Another one should be called to include Silver centered on an investigation of his concerns.

At the moment it can warn the driver if at current speed will braking prevent contact of object.

As a driver I can usually tell those that are not good at driving or a new driver, because they usually tailgate. Tailgating is really driving close behind another car at a speed, in which braking will not prevent contact. If we could eliminate tailgating most rear end collisions would be eliminated. Think about the drunk driver, or the person on the cell phone, or the distracted driver who goes to pick up the CD or cassette that dropped or the “talkative not keeping an eye at the road” driver this device will warn them if at the current speed braking will not prevent collision. Imagine you could drive towards a brick wall, and your car would stop automatically without colliding. This is possible, but then why would we need drivers insurance? Do you see what I mean by “big business”? Do you know how much insurance costs in NYC??? Do the math…

1. Mayor Bloomberg “speaks for” all New Yorkers, because he was elected Mayor and that is his legal capacity, or (in the sense you are using the term) he “speaks for” only those New Yorkers who do not disavow what he says. I don’t see what this has to do with anything.

2. All your assumptions about me based on the my bicycling are wrong. I am affected by traffic congestion in many ways. My son has been diagnosed with asthma, and we live on the second floor over a very busy and congested street. Also, I happen to believe that all the car exhaust is destroying the earth and I don’t want my kids to have to deal with that. Plus I often use mass transit which I have to pay for while motorists get to use the roads for free, which bugs me. Finally, in connection with work I sometimes travel by car and in those situations, I am usually delayed by all the people who thoughtlessly decide to drive out of habit, laziness or for the “freedom experience” they think driving gives them.

3. Others, who currently drive to work or drive their kids to school, will benefit from congestion pricing, because it will enhance every transportation option–bicycling, mass transit, and private car use. All three of these modes will be more pleasant and efficient under congestion pricing. The only difference will be that the road users will pay more than they do now, but they will also get a faster ride, and a better “freedom experience.”

4. Bicycling relieves stress. Especially urban bicycling. And particularly if you have stress at work, at home, etc. . . . daily exercise and the experience of total mental focus that urban bicycling imparts works wonders. It’s really much better than any urban driving experience (except perhaps a “closed track” or off road driving experience). When you are driving in the city, you max out at 30 MPH, about 1/4 of capacity (or you speed, creating risks for yourself and others). You can’t maneuver around obstacles like other cars that are driving or stopping thoughtlessly, jaywalking pedestrians, etc. . . . you just have to wait for them to move or honk at them. Sure, you can listen to your favorite tunes, talk on the phone, read the paper, run the air conditioner, but is doing 20 different things at once while some idiot is blocking you really all that fun or stress-reducing?

On a bicycle, you can lawfully and safely maneuver around most of these obstacles without the unnecessary or dangerous “zigzagging” you fret over. And most of us can expereince the rush of moving at max speed, and even pushing that max, without exceeding the speed limit of 30 MPH. 30 MPH on a bike is way more exhilarating than 60 MPH inside the steel and glass cocoon of a car, trust me. For those with stressful lives who live within 15 miles of work, bike commuting offers mental and physical health benefits, along with a reliably efficient commute, all in about the same amount of time it would take to get to work by bus, train or car. The only thing that makes urban bicycling stressful is negligent and hostile motorists.

5. If you are willing to look at this with an open mind, you may see that this is not just about bicyclists against motorists. This is about a collective choice to encourage low-impact, low-cost modes of transportation over commuting by single-occupant private cars. To the extent you feel that my bicycling or mass transit use imposes costs on you, I’m ready to hear you out but you’ll have to explain how it is that your single-occupant private motoring doesn’t impose a higher cost on me.

If we refused to support policies that were promoted by greedy, self-interested politicians then we wouldn’t be able to support any policies!

My disagreement lies solely in the fact that Bloomberg’s motive is not based on “livable streets” but on “political investments” and this plan is not well thought out to get results, and clearly a “scheme.” Most of those people who have came out to support it are expecting political favors. When a regular citizen joins the bandwagon of an obvious “scheme” It makes me wonder if the obvious is obvious? You know like “they hate us because of our freedom!”

I’m supposed to “respect the needs of my fellow New Yorkers” to “drive to work, or take their kids to school before going on to work?” Well, they didn’t respect my need to not be killed or to have my family killed when they picked their homes, jobs and schools. Why should I respect their needs?

I happen to have a stressful job, children, a spouse, and shopping, and I had an elderly parent who died. I’m kind of insulted that you assume that just because I live without a car, I don’t have the same kinds of stresses as most New Yorkers. The difference is that I don’t find sitting in traffic and worrying about not killing people to ease my stress or improve my quality of life. I have no idea how it does that for anyone else.

It just shows your short-sightedness if you think “green” is only about pollution or consumption. “Green” is also about livable streets, and that’s the whole point of this blog.

Jf I hit it right on the nose. You are anti-automobile, due to your experiences. Steve you are anti-automobile because of your experiences with drivers while cycling. This shows that JF and Steve both have underlying reasons for supporting Bloomberg’s Congestion pricing scheme, and both of these reasons are not associated with making NYC greener, or looking at this issue in a way that would respect the needs of fellow NYers. In both cases JF And Steve will not be affected by the driving tax, so they blindly support this “money grabbing scheme.” What about the NYers that will be affected; Those that need to drive to work, or take their kids to school before going on to work? Jf I guess you don’t care if they tax NYers to go from Queens to Brooklyn, or Bronx to Manhattan? Lets just create a tax from going from one borough to any other borough all under the banner of making NYC more greener? And Steve lets ban cars, so that when you ride your bike you can zig-zag, go through red lights, nearly run over pedestrians, and have the road all to your self( without registration fees, insurance fees, or gas. Maybe Bloomberg will decide next that there are too much bikes in Manhattan then you will have to pay a tax or take the train.

Steve as a cyclist I am sure that their are different bikes that will give you a different expereince than others, right? For example A “specialized” vs a toys-r-us bike. Its the same with the autos that I have mentioned.
Guys let me explain one thing the quality of life is different according to your profession, some people have stressfull jobs, and other real life responsibilities, like children, a spouse, shopping, elderly parent etc… An automobile can improve the quality of life for someone that has a lot going on. Some of us NYers require project management!! And Steve My love for the spirited feeling of driving a superb vehicle doesn’t mean that it is not a necessity.

One additional point: Omari says “On driving, I love to drive and the feeling that you will get from driving a BMW 540, M3, M5 or Porsce [sic] is spirited.,”

I’ve never had the occasion to drive cars like that but I have experienced a sense of exhilaration and freedom that driving even modest cars can give. I’m sure its a reason that many people prefer to drive, even in Manhattan where congestion often removes these positive aspects of the experience. What Omari doesn’t get is that many get a comparable, if very different, feeling of exhilaration and freedom from bicycling in NYC. The major factor ruining the experience for NYC bicyclists often is not so much congestion (as it is for motorists), as it is negligent, disrespectful, and downright hostile motorists.

One typical theme in motorists’ attitude toward bicyclists is the view that bicyclists are recreationists who are not using the road for “real” transportation uses, so they have no right taking a lane of traffic and should be pushed to the margins of the roadway. This is a false, self-serving assumption; tens of thousands of New Yorkers use a bicycle as their primary form of transportation, and many more messengers, restaurant delivery people, and pedicab operators are in the road trying to earn a living.

But even if all cyclists were recreationists, Omari’s candid descriptions of the joy of motoring demonstrate that the motorists themselves often drive just for the fun of it, not necessarily because driving is the only way to conduct some culturally or economically important activity.

This is only to say that in the cost-benefit analysis of NYC private-vehicle motoring that Omari and JF have been hashing out, we should not consider only the terrible human, social and environmental costs, but also recognize that the benefits may in many cases limited to the psychological needs of the driver. Yet another reason why congestion pricing is good policy.

The current technology is not automobiles, it’s trains. Trains aren’t perfect, but they can carry much more people in less space with less pollution and less danger than cars. As I’ve written above, in New York City there’s no excuse not to take the train, and the only people who avoid it on a daily basis are selfish, ignorant, elitist and probably racist too.

The plan singles out Manhattan because Manhattan already has the highest level of congestion. There’s noplace in the outer boroughs that has that kind of gridlock. That said, I’d be happy to support a plan that includes the entire city – or the entire country.

I don’t know how you expect the city to repave the roads and maintain the bridges if you don’t want to pay any taxes or fees, but if you’re serious about not wanting fees to get across the city, you’ll do something concrete about eliminating subway and bus fares. Otherwise it’s just propaganda.

The outer-borough politicians like Weprin and Weiner have no interest in making Queens greener; they just want to turn it into Atlanta or Scottsdale where the car is king. They’re just as anti-poor as you claim Bloomberg is. Why should I support them?

I was a 9 to 5er for years, so I think I can speak quite well for that experience. Driving (particularly in NYC, but anywhere else) is such a horrible, stressful experience that I can’t imagine anyone preferring it. It’s not the make of the car, it’s the other drivers and the fact that you could kill other people at any minute, without trying.

I’m not “falling for this,” and I’m not illiterate. I’m acting in my own self-interest and supporting the vast majority and the environment over the interests of a wealthy few, and I’m kind of insulted that you think I must be brainwashed. To be honest, sometimes I suspect that people on your side are being brainwashed too (particularly the ones who don’t drive), but I’m perfectly willing to believe that you’re acting out of selfishness and possibly racism and class prejudice.

The fact of the matter is that driving is not a necessity, it’s a choice. A choice that puts lives in danger and destroys the environment, and that’s why we want drivers to pay for that choice.

I wouldn’t oppose a plan to share some of my income to help the homeless afford housing. Why would you think I’d be that selfish?