Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: ScumOfTheRoad on 07 May, 2020, 08:11:50 am
-
Disclaimer - I own to cars and regularly drive for work.
I live in SE London, in a residential area. Nominal 20mph speed limit, but regularly in the past see cars tearing up my street at high speeds.
These days many more people includign family groups cycle up my road, which hugs the Thames.
I see the few cars ont he road driving quite slowly, even when no cyclists about. Not walking pace but around that 20mph mark.
My theory is that Lonodn is so congested that when you DO find an empty stretch of road you get moving as fast as you can to 'catch up'.
If there are clear roads there is no pressure to drive fast, paradoxically.
Also I find car drivers a lot more courteous towards cyclists.
-
Yes and no.
I have found most drivers more courteous during lockdown, but some who are taking advantage of the quiet roads to go as fast as possible. However most of my riding recently has been on obscure Cotswold lanes, so a bit different from SE London.
Partly I think it is that there are a lot more cyclists and walkers around, so they have to go a bit more carefully. As a cyclist I am being more cautious on the lanes, since I know there is likely to be a group of walkers around the next bend and it is difficult to stop quickly on the sort of gravelly potholed surfaces we have here. On the other hand I have had a few unpleasantly close passes. However all the bad driving seems to be on the more major roads, presumably where they think they can get away with it.
As an illustration, something almost unprecedented happened to me a couple of days age. Whilst going up a steep hil I met a 4x4 coming down, and he immediately reversed back to find a passing place. Admittedly I wasn't going to stop on such a steep hill, and his car was so wide there was no way to get past where we met, but even so that was remarkable behaviour. Let's just hope it continues.
-
London Borough of Merton have just extended the 20mph zone to all the roads in our immediate area. Great news.
-
My experience is exactly the same as Rod's. Mind you he lives up the road from me. :D
-
I think more courteous overall, but the badly behaved ones carry on behaving badly and don't have the controlling mechanism of other slower cars about.
-
A lot of driving is to very simple rules. It's a mental impossibility to think of everything about driving all the time. The reason why we have to learn to drive with a real car an not a book is so that a lot of actions are done with the subconscious without thinking about them.
When I reach for the gear lever, I remember where I left it, but it's a completely different mental process to remembering the wife's birthday. I don't ease off the brake as I come to a halt to stop jerking because it's on a checklist, it just sort of happens, because I've done it a lot of times. I'm writing this without looking at the keys of the laptop, for similar reasons.
Driving in London is usually so rarely in free traffic conditions that the speed limits, traffic lights, lanes and priorities rarely actually matter. Just following the car in front works nearly all the time.
The result is that many drivers will be in really unfamiliar territory on empty roads, so it is no surprise that some don't know how to drive in those conditions. You see the same in snow and fog. It's good that many slow down because they aren't sure.
-
Not round here. :(
-
No it has not. Speeding is happening more, and just as worryingly, at higher speeds. It is a disgrace. The only solution is to ban cars.
https://twitter.com/SuptAndyCox/status/1258295876730204160
(https://i.imgur.com/N8JMjvl.png)
-
The boy racers of Tower Hamlets still seem to have their foot down most of the time so there are a few unpleasant experiences on the roads here (not that I have been out much at all). However on the plus side I witnessed some exemplary overtaking yesterday with a driver moving fully to the opposite lane and giving me plenty of "pull out to give distance to pedestrian" space.
-
It's a mixed bag here on the London borders. There's a good number of more courteous drivers probably because astonishingly it's become relatively common to find entire families cycling on roads where previously that would have been a no-no.
But there's a minority of their opposite, people putting their foot to the floor and using the lack of traffic to go as quickly as they dare.
There's no reason any car capable of going faster than 70mph should be on any road.
-
It's a mixed bag here on the London borders. There's a good number of more courteous drivers probably because astonishingly it's become relatively common to find entire families cycling on roads where previously that would have been a no-no.
But there's a minority of their opposite, people putting their foot to the floor and using the lack of traffic to go as quickly as they dare.
There's no reason any car capable of going faster than 70mph should be on any road.
^ ^ ^ That ^ ^ ^
-
I don't see any reason to regard the sale of a BMW as different to the sale of a machine gun. The whole idea of motoring "culture" is built on violence and toxic masculinity. That 'I have a big noisy car, get out of my way as I tear around making lots of noise or I will kill you'. It is repulsive.
-
You can kill somebody with any car. It doesn't have to be a BMW.
-
Regarding Ian's point about entire families being on the road I agree.
IT is great to see family groups goign alon beside the Thames and in the street where I live.
I venture to say this props up the Dutch model of cycling - cycling will increase if people feel safe and are given good facilities.
Also 'home zones ' - I live on a long street, but it is mostly residential. Family groups should be able to cycle safely,
and yes cars shoudl be there also - but slowly.
Expecting people to cycle on the road 'protected' by bits of paint is a non-starter.
It won't last. As soon as car usage is up again parents wont be leading their brood out on adventures on the road.
-
I think people will get back to their old ways very quickly, unless there are new limiting factors.
-
One ride that Jan and I had on the tandem had, in its first 300 yards, more dangerous and alarming moments as a result of the aggression of drivers than we've had for years.
I think that the volume of traffic has been less, but that most people are driving faster.
-
I don't see any reason to regard the sale of a BMW as different to the sale of a machine gun. The whole idea of motoring "culture" is built on violence and toxic masculinity. That 'I have a big noisy car, get out of my way as I tear around making lots of noise or I will kill you'. It is repulsive.
Holy Hyperbole, Bantam.
Machine guns get you from A-B? Carry shopping and tools and stuff?
Here's a car this is masculine (https://www.fiat.co.uk/fiat-500-range)?
-
Slightly faster but significantly more patient from what I've seen. There was a glut of boy racers taking advantage of the empty roads in the first few weeks, but now they seem to have either bored of it, lost their licences or perhaps most likely given up as the traffic gets nearer to 'normal' levels. You can already taste the diesel.
It does show what a difference traffic volumes make to journey speeds (as distinct from moving speeds). For the first couple of weeks, the buses here were running a normal service. They had to wait for ten minutes or so at every third or fourth stop in order to simulate the delays that are normally caused by traffic queues, parking (the act of parking as distinct from where cars park) and, of course, boarding dwells.
-
There's no reason any car capable of going faster than 70mph should be on any road.
Owning a gun or even a knife does not mean you have to kill somebody, and owning a car capable of going extremely fast does not mean you have to drive that fast on the road. Chum of mine owns an old Nissan 280Z. He spends silly money to drive it on race tracks at insane speeds maybe 3 or 4 times a year. The rest of the time, he is a perfectly nice guy who drives sensibly like anyone else. What's the problem with that?
A
-
Then fine, if people want to own racing cars, they can go to a track and race away. I don't want them on public roads. The maximum speed limit in the UK is 70mph, so why should cars be able to go faster?
-
I have found most drivers more courteous during lockdown, but some who are taking advantage of the quiet roads to go as fast as possible.
Pretty much this. Notable increase in courtesy towards cyclists from some drivers (eg. on single-track roads, keeping distance from pedestrians and so on) but in general they're doing what they can get away with, which means higher speeds.
-
There's no reason any car capable of going faster than 70mph should be on any road.
Owning a gun or even a knife does not mean you have to kill somebody, and owning a car capable of going extremely fast does not mean you have to drive that fast on the road. Chum of mine owns an old Nissan 280Z. He spends silly money to drive it on race tracks at insane speeds maybe 3 or 4 times a year. The rest of the time, he is a perfectly nice guy who drives sensibly like anyone else. What's the problem with that?
I've observed that drivers of cars that show evidence of actual motorsport tend to be pretty sensible on the roads. I assume it's about not having anything to prove, perhaps combined with above-average driving skills.
-
Then fine, if people want to own racing cars, they can go to a track and race away. I don't want them on public roads. The maximum speed limit on the public highway in the UK is 70mph, so why should cars be able to go faster?
My italic added. Japanese domestic market cars tend to be limited to 112mph (no idea why that number) so it's possible to electronically limit cars to a given speed, and I think it would make sense to do so. It makes sense to build cars to be capable of going significantly faster, because if you want to do 70mph at 3,000rpm (for fuel economy and NVH reasons), but the car is capable of 6,000 rpm, your gearing would take you to 140mph. Hell, even my single gear EV is supposedly capable of 85. Also, fundamentally, the person doing 73 in a 20 zone is clearly more likely to KSI other people than the one doing 119 in a 60 zone. No speed limiter is going to be able to stop that without significant AI.
-
Then fine, if people want to own racing cars, they can go to a track and race away. I don't want them on public roads. The maximum speed limit on the public highway in the UK is 70mph, so why should cars be able to go faster?
My italic added. Japanese domestic market cars tend to be limited to 112mph (no idea why that number) so it's possible to electronically limit cars to a given speed, and I think it would make sense to do so. It makes sense to build cars to be capable of going significantly faster, because if you want to do 70mph at 3,000rpm (for fuel economy and NVH reasons), but the car is capable of 6,000 rpm, your gearing would take you to 140mph. Hell, even my single gear EV is supposedly capable of 85. Also, fundamentally, the person doing 73 in a 20 zone is clearly more likely to KSI other people than the one doing 119 in a 60 zone. No speed limiter is going to be able to stop that without significant AI.
To be fair, the EU is mandating Intelligent Speed Assistance on new cars. Yes, the driver can override it, but that only works when the driver in front has done so too. I expect it will become harder to override as the technology improves (my experience of driving a car so equipped is that it can occasionally be confused by signage on service roads and the like). I think that's much more useful than a hard limit of top speed, as most of the danger comes from people doing 40 where they should be doing 20.
-
Then fine, if people want to own racing cars, they can go to a track and race away. I don't want them on public roads. The maximum speed limit on the public highway in the UK is 70mph, so why should cars be able to go faster?
My italic added. Japanese domestic market cars tend to be limited to 112mph (no idea why that number) so it's possible to electronically limit cars to a given speed, and I think it would make sense to do so. It makes sense to build cars to be capable of going significantly faster, because if you want to do 70mph at 3,000rpm (for fuel economy and NVH reasons), but the car is capable of 6,000 rpm, your gearing would take you to 140mph. Hell, even my single gear EV is supposedly capable of 85. Also, fundamentally, the person doing 73 in a 20 zone is clearly more likely to KSI other people than the one doing 119 in a 60 zone. No speed limiter is going to be able to stop that without significant AI.
To be fair, the EU is mandating Intelligent Speed Assistance on new cars. Yes, the driver can override it, but that only works when the driver in front has done so too. I expect it will become harder to override as the technology improves (my experience of driving a car so equipped is that it can occasionally be confused by signage on service roads and the like). I think that's much more useful than a hard limit of top speed, as most of the danger comes from people doing 40 where they should be doing 20.
If the tech works, then that's great. Much like with the emergency brake assist, there is potential for big scary accidents if it gets confused (hypothetical eg sees black bag blowing around on motorway, does emergency stop, likewise 5mph service road). However, around town there is an argument it should be mandatory (maybe if there is no road with a limit > 20mph more within half a mile or something). Then all those people who PCP giant new SUVs can drive around being "held up" by their technology and "holding up" the rest of traffic. :)
If it's EU law though, our lot of useless idiots will probably turn it off on the grounds of FREEDOM. ::-)
-
That's not really what I'm saying though. Sure, someone can do 70mph in a 20 zone. But limiting speed to 70 mph means they can't do 80 mph.
I'm happy for people to race fast cars, I'm sure it's fun. I just don't want them doing it on a public road.
The technology for designing and constructing speed-limited vehicles exists. Just because vehicles can go fast, doesn't mean they should be allowed to. And that's the statement we should be making. I shouldn't have to tell cyclists that hearing a car speeding from behind, hearing it move up the gears, the increasing growl of rpm, is one of the worst sensations there is.
-
Then fine, if people want to own racing cars, they can go to a track and race away. I don't want them on public roads. The maximum speed limit on the public highway in the UK is 70mph, so why should cars be able to go faster?
My italic added. Japanese domestic market cars tend to be limited to 112mph (no idea why that number) so it's possible to electronically limit cars to a given speed, and I think it would make sense to do so. It makes sense to build cars to be capable of going significantly faster, because if you want to do 70mph at 3,000rpm (for fuel economy and NVH reasons), but the car is capable of 6,000 rpm, your gearing would take you to 140mph. Hell, even my single gear EV is supposedly capable of 85. Also, fundamentally, the person doing 73 in a 20 zone is clearly more likely to KSI other people than the one doing 119 in a 60 zone. No speed limiter is going to be able to stop that without significant AI.
To be fair, the EU is mandating Intelligent Speed Assistance on new cars. Yes, the driver can override it, but that only works when the driver in front has done so too. I expect it will become harder to override as the technology improves (my experience of driving a car so equipped is that it can occasionally be confused by signage on service roads and the like). I think that's much more useful than a hard limit of top speed, as most of the danger comes from people doing 40 where they should be doing 20.
If the tech works, then that's great. Much like with the emergency brake assist, there is potential for big scary accidents if it gets confused (hypothetical eg sees black bag blowing around on motorway, does emergency stop, likewise 5mph service road). However, around town there is an argument it should be mandatory (maybe if there is no road with a limit > 20mph more within half a mile or something). Then all those people who PCP giant new SUVs can drive around being "held up" by their technology and "holding up" the rest of traffic. :)
If it's EU law though, our lot of useless idiots will probably turn it off on the grounds of FREEDOM. ::-)
Mr Charly otp has related an incident where automatic emergency braking saved him from crashing into a scooter on a rainy, spray-filled motorway. Possibly saved the scooterist's life, certainly injuries. And that was a car he didn't even know had that technology (it was a hire car or one work gave him or something). I'm sure a search will fail to find it because the search engine is pants but maybe Mr Charly himself will relate it with relevant details.
Anecdote aside, is emergency braking by computer any more likely to cause a crash (I presume we're thinking of rear ending) than emergency braking by human? The following driver will be equally prepared or unprepared in both cases.
-
Holy Hyperbole, Bantam.
Machine guns get you from A-B? Carry shopping and tools and stuff?
Here's a car this is masculine (https://www.fiat.co.uk/fiat-500-range)?
No hyperbole here. Motorists kill 1.3 million people a year, and hospitalized or maim many many more. This is approximately triple the world's annual death toll of homicides (including "civil" murder and in warzones) which are approximately 400,000 or so.
All cars are repulsive machines as far as I'm concerned. The living embodiment of one person's entitlement to maraud around neighbourhoods causing a hideous racket, belching toxic fumes and brake particulate while intimidating or maiming/killing someone walking or cycling. They are a menace. I absolutely fucking hate them. Just hearing them roll around outside my home fills me with anger. My mum was hit and run about 5 years ago 20 yards from the front door. When I was growing up I went and visited my dad in hospital with half his face scraped off from "accidents" when he was on a bike.
It particularly upsets me how these people (who are relatively speaking, a privileged minority) frighten others into not using their own roads on a cycle or whatever.
Which reminds me. I need to see about modally filtering the road with big sacks of gravel or something.
-
Yes and no round here
Seems people feeling no need to be in a hurry are less pressed to pass dodgily
While people who still want to get somewhere quickly no matter what even if it's just their sofa are still as dickish as ever.
I've noted that own my driving home is considerably more relaxed than driving to work, but then if I got up in time that I wasn't pushing it for getting in at 10...
-
Holy Hyperbole, Bantam.
Machine guns get you from A-B? Carry shopping and tools and stuff?
Here's a car this is masculine (https://www.fiat.co.uk/fiat-500-range)?
No hyperbole here. Motorists kill 1.3 million people a year, and hospitalized or maim many many more. This is approximately triple the world's annual death toll of homicides (including "civil" murder and in warzones) which are approximately 400,000 or so.
All cars are repulsive machines as far as I'm concerned. The living embodiment of one person's entitlement to maraud around neighbourhoods causing a hideous racket, belching toxic fumes and brake particulate while intimidating or maiming/killing someone walking or cycling. They are a menace. I absolutely fucking hate them. Just hearing them roll around outside my home fills me with anger. My mum was hit and run about 5 years ago 20 yards from the front door. When I was growing up I went and visited my dad in hospital with half his face scraped off from "accidents" when he was on a bike.
It particularly upsets me how these people (who are relatively speaking, a privileged minority) frighten others into not using their own roads on a cycle or whatever.
Which reminds me. I need to see about modally filtering the road with big sacks of gravel or something.
Another tale.
I spent a Summer assigned to the shop floor of the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield, in the foremen's office.
One lunchtime I (snotty nosed student engineer) asked how they all felt about working in a factory that built killing machines (I may have used a slightly less emotive term than that). To a man (absolutely no women anywhere in sight) they rather heatedly responded that the cars made a few miles down the road in Dagenham killed way more people than the product they were knocking out.
-
I don't endorse the arms industry either but they weren't wrong.
Academia is full of institutions and research centres about stopping people from shooting and stabbing each other. But you mention the people marauding around in legal vehicles frightening, killing and maiming three times as many (or much more in "developed" countries) it goes awfully quiet.
-
Stairs kill people too. 1000s of pensioners a year and nobody gives a fuck.
I get so fucking angry about the fact that my house has some...fitted by a selfish entitled person who just thought they could install this killing machine with no consequences for future inhabitants.
They should be ripped out of all houses by law.
-
Another tale.
I spent a Summer assigned to the shop floor of the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield, in the foremen's office.
One lunchtime I (snotty nosed student engineer) asked how they all felt about working in a factory that built killing machines (I may have used a slightly less emotive term than that). To a man (absolutely no women anywhere in sight) they rather heatedly responded that the cars made a few miles down the road in Dagenham killed way more people than the product they were knocking out.
Used to work with someone that had once worked for a tobacco company.
Part of their employment routine was to ask you if you had any moral concerns about working in tobacco, obviously anyone who had a problem with it wouldn't be suitable.
Apparently wasn't just about cancer sticks, but also other things nicotine ends up in, like kids breakfast cereals in some places...
-
Holy Hyperbole, Bantam.
Machine guns get you from A-B? Carry shopping and tools and stuff?
Here's a car this is masculine (https://www.fiat.co.uk/fiat-500-range)?
No hyperbole here. Motorists kill 1.3 million people a year, and hospitalized or maim many many more. This is approximately triple the world's annual death toll of homicides (including "civil" murder and in warzones) which are approximately 400,000 or so.
All cars are repulsive machines as far as I'm concerned. The living embodiment of one person's entitlement to maraud around neighbourhoods causing a hideous racket, belching toxic fumes and brake particulate while intimidating or maiming/killing someone walking or cycling. They are a menace. I absolutely fucking hate them. Just hearing them roll around outside my home fills me with anger. My mum was hit and run about 5 years ago 20 yards from the front door. When I was growing up I went and visited my dad in hospital with half his face scraped off from "accidents" when he was on a bike.
It particularly upsets me how these people (who are relatively speaking, a privileged minority) frighten others into not using their own roads on a cycle or whatever.
Which reminds me. I need to see about modally filtering the road with big sacks of gravel or something.
Like I said, hyperbole. :thumbsup:
-
Stairs kill people too. 1000s of pensioners a year and nobody gives a fuck.
I get so fucking angry about the fact that my house has some...fitted by a selfish entitled person who just thought they could install this killing machine with no consequences for future inhabitants.
They should be ripped out of all houses by law.
Pensioners should have their homes made safe. E.g. by fitting a stairs lift. Stairs used to kill many more people than they did today, before building codes standardised step heights etc. Still unsafe though. If you've ever studied building management you'll know that all professionals worth their salt will design out repeated stairs use from working patterns.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Hierarchy_of_Controls_%28By_NIOSH%29.jpg)
Whataboutery isn't a valid reason to frighten people with your death cage, causing a horrendous racket, belching out poison and running over the odd toddler or someone getting the groceries on the bike.
Ban cars.
-
Stairs are really useful for going...err...upstairs.
Cars are really useful too.
-
Definitely run over odd toddlers.
-
'Really useful' for the driver. Half of Londoners don't have access to a car - even more so in the inner London boroughs. We're the ones who have selfish motorists forcing us to put up with their poison fumes, noise pollution, and threatening to run us over and kill us. Not to mention demanding free, on-street car storage. Bring your ghastly car to my neighbourhood and I'll polish it with a U lock.
-
Have you tried riding along with a screwdriver in your hand, just in case any cars get too close?
Best wear a wig if you do, to avoid being recognised.
-
Locks are much better you can take a wing mirror clean off. Or just smash in a rear light.
-
'Really useful' for the driver. Half of Londoners don't have access to a car - even more so in the inner London boroughs. We're the ones who have selfish motorists forcing us to put up with their poison fumes, noise pollution, and threatening to run us over and kill us. Not to mention demanding free, on-street car storage. Bring your ghastly car to my neighbourhood and I'll polish it with a U lock.
There are c130 deaths per year on London's roads, with a population of c8.9m
-
Yep. And how many more hospitalised, traumatised and maimed? It is unacceptable. Let alone the c. 30,000 early deaths a year from the air pollution.
Ban cars.
-
Ban cars in London. Good idea. Possibly workable.
Outside London, nope.
-
Rubbish. Fewer than 20% of people live non-urbanly.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rural-population-and-migration/rural-population-201415
It is imperative that the majority be protected from the pollution and menace of the driving 'elite'. Keep your cars out of our neighbourhoods.
-
Have you tried riding along with a screwdriver in your hand, just in case any cars get too close?
Best wear a wig if you do, to avoid being recognised.
The frock.
You forgot to mention the frock.
;D
-
Have you tried riding along with a screwdriver in your hand, just in case any cars get too close?
Best wear a wig if you do, to avoid being recognised.
The frock.
You forgot to mention the frock.
;D
I'm still haunted by the frock.
Still, I think we have found the reincarnation of B&W, dont you ;)
-
Mr Charly otp has related an incident where automatic emergency braking saved him from crashing into a scooter on a rainy, spray-filled motorway. Possibly saved the scooterist's life, certainly injuries. And that was a car he didn't even know had that technology (it was a hire car or one work gave him or something). I'm sure a search will fail to find it because the search engine is pants but maybe Mr Charly himself will relate it with relevant details.
Anecdote aside, is emergency braking by computer any more likely to cause a crash (I presume we're thinking of rear ending) than emergency braking by human? The following driver will be equally prepared or unprepared in both cases.
Yeah that's a fairly accurate description.
Hire car, tired driver, excellent conditions. Scooter rider riding very slowly on dual carriageway, in centre of lane. Car started slowing before I could see the scooter and set off an alarm.
-
Going back to the OP (I'm sure there's a place for discussing whether we hate cars somewhere else on the forum), my anecdotal and generalised input is that drivers are being a little more tolerant of pedestrians and cyclists but otherwise are behaving much the same as normal and driving as fast as the road conditions (not speed limits) will allow.
There's a notable increase in speed on the A20 near me (at which point it is still a two lane urban road with shops and houses, not the motorway it becomes further out of London), offset only by the reduced traffic. On the 20mph residential streets, typical speeds I'd say are about normal, i.e. 30-35mph, with some spectacular exceptions.
Will it last? I doubt it.
-
Rubbish. Fewer than 20% of people live non-urbanly.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rural-population-and-migration/rural-population-201415
Not rubbish at all.
I've not needed a car in London since '88.
And no motorbike for the last 11 years.
It's just as quick (if not quicker) to get around London by bicycle or on the robust public transport system.
Outside of London the public transport system is not so good, so there's maybe a reason for using a car.
-
Rubbish. Fewer than 20% of people live non-urbanly.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rural-population-and-migration/rural-population-201415
It is imperative that the majority be protected from the pollution and menace of the driving 'elite'. Keep your cars out of our neighbourhoods.
87% of UK households have a car. So they arent the 'elite', they are the norm.
The 'elite' are those (in London) who have access to a hugely subsidised and effective public transport system that can render them quickly and cheaply to where they want to go.
Out here? If I want to get to work by public transport I have to take 2 buses and walk 30 minutes. Oh, and I have to set off the night before.
I'll just take the 20 minute car drive, if that is ok with you.
-
The (massively subsidised) availability of the car is what has wrought the poor state of public transportation. The motor vehicle is what creates sprawl. "public transportation" is supposed to pay for itself - even while road duty is frozen and £27 bn is ploughed into highway building out of the treasury.
Stopgap solution can be a mobility hub schemes - i.e. a shared cargo pedelec/electric vehicle on a community basis. Supported by subsidies. Basically instead of having entire lanes crammed with idle cars, you just have one or three which are used as and when. But fundamentally the reign of the motoring royalty lording it over the rest of us has to stop. In Loughborough Junction fewer than a third of the households there have a car or van. But they breathe in all the foul toxins. Unacceptable.
-
Going back to the OP (I'm sure there's a place for discussing whether we hate cars somewhere else on the forum), my anecdotal and generalised input is that drivers are being a little more tolerant of pedestrians and cyclists but otherwise are behaving much the same as normal and driving as fast as the road conditions (not speed limits) will allow.
There's a notable increase in speed on the A20 near me (at which point it is still a two lane urban road with shops and houses, not the motorway it becomes further out of London), offset only by the reduced traffic. On the 20mph residential streets, typical speeds I'd say are about normal, i.e. 30-35mph, with some spectacular exceptions.
Will it last? I doubt it.
Anecdotally....
I live two streets away from the South Circular.
Ordinarily, if I want to cross this on foot, I'll use the Pelican crossing on account of the traffic being heavy, but not moving slowly enough to dive between the vehicles.
Currently, there are substantial gaps in the traffic - maybe 5 to 10 seconds (or more) between vehicles. This is enough time to get across the road safely.
Only you can't because one of those vehicles will be taking advantage of the lack of traffic , and moving at a speed well in excess of that of the speed limit, meaning that you'd to cross the road in between two and three seconds.
I can't move that fast.
-
@bludger The motoring royalty is 87% of people. That is the issue.
I don't disagree with your root point, but the answer is not to 'ban cars', just because it is a solution which wouldnt harm you.
-
87% the households != 87% the people.
Don't the children in those households count for anything? The people whose lives are on the line of cars aren't banned?
Everyone stands to benefit from banning cars. It is imperative that it happens for the future of this country. And the wider species.
-
Everyone stands to benefit from banning cars. It is imperative that it happens for the future of this country.
There are millions of people who rely on the car industry for their livlihoods, and those for whom
public transport is not an option. I think you would probably have a difficult time convincing them.
-
Probably. Doesn't make it any less correct. The idea of an economic system that is predicated on the production of products that kill and maim our own children is absurd. Even before factoring in that this is an industry which is subsidised with tens of billions of everyone else's money every year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-provisional-estimates-year-ending-june-2018
1700 deaths a year. 26,600 serious hospitalisations. Who knows how many more killed from the air pollution, and being frightened off cycling and walking etc. Not tenable.
-
Probably. Doesn't make it any less correct. The idea of an economic system that is predicated on the production of products that kill and maim our own children is absurd. Even before factoring in that this is an industry which is subsidised with tens of billions of everyone else's money every year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-provisional-estimates-year-ending-june-2018 (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-provisional-estimates-year-ending-june-2018)
1700 deaths a year. 26,600 serious hospitalisations. Who knows how many more killed from the air pollution, and being frightened off cycling and walking etc. Not tenable.
How will you change the status quo?
-
On topic - I had to go to the office today to collect my stuff (and screens etc) because anything still in there next week will be sold/thrown away by the administrators. There were very few cars in the large business park where the office is, but traffic on the (A) roads was not noticeably quieter than a normal weekday. While I suspect that retail centres (and the roads around them) are quieter than normal, I think the lockdown effect is disappearing on the main roads.
-
How will you change the status quo?
Banning cars.
anyway I'm going to leave it here if people want to focus on speeding etc. But the facts are that in London (as posted on page one) that speeding is completely out of control here. A policewoman was killed on her bike less than a fortnight ago.
-
The (massively subsidised) availability of the car is what has wrought the poor state of public transportation.
Indeed.
But hyperbole won't get that changed.
-
How will you change the status quo?
Banning cars.
anyway I'm going to leave it here if people want to focus on speeding etc. But the facts are that in London (as posted on page one) that speeding is completely out of control here. A policewoman was killed on her bike less than a fortnight ago.
How would you propose banning cars?
-
How will you change the status quo?
Banning cars.
anyway I'm going to leave it here if people want to focus on speeding etc. But the facts are that in London (as posted on page one) that speeding is completely out of control here. A policewoman was killed on her bike less than a fortnight ago.
How would you propose banning cars?
This is way OT now, but De Sisti has asked a good question. The way to ban cars is not to ban cars because that way lies riots and economic and social breakdown. It might be possible through incrementally making cars expensive and useless; taxes, parking restrictions and so on. I'm one of the 13% for whom they're already expensive and useless; the real elite(!), so I don't mind...
-
I don't think cars are inherently wrong or evil, but their dominance and our abject reliance on them is both figuratively and literally toxic. It's shocking that if you ask anyone, they'll probably know someone relatively close to them who has been killed or seriously injured in some kind of car-related accident. And I use 'accident' advisedly.
Cars impact every aspect of our lives, it's not just the death, injury and pollution, it's the way they carve up our towns, feed the endless sprawl, kill our high streets and communities, not to mention the fact that having to run a car or three empties our bank accounts.
-
Crystal ball:
Electric vehicles fuelled from renewable sources - no pollution
Advanced AI - minimising avoidable accidents
or public transport (available and not dirty diesels) decent enough around here to make me give up my car?
I know which one will happen sooner.
-
None of that really addresses the problem. Why are we forced to travel everywhere? I'd rather work and shop close to home, be able to walk or cycle to the things I want to do. Actually live in a community rather than a car park.
-
Electric vehicles fuelled from renewable sources - no pollution
Electric vehicles produce less pollution, but they still produce particulate emissions from brake, tyre, and road wear, so many estimates suggest that the reduction in pollutants is only about 50%.
Rather ironically the only areas where electric vehicles are really beneficial are city centres, and lots of those journeys could be made by bike with even less pollution, less congestion, and additional benefits to public health through higher levels of activity.
Seriously restricting the freedom to use cars in city centres should be a priority from many perspectives.
-
On the news tonight is a rise in speeding offences and decline in drink driving.
-
None of that really addresses the problem. Why are we forced to travel everywhere? I'd rather work and shop close to home, be able to walk or cycle to the things I want to do. Actually live in a community rather than a car park.
That's pretty much what I do.
-
87% the households != 87% the people.
Don't the children in those households count for anything?
No. No, they do not. This is why BRITAIN is leaving the European Union.
-
None of that really addresses the problem. Why are we forced to travel everywhere? I'd rather work and shop close to home, be able to walk or cycle to the things I want to do. Actually live in a community rather than a car park.
Centralization of work began before the bicycle, motorcar or comfortable horse carriages were available to the masses.
People moved into towns because work was available there because it had moved from the countryside.
The land was depopulated and the country became the bounds of the elite and farm labourers.
Most people who live out of town, now do so because of mass public transport and the motor car.
If you want to genuinely work near home but not live in town and decouple yourself from the legacy of mass private transport, you need to start sustenance farming.
I know that's not really what you're meaning.
-
None of that really addresses the problem. Why are we forced to travel everywhere? I'd rather work and shop close to home, be able to walk or cycle to the things I want to do. Actually live in a community rather than a car park.
Good questions! I will give a couope of answers from my experience.
I worked at McLaren. The HQ is out on the common, a couple of miles out from Woking town centre. There are car parks provided.
But crucially a regular minibus shuttle from the station. Travelling from central London I would take a Tube to Waterloo, then train to Woking and the shuttle bus.
Working later at Viglen. Again the factory is about three miles from Radlett train station.
But I drove every day, a grind round the M25 and the North circular.
Why? No minubus shuttle. The bus service was abysmal - a bus at 9am and the next one at 10 am or something like that.
I can't afford two taxis a day. aha you say - use a bike. Well no, sorry. It is up the A1 on a big hill. And I dont want to change my clothes.
During that time also the Thameslink was bypassing London Bridge and I had to go via Blackfriars - which does not join up with the Jubilee Line.
So to be constructive:
Integrated public transport, as in Switzerland. You should expect to arrive at a rail station and a bus will be there to take you to your final destination.
Also why not car parks on the outskirts of cities? Cars are pretty convenient for long distances, and for lugging around the things you need for business.
Looking at London - why not park at the O2 and complete the final leg of journeys to home via the Tube?
The reason why - high costs for overnight parking and the chance of theft/vandalism on your car.
-
So to be constructive:
Integrated public transport, as in Switzerland. You should expect to arrive at a rail station and a bus will be there to take you to your final destination.
Mostly we blew that bit when we deregulated the buses and privatised the railways. Buses used to be able to pull up with priority in front of the rail station, and in more enlightened circumstances a bit of overall control would mean the buses coordinated with the train arrivals/departures.
-
So to be constructive:
Integrated public transport, as in Switzerland. You should expect to arrive at a rail station and a bus will be there to take you to your final destination.
Mostly we blew that bit when we deregulated the buses and privatised the railways. Buses used to be able to pull up with priority in front of the rail station, and in more enlightened circumstances a bit of overall control would mean the buses coordinated with the train arrivals/departures.
Actually it goes back further - the company car as a means of getting round pay caps. The Railways were lost with Beeching.
-
Even with trains and buses here operated by the same company (First), there's not particular coordination. But then, there's not great coordination between trains on different lines all run by the same company. Partly this is because of the demands of signalling and the requirement to avoid trains crashing into each other, but it's also infrastructure, rolling stock and staffing.
-
So to be constructive:
Integrated public transport, as in Switzerland. You should expect to arrive at a rail station and a bus will be there to take you to your final destination.
Mostly we blew that bit when we deregulated the buses and privatised the railways. Buses used to be able to pull up with priority in front of the rail station, and in more enlightened circumstances a bit of overall control would mean the buses coordinated with the train arrivals/departures.
Actually it goes back further - the company car as a means of getting round pay caps. The Railways were lost with Beeching.
I haven't been doing my homework. First I've heard of that. Must do some reading.
-
'How our towns and cities could be permanently changed by coronavirus'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/08/towns-cities-could-permanently-changed-coronavirus/
& the often forgotten bit
'The bicycle may now be as inextricably linked to Amsterdam as the black cab to is to London, but back in the 1960s the Dutch, too, were ruled by the car. It wasn’t until twin economic and public health shocks in the form of the 1973 oil crisis and several horrifying traffic accidents that the Netherlands began a rethink, and Europe’s cycling capital was born'
'Covid-19 may have a similar impact on the UK’s towns and cities'
Well we can all hope.
-
To be frank - that is putting a gloss on it from that newspaper. To say it "prompted a rethink" is telegraph revisionism. In fact it was a minority of energetic campaigners who fought from the bottom-up to kick out drivers from their neighbourhoods. At this time there was a big anarchist movement which opposed cops and cars in equal measure and would do things like throw weed to people in public. They ran on a ticket of forcing anyone who killed someone while driving to build a monument to them in public. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provo_(movement)
There was no "benevolent government rethink" it was a core of angry people who agitated against the government and used direct action to get their way, literally barricading roads and having on-street die ins.
You'll never get the Torygraph to mention such behaviour of course.
-
And it’s rose tinted. Breakfast TV in the Netherlands will inform you of how many hundreds of km of traffic jams On the motorways there are. Outside of a few cities the car is still king In the Netherlands.
-
Driving is getting less courteous in the past week, in my local area anyway. Three separate occasions of drivers accelerating hard towards me (and drifting to my side of the road) on narrow suburban streets with cars parked both sides (single car width between). Today’s one drove under my outstretched arm with a doppler-shifted ‘wanker’ out the window. Next time I am hitting their wing mirror regardless of what it does to my hand.
-
If ou want to permanently reduce road use by motorised vehicles, you will need a huge rethink.
The lockdown (or something very similar to it) will be need to be permanent.
The only way to reduce car use is to reduce travel.
There's not enough capacity to put current car travel onto the railways. Before lockdown, the railway had higher passenger km's ever, even with fewer lines far more people are travelling by train than 100 years ago. As for freight, well I do a lot of work in the rail freight sector and before lockdown getting NEW paths for new freight trains flows could be extremely difficult as the railways are full. (We don't need HS2 so much as a new W10 gauge freight line IMHO, however I digress).
All out of town shopping would have to go. Home deliveries would be difficult without vans (I have both a big van and a cargo bike and I can assure you a big van holds a LOT more stuff), although in densely populated cities the last mile by electric cargo-bike derived vehicle might work OK. Bus riding would probably increase- you'd really need to bring back trolley buses or trams in cities/big towns although it wouldn't take anything like the current levels of car traffic.
Where I live, commuting to nearest town about 10 to 15% is by train. Even doubling that is only 30% and even if you got another 20% by bus that's still another 50% to find- and cycling is unlikely to work where people live 20 to 30 miles away from work (not unusual).
So, life would need to change- a lot.
No more weekend breaks in the country or second homes/caravans- unless you are rich. House prices in cities would need to fall a lot so people can live close to work. Of course we also have a lot more people now than in (say) the 1950's which doesn't help. One family holiday a year if you are well off enough- and it may only be a train to the seaside.
Jobs would need to be close to home and in quite a few families that would be the end of the mother (usually) working as the family would need to live close to work. Of course, no choice of schools- you must attend the nearest school.
This is how things used to be not so long ago- in the 1970's, in all the time I was a child at home we only ever had one family holiday to a chalet in the lake district subsidised by dad's work- we couldn't afford anything else and we were far from "poor." During the times we had a car it was an old banger nursed to life by dad but usually he cycled to work and mam walked to part-time work in a local shop. Saturday we'd get the bus to mam's parents- they had a nice council house with a big garden complete with veg patch and shed and granda supplemented grub by catching rabbits at work as a night watchman.
Mam made our clothes and food was NOT to be wasted. If the bread got dry towards the end of the week you just ate it dry.
What I am getting at is that our current (high) standard of life is all supported on having a lot of road transport- cars, vans and HGVs.
Only people who live in London (or it's environs/key catchments) have decent public transport BTW.
Personally, I'd much rather swap my work away (where I sleep/live in my van overnight) for something local, in fact I used to work locally until I was made redundant, set up a business and found customers- just not nearby. But as I work from home at least 50% of time and travel to a place then stay there in the depot car-park for a week, travel is minimised. I wonder how many people would work away like that though, when I was a bairn it was not unusual for us Geordies to do that seeking work in the south but it's not exactly a favoured way of earning a living these days. Although of late there is a trend of skilled contractors staying away in a caravan/van as hotels get costly as they cater to the weekend city break and student market......
I wonder how many people you could persuade to vote for such whole-sale change? Returning to a 1970's level wouldn't bother me, but it would bother a LOT of people for whom weekend breaks, shopping out of town being a leisure pursuit and eating out at drive-thru places are a BIG part of how they have been living until lockdown.
But in real life, that's what it would take to ban the car.
GC
-
Why do I need a car - because there is no public transport near here. It’s easy to take a London view when you are saturated with options.
Why do I need a big car - because I’m a cyclist. I need to take bike + kit to races, abroad, to Audaxes etc. Without a car there would, for me, be little point in owning bikes. Others will no doubt vary in their view, but maybe they have a cunning plan for getting bike+ kit+2 or more sets of wheels for 10am on a Sunday to deepest Lincolnshire.( not at the moment obviously).
Not all cyclists have the same interests or reasons to ride.
-
What I am getting at is that our current (high) standard of life is all supported on having a lot of road transport- cars, vans and HGVs.
This is a total falsehood and has no basis in fact.
The idea that unless we have motorists rampaging around the country, as they do now, we can only go on holiday once annually and will have stale bread for tea is wrong to the point of farce. Mass motoring has put me and those younger than me on course to extinction and catastrophe and this is the nonsense you come up with to tell me tough tits, I should just put up with it because *checks notes* you "have" to drive to your bike races.
Ban cars.
-
I’m guessing that you ( Bludger) is aware that London sucks resources out of the rest of the country? There is a huge subsidy on your transport infrastructure. I’ve never needed a car when I worked in London. Added to that, you have a velodrome close at hand, an outdoor track, and several closed circuits. There are publicly funded parks for you to train around, all within easy reach.
And, of course, you get paid significantly more on average than any of the rest of the UK as well.
-
You are exactly wrong. London funds this country. It's the golden goose. About 1/7-8 the population, that generates about 1/3 its GDP.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/20/london-uk-economy-decentralisation
https://www.businessinsider.com/london-and-the-south-east-effectively-provide-subsidies-to-rest-of-britain-2017-5
Ban cars.
-
Tell that to people in the Highlands. I think I can imagine their response.
Your reality is not everyone's reality.
-
I don't give a shit. My life is on the line. So is any children's I end up caring for. "But I have to drive to my bike races!!!!!" Is some weak shit that I have no time for.
The people swerving reality are the head-in-sand car obsessives who haven't got go grips with the reality that their car addiction has to go. I can sympathise that it is easy to go into denial as a coping mechanism but when you've decided that actually, you just don't care about what happens to me and those who come after me, that's a homicidal decision.
-
I don't give a shit.
This I can agree with you on.
-
What a world.
People of my age are foregoing their whole lives just to keep the vulnerable older generations safe.
We ask them to change their lifestyles to keep us from dying and suddenly that's too much to ask.
-
You were asked for a plan on how to ban cars. So far, all you've done is abuse the people who have pointed out that it's hard. You seem to be mixing road casualties (which clearly need reducing, but wouldn't be ended by banning cars) and climate change emissions. If your concern is CO2, transport creates only 28% of the CO2 in this country - if we ban cars (and trains, and planes and lorries and busses) we still don't meet our obligations. Source https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/862887/2018_Final_greenhouse_gas_emissions_statistical_release.pdf
Banning cars hard. It's impossible if people live in villages with 1 bus a day. I'm planning on minimising the use of my car when we eventually return to the office. Driving takes half an hour. Cycling takes 50 minutes. To get there by public transport i would need to take 2 busses, which would take an hour and a half, even if the connection took no time at all. And Oxford is a city with good public transport.
FWIW, I have an electric car and solar panels, so when I drive, I do so using energy I generate. Clearly that doesn't reduce my risk of KSI, but that's down to my driving.
-
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 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.
My mess? You know nothing about any mess I may or may not create. And I'm not going to kill you or any kids you may or may not have.
However, you are proposing to remove the livelihood from thousands of people, and the only way that millions can carry out their jobs, I think it is on you to provide an alternative.
-
You're proposing to carry on and kill me and anyone younger than me by your externalities.
Stopping that is your job. Not mine. Clean your mess up. No wonder this country is in such a shambolic condition. Buck passing and can kicking is the order of the day.
-
You're proposing to carry on and kill me and anyone younger than me by your externalities.
Stopping that is your job. Not mine. Clean your mess up.
Which externalities?
-
https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jaerec/doi10.1086-684162.html
Boy are there a few.
It will always blow my mind how nasty and selfish the people in this country are. Literally just shrugging their shoulders at their children and grand children on course for an early grave. How can they just not care as they do.
-
Younger people are just as profligate.
Except maybe the ones in London (your mates) who can afford to be smug and opinionated because car use is irrelevant to them.
Life outside of big cities is predicated on car use. To say 'ban cars' without any sort of replacement is as childish as saying 'ban armies' to bring about world peace.
-
Maybe you need to change how you live then. Instead of just shrugging your shoulders at your own descendants staring down the barrel of a gun because you find change too inconvenient.
It's on the inflicter of harm to clean up their mess. So make an effort. Pay your tab.
-
I know things probably seem simple if all you have to do in life is pedal from one address to another doing a Deliveroo.
Sadly that isnt going to make the world go round.
-
Wow. Now who's the "smug and privileged" one.
That must be the Thatcherite conceit. That nasty stain of classism straight down from Ayn Rand. "Fuck everyone else, I've got mine."
-
My car runs on electricity. My house generates electricity. There is no externality from my car (though as I already said I'm aiming to reduce my use).
Heating the house, eating food, using the web/TV/lights, having 1 child (R = 0.5), those things all generate CO2. I assume you are vegan? And you never fly anywhere?
My point is not to be holier than thou. My point is just that if you actually want to change the world, you have to make it easy for people to make those changes. As you can see from the lockdown, most people will try to do what's right if you communicate clearly with them and they are able to absorb the seriousness of the situation. But you can't just apply draconian measures that will massively impact their lives (forever) without providing a reasonable alternative. If you can't do that, then you can't ban cars. Because as we've seen, if you offer people the choice between a certainty of starving starting today, or a possibility of dying in a week, they will take the latter option.
-
Banning cars isn't "Draconian". What's "Draconian" is telling everyone younger than you that you're not going to bother making changes to your own life to keep them from an early grave. What's "Draconian" is forcing everyone in the country to pay £27bn in taxes to create a system that is going to kill their own children. This is insane.
Motoring really is a death cult and this thread has exemplified that completely.
-
Wow. Now who's the "smug and privileged" one.
That must be the Thatcherite conceit. That nasty stain of classism straight down from Ayn Rand. "Fuck everyone else, I've got mine."
Pedal pedal pedal.
Life is as simple as that.
-
I would sooner be a delivery cyclist for the rest of my days than be a sociopathic waste of skin like you.
-
Eh? I'm not forcing anyone to pay taxes? I didn't even vote for this lot, so I take no responsibility for their inaction.
You seem to be accusing me of taking no action on climate, despite me being very clear that I have. Given your concern, and your willingness to make significant changes to the lives of many other people in this country, I'm interested in what actions you have taken to reduce your carbon footprint (aside from not having a car, obviously).
-
He eschewed the life of a corporate high-flyer to become a cycle delivery boy. Pay ain't so good, but his conscience is clean.
-
It doesn't matter what I've done or haven't done. All that counts for anything is macro scale action to stop the harm i.e. banning cars, ending the hydrocarbon industry, rewilding ruined habitat and so on. Anyone whose main concern is for the wealth of a car company versus my literal life on the line is part of the problem. That is what needs centering not whether I had a bacon butty last Friday.
-
To answer the question posed in the OP, "Lockdown - has it made driving slower and drivers more courteous?"
Hard to say really, but it could be argued that it's made yacf inhabitants a mite less courteous.
It would be nice if people calmed down a bit and stopped trying to wind other yacfers up quite as much as has been happening.
Please keep it civil.
-
It doesn't matter what I've done or haven't done. All that counts for anything is macro scale action to stop the harm i.e. banning cars, ending the hydrocarbon industry, rewilding ruined habitat and so on. Anyone whose main concern is for the wealth of a car company versus my literal life on the line is part of the problem. That is what needs centering not whether I had a bacon butty last Friday.
Good luck with your campaigning.
-
Maybe you need to change how you live then. Instead of just shrugging your shoulders at your own descendants staring down the barrel of a gun because you find change too inconvenient.
It's on the inflicter of harm to clean up their mess. So make an effort. Pay your tab.
If you buy food or any other goods carried on an HGV or van you are part of the infliction of the harm you cite. I trust you are totally self sufficient?
OK.
Being shouty won't win people to your cause, and you are trying to about down those of us who highlight the practical steps needed for change. I never said I am against change, I am not actually- but I do spend quite a bit of my working life explaining reality to people who want something changed but are unwilling to discuss the nuts and bolts of how that might happen.
Effective change doesn't happen by magic or shoutiness, it happens by thinking through the implications and planning the way through.
GC
-
This entire chat in one image.
(https://images.dailykos.com/images/299172/large/Gotcha.png?1473798350)
-
.... House prices in cities would need to fall a lot so people can live close to work.
Course, I mean if you just banned cars, wouldn't house prices in cities do the exact opposite and absolutely rocket, because all the people that lived in "commuter towns" would now want to be within cycling / public transport distance of their office?
Something bludger singularly fails to appreciate cos it doesn't fit in with his blinkered view of the world.
-
Oh boy yeah you sure got me. Good one mate. I had no idea that housing was expensive. What a big brain zinger.
Never mind that your own descendants' lives are on the line. Think of the housing market!
Blinkers are fitted to horses to prevent them from seeing the full picture. What an irony that drivists frightened of losing their motoring privileges, given by licence only, would dare to use the term about anyone else.
-
Oh boy yeah you sure got me. Good one mate. I had no idea that housing was expensive. What a big brain zinger.
Never mind that your own descendants' lives are on the line. Think of the housing market!
Blinkers are fitted to horses to prevent them from seeing the full picture. What an irony that drivists frightened of losing their motoring privileges, given by licence only, would dare to use the term about anyone else.
I don't care about the housing market, but you probably should if you live in London!
Go ahead and ban cars and see what it does to your rent/mortgage.
-
I am moderately more concerned about not dying than I am about rent fluctuations.
"Blinkered" indeed..... ::-)
I would happily pay double my rent in return for a car ban.
-
I am moderately more concerned about not dying
ok well I'm getting some new golf clubs soon so I'll let you have the box ;D
-
Better get use of them afore we nationalise the golf courses and turn them into parks 💅
Golf courses; first against the wall.
-
It doesn't matter what I've done or haven't done. All that counts for anything is macro scale action to stop the harm i.e. banning cars, ending the hydrocarbon industry, rewilding ruined habitat and so on. Anyone whose main concern is for the wealth of a car company versus my literal life on the line is part of the problem. That is what needs centering not whether I had a bacon butty last Friday.
What was it like? Did you have ketchup on it?
-
To answer the OP, I haven't noticed any change with drivers of motor vehicles behaviour. That there far fewer motors on the road has made cycling a more pleasant experience.
My location, North Herts.
Bludger makes a good argument for ending car use. Conversely, other have valid points too.
To argue that people employed in the car industry will lose their livelihoods whilst true, doesn't make it OK to keep producing them. (in some Central American countries tens of thousands of people are employed by the drugs trade, doesn't make it OK to let them carry on).
Most people want a greener society, fewer emissions etc. In conversion with people from different backgrounds I hear the same hypocritical arguments, of which I'm guilty of too.
That is, we nod sagely and agree that the humanity can't carry on consuming, and then book a foreign holiday, 4 engined jumbo jets consuming tens of tons of aviation fuel. (actually I've never flown). Or more innocently order cycle parts made from, iron, aluminium, plastic, rubber. All manufactured in factories and transported by motor vehicles.
We visit a relative in Surrey, occasionally driving on the M25 and inevitably strck in traffic near Heathrow. 6 lanes of traffic parked up in opposite directions, jumbo jets taking off every 40 seconds. It can't carry on much longer.
I wish I had the answers. The so called lock down has made society step back, pause a while. We must consume less.
-
Banning cars isn't "Draconian". What's "Draconian" is telling everyone younger than you that you're not going to bother making changes to your own life to keep them from an early grave. What's "Draconian" is forcing everyone in the country to pay £27bn in taxes to create a system that is going to kill their own children. This is insane.
Motoring really is a death cult and this thread has exemplified that completely.
If you feel so strongly about it, voice your concerns to the politicians.
-
To return to the original question- yes, I have noticed a more relaxed and friendly attitude from drivers in my local lanes. Maybe lower volumes, maybe less appointments to get to. Generally older drivers as well, who have limited mobility to get out any other way.
Lots of walkers and especially dog walkers, but all friendly and considerate if given a cheery hello to warn them of your approach.
Farm traffic has become very big, and often requires a cyclist to stop and move into a gateway. However, they are at work and growing our food, and again there’s usually a thumbs up.
-
Better get use of them afore we nationalise the golf courses and turn them into parks 💅
Golf courses; first against the wall.
I'd vote for you. Thousands wouldn't. :D
-
I’m pretty sure that I am not the only person to have noticed more speeding traffic on the roads since the lockdown started.
UK motorists caught at ‘extreme speeds’ on quiet lockdown roads (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/increase-in-speeding-incidents-on-uks-quiet-lockdown-roads)
Nearly half of people say speeding has increased during lockdown (https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/23/nearly-half-of-people-say-speeding-has-increased-during-lockdown-survey/)
Lockdown drivers caught speeding in Glasgow's West End as traffic cops issue warning (https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18434204.traffic-cops-issue-warnings-stop-speeding-drivers-west-end/)
Police patrols detect over 1300 speeding drivers putting others at risk, as they respond to community concerns (https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2020/05/police-patrols-detect-over-1300-speeding-drivers-putting-others-at-risk-as-they-respond-to-community-concerns/)
-
Banning cars isn't "Draconian". What's "Draconian" is telling everyone younger than you that you're not going to bother making changes to your own life to keep them from an early grave. What's "Draconian" is forcing everyone in the country to pay £27bn in taxes to create a system that is going to kill their own children. This is insane.
Motoring really is a death cult and this thread has exemplified that completely.
If you feel so strongly about, it voice your concerns to the politicians.
Or become one.
-
Banning cars isn't "Draconian". What's "Draconian" is telling everyone younger than you that you're not going to bother making changes to your own life to keep them from an early grave. What's "Draconian" is forcing everyone in the country to pay £27bn in taxes to create a system that is going to kill their own children. This is insane.
Motoring really is a death cult and this thread has exemplified that completely.
If you feel so strongly about, it voice your concerns to the politicians.
Or become one.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
What weird creatures to spend their entire lives trying to convince others they know best! Who would do that?
But anyway, we should of course ban all cars. There must be an alternative to all this dashing around making the place hideous with their noise, pollution and aggressiveness.
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/09/imagine-cities-road-rage-congestion-exhaust-fumes-britain-coronavirus
-
Met Police urges drivers to slow down after catching driver doing 110mph in a 30mph zone (https://road.cc/content/news/met-police-urges-drivers-slow-down-273365)
‘Extreme speeding’ up 142 per cent
-
What a world.
People of my age are foregoing their whole lives just to keep the vulnerable older generations safe.
We ask them to change their lifestyles to keep us from dying and suddenly that's too much to ask.
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.
You're proposing to carry on and kill me and anyone younger than me by your externalities.
Stopping that is your job. Not mine. Clean your mess up. No wonder this country is in such a shambolic condition. Buck passing and can kicking is the order of the day.
Banning cars isn't "Draconian". What's "Draconian" is telling everyone younger than you that you're not going to bother making changes to your own life to keep them from an early grave. What's "Draconian" is forcing everyone in the country to pay £27bn in taxes to create a system that is going to kill their own children. This is insane.
Motoring really is a death cult and this thread has exemplified that completely.
How old actually are you, Bludger?
-
I can see dramatically reducing car usage in cities could be practical. Outside of cities where things are beyond practical cycling distances and impractical public transport in large vehicles, less so. Whether privately owned or supplied on demand, some sort of small vehicles for passenger transport will always be needed.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Closing cities to through traffic, either literally or by way of inconvenience by time or cost, to favour walking, cycling, and public transport for a 2 or 3 km radius of the centres and providing a decent standard of segregated infrastructure for trunk roads. Providing that would cover lots of journeys and provide a degree of linking up of rural areas.
-
Closing cities to through traffic, either literally or by way of inconvenience by time or cost, to favour walking, cycling, and public transport for a 2 or 3 km radius of the centres and providing a decent standard of segregated infrastructure for trunk roads. Providing that would cover lots of journeys and provide a degree of linking up of rural areas.
That’s what Ghent has done I think. Birmingham has similar plans.
-
Closing cities to through traffic, either literally or by way of inconvenience by time or cost, to favour walking, cycling, and public transport for a 2 or 3 km radius of the centres and providing a decent standard of segregated infrastructure for trunk roads. Providing that would cover lots of journeys and provide a degree of linking up of rural areas.
That’s what Ghent has done I think. Birmingham has similar plans.
Well I can testify that Ghent has succeeded in making itself inconvenient to drive round, having attempted it. Well policed, as well - I did once attempt to make a turn down a road I obviously wasn't supposed to go down for some reason, and was promptly pulled up alongside by a police motorbike - he didn't want to give me a fine or stop me or anything, was just insistent that I turn round again immediately.
-
I went out for a bike ride yesterday. First time since lockdown began.
Roads were quiet (except really near where I live, because people were driving there to go for a walk).
Main road was like a Sunday morning. Cars out, but not many.
So many people walking and cycling. On roads that would normally be empty I was passing someone on a bike every 2-3 minutes.
Car speeds seemed normal. Even the young lad in a BMW who was driving laps kept his speed down.
Regarding 'old people sacrificing young'; get to f*&$ off. I'm subsidising 6 young people to the tune of about £600 per month, because they can't earn enough in this stuffed up world.
-
Why do I need a car - because there is no public transport near here. It’s easy to take a London view when you are saturated with options.
Why do I need a big car - because I’m a cyclist. I need to take bike + kit to races, abroad, to Audaxes etc. Without a car there would, for me, be little point in owning bikes. Others will no doubt vary in their view, but maybe they have a cunning plan for getting bike+ kit+2 or more sets of wheels for 10am on a Sunday to deepest Lincolnshire.( not at the moment obviously).
Not all cyclists have the same interests or reasons to ride.
To be fair though, these are choices you have made. In part they are choices we all made. Businesses didn't move out to business parks and retail estates and wait around for a few years while everyone got around to buying a car. Mass car ownership made this possible. We, of course, paid for it all and continue to pay for it. The time and money in those journeys, the costs of those cars, the infrastructure, the tax breaks for businesses, the evergreen subsidies and bailouts to carmakers, the healthcare costs of all that collateral damage, and endless other costs that this unsustainable style of living accrues. We pay them all, one way or another.
Banning cars overnight is obviously a terrible idea, but we have to think how we build sustainable communiites and, yes, that means as individuals we have to make some of the decisions. If people want a healthy high street, they have to use it. They have to think about the places they live, the things that they do, and think whether or not they want to rely on a car. Walking down some average suburban streets yesterday, nearly every single front garden is given over to car parking, two cars crammed in an another capping the ensemble on the pavement outside. I don't think many people even notice they now live in a grim car park. Every aspect of our life is now carved by the motor car.
This didn't happen overnight and it doesn't have to be, of course.
-
Those individual choices are kind of trapped within the mass of individual choices and choices made at planning and governmental levels and by corporations before them. To unwind the individual we also have to unwind the higher-levels.
-
Banning cars overnight is obviously a terrible idea, but we have to think how we build sustainable communiites and, yes, that means as individuals we have to make some of the decisions. If people want a healthy high street, they have to use it. They have to think about the places they live, the things that they do, and think whether or not they want to rely on a car. Walking down some average suburban streets yesterday, nearly every single front garden is given over to car parking, two cars crammed in an another capping the ensemble on the pavement outside. I don't think many people even notice they now live in a grim car park. Every aspect of our life is now carved by the motor car.
This didn't happen overnight and it doesn't have to be, of course.
Absolutely agree. We need to transition from a car dependent society to one where it is easy to live without cars. This will require a huge amount of political will, especially with structuring incentives for businesses to help this to happen (and assistance for communities that are badly affected by this transition). It's clear that there is some awareness in gov't that the current situation is unsustainable (hence the 2035 ban on combustion engines), but it's probably a vote loser, and so someone (politicians are unlikely to do this) needs to make the weather and change public opinion. We have been moving in the opposite direction for 40 years, so it's going to take something pretty radical to make this happen though. :( Cudzo put it better than me. :)
I think we end up conflating 2 separate issues though - there's the problem of emissions, and there's the problem of societal blight (whether it's damage to the public realm, destruction of community, road building, danger to other road users, the list goes on). There may be technological solutions that minimise/mitigate the emissions problem. The only solution to the second problem is many fewer cars.
-
In the 1980s when motorways were still being built it became well known that anywhere on their routes would see a big rise in local house prices. Obviously because the new road invited longer commuter journeys.
ISTR it was called The Great Car economy and undoubtedly serves to keep Tories in power to this day.
-
If there is a technological solution to pollution and accidents, do we still need to get rid of cars?
-
If there is a technological solution to pollution and accidents, do we still need to get rid of cars?
As Ian alluded to, do we want to live in a car park?
-
There are also technological solutions to reduce car ownership....carpooling.
-
How old actually are you, Bludger?
28.
I've grown up seeing unending coverage of climate change and what needs to happen, probably for about 20 years. None of this has amounted to anything except tokenistic concessions about how we collect the bins. People older than me know it's going to kill those younger than them. But it's easier to kick the can down the road. So they do.
Accredited surveys of young people and children are finding mass anxiety and fear of climate change https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/51451737 but as this thread exemplifies, those older just don't give a fuck.
-
There are also technological solutions to reduce car ownership....carpooling.
So, we do need to get rid of some cars?
-
If there is a technological solution to pollution and accidents, do we still need to get rid of cars?
As Ian alluded to, do we want to live in a car park?
I do wonder if people do realise this – I find walking around those parts of town unremittingly grim. Every garden is concrete or tarmac, every pavement blocked by more cars, every bit of grass verge torn up. I'm sure even with that, parking is still an issue. These are, of course, the parts of town where car ownership is a far bigger economic burden. If you can afford a house with a proper driveway, then car ownership is likely a smaller portion of your income.
That said, we walked through a new, posher bit of town, and all the new(ish) houses had those tiny vestigial garages that, of course, meant the cars were clustered outside.
It's like our towns have had a peculiar form of metallic cancer that rapidly metastasizes to every newly built estate, anywhere roads go, it spreads.
We own a car, but we've opted to make decisions that mean we're not reliant on that car (and we have one of those houses with a driveway and garage, so it's a marginal cost) and thus use it little.
-
The whole "development" process is rigged to make this happen. NIMBIES will always lobby against the provision of housing near them, since it deflates the value of their own properties which they intend on selling later in life. In so doing, new housing is pushed to the margins of towns which locks in car dependency for those in the new homes. This is exemplified by the usual "green belt protection" lobby groups who bang the drum against building on brownfield land. https://www.cbre.co.uk/research-and-reports/our-cities/green-belts-and-nimbyism
(https://i.imgur.com/STDS5G8.png)
It's the classic rent seeking economic problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking The whole property market is a big wealth transfer process, from younger people paying extortionate private rents to the landowning royalty.
-
The 3 main contributors to global warming are in about equal measure travel, heating and eating meat. The key is too reduce the impacts dramatically, but that does not mean banning them all completely.
It is also important to consider different scenarios, a family with young children living in the countryside will have different transport requirements to single fit person in a city. To say they shouldn’t use cars is like telling a city dweller they should grow their own vegetables or install a ground source heat pump.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
There are also technological solutions to reduce car ownership....carpooling.
So, we do need to get rid of some cars?
Do we need to? Yes, if a non-polluting, viable and ubiquitous solution is not found. Yes, if we no longer want so much public space to be used for car storage. Yes, if we no longer wish our communities to be bisected by busy roads. Yes, if we want to begin to reduce the 500 deaths aweek from diabetes, and innumerable other deaths related to inactivity.
But "banning cars"? No. That is just a slogan for those stuck in an adolescent mindset. Banning cars would produce a crash of it's own. We need a working alternative.
Unfortunately we are yet to see effective political leadership on this, and the 'market' is amoral. Brexit and its contingent mindset will probably kick things into touch for the UK until the mood changes.
For our resident forum hothead, and his remarks about the older generation not giving a fuck about the young, most/many of us here have children. We have skin in the game. We are extremely conscious of what the future holds for those we love and care for in a way he is yet to either experience or understand.
-
The 3 main contributors to global warming are in about equal measure travel, heating and eating meat. The key is too reduce the impacts dramatically, but that does not mean banning them all completely.
It is also important to consider different scenarios, a family with young children living in the countryside will have different transport requirements to single fit person in a city. To say they shouldn’t use cars is like telling a city dweller they should grow their own vegetables or install a ground source heat pump.
:thumbsup:
And tough shit if they havent got a garden to grow vegetables in. They can just starve. Fuck them.
-
The 3 main contributors to global warming are in about equal measure travel, heating and eating meat. The key is too reduce the impacts dramatically, but that does not mean banning them all completely.
It is also important to consider different scenarios, a family with young children living in the countryside will have different transport requirements to single fit person in a city. To say they shouldn’t use cars is like telling a city dweller they should grow their own vegetables or install a ground source heat pump.
Did people live in the countryside before cars?
Pretty much everyone we know has moved out of London (not just to avoid us, or so they claim) to places in more rural environments for various 'quality of life' issues. They'll all strenuously expound on the fact that they have no public transport etc. and complain about the lack of local facilities, the closure of the local shop and pub. While driving everywhere.
Anyway, I don't think cars are evil, but we should temper our reliance on them and build sustainable communities where journeys by car are the exception rather than the rule. It's insane, for instance, they people are driving their kids to school (and not just the few outliers who have no option, that it's routine).
-
Only a fraction of people in this country (less than 1/5) live outside of a town or city. This familiar chorus of 'what about the rural!' is no different to taxi drivers bellowing 'what about the disabled!' when a cycleway or modal filter/bus gate is proposed inside a town.
-
83% in urban areas but urban is quite a wide definition. The ONS definition includes large villages and small towns that might have little or no facilities, certainly not a full complement. I believe 49hectares, or 700m x 700m is the threshhold.
About 25% live in conurbations of over 1m. Start by banning cars in them. Public transport in a rural area would realistically be in car sized vehicles.
Clearly people survived in the countryside before cars, but a lot moved to the cities.
-
You don't need to ban cars, just make it impractical to use them routinely in urban areas. Take away the parking, block through traffic, etc. Then wait...
-
How old actually are you, Bludger?
28.
Genuinely young! (As opposed to eg "showing signs of middle age" by collecting your pension.)
I've grown up seeing unending coverage of climate change and what needs to happen, probably for about 20 years. None of this has amounted to anything except tokenistic concessions about how we collect the bins. People older than me know it's going to kill those younger than them. But it's easier to kick the can down the road. So they do.
Accredited surveys of young people and children are finding mass anxiety and fear of climate change https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/51451737 but as this thread exemplifies, those older just don't give a fuck.
We know all this and we've known it since before you were even born. A lot of us got really hopeful that things were going to change with the first UN climate conferences around 1990. I was younger then than you are now (and Flatus was still in nappies*)! Anyway, it's no better blaming older individuals for not having created a better world than it is for them to blame people your age for eating air-freighted avocados and quinoa. None of us are islands, however hard we try, as the saying goes.
*He's actually less than a year younger than me.
-
How old actually are you, Bludger?
28.
I've grown up ...
Doesn't seem like it on reading this thread. :P
-
Yeah of course not wanting to die, how immature you sure showed me ::-)
(https://pics.me.me/no-we-wont-calm-down-protect-privilege-by-robot-hogs-18755617.png)
Of all the greasy tactics of the can kickers, tone policing amounts to one of the most shameless and predictable. Because "tone" is more important than actual life and death. Just an easy way to avoid the real problem which has been drop kicked down the road.
Anyway, it's no better blaming older individuals
Literally my entire point is that "blaming individuals" is absurd. However when the dynamic becomes "well I recognise the problem but really your proposed solution (banning cars) would inconvenience my lifestyle" that changes. Because that's you just outright expressing that you don't care if I die or not. Let alone "well I want to drive my car to a bike race".
-
I know you struggle to understand things outside of your own highly limited experience, but removing cars from everybody would result in a little more than "inconveniencing lifestyle choices". I have a neighbour who has no fucking legs. No car=his house becomes his prison. But of course thinking this is a bad thing is the same as literally not caring if you die ::-)
Because it's all about you.
-
Anyway, it's no better blaming older individuals
Literally my entire point is that "blaming individuals" is absurd. However when the dynamic becomes "well I recognise the problem but really your proposed solution (banning cars) would inconvenience my lifestyle" that changes. Because that's you just outright expressing that you don't care if I die or not. Let alone "well I want to drive my car to a bike race".
:P is supposed to show it was a joke. I was making it because you are literally blaming all individuals on this thread older than you.
You are ignoring all the other people who have said that banning cars is a fine ideal but can't be done in practise right now. And in doing so, you are being equally unreasonable as anyone who is unwilling to change anything. Banning cars in this country tomorrow would cause an enormous amount of problems for a great many people. Aside from the jobs of >800,000 people who work in a motoring related industry, it would render the second largest asset most people ever own (in many cases, the first) valueless, mean that millions would be unable to get to work, massively impact the >500,000 people who rely on motability vehicles, and have a significant number of other knock-on changes, big and small. We would need a rescue budget from the Chancellor, just from that 1 measure.
Here's how we work toward a car free future = intelligent debate. Ban cars != that.
-
If posting "ban cars" is what's needed to actually make people centre that then I'll happily keep doing it 👌
The way to straighten a stick is to bend it over the other way.
Ban cars.
-
Ban cars.
I am not convinced you will pass on your concerns to your MP or the Secretary of State for Transport. They will be in a much stronger position to make your dream* a reality.
*dream/wish/aspiration/whatever you want to call it.
-
Barricading roads off using modal filters works a lot better.
-
If posting "ban cars" is what's needed to actually make people centre that then I'll happily keep doing it 👌
The way to straighten a stick is to bend it over the other way.
Ban cars.
Just writing "Ban cars" is idiotic. Thankfully I'll never have to read you write that again. :)
I assume you count that as a success?
-
If posting "ban cars" is what's needed to actually make people centre that then I'll happily keep doing it 👌
The way to straighten a stick is to bend it over the other way.
Ban cars.
If no one else will say it, I will: I don't care particularly how or when you die. You will die one day, of something or other, and the likelihood is that you'll be a lot older when you die than your grandparents were, and their grandparents were. Life expectancy, despite a wobble recently because of obesity and related illnesses, has relentlessly increased over the last couple of hundred years, cars notwithstanding.
Whether you like it or not cars are essential for many people because of the way life has adapted to their availability. To ban them without making any arrangements to replace them (and good luck with that) simply condemns many people to a life that is impossible to live. I am perfectly willing to contemplate a life with fewer cars, and/or with only electric cars, or some other solution that improves life for as many as possible. As one of those who lives in a genuinely rural setting (and has all my considerably longer life than yours), the phrase 'from my cold, dead, hands' springs to mind.
So, Bludger, you individually are of no importance to me, and I suspect you're diminishing in importance to may others as you deploy your less-than-subtle persuasive powers. Claiming we are killing you is unlikely to raise much in the way of sympathy or protest on your behalf.
-
Not really about me individually is it though, my dear tone policing friend. The necks if any children, grand children or nephews etc are on the line.
(This is you side-stepping the problem by centering an individual "tone complaint" as the matter at hand by the way)
the phrase 'from my cold, dead, hands' springs to mind.
I've long felt the obsession with cars is comparable to the American obsession with guns since you bring it up... Ignoring that their own children go to schools which are liable to being shot up by roaming gunmen while just kicking the can down the road and ignoring the problem because banning guns is "unrealistic" and would "damage industries" etc. In the same way guns are fetishised in culture from action movies to video games or whatever.
It isn't on me to "develop a realistic plan" to accommodate your lifestyle when my neck and millions of others' is on the line. That's on you.
-
Barricading roads off using modal filters works a lot better.
That's far more sensible than "ban cars". And even better, it might lead to a situation in which cars are still legal and available but are neither necessary nor attractive to most people, leaving them to those who really benefit such as Flatus's neighbour.
-
Not really about me individually is it though, my dear tone policing friend. The necks if any children, grand children or nephews etc are on the line.
(This is you side-stepping the problem by centering an individual "tone complaint" as the matter at hand by the way)
the phrase 'from my cold, dead, hands' springs to mind.
I've long felt the obsession with cars is comparable to the American obsession with guns since you bring it up... Ignoring that their own children go to schools which are liable to being shot up by roaming gunmen while just kicking the can down the road and ignoring the problem because banning guns is "unrealistic" and would "damage industries" etc. In the same way guns are fetishised in culture from action movies to video games or whatever.
It isn't on me to "develop a realistic plan" to accommodate your lifestyle when my neck and millions of others' is on the line. That's on you.
Actually, it is up to you - and anyone else who wants to change the status quo - to come up with a plan as to how to do so. 'Ban cars' simply prompts the answer 'no'.
-
Rubbish. If you walk into a bar, drink 5 pints and then when the barman tells you to pay your tab, you demand they draw up a plan for you to source £27 to pay for what you've done, that would be absurd. The same applies here.
When we find someone doing harm to another by e.g. dumping chemicals into a river it isn't on us to remediate the harm and redesign their operations to stop the pollution. We demand that they stop. Figuring out how is on them.
-
Bludger, go away and grow up.
-
*gets popcorn*
-
Whether you like it or not cars are essential for many people because of the way life has adapted to their availability.
A bit like electricity or clean running water. We lived for hundreds of thousands of years without either, and hundreds of millions of people still do. Their availability has brought huge changes in where we live, how we organise our lives, how we work, play, eat, travel, learn... We could live without them if we had to, but it would be a very different life, because life has adapted to their availability.
-
Bludger, go away and grow up.
(https://kidactivities.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/how-to-play-kick-the-can.jpg)
-
Whether you like it or not cars are essential for many people because of the way life has adapted to their availability.
A bit like electricity or clean running water. We lived for hundreds of thousands of years without either, and hundreds of millions of people still do. Their availability has brought huge changes in where we live, how we organise our lives, how we work, play, eat, travel, learn... We could live without them if we had to, but it would be a very different life, because life has adapted to their availability.
And electricity generation, for example, is a huge cause of pollution.
Ban all non-clean electricity production! (and see how well the country deals with rolling blackouts)
I'm all for a long term plan of getting rid of ICE cars, but a simple outright and instant "ban" is farcical. The disruption and loss of life it would lead to until things did eventually adapt would be impossible to sell to anyone, and the active choice that would result in the death of many people, even if it would be fewer than those that will be killed by anthropogenic climate change, isn't one that any politician or majority of voters would go near.
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.
Note that replacing all ICE cars with fully electric cars only lessens and shifts away the pollution elsewhere (which isn't a bad thing unless you live right near the associated power plants) until all power generated in the UK is 'clean'. Until that point the supply of 'clean' energy is limited and finite and so any shortfall in demand is made up for by extra 'unclean' generation. Increase the demand (by replacing ICE vehicles with electric vehicles) and that shortfall increases and so non-clean energy production increases to fill the gap.
In the long term the human race is likely to be wiped out by non-anthropogenic climate change although this isn't a reason to do nothing about anthropogenic climate change, but the action doesn't need to be as drastic as "ban cars!"
-
bludger, out of interest, what do you actually mean by "Ban cars"?
-
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.
What has costed lives is this toxic system which death-marches people into danger. And indeed disproportionately the worst-off at that. It's the vice grip of a system that demeans and degrades the worst off and the vulnerable that inflicts the harm, not the 'lockdown' per se.
What's really getting the shits up the government is how this situation has openly thrown into question how we live our lives in this country and around the world. The majority of wealth that this system creates isn't equally distributed. It's carved up for the betterment of a minority and spent on superyachts, mansion eatates, BMWs or whatever else (https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-shocking-facts-about-extreme-global-inequality-and-how-even-it) with crumbs kicked in meager portions to the majority. And the absurdity of this cycle is starting to make itself apparent to more people than ever.
-
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.
-
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.
What has costed lives is this toxic system which death-marches people into danger. And indeed disproportionately the worst-off at that. It's the vice grip of a system that demeans and degrades the worst off and the vulnerable that inflicts the harm, not the 'lockdown' per se.
Generally I'd agree with you. But saying "ban cars!" as an answer to this is like saying "ban soldiers!" to stop war.
-
Bringing up wealth inequality is just argument by association fallacy. Nothing to do with cars.
-
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.
-
Name-calling aside, what are the actual benefits of vehicle ownership?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :-\
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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."
So what do you actually mean?
Practically
-
What I "actually mean" is contextual but "ban cars" is pretty much the sum of it. I hate cars probably more than any machine on the planet. They are vile and car obsession is a death cult that crosses into all manner of problems from urban sprawl to sexual harassment to road safety to climate change.
Cars are the embodiment of every nasty trait you can think of. Selfishness, greed, vanity, that "I am important, get out of my way" aspect of toxic masculinity. No wonder the fascists built the first motorways.
-
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.
You started by saying it is a problem our leaders haven’t faced up to, then end by saying it is a problem the public doesn’t understand.
I agree that the Daily Mail is abhorrent, but it hasn’t created the plastic aeon alone.
-
What I "actually mean" is contextual but "ban cars" is pretty much the sum of it. I hate cars probably more than any machine on the planet. They are vile and car obsession is a death cult that crosses into all manner of problems from urban sprawl to sexual harassment to road safety to climate change.
Yup. And Coronavirus too, I wouldn’t be surprised. And Pot Noodles. And The Daily Mail. And Jacob Rees Mogg.
-
I fancy one of these green vomit coloured cars. Where can I get one? :)
-
I fancy one of these green vomit coloured cars. Where can I get one? :)
I'd like two, one with an even number in the number plate and one with an odd number, just in case they introduce limits on cars that can drive in certain places on certain days.
-
I'd like two, one with an even number in the number plate and one with an odd number, just in case they introduce limits on cars that can drive in certain places on certain days.
Already being done: https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/your-car-reg-number-ends-4117199
-
Taking their tip (sorry) from Lagos. Didn't end well there either.
-
I liken this to what I have seen in my industry over the last 10 years +. Many a green campaigner has said turn off all fossil fuel generation as there's easily enough resource for 100% wind and solar. It takes a long time to explain that you can't do that with no notice and keep the lights on.
What has actually happened is a gradual phasing out of coal - I think we've been coal free in terms of power generation for the last 3 weeks but I might be wrong. The remaining gas fired plant is pretty efficient and the rest is nuke/wind/solar/biomass. This will phase further as less efficient gas plant drops off the bars and more battery storage gets developed.
Phasing out of older tech while new tech comes in.
-
It's not really a technical solution that's required though – it's social and cultural. Electric cars will still clog up our streets and replicate the majority of the current problems. All they do is reduce some of the pollution (mostly by offsetting it to another location).
-
Exactly. The pollution is just part of the problem. Just as toxic is the harassment, noise pollution, lifestyle illness and so on. Focusing on just the way they poison our air and kill people is to ignore all the other disgusting impacts of the motorist in society. The way that the motorist feels he can maraud around, blaring their horn, close passing and throwing trash at cyclists or just out the window, spitting etc is the problem no less than the pollution. All on the dime of the treasury with everyone in the country footing the bill. £27bn for grooming the highways for the motoring royalty in the last budget with peanuts for anyone else.
Which is why I want to ban cars.
-
do my bit handing out LCC consultation response leaflets
Ah you live in that London, out here in Gloucestershire or the bit I live in we have one bus, it's once an hour and stops at 18:00 it only goes to town where I either have to get a train or another bus to get to somewhere useful, alas the bus into Cheltenham doesn't go anywhere near the large government employer I'm contracting at so I have to get another bus, also that bus stops at 8pm.
The train station in Cheltenham is out of town so I need a bus from there, or to hope I can fit my bike on (only two spaces on the locals) the Gloucester station is in town but none of the offices are.
I ride my Ebike to work generally but it's a 30mile round trip through the countryside up and down some very serious hills (birdlip) not those speedbumps you call hills in London, and when it snows you probably won't see a gritter, but a farmer clearing gateways until you get to the A417 and that hilarious in the snow on a bike.
Out here we don't have
the tube,
a massive bus system
the dlr
taxis that work after 10pm
crossrail
Night buses and trains.
cycle superhighways
So we have a car, because while you can get around the city OK, out here in the country side the politicians in that there city have given practically no shits about public transport outside London.
So go stick your head in a bucket with the Ban cars bollocks, because until we can actually get around I'm keeping ours.
-
Word.
-
In case you've been living under a rock we don't have the tube or buses here either and likely won't for the next 6 months if not longer. And the "cycle superhighways" are a clown car joke which is why cycling modal share in this country's "cycling capital" is sub 2% and that's concentrated among white men. In my road club it is outrageous that we have members who will merrily ride around the lanes (but not on their own, because they are frightened of being targeted by drivers) but the thought of riding inside their own town fills them with terror because of the marauding danger of motorists.
Usual bleating with excuses that ignores that these problems have been created by the car. If cheap cars and cheap fuel weren't available your offices wouldn't be lumped out somewhere in the arse end of nowhere. Bus routes wouldn't have been slashed to one an hour. The beeching cuts wouldn't have happened. The car has been an abject disaster for us and the rest of the world which is why it must be banned. Fed up with treasury resources being used to sustain a toxic system.
-
Indeed, if you have shit public transport, the reason is probably cars. (That and the fact that many people choose to live in impracticable places and then complain they need a car, of course.)
-
Indeed, if you have shit public transport, the reason is probably cars. (That and the fact that many people choose to live in impracticable places and then complain they need a car, of course.)
I'm sorry, ian, but you appear to be suggesting that those of us who live in the country are being unreasonably impractical and should up and leave for a city... I hope this is satirical.
-
Not entirely, public transport died outside of cities because of the car. And to be fair, the village bus was never going to replicate the convenience of getting in a car and convenience is something we subscribe to above all else. I guess the point is that these things are still choices that people make. There is a cost to these choices.
-
It sounds like people that live in cities and therefore don’t need cars would like the countryside cleared of people so they can better enjoy their recreational cycling. I can think of some alternative suggestions.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Oh and speak of the devil here's a member of parliament objecting to homes for people to live in. Because of fucking car parking. Her complaint is that there isn't enough.
https://mobile.twitter.com/russellcurtis/status/1260170500833148929
This system puts the right to free on-street car storage over the right to an affordable place to live and raise a family. If you're blind to this, at this point it is wilful blindness.
-
Oh and speak of the devil here's a member of parliament objecting to homes for people to live in. Because of fucking car parking. Her complaint is that there isn't enough.
https://mobile.twitter.com/russellcurtis/status/1260170500833148929
Actually, parking comes 4th on the list of four objections.
-
In case you've been living under a rock we don't have the tube or buses here either and likely won't for the next 6 months if not longer. And the "cycle superhighways" are a clown car joke which is why cycling modal share in this country's "cycling capital" is sub 2% and that's concentrated among white men. In my road club it is outrageous that we have members who will merrily ride around the lanes (but not on their own, because they are frightened of being targeted by drivers) but the thought of riding inside their own town fills them with terror because of the marauding danger of motorists.
Usual bleating with excuses that ignores that these problems have been created by the car. If cheap cars and cheap fuel weren't available your offices wouldn't be lumped out somewhere in the arse end of nowhere. Bus routes wouldn't have been slashed to one an hour. The beeching cuts wouldn't have happened. The car has been an abject disaster for us and the rest of the world which is why it must be banned. Fed up with treasury resources being used to sustain a toxic system.
Aww bless you have to experience what it's like for the rest of us, all. the. fucking. time.
They might be a clown car joke as you call them, but i would give my right arm for something even close to approaching them, but we don't even have a sustrans route pretending to be a cycle path, just have to rough it on the lanes with everyone else.
The reality is that we do what we can, cycle as much as possible and use trains for our holidays if we can, but the reality is for some trips we have no choice but to use a car, visiting my parents for example requires a bus, two trains and then a walk or another bus or a 40 minute drive. Visiting my wife's parents is easier as it's a train into London which we have, and then one out again, but that means going to London which frankly I'd rather not bother but at least I get to see where all the infrastructure money gets spent.
I would love better public transport but once you've spent hours waiting for connections because time tables don't line up unlike the joy of the tube when trains just arrive mere minutes after the last the shine get's knocked off pretty quickly so someone shouting ban all cars irk's because sometimes I don't want to be wet and cold going to work.
-
They might be a clown car joke as you call them, but i would give my right arm for something even close to approaching them
London is the most dangerous place in the country to ride a bike. Someone is killed here at least once a month, and hospitalised more often than that. "Superhighways" don't protect you from some motorist just deciding to pull a stunt like this https://road.cc/content/news/271023-dramatic-footage-shows-tesco-delivery-driver-knocking-cyclist-bike-london
the joy of the tube
wakey wakey Einstein the tube and everything else is out of bounds for the next six months.
sometimes I don't want to be wet and cold going to work.
some nerve to patronise with "aw bless" and then immediately whinge about getting a bit wet. You're not made of sugar. Motorists have to be the biggest snowflakes there are, hoarding £27bn in capital spending for maintenance of their groomed motorways so they can sit in their climate controlled death wagons while the rest of us get crumbs from the table and have to pay for tickets while fuel duty gets its continued freeze. Right now a litre of fuel is cheaper than a litre of diet coke but even then it's not enough, still ready to whinge about the "war on the motorist".
-
Oh and speak of the devil here's a member of parliament objecting to homes for people to live in. Because of fucking car parking. Her complaint is that there isn't enough.
https://mobile.twitter.com/russellcurtis/status/1260170500833148929
Actually, parking comes 4th on the list of four objections.
The irony, of course, is that car parking is an issue in a place that has regular buses, tube, and train. It's the same here, they're arguing about parking for development that is opposite the train station.
-
Oh and speak of the devil here's a member of parliament objecting to homes for people to live in. Because of fucking car parking. Her complaint is that there isn't enough.
https://mobile.twitter.com/russellcurtis/status/1260170500833148929
Actually, parking comes 4th on the list of four objections.
The irony, of course, is that car parking is an issue in a place that has regular buses, tube, and train. It's the same here, they're arguing about parking for development that is opposite the train station.
There is an assessment of the public transport provision in one of the letters, saying that half the new flats don't have as good access.
Parking is always an issue in developments, and will be until there is change in planning law and change in government focus.
-
Of course they say that. Housenowners hate developments because it devalues their own portfolio. They want to retain property scarcity so that their assets remain valuable and indeed increase in value. The "out of character" and "parking" whingeing is just to protect their rents.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/04/meet-the-new-urban-luddites/521040/
-
They might be a clown car joke as you call them, but i would give my right arm for something even close to approaching them
London is the most dangerous place in the country to ride a bike. Someone is killed here at least once a month, and hospitalised more often than that. "Superhighways" don't protect you from some motorist just deciding to pull a stunt like this https://road.cc/content/news/271023-dramatic-footage-shows-tesco-delivery-driver-knocking-cyclist-bike-london
the joy of the tube
wakey wakey Einstein the tube and everything else is out of bounds for the next six months.
sometimes I don't want to be wet and cold going to work.
some nerve to patronise with "aw bless" and then immediately whinge about getting a bit wet. You're not made of sugar. Motorists have to be the biggest snowflakes there are, hoarding £27bn in capital spending for maintenance of their groomed motorways so they can sit in their climate controlled death wagons while the rest of us get crumbs from the table and have to pay for tickets while fuel duty gets its continued freeze. Right now a litre of fuel is cheaper than a litre of diet coke but even then it's not enough, still ready to whinge about the "war on the motorist".
The last figures I can see are for 2016. London had about 13% of the population but only 8% of cycling fatalities, which makes it safer than average.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Any info on mileages cycled on average per head per region ?
-
Yeah now actually zoom in on inner London where the vaunted "superhighways" are, not the greater metropolitan area...
(https://i.imgur.com/fdVVXlL.png)
KSIs per square mile rocket upward when you look at the inner London boroughs.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/london-collision-map
Inner borough population = 3.3 mill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London
-
Yeah now actually zoom in on central London where the vaunted "superhighways" are, not the greater metropolitan area...
(https://i.imgur.com/fdVVXlL.png)
KSIs per square mile rocket upward when you look at the inner London boroughs.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/london-collision-map
Inner borough population = 3.3 mill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London
Obviously if you measure per square mile ! There are plenty of square miles with no roads outside the m25.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I'm not actually measuring square mile that is being figurative.
What actually matters is that as you can see, the inner London boroughs with these marvellous "superhighways" are some of the most dangerous places you can ride a bike in the UK. And that's with people being terrified off of cycling them in the first place, let alone if we had a surge of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people giving it a go because they're frightened to use the tube etc. We'll probably see something similar happen with scooters since many are taking to those too. Sacrificed on the altar of the Motor God.
In fact that reminds me. TFL really need to track scooters under their own tab on this map...
-
I liken this to what I have seen in my industry over the last 10 years +. Many a green campaigner has said turn off all fossil fuel generation as there's easily enough resource for 100% wind and solar. It takes a long time to explain that you can't do that with no notice and keep the lights on.
What has actually happened is a gradual phasing out of coal - I think we've been coal free in terms of power generation for the last 3 weeks but I might be wrong. The remaining gas fired plant is pretty efficient and the rest is nuke/wind/solar/biomass. This will phase further as less efficient gas plant drops off the bars and more battery storage gets developed.
Phasing out of older tech while new tech comes in.
I was wrong. We've been coal free for over a month.
-
Today Oxford Bus Company have announced that they don't have the funding to keep their ride hailing experiment Pick Me Up going, so it will stop in June. This basically means that to travel within the east of the city, you have to go towards the centre on one bus, and back out again on another, doubling (or more) the time and cost.
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/oxford-bus-company/pressreleases/oxford-bus-company-to-withdraw-pickmeup-service-following-two-year-pilot-scheme-2997978
Oxford is a small city, and the buses are pretty good if you want to go into the centre, but if you want to go anywhere else or live in an outlying town...
Yay on coal free for > a month. :)
-
That's dreadful. That's the kind of scheme that should be propped up as a strategic service.
-
I liken this to what I have seen in my industry over the last 10 years +. Many a green campaigner has said turn off all fossil fuel generation as there's easily enough resource for 100% wind and solar. It takes a long time to explain that you can't do that with no notice and keep the lights on.
What has actually happened is a gradual phasing out of coal - I think we've been coal free in terms of power generation for the last 3 weeks but I might be wrong. The remaining gas fired plant is pretty efficient and the rest is nuke/wind/solar/biomass. This will phase further as less efficient gas plant drops off the bars and more battery storage gets developed.
Phasing out of older tech while new tech comes in.
I was wrong. We've been coal free for over a month.
:thumbsup:
-
They might be a clown car joke as you call them, but i would give my right arm for something even close to approaching them
London is the most dangerous place in the country to ride a bike. Someone is killed here at least once a month, and hospitalised more often than that. "Superhighways" don't protect you from some motorist just deciding to pull a stunt like this https://road.cc/content/news/271023-dramatic-footage-shows-tesco-delivery-driver-knocking-cyclist-bike-london
the joy of the tube
wakey wakey Einstein the tube and everything else is out of bounds for the next six months.
sometimes I don't want to be wet and cold going to work.
some nerve to patronise with "aw bless" and then immediately whinge about getting a bit wet. You're not made of sugar. Motorists have to be the biggest snowflakes there are, hoarding £27bn in capital spending for maintenance of their groomed motorways so they can sit in their climate controlled death wagons while the rest of us get crumbs from the table and have to pay for tickets while fuel duty gets its continued freeze. Right now a litre of fuel is cheaper than a litre of diet coke but even then it's not enough, still ready to whinge about the "war on the motorist".
Is that relevant? I don't think so – assuming you're talking about a permanent ban on cars, not for six months.
-
I'm not actually measuring square mile that is being figurative.
What actually matters is that as you can see, the inner London boroughs with these marvellous "superhighways" are some of the most dangerous places you can ride a bike in the UK. And that's with people being terrified off of cycling them in the first place, let alone if we had a surge of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people giving it a go because they're frightened to use the tube etc. We'll probably see something similar happen with scooters since many are taking to those too. Sacrificed on the altar of the Motor God.
In fact that reminds me. TFL really need to track scooters under their own tab on this map...
Whenever I cycle in london the main type of road user I feel most at risk from is other cyclists.
-
That says more about your bizarre risk assessment method than it does about reality. To put it bluntly that doesn't make you a 'tough guy' it makes you a fool. Someone riding a bike isn't going to pulverise your body with their 15 ton vehicle as they swing left at a junction, telling the coroner 'sorry I didn't see them.'
https://youtu.be/Tnd1lCwI9Yc
Maybe it's different when you haven't seen your dad with his face pulverised by a van and had to go into may day hospital at 10 years old watching someone you don't recognise trying to drink through a straw.
-
You may struggle with this, Kevin, but the world doesn't revolve around you and your father.
-
I'm not actually measuring square mile that is being figurative.
What actually matters is that as you can see, the inner London boroughs with these marvellous "superhighways" are some of the most dangerous places you can ride a bike in the UK. And that's with people being terrified off of cycling them in the first place, let alone if we had a surge of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people giving it a go because they're frightened to use the tube etc. We'll probably see something similar happen with scooters since many are taking to those too. Sacrificed on the altar of the Motor God.
In fact that reminds me. TFL really need to track scooters under their own tab on this map...
Whenever I cycle in london the main type of road user I feel most at risk from is other cyclists.
Snap !
-
I'm not actually measuring square mile that is being figurative.
What actually matters is that as you can see, the inner London boroughs with these marvellous "superhighways" are some of the most dangerous places you can ride a bike in the UK. And that's with people being terrified off of cycling them in the first place, let alone if we had a surge of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people giving it a go because they're frightened to use the tube etc. We'll probably see something similar happen with scooters since many are taking to those too. Sacrificed on the altar of the Motor God.
In fact that reminds me. TFL really need to track scooters under their own tab on this map...
Whenever I cycle in london the main type of road user I feel most at risk from is other cyclists.
Snap !
That, and peds. More so since mid March.
-
Really? Other cyclists and pedestrians can easily be annoying but I’m only really worried about motor vehicles nearby. I’ve actually been run over by a car (over both legs) in the distant past and I don’t wish to repeat the experience. Lots of damage, some permanent, and a very long rehabilitation period.
I know I’ll just bounce off other vulnerable road users and probably won’t experience anything worse than grazes or a broken bone. Something to be avoided if at all possible but not catastrophic.
-
Last 2 trips to casualty :-
1. Pedestrian
2. Dog
-
Last two for me:
Solo bike crash
Car hit my bike
-
https://shows.acast.com/streets-ahead/episodes/episode-3-chris-boardman
Worth a listen on the practicalities and politics of getting more people walking and cycling. If you don't have time for the whole thing (shame, it's worthwhile, but time) just check around 07:30, 16:00 and 23:00.
He makes a point which I think is good, that although he's in favour of cycling and walking benefiting from well designed dedicated infrastructure, the need for it is a sign that your city has failed as an environment.
-
<anecdata>
-
I am (often!) annoyed by other cyclists, but I can't say I feel threatened. I'd rather be close-passed by some bloke on a bike who thinks he's doing the tour de CS7 than someone in an Audi bungalow-on-wheels who thinks he's been entered into the Formula 1.
-
Let's actually look at what sends cyclists to the morgue:
https://www.roadpeace.org/prevention/lorry-danger-campaign/
For example between 2013 and 2015 - 477 people were killed or seriously injured by an HGV; 40% of these were pedestrians, 25% were cyclists and 35% were motorcyclists. It is believed that around 40 of these were due specifically to construction vehicles.
I'd sooner go into casualty in a bad mood from a dog running out than pulverised in a body bag from a motorist SMIDSYing me.
Another cyclist was killed on Sunday afternoon by the way in case you missed it. He was 34. https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/cyclist-killed-after-being-hit-porsche-driver-north-yorkshire-2849702
Driver was in a "sports car" doubtless doing something important.
The hysteria about "rogue cyclists" and "distracted pedestrians" is playing the blame game to the benefit of the industry that actually kills hundreds and hundreds of Brits a year - motorists.
But of course god forbid the value of human life take precedence over the motoring royalty's right to zoom around the country, killing, maiming, polluting etc with impunity.
-
Cyclists have never been a problem for me either. Had a few harmless collisions with peds but not recently.
My serious incidents were all car related:
T-boned by a camper van pulling out
Doored by a careless passenger - woke up in hospital 24 hours later
Doored by a careless passenger, they apologised and gave me an elastoplast immediately, I was going very slowly this time.
I did cycle commute daily for over 3 decades in all weathers. I dislike the car-culture but am a reluctant participant by marriage.
These evening, thanks to solo shopping rules, I will collect our shop by bicycle and trailer. :smug: O:-)
-
Oh and speak of the devil here's a member of parliament objecting to homes for people to live in. Because of fucking car parking. Her complaint is that there isn't enough.
https://mobile.twitter.com/russellcurtis/status/1260170500833148929
Actually, parking comes 4th on the list of four objections.
The irony, of course, is that car parking is an issue in a place that has regular buses, tube, and train. It's the same here, they're arguing about parking for development that is opposite the train station.
There is an assessment of the public transport provision in one of the letters, saying that half the new flats don't have as good access.
Parking is always an issue in developments, and will be until there is change in planning law and change in government focus.
Unless I was looking at the wrong thing, everything on the development was within a few minutes of New Barnet station.
But really, give people an incentive not to own a car. Every single local development here fouls up on parking, whether they be good or bad. It's just even more insane when the proposed development is in the town centre, between two supermarkets, across the road from the train station and bus stops. Less than a minute's walk to any of these. But they have to have acres of parking.
At same time, as I mentioned a while back, there's a development of houses in the field in the middle of nowhere, the only access by car. The council as far as I could tell turned permission down for that but they were overruled. So there's an estate of houses in which there's no other option to get in or out (OK, I'll be charitable, there is about fifteen minutes of muddy, unlit public footpath down a steep hill and across a dual carriageway, the one you'd need to cycle down if that were your preferred mode of transport).
I'm sure these examples are replicated up and down and across the breadth of the country.
Obviously, banning cars is a bit silly, but we really need to factor in how we build sustainable communities at every level, which of course doesn't happen. Cars should be optional. But I think we also need to occaisonally sacrifice some of the convenience of our car-central lifestyle. We can't do everything that we want, when we want.
-
Yup.
There needs to be change in planning guidance...
-
Oh and speak of the devil here's a member of parliament objecting to homes for people to live in. Because of fucking car parking. Her complaint is that there isn't enough.
https://mobile.twitter.com/russellcurtis/status/1260170500833148929
Actually, parking comes 4th on the list of four objections.
The irony, of course, is that car parking is an issue in a place that has regular buses, tube, and train. It's the same here, they're arguing about parking for development that is opposite the train station.
There is an assessment of the public transport provision in one of the letters, saying that half the new flats don't have as good access.
Parking is always an issue in developments, and will be until there is change in planning law and change in government focus.
Unless I was looking at the wrong thing, everything on the development was within a few minutes of New Barnet station.
But really, give people an incentive not to own a car. Every single local development here fouls up on parking, whether they be good or bad. It's just even more insane when the proposed development is in the town centre, between two supermarkets, across the road from the train station and bus stops. Less than a minute's walk to any of these. But they have to have acres of parking.
At same time, as I mentioned a while back, there's a development of houses in the field in the middle of nowhere, the only access by car. The council as far as I could tell turned permission down for that but they were overruled. So there's an estate of houses in which there's no other option to get in or out (OK, I'll be charitable, there is about fifteen minutes of muddy, unlit public footpath down a steep hill and across a dual carriageway, the one you'd need to cycle down if that were your preferred mode of transport).
I'm sure these examples are replicated up and down and across the breadth of the country.
Obviously, banning cars is a bit silly, but we really need to factor in how we build sustainable communities at every level, which of course doesn't happen. Cars should be optional. But I think we also need to occaisonally sacrifice some of the convenience of our car-central lifestyle. We can't do everything that we want, when we want.
Once we get out of this mess, there's going to be plenty of city/town centre property that could be converted to residential use.
It needs commercial property owners to face reality and local authorities to stop kidding themselves that they can endlessly "regenerate the High Street."
Urban planners need to rethink the area of retail to reflect reality.
-
The lockdown would have been a lot different had car use been restricted. Either by means of a very high price or controlling the availability of it to key workers etc. The roads were much quieter here during the fuel blockades of 2000 than even the height of the lockdown.
As a society I don't think we are ready for that. We saw the panic on toilet rolls and pasta. I wouldn't be surprised if controlling the fuel outlets leads to rioting and mass panic. As a society we also haven't seen a change in behaviour related to fuel price. It would need to be a huge increase before it could influence car use.
-
Oh and speak of the devil here's a member of parliament objecting to homes for people to live in. Because of fucking car parking. Her complaint is that there isn't enough.
https://mobile.twitter.com/russellcurtis/status/1260170500833148929
Actually, parking comes 4th on the list of four objections.
The irony, of course, is that car parking is an issue in a place that has regular buses, tube, and train. It's the same here, they're arguing about parking for development that is opposite the train station.
There is an assessment of the public transport provision in one of the letters, saying that half the new flats don't have as good access.
Parking is always an issue in developments, and will be until there is change in planning law and change in government focus.
Unless I was looking at the wrong thing, everything on the development was within a few minutes of New Barnet station.
But really, give people an incentive not to own a car. Every single local development here fouls up on parking, whether they be good or bad. It's just even more insane when the proposed development is in the town centre, between two supermarkets, across the road from the train station and bus stops. Less than a minute's walk to any of these. But they have to have acres of parking.
At same time, as I mentioned a while back, there's a development of houses in the field in the middle of nowhere, the only access by car. The council as far as I could tell turned permission down for that but they were overruled. So there's an estate of houses in which there's no other option to get in or out (OK, I'll be charitable, there is about fifteen minutes of muddy, unlit public footpath down a steep hill and across a dual carriageway, the one you'd need to cycle down if that were your preferred mode of transport).
I'm sure these examples are replicated up and down and across the breadth of the country.
Obviously, banning cars is a bit silly, but we really need to factor in how we build sustainable communities at every level, which of course doesn't happen. Cars should be optional. But I think we also need to occaisonally sacrifice some of the convenience of our car-central lifestyle. We can't do everything that we want, when we want.
Once we get out of this mess, there's going to be plenty of city/town centre property that could be converted to residential use.
It needs commercial property owners to face reality and local authorities to stop kidding themselves that they can endlessly "regenerate the High Street."
Urban planners need to rethink the area of retail to reflect reality.
Only if the rush to online continues after the lockdown. Otherwise you are putting people in towns and giving them nothing to do - so they will drive to out of town retail centres...
-
I'm not actually measuring square mile that is being figurative.
What actually matters is that as you can see, the inner London boroughs with these marvellous "superhighways" are some of the most dangerous places you can ride a bike in the UK. And that's with people being terrified off of cycling them in the first place, let alone if we had a surge of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people giving it a go because they're frightened to use the tube etc. We'll probably see something similar happen with scooters since many are taking to those too. Sacrificed on the altar of the Motor God.
In fact that reminds me. TFL really need to track scooters under their own tab on this map...
That's a logical fallacy. Far more people use the superhighways. I've cycled on the A4020, last time I went into London. It has a trickle of fatal crashes.
I could instead use the A40, which has maybe one or two fatal crashes.
I've cycled on the A40 (Westway) by accident. It's a hellish 3-lane former motorway. By any objective measure, it's far more dangerous than Uxbridge Road.
But, because any cyclists following that corridor tend to use Uxbridge Road, rather than the A40, the A4020 appears more dangerous by absolute numbers.
What's needed is KSI/cycling mile.
-
The lockdown would have been a lot different had car use been restricted. Either by means of a very high price or controlling the availability of it to key workers etc. The roads were much quieter here during the fuel blockades of 2000 than even the height of the lockdown.
As a society I don't think we are ready for that. We saw the panic on toilet rolls and pasta. I wouldn't be surprised if controlling the fuel outlets leads to rioting and mass panic. As a society we also haven't seen a change in behaviour related to fuel price. It would need to be a huge increase before it could influence car use.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200513/b06885c10037ef465806ee8682719264.jpg)
M40 one lunchtime a couple of weeks back.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I don't think we can talk about the effects of fuel price increase until we have some significant price increases.
-
What's needed is KSI/cycling mile.
that won't give the real figure because people are frightened to cycle on those roads. Because they are dangerous, evidenced by the video footage of a motorist just left-turning across the "murder strip" of the superhighway and send a cyclist flying like a children's doll.
What we actually need is action that bans cars like the Mayor of Paris has rather than sit about navel gazing on what the best way to count dead or hospitalised cyclists is. The toolkit to achieve that can include road user charging, modal filters, stricter licensing, physically segregated cycleways, subsidised access to cycling, replacing free on-street car storage with free secure cycle parking, ending the subsidies given to motorists, reforming planning and much else but fundamentally it comes down to telling cars and their drivers to fuck off or face charges from the government.
Here's a fantastic picture of the "superhighway" by the way...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX4lmlIX0AE735j?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
Clown car.
-
The lockdown would have been a lot different had car use been restricted. Either by means of a very high price or controlling the availability of it to key workers etc. The roads were much quieter here during the fuel blockades of 2000 than even the height of the lockdown.
As a society I don't think we are ready for that. We saw the panic on toilet rolls and pasta. I wouldn't be surprised if controlling the fuel outlets leads to rioting and mass panic. As a society we also haven't seen a change in behaviour related to fuel price. It would need to be a huge increase before it could influence car use.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200513/b06885c10037ef465806ee8682719264.jpg)
M40 one lunchtime a couple of weeks back.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This was the A303 last month:
(https://thumbsnap.com/s/j2xOxrgF.jpg)
And two days ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/F4k1Gn0.jpg)
-
The lockdown would have been a lot different had car use been restricted. Either by means of a very high price or controlling the availability of it to key workers etc. The roads were much quieter here during the fuel blockades of 2000 than even the height of the lockdown.
As a society I don't think we are ready for that. We saw the panic on toilet rolls and pasta. I wouldn't be surprised if controlling the fuel outlets leads to rioting and mass panic. As a society we also haven't seen a change in behaviour related to fuel price. It would need to be a huge increase before it could influence car use.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200513/b06885c10037ef465806ee8682719264.jpg)
M40 one lunchtime a couple of weeks back.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This was the A303 last month:
(https://thumbsnap.com/s/j2xOxrgF.jpg)
And two days ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/F4k1Gn0.jpg)
That is some pretty rapid bridge construction. Impressive.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
What's needed is KSI/cycling mile.
that won't give the real figure because people are frightened to cycle on those roads. Because they are dangerous, evidenced by the video footage of a motorist just left-turning across the "murder strip" of the superhighway and send a cyclist flying like a children's doll.
What we actually need is action that bans cars like the Mayor of Paris has rather than sit about navel gazing on what the best way to count dead or hospitalised cyclists is. The toolkit to achieve that can include road user charging, modal filters, stricter licensing, physically segregated cycleways, subsidised access to cycling, replacing free on-street car storage with free secure cycle parking, ending the subsidies given to motorists, reforming planning and much else but fundamentally it comes down to telling cars and their drivers to fuck off or face charges from the government.
Here's a fantastic picture of the "superhighway" by the way...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX4lmlIX0AE735j?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
Clown car.
That'll be the government they elect will it?
-
.. The roads were much quieter here during the fuel blockades of 2000 than even the height of the lockdown.
This is anecdotal. I live on a main commuting road outside Glasgow. At the peak of the lockdown, there was still traffic on the roads at commute times and in the evenings. I remember towards the end of the fuel blockades my cycle commutes to linlithgow along the A803. The roads were eerily quiet. It was like a ghost town. Any car you saw wasn't speeding.
I don't think we can talk about the effects of fuel price increase until we have some significant price increases.
I don't understand what you mean here sorry.
-
That'll be the government they elect will it?
Fallacious implication. It was only fairly recently (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822) that public opinion turned against hanging. That didn't stop it being repealed in 1968.
Governments provide leadership. Or at least they ought to. Going with the breeze and kicking the can down the road is government failure.
People instinctively are protective of cars but they also want firm action on climate change and other important problems (https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/5y7qpjzd6v/NEON_CoronavirusClimate_200417_W.pdf ; https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/xlz28wjcpt/YGC_GB_environmental__attitudes.pdf) so it's a government's role to see the long term big picture and be brave, not go with the breeze. As they did with repealing hanging.
-
It isn't 1968 any more.
-
That is literally my entire point...
-
What we actually need is action that bans cars like the Mayor of Paris has
Hidalgo is a mayor who not only wants to take bold action but is able to do so thanks to actually being in charge of her city. :thumbsup:
Unfortunately most British mayors are not in as strong a position, being reliant on cooperation with larger authorities such as counties and combined unitaries, meaning even on the rare occasions they do feel bold, they get overruled. :(
-
This is a rare instance where no one is going to get overruled by the government in measures that ban cars, using modal filters, segregated cycleways, road dieting etc, because the DFT has published that:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19
The government therefore expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians. Such changes will help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel. I’m pleased to see that many authorities have already begun to do this, and I urge you all to consider how you can begin to make use of the tools in this guidance, to make sure you do what is necessary to ensure transport networks support recovery from the COVID-19 emergency and provide a lasting legacy of greener, safer transport.
The writing is on the wall. We're hearing the inevitable "it's tooooo haaaard" noises but whatever. Lives are on the line.
-
Crossing my fingers, written to the councillors, not holding my breath.
-
https://www.ft.com/content/9fbfcf58-c710-40b0-91ee-0811686fa391#
You love to see it!
City of London to ban cars on busiest roads as lockdown eases
-
That is literally my entire point...
I'm not sure it is. In 1968 governments could do things like that.
nowadays we have Brexit.
-
This is a rare instance where no one is going to get overruled by the government in measures that ban cars, using modal filters, segregated cycleways, road dieting etc, because the DFT has published that:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19
The government therefore expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians. Such changes will help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel. I’m pleased to see that many authorities have already begun to do this, and I urge you all to consider how you can begin to make use of the tools in this guidance, to make sure you do what is necessary to ensure transport networks support recovery from the COVID-19 emergency and provide a lasting legacy of greener, safer transport.
The writing is on the wall. We're hearing the inevitable "it's tooooo haaaard" noises but whatever. Lives are on the line.
Thank you for providing the link. I have been in contact with my council, and have now used this to push a bit harder in respect to what action they are now taking in respect to active travel. I'm not hopeful, but I think now is the time to put a little more pressure on.
-
Sometimes it's the little things. Enforcement of a pavement parking ban, for instance, and parking in general. Those little nudges force us to think differently about the place for cars, there relative import and impact in our lives.
That said, I'm shocked in 2020 that it's still possible to pave over your front garden as a parking space.
-
Sometimes it's the little things. Enforcement of a pavement parking ban, for instance, and parking in general. Those little nudges force us to think differently about the place for cars, there relative import and impact in our lives.
That said, I'm shocked in 2020 that it's still possible to pave over your front garden as a parking space.
Paradise went that way ages ago.
-
All hail St Joni.
-
Went out yesterday at 5pm. I'd say traffic was back to pre-virus levels. Quite incredible
-
I had to collect some stuff from the office today (it's all going to be sold on Friday). Traffic wasn't quite at pre-virus rush hour levels, but it was probably at regular weekend levels busy.
The plan for a Zero Emissions Zone in central Oxford has been delayed by the virus. The first version is almost entirely symbolic (6 streets, most of which are dead ends and never driven down), but I assume this will delay zones 2 and 3, which would have actually had an impact.
https://www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20299/air_quality_projects/1305/oxford_zero_emission_zone_zez
-
I've just been into the local market town for my weekly shop at the Co-op. Despite the Co-op being one of only two shops open in town (the other is the Boots pharmacy), traffic in town, and to and from town, was pretty much normal.
Despite my disagreement with Bludger's simplistic 'ban cars' mantra, tonight myself and the committee of my cycling club will be referencing the amended Traffic Management Act 2004 linked above to press the local council to close the High Street to vehicular traffic and consider installing protected cycle lanes and wider footways to enable easier cycling and walking access to the High Street from outside and within the town.
-
I think we all want fewer cars, less encroachment on our local spaces, and more responsible driving, don't we?
But we all know we aren't going to get it by shouting, screaming, stampy foot tantrums and ridiculous nay pathetic statements of hatred and accusations of murderous intent directed towards anybody behind a wheel. All that serves to do is put people's backs up, stop them listening, and be less likely to engage. I think most of us learned that soon after potty training, didn't we?
The current discussion of reducing car traffic has been brought about by the conditions of lockdown, the reduced driving and the increase in cycling and is nothing to do with Bludger's psychotic episodes. That kind of shite gets in the way of progress. People need to be brought on board and co-opted into the discussion rather than be alienated by an assault of spittle-flecked rage. I think the reaction of the people in this thread is evidence enough.
-
I've just walked 10 minutes to a shop on the South Circular.
Traffic on the South Circ is as Hot Flatus and TimC describe it above.
I can't see this ending well.
Agreed that while most of us probably want to see fewer cars and less traffic, neither is going to happen as the result of any campaign for an outright ban.
Energy expended on that could doubtless, be put to better use elsewhere.
-
Closing our local high street to through traffic would be amazing (and a boon for the town) – sadly there's little will to make it happen. The council and shop owners are in a declining spiral of what if happen if everyone can't drive there – missing the obvious fact that they can now and quite obviously don't. Facilitating people driving through has no benefits, they're all driving somewhere else (there's a bypass that through traffic can use).
Honestly, it's not visionary thinking. It's the simple, obvious stuff again and the willingness to ride out the usual motormouth responses.
-
Agreed that while most of us probably want to see fewer cars and less traffic, neither is going to happen as the result of any campaign for an outright ban.
Energy expended on that could doubtless, be put to better use elsewhere.
It is worse than that. Calling for an outright ban whilst labelling motorists with a stream of aggressive invective will just end the discussion. Why? Because the people being labelled are the majority, and the invective is bullshit.
-
To be fair though, if you ban cars, how will disabled peopled with fridges full of tools get about, eh? Eh? Those hippy cyclists have no answer to that.
-
It takes no energy at all to campaign to ban cars.
"Ban cars."
There. Easy.
-
"Ban cars" is a war cry. It seeks conflict and belongs on the battlefield. That's never a good place to want to be, especially when you're bound to lose.
-
I expect the same was said of "stop the child murder."
Oh and by the way we are winning, as of today's news. (The FT headline was "cars banned.,.")
-
It takes no energy at all to campaign to ban cars.
"Ban cars."
There. Easy.
Do you not think that your campaign might benefit from expanding a bit beyond 'ban cars'?
On my 10 minute walk along the South Circ, in the space of ~100m I passed eleven shops.
Eight, yes eight, of these are permanently closed.
I can't see the 'derelict high street' situation in Forest Hill changing, whilst the current volume of traffic continues to bisect it.
ETA - That's as an aside from out-of-town shopping and retail sheds.
-
That sounds like an awful lot of work. I'm sticking with ban cars for the time being that's quite easy.
-
That sounds like an awful lot of work. I'm sticking with ban cars for the time being that's quite easy.
Tops! :thumbsup:
Keep at it.
While you are doing that, some of the rest of us, will try to deal with some of the more challenging issues that appear to be an awful lot of work.
-
It takes a peculiar approach to come onto a forum that is generally left of centre and pro non motorised transport, and basically piss people off.
If you really mean business go to Pistonheads and the Daily Mail comments section.
-
Oh and by the way we are winning, as of today's news. (The FT headline was "cars banned.,.")
That win is nothing to do with you. You are a hindrance.
-
I expect the same was said of "stop the child murder."
Oh and by the way we are winning, as of today's news. (The FT headline was "cars banned.,.")
"Would you like your children to be able to walk to school?" 99% of parents will say yes. You've begun to gain consensus. Then you explore how they can walk to school, what needs to be done. Step by step create a world where for most people, doing most things, it's easier and more desirable not to use a car. But you won't have done it, people will have done it for themselves because they want to. It takes a long time, but not as long as fighting an unwinnable war (and you live to see it).
-
Go right ahead and do that. Don't let me stop you.
I won't stop "ban cars" though.
-
...like a piss-trousered tramp shouting at passers-by from shop doorways
-
Flatus’ contributions are always so classy and restrained.
-
Despite my disagreement with Bludger's simplistic 'ban cars' mantra, tonight myself and the committee of my cycling club will be referencing the amended Traffic Management Act 2004 linked above to press the local council to close the High Street to vehicular traffic
So you do want to start banning cars.... Is it the delivery rather than the message you dont like then ?
-
He doesnt want to ban cars. He wants to close his high street to vehicular traffic. And no, it isnt the same thing.
-
One major difference between hanging (or fox hunting) and car ownership is the latter directly affects the voters. You can have a strong opinion about hanging (or fox hunting) but unless you are a convicted murderer (or fox hunter, or fox) it does not affect you directly. You are then more likely to be swayed by more mundane matters.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
He doesnt want to ban cars. He wants to close his high street to vehicular traffic. And no, it isnt the same thing.
Exactly. And to do it in line with the Government’s plea for us to enable active travel as much as possible. I’ve no desire or intent to stop people using their cars in the town (though I’d love them to use them less), but I do want to make the process of getting to the centre of town, and getting about while there, as easy for walkers and cyclists as possible so that they are persuaded not to use their cars in the first place for short-distance journeys. As lots of towns have found, pedestrianised high streets - even if only for the majority of the working day - make the place a lot more pleasant and increase footfall for shops. Add some decent bike parking and cycle routes in and out, and we might make a material difference. We’ll see how it goes.
-
Good luck with banning the cars from the high street Tim :thumbsup: hasta la victoria!
-
Re. banning cars...
I thought long and hard about getting rid of our car, but I can see a lot of downsides and situations where the car has been extremely useful and irreplaceable.
I don't know how I would be able to go to the local recycling centre to dispose of stuff that doesn't get collected by the council... wood, rubble, large cardboard boxes, metal, broken electric appliances etc... or go to the garden centre and buy a bag of soil
During lockdown, a car has been extremely useful to go to the supermarket and shop for a full week, as opposed to the two days we were used to shop previously... that might have even kept us alive...
With public transport out of use, I have no idea how else we would be able to travel... even with public transport on, many places you might want to visit are off limits
The ban cars rant is the usual London-centric view of folks that are used to have everything by their door step, live in microscopic flats with no garden and therefore don't need to buy or dispose of large items. They only head out of their neighbourhood for leisure on their bicycle, otherwise they are enclosed in their social bubble. Trains go everywhere from London, so why would you need a car?
-
^good, rational post.
In response to the OP. No. Far fewer cars around but the frequency of bum clenching overtakes has increased.
I live in a small (but growing quickly) town which the amenities are lagging behind. I'm dreading when McDonalds re-opens in the next town over, because that seems to attract the teenagers in their suped up hatchbacks. The same ones I see skimming my elbows at 100mph and can hear hooning around late into the night. When McD's is back, I fear the roads East of me will immediately return to the dangerous mess they were before.
-
One thing that's puzzling me about lockdown traffic, though I suspect it's a purely local factor, is where did the parked cars go? For the first few weeks, when no one was going anywhere and the roads (here at least) were really empty, you'd expect all those cars which are no longer being driven during the day, to be parked. But there were fewer parked cars than normal. This is an RPZ so it's not the absence of commuter of shopper parking. The only two things I can think of are student exodus and/or more free spaces due to lack of tradesmen's vans. The first seems more likely, as there are more students than builders, plumbers, etc, and in fact quite a lot of building work has gone on uninterrupted. But it doesn't seem large enough a factor, particularly as I still see quite a few students around.
And now the moving traffic is returning to pre-covid levels, so is the parking. Well, the shops are open and the RPZ is not currently being enforced (I think) – but the parking on the main road where the shops are, is still empty. So it does seem to be residential. Odd.
-
Apparently if * our neighbourhood is anything to go by, a lot of them have actually got allocated parking spaces but they use the street instead cos it's either nearer their front door, or they aren't blocking their partner in - and they're going out to work again in 12 hours.
* The less salubrious part of, I should add
-
Re. banning cars...
I thought long and hard about getting rid of our car, but I can see a lot of downsides and situations where the car has been extremely useful and irreplaceable.
I don't know how I would be able to go to the local recycling centre to dispose of stuff that doesn't get collected by the council... wood, rubble, large cardboard boxes, metal, broken electric appliances etc... or go to the garden centre and buy a bag of soil
During lockdown, a car has been extremely useful to go to the supermarket and shop for a full week, as opposed to the two days we were used to shop previously... that might have even kept us alive...
With public transport out of use, I have no idea how else we would be able to travel... even with public transport on, many places you might want to visit are off limits
The ban cars rant is the usual London-centric view of folks that are used to have everything by their door step, live in microscopic flats with no garden and therefore don't need to buy or dispose of large items. They only head out of their neighbourhood for leisure on their bicycle, otherwise they are enclosed in their social bubble. Trains go everywhere from London, so why would you need a car?
This is circular though, you only need to drive to these things because you can drive to these things (and coronavirus is an atypical scenario). The council should collect these things (I've never been to a recycling centre in my entire life). The car made it happen. If people didn't drive everywhere, there would be other solutions.
Sure things are different in London, but a majority of Londoners have chosen to live there (for all sorts of reasons), including perhaps that they can get about without cars. That said, lots of Londoners have cars despite that.
-
Exactly.
The entire problem is everyone is quick to defensively start with "well I need a car because xyz" without thinking twice about how the availability of cheap motoring (and a "pass once, drive for life even if you kill or maim someone" licensing system) has brought about this situation in the first place. This guy https://road.cc/content/news/271271-dangerous-driver-who-killed-cyclist-fails-have-10-year-driving-ban-overturned killed a cyclist in 2014 when marauding around in his motor taking photos from the steering wheel. He will be legally driving in 3 years because this country has decided that driving is so "essential" to life that even so irresponsibly killing someone shouldn't be a bar to your right to drive.
Take supermarkets. The reason we have out of town supermarkets is the car. If you visit the Netherlands you'll notice that out of town superstores don't exist. Why? Because they have banned the car from their built environments which has resulted in shopping that is close to home. https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2010/36/supermarket-within-walking-distance-for-most-dutch-people
It's a bit like someone in the wild west saying they need to carry six shooters because everyone else has them so you can't ban guns. Well yes that is exactly the problem.
The only way out of this toxic trap is banning cars. Maybe only limited forms of banning cars such as from one street at a time are all you think are possible but the required direction of travel is the removal of these ghastly killer machines, ending the subsidised access to cheap, destructive motoring, and replacing it with solutions that don't foster this death spiral of urban sprawl, pollution and road rage. In short; ban cars.
-
33.6 million people hold a driving licence in the UK. We have some of the safest roads in the world.
Sorry to let facts get in the way of hyperbole.
-
Banning cars would also put a stop to any local music scene. I can't get to a gig (when such things used to exist) without a car.
-
33.6 million people hold a driving licence in the UK. We have some of the safest roads in the world
Sorry to let facts get in the way of hyperbole.
They might be comparatively safe, but that really illustrates how bad it is elsewhere. Direct effects of road accidents impact 180,000 people in the UK every year. That doesn't include pollution or other corollaries. Or the impact on long term health of people driving everywhere (and most drivers do drive everywhere).
-
I can't get to a gig
Again. That problem is a creation of the car. did music not exist before mass motoring? Of course it did.
This insistence on refusing to examine how the car has created this trap is why it's just easier to say "ban cars." Just exhausting to point out all the time how the cheap, easy access to motoring is what has shaped this situation.
-
Banning cars would also put a stop to any local music scene. I can't get to a gig (when such things used to exist) without a car.
(pointless anecdote alert)
I went to see a band at The Hundred Club back in February (Terry & Gerry, featuring our very own turista). The support were The United Stoats of America, who hail from Horley. As I skeddadled across the concourse at Victoria Station on my way home, I over took one of the band. The bass player, or more correctly, the double bass player, with his bull fiddle. I think getting it onto the over head luggage rack might have been a problem.
-
Double bass you say
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AFFEKrp2hjJa-eF1js5QMnn3br-A1oET/view?usp=drivesdk
From my last tour to Germany via NL...
Actually I don't think that's the video of the chap with the double bass in his cargo bike but there was one.
Ban the car from the built environment, put in alternatives, and suddenly it isn't absurdly hard any more
-
So plumbers, electricians, doctors doing home visits, school inspectors, disabled people, farm workers, wind turbine engineers, power station workers, window cleaners, gardeners, the elderly, the sick, sea fisherman, road workers, small children should all travel by bicycle. Great. I don’t see any problem with that, though I think the coffin on a trailer on the back of the bike for 15 miles might be a little undignified.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
So plumbers, electricians, doctors doing home visits, school inspectors, disabled people, farmer workers, wind turbine engineers, power station workers, window cleaners, gardeners, the elderly, the sick, sea fisherman, road workers, small children should all travel by bicycle. Great. I don’t see any problem with that, though I think the coffin on a trailer on the back of the bike for 15 miles might be a little undignified.
I think you forgot disabled people with fridges full of tools.
-
Yeah the "hide behind the shield of a tiny minority to stymie reform" is a common defensive strategy for the car junkie. "How can the blind disabled move the fridge" sums it up.
Did you know British (mainland UK) military deaths in World War 2 were about 380,000.
Using a rough estimate from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7615/ we've incurred about the same number of dead from drivers since 1945 not even factoring in a share of the 30,000 a year dead from air pollution.
-
I can't get to a gig
Again. That problem is a creation of the car. did music not exist before mass motoring? Of course it did.
Yes, but it was largely the preserve of the rich.
Only the local country squire (the "landowning royalty" to use your phrase) who could afford to enslave 6 peasants to carry the harpsichord on their backs could have music.
It obviously escapes your blinkered view of the world that cars in a lot of ways actually foster equality and enable the poor to have more similar privileges to the rich.
-
Lmao the poorest people in the world pay the cost the highest. 1.35 million people a year are killed by drivers (which is about two holocausts a decade in terms of numbers killed). 90% of them in the "developing world." Oh to be a car junkie.
My "blinkered view" is that people's right to cycle and play in their street and not choke to death on funes trumps your right play Mr Toad. And the rest of the wabenzi for that matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabenzi
-
Yeah the "hide behind the shield of a tiny minority to stymie reform" is a common defensive strategy for the car junkie. "How can the blind disabled move the fridge" sums it up.
Did you know British (mainland UK) military deaths in World War 2 were about 380,000.
Using a rough estimate from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7615/ we've incurred about the same number of dead from drivers since 1945 not even factoring in a share of the 30,000 a year dead from air pollution.
I think you've missed a trick there.
I think you'd have been better lumping all the deaths from cars since they were invented and then compared them with the military deaths in an intense, 6 year conflict. Far more valid comparison.
Out of interest, what battles happened on the UK Mainland?
-
So plumbers, electricians, doctors doing home visits, school inspectors, disabled people, farmer workers, wind turbine engineers, power station workers, window cleaners, gardeners, the elderly, the sick, sea fisherman, road workers, small children should all travel by bicycle. Great. I don’t see any problem with that, though I think the coffin on a trailer on the back of the bike for 15 miles might be a little undignified.
I think you forgot disabled people with fridges full of tools.
I don’t know what that is meant to mean.
In low population density areas neither mass transit or active transport is viable for many of the journeys.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Go along to Tim's meeting with the council and you'll soon find out! ;D
-
The only way out of this toxic trap is banning cars. Maybe only limited forms of banning cars such as from one street at a time are all you think are possible but the required direction of travel is the removal of these ghastly killer machines, ending the subsidised access to cheap, destructive motoring, and replacing it with solutions that don't foster this death spiral of urban sprawl, pollution and road rage. In short; ban cars.
Nope.
Change rules and attitudes.
I am interested how you got on with your visit to PistonHeads?
-
Change the rules yes - to ban cars.
-
Lmao the poorest people in the world pay the cost the highest. 1.35 million people a year are killed by drivers (which is about two holocausts a decade in terms of numbers killed). 90% of them in the "developing world." Oh to be a car junkie.
My "blinkered view" is that people's right to cycle and play in their street and not choke to death on funes trumps your right play Mr Toad. And the rest of the wabenzi for that matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabenzi
Hypothetical situation: let's just say you, with your 'ban cars' campaign, become slightly powerful and get a bit of a following. Nowhere near powerful enough to form a majority government, but noticeable - let's say about as influential as say one of the minor parties, say the lib dems or the green party are now - you've maybe even got a handful of MPs. The ruling party offers you a choice between: you can ban cars now, just in London (which means anywhere inside the M25) - but nowhere else, and you have to agree to drop any further campaign to ban them anywhere else, OR, you can carry on trying to further your campaign to get them banned everywhere, with the attendant risk that it might never happen at all. Which do you choose?
(You're of course free to take the childish view that "that choice would never present itself so it's a pointless question" but the point of a thought experiment is to consider a hypothetical situation.)
-
33.6 million people hold a driving licence in the UK. We have some of the safest roads in the world.
Sorry to let facts get in the way of hyperbole.
41.5 million full, and over 8 million provisionals. Don't let understatement undermine your argument.
-
Keep campaigning obviously. Run this experiment again.
Go back to 1960s and put the civil rights movement in touch with Kennedy or whoever. Kennedy promises to end lynching and jim crow etc but only inside metropolitan areas and on the condition that the campaigning everywhere else stops. They'd rightly tell Kennedy to do one and I'd do the same. The momentum is always with the campaigner, the authorities only offer concessions like that when they're frit and on the run.
Incidentally your thought experiment exemplifies why devolved metropolitan authorities e.g. mayor of London are important
-
I almost got run over by a Peloton van the other day.
-
Keep campaigning obviously. Run this experiment again.
Go back to 1960s and put the civil rights movement in touch with Kennedy or whoever. Kennedy promises to end lynching and jim crow etc but only inside metropolitan areas and on the condition that the campaigning everywhere else stops. They'd rightly tell Kennedy to do one and I'd do the same. The momentum is always with the campaigner, the authorities only offer concessions like that when they're frit and on the run.
Incidentally your thought experiment exemplifies why metropolitan authorities e.g. mayor of London are important
When does the screeching stop and the campaigning start ???
-
I don't know jaded, maybe you'll kick your car habit one day. Thinking of you <3
-
Keep campaigning obviously. Run this experiment again.
OK, says the government. You've got us over a barrel. You can write one law into the UK statute books, and it can be whatever you want.
An official gives you the massive heavy ceremonial fountain pen and puts you in front of some vellum.
What do you write?
-
"ban cars"
-
I don't know jaded, maybe you'll kick your car habit one day. Thinking of you <3
I'm asking you. How have you got on on PistonHeads, are you unable to answer?
-
"ban cars"
You write the law and it gets enacted.
Only a few days into your new regime and it's noticed that everyone seems to be simply buying and driving around in VANS :-\ :-\
The roads are now MORE congested due to the increased average size of vehicle.
NO2 levels are through the roof because they're ALL diesel
Your (ex) MPs are throwing eggs at you
You need armed guards if you ever go anywhere near coventry, sunderland or various other part of the UK for your own protection
You had one chance and you blew it. :facepalm:
-
Not sure what point you're trying to prove here but ok
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/96713366_234194058024631_7680955972696670208_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=vaP32aroGKgAX-Rlo2p&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=a55be81ba6b868ca90a070b6c5f46190&oe=5EE281DF)
-
Apparently if * our neighbourhood is anything to go by, a lot of them have actually got allocated parking spaces but they use the street instead cos it's either nearer their front door, or they aren't blocking their partner in - and they're going out to work again in 12 hours.
* The less salubrious part of, I should add
No allocated spaces here, you get a permit allowing you to park anywhere in a given zone (about a dozen streets, maybe a bit more). Virtually no one has off-street parking, the street layout and architecture don't make it possible. There were a few garages built at the ends of gardens (long Victorian/Georgian back gardens which stretch right to the street behind) but they've all been converted into housing (the landspace, not the actual garage buildings).
-
Not sure what point you're trying to prove here but ok
That things aren't quite as simple as you obviously would like to think, that if you want to be a policy maker you have to spend a bit more time thinking about it than you obviously have, and that people will try to (often successfully) circumvent laws they don't like.
-
Parking permits. Luxury.
Here you get to turn your front garden into parking spaces, park two cars there, and then claim the pavement for your third.
Then write to the council complaining there's not enough on-street parking.
-
gosh you know that's really made me think I never realised that "ban cars" doesn't suffice as legislation. Thanks for this valuable lesson Ben you really showed me :thumbsup:
Ban cars
Wonder if people were this obtuse about "save the whales" e.g. "wow do you really want to go parachuting out of aeroplanes to save EVERY whale, ever? What about whales dying from old age? ahahha gotcha!!" etc ad nauseam, because that's what this poor quality chat amounts to.
-
gosh you know that's really made me think I never realised that "ban cars" doesn't suffice as legislation. Thanks for this valuable lesson Ben you really showed me :thumbsup:
Ban cars
Wonder if people were this obtuse about "save the whales" e.g. "wow do you really want to go parachuting out of aeroplanes to save EVERY whale, ever? What about whales dying from old age? ahahha gotcha!!" etc ad nauseam, because that's what this poor quality chat amounts to.
It's not really obtuse though, you are dismissing it as obtuse presumably on the grounds that you think it's a problem you can easily sidestep, but you can't:
"OK, ban cars and vans then."
OK - no deliveries. No groceries to shops - people starve.
"OK, ban cars and vans for personal transportation then."
OK - no ambulances then - they're "personal transportation of people to hospital".
"Oh for god's sake, you know what I mean..."
The trouble with "ban cars" is all it actually means is "I want my own personal utopia to simply be magically conjured up without due thought to the mechanism of how it might be achieved, or having to describe the transition to it".
At the end of the day it boils down to "do most people want this" and the answer, at the moment, would have to be no.
You are only going to achieve any sort of success by transitioning the world, gradually, to a world where it is something that most people do want.
-
Yawn.
Ban cars.
And save the whales while we're at it.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51BGqJlmPgL.jpg)
-
So plumbers, electricians, doctors doing home visits, school inspectors, disabled people, farmer workers, wind turbine engineers, power station workers, window cleaners, gardeners, the elderly, the sick, sea fisherman, road workers, small children should all travel by bicycle. Great. I don’t see any problem with that, though I think the coffin on a trailer on the back of the bike for 15 miles might be a little undignified.
I think you forgot disabled people with fridges full of tools.
I don’t know what that is meant to mean.
In low population density areas neither mass transit or active transport is viable for many of the journeys.
It's a meme, your honour. Whenever someone mentions any restriction on motor vehicles, there's an outbreak of whatabouts. Suddenly a lot of car owners become very concerned about the disabled, fire engines, and pollution.
Personally, I'd ban rural living. We need to get these people into cities where they can be properly clothed and educated. Or they should pay a huge tax surcharge to cover the additional expense of their living habits.
-
Always a hoot when some motorist whinges about the disabled, when disabled Brits are among the people who stand to gain the most from car bans https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/campaigning/guide/ https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/survey-uks-disabled-cyclists/
There are about 13 million disabled people in the UK. According to statistics, there are fewer than 1.13 million blue badges on the system. This signifies that 80-90% of disabled people do not drive and are therefore at the mercy of the motorist if they want to get outdoors and cycle (which a quarter of disabled people do, according to Wheels for Wellbeing).
Motorists unaccountably model disabled people as desperate to live out their lives inside metal tins. The reality is that more disabled people want to cycle. But they don't feel safe in doing so. Because of motorists.
The way to get around this problem, of motorists marauding around close-passing or left-hooking someone trying to use a handcycle or whatever other adaptive cycle they have (which probably cost them more than many cars) is to ban cars and to tear down the motor supremacy.
-
33.6 million people hold a driving licence in the UK. We have some of the safest roads in the world
Sorry to let facts get in the way of hyperbole.
They might be comparatively safe, but that really illustrates how bad it is elsewhere. Direct effects of road accidents impact 180,000 people in the UK every year. That doesn't include pollution or other corollaries. Or the impact on long term health of people driving everywhere (and most drivers do drive everywhere).
My post was a counterpoint to the accusation that everybody who gets behind a wheel is intending to commit murder.
Of course there is a human cost to motoring.
-
Of course there is a human cost to motoring.
There's a human cost to cycling too.
Banning something because it takes even one life is farcical.
-
Cycling is terrific and good for everyone.
It's cars that need to be banned.
By the way motorists don't care even if something like a modal filter is used. They are road royalty. https://twitter.com/rorymeakin/status/1260898680938397697
Bonus example of driver recklessness and entitlement...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX-qAYdXgAEm478?format=jpg&name=large)
They go where they want in their hideous, dangerous, polluting death wagons frightening people with no regard for the community. The sooner these ghastly things are banned the better
-
Ban personal motor vehicles from city centres, with exemptions for unavoidable business trips, the disabled...
But no overtaking of cyclists unless on a dual carriageway, and the cyclist is in the left lane.
Join the urban centre areas to suburbs by high quality, segregated paths. There's still going to be goods traffic in electric vans. No HGVs in the shared spaces, cargo must be offloaded into safer vehicles for last mile delivery (ideally cargo bikes).
A high quality rail network for fast intercity travel, with cycle capacity predicated on 50%+ of passengers bringing cycles. Have cycle racks on the buses, too.
Out of town goods logistic hubs connected to the rail network, and the road network. Integrate these with Park&Ride and Park&Cycle facilities. Make inter-town bus services stop here, with connections to the local bus network. But rail can take you into the city centre with your bike.
Take a lane off the motorways to build intercity cycle roads (well barrier-ed), predicated on the level of goods traffic during lockdown being less reduced than personal vehicles, and the absolutely clear motorways.
That would be my personal utopia.
The queen can still drive from Balmoral to her local Lidl. Rural driving isn't going to be eliminated. But introduce stiff penalties for dangerous driving around cyclists, an automatic 6 month ban to start for example. If you hit a cyclist due to dangerous driving, automatic life ban. And causing death gets you a mandatory prison sentence.
-
I know lots of people who have been badly injured cycling, and two killed, with no other vehicle involved.
.
Ban cycling.
-
Ever quick to react, Birmingham has molished a new *emergency* transport plan:
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/emergencytransportplan
(The Photo on page 4 shows approximately 50% of COVID-19 related measures that have been implemented in Birmingham to date.)
Like all good transport plans, it mostly consists of "do the things that were in the previous plan" combined with a timeline for making some more plans. At least it's making the right noises. :-\
-
So plumbers, electricians, doctors doing home visits, school inspectors, disabled people, farmer workers, wind turbine engineers, power station workers, window cleaners, gardeners, the elderly, the sick, sea fisherman, road workers, small children should all travel by bicycle. Great. I don’t see any problem with that, though I think the coffin on a trailer on the back of the bike for 15 miles might be a little undignified.
I think you forgot disabled people with fridges full of tools.
I don’t know what that is meant to mean.
In low population density areas neither mass transit or active transport is viable for many of the journeys.
It's a meme, your honour. Whenever someone mentions any restriction on motor vehicles, there's an outbreak of whatabouts. Suddenly a lot of car owners become very concerned about the disabled, fire engines, and pollution.
Personally, I'd ban rural living. We need to get these people into cities where they can be properly clothed and educated. Or they should pay a huge tax surcharge to cover the additional expense of their living habits.
Maybe we ought to stop massively subsidising transport in London and redistribute that share to other bits of the country that have been ignored. Hey wait we can fix all of the road deaths in London, and the pollution by bulldozing it, it's inhabitants, and everything into the sea problem solved.
I know the following might be hard for city dwellers to imagine but where I live isn't massively rural it's a fairly large town, but like many towns around the country that are not London still has piss poor public transport. Quite a lot of the country has basically been left behind.
-
London pays its own way and funds the rest of the country. London is the UK's golden goose in tax receipts. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-deficit-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less
Always tickles me that people in this country model London as some kind of black hole "stealing their money" when in fact the reverse is the case.
If you really want to play "pin the blame on the region" then you'll be furious when you look at the fiscal profile of northern Ireland. For me I'm just content to ban cars.
I know the following might be hard for city dwellers to imagine but where I live isn't massively rural it's a fairly large town, but like many towns around the country that are not London still has piss poor public transport
Yes and, which you have probably ignored about six times in a row, this is because of cheap subsidised motoring being permitted to supplant cycling and public transport - as well as fostering housing sprawl (and constraining housing supply). QED beeching cuts. Though we should be aware that Beeching was just a scapegoat for a larger lobby that wanted trains slashed, and drivists to take over.
-
Cycling is terrific and good for everyone.
It's cars that need to be banned.
Changing the tagline to Restrict Cars from Ban would win a lot more acceptance. This thread is beyond that as you have previously tried to explain. It is indeed a poor quality chat now.
-
They go where they want in their hideous, dangerous, polluting death wagons frightening people with no regard for the community. The sooner these ghastly things are banned the better
Most people use cars. They are the community.
The community likes cars. If they didnt things would be very different.
You can try and frame it any way you want, but it isnt a them and us situation. Car drivers are us.
-
London pays its own way and funds the rest of the country. London is the UK's golden goose in tax receipts. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-deficit-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less
But most of the tax receipts from London are from the finance industry which doesn't actually DO anything other than shuffle money around, creaming some off in the process.
Most of the people staffing this "golden goose" as you call it are the same people that form the "land owning motoring royalty" that are shafting the poor.
-
So is that your way of accepting that "wE sUbsIdIsE LoNdON" is completely mistaken or what.
-
So is that your way of accepting that "wE sUbsIdIsE LoNdON" is completely mistaken or what.
How about each area looks after itself. You can keep your money and we will keep our food.
-
(https://lymediseaseuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg)
-
(https://lymediseaseuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg)
So, why are you moving the goalposts?
How are you getting on on PistonHeads?
-
So is that your way of accepting that "wE sUbsIdIsE LoNdON" is completely mistaken or what.
How about each area looks after itself. You can keep your money and we will keep our food.
From the occasions work sends me to London, the offices don't seem to be busy until after 9 and are usually empty before 5, on this basis they are all feckless layabouts that don't do any work. Nothing get's made in that city as far as I can tell it's just a bunch of bankers and politicians so we can probably do without it, the KSI stats will look great if we just bulldoze it into the sea.
Failing the lack of bulldozers a nuclear warhead should do the trick, sends a message to other bankers as well.
Then maybe we can spend some money on other bits of the place, you know the proportion that contains most of the electorate. Maybe we could save the busses first they might be useful.
Ban London :)
-
Bristol's announced an accelerated revamp for the pandemic too.
https://news.bristol.gov.uk/news/pandemic-accelerates-revamp-of-bristols-transport-network
A whole five streets which virtually no one drives on anyway.
The dodgy thing is that Broad Quay, marked on that map as open to all traffic, has for the last few years been buses only. I'm not sure if this is a badly designed graphic or something more underhand.
-
Having been inside working all day, I went for a walk aboout 9pm. Seems that the majority of the traffic in the evening is delivery scooters. I was surprised to also see a taxi.
-
Go along to Tim's meeting with the council and you'll soon find out! ;D
Bludger, the difference between you and me is that I'm doing something constructive to reduce car use . You're just shouting 'ban cars'. And you're doing it on a cycling forum. Grow some balls and go and do it on Pistonheads, or Top Gear's forum, or the Daily Mail's website. Or even, for that matter, the Green Party's website. At least there you might get some sympathy while they educate you in how to achieve change. Clue: you don't do it by shouting.
Must give the Porsche a blat tomorrow.
-
It is important to appreciate that Britain is not homogeneous. Taking a simplified model of the country, In London very important pieces of paper are shuffled around. This is achieved with a high population density where walking and mass public transit are effective.
The rest of the country is engaged in producing and pumping in food, water, electricity and dealing with the pumped out effluent. This needs a low population density where walking and mass transit are ineffective.
People in London walking and using mass transit are not using cars directly, in the same way by pushing our manufacturing to China reduces our direct co2 output.
I like to think of London as the essential organ fulfilling the primary purpose and the rest of the country as the surrounding body providing the enabling infrastructure.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The rest of the country is engaged in producing and pumping in food, water, electricity and dealing with the pumped out effluent. This needs a low population density where walking and mass transit are ineffective.
It's completely false. 80% of this country lives in towns and cities. This is a fiction designed to make people feel resigned to motoring instead of being on hand with the facts. How do people think industry used to function before you could get a car with finance? My grandpa worked at John brown in Glasgow. He got there by bike - until the authorities built the workers a scheme to live in that was miles and miles from the yard, because they could "just drive there". It's the motor car that fosters sprawl, which creates "need" for it which is why it is such an evil, pernicious machine.
Go along to Tim's meeting with the council and you'll soon find out! ;D
Bludger, the difference between you and me is that I'm doing something constructive to reduce car use . You're just shouting 'ban cars'.
It's two written words pal. This is pure projection. You have no idea what I do outside of yacf. Get a grip.
grow some balls
Holy toxic masculinity batman :facepalm:
That this really innocuous two word slogan is triggering such an emotive reaction is a signifier of how powerful a psycho social grip the death cage has on its users.
Driving is an environmental and social disaster. It's always forced into countries using the barrel of a gun, with police ready to bash and lock up anyone who impedes "progress and development". Dependency on the car is foisted on people by authorities, by taxing them, spending their money on paved roads for drivists, negotiating sweetheart deals for the auto industry, and then slashing the services like trains and affordable buses, all while ignoring the sprawl impact of the car
You trying to frame my objection to this death spiral as "shouting" (bless) with your tone policing nonsense speaks more about yourself than it does me.
Ban cars
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/96713366_234194058024631_7680955972696670208_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=vaP32aroGKgAX-Rlo2p&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=a55be81ba6b868ca90a070b6c5f46190&oe=5EE281DF)
-
It's quite interesting that people are very certain that change is effected only by reasoned arguments and not by shouting.
A lot of our rights and civil liberties were won by people being shouty.
Without the shouty people moderate people don't get listened to at all.
And tbh, if we start with "ban cars" we might actually get some kind of reduced car use. If we start with "let's reduce the driving modal share"* we get a public health crisis, motor vehicle dominance of public space and catastrophic climate change.
Ban cars?
*Hint. This is what we've been doing...
-
Oh and there's some very on-topic news today.
TFL has been forced by the Tory governments to "pay its own way" using ticket sales (which disproportionately impact the worst-off as a de facto regressive tax) and no strategic treasury financing (unlike the auto industry which is subsidised by the treasury yearly with a fuel duty freeze and much else...). This has meant TFL finances have been slashed by 90%.
Sweetheart bungs for the drivists, hard cheese for everyone else. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-congestion-charge-tfl-bailout-government-a4441361.html
-
Probably best to shout elsewhere.
Nothing quite like putting supporters of a plan off it.
-
London public transport still getting more than the entire rest of the country though, how dare Londoners have to pay the cost of public travel, shock horror like the rest of the country
Ban london, in fact burn london.
* but keep the busses, a service from here through, bisley, camp and birdlip would be ace.
-
This is the cagers ignoring that the rest of us are paying for "their" fuel again. ::-)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-fuel-duty-freeze-has-increased-uk-co2-emissions-by-up-to-5-per-cent
https://twitter.com/theifs/status/1047366148197666816?lang=en
£9bn/year out of our pockets to pay for the motoring royalty's fuel, while the strategic transportation in the country's capital city is hung out to dry.
Ban cars
-
It's quite interesting that people are very certain that change is effected only by reasoned arguments and not by shouting.
A lot of our rights and civil liberties were won by people being shouty.
Without the shouty people moderate people don't get listened to at all.
And tbh, if we start with "ban cars" we might actually get some kind of reduced car use. If we start with "let's reduce the driving modal share"* we get a public health crisis, motor vehicle dominance of public space and catastrophic climate change.
Ban cars?
*Hint. This is what we've been doing...
As I've demonstrated even if he got his way it wouldn't have the desired effect - but hey, details are boring, man .
-
Yeah writing out 15-page draft legislation for an online forum is a great use of my time Ben. You go right ahead. ::-)
-
Oh and there's some very on-topic news today.
TFL has been forced by the Tory governments to "pay its own way" using ticket sales (which disproportionately impact the worst-off as a de facto regressive tax) and no strategic treasury financing (unlike the auto industry which is subsidised by the treasury yearly with a fuel duty freeze and much else...). This has meant TFL finances have been slashed by 90%.
Sweetheart bungs for the drivists, hard cheese for everyone else. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-congestion-charge-tfl-bailout-government-a4441361.html
To prove the point about drivers having a hard time he uses an article that says congestion charge is going up massively and early. ???
-
This is the cagers ignoring that the rest of us are paying for "their" fuel again. ::-)
So how much out of your delivery boy salary do you think you are paying towards my fuel?
£9bn/year out of our pockets to pay for the motoring royalty's fuel, while the strategic transportation in the country's capital city is hung out to dry.
The bolded are the same people....unless, of course, you think that £9b comes solely from delivery boys.
You pay fuck all.
-
As I've demonstrated even if he got his way it wouldn't have the desired effect - but hey, details are boring, man .
I'm not sure that is in any way a response to my comments. However, in the spirit of engaging with this conversation and avoiding doing some marking, I'm also not so sure you demonstrated anything of the sort. You came up with some fanciful imaginary scenarios in order to apparently skewer your opponent with your wit, alongside some demonstrable false statements about equality between economic classes. I think there might have been something about ambulances too.
-
It's quite interesting that people are very certain that change is effected only by reasoned arguments and not by shouting.
A lot of our rights and civil liberties were won by people being shouty.
Without the shouty people moderate people don't get listened to at all.
And tbh, if we start with "ban cars" we might actually get some kind of reduced car use. If we start with "let's reduce the driving modal share"* we get a public health crisis, motor vehicle dominance of public space and catastrophic climate change.
Ban cars?
*Hint. This is what we've been doing...
Being shouty about cars on a cycling forum is hardly revolutionary, thobut. Managing to piss off a bunch of cyclists by refusing to engage in reasoned argument with the people most likely to be allied in the process of reducing car use is spectacularly missing the target!
Car use is not going to go away until and unless an alternative is provided. There is no way we're going to 'ban anyone who doesn't live in a big town', and neither are we going to provide the kind of public transport network that could make getting rid of personal transport a realistic aim. But we can persuade people to significantly reduce car use by a combination of legislation, advice, increasing the inconvenience of using vehicles, pricing and a bunch of other stuff. We have to be careful that in doing so we don't make it impossible for the old and infirm to travel to the services they need, and we have to work hard to adapt public transport to better serve those outside towns. But the idea that personal vehicular transport of some sort won't be part of the mix in a country with very diverse needs is fanciful.
-
Hm. TfL has received a £1.1bn grant and a further £0.5bn loan. Good. But hardly paying its own way. Contrast with other parts of the country where bus operators are going bust and services scrapped.
Financial sector workers, I discovered, are classed as key workers. Which is interesting.
-
Quite right cudzoziemiec the idea of "paying their own way" is a shell game when we'll plumb big subsidies and sweetheart deals into building runways, highways, and fuel duty. The whole idea that there is a 'free market' where rational people weigh up pros and cons in laboratory conditions and that's why people drive is absurd. This is a motorist government, who've aggressively pushed motoring using all branches of the state, and that's what we've had since the 1960s. They'll slash buses and trains, and spend billions in capital to put up new motor roads and plough the rest into cheap fuel. It's a political choice.
-
I'm minded that we should ban the countryside, it's populated with people who are a bit odd, all they do is put up big PRIVATE - KEEP OUT! signs, eat badgers, and vote Conservative.
Provincial towns too. What is the point of Birmingham? Norwich? Nottingham? See. We would just have London and the nice-but-mostly-dull bits for Londoners to visit and complain about the lack of street food (let's set the bar to jackfruit tacos). I'd keep Scotland because they have proportionally more redheads and a liking for minced beef products.
(There's a serious point about the sustainability of rural communities, of course, which really should be embedded. My in-laws live the Cotsworld – not renowned for rural poverty, admittedly – but even there, as they creep into their 80s, they have to keep driving. Or surrender their independence. Yet another downside of car-dependency.)
-
You'd be surprised at the number of Londoners who have weekend homes in the Cotswolds. Dont think they come here by train.
I wonder if all the high salaried city workers live in London...
-
The rest of the country is engaged in producing and pumping in food, water, electricity and dealing with the pumped out effluent. This needs a low population density where walking and mass transit are ineffective.
It's completely false. 80% of this country lives in towns and cities. This is a fiction designed to make people feel resigned to motoring instead of being on hand with the facts. How do people think industry used to function before you could get a car with finance? My grandpa worked at John brown in Glasgow. He got there by bike - until the authorities built the workers a scheme to live in that was miles and miles from the yard, because they could "just drive there". It's the motor car that fosters sprawl, which creates "need" for it which is why it is such an evil, pernicious machine.
Go along to Tim's meeting with the council and you'll soon find out! ;D
Bludger, the difference between you and me is that I'm doing something constructive to reduce car use . You're just shouting 'ban cars'.
It's two written words pal. This is pure projection. You have no idea what I do outside of yacf. Get a grip.
grow some balls
Holy toxic masculinity batman :facepalm:
That this really innocuous two word slogan is triggering such an emotive reaction is a signifier of how powerful a psycho social grip the death cage has on its users.
Driving is an environmental and social disaster. It's always forced into countries using the barrel of a gun, with police ready to bash and lock up anyone who impedes "progress and development". Dependency on the car is foisted on people by authorities, by taxing them, spending their money on paved roads for drivists, negotiating sweetheart deals for the auto industry, and then slashing the services like trains and affordable buses, all while ignoring the sprawl impact of the car
You trying to frame my objection to this death spiral as "shouting" (bless) with your tone policing nonsense speaks more about yourself than it does me.
Ban cars
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/96713366_234194058024631_7680955972696670208_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=vaP32aroGKgAX-Rlo2p&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=a55be81ba6b868ca90a070b6c5f46190&oe=5EE281DF)
80% of people do not live in towns and cities. 80% live in urban environments, that is built up areas of more than 49 hectares, ie 700mx700m or about quarter of a square mile, or a few hundred houses. Possibly now with no shop, but maybe with a country pub for you to visit on your cycle rides.
Even if it is only 20% that live in more rural environments than that, that is quite a large minority. This is the area where food production mainly occurs.
Before horseless carriages came along they were reliant on horse drawn to get them to the nearest railway. I appreciate that would be quaint.
-
Even if it is only 20% that live in more rural environments than that, that is quite a large minority. This is the area where food production mainly occurs
So what? That's more reason to provide the services that were slashed in the wake of motorisation. Motorisation killed the rural transport connection services of walk/cycle/bus and train, and the motor hegemony has been kept alive with fuel subsidies, anti-dense housing planning (i.e. nimbyism) and sweetheart deals with the motor lobby, at massive public expense.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b4/7f/28/b47f28d66ab76032be99b08b7dc323bd.jpg)
This is just a other form of "what about disabled blind emergency services who need to move a fridge full of tools." Motorists sit on an obscene share of this country's fiscal pot and it's a disgrace. Cars have been a disaster for everyone. The sooner they are banned the better.
We have an entire thread on this forum documenting harassment, intimidation, recklessness and outright psychopathy by drivists https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=63751.msg2497741;topicseen#msg2497741 this thread exemplifies the Stockholm syndrome of our society where our habitat is given up to motoring royalty without thinking twice.
-
Cars have been a disaster for everyone. The sooner they are banned the better.
I agree, but as others have said the plan that will be mostly likely to succeed in achieving this is not simply "ban cars".
-
Go right ahead and develop that plan. It's a great idea. In the meantime I'll get on with "ban cars."
-
Go right ahead and develop that plan. It's a great idea. In the meantime I'll get on with "ban cars."
It's not a plan though ("ban cars"), is it. It is just tedious, right-on sub-student politics stuff.
-
I'm going one better.
"Ban pollution."
There. Job Done. Anyone just shouting "ban cars" is therefore promoting pollution and emissions from lots of other sources!
-
Beeching's report did contain the misguided assumption/erroneous excuse that people would drive to mainline stations, park and then get the train, but it wasn't really about motoring. It wasn't really about railways either it was about British Rail as a company; an attempt to get it profitable. (More misguided ideology but not that fits here.)
-
Ban pollution is good but my hatred of cars goes much further than just the pollution impacts.
I hate that fewer than 20% of people think they can safely cycle in their own neighbourhoods let alone to work or to school, or for fun ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28093374 ) because they fear motorists.
I hate that motoring sucks up billions and billions of pounds in public spending which should be spent on worthwhile enterprises like sustainable transportation.
I hate the sprawl and NIMBYism that cars foster.
I hate the ghastly attitude of sports cars driving hoons who maraud around the road network making a hideous noise, with their revving engines, warbling tyres and whatever else, which is a product of their warped conception of masculinity ( https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/02/27/streetsblog-101-car-culture-is-a-toxic-masculinity-problem/ ).
Pollution is just one part of why cars are evil and have to be banned. It's an important part but by far not the only one.
-
To be fair, if we converted the money we spent on personalized motorized transport to any kind of public provision, it would be splendid.
Of course, convincing people of that, well, that's a challenge, ownership is ingrained. It evidences our status and the criticising the perpetual convenience of on-demand is heretical. That's a slow, incremental process. Or we could just bomb them. Who hasn't wanted to napalm the Cotswolds? Cameron, Dyson, and my in-laws, we could take them out with one jet.
As a more moderate measure, I'd make it the law to wrap large cars with a picture of the male owner's genitalia (they'd obviously have to scale it up to make it visible) as a warning like what they do for cigarette packets. Beware, tiny penis compensation in the process.
Of course, if we were ever prised Audi owners from their metallic shells, we need special facilities to care for them.
-
Even if it is only 20% that live in more rural environments than that, that is quite a large minority. This is the area where food production mainly occurs
So what? That's more reason to provide the services that were slashed in the wake of motorisation. Motorisation killed the rural transport connection services.
This is just a other form of "what about disabled blind emergency services who need to move a fridge full of tools." Motorists sit on an obscene share of this country's fiscal pot and it's a disgrace. Cars have been a disaster for everyone. The sooner they are banned the better.
I don't think you really have any concept of how things work outside the urban environment.
Before mechanical transport arrived, much more of the population lived in the country because agricultural production was labour-intensive, and supply chains were necessarily short. The industrial revolution brought both depopulation of the countryside as people moved to work in the new-fangled factories, and greater access to markets as railways increased both the available speed and range of agricultural products. Railways also allowed more people from the countryside to access towns for work and shopping, but the effect was limited as the market for each station was restricted by the lack of supply mechanism - ie people had to basically walk to get a train. Railways did, however, provide the impetus for country towns to grow as both import and export of goods became much easier and cheaper.
The introduction of motor vehicles (mainly buses and lorries) impacted railways obviously, but it also enabled more efficient production from agriculture, with the result that people lost their jobs on farms and moved to towns to work. That process basically continued until property prices made it ever more difficult for country people to move into towns, and so, as vehicles got cheaper, they began commuting. And people from towns started moving further out so they could afford the now-cheap houses that better suited their needs. Production of all factory-made products (including cars) got cheaper as efficiencies came along, and the big towns got bigger and more expensive.
As more and more people became mobile, buses got less and less economical to provide in the countryside, to the extent that country bus services are now in danger of extinction. The population movement that started to bring people out to the country has stalled as commutes have become more difficult and people realise that they lose their place on the property gravy-train by leaving expensive towns for the cheap countryside (and even in the Cotswolds it's cheap compared to London). Meantime, those of us who never left the countryside (in my case because of a family history of military service, not agriculture) are pretty much trapped here by property prices. You want to seal the trap by taking away personal transport. As I said many pages ago, 'from my cold, dead hands'. However, you help me reduce the amount of driving in our country towns by making it easier to walk and ride, and reduce the amount of car commuting to big towns by improving public transport (when we can use it again), and I'm your man. We need to shift the balance, not eliminate any part of the mix.
-
Ban pollution is good but my hatred of cars goes much further than just the pollution impacts.
I hate that fewer than 20% of people think they can safely cycle in their own neighbourhoods let alone to work or to school, or for fun ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28093374 ) because they fear motorists.
I hate that motoring sucks up billions and billions of pounds in public spending which should be spent on worthwhile enterprises like sustainable transportation.
I hate the sprawl and NIMBYism that cars foster.
I hate the ghastly attitude of sports cars driving hoons who maraud around the road network making a hideous noise, with their revving engines, warbling tyres and whatever else, which is a product of their warped conception of masculinity ( https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/02/27/streetsblog-101-car-culture-is-a-toxic-masculinity-problem/ ).
Pollution is just one part of why cars are evil and have to be banned. It's an important part but by far not the only one.
Yeah, but ban pollution.
-
;D
-
Ban pollution is good but my hatred of cars goes much further than just the pollution impacts.
I hate that fewer than 20% of people think they can safely cycle in their own neighbourhoods let alone to work or to school, or for fun ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28093374 ) because they fear motorists.
I hate that motoring sucks up billions and billions of pounds in public spending which should be spent on worthwhile enterprises like sustainable transportation.
I hate the sprawl and NIMBYism that cars foster.
I hate the ghastly attitude of sports cars driving hoons who maraud around the road network making a hideous noise, with their revving engines, warbling tyres and whatever else, which is a product of their warped conception of masculinity ( https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/02/27/streetsblog-101-car-culture-is-a-toxic-masculinity-problem/ ).
Pollution is just one part of why cars are evil and have to be banned. It's an important part but by far not the only one.
Yeah, but ban pollution.
You are missing that I think that's a good slogan and you should use it!
-
As more and more people became mobile, buses got less and less economical to provide in the countryside, to the extent that country bus services are now in danger of extinction. The population movement that started to bring people out to the country has stalled as commutes have become more difficult and people realise that they lose their place on the property gravy-train by leaving expensive towns for the cheap countryside (and even in the Cotswolds it's cheap compared to London). Meantime, those of us who never left the countryside (in my case because of a family history of military service, not agriculture) are pretty much trapped here by property prices.
You are literally repeating my posts back at me. This happened because of the car. Sprawl is an invention of the motor industry and the governments that have funnelled untold billions into privileging driving over buses, trains, cycling etc. Which is why cars are an evil and pernicious force. http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Environment/E_Casestudy/E_casestudy9.htm
Buses are not at all 'uneconomical' to provide. What's "uneconomical" is the system that privileges the private motorist. The privileging of the driver and his car was a political choice. Imagine if the annual £9BN in fuel duty subsidies were funneled into bus services instead.
The reason "ban cars" is important is that it centres them as the problem. Because it is they that are the root of this ghastly situation.
-
Cars are awesome. Looking forward to a technological solution to pollution and road safety. Its progress.
-
Cars are awesome. Looking forward to a technological solution to pollution and road safety. Its progress.
Indeed. The Government's lack of policing and enforcement of existing laws has a lot to answer for, along with a weak judiciary that hand out very mild sentences.
Cars kill people through pollution and electric vehicles can help resolve that. Drivers kill the rest.
-
The weak judiciary is a product of the car-system. You'll note that the judgements that produce the slap-on-wrist sentences are made because (ostensibly) 'life is impossible without driving'. Of the however-many temporary withdrawal of licences there are a year, fewer than five are permanent.
This guy https://road.cc/content/news/27511-breaking-seven-years-jail-and-lifetime-ban-lorry-driver-who-killed-catriona-patel only lost his licence after 20 prior disqualifications and after killing someone.
The car is slap bang in the centre of the evil and the harm. So nothing would have as good an effect as banning cars.
-
OK, so:-
"ban weak slap on the wrist sentencing for driving offences"
-
Can you imagine what it would look like if rural areas had an on-demand public transport system such as the one entitled Londoners have, and expect.
I'll never forget, in the 70s, a friend of mine from London coming to my village and being stunned that there weren't 5 buses an hour into the town (11 miles away). There was one a day. Despite what our resident forum mouthpart would have you believe there had never been frequent bus services killed off by car ownership.
-
I think that expensive housing is at the root of all this car centric stuff. I have the solution (that would incidentally cut 25% of all CO2 emissions as well). Ban Houses! :)
-
That wouldn't bring Catriona back from the dead. My occupation is to stop the drivers killing people in the first place and the only way to do that is to ban the cars.
-
That wouldn't bring Catriona back from the dead. My occupation is to stop the drivers killing people in the first place and the only way to do that is to ban the cars.
You are doing a really shit job of it.
-
Ban stairs!
-
That wouldn't bring Catriona back from the dead. My occupation is to stop the drivers killing people in the first place and the only way to do that is to ban the cars.
Your occupation? What is that, then? Show us what you are doing to make your dream a reality.
-
Not interested in doxxing myself on an internet forum thanks. Nor is that actually material to the merit of the argument - that cars must be banned.
You are the man in the well.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0W6C05UYAAeb49.jpg)
-
Not interested in doxxing myself on an internet forum thanks. Nor is that actually material to the merit of the argument - that cars must be banned.
You are the man in the well.
I'll take that as either you're doing nothing, or what you are doing is something of questionable legality. Showing us what campaign(s) you might be involved with or supporting is hardly 'doxing'.
-
I go about the night with a u lock smashing up cars. I have a particular passionate hatred for Porsches which I will set on fire once I've set about them. I'll do this until cars are banned. Then I'll move on to car museums.
-
I go about the night with a u lock smashing up cars. I have a particular passionate hatred for Porsches which I will set on fire once I've set about them. I'll do this until cars are banned. Then I'll move on to car museums.
I have a feeling you're not joking. I'm very glad I live nowhere near you.
Keep going, son. You're doing a good job of confirming you are the idiot I thought you were.
-
Hope you've got insurance on your luxury death cage old chap it'd be a shame if it were damaged
-
Hope you've got insurance on your luxury death cage old chap it'd be a shame if it were damaged
Bring it on, sonny. I now know who you are and who you claim to represent.
-
Don't recall claiming to represent anyone. Just my own argument. That cars must be banned. Fed up with my friends and relatives being frightened to cycle their own streets and neighbourhoods by selfish boy racers hooning about in luxury sports cars pretending they're James bond. All the while poisoning tens of thousands of people's breathing air.
-
Don't recall claiming to represent anyone.
If you carry on as you are, you will quite likely have to represent yourself in court. I suspect the organisation(s) that use your services would not be happy that you are associated with them, given your statements above. You need to calm down and rejoin the discussion in a civilised manner. Your outbursts are not helping anyone.
-
Oh. So you are doxxing. Nice one. If you actually think I'm smashing up cars then I also hope to interest you in the sale of tower bridge for the low price of £25,000.
Ban cars.
-
Oh. So you are doxxing. Nice one. If you actually think I'm smashing up cars then I also hope to interest you in the sale of tower bridge for the low price of £25,000.
Ban cars.
I have no idea whether you are or not, but you threatened to do so and I don't appreciate that. I'm not going to waste my time or money coming after you, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to learn how to persuade people of the strength of your argument. And you don't do that with threats. Because they might fight back.
-
It's pretty clear that since you told me to my face that you don't care if I die or not, or if your actions are going to kill me ( https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=115570.msg2496206#msg2496206 ) that there is no argument I can conceivably make to you. It's clear your luxury car is more important to you than my life.
Good luck with your council meeting...
-
If you actually think I'm smashing up cars then I also hope to interest you in the sale of tower bridge for the low price of £25,000.
That's weird. You made a post a few days ago telling me that if I drove my car in your neighbourhood you would smash it up.
That post seems to have now gone ???
-
Addressing the 'slower and more courteous' question, I've just been shopping and the traffic in some roads is up to I'd say 90% of pre-covid levels, whereas on side streets and, curiously, the main A38, it's still maybe half of those levels. I'd say it seems less courteous now than when there was very little traffic in the first few weeks of lockdown. Certainly less willing to wait behind a cyclist or let people cross the road other than at an official crossing. Speeds about the same though.
-
Master bludger, I resepctfully beseech you to ensure you are aware of and compliant with this page (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=232.0)
Those that struggle to comply with the ethos will find it a struggle to log in for a while.
-
It's pretty clear that since you told me to my face that you don't care if I die or not ( https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=115570.msg2496206#msg2496206 ) that there is no argument I can conceivably make to you. It's clear your luxury car is more important to you than my life.
I told you that I don't particularly care how or when you die. There's no 'or not' about it. You will die, and as I said in that post, it's likely to be at a greater age than your ancestors thanks to the improvements we've made in our living conditions, cars notwithstanding. Though if you carry on in real life in this style, you risk physical injury rather more than most of us! It's true that your life individually is of no importance to me. I don't wish any ill to you, but whatever happens to you, good or bad, will make no difference to my existence.
As for my car being more important to me, yes it is. It improves my life. You do not.
-
That wouldn't bring Catriona back from the dead. My occupation is to stop the drivers killing people in the first place and the only way to do that is to ban the cars.
Another way is to have driverless cars.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
My bike improves my life but I'd still destroy it if your life was on the line. Or anyone else in yacf for that matter
What a difference in values.
-
God, the piousness !
Edit to add: To clarify, this wasnt directed at bludger. (in spite of that last post :)
-
Enough. Goodbye, Bludger.
-
Can you imagine what it would look like if rural areas had an on-demand public transport system such as the one entitled Londoners have, and expect.
I'll never forget, in the 70s, a friend of mine from London coming to my village and being stunned that there weren't 5 buses an hour into the town (11 miles away). There was one a day. Despite what our resident forum mouthpart would have you believe there had never been frequent bus services killed off by car ownership.
Yes, but where you live the only constant running water is the endemic diarrhoeal illness. We will send missionaries and food.
In London, we now have hover cars and jet packs.
-
Personal threats have resulted in the removal of posting privileges for a member. This may be the first time in a decade.
As you were.
-
Personal threats have resulted in the removal of posting privileges for a member. This may be the first time in a decade.
Was the list time someone threatening with a screwdriver whilst riding?
I miss BaW...
-
Can you imagine what it would look like if rural areas had an on-demand public transport system such as the one entitled Londoners have, and expect.
I'll never forget, in the 70s, a friend of mine from London coming to my village and being stunned that there weren't 5 buses an hour into the town (11 miles away). There was one a day. Despite what our resident forum mouthpart would have you believe there had never been frequent bus services killed off by car ownership.
Yes, but where you live the only constant running water is the endemic diarrhoeal illness. We will send missionaries and food.
In London, we now have hover cars and jet packs.
Easier to escape after stabbing someone, with a jetpack.
We haven't progressed beyond throwing turnips at people.
-
Are you threatening me with your turnip?
-
You come round here with your swanky London ways and you'll get turnipped, and carried out on a stick.
We don't like your sort
-
Rather sorry I started this thread... I meant well.
-
Rather sorry I started this thread... I meant well.
Hardly something that you can be held responsible for, John.
-
Rather sorry I started this thread... I meant well.
Hardly something that you can be held responsible for, John.
We are all guilty.
-
Rather sorry I started this thread... I meant well.
It got hijacked by somebody whose well-intentioned and impassioned beliefs got the better of him. He's away for a bit by the look of things and will have time to consider whether his intervention was effective, and perhaps extrapolate that to his wider objectives.
Meanwhile, back to the OP. Are we still in lockdown or are we all just using our British common sense to decide how much it is possible to stay at home? Judging by the roads here, I'd say the latter.
-
There are a lot of cars, considering most shops are still closed and only a few people can go to work safely...
-
But you can go and visit people as long as you don't go into their home and you keep to the social distancing rules.
My wife's sister drove over today to have a socially distanced natter in the garden. She can't use public transport to do that.
The Government also suggested that people could "go out for a drive" in order to get out of the house.
-
I think a lot of people who last week might have walked to the shops are now driving and in addition, some people are back at work.
-
Are you threatening me with your turnip?
Whatever wanky hipster chinny-beard infested fuckhole you inhabit you will never, NEVER be able to boast a local paper with headlines like this today:
(https://i.ibb.co/7QhCCqf/Screenshot-2020-05-15-at-16-40-03.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Rather sorry I started this thread... I meant well.
Hardly something that you can be held responsible for, John.
Indeed...
-
The Government also suggested that people could "go out for a drive" in order to get out of the house.
Unfortunately not for those still enduring their 12 week home isolation. :'(
-
Rather sorry I started this thread... I meant well.
I apologise for my participation in its derailment. I’ll back off for a while myself. After thinking about it for a little while, I’m quite upset by how things developed, and not proud of how I reacted.
-
Are you threatening me with your turnip?
Whatever wanky hipster chinny-beard infested fuckhole you inhabit you will never, NEVER be able to boast a local paper with headlines like this today:
(https://i.ibb.co/7QhCCqf/Screenshot-2020-05-15-at-16-40-03.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
That's produced the biggest smile of the day here.
-
Addressing the 'slower and more courteous' question, I've just been shopping and the traffic in some roads is up to I'd say 90% of pre-covid levels, whereas on side streets and, curiously, the main A38, it's still maybe half of those levels. I'd say it seems less courteous now than when there was very little traffic in the first few weeks of lockdown. Certainly less willing to wait behind a cyclist or let people cross the road other than at an official crossing. Speeds about the same though.
Today I witnessed the first instance of (motorised) red light jumping I've seen since the lockdown began. Between that and the resumption of routine close passes at the start of the week, impatience levels seem to be on the rise.
-
Of, at least partial relevance, whilst on my torture machine in the garage today I saw 5 home delivery vans within 2 minutes. There are only 16 houses in the close. The numbers every day are much greater than usual.
It seems that people are really into the on-line shopping. Once they are confident doing this, will they carry on I wonder?
Certainly, it will mean that they use their cars less. More vans, but they’re a friendly lot in general and give me a wave if I’m out on the bike.
The bad news is that it might be the final nail in the High Street coffin. Then they’ll be less cars in town, so some people will be very happy perhaps?
-
Addressing the 'slower and more courteous' question, I've just been shopping and the traffic in some roads is up to I'd say 90% of pre-covid levels, whereas on side streets and, curiously, the main A38, it's still maybe half of those levels. I'd say it seems less courteous now than when there was very little traffic in the first few weeks of lockdown. Certainly less willing to wait behind a cyclist or let people cross the road other than at an official crossing. Speeds about the same though.
Today I witnessed the first instance of (motorised) red light jumping I've seen since the lockdown began. Between that and the resumption of routine close passes at the start of the week, impatience levels seem to be on the rise.
A while back I nearly got run off the road by a van. Only happened because I'd sat waiting at a red light... I'm consequently reevaluating my approach to lights :o
Caught up with him at the very next light... if it hadn't changed, I think I'd probably have a spare wing mirror in my possession. As it was, the light changed at a perfect time to return the favour of a pointless overtake, only mine didn't put him in danger. 8)
-
Addressing the 'slower and more courteous' question, I've just been shopping and the traffic in some roads is up to I'd say 90% of pre-covid levels, whereas on side streets and, curiously, the main A38, it's still maybe half of those levels. I'd say it seems less courteous now than when there was very little traffic in the first few weeks of lockdown. Certainly less willing to wait behind a cyclist or let people cross the road other than at an official crossing. Speeds about the same though.
Today I witnessed the first instance of (motorised) red light jumping I've seen since the lockdown began. Between that and the resumption of routine close passes at the start of the week, impatience levels seem to be on the rise.
A while back I nearly got run off the road by a van. Only happened because I'd sat waiting at a red light... I'm consequently reevaluating my approach to lights :o
Caught up with him at the very next light... if it hadn't changed, I think I'd probably have a spare wing mirror in my possession. As it was, the light changed at a perfect time to return the favour of a pointless overtake, only mine didn't put him in danger. 8)
Style. :thumbsup:
-
Addressing the 'slower and more courteous' question, I've just been shopping and the traffic in some roads is up to I'd say 90% of pre-covid levels, whereas on side streets and, curiously, the main A38, it's still maybe half of those levels. I'd say it seems less courteous now than when there was very little traffic in the first few weeks of lockdown. Certainly less willing to wait behind a cyclist or let people cross the road other than at an official crossing. Speeds about the same though.
Today I witnessed the first instance of (motorised) red light jumping I've seen since the lockdown began. Between that and the resumption of routine close passes at the start of the week, impatience levels seem to be on the rise.
It does say to me that the major factor in drivers getting impatient with cyclists is not cyclists but volume of motor traffic. Most people are willing to sit behind a cyclist for a minute if they're confident they'll get a chance of an easy and 'complete' overtake (during that first idyllic phase of lockdown, everyone seemed to go right over the white line) very soon. Add in more oncoming traffic to make that harder and the (perceived at least) pressure of holding up others behind, and patience evaporates.
Though you've also got to allow for the 'sun's shining and everyone's on holiday' factor.
-
Say what you want about this thread, no one has protested my plan to napalm the Cotswolds.
So, as we're agreed, does anyone know a pilot?
-
So, as we're agreed, does anyone know a pilot?
The one obvious pilot here lives in the Cotswolds. He might not be up for it.
(I'd miss the visit to Stow-in-the-Wold on The Dean and LWL Audaxes but I could live with[out] it.)
-
We might find Flatus lives in the Cotswolds. Don't let that influence your decision in any way.
-
Fine with me. Just leave the south-western tip alone where all the nice people live.
-
So, as we're agreed, does anyone know a pilot?
The one obvious pilot here lives in the Cotswolds. He might not be up for it.
(I'd miss the visit to Stow-in-the-Wold on The Dean and LWL Audaxes but I could live with[out] it.)
I assume you're referring to me. I live in Suffolk. There was a time I lived over there (Lyneham, Chippenham and Devizes - not really Cotswolds). So feel free to have at it.
-
I live near Biggin Hill. Pick me up at 0800 hours (actually make it 1300, I'm not an early riser). I'll bring the napalm.
-
I live near Biggin Hill. Pick me up at 0800 hours (actually make it 1300, I'm not an early riser). I'll bring the napalm.
Tis ok I won't be here, I'll be busy bulldozing London into the sea.
Will probably take a while might need to borrow one of these,
(https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/img-cache/627e5a3ba4b5dd8fab7eccc32ec0d4ba/1680x1050_1337626100_acco-dozer.jpg)
D.
-
I assume you're referring to me. I live in Suffolk. There was a time I lived over there (Lyneham, Chippenham and Devizes - not really Cotswolds). So feel free to have at it.
Excellent. No idea why I had you down there.
Bombs away!
-
I live near Biggin Hill. Pick me up at 0800 hours (actually make it 1300, I'm not an early riser). I'll bring the napalm.
Tis ok I won't be here, I'll be busy bulldozing London into the sea.
Will probably take a while might need to borrow one of these,
(https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/img-cache/627e5a3ba4b5dd8fab7eccc32ec0d4ba/1680x1050_1337626100_acco-dozer.jpg)
D.
Can you bulldoze all the cars while you're at it?
-
No wing mirrors on that dozer.
You'll be safe from our absent friend.
-
As you may know, I have an alter ego named Jess*. I really think she's going to have to drive that with extreme prejudice through Croydon.
*She'd post here, but she doesn't ride a bike.
-
I live near Biggin Hill. Pick me up at 0800 hours (actually make it 1300, I'm not an early riser). I'll bring the napalm.
Tis ok I won't be here, I'll be busy bulldozing London into the sea.
Will probably take a while might need to borrow one of these,
(https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/img-cache/627e5a3ba4b5dd8fab7eccc32ec0d4ba/1680x1050_1337626100_acco-dozer.jpg)
D.
Can you bulldoze all the cars while you're at it?
It's pretty much all getting wet, the tube might be troubling but nothing one of these beasts can't sort
(https://www.popsci.com/resizer/h4T1AEerWpsofTKAX7IuMSNGNto=/760x570/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bonnier.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MTUGSVPHBB22CKTZETTB42BCIE.jpg)
Mwahahaha.
-
It's a popular American sport for popular Americans.
https://youtu.be/nTBErBng16I
-
Rather sorry I started this thread... I meant well.
I apologise for my participation in its derailment. I’ll back off for a while myself. After thinking about it for a little while, I’m quite upset by how things developed, and not proud of how I reacted.
Don’t.
There were countless posts suggesting and recommending an approach that would most likely
a) keep this cycling and not pro-motoring forum on side
b) make real changes in a campaign to reduce car use
c) make PistonHeads blink
He chose none of these.
He chose to wind you up.
-
I live near Biggin Hill. Pick me up at 0800 hours (actually make it 1300, I'm not an early riser). I'll bring the napalm.
Tis ok I won't be here, I'll be busy bulldozing London into the sea.
Will probably take a while might need to borrow one of these,
(https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/img-cache/627e5a3ba4b5dd8fab7eccc32ec0d4ba/1680x1050_1337626100_acco-dozer.jpg)
D.
Can you bulldoze all the cars while you're at it?
I'm sorry but as a form of a car that bulldozer would also be banned.
-
The Independent has just published an article on how to cycle to work as the lockdown is lifted. For newbies, obvs. Some good advice, some less, but if it helps people feel confident, it's got to good overall.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/cycling-bikes-lockdown-public-transport-fear-phobia-commute-a9516221.html
-
Rather sorry I started this thread... I meant well.
I apologise for my participation in its derailment. I’ll back off for a while myself. After thinking about it for a little while, I’m quite upset by how things developed, and not proud of how I reacted.
Don’t.
There were countless posts suggesting and recommending an approach that would most likely
a) keep this cycling and not pro-motoring forum on side
b) make real changes in a campaign to reduce car use
c) make PistonHeads blink
He chose none of these.
He chose to wind you up.
There was a lot of people trying to wind up others on this thread. Tims quiet reflection on how the thread went is a good idea
-
Looking at the traffic today I am not sure the public understand Be Alert.
-
Looking at the traffic today I am not sure the public understand Be Alert.
They don't.
Unlike 'Stay at Home' 'Be Alert' is vague, and not a clear message.
Expect a spike in deaths and hozzie admissions at the beginning of June.
-
We can hear traffic noise from our garden for the first time since all this started.
-
Mercedes indicating out of the bus stop this morning - I flashed my lights to let it out. It pulled out rapidly, braked sharply for the person on the zebra crossing (halfway across already) beeped at them, and then took off at mach 2 (in a 20 zone). It then turned right across someone coming the other way and disappeared down a residential side street at a similar pace. Sigh.
That's the first incidence of idiotic driving I've seen during lockdown (though I've hardly been out of the house). The little local centre I went to was fairly quiet (except for the giant queue outside Waitrose as I arrived).
-
Think we want some posters:
FRESH AIR SAVES LIVES
LEAVE YOUR MOTOR AT HOME
(aiui there's a correlation between poor air quality and poor COVID-19 outcomes)
-
Tuesday 8 o'clock, stamp your feet for pedestrian heroes.
-
Out running today... Should car windows be shut to ensure social distancing ? (haven't seen any reports about studies into this... Strangely)
-
Think we want some posters:
FRESH AIR SAVES LIVES
LEAVE YOUR MOTOR AT HOME
(aiui there's a correlation between poor air quality and poor COVID-19 outcomes)
Walking in York I was amazed how crystal clear the air was a week ago.
It occurred to me that it might have been centuries since it was so clear.
-
We can hear traffic noise from our garden for the first time since all this started.
More aircraft noise early on in London too. I am sad, I love the silence in the morning.
Aircraft noise starts around 6am. But I fly for work, so I am a hypocrite.
-
We can hear traffic noise from our garden for the first time since all this started.
More aircraft noise early on in London too. I am sad, I love the silence in the morning.
Aircraft noise starts around 6am. But I fly for work, so I am a hypocrite.
Acknowledging your own hypocrisy is the first step to change. Or so they like to say.
-
We can hear traffic noise from our garden for the first time since all this started.
More aircraft noise early on in London too. I am sad, I love the silence in the morning.
Aircraft noise starts around 6am. But I fly for work, so I am a hypocrite.
The only reason you are hearing aircraft today is because today we have a westerly, so you are hearing the few incoming (mostly freight) flights in to LHR. For the last few weeks, what wind there was, was easterly. So any incoming air traffic would've had its final approach over Windsor.
LGW has had pretty much zero traffic over the last few weeks.
ETA - I have to say that I'm really enjoying the silence afforded me by no incoming flights to LCY. Ordinarily they overfly my house starting at around 04:30.
-
We can hear traffic noise from our garden for the first time since all this started.
More aircraft noise early on in London too. I am sad, I love the silence in the morning.
Aircraft noise starts around 6am. But I fly for work, so I am a hypocrite.
What I’ve noticed (apart from private jets bringing (Allegedly) partygoing footballers back to Manchester airport) whilst observing Flightradar24 is the very greatly increased number of gliders and private light aircraft there are aloft. Last weekend hardly any, this weekend literally dozens.
-
We can hear traffic noise from our garden for the first time since all this started.
More aircraft noise early on in London too. I am sad, I love the silence in the morning.
Aircraft noise starts around 6am. But I fly for work, so I am a hypocrite.
What I’ve noticed (apart from private jets bringing (Allegedly) partygoing footballers back to Manchester airport) whilst observing Flightradar24 is the very greatly increased number of gliders and private light aircraft there are aloft. Last weekend hardly any, this weekend literally dozens.
The Department for Transport updated their guidance on recreational GA (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-recreational-general-aviation/coronavirus-covid-19-recreational-general-aviation) on 15th May and socially-distanced flights are now allowed in England. From a gliding point of view - the conditions yesterday were very good.
-
Its sunday, and the noise from the A46 is remarkable.
Where are people going ???
-
The same places they were going at the beginning of March?
-
Where were they going then, because it cant be pubs, restaurants and shops.
I think people are visiting their friends and family.
-
I reckon some might simply be driving round "just because they can" now. Or maybe they're going to admire Jaded's stone work. :D
But probably a lot of them had equally ridiculous journeys back then.
-
The only reason you are hearing aircraft today is because today we have a westerly, so you are hearing the few incoming (mostly freight) flights in to LHR. For the last few weeks, what wind there was, was easterly. So any incoming air traffic would've had its final approach over Windsor.
Yes, although flight volumes at Heathrow are slowly increasing, the timings of the early-morning arrivals (mostly from the Far East) haven't changed significantly since the end of March, when the Summer season started (flights typically arrive 15-30 minutes earlier before our clocks go forward).
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200517/02b7781124218ecd556fb0cb8398ff6b.jpg)
Deerdeathometer has just incremented for the first time since March.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
We can hear traffic noise from our garden for the first time since all this started.
More aircraft noise early on in London too. I am sad, I love the silence in the morning.
Aircraft noise starts around 6am. But I fly for work, so I am a hypocrite.
The only reason you are hearing aircraft today is because today we have a westerly, so you are hearing the few incoming (mostly freight) flights in to LHR. For the last few weeks, what wind there was, was easterly. So any incoming air traffic would've had its final approach over Windsor.
LGW has had pretty much zero traffic over the last few weeks.
ETA - I have to say that I'm really enjoying the silence afforded me by no incoming flights to LCY. Ordinarily they overfly my house starting at around 04:30.
I live in SW15 but luckily half a kilometer South of the main approach(es). Even then there's been a noticeable increase in the flights overhead today (I notice it more as it's been so much rarer recently), and out of the 8 where I bothered to try and work out what airline it was (and succeeded) only one was a cargo flight (DHL) the rest were national carriers (3 x BA, Swissair, Qatar, Emirates and I forget the other).
The FR24 statistics don't show any particular significant rise though: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/statistics
-
Most BA, and all Virgin, flights are currently cargo-only. Neither BA nor Virgin has cargo aeroplanes; these all-cargo flights are being flown on re-purposed passenger aircraft. BA are flying about 200 cargo flights a week into Heathrow, and Virgin about 90. Other airlines are doing likewise, so a very small percentage of the flights you see coming into Heathrow are actually carrying passengers.
-
I live in SW15 but luckily half a kilometer South of the main approach(es).
Bear in mind also that if you're half a kilometer south of the approach to Heathrow's southern runway, then you're almost 2 km south of the approach to the northern runway.
That might affect what you notice on a given day (Heathrow currently alternates use of the N and S runways on a weekly basis).
-
Where were they going then, because it cant be pubs, restaurants and shops.
I think people are visiting their friends and family.
Given the volume of traffic about 6pm yesterday, I'd assume so.
That said, we encountered a family out in the wilds who wanted to know where the A22 was? Nowhere close. It seemed they'd parked, taken no note of where they'd parked, and wandered off and got lost. Then got more lost. Complete with an oversized baby buggy.
It didn't help that they'd not even used a public footpath. It seemed they just stopped by a field and set off.
OK, I credit them with wanting to get some fresh air. We did spend a while pondering over maps (which they thought were 'very clever') and eventually pointed them in hopefully the right direction. Very hopefully.
-
Financial sector workers, I discovered, are classed as key workers. Which is interesting.
Only some. Just before we went in to lockdown, the FCA asked firms to identify the staff they would need to keep the system running - to ensure (for example) that cash machines didn't run out of cash, payments would be processed, pensions would be paid, online banking wouldn't fall over, etc. These were the ones deemed to be essential. It's not the Yahoos on the trading floors or M&A.
-
Financial sector workers, I discovered, are classed as key workers. Which is interesting.
Only some. Just before we went in to lockdown, the FCA asked firms to identify the staff they would need to keep the system running - to ensure (for example) that cash machines didn't run out of cash, payments would be processed, pensions would be paid, online banking wouldn't fall over, etc. These were the ones deemed to be essential. It's not the Yahoos on the trading floors or M&A.
We are very much not key workers. We moved the whole operation off-site over a weekend and have all been working from home since then. Someone from IT goes in each day as the physical hardware still sits in the office.
-
Financial sector workers, I discovered, are classed as key workers. Which is interesting.
Only some. Just before we went in to lockdown, the FCA asked firms to identify the staff they would need to keep the system running - to ensure (for example) that cash machines didn't run out of cash, payments would be processed, pensions would be paid, online banking wouldn't fall over, etc. These were the ones deemed to be essential. It's not the Yahoos on the trading floors or M&A.
Right, I should have said bank workers. And probably not all of them but probably most of them.
-
This via Southwark cyclists https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ban-hgvs-london-roads-reduce-risk-cyclists-a4443206.html
HGVs should be temporarily banned from central London to reduce the risks faced by thousands of novice cyclists riding to work, a leading personal injury lawyer said today.
The call came as hospitals across London called on councils to fast-track safe walking and cycling routes to help their staff get to work.
-
Same article
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ban-hgvs-london-roads-reduce-risk-cyclists-a4443206.html
Transport for London has begun introducing “pop up” segregated bike lanes, such as on Park Lane, and councils have been widening pavements to make it easier for pedestrians to socially distance.
IF anyone knows the Greenwich gyratory this is now lethal. Large plastic barriers may widen the pavement, but narrow the space for cars and cyclists.
Putting cyclists right in the danger room and no way to 'bail out' towards the pavement. If you are not a confident cyclist then I honestly would not cycle round there.
Also Greenwiich council now close Cutty Sark Gardens at the weekend - which only pushes cyclists out for a leisure ride onto that gyratory system.
-
That Greenwich gyratory is insanity. I thought given the number of tourists these days would have given the LBG some cause to do something about it. Evidently not.
A cyclist died on the roadbridge over the tracks near Croydon the other year, in part because it's lined (for some reason) by plastic barriers which mean there's nowhere to go. Croydon's response to such an obvious death trap was to slap a bit of paint on the road and a sign instructing cyclists onto another busy road up by the station where they will be abandoned in a nest of tram tracks and bus routes.
-
David Tarsh, who filmed a video on Park Lane, said: “Normally a three-lane highway, but now TfL has put in a segregated cycle lane, a bus lane and forced all the rest of the traffic into one lane in the middle.
“As you can see, there are no cyclists, no buses and a great degree of congestion. How on earth can you call that a good management of the traffic?”
TBH, even though he's wearing a cycle helmet, he comes across as an entitled motorist. In the long term (which started, ooh, around 1990) reallocating road space from cars to other uses – buses, bikes, pedestrians, pavement cafes, guerilla knitting – is exactly what we should be doing.
-
Cudzo, I agree. Also I must say that having lived in the Netherlands my preference is for off road proper cycle routes.
BUT I hear the British populace say - we have no room. I say - yes you do. Even in central London there are hugely wide pavements
(OK, coronavirus distancing aside..) which could have decent cycle routes on them.
Near where I live in Docklands there are roads with wide grass verges. Why not use them as cycle lanes?
-
The Park Lane route isn't even vaguely finished. It's currently in one direction only and starts and finishes on a 40 mph dual carriageway with no other way on or off. No cyclist in their right mind *should* be using it.
(and no politician should be advertising it to unsuspecting cyclists)
There's a plan in the pipeline to ungyratory and pedestrianise (https://consultations.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/10292_4%20Town%20Centre_3%20(2).pdf) Greenwich Town Centre. It's probably too hard to it as an emergency measure, due to traffic lights and islands being in the way.
-
I like this plan: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/plans-pedestrianise-one-bristols-main-4140956
As much because it's come from the residents themselves as for the plan. Unfortunately, that also means it won't happen. The road itself was dualled as part of a big scheme in the 60s that never really got finished and since then other changes have meant it really doesn't carry that much traffic.
But...
(https://i2-prod.bristolpost.co.uk/incoming/article4140969.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_JB_BRI_170520RedcliffeDevelopment-03JPG.jpg)
why are the supportive residents women?
-
Cudzo, I agree. Also I must say that having lived in the Netherlands my preference is for off road proper cycle routes.
BUT I hear the British populace say - we have no room. I say - yes you do. Even in central London there are hugely wide pavements
(OK, coronavirus distancing aside..) which could have decent cycle routes on them.
Near where I live in Docklands there are roads with wide grass verges. Why not use them as cycle lanes?
I'm sure I asked the same question of Hyde Park Corner (which Park Lane feeds), why do these huge multi-lane roads even need to exist in London? Their primary purpose seems to be to generate traffic and congestion.
-
Multi-lane roads in London you say? You NEED CBRD
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways
Really fasciating reading - such as why there was a stretch of motorway leading up to the A40 elevated
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/ringway1/west-cross-route
-
Our last house was on the site of what once-upon-a-time was slated to be a junction on ringway 2. The ringway would have replaced the still extant train line (London Bridge-Beckenham Junction scenic route) and would have spun off a junction along what was then a spur to Norwood Junction (that bit was closed anyway, and the reason there was a mysterious fenced off edge to our garden that was forever a part of National Rail – when they had built the adjacent houses on the elevated former trackbed they didn't quite align the boundaries of the industrial plot that eventually became our houses and those they were building, or everything was so vague, anyway, it meant we had several square metres of fenced-off NR land perpendicular to the actual track).
Croydon is surrounded and cut through by mini-motorways from the same era – the Roman Way is basically a snippet of motorway between two standard A-roads (the results are predictable).
-
These things are, sadly, not limited to London. There were plans in Bristol that started in the 1930s with driving a dual carriageway through one of the largest and most architecturally significant Georgian squares in Britain (realigning a statue of King William III in the process so his horse didn't stick out into the traffic), then in the 60s started to build a series of d-cs and elevated pedestrian walkways (the last remnant, a bridge to nowhere at Old Market roundabout, was removed last year) before finally being running out of money just before they – I'm not making this up, there were fully developed, shovel-ready plans – concreted in the docks.
-
I like this plan: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/plans-pedestrianise-one-bristols-main-414095
They should put the road on stilts above... :demon:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/history/video-shows-lorry-driving-over-661415 (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/history/video-shows-lorry-driving-over-661415)
-
.. a series of d-cs ...
Warning! Bespoke abbreviation in use.
-
.. a series of d-cs ...
Warning! Bespoke abbreviation in use.
Comes of typing in a hurry, sorry. Dual carriageways.
-
I’ve never seen so many classic cars, especially soft-tops with the tops down, as I did today. It seems the “ drive anywhere you want” has become “ let’s get the sports car out”. Must have been over 1 per mile of my ride ( 30 odd).
The good thing is that they’re pretty careful- don’t want to scratch the old girl!
-
Good weather always brings them out. Though I think people actually gave a shit about the lockdown for the last batch.
-
I can't quite believe what follows given the amount of very obvious speeding we hear from home at the moment but...
Today I went for my first ride in many, many weeks. Traffic levels were high but the number of clear, wide passes was staggering. Loads and loads and loads of passes fully across the centre line, I had 5 of these in the first mile to Parkend. I wouldn't expect that many in a full afternoon. In 2 hours mostly on road I had:
2 bad passes by pickups pulling trailers
A dozen or so juveniles in 1 litre shopping trolleys (thumpin choonz) who could have done with leaving a wee bit more room.
1 wvm weaving across the road towards me distracted by phone/radio/satnav but he only veered a couple of feet in a full width road.
1 focus shaping up to overtake where there were cars parked in the oncoming lane. A small movement towards primary changed his mind and no verbal from him or girl in car as they passed.
That's it. I've had worse doing a 500 meter round the block test ride after fettling something (before we moved to the forest).
I had Audis waiting for me to clear parked cars. I had BMWs giving way at narrow sections. I had a range rover give way at a give way line to my left as I crawled up hill to pass in front of him. Even the bus that overtook scraped tyres on the far kerb.
I reckon it's down to the lack of school run mums and taxis. Or pure fluke and it'll never happen again.
-
Long may it last! But there's no saying it will, so let's enjoy it while it does. ;D
-
I think it's all down to those drivers being less stressed because traffic levels are still (at least here in leafy Bucks) relatively low, they're less under pressure to get places / not hold other drivers up, so are generally more relaxed about having to pass NOW!
-
And less traffic coming the other way means that there is more chance that when they can see far enough ahead, there will be a gap.
-
I think a lot of people have had a go at cycling during lockdown and are perhaps being more considerate when driving.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I've hardly been on my bike but a brief visit to check the mothers car last night and had one of each
Bad two lads in some crap car roared up behind me at lights then went roaring off when they changed with the passenger gurning out the window at me... Be surprised if they are from the same house and paying attention to SD somehow.
Good. Cycling past a long line of cars. Look ahead and think why has that numpty double parked... I shouldn't be so quick to judge. Despite several gaps I could have pulled into they waited while I cycled past all the cars even though they had ROW. Big thumbs up as I went past.
-
The A38 between Bristol and Gloucester seemed to have about as much traffic as a usual Sunday (which is not that much for an A road) but it was rather slower than normal. Lots of nice wide passes there and on the lanes, as well as outbreaks of – gasp! – people saying thank you! Except for the oncoming traffic in the lanes, which behaved as it normally does, ie most of it doesn't slow down.
-
The A41 in and out of Aylesbury remains conspicuously quieter than normal times.
-
It was good to see the variety and number of cyclists out and about. All the usual lycra types but others too. In the lanes somewhere south of Berkeley I saw a boy of about 10 wearing hi-viz vest and sloppily fitted helmet, followed about 50m behind by a similarly attired big sister. Great, the parents have got the kids to go out on their bikes on their own. But, oh, there's a littler one too, following behind (I guess he was about 7). And, oh, here are mum and dad on a tandem. So clearly it was a "cycling family" out for the day. In contrast, some miles further on in Elberton, I saw a group of four teenage girls on hybrids, no hi-viz or helmets, all ignoring social distancing (they were clearly not one household) but it's such an unusual sight to see on a rural B road, let's hope the good of cycling outweighs the hazard of proximity for them.
-
I crossed the A303 at the Barton Stacey overbridge at about 9.30am yesterday. Vastly less traffic than there normally would be on a Bank Holiday with fine weather. Same crossing the M3 later. There might be news stories about people packing the beaches but you wouldn't think it from the low traffic levels in North Hampshire. People were generally more courteous but I think that's because there's zillions more cyclists about, of all shapes and sizes. I must have passed thirty or so on the way back from Herriard when, even on a sunny Sunday morning I would probably have seen six. It's hard to be hostile to something that has become mainstream.
-
The short section of a40 I rode this afternoon was quite busy. Could be much worse on a bank holiday though :)
-
The roads seemed much busier than they have been during my cycle to the beach earlier. And the queue at the KFC drive through was ridiculous - queueing right round the building and out onto the main road. I almost (almost - I'm not exactly a KFC fan) understand driving there to see if busy but I can't understand joining the queue when it's that long. Surely you'd just haven something else for dinner?! ???
-
I rode past the KFC in Prestwich yesterday. I didn't notice the queue so I'm guessing it wasn't too bad but the smell of the food :sick:
Strange what you don't realise until it's been gone for a while.
-
I imagine that once Specsavers opens again there will be noticeably less traffic on the roads.
-
I have to admit I have not been out on my bike during lockdown- I have not been anywhere at all other than for work (the stuff I cannot do at home), "outside" is mainly pottering in the garden or allotment at the moment.
However, I had to go away to a customer (essential industry) to deliver a block of basic safety training (practical elements = on site delivery) this week, it's a regular where I take Big Van and stay over (bed in the van) for a few nights. (In fact it's been more regular than usual as with COVID we are doing essential training with much smaller groups- in a very big room with the windows open).
Heading out late afternoon on Monday, once over the border into England it was quite a lot busier than previous lockdown trips to this customer. The traffic was the usual logistics (HGVs, vans), a handful of "working" types plus a bunch of what looked like families out for a drive (you can see into the cars and SUVs passing you when driving a Big Van). Heading home late last night it was usual mix of logistics and working traffic.
The thing I have noticed this trip is that there's 3 now categories:
1. The people involved in essential sectors that have been working throughout lockdown- mainly see HGVs and vans, generally driven courteously as they are part of a large chain with tracking. Also a few cars of key workers going to/from work.
2. The same handful of speedsters- high-spec usually VAG/BMW/Jag/Merc vehicle being hammered up the M-way.
3. A whole bunch of people who haven't driven anywhere since before lockdown started and are noticably very out of practise.
The ones in category 3 concern me most. Fortunately most of them seem to realise they are a bit rusty so being careful, but there's a significant minority who don't seem to have realised this.
I have noticed that other road users are being more courteous to cyclists- I am always careful and give a big gap when passing a cyclist, I've noticed that a big decrease in the number of following vehicles that "protest" at my plodding along behind a cyclist until there's a proper overtake gap.
GC
-
I was expecting the roads to be a shambles this morning as companies have had a week or so to get their locations ready.
For example: I noticed the 2 tips I passed on the bike yesterday we all set up waiting for a very slow turnover of people dumping stuff.
But it wasn't much different from yesterday morning, or the morning before etc.
Guess Monday will probably be the real test.
-
Our tip, which has little room for queues, opened on Tuesday. Online booking only.
-
Did the commute yesterday, on the speedmachine. Didn't notice any positive difference, in fact a big car dickhead decided to do a close overtake and then speed off into a 20mph zone.
-
I wish there was a lot more of this. Loss of a vehicle would be a much bigger deterrent than bans / fines / etc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-52922353
"PC David Benson said the driver had "lost his vehicle and his bragging rights".
"In the meantime, a very powerful car has been taken off the public roads and, in all probability, saved lives," he added."
-
our (ex?)mate "ban cars" is walking his talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbHAk445Yo), props and more power to him as far as i'm concerned!
-
out (ex?)mate "ban cars" is walking his talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbHAk445Yo), props and more power to him as far as i'm concerned!
thumbsup !!
-
+1
Good video