The " war on the motorist"
Discussion
Devil2575 said:
Pan Pan said:
No. it is all to do with population. the more people there are, the more there will be people who will want to move from one place to another, so regardless of whatever form of transport is chosen, it will be congested.
Or do you intend we go back to serfdom, where people were not allowed to move around, or to a more recent point where no one but the rich could move around, and where most people never travelled more than a few miles from where they born, in their entire lives?
The world and this country has changed, and a highly mobile population is one facet of the way people choose to live today. Those who moan about cars, are typically those who don't have to, or want to travel very far, don't have to carry heavy goods to do their jobs, don't have to meet customers on the other side of the country, face to face. And they think that everyone else, should do the same as them. Like I said before, when some one has devised something better than the car, for getting the majority of the population around, the population will switch to it in their millions, To date, no one has done this.
To say that it is all to do with polulation is simply incorrect. 30 individual driving a car take up a lot more space than 30 individuals on a bus or 30 individuals walking. The fact that car ownership has risen substantially over the last 30 years is very likely to be a big factor. Or do you intend we go back to serfdom, where people were not allowed to move around, or to a more recent point where no one but the rich could move around, and where most people never travelled more than a few miles from where they born, in their entire lives?
The world and this country has changed, and a highly mobile population is one facet of the way people choose to live today. Those who moan about cars, are typically those who don't have to, or want to travel very far, don't have to carry heavy goods to do their jobs, don't have to meet customers on the other side of the country, face to face. And they think that everyone else, should do the same as them. Like I said before, when some one has devised something better than the car, for getting the majority of the population around, the population will switch to it in their millions, To date, no one has done this.
I don't have any desire to go back to serfdom. I think you're on the verge of falling into a false dichotomy.
I don't see that chosing to use another form of transport indicates any such desire either.
I'm not talking about people who need to use a car and have no genuine alternative, I don't think i've said anything in previous posts to infer that. The issue is that people who have a genuine need to use a car are held up by people who don't. Too many of us drive when we don't really need too.
As for a better form of transport, that depends on how you define better.
Even when stuck in a traffic jam, people are still sitting in a comfortable seat. in their own space, in the dry and warm, possibly with their preferred entertainment on the radio, and even something to eat and drink, instead of standing on at a freezing cold windswept bus stop (waiting for a bus that is often trapped in the same jam as the cars around it) or a train station waiting for a train over which they have no control, which only goes to an approximation of where they are, to an approximation of where they want to be, and which ironically is often going to cost them much more than using a car.
Also they cannot carry much in the way of goods / luggage / shopping with them, or take other people with them, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that all those other people will be able to get onto the same bus / train when it finally arrives. travelling by public transport is even more daunting, and even more difficult for the elderly or disabled.
As for pollution, buses, and trains, operate in the most polluting continuous stop /start mode, and if you have ever tried to push a train, or bus, you will realize they take, and waste huge amounts of energy in both accelerating up to speed and then slowing down again, owing to their high weight.
This is made worse by the fact that for much of the day (and night) hey are running around empty, or with just a couple of people on the entire bus / train.
If we all switched to buses, the streets would be packed with heavy inefficiently used, smelly, polluting buses. The rails system simply would not cope with the demand (as it is even now failing to do) and we are not back in the 1950`s where hardly anyone travelled very far for work, and even less for shopping an leisure. We are in the 21st century.
We need transport that best meets 21st century needs and lifestyles. At present that is still the private car.
heebeegeetee said:
Pan Pan said:
When someone comes up with a means of transport that is better than the private car for the `majority' of the public, the public will switch to it in droves. To date no one has.
Of course they have, they've done it throughout much of Europe and the countries closest to us have the most choice and make use of that choice. Imo the UK is unique in Europe for it's attitudes and freedoms it affords motorists whilst providing the least for anyone else.trashbat said:
FiF said:
I think most people, if they're being honest, would struggle in a real live shooting war.
The war on the motorist is not a phrase which I created, it is one which somebody used to describe continual anti motorist actions by the powers that be. It's also the title of this thread.
If you have a relevant point to make, then do so.
It's just not much of a sustained and targeted campaign, is it? I know it's not your phrase but planning intervention amounts to a war about as much as say, running out of teabags.The war on the motorist is not a phrase which I created, it is one which somebody used to describe continual anti motorist actions by the powers that be. It's also the title of this thread.
If you have a relevant point to make, then do so.
As it stands, you're provided with a system in which you can basically drive almost anywhere, at any time, on your own, without justification, for hardly any money - a bit like the universal postal service. So much in Britain is set up as a concession to motorised transport (often to positive net effect, don't get me wrong) and it's a rarity that anything at all happens to curtail that. The London Congestion Charge is probably the biggest such event in over a decade.
The planning intervention you describe, and other policies like < 2 car parking spaces per house are dim witted, and will fail to bring about the desired change, but the very fact that they don't work tells you all you need to know.
A helicopter would probably make your life somewhat easier but the gross expense and the failure of Barratt Homes to add a helipad to all new builds doesn't amount to a war on helicopters in anyone's eyes but the deluded.
The planning intervention is but one example, there have been plenty of other examples given in the thread. Incidentally there are other similar examples of planning interventions on other hospitals and public buildings. And as you say, it doesn't work, and is clearly dim witted. So dim witted that the dim wits keep making the same move, time after time.
The nearest town centre to my house had a policy, until about a year ago, of actively discouraging cars and making parking difficult, despite the lack of bus services, no train station, and that the majority of income to the town in the summer months comes from visitors, who arrive by car. How dim witted is that? Cutting nose off to spite face.
Moves they make to encourage, let's say cycling, are equally crackers. Cycle lanes that are so narrow that it doesn't achieve anything and gives false sense of security. In the city which does have a bus service, bus lanes which reduce road space, and have dedicated lights to their advantage, which actually end up causing more congestion, yet one hardly ever sees a bus in the bus lane.
As indicated in my earlier post, which you edited out for some reason, in an urban environment where it's perfectly possible to have a public transport, walking and cycling oriented existence then that is clearly the way to go. But there are vast swathes of Britain where it's not. Even in that urban area, all the stuff which permits that urban lifestyle arrives by road.
FiF said:
OK so hyperbole and helicopter pads just adds so much common sense to things doesn't it.
The planning intervention is but one example, there have been plenty of other examples given in the thread. Incidentally there are other similar examples of planning interventions on other hospitals and public buildings. And as you say, it doesn't work, and is clearly dim witted. So dim witted that the dim wits keep making the same move, time after time.
The nearest town centre to my house had a policy, until about a year ago, of actively discouraging cars and making parking difficult, despite the lack of bus services, no train station, and that the majority of income to the town in the summer months comes from visitors, who arrive by car. How dim witted is that? Cutting nose off to spite face.
Moves they make to encourage, let's say cycling, are equally crackers. Cycle lanes that are so narrow that it doesn't achieve anything and gives false sense of security. In the city which does have a bus service, bus lanes which reduce road space, and have dedicated lights to their advantage, which actually end up causing more congestion, yet one hardly ever sees a bus in the bus lane.
As indicated in my earlier post, which you edited out for some reason, in an urban environment where it's perfectly possible to have a public transport, walking and cycling oriented existence then that is clearly the way to go. But there are vast swathes of Britain where it's not. Even in that urban area, all the stuff which permits that urban lifestyle arrives by road.
I agree that the cycling and public transport provisions are crap (although I disagree with your complaint about bus lanes) but what you describe is largely because of concessions to motorised transport.The planning intervention is but one example, there have been plenty of other examples given in the thread. Incidentally there are other similar examples of planning interventions on other hospitals and public buildings. And as you say, it doesn't work, and is clearly dim witted. So dim witted that the dim wits keep making the same move, time after time.
The nearest town centre to my house had a policy, until about a year ago, of actively discouraging cars and making parking difficult, despite the lack of bus services, no train station, and that the majority of income to the town in the summer months comes from visitors, who arrive by car. How dim witted is that? Cutting nose off to spite face.
Moves they make to encourage, let's say cycling, are equally crackers. Cycle lanes that are so narrow that it doesn't achieve anything and gives false sense of security. In the city which does have a bus service, bus lanes which reduce road space, and have dedicated lights to their advantage, which actually end up causing more congestion, yet one hardly ever sees a bus in the bus lane.
As indicated in my earlier post, which you edited out for some reason, in an urban environment where it's perfectly possible to have a public transport, walking and cycling oriented existence then that is clearly the way to go. But there are vast swathes of Britain where it's not. Even in that urban area, all the stuff which permits that urban lifestyle arrives by road.
If you were going to force people out of their cars via something more substantial than this weak, passive aggressive, wishful thinking planning policy then you would probably do so at the expense of motorists - but it doesn't happen, even in UK cities. The only meaningful brake on increased car usage is other motorists and the problems they cause. Now you can argue that that's failure of the system to provide capacity but in turn I can argue that doing so would be a further concession.
I also live somewhere semi-rural where there is no meaningful public transport, so I know that ordinary life without a car is not really a feasible choice here, but I did choose to live here and chose to have a car. There's no war on me.
trashbat said:
FiF said:
I think most people, if they're being honest, would struggle in a real live shooting war.
The war on the motorist is not a phrase which I created, it is one which somebody used to describe continual anti motorist actions by the powers that be. It's also the title of this thread.
If you have a relevant point to make, then do so.
It's just not much of a sustained and targeted campaign, is it? The war on the motorist is not a phrase which I created, it is one which somebody used to describe continual anti motorist actions by the powers that be. It's also the title of this thread.
If you have a relevant point to make, then do so.
This has not been the case so much over the last few years, thankfully. I guess lots of people have already forgotten what Labour were like.
Devil2575 said:
I'm not talking about people who need to use a car and have no genuine alternative, ...
As for a better form of transport, that depends on how you define better.
"Need" is the creed of socialism and authoritarianism, we like choice here thanks.As for a better form of transport, that depends on how you define better.
"better" = better for the individual in this context, obviously, as that's what will make them choose it.
Horse Pop said:
I feel there's a lot of lentil botherers who live in major cities deciding what people who don't live in major cities should be doing to get from A to B.
Well, actually, I've studied, lived and worked in Cardiff, Manchester, Rotherham & Stocksbridge in S. Yorks, Gloucester, Pukekohe in New Zealand (a small rural town 12 miles from work), Loughborough (9 miles from work), Aberdeen and now Yeovil in Somerset, and I've always managed to cycle to work. Edited by Horse Pop on Thursday 18th December 13:47
Using my car has always been the second back-up option, only if cycling and public transport fail.
Living in a large city is not a pre-requisite for being able to get around by bike.
Pan Pan said:
As for `anyone else' if they want transport dedicated to them, they should put their money where their mouth is, and pay for it themselves, as motorists have done for years, and have to do now. Where only a tiny fraction of the funds paid into the exchequer every year by the motoring public, is spent back on the roads from whence that cash comes in the first place
Funny but I don't see special taxes on cyclists, bus passengers, train users, etc. in other European countries.Everyone pays a range of income taxes to subsidise the roads and publicly-owned public transport, not to mention some of the highest bus and train fares in Europe.
Don't blame non-drivers for the government's failure to re-invest income generated from fuel, VED, car tax, etc. in the roads network.
BGarside said:
Horse Pop said:
I feel there's a lot of lentil botherers who live in major cities deciding what people who don't live in major cities should be doing to get from A to B.
Well, actually, I've studied, lived and worked in Cardiff, Manchester, Rotherham & Stocksbridge in S. Yorks, Gloucester, Pukekohe in New Zealand (a small rural town 12 miles from work), Loughborough (9 miles from work), Aberdeen and now Yeovil in Somerset, and I've always managed to cycle to work. Edited by Horse Pop on Thursday 18th December 13:47
Using my car has always been the second back-up option, only if cycling and public transport fail.
Living in a large city is not a pre-requisite for being able to get around by bike.
CrutyRammers said:
Devil2575 said:
I'm not talking about people who need to use a car and have no genuine alternative, ...
As for a better form of transport, that depends on how you define better.
"Need" is the creed of socialism and authoritarianism, we like choice here thanks.As for a better form of transport, that depends on how you define better.
"better" = better for the individual in this context, obviously, as that's what will make them choose it.
As for better for the individual, that again isn't as straight forward I suspect. An individual may consider it better for them to be able to do a specific activity, but the long term effect of everyone making that same choice may be bad for that same individual.
For example, if traffic congestion is a problem that impacts economic growth then an individual may be hurting their own long term financial situation by continuing to drive even though it feels like the most convenient solution in the short term. I suspect many people don't think about stuff like this in that respect.
Pan Pan said:
If we all switched to buses, the streets would be packed with heavy inefficiently used, smelly, polluting buses.
Buses use road space far more efficiently than cars. Look at how many people a bus can accomodate, how big it's footprint is and how much it weighs in relation to the number of cars it would take to transport the equivalent number of people. That's before you consider that most cars actually only carry one person.
Buses also don't need to be any more polluting than cars.
Buses do, however, need a certain volume of people travelling on any given route in order to be able to run a reasonably frequent service in a manner which is economically and environmentally viable. Running empty subsidised buses round the countryside is not sensible.
Mass transit solutions work well for urban and suburban areas. Relying on them in more sparsely populated areas has definite downsides for quality of life and opportunity.
Mass transit solutions work well for urban and suburban areas. Relying on them in more sparsely populated areas has definite downsides for quality of life and opportunity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro_400
Alexander Dennis Enviro400.
Accomodates 64-90 passengers.
Weighs 18 tonnes
Foot print 35 x 8 ft = 280 sqft
Passengers per tonne = 3.5 - 5
Passengers per sqft = 0.23-0.32
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
Ford Mondeo
Accomodates 5
Weighs 1.5 tonnes
Foor print 6.6 x 15.5 ft = 102 sqft
Passengers per tonne = 3.3
Passengers per sqft = 0.05
Alexander Dennis Enviro400.
Accomodates 64-90 passengers.
Weighs 18 tonnes
Foot print 35 x 8 ft = 280 sqft
Passengers per tonne = 3.5 - 5
Passengers per sqft = 0.23-0.32
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
Ford Mondeo
Accomodates 5
Weighs 1.5 tonnes
Foor print 6.6 x 15.5 ft = 102 sqft
Passengers per tonne = 3.3
Passengers per sqft = 0.05
otolith said:
Buses do, however, need a certain volume of people travelling on any given route in order to be able to run a reasonably frequent service in a manner which is economically and environmentally viable. Running empty subsidised buses round the countryside is not sensible.
Mass transit solutions work well for urban and suburban areas. Relying on them in more sparsely populated areas has definite downsides for quality of life and opportunity.
I agree it does, but bus services were far better before car ownership was as high as it is now. I've watched the bus services near to me deteriorate over the last 30 years as cars meant less people used them.Mass transit solutions work well for urban and suburban areas. Relying on them in more sparsely populated areas has definite downsides for quality of life and opportunity.
This is a bit inconvenient for me as I like to use the bus to get to the pub. It's a lot cheaper than a taxi.
Devil2575 said:
You don't have to spend £800 to get a decent bike.
I bought my first bike for £270 and it paid for itself within a year and I didn't have to do anything like 7000 miles. You don't just save on fuel, you save on wear and tear. My car now does under 5k a year so insurance is less, tyres last longer etc.
