"Motorists have ruined England"
Discussion
otolith said:
DonkeyApple said:
otolith said:
That's ok, they don't get the tax break 
A tax break is nowhere near enough of an incentive for me to stay at home, that's for sure. Having just read the article...he has a point, but it's not definitive.
He states that London of old was like today, just without cars. What of the horse excrement that carpeted much of the capital prior to cars?
He plucks helpful stats from different sources - do all those sources use the same rigour to get results? If not, then don't conflate them.
He like London when other people are away on holiday. So it's clearly other people's fault, not his.
This country - like many others - has developed rapidly without actually making best use of new technologies, hence the appalling state of the road 'network'. One could easily justify replacing 50%+ all rural roads and nearly 100% main trunk routes with new roads to ease congestion, improve communication, and therefore increase our economic success. Bizarre when you consider the Romans taught us how to do it 2000 years ago.
He states that London of old was like today, just without cars. What of the horse excrement that carpeted much of the capital prior to cars?
He plucks helpful stats from different sources - do all those sources use the same rigour to get results? If not, then don't conflate them.
He like London when other people are away on holiday. So it's clearly other people's fault, not his.
This country - like many others - has developed rapidly without actually making best use of new technologies, hence the appalling state of the road 'network'. One could easily justify replacing 50%+ all rural roads and nearly 100% main trunk routes with new roads to ease congestion, improve communication, and therefore increase our economic success. Bizarre when you consider the Romans taught us how to do it 2000 years ago.
Where the article is wrong is when he starta talking about free markets and everyone being pinko commies.
He seems to be saying that we should let the free market decide on the price of motoring, but if it did then it would be a lot cheaper than it is now and more people would drive more miles. Fuel prices are artificially elevated by taxation without which filling up would be a lot cheaper. This runs counter to his view that we need to limit the use of cars. He's suggesting state imposed charges to make motoring more expensive which is the exact opposite of free market economics. What he's doing is a common trick of the right, complaining about a situation that is essentially caused by right wing policies and blaming the Sociallists. He is then advocating a left wing, state driven solution.
He seems to be saying that we should let the free market decide on the price of motoring, but if it did then it would be a lot cheaper than it is now and more people would drive more miles. Fuel prices are artificially elevated by taxation without which filling up would be a lot cheaper. This runs counter to his view that we need to limit the use of cars. He's suggesting state imposed charges to make motoring more expensive which is the exact opposite of free market economics. What he's doing is a common trick of the right, complaining about a situation that is essentially caused by right wing policies and blaming the Sociallists. He is then advocating a left wing, state driven solution.
Indeed, and has been pointed out previously, the motorcar was (and still is) the saviour of the city. Despite the downsides it is the least worst option.
Bring on a decent battery and/or hydrogen powered self driven cars I say.
I'd happily lose my "personal" daily car if I could call on a driverless car, have it turn up within a few minutes, take me to my destination and then p
s off to drive someone else (at of course a reasonable cost, you can get a taxi to do the same but it's something like £2.5/mile round here and rather more I expect in London).
You'll have to prise my fun car out of my cold dead fingers though.
Bring on a decent battery and/or hydrogen powered self driven cars I say.
I'd happily lose my "personal" daily car if I could call on a driverless car, have it turn up within a few minutes, take me to my destination and then p
s off to drive someone else (at of course a reasonable cost, you can get a taxi to do the same but it's something like £2.5/mile round here and rather more I expect in London).You'll have to prise my fun car out of my cold dead fingers though.
DonkeyApple said:
I don't think making the fat kids of dumb parents walk is worthwhile. It's a bit of a Daily Mail 'hate' solution. It's whether the structure of schooling can be adjusted to make better use of less congested times etc.
Very agreed on this part. Good government should assume at first that its citizens are basically good and need only the tiniest of touches (if any) to sort themselves out.Hammers and taxes and BAN EVERYTHING are a resort, but the last one.
Dr Jekyll said:
The country is not grinding to a halt, that's absurd. People travel by car when it's the least worst option, just as they travel by tube and train when that's the least worst option. Tubes are often overcrowded, not because people use them too often or when they don't need to, but because they are often a rational option despite the crowds.
What you mean of course is that you are delayed by congestion and regard this as a threat to civilisation.
So the other people using the roads should bugger off and go by train. Of course this causes them more delay than going by car (that's why they used the car in the first place) but for them to avoid this delay means they are worshipping at the altar of personal convenience and (their) convenience is bad.
Of course it's out of the question for you to use trains and suffer the delay, because delay to you means the country is grinding to a halt, whereas delays to anyone else are an irrelevant inconvenience.
It's hyperbole to call congestion or threat to civilisation or to say "motorists have ruined england", yes.What you mean of course is that you are delayed by congestion and regard this as a threat to civilisation.
So the other people using the roads should bugger off and go by train. Of course this causes them more delay than going by car (that's why they used the car in the first place) but for them to avoid this delay means they are worshipping at the altar of personal convenience and (their) convenience is bad.
Of course it's out of the question for you to use trains and suffer the delay, because delay to you means the country is grinding to a halt, whereas delays to anyone else are an irrelevant inconvenience.
That's not an excuse to do nothing. I've been to nearly every city south of liverpool in the UK, and in every single one on a weekday it was quicker to cycle (0.2hp) than to drive. THAT is economically absurd.
Devil2575 said:
Fastdruid said:
Indeed, and has been pointed out previously, the motorcar was (and still is) the saviour of the city. Despite the downsides it is the least worst option.
Is it? I'd suggest that a decent public transport system is a much better solution.Fastdruid said:
Devil2575 said:
Fastdruid said:
Indeed, and has been pointed out previously, the motorcar was (and still is) the saviour of the city. Despite the downsides it is the least worst option.
Is it? I'd suggest that a decent public transport system is a much better solution.
Motorcars clog up roads and require parking spaces. From a space and efficiency point of view there are better options. They may not be desirable to those who don't wish to have to mix with the "great unwashed" but that isn't a criteria i'd be using to judge it by.
Fastdruid said:
You can suggest all you like but it's not a one size fits all solution.
There is no 'one size fits all' solution. This doesn't alter the fact that plenty of people COULD leave their car at home occasionally and wall, cycle or use public transport for at least some of their journeys.Every time public transport or cycling is mentioned it gets a response that 'I couldn't do that' or 'it won't suit everyone'. OK, but that does not mean these solutions will not suit some people at least some of the time.
Personally, I have never taken a job I was not able to get to at least three different ways - usually cycle, car or public transport.
This has meant I've been able to get to work when it's too icy/snowy to cycle, or drive, etc. but my usual mode of transport to work over the last 17 years of working (in 7 different jobs, 5 different locations including 2 different countries) has been cycling.
A huge proportion of car journeys are under 3 miles in length and so ideally suited to cycling or, where available, public transport.
The attitude on this forum of dismissing all transport options apart from the car out of hand just reflects how totally car-addicted and car-dependent Britain has become and, for me, the constant heavy traffic, traffic noise and deteriorating standards of driving have had a major impact on quality of life, whether I am walking, cycling, driving or even at home.
Devil2575 said:
In which case neither is the car
Motorcars clog up roads and require parking spaces. From a space and efficiency point of view there are better options. They may not be desirable to those who don't wish to have to mix with the "great unwashed" but that isn't a criteria i'd be using to judge it by.
Indeed. A device which can carry more than one individual and doesn't require a parking space is going to be the most efficient city tool. The key is that there need to be enough of them and covering enough areas to start being as remotely convenient as the amazing motor car.Motorcars clog up roads and require parking spaces. From a space and efficiency point of view there are better options. They may not be desirable to those who don't wish to have to mix with the "great unwashed" but that isn't a criteria i'd be using to judge it by.
A bit of free thinking may be the way forward. Open up the bus routes to certain minivans so that private enterprise can use social media and basic S&D to design their own routes. I.e an app to book a seat on a luxury minivan that has a pick up a few hundred yards from your home and deposits you right in the City without all the faffing to collect others en route.
It all depends on just what is making up the car traffic in London though. During rush hour is all the traffic really inner zone Londoners trying to get in and out of central London? I have a feeling it isn't. I think it is mostly non Londoners and people cutting through. There isn't enough parking spaces in the centre of London for most of these drivers to be aiming for the centre as a destination. Understanding just who the types are adding to congestion during peak hours has to be the first call before steering any solutions.
Johnnytheboy said:
otolith said:
DonkeyApple said:
otolith said:
That's ok, they don't get the tax break
A tax break is nowhere near enough of an incentive for me to stay at home, that's for sure. 
Devil2575 said:
Fastdruid said:
Devil2575 said:
Fastdruid said:
Indeed, and has been pointed out previously, the motorcar was (and still is) the saviour of the city. Despite the downsides it is the least worst option.
Is it? I'd suggest that a decent public transport system is a much better solution.That kind of activity does indeed suggest it's a pretty successful (part-way) solution to personal mobility.
Public transport offers an alternative only where the lack of choice in route, destination or timetable are not barriers to desirability. And a choice of entertainment. And temperature. And seat covering. Oh, and choosing to take a bike with you or a carrycot.
We're too far down the route of personal freedom with this to easily go back to one-size-fits-all state provision.
All IMHO and not backed up by any figures, research, empirical data or tea leaves.
The Don of Croy said:
Devil2575 said:
Fastdruid said:
Devil2575 said:
Fastdruid said:
Indeed, and has been pointed out previously, the motorcar was (and still is) the saviour of the city. Despite the downsides it is the least worst option.
Is it? I'd suggest that a decent public transport system is a much better solution.That kind of activity does indeed suggest it's a pretty successful (part-way) solution to personal mobility.
Allowing people free reign to do what they want is great until their actions start to negatively impact on others. I'd suggest that with cars in many city centres this point has been reached.
With respect to desirability, there are issues where an individuals desires may need to be curtailed for good reasons. I may wish to wash my car with a hose pipe but if there is a water shortage my right to do so will may be removed.
Edited by Devil2575 on Monday 8th September 16:46
Absolutely no need for a car in London if you don't have kids. Have just decided not to buy a sensible car as we worked out that renting a zipcar when (rarely) required would be cheaper than even the cheapest lease deal we could find.
If I had to get screaming sprogs to activities at the weekend, that view would probably change.
Obviously, I still own several cars. But this is because I am a selfish planet-destroyer, rather than because I actually need them.
Defender has not been used since April, apart from regular start-up and drive to keep it running well. Time to sell it, I think.
If I had to get screaming sprogs to activities at the weekend, that view would probably change.
Obviously, I still own several cars. But this is because I am a selfish planet-destroyer, rather than because I actually need them.
Defender has not been used since April, apart from regular start-up and drive to keep it running well. Time to sell it, I think.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff