Re: Overheard on the scanner

In article <fvlb45$938$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> In article <fvdsn9$e85$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >Paul Dormer <prd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> I can't picture what you are talking about here.  What do you mean
> >> by "pedestrian cut-through" in this context?
> >
> >In a neighborhood full of dead end streets (or culs de sac, the term
> >preferred by people who live in them), the shortest on-road path
> >between two points is often *much* longer than a straight line.  The
> >purpose of the dead ends is to cut down on car traffic.  This works
> >because nobody will drive on a dead end street unless they're heading
> >to or from one of the few destinations on that part of that street.
> >There's no motorized "through traffic."
> >
> >But there's no reason to discourage "through traffic" of pedestrians
> >or cyclists.  Quite the opposite, if the goal is to cut down on
> >driving in the area.  So there are often short foot paths ("cut
> >throughs") between two nearby dead ends that face each other, to
> >allow pedestrians and cyclists, but not cars, to get through.
> 
> But in addition to through traffic, the homeowners also want to
> discourage "the wrong sort of people" from being there.  You know,
> pedestrians, cyclists, the sort of people who use public transit...

Apparently not, since I gather they don't post no trespassing signs.

No doubt it simplifies the problem of making sense of the world to 
divide all humans into a few simple groups--poor and virtuous, rich and 
desiring to grind the faces of the not rich, and the like--but it may 
not provide the right answers to the problem.

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now