Also if you're doing 2 miles to work are you really getting 48 mpg (£800 = 146 gallons @£1.20 a litre = 48 mpg)? What do you drive? A Prius
Listen, i'm not trying to put anyones back up(except Nigel's), I realise that people feel differently about this subject. I did myself up until a few years ago. Then one day I decided to stop telling myself I didn't have a choice and I made a change. The difference it has made to my life is amazing. Before I got on a bike I was overweight, unfit and stressed. Now I'd say I was very fit, I can pretty much eat what I want and maintain a healthy weight and stress levels are a lot lower.
Cycling is one of the cheapest transportation options. Cost should not be a deterrent to anybody.I bought my first bike for £270 and it paid for itself within a year and I didn't have to do anything like 7000 miles. You don't just save on fuel, you save on wear and tear. My car now does under 5k a year so insurance is less, tyres last longer etc.
Also if you're doing 2 miles to work are you really getting 48 mpg (£800 = 146 gallons @£1.20 a litre = 48 mpg)? What do you drive? A Prius
Listen, i'm not trying to put anyones back up(except Nigel's
), I realise that people feel differently about this subject. I did myself up until a few years ago. Then one day I decided to stop telling myself I didn't have a choice and I made a change. The difference it has made to my life is amazing. Before I got on a bike I was overweight, unfit and stressed. Now I'd say I was very fit, I can pretty much eat what I want and maintain a healthy weight and stress levels are a lot lower.The fitness and health benefits are obvious,and cycling up to 5 miles is pretty easy and within reach of most people who are not disabled or chronically ill.
Unfortunately, people are deterred from cycling by hostile road conditions, dangerous road layouts and aggressive, intolerant drivers in the UK.
In a more civilised country it would be possible to cycle in safety. Indeed, cycling is seen as an everyday activity in much of Europe but it seems in the UK cyclists are singled out for intimidation and abuse by ignorant, selfish individuals who believe their cars give them exclusive rights to the road network.
Moreover, heavy traffic everywhere all the time, and rat-running drivers using back roads and lanes to avoid congestion have just made cycling more and more intolerable in this country. Areas I would have cycled in just 10-15 years ago have become no-go areas and the options for safe(-ish) cycling routes continually diminish.
Consequently people are afraid to cycle and the car-dependency feeds on itself, to the detriment of pollution, health, quality of life of local residents and time wasted sitting in traffic jams.
Pan Pan said:
OK! name it. As for `anyone else' if they want transport dedicated to them, they should put their money where their mouth is, and pay for it themselves, as motorists have done for years, and have to do now. Where only a tiny fraction of the funds paid into the exchequer every year by the motoring public, is spent back on the roads from whence that cash comes in the first place
It's called cycling, something that is widely promoted throughout Europe and which people have taken up, literally as you say, in droves. The people in the countries nearest to us such as France, Belgium and Holland, and Denmark when looking in another direction, have taken up cycling en masse and it it tremendously beneficial to all. And of course they have paid for it - where did the money come from if they didn't?Everybody pays taxes but none are ring fenced towards roads or much else. The taxpayers who want to travel other than by car is flipping short-changed in this country.
And in terms of going to war, it's the cyclists who have to dress up like ninjas, not the motorists.
And unfortunately almost all the big queues I encounter now are headed by a stupid car driver who is too frightened to overtake a cyclist. Or is it that the stupid car driver has been intimidated by all the recommended clearances we are supposed to leave. Are cycles the cause, or the effect of queuing?
HertsBiker said:
And unfortunately almost all the big queues I encounter now are headed by a stupid car driver who is too frightened to overtake a cyclist. Or is it that the stupid car driver has been intimidated by all the recommended clearances we are supposed to leave. Are cycles the cause, or the effect of queuing?
Really? That's quite a claim. I don't have any issues with people scared to pass me.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff