Trevtassie wrote:foo on patrol wrote:Some of you people need to take a step back and take a reality check!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop all the development around the city area and you can remove them from that area but that's not going to happen, is it????????
I'm not sticking up for the drive but I am stating the bleeding obvious as to not having that combination = double the operating cost to the developers which = much higher cost to the end buyer!
So why do other countries not have them running around inside cities? Maybe it's because they actually care about safety and the politicians don't bend over every time the road transport lobby squeals "not enough in the trough" Oh sorry, I forgot it's Australia, we're special... we have different economics to the rest of the world.
The thing you got right is your "Maybe".
As to the rest of your response, like it or not, comparisons across the globe and even across cities in the same country, do not compare readily when simplifying it to only one or two factors. This is true whether we are talking about diet and obesity, family violence, mental health, traffic ratios, education or pretty much anything else we choose to compare.
Even though this forum is remarkable amongst most other special interest forums for it's less tribal consideration of issues, we still try too often to find simple causes causes to justify pre-existing beliefs,.
I don't know why it is more dangerous here than elsewhere. Or even it it is. What I do know is that the reasons will be manifold and related to each other in complex ways.
Foo is right to point out the relationship between trucks on roads and inner city development.