Apparently we are antisocial bastards...
Discussion
Twincam16 said:Strange, but true. Most surveys of people at bus stops and on buses reveal a different picture. Is it a social contact thing or does she just have a problem with cars? If so why has she got one?!
Who the hell would actually WANT to travel by bus, given a real choice?
My Mum. Seriously. She loves all public services blindly and condemns anyone who argues otherwise in a voice that could shatter glass. She sees car ownership as a bothersome chore to be avoided at all costs, which is why she resents her car, ignores non-immobilising breakdowns and is actually willing it to die on her so she can get the bus again.
And no, I'm not joking.
How about addressing the rest of the post now.
Edited to add - what do you think she'd make of community taxis that collect and deliver door to door, as used successfully in Florida? We're not simply talking about cars here, but also minibus style transport that is more flexible and carries more than four people from time to time.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th January 12:01
In a average size town, like the one I live in, buses can be very useful. I have a bus stop at the end of our road which takes me into the town centre. As, in the town centre, there is a stop outside my local, it is very useful as a means of not drinking and driving or getting royally scr
d by a taxi company. I also use it to go into town shopping when I don't need the the car to lug stuff home - costs less than parking the car...
Basically if they go somewhere useful they're a good thing, if they don't they're not. No replavement for a car, but useful nevertheless
d by a taxi company. I also use it to go into town shopping when I don't need the the car to lug stuff home - costs less than parking the car... Basically if they go somewhere useful they're a good thing, if they don't they're not. No replavement for a car, but useful nevertheless
Prof Beard said:
Basically if they go somewhere useful they're a good thing, if they don't they're not. No replavement for a car, but useful nevertheless
I'd agree with that. There isn't a bus I can catch that goes anywhere useful. I'd love a reliable bus service that allowed me to get from my house to the local town centre and back.
But I live in a modern Estate. With narrowed chicanes to prevent anyone from driving too quickly. Buses cannot get through 'em. It was designed such that public transport could not get to my house. Presumably because they assumed that since the houses were going to be pricey everyone there would also be able to afford a car.
So this means its a mile walk to my nearest bus stop. And the route that it's on doesn't go directly to the town centre. You have to change! This turns a ten-minute car journey into an hour long faff. No way.
Prof Beard said:
In a average size town, like the one I live in, buses can be very useful. I have a bus stop at the end of our road which takes me into the town centre. As, in the town centre, there is a stop outside my local, it is very useful as a means of not drinking and driving or getting royally scr
Basically if they go somewhere useful they're a good thing, if they don't they're not. No replavement for a car, but useful nevertheless
So why do they have to be so big, dirty and thirsty? Why can't they have seatbelts and be comfy to travel in?
On the vast majority of bus routes you could replace the bus with a converted Transit or Sprinter, with wheelchair access at the back. Schools could have school buses, running from a school depot, and everything would be a lot more 'sustainable'.
I avoid using buses as a result of environmental consciousness as much as anything. They're inconvenient enough as it is but when I find myself on one, pretty much on my own, seeing it chucking out clouds of black smoke and larging it past motorists on a bus lane, I feel guilty for having taken it. I only with the misguided environmentalists would feel the same. If they were really environmentally-minded, they'd have a bus boycott and the buses would have to downsize.
Just read the article, just skipped to p.7. And I can't believe that this man exists???
Does he live his life in a bubble inside the M25?
Does he never use buses or taxis? Who might just need to use the roads he's happy to see go to wrack and ruin.
Does he not care about the economic success of the country?
Does he not care about these 'personal freedoms' that he, as a left-wing person, is SUPPOSED to champion???
In short, what a hypocritical little *&%$£&@£*&%^&£@:£^$*"
Does he live his life in a bubble inside the M25?
Does he never use buses or taxis? Who might just need to use the roads he's happy to see go to wrack and ruin.
Does he not care about the economic success of the country?
Does he not care about these 'personal freedoms' that he, as a left-wing person, is SUPPOSED to champion???
In short, what a hypocritical little *&%$£&@£*&%^&£@:£^$*"
havoc said:
Just read the article, just skipped to p.7. And I can't believe that this man exists???
Does he not care about these 'personal freedoms' that he, as a left-wing person, is SUPPOSED to champion???
In short, what a hypocritical little *&%$£&@£*&%^&£@:£^$*"
He's NOT left-wing (by the terms of any real left-winger - anyone who tries to lump me with this t
t is asking for fisticuffs!) he's an "eco-fascist", or perhaps more accurately what you called him yourself.Don said:
Basically if they go somewhere useful they're a good thing, if they don't they're not. No replacement for a car, but useful nevertheless
But I live in a modern Estate. With narrowed chicanes to prevent anyone from driving too quickly. Buses cannot get through 'em. It was designed such that public transport could not get to my house. Presumably because they assumed that since the houses were going to be pricey everyone there would also be able to afford a car.
Classic example of "Planning" at its most penguin-brained. Mind you we have a couple of modern estates of the pricier type here that DON'T have access issues for buses and the residents don't make use of them. I watch them driving home from the pub every night in droves... (Perhaps a joint exercise of publicising the services coupled with some random breath-testing would help...)
Twincam16 said:
So why do they have to be so big, dirty and thirsty? Why can't they have seatbelts and be comfy to travel in?
They don't, most of ours are minibus based or a bit bigger, there are virtually no full-sized ones - and many are reasonably comfortable. No seatbelts though - mind you I suspect they would become a pain in the butt on a busy bus doing short runs with lots of stops. (This is Arriva as well - if they can do it anyone can)
havoc said:
Does he not care about the economic success of the country?
Does he not care about these 'personal freedoms' that he, as a left-wing person, is SUPPOSED to champion???
In my experience, those things are just the opposite of classic left wing viewpoints. Economic success of a country and personal freedoms are the first things to go by the wayside under left winf rule. Look at history.
james_j said:
Does he not care about the economic success of the country?
Does he not care about these 'personal freedoms' that he, as a left-wing person, is SUPPOSED to champion???
In my experience, those things are just the opposite of classic left wing viewpoints. Economic success of a country and personal freedoms are the first things to go by the wayside under left winf rule. Look at history.
No, I'm with Prof Beard on this one.
Socialism, as so far experimented with, has always been contaminated with excessive state control over the population as well as the economy - they don't have to co-exist, but corrupt governments (like ours currently) saw the opportunity to do just that.
Pure socialism SHOULD be able to retain wide personal freedoms with a more planned economy and greater state intervention in the markets.
Economic success has nothing to do with left-wing - more a facet of an ultra-capitalist government, but that has it's own weaknesses, look at the USA.
[quote=turboblokeWho the hell would actually WANT to travel by bus, given a real choice?[/quote]
Actually turbobloke to be honest when I lived in Socialist People's Republic of South Yorkshire even I travelled by bus out of choice.
Car alternative was a 45 minute drive in traffic for a journey that in quiet times I could do in 10-15 minutes.
Buses arrived every few minutes, stopped across road from flat, short walk 5 mins at other end to office. 17 pence each way. I could read the paper, sleep, not to mention people watching.
Actually turbobloke to be honest when I lived in Socialist People's Republic of South Yorkshire even I travelled by bus out of choice.
Car alternative was a 45 minute drive in traffic for a journey that in quiet times I could do in 10-15 minutes.
Buses arrived every few minutes, stopped across road from flat, short walk 5 mins at other end to office. 17 pence each way. I could read the paper, sleep, not to mention people watching.
Flat in Fifth said:
[quote=turboblokeWho the hell would actually WANT to travel by bus, given a real choice?
Actually turbobloke to be honest when I lived in Socialist People's Republic of South Yorkshire even I travelled by bus out of choice.[/quote]
We don't want your type around here, you pinko scum.
Flat in Fifth said:
Who the hell would actually WANT to travel by bus, given a real choice?
Actually turbobloke to be honest when I lived in Socialist People's Republic of South Yorkshire even I travelled by bus out of choice.
Car alternative was a 45 minute drive in traffic for a journey that in quiet times I could do in 10-15 minutes.
Buses arrived every few minutes, stopped across road from flat, short walk 5 mins at other end to office. 17 pence each way. I could read the paper, sleep, not to mention people watching.
I still live here, you wouldn't use the buses in preference any more believe me; tardy, unreliable and expensive, same as everywhere else - that's what deregulation did for us.
Suckmychrsitmas said:scum and salt (of the earth) - you have to look closely to see the difference. Analysis required.
Who the hell would actually WANT to travel by bus, given a real choice?
Actually turbobloke to be honest when I lived in Socialist People's Republic of South Yorkshire even I travelled by bus out of choice.
We don't want your type around here, you pinko scum.
Gazboy said:
You've expressed interest in the Ruf R50, Ultimas and a 575 Ferrari- do you want these taxed off the road too?
Were measures introduced that meant it was more expensive to own vehicles that delivered poor fuel economy and the percentage of people that plumped for, say, an Ultima declined, then so be it.
If a person can afford the energy costs there's no (valid) control freak reason to deny the use of any vehicle. The hidden motive of course is to enforce austere lifestyle choices: ticky tacky boxes, grey suits with a red rose on the pocket, little red - or pinko-green - book, living in a tent, walking or busing t' mill etc etc.
This backwards, nihilistic and pointless ideology needs fighting with every last gasp of freedom there is. When the oil runs out, burn gasohol. When the gasohol runs out, burn methanol. When the methanol runs out - it won't. Technology advances will soon mean asthmatics get hooked up to exhaust pipes for therapy. Ecoclaptrap reasons for not buying fast or heavy cars are a smoke screen for envy and anti-capitalism. At least that's what the former co-founder of Greenpeace thinks, my views are quite different
This backwards, nihilistic and pointless ideology needs fighting with every last gasp of freedom there is. When the oil runs out, burn gasohol. When the gasohol runs out, burn methanol. When the methanol runs out - it won't. Technology advances will soon mean asthmatics get hooked up to exhaust pipes for therapy. Ecoclaptrap reasons for not buying fast or heavy cars are a smoke screen for envy and anti-capitalism. At least that's what the former co-founder of Greenpeace thinks, my views are quite different
Suckmychrsitmas said:Your pollution is my musical entertainment, and quiet vehicles are unsafe to those with partial sight or a minimal attention span. Still no valid reason, list some more.
If a person can afford the energy costs there's no (valid) control freak reason to deny the use of any vehicle.
There are plenty of reasons, e.g. noise pollution.
turbobloke said:
If a person can afford the energy costs there's no (valid) control freak reason to deny the use of any vehicle.
There are plenty of reasons, e.g. noise pollution.
Actually, with regards to noise pollution any modern car would have to comply with noise regulations and would therefore be legal and in that case I have no problem with someone driving a car whose noise went right up to the prescribed maximim decibel level.
Oh, and bikes are far noisier than cars, and apparently more polluting. So shouldn't they be banned before supercars?!?
Oh...except they aren't as offensive to these fascists, because they're not pseudo-symbols of capitalism and success...something none of these people would know about.
...god, I'm sounding like JagLover...what's going on?!?
Oh...except they aren't as offensive to these fascists, because they're not pseudo-symbols of capitalism and success...something none of these people would know about.
...god, I'm sounding like JagLover...what's going on?!?
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff