Lockdown - has it made driving slower and drivers more courteous?

[bludger]

Generally I'd agree with you. But saying "ban cars!" as an answer to this is like saying "ban soldiers!" to stop war.

that's pretty much what the anti Vietnam war movement was tbh

[Greenbank]

We've shown that major disruption can happen [could anyone have imagined the UKs lockdown situation of the last few weeks, along with furloughing of millions of employees, etc] but it's come at quite a heavy [human] price.

This is where I strongly disagree. The lockdown has not in itself inflicted a heavy human price. The lockdown has *saved lives*. If it was done sooner it would have saved even more.

I don't disagree lockdown has saved lives and prevent people from dying from Covid-19, and it has saved more (so far) than it will have killed who wouldn't have died without the lockdown. But non-Covid-19 deaths are climbing during the lockdown and it won't be long before that death rate (not total number, daily death rate) will overtake that of Covid-19. Keep that going long term and preventable non-Covid-19 deaths will eventually eclipse even the worse case scenarios of Covid-19, plus you'll still have Covid-19 lurking ready to infect everyone who hasn't already had it.

Just one example but the number of cancer diagnoses has fallen through the floor in the last month. Does that mean hardly anyone is getting cancer? Or maybe people are scared of going to the doctor or hospitals and will therefore die early due to lack of diagnosis and treatment.

Lockdown induces austerity and austerity kills.

(And hindsight is amazing, but we're talking about future decisions here, not the decisions that have already been made rightly or wrongly.)

There's no magic plan that would save everyone (barring a unicorn riding in to #10 with a vaccine or a viable/reliable treatment), but you've got to choose how to minimise the number of deaths from a combination of Covid-19 and lockdown/economy induced austerity. There's no simple obvious choice or set of rules to follow.

Of course, you may just say that it's the choices of the existing Government that is pushing the country down a particular path to a particular level of austerity (and I wouldn't disagree) but it's simply not viable to enforce a lockdown like we are having and not have a significant number of non-Covid-19 deaths. I expect you will disagree with this.

[Wowbagger]

Name-calling aside, what are the actual benefits of vehicle ownership?

In a properly-organised society, there should be none. The vast majority of people living in London seem to get by quite nicely without owning cars. The problems arise when you start demanding that essential services like public transport make a profit. For example, I would have been quite content in visiting my daughter in Maidstone by public transport if, for example, there was a ferry collecting passengers from the end of Southend pier and dropping us off in the Medway ports, whereupon we could catch a bus, or cycle. It's been a plan of mine for some time to cycle from Maidstone to Rainham (Kent) with my grand-daughter, because her other grandparents live in Rainham. Even without a direct service north to south, before the privatisation of British Rail, the Tilbury Ferry was run by BR and the stations in Tilbury and Gravesend were just a short walk away. The Tilbury Riverside station has now been closed*, and the ferry ceases operations at 7pm each evening except Sunday, when it doesn't operate at all. As it is, the fastest reliable way to make the journey is by car, and the second fastest is to go all the way into Stratford by train, then get on the high speed train that uses the Eurostar tracks. But IIRC for the two of us to make that journey would knock us back about £50, even with the OBRC, and our line is mostly out of action at weekends as rail travel is seen merely as a necessity to take commuters into London.

*You can still buy a ticket to Tilbury Riverside, but the last mile or so of the journey involves getting on a bus at Tilbury Town. I've just checked, and the track still exists to service a container port, which presumably will become redundant sooner rather than later as the monstrous "London Gateway" port now exists 6 or 7 miles downstream.

[Greenbank]

We've shown that major disruption can happen [could anyone have imagined the UKs lockdown situation of the last few weeks, along with furloughing of millions of employees, etc] but it's come at quite a heavy [human] price.

This is where I strongly disagree. The lockdown has not in itself inflicted a heavy human price. The lockdown has *saved lives*. If it was done sooner it would have saved even more.

Human price is what Greenbank said, not that people had died because of lockdown.

People are dying because of lockdown.

(Sorry, first one that came up in google)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/03/englands-excess-death-rate-among-highest-europe/

It is unclear why England has the highest excess death rates, though the Government has been criticised for not acting quickly enough to stop the spread of coronavirus.

There are fears of the long term impact of a halt to other treatment and fears that people are avoiding visiting hospitals because of the pandemic, leading to more deaths from other causes.

The full effect of this will not be known until a long time after lockdown.

It's not just specific diseases like cancer and heart problems, mental health problems (and specifically suicide) are on the increase.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Yes, people are dying because of lockdown, but I was think that "human price" involves far more than death (loneliness, poverty, disrupted families, stress, a hundred non-fatal things).

[Cudzoziemiec]

Generally I'd agree with you. But saying "ban cars!" as an answer to this is like saying "ban soldiers!" to stop war.

that's pretty much what the anti Vietnam war movement was tbh

Hmm, you're going back before my time let alone yours! But AIUI the anti-Vietnam war movement was mostly against that specific war, for reasons that might be grossly generalised as "Vietnamese peasants are dying" and "American conscripts are dying". Inevitably it involved the anti-war as a concept (pacifist) movement but mostly it was against that "implementation" of war, not all war. Moreover, a) we still have soldiers and they don't only do war, b) it's not only soldiers who war.

[ScumOfTheRoad]

bludger, out of interest, what do you actually mean by "Ban cars"?

In the same way that the Dutch campaigned on "stop the child murder"

I have lived there. The Dutch drive cars. Big time. They love controlling nature, and huge concrete motorway networks and bridges exist. They are proud of their civil engineering and keeping nature at bay.
The crucial difference is in town, where cars are not first class citizens. Ever side road has a give way before the cycle lane. Cyclists n a roundabout are given priority. I got shouted at once for having the gall to pull out on a cyclist on a roundabout.
I cannot speak for every town, but the shopping districts are pedestrianised.

[Greenbank]

Yes, people are dying because of lockdown, but I was think that "human price" involves far more than death (loneliness, poverty, disrupted families, stress, a hundred non-fatal things).

OK, it looked like you didn't think I'd meant to include people dying (which I did).

It's a good point that the "human price" isn't just limited to a single simple stat of the number of deaths.

In some respects the lockdown has been good. I guess that the average health level of the population has increased (due to various things[1] not limited to increased exercise and decreased availability of junk food). Pollution and CO₂ levels have dropped noticeably since lockdown (here's my local high street: https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/advgraphssiteplot.asp?CBXSpecies1=NOm&CBXSpecies2=NO2m&day1=1&month1=jan&year1=2020&day2=11&month2=may&year2=2020&period=roll24&graphtype=Image&Submit=plot+the+graph&site=WA8&res=6&cm-djitdk-djitdk= )

But the overall effect is going to be quite seriously negative, despite it saving many lives on the Covid-19 side of things.

1. And, rather harshly, that 30,000+ mostly elderly and otherwise vulnerable people have died early.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Today’s motorised moron trundled past my elbow with about 300mm clearance. A couple of thumps on the side of his van to let him know how close he was resulted in the passenger window being wound down and finished with his cry of “You four-eyed poofter!” I thought that sort of limp effort went out of fashion in the ‘80s. Perhaps he was annoyed at having to work while someone else was furloughed and on their bike?

[Wowbagger]

As one who was forbidden to take part in the anti-Vietnam war demos by my mother because at 14 she deemed me too young (my brother and sister both went, and were witness to Glaswegian dockers smashing up Rolls Royces and the cry "To the 'Ilton! Smash the bourgeoisie!") I think a good deal of the objective was to persuade H. Wislon that joining in with the Yanks would be a Very Bad idea. I've no clue about the extent to which his decision to stay out was influenced by the demonstrations, but there were plenty in the Labour Party at the time who were pretty gung-ho about joining in. ISTR that George Brown, the Foreign Secretary, was amongst that group.

I've just tried googling "George Brown Vietnam War" but my searches have been hindered by the appearance of references to General George Brown, of the US Army. There seems to be no mention of Vietnam on GB's Wikipedia page, but as one on the right of the party his support for the US was in no doubt at the time.

[Arminius]

It isn't on me to come up with a plan to stop society from killing me and any children I end up caring for. That's your job. Clean up your own mess.

If you find a factory dumping waste into a river it isn't on the people living downstream to plan the factory's remediation plan. You're the ones inflicting the harm. Stop it.

You don't get to just consign my generation and those after me to an early grave just because you can't be bothered changing how you live.

It may have been covered later in the thread (haven't read it all yet), but I can't understand why you would not want to get involved in the solution, especially since you're likely to be living with the consequences longer than many on this thread. Also, what would you say to the notional children you may end up caring for? "Well, I'm not responsible for this, I told the older people to sort it out, but they didn't." We all have a part to play in this, and individual action *does* make a difference. Every little helps...

Back to the OP, the roads were lovely and quiet, with drivers who were almost entirely happy and friendly (apart from one guy who did the usual doppler-shifted incoherent yelling that may have included "wanker"). Since about a week ago, it's become noticeably busier. Not sure about everyone's manners though.

[Cudzoziemiec]

It's a good point that the "human price" isn't just limited to a single simple stat of the number of deaths.

In some respects the lockdown has been good. I guess that the average health level of the population has increased (due to various things[1] not limited to increased exercise and decreased availability of junk food). Pollution and CO₂ levels have dropped noticeably since lockdown (here's my local high street: https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/advgraphssiteplot.asp?CBXSpecies1=NOm&CBXSpecies2=NO2m&day1=1&month1=jan&year1=2020&day2=11&month2=may&year2=2020&period=roll24&graphtype=Image&Submit=plot+the+graph&site=WA8&res=6&cm-djitdk-djitdk= )

I've been loving it! The cleaner air, the quieter streets, the outbursts of window poetry and pavement art, being able to use the entire width of the road to avoid the pot holes, and even the way it encouraged random conversations with strangers. But I have to recognize that most people aren't in my position: I normally work from home, haven't got children who need homeschooling or much attention (one child and it was his GCSE year, so he's effectively not even missed any education), live in a place where I have all necessary shops within easy walking distance, only have one elderly relative to worry about and she's well cared for, and it's encouraged me to do all sorts of things which (I think) are good for me, like shopping in those local shops, running, etc. But I don't like not being able to see friends and the general air of mild fear. So it's good that at least I might be able to see some friends; shame the fear level is increased because of it. 

[Hot Flatus]

It may have been covered later in the thread (haven't read it all yet), but I can't understand why you would not want to get involved in the solution, especially since you're likely to be living with the consequences longer than many on this thread.

Ah, but thinking up solutions is hard. It's much easier to be shouty and self-righteous, especially if you lay claim to victimhood. Then you can be right, all the time.

Most of us grow out of student politics.

[Jaded]

The problem we have, and it's one which our leaders are very reluctant to face up to, is that we have to come to terms with the simple fact that the industrial revolution, and with it, fossil fuel dependency, constitute the biggest mistake that our species collectively has made. We are up a blind alley and no-one has found a way of engaging a reverse gear. If the human race is still documenting its history in 100 years time, and I think that's quite unlikely, people will wonder at a species that so blindly was led to its own destruction by the corrupt leaders, both political and industrial.

I’m writing this on my lovely phone, with my lovely internet, in my lovely warm kitchen, with lovely running water, and my lovely supportive society outside.

I’m sorry that you aren’t.

