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

[Orang Utan]

Self-driving cars will soon be safer than pushbikes.

but still made out of much bigger lumps of metal

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Self-driving cars will soon be safer than pushbikes.

Self driving cars are potentially part of the solution. But only if they’re part of a centralised, shared system, not if they’re privately owned.

Also, they’re a lot longer off yet than some people seem to think. There’s huge leaps still to be made.

 

[Athos]

but still made out of much bigger lumps of metal

No, could be carbon fibre.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Self-driving cars will soon be safer than pushbikes.

Unless they're now making cars that are both lighter and slower than bicycles then the laws of physics beg to differ.

 

[A380]

I think we should ban cars and move to another form of personal transport.

 

[Orang Utan]

I think we should ban cars and move to another form of personal transport.

View attachment 211862

one for every person

 

[Athos]

Self driving cars are potentially part of the solution. But only if they’re part of a centralised, shared system, not if they’re privately owned.

Also, they’re a lot longer off yet than some people seem to think. There’s huge leaps still to be made.

Why not privately owned, if technology allowed them to safely travel extremely fast with little space between then, and with shared real- time data allowing optimal route planning?

Fully automated would mean we could use that time, too, to work or watch tv, or surf the web, whilst safely, comfortably, efficiently, cleanly, and quickly travelling door-to-door.

With the ever increasing rate of technological advancement, it won't be long. Just think how we've surpassed what seemed inconceivable, say, 20 years ago.

 

[Athos]

Unless they're now making cars that are both lighter and slower than bicycles then the laws of physics beg to differ.

No, if the driving tech means they avoid collisions then speed and mass are irrelevant.

 

[Cid]

Why not privately owned, if technology allowed them to safely travel extremely fast with little space between then, and with shared real- time data allowing optimal route planning?

Fully automated would mean we could use that time, too, to work or watch tv, or surf the web, whilst safely, comfortably, efficiently, cleanly, and quickly travelling door-to-door.

With the ever increasing rate of technological advancement, it won't be long. Just think how we've surpassed what seemed inconceivable, say, 20 years ago.

It becomes somewhat pointless to own your car. Already most of the more solvent tradespeople I know are switching to lease arrangements* - means you have a single monthly outgoing with service, tax etc included in that price. You are effectively arguing away your own point on this one, because having efficient self-drive systems will make huge changes to infrastructure more viable (e.g you can have a small, modular 'car' that links into a much faster intercity transport system).

*business hire contract systems which are substantially different from a consumer buying a car on a lease basis.

 

[Athos]

It becomes somewhat pointless to own your car. Already most of the more solvent tradespeople I know are switching to lease arrangements* - means you have a single monthly outgoing with service, tax etc included in that price. You are effectively arguing away your own point on this one, because having efficient self-drive systems will make huge changes to infrastructure more viable (e.g you can have a small, modular 'car' that links into a much faster intercity transport system).

*business hire contract systems which are substantially different from a consumer buying a car on a lease basis.

I think you're splitting hairs with the distiction between owned and leased vehicles; the significant point is having sole control. But, maybe if there was a sufficently large fleet of shareable vehicles that one was always near instantly available, and the relative costs made sense, that model would make sense. And yes, an integrated system of cars (for local travel particularly in rural settings) that meshes well with other solutions for longer distance travel might be a solution. My point is that, with a bit of imagination, cars can be part of the answer; they're not necessarily the problem - particularly as they become safer and greener.

 

[WouldBe]

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.

Wouldn't that result in more pollution? Someone has to drive from wherever they are to come and pick you up, then take you to where you want to go, then dive back to where they came from. When you want to go home the same has to happen resulting in more miles traveled and more pollution than if you were to drive yourself.

 

[deeyo]

I've been to a fair few places where cars are either banned outright (towns and villages in the Alps for example) or legally restricted (Mexico City) or socially engineered to be pretty pointless (Milan).

Enjoy them while you can boys. Their days are numbered.

