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

[SpookyFrank]

This is the point. I live in a city that is very well-served by public transport and didn't have a car for nearly 2 decades living here (was very lucky to be given one at a time when it became useful due to personal circumstances).

Where I live at the moment, I'd happily move to a model where you can pay a reasonable subscription or fee or whatever and jump in a nearby car to pick up something heavy, go off for a bit or whatever, but transferring that to rural areas (or even a shitload of urban areas) isn't easy.

In less densely populated areas it makes more sense to use the money that currently gets spent on cars to fund a pool of drivers/vehicles covering a particular area. You phone up, someone comes and picks you up and either takes you wherever you're going or drops you off at a place where you can access the wider public transport network. These services, formal and informal versions, exist for older people and disabled people already. It's just a question of scale.

 

[8ball]

In less densely populated areas it makes more sense to use the money that currently gets spent on cars to fund a pool of drivers/vehicles covering a particular area. You phone up, someone comes and picks you up and either takes you wherever you're going or drops you off at a place where you can access the wider public transport network. These services, formal and informal versions, exist for older people and disabled people already. It's just a question of scale.

I believe taxis also take the young and/or able-bodied.

edited last bit due to sleepiness

 

[Winot]

I think it'd make sense if the financial costs to motorists refect the true social cost of chosing to drive when there are trutly adequate alternatives.

Yes this should absolutely be the case. Social and environmental costs. It would see the cost of motoring rocket.

 

[8ball]

Yes this should absolutely be the case. Social and environmental costs. It would see the cost of motoring rocket.

Certainly easier than making public transport cheaper.

 

[maomao]

So you admit that hi-vis makes a difference?

I haven't commented on high viz, I've been talking solely about car safety. There's no point talking about cycling on these boards because three or four posters use it as an excuse to sling abuse.

 

[Athos]

Yes this should absolutely be the case. Social and environmental costs. It would see the cost of motoring rocket.

But it's important that it only applies when people choose to drive over a viable alternative. And it's not unproblematic insofar as the inequality it would exacerbate.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I believe taxis also take the young and/or able-bodied.

edited last bit due to sleepiness

They're cripplingly expensive in rural areas and unreliable. Exactly what kind of thing works would depend very much on the area. If you've got lots of people going to a certain workplace for example, it would make sense for there to be a dedicated service, with pick up points based on where the people who need that service live rather than where 'people in general' live.

 

[Winot]

But it's important that it only applies when people choose to drive over a viable alternative. And it's not unproblematic insofar as the inequality it would exacerbate.

That was quick

 

[WouldBe]

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.

I don't know what bike brakes are made of but I think you'll find that busses, lorries, trams and trains all have brakes.

Busses, lorries and bikes all have tyres. They also tend to move.

 

[Spymaster]

There's no point talking about cycling on these boards because three or four posters use it as an excuse to sling abuse.

Nah. There's a whole cycle chat thread and others that are left completely alone. It's only these trolling ones that get the treatment.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I don't know what bike brakes are made of but I think you'll find that busses, lorries, trams and trains all have brakes.

Busses, lorries and bikes all have tyres. They also tend to move.

Can you think of any kind of difference in scale, both of material use and energy transfer, that might apply to the tyres and brakes of bicycles relative to those of cars?

 

[teuchter]

Hmmm... still seems a bit light on any real detail.

You weren't asking about detail - you were claiming that my suggestion was that we should just ban private cars without thinking about and providing alternatives. Your claim was wrong. We can talk about detail if you want. It's already been done in many towns and cities and you can look at those examples if you have a genuine interest in what effective strategies are, in detail terms.

 

[teuchter]

Can you think of any kind of difference in scale, both of material use and energy transfer, that might apply to the tyres and brakes of bicycles relative to those of cars?

In any case, if you can electrify cars you can also electrify buses etc. So the change of energy type (whilst welcome in both cases) doesn't give the car any additional advantage over the bus, compared to how things currently stand.

 

[teuchter]

I haven't commented on high viz, I've been talking solely about car safety. There's no point talking about cycling on these boards because three or four posters use it as an excuse to sling abuse.

I don't think they really detract, they just provide caricatures alongside those who try to argue those kinds of points in all seriousness, and help them lose the argument.

 

[dessiato]

Let's not forget car accidents are a leading cause of disability in the first place eh.

Seriously? Can you back this up with empirical evidence, please?

 

[8ball]

Seriously? Can you back this up with empirical evidence, please?

Possibly acquired disability not related to long-term illness.

 

[WouldBe]

IF I start commuting by bike in London again I will be wearing a helmet but I won't be listening to advice from any motorist who isn't wearing a full crash helmet.

I think you'll find that cars have seat belts and air bags to limit injury to the driver and occupants.

 

[8ball]

They're cripplingly expensive in rural areas and unreliable. Exactly what kind of thing works would depend very much on the area. If you've got lots of people going to a certain workplace for example, it would make sense for there to be a dedicated service, with pick up points based on where the people who need that service live rather than where 'people in general' live.

Work buses you mean? That's certainly a reasonable idea if a lot of people live in one place and work in another.

 

[dessiato]

What colour is your car? And am I correct in remembering you drive a convertible? Do you wear a helmet when driving?

Yes I drive a convertible. I don't wear a helmet. Instead I have a windscreen which is higher than the top of my head and which has a built in roll over bar for my protection.

 

[Orang Utan]

Possibly acquired disability not related to long-term illness.

we are all 'disabled' at some point in our lives

 

[8ball]

I think you'll find that cars have seat belts and air bags to limit injury to the driver and occupants.

It's also true that if car occupants were required to wear helmets the amount of serious long-term injury from car accidents would be massively reduced.

 

[8ball]

we are all 'disabled' at some point in our lives

True (and kind of interesting in terms of how we view things), but nitpicking in terms of the assertion made.

 

[Athos]

You weren't asking about detail - you were claiming that my suggestion was that we should just ban private cars without thinking about and providing alternatives. Your claim was wrong. We can talk about detail if you want. It's already been done in many towns and cities and you can look at those examples if you have a genuine interest in what effective strategies are, in detail terms.

 

[maomao]

Possibly acquired disability not related to long-term illness.

Erm, rather obviously.

 

[Athos]

You weren't asking about detail - you were claiming that my suggestion was that we should just ban private cars without thinking about and providing alternatives. Your claim was wrong. We can talk about detail if you want. It's already been done in many towns and cities and you can look at those examples if you have a genuine interest in what effective strategies are, in detail terms.

No, but I suspect we disagree about sequencing of banning cars v providing alternatives, but whatever. Ok, let's talk specifics; what do you propose for rural areas, and what measure will be the trigger for banning cars there?

 

[8ball]

One nice thing about moving away from cars is that it would free up a hell of a lot of space.
I guess Amazon would need to deliver all their shit by air, though, which would have some environmental impact..

 

[maomao]

I think you'll find that cars have seat belts and air bags to limit injury to the driver and occupants.

People die in cars from head injuries daily.

 

[WouldBe]

Of course, all those of you championing hi viz and helmets on safety grounds are 100% behind blanket 20mph speed limits in city centre/urban areas, right? Because it’s all about safety, nothing else

I agree with that, possibly even lower than 20mph.

 

[Athos]

People die in cars from head injuries daily.

Still safer per mile travelled than a pushbike, by a massive margin.

 

[8ball]

Erm, rather obviously.

Good to be specific if you want to be taken seriously.