[bludger]

It may have been covered later in the thread (haven't read it all yet), but I can't understand why you would not want to get involved in the solution, especially since you're likely to be living with the consequences longer than many on this thread. Also, what would you say to the notional children you may end up caring for? "Well, I'm not responsible for this, I told the older people to sort it out, but they didn't." We all have a part to play in this, and individual action *does* make a difference. Every little helps...

to be clear I am interested in being involved in the solution, and I do my bit handing out LCC consultation response leaflets and whatnot, but fundamentally I think it important o be clear that the onus is on those inflicting the harm to A. Publicly recognise the harm and B. Do the hard work of undoing their harm. I lead with "ban cars" for the same reason the Dutch led with "stop the child murder" instead of "implement modal filtering!"

Some obvious ones for me include plain packaging of cars. I.e. making them all a sickly green vomit colour like on cigarette packets to break their cast iron grip on the popular imagination.

[Kim]

Some obvious ones for me include plain packaging of cars. I.e. making them all a sickly green vomit colour like on cigarette packets to break their cast iron grip on the popular imagination.

Already happening.  You must have noticed how more and more cars are 50 shades of grey, rather than proper colours like in the old days.

[hatler]

to be clear I am interested in being involved in the solution, and I do my bit handing out LCC consultation response leaflets and whatnot, but fundamentally I think it important o be clear that the onus is on those inflicting the harm to A. Publicly recognise the harm and B. Do the hard work of undoing their harm. I lead with "ban cars" for the same reason the Dutch led with "stop the child murder" instead of "implement modal filtering!"

"stop the child murder" as a strapline has the distinct advantage of being a no brainer and therefore appealing to all.

"ban all cars" doesn't quite tap into the zeitgeist in the same way.

[bludger]

Not at all, stop the child murder was highly controversial. They were beaten in the street by motorists and arrested by the cops. They succeeded by persevering and being really, really angry.

And it was obviously helped by a massive oil shock owing to the Arab Israeli wars.

[Wowbagger]

The problem we have, and it's one which our leaders are very reluctant to face up to, is that we have to come to terms with the simple fact that the industrial revolution, and with it, fossil fuel dependency, constitute the biggest mistake that our species collectively has made. We are up a blind alley and no-one has found a way of engaging a reverse gear. If the human race is still documenting its history in 100 years time, and I think that's quite unlikely, people will wonder at a species that so blindly was led to its own destruction by the corrupt leaders, both political and industrial.

I’m writing this on my lovely phone, with my lovely internet, in my lovely warm kitchen, with lovely running water, and my lovely supportive society outside.

I’m sorry that you aren’t.

The fact that we recognise that we are part of the problem but are, largely, impotent to do much about it, is indeed part of the problem.

Civilisations have come and gone as the basis of their success has, for one reason or another, failed, but ours is the first civilisation which has wrecked everyone else's livelihoods, even though they don't share in the enormous, but ephemeral, "wealth" that our industrial heritage has created.

[Davef]

There are too many cars. There are too many people. Getting rid of them all is not the optimal solution. An ebike for one or a 50 seater bus and nothing in between ? I think we will rapidly move from petrol to electric and private ownership to pay as you go. Most people currently own their last petrol car and the electric car that replaces it will in all likelihood be the last owned 100%. I worry about the current damage to the  economy that funds research into carbon capture that could help solve a global problem in a way that altering our behaviour locally cannot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TimC]

There are too many cars. There are too many people. Getting rid of them all is not the optimal solution. An ebike for one or a 50 seater bus and nothing in between ? I think we will rapidly move from petrol to electric and private ownership to pay as you go. Most people currently own their last petrol car and the electric car that replaces it will in all likelihood be the last owned 100%. I worry about the current damage to the  economy that funds research into carbon capture that could help solve a global problem in a way that altering our behaviour locally cannot.

I think you are correct, to a degree. I have a couple of cars, but I don't own either of them. My next vehicle will replace both of them, is likely to be electric in some form or other, and I won't own that either. I don't currently see a model of 'pay as you go' that will work for the rural population, so I suspect that for us that development is unlikely in the short to medium term, but I could foresee it if we ever get truly autonomous vehicles. In the meantime, I will continue riding my bike for as much of my transport needs as it is convenient for, and using 'my' vehicles for the rest. And, to at least maintain a tenuous link with the OP, trying to be courteous and driving at sensible speeds. Even in the toy!

[Jaded]

The problem we have, and it's one which our leaders are very reluctant to face up to, is that we have to come to terms with the simple fact that the industrial revolution, and with it, fossil fuel dependency, constitute the biggest mistake that our species collectively has made. We are up a blind alley and no-one has found a way of engaging a reverse gear. If the human race is still documenting its history in 100 years time, and I think that's quite unlikely, people will wonder at a species that so blindly was led to its own destruction by the corrupt leaders, both political and industrial.

I’m writing this on my lovely phone, with my lovely internet, in my lovely warm kitchen, with lovely running water, and my lovely supportive society outside.

I’m sorry that you aren’t.

The fact that we recognise that we are part of the problem but are, largely, impotent to do much about it, is indeed part of the problem.

Civilisations have come and gone as the basis of their success has, for one reason or another, failed, but ours is the first civilisation which has wrecked everyone else's livelihoods, even though they don't share in the enormous, but ephemeral, "wealth" that our industrial heritage has created.

Agreed, but pointing the finger at corrupt leaders, both political and industrial is not the solution.

[Jaded]

bludger, out of interest, what do you actually mean by "Ban cars"?

In the same way that the Dutch campaigned on "stop the child murder" I think it is important to firmly centre the problem in the campaigning - in our case, cars. Getting caught up in detailed policymaking is a trap. Much better to firmly centre what needs to happen and campaign on that instead.

The detailed policymaking about how to supplant cars isn't my job here. In the same way that Plane Stupid, and other anti third runway groups (rightly) didn't accept responsibility for providing a "detailed plan on how not to build a third runway". Actual detailed chat (e.g. shared mobility, low traffic neighbourhoods etc) is something to have in the context of a wider understanding that cars as we know them have to go.

Ah. So you don’t really want to ban cars.

That’s clear now.

[bludger]

Nah I do though. I hate them. They're ghastly rancid machines and we would all be best rid of them.

We haven't even begun to go into the gendered violence impact of the car, how it's used to frighten and harass women and minorities https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jun/11/female-cyclists-bad-driving-harassment-study-uk-women-men-near-miss

This country has tens of millions of people who would be cycling. But they don't because of psychotic motorists roaming around in their death wagons screeching out cat calls, close passing and so on.

I haven't seen a single campaigning group speak out about this.

This kind of "ah so you actually mean..." chat is why I prefer just to say "ban cars."

[Wowbagger]

The problem we have, and it's one which our leaders are very reluctant to face up to, is that we have to come to terms with the simple fact that the industrial revolution, and with it, fossil fuel dependency, constitute the biggest mistake that our species collectively has made. We are up a blind alley and no-one has found a way of engaging a reverse gear. If the human race is still documenting its history in 100 years time, and I think that's quite unlikely, people will wonder at a species that so blindly was led to its own destruction by the corrupt leaders, both political and industrial.

I’m writing this on my lovely phone, with my lovely internet, in my lovely warm kitchen, with lovely running water, and my lovely supportive society outside.

I’m sorry that you aren’t.

The fact that we recognise that we are part of the problem but are, largely, impotent to do much about it, is indeed part of the problem.

Civilisations have come and gone as the basis of their success has, for one reason or another, failed, but ours is the first civilisation which has wrecked everyone else's livelihoods, even though they don't share in the enormous, but ephemeral, "wealth" that our industrial heritage has created.

Agreed, but pointing the finger at corrupt leaders, both political and industrial is not the solution.

The starting point to change is when enough people realise they have been fooled for too long. You cannot loosen the hold they have over the rest of us without pointing this out. But my post was talking about some hypothetical future historian recording the extent that we as a species have been complicit in our own downfall. I did say that I felt it quite unlikely that this would happen, so I haven’t proposed a solution. It’s a bit like the Orwellian “if there is hope, it lies in the proles”. As a nation we have allowed our fates to be decided by Daily Mail and Sun readers.