Milan has about .5 cars per capita, compared with .3 for london. Italy is one of the most motorized countrys in the world at .72
Mexico has a expanding motor fleet .3 growing at about 7 %/year. Greater Mexico city, pop 21 mill, has gone from about 3.1 mill cars 2000 to 9.6 mill 2018 - thats a yearly growth around 16.7 %. Mexico city is considered the most traffic-congested town in the world. Milan is one of europes most polluted cities.
These are car crashes, not good examples - although i suppose its possible to learn from disasters and the handling of them.
I couldnt find any reliable statistics on car-free towns and cities in the alps...

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.

Your long term goal is to ban private cars from the planet. I can agree with that, property is theft and so on. I suppose we still will need some vehicles - ambulances, fire squads, trucks, buses etc. Where would that leave us re cars per capita? .18 - the worldwide number of today? More? Less?
What would be your short and medium term goals, for the UK and the world? Starting from today with 73 million cars produced yearly and 1.3 billion vehicles on the roads, car travel making up 85 % of all distance travelled in UK, .62 cars per capita - where will we be in 5, 10, 20 years?

And how do you intend to get there?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Why not privately owned, if technology allowed them to safely travel extremely fast with little space between then, and with shared real- time data allowing optimal route planning?

Fully automated would mean we could use that time, too, to work or watch tv, or surf the web, whilst safely, comfortably, efficiently, cleanly, and quickly travelling door-to-door.

With the ever increasing rate of technological advancement, it won't be long. Just think how we've surpassed what seemed inconceivable, say, 20 years ago.

Because if they're privately owned and single occupancy you're not reducing the numbers. So we still have the same issues around parking them, storing them, providing roads for them that takes away space for other use.

Shared autonomous vehicles could be part of the solution. But only if they're more akin to buses or large taxis. The moment you have a single person sat in one for the majority of trips it's failed.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Wouldn't that result in more pollution? Someone has to drive from wherever they are to come and pick you up, then take you to where you want to go, then dive back to where they came from. When you want to go home the same has to happen resulting in more miles traveled and more pollution than if you were to drive yourself.

If they're only driving you, then maybe. But they might be taking you and several others, or they might take you just part of the way, to somewhere you can access other forms of transport. Flexibility is the key. If it's two people, send a car and if it's ten send a minibus. Chuck a bike rack on the back if someone just wants taking to a point at which they can safely or comfortably cycle the rest of the way.

 

[WouldBe]

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?

What about the scale difference between a bike and a bus?

 

[T & P]

I like how the millions of hire cars, car club vehicles, taxis, minicabs, buses, and commercial vehicles in the UK are so technology advanced they no longer conform to the laws of physics and have no measurable mass, meaning they cause no harm whatsoever in case of a collision, to either their occupants or other road users. If only we could banish privately-owned cars from cities, there’d be no more road injuries and deaths evah.

 

[8ball]

Shared autonomous vehicles could be part of the solution. But only if they're more akin to buses or large taxis. The moment you have a single person sat in one for the majority of trips it's failed.

Certainly if you have thousands on the roads each with one person in making the same trip back and forth five times a week.

 

[SpookyFrank]

What about the scale difference between a bike and a bus?

Well the differences between a car and a bus work out in favour of the bus when you divide by the number of people transported. And for single-occupant journeys, bikes obviously beat cars for environmental impact. There's not much sense in comparing a bus to a bicycle because they serve entirely different purposes.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I like how the millions of hire cars, car club vehicles, taxis, minicabs, buses, and commercial vehicles in the UK are so technology advanced they no longer conform to the laws of physics and have no measurable mass, meaning they cause no harm whatsoever in case of a collision, to either their occupants or other road users. If only we could banish privately-owned cars from cities, there’d be no more road injuries and deaths evah.

Ah yes, the old "we can't eliminate all deaths so let's not bother eliminating any of them" argument. Excellent.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I like how the millions of hire cars, car club vehicles, taxis, minicabs, buses, and commercial vehicles in the UK are so technology advanced they no longer conform to the laws of physics and have no measurable mass, meaning they cause no harm whatsoever in case of a collision, to either their occupants or other road users. If only we could banish privately-owned cars from cities, there’d be no more road injuries and deaths evah.

I like how nobody said anything of the sort.

 

[Athos]

Because if they're privately owned and single occupancy you're not reducing the numbers. So we still have the same issues around parking them, storing them, providing roads for them that takes away space for other use.

Shared autonomous vehicles could be part of the solution. But only if they're more akin to buses or large taxis. The moment you have a single person sat in one for the majority of trips it's failed.

If the tech allows them to drive bumper to bumper at high speed, they'd take up nothing like the same space. And if you knew you'd be at work for eight hours, you could send it home, to park on your drive until you need it for the return journey. If it's using clean renewable energy, the extra mileage wouldn't be a problem. You need to think about what cars could be, rather than just what they are now.

 

[8ball]

If the tech allows them to drive bumper to bumper at high speed, they'd take up nothing like the same space.

I think the chance of such tech emerging before a major immediate environmental crisis is negligible.

 

[T & P]

I like how nobody said anything of the sort.

Well, that’s the impression one might get giving the numerous posts going on about (privately owned cars) causing so much death, injury and disability about, in a thread that advocate ban of privately owned cars.

 

[8ball]

Well, that’s the impression one might get giving the numerous posts going on about (privately owned cars) causing so much death, injury and disability about, in a thread that advocate ban of privately owned cars.

Surely its only the impression an idiot might get.

 

[WouldBe]

Stuff like this could help make the countryside a more viable place for younger people to live.

Biggest problem is rich twats buying main houses or worse still holiday homes pricing the locals out of the market.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

If the tech allows them to drive bumper to bumper at high speed, they'd take up nothing like the same space. And if you knew you'd be at work for eight hours, you could send it home, to park on your drive until you need it for the return journey. If it's using clean renewable energy, the extra mileage wouldn't be a problem. You need to think about what cars could be, rather than just what they are now.

In other words, you need high speed roads that by definition will cut off areas from pedestrian/cycle/mixed access. And you have large numbers of vehicles that require storage space, not everyone has a driveway. You're papering over cracks.

So yes, think what cars could be. Rather than simply removing the flesh bag behind the wheel of what we currently have.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Biggest problem is rich twats buying main houses or worse still holiday homes pricing the locals out of the market.

I'm hopeful this current shitshow will at least throw a temporary spanner in the works of the holiday let market.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Well, that’s the impression one might get giving the numerous posts going on about (privately owned cars) causing so much death, injury and disability about, in a thread that advocate ban of privately owned cars.

I'm thinking about ways to reduce the number of cars on the roads in aboslute terms, without leaving anyone stranded. Or rather, leaving fewer people stranded than the current car-centric orthodoxy already does. It's not just mass and velocity that affects accident risk, it's also traffic density. It's the amount of space where cars are the default and which are therefore inherently dangerous to any human not in a car.

Also a reduced number of cars reduces air pollution, nose pollution, and what I'll call 'space pollution' for the sake of completing the set; basically arseholes parking on the pavement and similar phenomena.

 

[Athos]

In other words, you need high speed roads that by definition will cut off areas from pedestrian/cycle/mixed access. And you have large numbers of vehicles that require storage space, not everyone has a driveway. You're papering over cracks.

So yes, think what cars could be. Rather than simply removing the flesh bag behind the wheel of what we currently have.

They could cruise around less busy areas; wouldn't need static storage space.

Technology might well solve a lot of the problems of the current system, without the downside of the lack of flexibility and convenience of public transport. To rule out privately owned cars as part of the solution at this stage is crazy.

 

[WouldBe]

I'm hopeful this current shitshow will at least throw a temporary spanner in the works of the holiday let market.

I wasn't thinking of holiday let's I was thinking of the holiday home that's occupied for a couple of weeks a year and is stood empty the rest of the time.