Page 2 of 3

Exploration and Articles

Exploration:

I explored China Town. There were lots of markets, shops and pedestrians. The space was a straight line. It was many blocks from getting to one end to another. It is a narrow street for a lot of the way. It was like a narrow hallway just that the buildings were the walls.  There are many people buying and selling objects and food. There is the street with cars parked on the side of the road and narrow sidewalks on the edges of the street.There were some cars that tried to speed past but with the amount of pedestrians everything was at a slow pace. There were an overwhelming number of people sometimes. I was walking with a friend and we go separated because the crowd got too big and we both went with the flow of it in opposite directions. I didn’t see many bikes because of how crowded and busy it was. There was also no green space and animals. I would see the occasional pigeon from time to time but when I did they would fly away because of the amount of people.53d2be79e4b090dc96dff81d_pm93058076-poster-p-1-chinatown-sustainability

Articles:

The arguments Zimmer and Carlsson have in common are how transportations shapes the way the world looks and that relationships are fading away. Carlsson talks about being on a bike gives you the freedom from the time is money idea. It lets you to fully experience the world around you. His argument is that biking gives you a time to check out of the busy technology driven world and to experience it in a different light. He talks about how everyone is so busy all the time and that relationships are fading because of that. With biking we can slow down and relax, talk with friends and enjoy nature. Zimmer talks about how cars shape our world. The buildings and streets around us are made for cars. If everyone has their own individual car there is less space for greenery and pedestrians. He talks about when more people got cars more highways were built. These highways split neighborhoods in half and made it harder for communities to thrive. They both talk about how relationships and communities are negatively effected and how the space around them has changed.

What they don’t have in common is that Carlsson is for bike and Zimmer is for cars. They both feel a sense of freedom and speed when riding their preferred vehicle. Carlsson doesn’t like being stuck in traffic and being locked in “glass and metal boxes”. Zimmer feels the most freedom when he is in a car. Zimmer’s idea for Lyft was to not only help people not spend tons of money on their own personal car but to also help the world around. He talks about how the world is being shaped around cars and not around people when it should be shaped around people. Lyft can help get less parked cars off the streets and give more space of greenery and pedestrians.

Although they both have different preferred ways of transportation they both see the somethings and have similar general ideas for their arguments. They both see how the world changes. In Carlsson’s case on a bike he is able to slow down form the busy world and has time to smell the roses. Zimmer notices that places are made for cars and that if not everyone had a car there would be more space for pedestrians and nature.

Building My Own Bike

screen-shot-2016-09-15-at-1-22-17-pm

 

So this week I have been building my own bike. Shipping mine from DC and back every summer would eventually cost more than necessary. So far the bike has a frame, fork, handlebars, front wheel and seat. I have the gear shifters, water bottle holder and brakes but I’m not going to install them yet. Right now I need a back wheel.

For right now I am sanding the rust and old paint off the bike and will eventually re-paint it.  So far it is an awesome experience and is really fun.

S1 Organizational pattern

I could have had more narrative. In my speech I talked about he wasn’t credible due to experience credibility. I briefly mentioned I was in an accident and how the helmet saved me. I could have talked about my bike accident more. I also could have talked more about problem and solution. I didn’t really say what the problem was.

Organization, Structure and Arrangement (How do you do it?)

For a speech or presentation I start out with researching the topic. While I am researching I will take notes. After that I write down what I want to say. Then I read it and edit it if it doesn’t make sense. After that I practice it a few times. After those first few practices I then re-write the speech in a short bullet point form to give me cues about what to talk about next so I don’t read word for word. After doing that I will memorize it if I am required to. 

In the speech I tend to go with my gut on the order of my speech. I a lot of the time start with an introduction, background information and other facts. I then talk about the topic and arguments and have evidence to back that up. After that I will try to connect with the audience and talk about my own experience if I had one. At the end I sometime end with a re-cap or I’ll just end it.

Reflection (S1)

Before the speech I thought I was going to do horribly. When I was filming myself I kept messing up and re-recording. Looking back I realized I didn’t do as badly as I thought. I think I did an ok job. It felt like I was talking fast. I was standing in one place doing a little shifting  weight from one foot to the other dance. I think I did well with not looking at my paper too often. As I said before it wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. Leading up to my turn, since I was 15th, I kept getting more and more nervous but once it was my turn and I got into the flow of things it got better.

In my speech, I talked about surface credibility and experience credibility. I said that Howie Chong had great surface credibility but not so great experience credibility.

The things I was happy about was my projection and gesticulations. I think I did well with those. What I would like to develop and change is to move around the room more and not use my note book for notes.

I really liked how Helen used notecards. I want to use those instead of my notebook. I really liked how people used a powerpoint in the background. It gave me something to look at. Next time I would want to do that also.

Credibility S1 Write out

The hemet is made of foam and has a hard plastic shell on the outer layer. When someone crashes and their head hits a solid surface the foam part of the helmet gets crushed which slows down the head to a gentle stop.

The article “Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet” by Howie Chong is about his argument that if you are experienced then you shouldn’t have to wear a bike helmet and that there are benefits to not wearing one.

One of his arguments against wearing a helmet is that people don’t have to wear helmets when walking or driving. According to an epidemiological study in 1978 the main cause of head injury in the San Diego area was due to motor vehicle accidents. Also he uses an article from Forbes magazine that report the number one cause of fatal head injuries among teens is due to vehicle accidents. He says since we don’t have to wear helmets when driving even though more head trauma is cause by car accidents why have to wear them when biking.

Later in the article he refers to a study that was held at the University of Bath, that showed that drivers would give cyclists with helmets on less space than cyclists without helmets on when going around them.

Another theory he puts out there is that wearing a helmet would give people a false sense of security which would cause them to take riskier actions. He makes the point that wearing a helmet won’t prevent an accident.

One more reason is that the number of cyclists on the road decreased. This finding was based of a study, done in Australia, about mandatory helmet laws. 

Credibility:

According to Tseng and Fogg surface credibility is how much someone will believe someone based on simple inspection.

I would say Howie Chong has great surface credibility. On his about me page it says he is a graduate from Yale and McGill University. He has a Master’s degree in Environmental Management from Yale and a Bachelor’s in Environmental Studies from McGill. He has supported non-profit organizations one of them being Sierra Club.

He seems like a good willed, intelligent person. He cares about the environment and has a Masters. I would believe him. 

His website is also very easy to navigate and during the article he links to the studies where he gets the information.

I also don’t believe him because of experience credibility. Experience credibility, according to Tseng and Fogg, “refers to how much a person believes someone or something based on first hand experience.” I see his point in that if someone is experienced and bikes cautiously they won’t likely get into an accident that they shouldn’t have to wear a helmet. I don’t agree with it. Because he doesn’t talk about himself being in an accident I infer that he hasn’t been in one. This makes him less credible because he has never been in an accident. As someone who has been and who’s dad has been in one I would say that wearing a helmet should be mandatory even though there is a small chance of getting into accident. 

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
Warning

Important: Read our blog and commenting guidelines before using the USF Blogs network.