Shahid Ullah
Road is not a private property. There are no rules and regulations regarding entrance of private car in Dhaka city; any body who has money can purchase a car and start riding taking just a license. According to urban planners, there should have at least 25% area for roads in a city, and there is only 6-7% area for roads in Dhaka city. Every day there are new cars entering in the city street making huge jam and increasing sufferings for the mass people to reach the office/factory at just time and also to return home peacefully after finishing the task and duties. And everyday we are loosing 3-4 hours of our valuable time causing thousands of corers of taka According to study of transport planners, a private care occupies the road where five people can travel by bi-cycle, four people by rickshaw, and only one and half people by private car. Using natural gas and fuel for private car is a crime as it increases global warming. Almost there is a relation between ownership of private car and corruption. It is a shame that our previous governments exempted tax to import luxury cars. Transportation is a big punishment for innocent employees, workers and petty traders. It's a social problem and solution should be collective and social, not individual. Government is providing 3000 crore taka as subsidy for petrol/fuel supply and the private car owners are taking advantage of it. They are also using important CNG; which could be used for industrial purpose and public transport. These private car owners are contributing noise and pollution to urban life. Without controlling private car, it is not possible to reduce traffic jam through constructing new roads or modernizing traffic system. London, Singapore, Hon Kong and Tokyo city reduced traffic jam through controlling private car. Please raise your voice and make solidarity with the following demands through circulating this mail to your friends: XnStopping subsidized fuel and gas to private car owners XQThere should have at least one lac taka environment tax on a private car and gradually making Dhaka city free of private car XQThere should have government policy about the car of organization/ institution i.e who can purchase car, but organization/ institute should be under the environment tax net XQIntroducing more double decker bus at every route XQSeparate track for bi-cycle in every road XQEncourage riding bi-cycle for all students of school, college and university, teachers and parents should come forward XnGovernment should establish quality cycle industry in Bangladesh and discourage importing bi-cycle Campaign for Sustainable Transportation System , Shahid Ullah
Syed Siful Alam Shovan shovan1209@yahoo.com
--- On Sun, 11/9/08, K. Raisuddin <Kraisuddin@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: K. Raisuddin <Kraisuddin@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [chottala.com] Private car Control To: "chottala@yahoogroups.com" <chottala@yahoogroups.com> Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 4:32 AM
Comparing car with gun is really a laughing stalk. Until public transportation systems evolve, car is the only means of transportation in most part of the country. I believe this is true for all countries, except where donkeys, camels, bullock catrs etc. are the only means. Social progress made the easy and less time consuming means of transportation a part and parcel of the society. Time is money except in the remotest places where work is primitive and very limited. Gun provides security only when the intruders attack. But car is required for normal life situations. Big city people can move using the trains, buses, taxis, rickshaws but people living in the suburbs who mostly commute to the nearest city have no other valternatives than using the cars. For these people, cars are no longer for extra advantage but for day to day requirements for being able to work and earn livlihood. Present reciprocating gas/diesel operated automobile engines are only 50% efficient in using the energy. They have to be converted to electric motor operated engines to raise the efficiency to 95%. Thereby we may control pollutiuons and reduce the cost of operations, eliminating 45% unused energy. Cars shall stay, by number more or less, but needs improverments for saving energy, protecting the environment, and for using as the convenience of transportations. CNG is good for environmrnt. But gas is limited and also for the CNG use in the reciprocating engines, the efficiency is maximum 50%. This is a worldwide issue. Let everybody try in improving it. Regards, KR To: notun_bangladesh@ yahoogroups. com; bdresearchers@ yahoogroups. com; bdresearchers@ gmail.com; chottala@yahoogroup s.com; alochona@yahoogroup s.com; dahuk@yahoogroups. com; dhakamails@yahoogro ups.com; bangla_ict@yahoogro ups.com; banglarnari@ yahoogroups. com; bangla-vision@ yahoogroups. com; banglaict@gmail. com; khabor@yahoogroups. com; mybangla@yahoo. com From: shovan1209@yahoo. com Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 05:15:10 -0800 Subject: [chottala.com] Private car Control Private car Control by Edwin J.Feulner, Ph.D. Cars are a menace to society. Every year they lead to thousands of deaths. Criminals use them in committing crimes. And when mixed with drugs or alcohol, their deadly potential increases. In short, cars should be banned. Sounds crazy, right? But substitute "guns" for "cars" and you have the gun-control argument in a nutshell. Gun-control advocates will argue that the comparison is unfair, and it is: To guns. The truth is, cars are more dangerous than firearms. In 1997 there were 43,458 motor vehicle deaths in the United States, according to the National Center on Health Statistics. By comparison, there were 32,436 firearms deaths—and fully half of those were suicides. Notice I said motor vehicle deaths, not motor vehicle accidents. Some will say that gun victims are murdered while car-crash victims are "accidentally" killed, an argument designed to make guns look "bad" and cars "neutral." But 39 percent of all fatal crashes involve drunk drivers using their cars as deadly weapons. By the numbers, criminals kill about 15,000 people a year with guns, and drunk drivers kill about 15,000 people a year with two-ton machines that can travel at more than a hundred miles per hour. Perhaps we should pass a law banning "Saturday Night Chryslers." Not only do guns cause fewer deaths than the activists would have us believe, they can also be life-savers. According to John Lott, a professor at the University of Chicago, as many as 2 million crimes a year are prevented in the United States because the potential victim is armed. In Canada and Great Britain, for example, where gun controls are stringent, 50 percent of all break-ins occur while the victims are at home. In the United States, where many homeowners own weapons—and the criminals are aware of this—87 percent of all home burglaries occur when the residents are away, Lott notes in his book "More Guns, Less Crime." Is there a lesson here? For his contribution to the gun-control debate, Professor Lott has become an intellectual pariah. Elite opinion-shapers, who have embraced gun control with religious fervor, want nothing to do with him. In their view, if you have something nice to say about guns you're one of those people—the kind who hunt ducks with bazookas, worry about Communists invading their cul-de-sac, and name their kids "Smith" and "Wesson." Of course, gun-control snobs are seldom at risk of serious crime themselves. It's easy to preach against guns from gated communities protected by private police forces. But suggest that the $8-an-hour rent-a-cop who guards these neighborhoods be allowed to have a gun to protect his own family, and the gun-control zealots wax hysterical. Witness today's political debate, which is rife with talk of rights—a "Patients' Bill of Rights" for those who want their insurance plans to cover liposuction, an "Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights" for those who want more (or fewer) peanuts in their in-flight snacks. Mention constitutional rights, however, including the right to own a gun, and you'll be accused of being a Neanderthal. In Maryland, Attorney General Joseph Curran can't be bothered with the Second Amendment. He wants laws that would ban all handguns in the state. Never mind that Curran is sworn to uphold the Maryland constitution, which guarantees Maryland citizens the protections of the U.S. Constitution. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, some politicians defend only the parts they like. That's the way the gun-control crowd wants it. No 225-year-old scrap of parchment will stand in the way of their drive to banish guns—but not cars, rocks, knives, baseball bats, or any other object used to inflict harm—from the face of the earth. It's that kind of thinking that poses the real threat to Americans.
Syed Siful Alam Shovan shovan1209@yahoo. com
--- On Sat, 11/8/08, syed saiful alam <shovan1209@gmail. com> wrote:
|
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger Get it now! |