Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

[bmd]

I thought you were looking sexier. You sure you wanna chuck all that away?

That's the haircut.

 

[Athos]

'For almost all it massively enhances their quality of life' is a huge assumption, and is only relevant if there isn't an alternative. It's a financial burden. It's a pain in the arse in many ways. As it happens I think we're still some way from the technology needed to completely get rid of cars as they are now - that would require a kind of EV self-drive grid transit system. But there are interim things you can as you move toward that goal... Change models of car ownership. Encourage WFH (or local shared office space). And yeah, encourage cycling, improve public transport.

Yes, my post was specifically predicated on the state of the existing infrastructure.

 

[maomao]

Because when proper infrastructure exists they’re not needed. Go to Amsterdam or Ghent and tell the people there they should wear a helmet. I’ll hear the laughter from here.

Head injury is the single most common cause of of death and disabilty in the under 40s and car accidents are the leading cause of head injuries. Making all car drivers and passengers wear full crash hemets would prevent approx 150,000 hospital admissions due to aquired brain injury in the UK every year.

 

[Athos]

An out and out ban isn't feasible or desirable I agree. But a scaling down of car use and creating car free parts of cities is. Perhaps a nice start would be creating car free routes to schools for those who are able to walk or cycle. When I lived in Holland as a kid it was a joy to have car free routes to cycle, walk or sled to school. Safer, cleaner and healthier.

I completely agree. But sensible voices like ours get lost amongst the lions like Plank, Bees, and Toutcher.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Head injury is the single most common cause of of death and disabilty in the under 40s and car accidents are the leading cause of head injuries. Making all car drivers and passengers wear full crash hemets would prevent approx 150,000 hospital admissions due to aquired brain injury in the UK every year.

All cars should be painted with hi-viz too, apparently it’s magic and keeps you safe

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I completely agree. But sensible voices like ours get lost amongst the lions like Plank, Bees, and Toutcher.

That’s literally the sort of things I’m arguing for

 

[Spymaster]

All cars should be painted with hi-viz too, apparently it’s magic and keeps you safe

Any cyclist who's against hi-viz and proper lights is a fucking moron.

Unfortunately that seems to be most of them in London.

 

[Marty1]

If the roads were clear. How often are the roads clear, at the times most people need to get to work?

If I had to go in for a few hours on a Sunday.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Any cyclist who's against hi-viz... is a fucking moron.

Or perhaps they’re simply capable of reading statistics.

Lights in the dark? Obviously. Hi-viz does fuck all.

 

[fishfinger]

Four wheels bad, two wheels worse.

Yes. Let's all get together and beat up the unicyclists! Those self-entitled, circus twats

 

[bimble]

Instinctively I don’t think the majority of people live in cities. I think the densest concentrations are in cities, but doubt that this is a majority. Perhaps it could be true in the U.K. but the USA, China etc? Of course I might be proven wrong.

You are, wrong I mean. Though it’s fairly recent that we crossed that line globally.

68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

www.un.org

 

[Spymaster]

Or perhaps they’re simply capable of reading statistics.

Lights in the dark? Obviously. Hi-viz does fuck all.

You need to spend less time reading silly cycle-twat propaganda and more time getting some genuine experience.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I mean, look at these utter maniacs. Clearly they’ll all be dead by lunchtime.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You need to spend less time reading silly cycle-twat propaganda and more time getting some genuine experience.

I ride over 200 miles a week.

 

[dessiato]

I mean, look at these utter maniacs. Clearly they’ll all be dead by lunchtime.

View attachment 211807

Is there one wearing headphones? It’s not a great idea on a bike ride.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Is there one wearing headphones? It’s not a great idea on a bike ride.

Clearly that person will be dead by mid morning.

 

[Spymaster]

I ride over 200 miles a week.

Big deal. Try driving where cyclists are often almost invisible. We've done the hi-viz and helmet arguments to death on here and the simple fact is that just because there's little obvious proof or stats that HV prevents injuries, that's because it's asking for proof of stuff that didn't happen. Cyclists are the last people whose views should be considered on this because most of them are single issue, agenda monkeys like you and others on here. Anyone who's spent time driving around cyclists knows that HV works.

 

[Cid]

Yes, this seems right, plus I'd add looking at making working from home the default and a company maybe having to prove it couldn't set you up there for most work (maybe a one day a week in the office for the social side etc) and some sort of community delivery service so people with mobility issues could have stuff brought to them if they wanted, maybe tied to a general welfare check for e.g. elderly and isolated/ Bit pie in the sky I realise and probably issues haven't occurred to me but we need to be thinking of different ways of doing stuff.

Can also do stuff along the lines of those desk rental spaces. I am slightly appalled at myself for saying that, as they are so transparently a part of the rental economy... But in principle having some office spaces in residential areas isn't a bad idea... help maintain work-life balance, get you out of the house, even if it's a 10 minute walk rather than a long commute. Also gives you the ability to provide some services that might be more difficult for WFH.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Big deal. Try driving where cyclists are often almost invisible. We've done the hi-viz and helmet arguments to death on here and the simple fact is that just because there's little obvious proof or stats that HV prevents injuries, that's because it's asking for proof of stuff that didn't happen. Cyclists are the last people whose views should be considered on this because most of them are single issue, agenda monkeys like you and others on here. Anyone who's spent time driving around cyclists knows that HV works.

I spent nearly 20 years driving vans and trucks as part of my job. I’m based in the second largest city in the country, one that’s famous for being designed almost entirely around the needs of cars.

I think I have a fair idea of what does and doesn’t work for keeping cyclists safe. A little yellow jacket isn’t it. The stats back me up.

 

[Cid]

Big deal. Try driving where cyclists are often almost invisible. We've done the hi-viz and helmet arguments to death on here and the simple fact is that just because there's little obvious proof or stats that HV prevents injuries, that's because it's asking for proof of stuff that didn't happen. Cyclists are the last people whose views should be considered on this because most of them are single issue, agenda monkeys like you and others on here. Anyone who's spent time driving around cyclists knows that HV works.

Yeah, I mean I love the way high vis stuff just magically appears in my blind spot. Works brilliantly.

 

[teuchter]

I'm not a petrolhead; I don't like cars per se, but appreciate their utility. And I'd love to see public transport improved to the extent that people choose not to use cars (I'd be one of them). But, currently, 80-odd% of people in the UK have household access to a car; for many of them it's essential, and for almost all it massively enhances their quality of life. And let's not forget that, of the remainder, many still benefit from the use of a car e.g. cadging lifts etc., and many more would have a car if they could afford one. The Idea that we're anywhere near a public or political will to do away with private car ownership is crackpot stuff. And, frankly, there's other things we could do to reduce emissions that'd provide more gain for less pain e.g. banning diesel, moving to green energy including household production, better insulation, tree planting.

From what I have seen on this thread the pollution is the main objection to cars. Electric, hydrogen or hybrid would sort that wouldn't it?

Electric doesn't entirely fix air pollution (in fact it may not even fix the larger part of it) because of dust from brakes, tyres and general constant motion.

But both of you are really not understanding the main point, which is that car dependancy does not only create pollution, it creates a load of massive social issues because of the type of world that gets built around it.

This is the hardest thing to get across to many people, because they don't want to see it. It's like they can't actually imagine a world (an urban world, at least) that can function without people being primarily dependent on cars.

You might of course simply not agree but I think if you want to engage in the wider discussion you have to try and understand what these points are, about the structural issues that result from car dependency. I will try and post things to read on this thread as time goes by, for those who have a genuine interest in understanding that viewpoint.

 

[Spymaster]

I spent nearly 20 years driving vans and trucks as part of my job. I’m based in the second largest city in the country, one that’s famous for being designed almost entirely around the needs of cars.

You couldn't have been paying attention then because you're talking unmitigated, brainwashed bollocks and sounds like as a driver you were a large part of the problem that you're now railing against. Typical of cyclists though so you're far from alone.

 

[teuchter]

But, currently, 80-odd% of people in the UK have household access to a car; for many of them it's essential,

See, I get weary of people coming back with statements like this, as if I've not realised this. Of course I realise this. This is the whole point. That a large proportion of 80% of people are dependant on owning a car is the problem. That's the problem that needs to be solved. It's not a reason to dismiss attempts to change it.

 

[scifisam]

Can you expand on this or give a few links to read? AFAIK people with adapted vehicles or whatever the Belgian equivalent of our blue badge is can register and take their car into the city. And then with areas pedestrianised/no cars everywhere it’s easier to get around in a chair?

The pavements except in a few central areas are very, very narrow, and then people park their bikes on them so if you're walking you have to squeeze past, and in a wheelchair you have to go into the cycle lane, which is about as unsafe as stepping into slow moving traffic, and there weren't many dropped kerbs so you can get off the pavement safely. Sometimes there's even a municipal bin or concrete flower pot blocking the pavement, or cafes allowed to use the entire pavement for seating, which you can walk through as a pedestrian but have to ask for things to be moved to fit through in a chair - it's very odd town planning.

Oh and those beautiful cobbled streets aren't that great on a bike, but are actually painful in a wheelchair, hard to be pushed on, and can end up getting the wheel stuck and tipping you over. That wouldn't be a problem if the pavements were usable, but they're blocked by those parked bikes, with the assumption being you'll just go on the cobbles.

Haven't experienced a car there personally, but if it's like the "shared" spaces here, the car has to drive extremely slowly in the little bit of road left to it, and that means people who do actually have to use cars have a much longer journey. I'm not sure what to do about that apart from encouraging pedestrians to step aside on the occasion a car does go through. And obviously some adaptations mean a car can't get down a road at all, so there's a fair amount of travel after parking.

Public transport in Holland and Belgium is not great for wheelchairs. The trams usually have one accessible entrance, but there's no priority for wheelchairs, so whereas people walking can squeeze on, in a wheelchair you just have to wait. The buses are mostly not accessible. In Holland, because of the double decker trains, they require a ramp to be brought out by station staff, so you have to book and check in in person an hour ahead in Holland, 24 hours in Belgium. That's not really practical for everyday use, commuting for work or going for a night out. At least our trains would be better than that, although the tube is unlikely to ever be fully accessible.

You see lots of people with wheeled walkers, but you pretty much never see anyone in a wheelchair (and no mobility scooters), because it's so difficult to get around in one.

There are an awful lot of faults, basically - they're not ideal examples to hold up. And these competing needs are frequently a problem in urban planning, as far as I can see. The expansion of cycle routes in East London has mostly been good, but sometimes on smaller streets it's meant getting rid of bus routes. I'm not sure I'd prioritise a cycle lane over a bus route, not if discouraging car use is one of the aims.

 

[Marty1]

I mean, look at these utter maniacs. Clearly they’ll all be dead by lunchtime.

View attachment 211807

Yeah, that’s not a good picture - looks congested, nobody seems to wearing helmets, someone is wearing headphones, not a good advert for cycling.

 

[Spymaster]

The stats back me up.

The stats do nothing of the sort. You are just choosing to interpret them in a way that suits you. As per usual. HV saves lives.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yeah, that’s not a good picture - looks congested, nobody seems to wearing helmets, someone is wearing headphones, not a good advert for cycling.

Nice try.

 

[Marty1]

Nice try.

Im not trying anything - it’s a perfectly legitimate response to the picture you posted in favour of cycling.

I do enjoy cycling, only I do it at my local country park or putting bikes in back of van and travelling to Hamsterley Forest for their mountain bike trails - and I always wear a helmet, never headphones.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Big deal. Try driving where cyclists are often almost invisible. We've done the hi-viz and helmet arguments to death on here and the simple fact is that just because there's little obvious proof or stats that HV prevents injuries, that's because it's asking for proof of stuff that didn't happen. Cyclists are the last people whose views should be considered on this because most of them are single issue, agenda monkeys like you and others on here. Anyone who's spent time driving around cyclists knows that HV works.

If you can't see then you shouldn't be driving. Road position is more important than clothing for the visibility and safety of cyclists, but people like you start whinging like even younger, even more spoilt infants than usual when they see cyclists using primary position.

And for the four hundredth time, 'cyclist' is not a job title, or a religion, or an ethnic group or a political affiliation. I know this may be hard to grasp if you have a car instead of a personality, but people's chosen transport modalities are not actually their defining features.

 

[Athos]

Electric doesn't entirely fix air pollution (in fact it may not even fix the larger part of it) because of dust from brakes, tyres and general constant motion.

But both of you are really not understanding the main point, which is that car dependancy does not only create pollution, it creates a load of massive social issues because of the type of world that gets built around it.

This is the hardest thing to get across to many people, because they don't want to see it. It's like they can't actually imagine a world (an urban world, at least) that can function without people being primarily dependent on cars.

You might of course simply not agree but I think if you want to engage in the wider discussion you have to try and understand what these points are, about the structural issues that result from car dependency. I will try and post things to read on this thread as time goes by, for those who have a genuine interest in understanding that viewpoint.

I understand those problems. But the solution you propose - banning private cars - is worse.