The " war on the motorist"

[corozin]

Brigand said:

I assume then that the OP has only been driving a year or so, and drives a 1.0ltr Micra that is uber-economical, because driving is certainly not cheap these days!

You can't get from London to Brighton on £10 in my BMW I can tell you that - and it's not even that fast (compared to actual fast cars)

[otolith]

corozin said:

Brigand said:

I assume then that the OP has only been driving a year or so, and drives a 1.0ltr Micra that is uber-economical, because driving is certainly not cheap these days!

You can't get from London to Brighton on £10 in my BMW I can tell you that - and it's not even that fast (compared to actual fast cars)

I think the OP has a Honda Insight - which is a technically interesting car, but not one I've any desire to own or drive.

[MG CHRIS]

xjay1337 said:

Devil2575 said:

Says it all really.

Says what?

I accept I am part of the problem.

but that's my choice

yes, I would cycle. but i don't have a bicycle. and i'm not spending £800 on a decent bike thank you.

that's about 7000 miles of fuel.

This I live in the welsh valleys like anywhere outside of major cities and the south east is not jammed up.
I live 6 miles from work which goes straight down 1 valley it takes roughly 15 mins to do that with picking up a mate of mine. There is a direct buss route that stops pretty much straight outside the garage which is used to use a few times before I had a car.

If I had to catch a bus for me it would mean a 10 mins walk to the bus station, then a 5 mins wait for the late bus then a half hour bus ride to work so easy 45 mins. On the way home the bus would stop at 5.45 I finish at half 5 so the 15 mins drive by car is me waiting for the bus.
Then another half hour journey then a 10 min walk after a hard day working on cars covered in crap and on times raining too.

Yea like anyone that didn't have a car would do that not even the all oh mighty must use public transport idiots, also the buses are st, you have to sit alongside drunks, bums, chavs, under aged parents, screaming kids etc etc where I can be home in 15 mins in a comfy car not listening to other st and being able to listen to music I want.

And for all this it cost me in petrol £3.50 a day the bus is £8 there and back what would you do. And if I had a car that was twice the mpg as my mx5 would cost me less than £2.

[CrutyRammers]

Devil2575 said:

My mother used to get the bus to places or walk, these days many people consider the bus just to be for poor people.

Except in very specialised cases, i.e. the middle of large cities where cars are deliberately disadvantaged in favour of busses, they will always be less good at transport than a car. Who would willingly pick a worse way to travel?

[supersingle]

CrutyRammers said:

Devil2575 said:

My mother used to get the bus to places or walk, these days many people consider the bus just to be for poor people.

Except in very specialised cases, i.e. the middle of large cities where cars are deliberately disadvantaged in favour of busses, they will always be less good at transport than a car. Who would willingly pick a worse way to travel?

Buses are for losers.

If you want cheap personal transportation you need a scooter. Running costs can be less 5ppm and pollution from a modern 4 stroke is minuscule. Funnily enough, statist/greenie aholes hate them too because they want us all on their stinking public transport where they can better enjoy fking with our lives, the s!

[Nigel Worc's]

Devil2575 said:

I think the issue is that for most people better means more convenient and easier. The trouble is that for society as a whole better probably means something completely different, such as less polluting and less congestion causing.

Until more individuals realise that they are part of the problem and care enough about it to change their behaviour then the status quo will be maintained.

As long as there are self righteous pricks like you and the other greenie style whinging bds around ............................... I am proud to be part of the problem.

I cycled and used public transport as a child, when I had no choice, now I have a choice and I'll drive or ride my motorcycle.

[XJ Flyer]

Nigel Worc's said:

Devil2575 said:

I think the issue is that for most people better means more convenient and easier. The trouble is that for society as a whole better probably means something completely different, such as less polluting and less congestion causing.

Until more individuals realise that they are part of the problem and care enough about it to change their behaviour then the status quo will be maintained.

As long as there are self righteous pricks like you and the other greenie style whinging bds around ............................... I am proud to be part of the problem.

I cycled and used public transport as a child, when I had no choice, now I have a choice and I'll drive or ride my motorcycle.

The non existent 'problem' that those Libdem/Green/Lab etc etc control freaks are referring to is all about them actually wanting to remove that freedom of choice.All their whingeing is in reality just a softening up tactic to push through their real agenda.

[Pan Pan]

Devil2575 said:

Pan Pan said:

Devil2575 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.
It is easy to focus only on the negatives of car use, whilst completely ignoring the positives they provide for `most' of the population. and then make them out to be the spawn of the devil, but the overall reality of car use is a long long way away from that.

I think the issue is that for most people better means more convenient and easier. The trouble is that for society as a whole better probably means something completely different, such as less polluting and less congestion causing.

Until more individuals realise that they are part of the problem and care enough about it to change their behaviour then the status quo will be maintained.

If we insist on adding the population of a town the size of Swindon to the UK year on year. it really does not matter how we chose to get around, it will all be congested, that said the `built on area of the UK including roads is currentl less than 6% of the available land area, but filling an area to bursting point with anything, just because there is (initially at least) space for it does seem like folly.

I don't think the issue is just around population growth, it's also to do with the growth of car ownership. When I was little only my father had a car and in fact most of my friends parents only had one car. These days most households have two cars. On top of this when I was younger if you passed your test you were added to your parents insurance and used their car. These days there can be four or five cars in a single household. My mother used to get the bus to places or walk, these days many people consider the bus just to be for poor people.

The key for me is getting out of the mindset that you have no alternative to a car and that it is someone elses responsibility to provide you with a more convenient solution.

When the country grinds to a halt, if in fact it hasn't already in certain locations and at certain times, it's going to become a real problem for all those people who currently see it as someone elses problem.

Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 17th December 16:47

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.

[Devil2575]

Nigel Worc's said:

Devil2575 said:

I think the issue is that for most people better means more convenient and easier. The trouble is that for society as a whole better probably means something completely different, such as less polluting and less congestion causing.

Until more individuals realise that they are part of the problem and care enough about it to change their behaviour then the status quo will be maintained.

As long as there are self righteous pricks like you and the other greenie style whinging bds around ............................... I am proud to be part of the problem.

I cycled and used public transport as a child, when I had no choice, now I have a choice and I'll drive or ride my motorcycle.

Shut up Nigel.

Out of all the people who post on PH, you are up there with people who's opinions I value the least

[Devil2575]

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.

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.

[kambites]

I suspect the average overall running cost of a private motor car is cheaper now than it's ever been before compared to either inflation or to median salaries. Yes, fuel prices have risen in real terms, but nowhere near as quickly as even real-world fuel consumption has fallen. Median VED has also fallen in real terms, although mean has been roughly static.

The only thing that seems to have gone up for the average person in real terms is the cost of insurance. Plus of course there's one-off things like the London "congestion charge" but the huge majority of British drivers will never pay it.


Looking at how busy the roads are at the moment, I'm not sure I'd want driving to be cheaper anyway.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 18th December 10:32

[Devil2575]

xjay1337 said:

Devil2575 said:

Says it all really.

Says what?

I accept I am part of the problem.

but that's my choice

yes, I would cycle. but i don't have a bicycle. and i'm not spending £800 on a decent bike thank you.

that's about 7000 miles of fuel.

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.

[heebeegeetee]

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.

[heebeegeetee]

HertsBiker said:

OP is a troll? As is Dammit? Are you so rich and so carefree that you don't notice the way congestion is created deliberately, then charged for? Or the ratcheting down of speed limits and freedoms? The continuous insurance, every little emission fakery put into law... Or did you just step from1973?

Apologies to other posters who may have said the same.

bks to you too. The speeding I do nowadays is absolutely ridiculous. I've never known the policing of the roads to be so lax, certainly not in my 30 odd years of driving.

Where is this war on the motorist? Surely car travel is the cheapest form of mechanised transport, is it not?

The roads are absolutely choked with cars so where are these people being dissuaded from motoring? Are we saying we want to see more cars on the roads?

[trashbat]

Devil2575 said:

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.

I went the opposite way.

I used to ride at least 5000 miles a year, when I 'didn't have a choice' because I didn't have a car. Now I almost always drive everywhere, I have to watch my weight, and fairly unremarkable motoring has cost me about £25k in four years (~£40k pre-tax?), which would be an intolerable salary cut in most people's books. Not brilliant.

That's not to say a car hasn't improved my life in many ways too - I doubt I would have met my OH, been on so many trips, got my current job or had such a convenient life without at least a driving licence and realistically a car of some sort.

I don't feel in the slightest like anyone is at war with me though. I have no points on my licence, never been fined for anything. The annual VED tax burden is no big deal and I could choose to reduce it. Cost per mile of fuel is negligible in context. Maintenance is significant but again I could choose to reduce it in a variety of ways.

If you're living on the breadline and can't afford to get to the only distant work you can find, I would think it valid grounds for a gripe. However most whingers here are already vastly privileged so it's hard to have any sympathy at all.

[FiF]

No war on the motorist?

So what is it when a planning application, for want of a better description, is submitted for a new greenfield out of town hospital to serve what is largely a rural area. The plan includes full parking provision for staff, patients and visitors after a proper objective analysis of travel needs and availability.

Only to see the politicians insist that the car parking provision be drastically reduced to "force people to use public transport." Yes there's a bus shuttle to the town centre, but bus services to get to the town centre in order to catch the shuttle. Errrm. Oops.

It's things like this which all add up.

Too many having a down on private cars live in urban areas and have a social life where a car is a luxury. We have a bus service within half a mile, 4 buses a day, none at weekends. Apart from that it's a two mile walk across fields and then a muddy river bank, or a longer walk on roads with no footpath or a very narrow one and fast moving traffic.

Waits for imprecations to cycle. FRO.

[trashbat]

FiF said:

No war on the motorist?

...

Only to see the politicians insist that the car parking provision be drastically reduced to "force people to use public transport."

I sense that you might struggle in an actual war.

[Horse Pop]

FiF said:

No war on the motorist?

So what is it when a planning application, for want of a better description, is submitted for a new greenfield out of town hospital to serve what is largely a rural area. The plan includes full parking provision for staff, patients and visitors after a proper objective analysis of travel needs and availability.

Only to see the politicians insist that the car parking provision be drastically reduced to "force people to use public transport." Yes there's a bus shuttle to the town centre, but bus services to get to the town centre in order to catch the shuttle. Errrm. Oops.

It's things like this which all add up.

Too many having a down on private cars live in urban areas and have a social life where a car is a luxury. We have a bus service within half a mile, 4 buses a day, none at weekends. Apart from that it's a two mile walk across fields and then a muddy river bank, or a longer walk on roads with no footpath or a very narrow one and fast moving traffic.

Waits for imprecations to cycle. FRO.

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.

If I lived in London, I would not be driving on a regular basis. I also wouldn't be cycling, but. I don't however live in London.

I run a car because it's the best option for me, where I live. I can get to work (bad bus coverage), visit my family (little/very bad bus coverage), and go places. We make heavy use of public transport where available (e.g. there's awesome train coverage to Liverpool and Manchester so very happy to use it. Liverpool especially, the trains are cheap, frequent and go where I want to go. This is a very good substitute for driving).

If I lived somewhere else my choices would vary (e.g. in Wales relying on public transport is basically a non-starter, if I lived in a bigger city I'd probably use public transport because sitting in heavy traffic is no fun)

Are people not perfectly capable of deciding this stuff for themselves?

Car manufacturers have been making huge strides in providing EVs and Hybrids. It's gotten to the point where there's a perfectly respectable Golf hybrid. I hear the Mk8s are almost all/all going to be light hybrid. There's plenty of hybrids I'd actually own now. Waiting for IS300hs to depreciate a bit.

Don't understand why it has to be so zero sum. Better public transport infrastructure and cycle network would encourage alternative transport without the heavy handed taxation. Ultimately because I can drive and have a car I have a job and am contributing to the economy. They want me driving.

Edited by Horse Pop on Thursday 18th December 13:47

[FiF]

trashbat said:

FiF said:

No war on the motorist?

...

Only to see the politicians insist that the car parking provision be drastically reduced to "force people to use public transport."

I sense that you might struggle in an actual war.

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.

[trashbat]

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.

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.