"Motorists have ruined England"
Discussion
Clivey said:
coppice said:
I find the sight of single occupant hideously oversized SUV's in long queues in city traffic just bloody risible.
I'm not going to buy another car just because I occasionally drive into a city. 
A Honda CRV for example looks like quite a large car - but actually has a smaller footprint than a BMW 3 Series Saloon or an Audi A4.
Clivey said:
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.
So how exactly do you stop increasing traffic volumes when the general public will choose the car over anything else? I am not saying you do btw, just considering the average motorist attitudes. It would irk me as I think my impact on the roads is fairly minimal, but there's no doubt any restriction would also impact on me at some point. DonkeyApple said:
But State deregulation of personal debt has artificially priced people in. 
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.
There is a third option - invest in infrastructure such that congestion ceases to be such a big problem.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.
I appreciate that, in Britain, investing in infrastructure outside London is treated by politicians as some kind of heinous crime, unless in doing so they can part-privatise it and funnel cash off to their mates.
yonex said:
So how exactly do you stop increasing traffic volumes when the general public will choose the car over anything else?
They won't chose the car over everything else. They will choose a mode of transport taking into account travel time, convenience, aim of the trip, cost etc. The problem is - with the current state of public transport - the answer comes out as "car" more often than not.
I will (and do) use public transport when it fulfils my requirements. The more requirements public transport can meet - the more times I would use it.
Take my previous examples. If I could get the train home from nights out in Chester or Liverpool - I probably would as it would allow me to kick back and have a drink. The fact that public transport cannot fulfil this requirement means I use the car instead and compromise on drinking.
This could be remedied quite easily by simply putting on services that run later (like they do in London). When I go out in London I take the train because I know it is fast, relatively inexpensive off peak - and most importantly - I know I can still get home even after a good night out without panicking about the time.
tomjol said:
There is a third option - invest in infrastructure such that congestion ceases to be such a big problem.
I appreciate that, in Britain, investing in infrastructure outside London is treated by politicians as some kind of heinous crime, unless in doing so they can part-privatise it and funnel cash off to their mates.
Why bother? The highest population is in London. London generates the most tax. London pays for everything else. I appreciate that, in Britain, investing in infrastructure outside London is treated by politicians as some kind of heinous crime, unless in doing so they can part-privatise it and funnel cash off to their mates.
It's the downside of being centric to one commercial base. There is no point in funnelling more money outside than is needed. It isn't that politicians are London centric it's just that as everyone can come to London it's pointless to chuck money elsewhere when you only have a give yet window to get results.
The logical step is to take a 50 year view to break London's dominance by building an entirely new business city in the North, link all major cities to it by road and rail and link it to the outside world with a massive airport.
But building roads or widening roads won't solve the congestion issue. Only fewer cars or fewer people will achieve this.
Horse Pop said:
J4CKO said:
And what is wrong with a bit of sweat ? if you are clean and are wearing deodorant you don't end up stinking, I cycle to work and we are lucky to have showers but if they have been out of action, I have a shower before I go and keep the speed down. We have become a nation of grumpy, selfish air conditioned blobs sat in our little cocoons, terrified of perspiration or precipitation. Try riding a bike, a few times, not just once and realise how much enjoyment it can bring, you think you are happy in your car and will be miserable on a bike, it just doesnt work like that, can be abject misery in either or unbounded joy, the exercise endorphin kick after a good ride in sets me up for the day, then the proper, old school hunger kicks in, it feels real, makes me feel like when I was a kid again.
And what's wrong with not wanting to smell like Phil Jupitus in a Chewbacca costume when I get to the office? :/I have worked with people that smell rank regardless of driving to work, used to work with one woman who I knew if she was in, simply by the first breath upon entering the office, especially in summer, a bit "gamey" as someone delicately put it.
The smelliest bloke I worked with did cycle in, but ironically smelt better than before as he knew he had to shower or risk being hosed down.
Actually, he wasn't the smelliest, we had a cleaner, bloke about 50, who smelt like a pub carpet in a pub near a fish market, truly eye watering, and a non cyclist.
Moonhawk said:
They won't chose the car over everything else. They will choose a mode of transport taking into account travel time, convenience, aim of the trip, cost etc.
So how many times would anyone choose anything else than a car? 1 mile drop off at school, it's raining, take the car. That is the easy option. It's more habit than convenience. People are very resourceful when they need to find a second option. Something as simple as local shopping now I don't bother with the car. 5 min journey, no parking to squabble over. A side affect of this is it limits beer consumption, too heavy to carry Moonhawk said:
They won't chose the car over everything else. They will choose a mode of transport taking into account travel time, convenience, aim of the trip, cost etc.
The problem is - with the current state of public transport - the answer comes out as "car" more often than not.
And of course, once you have brought a car, you use it, pretty much for every journey, because it is so convenient. Hence for mass public transport to replace the private motor vehicle, even on an ad-hoc basis, it will need to be much cheaper and just as convenient!The problem is - with the current state of public transport - the answer comes out as "car" more often than not.
It strikes me that the answer is not to replace the car with another form of transport, but to remove the need to travel instead! Many, Many people drive to work to sit at a computer these days, and it's about time we dropped the 9 to 5 "factory" mentality ingrained sice the mid 1800's that we need to "go" to work!! If the Government offered tax incentives to companies and employees to work from home (even 1 day a week) they would cut congestion and reduce pollution by a huge margin for very little investment....
DonkeyApple said:
But State deregulation of personal debt has artificially priced people in.
To car ownership? Yes, a large proportion of cars are financed but if that wasn't an option, people would simply buy more affordable (older) cars and maintain them for longer. My 320i was cheap and not financed...still better than public transport for most journeys.DonkeyApple said:
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.
Isn't that a bit like saying "It's OK because it only hurts a little bit"? What if the state decides to increase the price of another few dozen things you do / enjoy to suit their own political agenda?DonkeyApple said:
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.
How about reducing the need to travel? E.g. Why do millions of people travel into cities every day just to sit in front of a computer? I used online grocery shopping for the first time last night...the van was in the neighbourhood anyway so overall that's several miles of motor vehicle travel "saved". Only cost me a Pound for delivery too - cheaper than driving there! Clivey said:
DonkeyApple said:
But State deregulation of personal debt has artificially priced people in.
To car ownership? Yes, a large proportion of cars are financed but if that wasn't an option, people would simply buy more affordable (older) cars and maintain them for longer. My 320i was cheap and not financed...still better than public transport for most journeys.DonkeyApple said:
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.
Isn't that a bit like saying "It's OK because it only hurts a little bit"? What if the state decides to increase the price of another few dozen things you do / enjoy to suit their own political agenda?DonkeyApple said:
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.
How about reducing the need to travel? E.g. Why do millions of people travel into cities every day just to sit in front of a computer? I used online grocery shopping for the first time last night...the van was in the neighbourhood anyway so overall that's several miles of motor vehicle travel "saved". Only cost me a Pound for delivery too - cheaper than driving there! 
Re taxation, the simple fact is that if the aim is to reduce congestion then the only solution is to reduce the number of vehicles and you can only do that through price competition. This would mean that where there isn't natural price competition it must be created artificially. And it is smarter and cheaper to tax users out of cars so that private enterprise creates mass transport solutions than it is to build a subsidised State network alternative to compete against the extreme convenience of the motor car. The latter has never worked as the car is so superior.
And re the finance element, why would second hand cars remain at current cheap prices if the finance was removed that facilitated over 80% of new car purchases? And your assumption would require the removal of the legislative trend to kill old cars. Personal debt was deregulated specifically to boost current spending of future income and this increase tax take. It serves no other purpose as debt consumption can only ever lead to increased poverty. As we all have seen. It is the rapid gateway to the illusion of wealth without there actually being any wealth and that illusion triggers excessive spending which means more tax.
DonkeyApple said:
Why bother? The highest population is in London. London generates the most tax. London pays for everything else.
It's the downside of being centric to one commercial base. There is no point in funnelling more money outside than is needed. It isn't that politicians are London centric it's just that as everyone can come to London it's pointless to chuck money elsewhere when you only have a give yet window to get results.
The logical step is to take a 50 year view to break London's dominance by building an entirely new business city in the North, link all major cities to it by road and rail and link it to the outside world with a massive airport.
But building roads or widening roads won't solve the congestion issue. Only fewer cars or fewer people will achieve this.
The downside is twofold - the second part being that you end up with an enormous, congested, overcrowded metropolis which is understandably hostile to cars, i.e. the point of the topic It's the downside of being centric to one commercial base. There is no point in funnelling more money outside than is needed. It isn't that politicians are London centric it's just that as everyone can come to London it's pointless to chuck money elsewhere when you only have a give yet window to get results.
The logical step is to take a 50 year view to break London's dominance by building an entirely new business city in the North, link all major cities to it by road and rail and link it to the outside world with a massive airport.
But building roads or widening roads won't solve the congestion issue. Only fewer cars or fewer people will achieve this.
It's a simplistic argument I admit, but invest elsewhere, attract businesses and people, and draw people out of London. We don't need to start from scratch, the North isn't some kind of wasteland. A bit more cash (on the London scale) would go a long way.
Bullett said:
It's not about the transport infrastructure it's about our attitude to work.
There are few reasons that the majority of office workers need to be in an office 9-5. Flexible hours would be a start for the majority so that the transport network is not concentrated into a few hours in the morning.
For me, I have a job that requires me to be in the office on health and safety grounds for one. I could work from home easily, but management decide I have to go into the office.There are few reasons that the majority of office workers need to be in an office 9-5. Flexible hours would be a start for the majority so that the transport network is not concentrated into a few hours in the morning.
Horse Pop said:
*starts reading article
2 points... - realizes it's some lentil botherer in London wittering on about how we don't need cars
- stops because I live in the NW and this twit apparently has no idea that not everybody can just "hop on a taxi" at one end and "walk straight off at the other"
Edited by Horse Pop on Tuesday 2nd September 13:44
It's an article about London, so it should come as no surprise that comes from a London perspective.
The author is actually someone who has recently moved out of an Aston Martin. So not really a traditional 'lentilist'
tomjol said:
DonkeyApple said:
Why bother? The highest population is in London. London generates the most tax. London pays for everything else.
It's the downside of being centric to one commercial base. There is no point in funnelling more money outside than is needed. It isn't that politicians are London centric it's just that as everyone can come to London it's pointless to chuck money elsewhere when you only have a give yet window to get results.
The logical step is to take a 50 year view to break London's dominance by building an entirely new business city in the North, link all major cities to it by road and rail and link it to the outside world with a massive airport.
But building roads or widening roads won't solve the congestion issue. Only fewer cars or fewer people will achieve this.
The downside is twofold - the second part being that you end up with an enormous, congested, overcrowded metropolis which is understandably hostile to cars, i.e. the point of the topic It's the downside of being centric to one commercial base. There is no point in funnelling more money outside than is needed. It isn't that politicians are London centric it's just that as everyone can come to London it's pointless to chuck money elsewhere when you only have a give yet window to get results.
The logical step is to take a 50 year view to break London's dominance by building an entirely new business city in the North, link all major cities to it by road and rail and link it to the outside world with a massive airport.
But building roads or widening roads won't solve the congestion issue. Only fewer cars or fewer people will achieve this.
It's a simplistic argument I admit, but invest elsewhere, attract businesses and people, and draw people out of London. We don't need to start from scratch, the North isn't some kind of wasteland. A bit more cash (on the London scale) would go a long way.
There isn't one.
London has financed the rebuilding of Manchester centre, Liverpool and many others but what can't be done is to take an existing city and build it up to handle anywhere near the population flow of a global city. Geographically it is impossible anyway as most Northern cities have boundary issues such as oceans or mountains. These are quite difficult to move.
Hence the concept of the business hub new city. In other words a replication of Canary Wharf where people can commute easily by road and rail from all current cities but it is also connected rapidly to London and to the rear of the world by its own airport.
This concept means that workers can stay in their cities and cities can all expand to accommodate more. But all these workers commute to a central business hub which massively undercuts London.
After all, the biggest problem for the South East and London is that it is clogged up with millions of Northerners who don't want to be in the North. Give them relevant work solutions and they can bugger off back where they came from and make our lives better.
many years ago people realized that if they jumped on the back of a horse, they could get to other places they needed to be, which were much further away, far quicker, and with far less effort, than walking or running. So people switched to riding on horses or in horse drawn vehicles.
Then they discovered that if they got on one of those new fangled train things, they could get to other places even further away, and faster, and with much more comfort than if they stayed on teh back of a horse. So the majority of the mobile public switched to trains. (although some believed that they would die if it went faster than 30 mph!)
Then along came motor vehicles where people discovered they could get to places where buses and trains didn't go in even more comfort, and go where, and when `they' wanted to go, so the majority switched to cars.
Only when a form of transport which is `actually' better than a car for `most' people is devised, or a way is found to allow people to avoid travelling when they don't have to is discovered, will they switch to the new system.
Currently no such better way of travelling, (or avoiding the need for travel) has been found.
Then they discovered that if they got on one of those new fangled train things, they could get to other places even further away, and faster, and with much more comfort than if they stayed on teh back of a horse. So the majority of the mobile public switched to trains. (although some believed that they would die if it went faster than 30 mph!)
Then along came motor vehicles where people discovered they could get to places where buses and trains didn't go in even more comfort, and go where, and when `they' wanted to go, so the majority switched to cars.
Only when a form of transport which is `actually' better than a car for `most' people is devised, or a way is found to allow people to avoid travelling when they don't have to is discovered, will they switch to the new system.
Currently no such better way of travelling, (or avoiding the need for travel) has been found.
DonkeyApple said:
Indeed. We can look at the areas where travel has been reduced: online groceries. It works because the car option is more expensive. It highlights that where price can be more competitive then people respond. Just like all the people selling a car and buying another to get a lower VED rate. People will pay many thousands to save a few hundred.
Actually, the reason I tried it were that I looked outside at the awful weather and thought "Nah, can't be arsed!". It was more convenient to order online than to actually go there.- O/T but does anyone else get the urge to go around the supermarket in a mini digger running down the chavs / old people that get in the way?
I know what you mean though...I remember one of my fiancée's friends gasping in shock when I told her I pay 2x £285 annually. What has she just bought? A base model Peugeot 208. For £10k. On finance.
DonkeyApple said:
Re taxation, the simple fact is that if the aim is to reduce congestion then the only solution is to reduce the number of vehicles and you can only do that through price competition. This would mean that where there isn't natural price competition it must be created artificially. And it is smarter and cheaper to tax users out of cars so that private enterprise creates mass transport solutions than it is to build a subsidised State network alternative to compete against the extreme convenience of the motor car. The latter has never worked as the car is so superior.
The only solution? What about improving the roads we do have and making them more efficient? How about, again, reducing the need to travel in the first place?DonkeyApple said:
And re the finance element, why would second hand cars remain at current cheap prices if the finance was removed that facilitated over 80% of new car purchases? And your assumption would require the removal of the legislative trend to kill old cars. Personal debt was deregulated specifically to boost current spending of future income and this increase tax take. It serves no other purpose as debt consumption can only ever lead to increased poverty. As we all have seen. It is the rapid gateway to the illusion of wealth without there actually being any wealth and that illusion triggers excessive spending which means more tax.
If people maintained cars properly, there would be less reason for them to buy new / swap. - I can think of several friends and acquaintances who change because they've abused & neglected their previous car to the point where it's an unreliable heap. One idiot that seems to always drive around with several lights out recently complained to me that his car had started making noises. When I checked the oil (only did it as I knew it'd make me laugh), it was below the MIN marker on the dipstick. He was surprised at this because apparently he'd already put a litre in that day! The latest is that he kept driving on bald tyres (cord visible) until he had a blowout. 
Pan Pan said:
many years ago people realized that if they jumped on the back of a horse, they could get to other places they needed to be, which were much further away, far quicker, and with far less effort, than walking or running. So people switched to riding on horses or in horse drawn vehicles.
Then they discovered that if they got on one of those new fangled train things, they could get to other places even further away, and faster, and with much more comfort than if they stayed on teh back of a horse. So the majority of the mobile public switched to trains. (although some believed that they would die if it went faster than 30 mph!)
Then along came motor vehicles where people discovered they could get to places where buses and trains didn't go in even more comfort, and go where, and when `they' wanted to go, so the majority switched to cars.
Only when a form of transport which is `actually' better than a car for `most' people is devised, or a way is found to allow people to avoid travelling when they don't have to is discovered, will they switch to the new system.
Currently no such better way of travelling, (or avoiding the need for travel) has been found.
People only ever had a horse as they couldn't afford broadband or a mobile phone. Then they discovered that if they got on one of those new fangled train things, they could get to other places even further away, and faster, and with much more comfort than if they stayed on teh back of a horse. So the majority of the mobile public switched to trains. (although some believed that they would die if it went faster than 30 mph!)
Then along came motor vehicles where people discovered they could get to places where buses and trains didn't go in even more comfort, and go where, and when `they' wanted to go, so the majority switched to cars.
Only when a form of transport which is `actually' better than a car for `most' people is devised, or a way is found to allow people to avoid travelling when they don't have to is discovered, will they switch to the new system.
Currently no such better way of travelling, (or avoiding the need for travel) has been found.
How many actual tasks are left in the West that couldn't be done in your day to day life without an Internet connection and telephone?
Our roads are full of people going to buy things they don't need that they could have delivered and people selling things no one needs that they could do over the phone.
The average two way commute in the UK is 8.6 miles.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff