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

[cupid_stunt]

I read a few years ago that some people were walking across the top of cars that were parked on pavements.

I once almost got arrested for dancing on the roof of a van, pissed-up on New Year's Eve, although bemused, they were happy enough once I had proved it was my van.

 

[teuchter]

I once almost got arrested for dancing on the roof of a van, pissed-up on New Year's Eve, although bemused, they were happy enough once I had proved it was my van.

Dancing gleefully atop your death machine. Just what we'd expect from the archetypal british motoring fanaticist.

 

[Sweet FA]

I read a few years ago that some people were walking across the top of cars that were parked on pavements.

When I lived in London, my daughter's pram had rubber covered bits of metal sticking out on both sides to hang bags etc off. After about a month of carefully manhandling the pram around cars parked on pavements, the rubber bits inexplicably fell off and I became much less careful about getting the pram round cars.

 

[two sheds]

Boudicca returns

 

[David Clapson]

The City's proposed 15mph limit is up for discussion again. It could happen next year. The background is in this 8 page pdf which is quite an interesting read: https://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s159157/CR20 Deep Dive Report 2021 final.pdf The City Corporation's objective is "to eliminate death and serious injuries on the City’s streets by 2040".

 

[edcraw]

Leaving the scene of an accident evidently has its benefits then.

Accountant cleared of drink driving after claiming she guzzled vodka AFTER crash

Kelsey Ridings had her four children in the back of her Mercedes when she crashed it into another vehicle

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

 

[edcraw]

God - the pro car lobby really are a joyless bunch.

 

[platinumsage]

God - the pro car lobby really are a joyless bunch.

Not surprising that you support criminal law-breaking by the provision of unauthorised road signs.

 

[klang]

they are not road signs, authorised or not.

 

[edcraw]

Not surprising that you support criminal law-breaking by the provision of unauthorised road signs.

Cheers for proving my point!

 

[liquidindian]

Not surprising that you support criminal law-breaking by the provision of unauthorised road signs.

If drivers don't notice the signs with big round numbers on them I'm not sure they'll be too distracted by these.

 

[teuchter]

Here's something for those who say that all we need to do to reduce car usage is to make public transport better or cheaper.

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1392&context=jpt

An undesired side effect of fare-free transit, however, may be an increase in the demand by former transit users and the attraction of users of nonmotorized transportation.

This could be confirmed in the City of Templin. A study aimed at quantifying the benefits of fare-free transit found that ridership increased by 1,200 percent. The vast majority of this additional demand consisted of former transit users and attracted pedestrians and bicycle riders. The shift from automobile to transit was only minimal. Depending on the values chosen for intangibles, a positive net ben- efit may result. This is due mainly to a reduction in fatalities and casualties. Since pedestrians and bicycle riders belong to the most endangered road users, every decrease in these modes will necessarily lead to a reduction of automobile caused costs. The undesired side effect thus becomes the main effect.

This is not an argument against improving public transport. Rather, it's a case study which shows it's not enough to get people out of their cars. This is why we also need to actively make car travel less convenient where alternatives exist.

 

[edcraw]

Good point here - bizarre that lots don’t want to admit that we’ve got a real problem here. Especially in London where the roads just weren’t designed for these levels of traffic.

 

[edcraw]

Here's something for those who say that all we need to do to reduce car usage is to make public transport better or cheaper.

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1392&context=jpt

This is not an argument against improving public transport. Rather, it's a case study which shows it's not enough to get people out of their cars. This is why we also need to actively make car travel less convenient where alternatives exist.

I think there’s too much sunk cost in private car usage for anything much to make a difference apart for restrictions and road pricing.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Here's something for those who say that all we need to do to reduce car usage is to make public transport better or cheaper.

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1392&context=jpt

This is not an argument against improving public transport. Rather, it's a case study which shows it's not enough to get people out of their cars. This is why we also need to actively make car travel less convenient where alternatives exist.

Templin's smaller than Godalming, need to try it on a larger town.

 

[teuchter]

Templin's smaller than Godalming, need to try it on a larger town.

It has been, in Tallinn, and the results were similar. It got more people using public transport but it didn't cut car use.

The prospects of fare-free public transport: evidence from Tallinn - Transportation

The subsidy level of public transport systems varies considerably among systems worldwide. While limited-scale free-fare public transport (FFPT) services such as limited campaigns and fare evasion for special groups or specific services are prevalent, there is only limited evidence on the...

link.springer.com

The increase in public transport modal usage indicates that the initial ridership increase of 3 % in the 3 months following the introduction of FFPT that was reported by Cats et al. (2014) based on the empirical analysis of automated passenger counts, continued in a similar pace in the months leading to the survey. These findings concurrence the results of the meta-analysis by Holmgren (2007) that long-term fare elasticity is higher than the short-term elasticity. Our finding confirms the early indications in Cats et al. (2014) concerning a considerable shift from walking to public transport in 2013, with a 40 % decrease in the share of walking trips while the distance of the average walking trip remains unchanged. It is noteworthy that while the share of car users decreased by 5 %, the average distance travelled by car increased resulting with a 31 % increase in total vehicle-km. This is explained by the increase in daily travel distance, i.e., from 7.98 to 9.07 km per person, a 13 % increase, driven by changes in shopping and leisure destination choices. In summary, the modal shift from car to public transport was accompanied by an undesired shift from walking to public transport and an increase in car traffic.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

You've convinced me, they should treble the cost of public transport and you mugs would still pay up.

 

[edcraw]

You've convinced me, they should treble the cost of public transport and you mugs would still pay up.

erm.. I think you’re a little out of your depth here.

 

[kabbes]

This is not an argument against improving public transport. Rather, it's a case study which shows it's not enough to get people out of their cars. This is why we also need to actively make car travel less convenient where alternatives exist.

I certainly don’t disagree with that. Once public transport is sufficiently robust an option, there’s no need to avoid highly restrictive clamp-downs on car use (privately owned or otherwise). There will always be plenty of cases where avoiding use of cars is unrealistic, but their use would ideally be restricted to these cases, rather than the existence of extreme cases being used as an excuse for a general free-for-all

 

[platinumsage]

It has been, in Tallinn, and the results were similar. It got more people using public transport but it didn't cut car use.

The prospects of fare-free public transport: evidence from Tallinn - Transportation

The subsidy level of public transport systems varies considerably among systems worldwide. While limited-scale free-fare public transport (FFPT) services such as limited campaigns and fare evasion for special groups or specific services are prevalent, there is only limited evidence on the...

link.springer.com

It's the same reason why motorway widening leads to more traffic, bringing congestion back to where it was - people like to travel, it enables them to experience the world in a better way.

If you really want to cut transport use, you should probably start by taxing or outlawing away-from-home activities such as swimming pools, schools and concerts. Then tackle freight and business use by, for example, taxing home and business equipment based on the amount of on-site maintenance it requires. Triple NI for mobile sales staff. Hike up business rates, and tax hotel rooms. Measures such as these will help tackle the demand problem at the source, keeping the people in their villages and city apartments where they belong, and reducing the number of visits and visitors per person.

 

[maomao]

If you really want to cut transport use, you should probably start by taxing or outlawing away-from-home activities such as swimming pools, schools and concerts.

That would be silly. Most journeys are work related and it's work not leisure that needs to change. And instead of banning schools, change the rules so that children have to go their geographically nearest school and where possible travel on foot.

 

[two sheds]

They should have forgotten about HS2 and lain the rail tracks up the M1

 

[platinumsage]

That would be silly. Most journeys are work related and it's work not leisure that needs to change. And instead of banning schools, change the rules so that children have to go their geographically nearest school and where possible travel on foot.

Yes, restricting children's educational options is a great idea if you want to cut transport use. Basically the more important the reason for travel to a family or business, the greater the need to stamp out that reason.

 

[liquidindian]

You've convinced me, they should treble the cost of public transport and you mugs would still pay up.

You are Brian Souter and I claim my five pounds.

 

[maomao]

Yes, restricting children's educational options is a great idea if you want to cut transport use. Basically the more important the reason for travel to a family or business, the greater the need to stamp out that reason.

Yes, parental choice (it's rarely the kid's choice) in education is not a great thing. It ends up with motivated parents pushing their kids into outstanding schools and less attractive schools suffering as a result. Two birds with one stone.

 

[platinumsage]

Yes, parental choice (it's rarely the kid's choice) in education is not a great thing. It ends up with motivated parents pushing their kids into outstanding schools and less attractive schools suffering as a result. Two birds with one stone.

You realise motivated parents will just buy their way into locations where they can control the nearest school along with other motivated parents, while parents who can't afford or can't be arsed to do that will end up next to less attractive schools? Probably best to assign everyone to a suitable residence and then ban them from traveling elsewhere.

Teuchter makes an important point that encouraging public transport use isn't a solution. He argues for restricting car use, but again this would be neither as equitable nor effective as eliminating the desire or need to travel in the first place.

 

[liquidindian]

It's nice to see someone genuinely pleased with themselves, thinking that what they've done is good.

 

[kabbes]

I’m all for as much planning as possible based around encouraging people not to move aloud. It is particularly mad when people have schools in walking distance and instead send their kids to somewhere miles away. Mind you, I’m aware of the hypocrisy here of living somewhere a long way from my work. On the plus side, I’ve only been there three times in 20 months.

 

[teuchter]

It's the same reason why motorway widening leads to more traffic, bringing congestion back to where it was - people like to travel, it enables them to experience the world in a better way.

If you really want to cut transport use, you should probably start by taxing or outlawing away-from-home activities such as swimming pools, schools and concerts. Then tackle freight and business use by, for example, taxing home and business equipment based on the amount of on-site maintenance it requires. Triple NI for mobile sales staff. Hike up business rates, and tax hotel rooms. Measures such as these will help tackle the demand problem at the source, keeping the people in their villages and city apartments where they belong, and reducing the number of visits and visitors per person.

Although you think you have nailed this with a reductio ad absurdum, you just highlight the basic issue which is that yes you can't just allow an infinite amount of transport use because it's not possible.

That's why we should get as much travel onto efficient public transport modes rather than inefficient private transport modes. That way, for the same amount of land use/pollution/carbon emissions, more people can move around and do stuff that enhances their quality of life.

Allowing unrestricted private car use means that most of our transport capacity gets used up by a relatively small number of people, and in most cases relatively privileged people who can afford to sort out their own private means rather than relying on what's communally provided.

 

[kabbes]

This current point of discussion reminds me that it’s not just about provision of transport, either. Once upon a time, villages had schools, post offices, bobbies, shops and so on. Now we just have a series of houses called, “The Old School House”, “The Old Post Office”, “The Old Police House” and something that isn’t called “The Old Shop” but nevertheless is the old shop.