"Motorists have ruined England"
Discussion
Does he think people drive into London for the hell of it? No one in their right mind would drive into town without a good reason. I for example have to drive to Holborn on Thursday to cart all the paraphernalia required to to some team building at a business school, if I didn't have to use the car I'd take the train. I do, however, drive up early on a Sunday morning a couple of times a year in my Westfield to do some sight seeing with my daughter....now that IS fun!
DonkeyApple said:
Of course. But setting up a fleet of minivans etc is remarkably quick. You'd find that if we had another '70s style fuel crisis that the population would adapt almost instantly and that businesses would spring up inside weeks. What would prevent the business solutions is fear of it only being a short term blip.
If by "adapt" you mean buy a field, and a diseasel car, and grow myself some fuel, then yes, I'd adapt quickly.If you mean stay at home or take public transport, then I'd cry, die of fright, or find a way to avoid enough other taxes to fund driving.
yonex said:
Why is it that everyone can agree that the author of the article has got a point yet not think what they would be willing to sacrifice to make things better? Isn't that the crux of the problem. Too many vehicles in a finite space?
What sacrifices are you alluding to?If I travel at peak time - it's generally because I have to - not because I want to.
If I travel out of peak time - then the "too many vehicles in a finite space" argument doesn't really hold up - most roads have more than enough capacity to deal with off peak traffic.
Moonhawk said:
What sacrifices are you alluding to?
Well many of us have already made the decision to take a significantly lower paying job in order to be able to leave near where we work. Of course from our point of view that's not a sacrifice but exactly the opposite. Ultimately these things work out because if you don't like London traffic, you always have the option not to live in or work in London. Johnnytheboy said:
The problem is cars, for their users, are great.
They enable you to go where you like, when you like. No wonder they are popular.
You might think a benevolent state would do all it could to accommodate such a useful gadget, instead of trying to stop us using them.
Yup. Nothing beats the car. All alternatives are commercially pointless until people are actually priced out of their cars. They enable you to go where you like, when you like. No wonder they are popular.
You might think a benevolent state would do all it could to accommodate such a useful gadget, instead of trying to stop us using them.
yonex said:
Why is it that everyone can agree that the author of the article has got a point yet not think what they would be willing to sacrifice to make things better? Isn't that the crux of the problem. Too many vehicles in a finite space?
I use public transport to commute almost 4 hours a day for work. Using any objective measure, I've done my part and will drive any of my other journey I please.The time at which there are significantly more cars on the road accross the country is (surprise surprise) at rush hour; the point at which we are all trundleing along to work to get there in decent amount of time because public transport takes twice as long.
Solution: Only allow local people to be employed. If someone is employed from far afield, they must mvoe to within 2 miles of the workplace. Only have 1 parking space per 100 staff, which is charged at £100 per day.
Problem solved for the newspaper guy.
I'm sure the economic ramifications of that will be extraordinary. But at least the motorways will be empty and he can move on to writing about the economic crisis in the country.
Solution: Only allow local people to be employed. If someone is employed from far afield, they must mvoe to within 2 miles of the workplace. Only have 1 parking space per 100 staff, which is charged at £100 per day.
Problem solved for the newspaper guy.
I'm sure the economic ramifications of that will be extraordinary. But at least the motorways will be empty and he can move on to writing about the economic crisis in the country.
Ali_T said:
Johnnytheboy said:
You might think a benevolent state would do all it could to accommodate such a useful gadget, instead of trying to stop us using them.
They give freedom of movement and choice. The antithesis of what the state wants you to have.There is quite a strong argument to the opposite.
How much more traceable is a car owner than a non owner?
How much easier is it for the State to force a car owner to do something over a non car owner?
How much more of a car owners income is taken as tax versus a non car owner?
How much does a state need to invest in regions if people can travel for work?
Why has the UK become so London centric and is this a good thing?
Is the growth of out of town shopping centres a positive force on social structures?
Why do you think Western states worked so hard to get as many of their population as possible into cars?
yonex said:
Why is it that everyone can agree that the author of the article has got a point yet not think what they would be willing to sacrifice to make things better? Isn't that the crux of the problem. Too many vehicles people in a finite space?
EFA.DonkeyApple said:
Yup. Nothing beats the car. All alternatives are commercially pointless until people are actually priced out of their cars.
Artificially "pricing people out" of things and restricting choice / freedoms without good reason is a disgusting practice. It's like the "minimum price for alcohol" nonsense. - All that does is punish responsible drinkers.Edited by Clivey on Tuesday 2nd September 14:56
Paul O said:
Solution: Only allow local people to be employed. If someone is employed from far afield, they must move to within 2 miles of the workplace.
I bet many more people would move closer to work if it didn't cost so much to move.Me and my wife have changed jobs a total of 10 times between us over the past 12 years or so.......at least half of those weren't by choice. We simply cannot afford the time and cost (£20k-£40k) to sell up and move every time it happens.
Perhaps the government should consider a stamp duty amnesty if you are moving house for the sole purpose of being closer to work. That may alleviate the problem a little.
The article is perfectly ok if only applied to London and most big cities. I find the sight of single occupant hideously oversized SUV's in long queues in city traffic just bloody risible . If I go to town I get park n ride and it's fine. But where I live I can drive for 15 miles and not see a car at times(and not 2 am either) . There isn't a one size fits all solution because there isn't only one problem when it comes to getting from A to B in the UK- it may be bad roads, lack of filling stations(or lack of filling stations who aren't exploiting their location - hello some petrol stations in N Scotland ), it may be infrastructure and it may be weather.
coppice said:
The article is perfectly ok if only applied to London and most big cities. I find the sight of single occupant hideously oversized SUV's in long queues in city traffic just bloody risible.
We bought an "SUV" type vehicle for several reasons (we live in the country where the roads aren't gritted too well in winter so the 4WD comes in handy - and we had two large dogs at the time).We cannot afford to have cars suitable for every possible occasion (e.g. a dedicated small city car) - therefore if I were to have to drive into the city on my own - I would probably use the SUV simply because of a lack of an alternative.
Yes people may look on and think "what a Muppet driving a big car like that with single occupancy" - but it's not a concious decision taken to piss them off - it's merely a set of circumstances which lead to us to buy a car which meets the most number of our needs in a single package. Car ownership decisions often boil down to the lowest common denominator.
LucreLout said:
DonkeyApple said:
Of course. But setting up a fleet of minivans etc is remarkably quick. You'd find that if we had another '70s style fuel crisis that the population would adapt almost instantly and that businesses would spring up inside weeks. What would prevent the business solutions is fear of it only being a short term blip.
If by "adapt" you mean buy a field, and a diseasel car, and grow myself some fuel, then yes, I'd adapt quickly.If you mean stay at home or take public transport, then I'd cry, die of fright, or find a way to avoid enough other taxes to fund driving.
but the majority would just go and stand outside the minibus stop that had appeared outside their house. We are the religious zealots of pro motoring but we are surrounded by the basic cannon fodder of transport users. Moonhawk said:
What sacrifices are you alluding to?
If I travel at peak time - it's generally because I have to - not because I want to.
If I travel out of peak time - then the "too many vehicles in a finite space" argument doesn't really hold up - most roads have more than enough capacity to deal with off peak traffic.
For instance, the chap earlier who lives a mile from his school would drive there and then on to work. That is one car on that certain road that could be removed from rush hour. Seems insignificant but if many people applied the same thinking who knows?If I travel at peak time - it's generally because I have to - not because I want to.
If I travel out of peak time - then the "too many vehicles in a finite space" argument doesn't really hold up - most roads have more than enough capacity to deal with off peak traffic.
Clivey said:
yonex said:
Why is it that everyone can agree that the author of the article has got a point yet not think what they would be willing to sacrifice to make things better? Isn't that the crux of the problem. Too many vehicles people in a finite space?
EFA.DonkeyApple said:
Yup. Nothing beats the car. All alternatives are commercially pointless until people are actually priced out of their cars.
Artificially "pricing people out" of things and restricting choice / freedoms without good reason is a disgusting practice. It's like the "minimum price for alcohol" nonsense. - All that does is punish responsible drinkers.Edited by Clivey on Tuesday 2nd September 14:56
Plus, responsible drinkers aren't impacted by an artificial minimum price as the expenditure in drinking is a fraction of overall spending. It only impacts heavy users in any meaningful way. I'm sure you spend more a month on your mortgage for example than an increase in minimum pricing on alcohol represents to you.
But the fact remind that the only way to get people out of cars is to price them out as the car is the perfect solution and superior to all other options so one way or another to reduce the number of them you have to either reduce the population or push up the cost. Now, while I often think that genocide is a credible solution, in reality I understand that it isn't, so price action is the only option to achieve less car usage.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff