inches of snow before I left work on Saturday morning, and it had not yet been plowed.
Even with my new all-season tires I felt safe driving only at about 20 mph, as I tried to find the tracks made by cars before me.
However many of my fellow motorists insisted on passing me, including some harrowing near-misses!

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #54
radi(c)al_cam
Registered User
 
radi(c)al_cam's Avatar
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPlatt View Post
My main route between work in East New York Brooklyn and home in Rockaway is Cross Bay Boulevard.
For much of its length it's four lanes plus safety zones and a median, and the speed limit is 40 mph.

We had several inches of snow before I left work on Saturday morning, and it had not yet been plowed.
Even with my new all-season tires I felt safe driving only at about 20 mph, as I tried to find the tracks made by cars before me.
However many of my fellow motorists insisted on passing me, including some harrowing near-misses!

Well, dear Chris,
your fellow citizen might have been obsessed that you're some «terrorist», working against their individual «pursuit of happiness», and that you're definitely responsible for «more loss of freedom», and hence they had to flee that dangerous scene, and so forth
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #55
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolves3012 View Post
Really Roger? Set the automobile back 120 years?
"Back" goes by the assumption that the future is somehow faster, bigger, louder and heavier. Which was the concept of the industrial revolution - but that was two hundred years ago. If robotics eliminate the need for machine-amplified human labour, we will need different aims...
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #56
faberryman
Registered User
 
faberryman is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Nashville, TN USA
Age: 61
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew.saunders View Post
Since private car ownership will likely eventually become as common as private horse ownership, most robocars will be summoned per trip from a fleet owned by a rental company, so most will be electric, and a few will be hybrid electric, and a very small number might be all dead-dinosaur-fueled. If you need to go 30km, enter that info into your app, and a car with at least 50km of range will show up to take you, then go off to the next user. Since most trips are short, electric cars will be cheaper for the fleet owners to own and maintain.
My car is 20 years old and fully depreciated. I drive less than 5000 miles/year. I can get to the grocery and back in less time than it takes for Uber to show up. Give up my car? Not likely. Nobody likes waiting around.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #57
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,903
If you want to stop accidents, coordinate the posted speed limits with the light sequencing.

The traffic schools calls what we now do traffic calming. Ha. All it does is make people made and they try to beat the next light which they can not do without really excessive speeding. So they all jack rabbit from one light to the next.

you can do it, but all streets in an area have to have the same speed limit including cross streets. Chicago used to do it. Now they figured traffic is a source of revenue. I no longer drive in Chicago. No longer visit much now that there is but 1 camera store.
Train ticket is cheaper than just parking fees.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #58
nasmformyzombie
Registered
 
nasmformyzombie is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ~47.6° N, 122.3° W
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zauhar View Post
I guess you missed all those decades when the 'inner city' was about the cheapest place you could live. In fact, it is my distinct impression that white people flocked to the suburbs not because life in the city was so terribly expensive, but because they were sold on an image of a shiny new plywood house with no black people in sight...
Randy
The US experienced massive social upheaval in the 1960s. Many US cities experienced race-related riots and burnings in the 'inner city.' Those with the economic means to flee to the suburbs (granted mostly white folks) left the chaos and disorder for a safer environment. No selling or marketing was required.

In the late 1980's in some of these same inner city areas young urban professionals began moving back into the city centers, rehabbing housing. In some cases, this movement back to the cities has displaced minority residents. A brief recap of so-called 'white flight' is here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...d-well/399980/

If you want to contend that the US is still a mostly segregated society, it is.

Lastly, since 1987 I've been a white urban dweller except for a period of approximately two years.
__________________
It is during our darkest moments that we must focus to see the light.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #59
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcfingon View Post
. . . Of the three I think culture is the biggest barrier to lower speeds being acceptable.
I am sure you are right. Those who imagined that I was proposing a 12 mph speed limit to be introduced tomorrow are presumably those who are least able to imagine any culture other than their own.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #60
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
I must disagree, dear Roger.

Tom's «vernacular» usage of «Terror», «Terrorismus», «terrorisieren» etc. is political, too: it's a very dangerous belittlement of the true meaning.

Not unlike when some German native speakers — certain goody-two-shoes in particular — call a chicken farming a «Hühner-KZ». Again, a very dangerous (and also politically shocking) belittlement what a KZ really was: a place where people were murdered under horrible circumstances.
OK: that makes perfect sense. It's like those who talk about "murdering" animals for food. By all means raise moral and practical objections to meat eating. Just don't tip over into hysteria.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #61
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
Well, dear Chris,
your fellow citizen might have been obsessed that you're some «terrorist», working against their individual «pursuit of happiness», and that you're definitely responsible for «more loss of freedom», and hence they had to flee that dangerous scene, and so forth
Ah, but happiness must be pursued AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. And damn anyone who gets in the way! Or stops to think.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #62
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevo View Post
"Back" goes by the assumption that the future is somehow faster, bigger, louder and heavier. Which was the concept of the industrial revolution - but that was two hundred years ago. If robotics eliminate the need for machine-amplified human labour, we will need different aims...
Exactly. But many are unable even to begin to think about how the future might look. Or indeed, in some cases, to begin to think about anything much.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #63
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
My car is 20 years old and fully depreciated. I drive less than 5000 miles/year. I can get to the grocery and back in less time than it takes for Uber to show up. Give up my car? Not likely. Nobody likes waiting around.
Indeed. Hence the last paragraph in what I wrote. "...the current model of consumerism, predicated upon perpetual growth, is even more demonstrably infeasible in the long run. As (probably) is banning private vehicles altogether: ask anyone who lives in the country, rather than in a city."

But all too many people cannot be bothered to read what others write: they read only what they think the other person should have written, in order to satisfy the reader's prejudice. The inability of those same readers to concentrate makes things worse.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #64
faberryman
Registered User
 
faberryman is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Nashville, TN USA
Age: 61
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Indeed. Hence the last paragraph in what I wrote. "...the current model of consumerism, predicated upon perpetual growth, is even more demonstrably infeasible in the long run. As (probably) is banning private vehicles altogether: ask anyone who lives in the country, rather than in a city."

But all too many people cannot be bothered to read what others write: they read only what they think the other person should have written, in order to satisfy the reader's prejudice. The inability of those same readers to concentrate makes things worse.
I was responding to drew.saunders post, which is why I quoted it, not to your article.

But all too many people cannot be bothered to read what others write: they read only what they think the other person should have written, in order to satisfy the reader's prejudice. The inability of those same readers to concentrate makes things worse.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #65
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
I was responding to drew.saunders post, which is why I quoted it, not to your article.

But all too many people cannot be bothered to read what others write: they read only what they think the other person should have written, in order to satisfy the reader's prejudice. The inability of those same readers to concentrate makes things worse.
Um... Yes. But I was agreeing with you ("Nobody likes waiting around"), and therefore quoted from my original article as evidence of the fact.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #66
Bob Ross
Registered User
 
Bob Ross's Avatar
 
Bob Ross is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 245
In reading through these pages, I thought it interesting that Roger's OP didn't frame where the speed limit would be implemented. The "jump to" destination was the automobile on public roads. It sounded perfectly fine to me on a golf course.......:-)
Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #67
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Ross View Post
In reading through these pages, I thought it interesting that Roger's OP didn't frame where the speed limit would be implemented. The "jump to" destination was the automobile on public roads. It sounded perfectly fine to me on a golf course.......:-)
Bob
Dear Bob,

It did, actually: second paragraph, first line. "What if there were a 12 mph universal speed limit? Not just in London, but nationally? Or indeed, across Europe?"

Do I believe that we need (or even will have) a 12 MPH Europe-wide speed limit? Hardly. Do I believe that the current model is sustainable? If anything, that's even less likely. I deliberately presented an extreme case, because actually. my extreme case makes about as much sense as what we have at the moment.

Anyone who wants to drive at 12 mph on a golf course may be missing the purpose of golf.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #68
Bob Ross
Registered User
 
Bob Ross's Avatar
 
Bob Ross is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Bob,

It did, actually: second paragraph, first line. "What if there were a 12 mph universal speed limit? Not just in London, but nationally? Or indeed, across Europe?"

Do I believe that we need (or even will have) a 12 MPH Europe-wide speed limit? Hardly. Do I believe that the current model is sustainable? If anything, that's even less likely. I deliberately presented an extreme case, because actually. my extreme case makes about as much sense as what we have at the moment.

Anyone who wants to drive at 12 mph on a golf course may be missing the purpose of golf.

Cheers,

R.
The purpose of golf.......mmmmm, I'll have to think about that....
The future was shown to me yesterday when my 16 year old grand daughter announced that she could text with her iPhone, a whole paragraph without errors and without looking. I can see a future auto with no manual controls (steering wheel...brake pedal..),just a smartphone link and in that future on the road with my grand daughter, 12 mph sounds near sane.....:-)
Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #69
drew.saunders
Registered User
 
drew.saunders is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
My car is 20 years old and fully depreciated. I drive less than 5000 miles/year. I can get to the grocery and back in less time than it takes for Uber to show up. Give up my car? Not likely. Nobody likes waiting around.
My car is 20 years old as well, fully depreciated, and I drive about 3,000 miles per year, but I'd happily wait 2-5 minutes for an autonomous vehicle to show up, take me where I want to go, and then go away (and not have to pay for insurance, oil changes, gas, etc.). The robocar that just dropped off your neighbor can "rest" in your neighborhood waiting for the next user, which an Uber car with a human driver can't do, so 2-5 minutes might not be all that unrealistic, depending on your population density and neighborhood traffic patterns.

Wouldn't you like to get that garage space back to fit a darkroom and/or lots more cameras (to keep somewhat on topic to the RFF)? More likely, you could just use it for storage, but getting that much space back should be really appealing to many.

I would expect most car ownership to quickly go to n-1, and n-2 for dense urban areas, once autonomous vehicles are very common. Sure, some would need or want their own vehicle, but many would be happy to reduce or eliminate their private vehicle ownership.
  Reply With Quote

I'm sure that would be the goal, of the service providers
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #70
Tim Murphy
Registered User
 
Tim Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 131
I'm sure that would be the goal, of the service providers

Quote:
Originally Posted by drew.saunders View Post
My car is 20 years old as well, fully depreciated, and I drive about 3,000 miles per year, but I'd happily wait 2-5 minutes for an autonomous vehicle to show up, take me where I want to go, and then go away (and not have to pay for insurance, oil changes, gas, etc.). The robocar that just dropped off your neighbor can "rest" in your neighborhood waiting for the next user, which an Uber car with a human driver can't do, so 2-5 minutes might not be all that unrealistic, depending on your population density and neighborhood traffic patterns.

Wouldn't you like to get that garage space back to fit a darkroom and/or lots more cameras (to keep somewhat on topic to the RFF)? More likely, you could just use it for storage, but getting that much space back should be really appealing to many.

I would expect most car ownership to quickly go to n-1, and n-2 for dense urban areas, once autonomous vehicles are very common. Sure, some would need or want their own vehicle, but many would be happy to reduce or eliminate their private vehicle ownership.
Dear Drew,

If private vehicles were eliminated or greatly reduced in favor of ride services it wouldn't take long for the cost of the ride service to exceed the cost of owning a privately owned vehicle.

If you think I'm wrong then perhaps you can explain why TV that was formerly free costs $30.00 a month now? Maybe you don't watch TV but I think you get the point.

Surrendering autonomy to outside service providers is the wet dream of those providers.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #71
faberryman
Registered User
 
faberryman is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Nashville, TN USA
Age: 61
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew.saunders View Post
Wouldn't you like to get that garage space back to fit a darkroom and/or lots more cameras (to keep somewhat on topic to the RFF)? More likely, you could just use it for storage, but getting that much space back should be really appealing to many.
Well, I have a darkroom and don't need the extra carport space, certainly not to store more stuff, including more cameras.

When would you expect this dream of 2-5 minute on demand transportation to be fulfilled for those not living in, as you say, dense urban areas?
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #72
drew.saunders
Registered User
 
drew.saunders is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Murphy View Post
Dear Drew,

If private vehicles were eliminated or greatly reduced in favor of ride services it wouldn't take long for the cost of the ride service to exceed the cost of owning a privately owned vehicle.

If you think I'm wrong then perhaps you can explain why TV that was formerly free costs $30.00 a month now? Maybe you don't watch TV but I think you get the point.

Surrendering autonomy to outside service providers is the wet dream of those providers.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
There's little or no competition in cable TV, so you're at the mercy of one provider. Off-air TV is still free in the US, if you're willing to pay for a strong enough antenna. In some areas, there might be only one large provider of ride services, but there's also the option of private owners "renting" out their vehicles when they're not in use, thus guaranteeing competition. If private ownership is cheaper, it will win, if it's more expensive, it will lose. I see private cars spending 90%+ of their time idle, and that's not going to be economically better than sharing a car that spends 50% or more of its time in use.

I'm assuming people are lazy and would prefer a chauffeured vehicle (without a pesky human chauffer) to show up fairly quickly at their convenience vs. doing the work themselves. Privately owned autonomous cars would cover the chauffer part, but would still sit idle most of the time, costing the owner a lot of money. Here in Silicon Valley, betting on the laziness of your fellow man has made many an industrious person a billionaire. I'm not one of them, sadly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #73
drew.saunders
Registered User
 
drew.saunders is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
Well, I have a darkroom and don't need the extra carport space, certainly not to store more stuff, including more cameras.

When would you expect this dream of 2-5 minute on demand transportation to be fulfilled for those not living in, as you say, dense urban areas?
Look in your neighborhood and count the number of idle cars right now, on a Sunday afternoon/evening. I can see 20 or more on the streets on my block, and likely there are at least that many in garages, where I live (Palo Alto, CA, which I very far from a normal part of the world). If only one of the idle cars in your neighborhood is available to you right now to "rent" to get you where you want to go, whether owned by your neighbor willing to get a few extra dollars from their idle cars, or by a fleet owner (and that "fleet" could be "Joe down the street who has space for 5 cars") then the time it would take to get to you would be well within 2-5 minutes. Even in rural areas, I could see people who want to own their own deciding that they wouldn't mind a few extra dollars from renting them out to neighbors. Elon Musk of Tesla is convinced that autonomous cars will mostly be privately owned and that people will rent them out, and I disagree. He's a "car guy" who loves to drive (like a maniac, I might add), while I dislike the tedium of driving, so I assume people would rather not be bothered by ownership if they could avoid it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #74
Tim Murphy
Registered User
 
Tim Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew.saunders View Post
There's little or no competition in cable TV, so you're at the mercy of one provider. Off-air TV is still free in the US, if you're willing to pay for a strong enough antenna. In some areas, there might be only one large provider of ride services, but there's also the option of private owners "renting" out their vehicles when they're not in use, thus guaranteeing competition. If private ownership is cheaper, it will win, if it's more expensive, it will lose. I see private cars spending 90%+ of their time idle, and that's not going to be economically better than sharing a car that spends 50% or more of its time in use.

I'm assuming people are lazy and would prefer a chauffeured vehicle (without a pesky human chauffer) to show up fairly quickly at their convenience vs. doing the work themselves. Privately owned autonomous cars would cover the chauffer part, but would still sit idle most of the time, costing the owner a lot of money. Here in Silicon Valley, betting on the laziness of your fellow man has made many an industrious person a billionaire. I'm not one of them, sadly.
Dear Drew,

From your response to faberryman I see you live in a place that is not very much like where I live. I can understand your answer when the perspective of a large urban area is provided.

I cannot receive TV where I live, and in the dead of winter when the weather is bad I'd not have any ride service either unless I do for myself.

Obviously, different strokes for different folks applies to Roger's initial post. And it most certainly applies differently depending on where the respondent lives.

Myself, I could never live in a city. I'd rather snare squirrels and dig for grubs and beetles to subsist. I know I'm not very common in that way of thinking, but it is what it is.

Take care and I rest assured I was merely conversing and meant no harm.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #75
faberryman
Registered User
 
faberryman is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Nashville, TN USA
Age: 61
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew.saunders View Post
Look in your neighborhood and count the number of idle cars right now, on a Sunday afternoon/evening. I can see 20 or more on the streets on my block, and likely there are at least that many in garages, where I live (Palo Alto, CA, which I very far from a normal part of the world). If only one of the idle cars in your neighborhood is available to you right now to "rent" to get you where you want to go, whether owned by your neighbor willing to get a few extra dollars from their idle cars, or by a fleet owner (and that "fleet" could be "Joe down the street who has space for 5 cars") then the time it would take to get to you would be well within 2-5 minutes. Even in rural areas, I could see people who want to own their own deciding that they wouldn't mind a few extra dollars from renting them out to neighbors. Elon Musk of Tesla is convinced that autonomous cars will mostly be privately owned and that people will rent them out, and I disagree. He's a "car guy" who loves to drive (like a maniac, I might add), while I dislike the tedium of driving, so I assume people would rather not be bothered by ownership if they could avoid it.
We live in different worlds. None of my neighbors would rent their cars out for a few extra dollars to their fellow neighbors.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #76
tom.w.bn
Registered User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
We live in different worlds. None of my neighbors would rent their cars out for a few extra dollars to their fellow neighbors.
Exactly the same here. No one I know would do this.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #77
tom.w.bn
Registered User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,600
We have some car sharing options here in the city but they are not a huge success. You have to plan in advance to get the car you need and it's only affordable if you don't use it frequently. Such cars deteriorate faster in value because they are treated not as good as a private car.

Of all the friends and colleagues I know there is only one guy who does not have a car. Even the colleagues who come to work by public transport have a car at home. When people don't use a car often they normally decide to buy a smaller and cheaper one. It's rare that they decide not to have a car and rely on car sharing or taxis instead.

I don't see that in the next 20 years a significant amount of people who own a car today are willing to give up their car in favor of a autonomous taxi or shared car. It's more likely to happen in a handful of big cities here but not for the rest of the country.

We are still too far away from a traffic collapse. Biggest problem today in my city is not the amount of cars but the amount of road work because of the bad street condition and the planning of the road works. If there was no construction closing lanes or temporarily making steets a one way street, there is enough street for the traffic today.

Because the majority of people see that streets are more crowded than 10 years ago but not so much that it is an essential problem where a collapse is near, people don't see a need for new radical solutions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #78
radi(c)al_cam
Registered User
 
radi(c)al_cam's Avatar
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
My car is 20 years old and fully depreciated. I drive less than 5000 miles/year. I can get to the grocery and back in less time than it takes for Uber to show up. Give up my car? Not likely. Nobody likes waiting around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
[…]
We are still too far away from a traffic collapse. Biggest problem today in my city is not the amount of cars but the amount of road work because of the bad street condition and the planning of the road works. If there was no construction closing lanes or temporarily making steets a one way street, there is enough street for the traffic today.

Because the majority of people see that streets are more crowded than 10 years ago but not so much that it is an essential problem where a collapse is near, people don't see a need for new radical solutions.
Cue: grocery — infrastructure of food retailing.

And: during rush hours, nearly everywhere you can experience traffic collapses.


The context is:

Today, many city-centre dwellers, particularly if they're a family and not just a single person, actually need a car for their groceries; grocer's shops, if they exist in the city core, are usually specialised, and/or expensive.

On the other hand, many country dwellers (even if they're singles) need a car too for their groceries. There are no grocer's shops at all, usually. Or just very expensive ones (in the tourists' areas).

Hence I'd say, to a large extent, the food trade companies are to blame for this development. It's a shame that the stakeholders weren't and obviously still aren't willing to see that infrastructure dilemma.
__________________
bump for this scarce item:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot.../21207/cat/500

Cheerio from the Austrian Alps,
Alexander

A platoon of breech-block is a cock.
(evilB item 120540033981)
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #79
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew.saunders View Post
My car is 20 years old as well, fully depreciated, and I drive about 3,000 miles per year, but I'd happily wait 2-5 minutes for an autonomous vehicle to show up, take me where I want to go, and then go away (and not have to pay for insurance, oil changes, gas, etc.). The robocar that just dropped off your neighbor can "rest" in your neighborhood waiting for the next user, which an Uber car with a human driver can't do, so 2-5 minutes might not be all that unrealistic, depending on your population density and neighborhood traffic patterns.

Wouldn't you like to get that garage space back to fit a darkroom and/or lots more cameras (to keep somewhat on topic to the RFF)? More likely, you could just use it for storage, but getting that much space back should be really appealing to many.

I would expect most car ownership to quickly go to n-1, and n-2 for dense urban areas, once autonomous vehicles are very common. Sure, some would need or want their own vehicle, but many would be happy to reduce or eliminate their private vehicle ownership.
Dear Drew,

Sure, 2-5 minutes. But how about half an hour or more? There are fewer than 1000 people in the village in which I live, and we're one of the bigger ones around here, with shops, a school, a medical centre: we might have just enough people, and be enough of a hub or magnet, to allow the model of summoning autonomous cars.

But some villages are 300 or fewer, and that's before you get to the hamlets of under 20 people or the maisons isolées (houses on their own in the countryside).

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #80
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Murphy View Post
If private vehicles were eliminated or greatly reduced in favor of ride services it wouldn't take long for the cost of the ride service to exceed the cost of owning a privately owned vehicle. . . . Surrendering autonomy to outside service providers is the wet dream of those providers. . . .
Dear Tim,

This is not an aspect of autonomous vehicles that I had previously considered, but it sounds terrifyingly convincing.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 20:24.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.