Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

platinumsage said:
Not really, cars loose value the more they're driven. If they're used 24/7 they will be scrapped well before they otherwise would have been.

Anyway, are all the rooms in your home used at all times, or are you so wasteful as to sequest rooms for your family's exclusive use that are empty 95% of the time. Have you propsed your street has a single shared toilet for example, allowing you all to convert your bathrooms to sleeping accomodation for those in need?
Click to expand...
The footprint of my bathroom is smaller than the space needed to park a car. About a third of the size. Not only that, but because it's in a multistorey building it's stacked above two other rooms (another bathroom and a small bedroom) that don't belong to me and on top of it is a small roof area which is essentially the only private outdoor amenity space available to my household. So I would describe the land footprint of the bathroom as being more intensively used than, as well as being smaller than, that needed to park a car.

This is fairly typical of properties on my street.

Therefore I feel perfectly comfortable suggesting that parking spaces on the public road are put over to communal use (a well proven concept), than impractical proposals such as shared public toilets which would of course be discriminatory to those with various medical needs or disabilities.

I hope this answers your question.
 
teuchter said:
The footprint of my bathroom is smaller than the space needed to park a car. About a third of the size. Not only that, but because it's in a multistorey building it's stacked above two other rooms (another bathroom and a small bedroom) that don't belong to me and on top of it is a small roof area which is essentially the only private outdoor amenity space available to my household. So I would describe the land footprint of the bathroom as being more intensively used than, as well as being smaller than, that needed to park a car.

This is fairly typical of properties on my street.

Therefore I feel perfectly comfortable suggesting that parking spaces on the public road are put over to communal use (a well proven concept), than impractical proposals such as shared public toilets which would of course be discriminatory to those with various medical needs or disabilities.

I hope this answers your question.
Click to expand...

Land footprint is only a minor consideration. Think more about the construction and maintenance cost in terms of CO2 and other pollutants, together with the heating required etc

A small flat might be 120 cubic metres, but a person only 1.7 cubic metres. This means a family of four would leave at least 95% of their home unutilised at all times, even if they never leave it.
 
platinumsage said:
Land footprint is only a minor consideration. Think more about the construction and maintenance cost in terms of CO2 and other pollutants, together with the heating required etc

A small flat might be 120 cubic metres, but a person only 1.7 cubic metres. This means a family of four would leave at least 95% of their home unutilised at all times, even if they never leave it.
Click to expand...
Given that cars tend to spend much of their time carrying one or two passengers during the 5% of the time they are in motion, yet have a volume that could accomodate say 8 to 10 humans if packed to leave the minimum possible number of air pockets, we can see that the land necessary to accommodate your hypothetical house is being utilised considerably more efficiently than the land necessary to accommodate the vehicle, which includes space beyond its normal parking location.
 
teuchter said:
Given that cars tend to spend much of their time carrying one or two passengers during the 5% of the time they are in motion, yet have a volume that could accomodate say 8 to 10 humans if packed to leave the minimum possible number of air pockets, we can see that the land necessary to accommodate your hypothetical house is being utilised considerably more efficiently than the land necessary to accommodate the vehicle, which includes space beyond its normal parking location.
Click to expand...

Nah, a car is about 13m3, an average UK house about 109m3, a person 1.7m3.

I'll generously allow you that the entire car volume is wasted when not driven, 95% of the time, and the entire house volume wasted when unoccupied, say 5% of the time. When in use the non-human-containing portion of each is wasted.

A family of four with two cars, each car driven 5% of the time by one person, would leave 25.83m3 of wasted car space and 102.54m3 of wasted house space.
 
edcraw said:
BuT yOu CaNt MoVe A gIaNt DoDo By CaRgO bIkE!!1!1!!111!

Click to expand...


Yes, looks like a way to circumvent the provisions of Section 40A(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which only applies to trailers drawn by motor vehicles. Hopefully if such idiocy persists the law will be updated.
 
platinumsage said:
Nah, a car is about 13m3, an average UK house about 109m3, a person 1.7m3.

I'll generously allow you that the entire car volume is wasted when not driven, 95% of the time, and the entire house volume wasted when unoccupied, say 5% of the time. When in use the non-human-containing portion of each is wasted.

A family of four with two cars, each car driven 5% of the time by one person, would leave 25.83m3 of wasted car space and 102.54m3 of wasted house space.
Click to expand...
In other words, by your metrics, "car space" is 25.83/26.0 = 99.3% wasted and "house space" is 85.4% wasted.

So it's a no-brainer to get rid of car space altogether because it's as good as 100% wasted.

Or, seeing as so much house space is unused, why not let car owners use some of it to store their cars, instead of using up the public street outside. Non-car owners can their house space to store their own choice of luxury non essential items such as chairs, beds, washing machines and so forth.
 
teuchter said:
In other words, by your metrics, "car space" is 25.83/26.0 = 99.3% wasted and "house space" is 85.4% wasted.

So it's a no-brainer to get rid of car space altogether because it's as good as 100% wasted.

Or, seeing as so much house space is unused, why not let car owners use some of it to store their cars, instead of using up the public street outside. Non-car owners can their house space to store their own choice of luxury non essential items such as chairs, beds, washing machines and so forth.
Click to expand...

The volume of wasted house space per family is greater than the volume of wasted car space. To waste less space than owning two cars, a family of four in an average-sized house would need to downsize to a house one quarter of the size.

Anyone advocating car abolishment on space grounds alone would find much more space amenable for liberating by focusing on housing. The fact you choose to focus solely on cars means you don't actually care about space utilisation.
 
farmerbarleymow said:
Are you sure the volume of a human is 1.7 cubic metres? This suggests the mean volume is 65 litres, which is nowhere near your figure. We're mostly made of water so your figure would mean a typical human would weigh ~1.7 tonnes.
Click to expand...

You're correct of course, I was so outraged by teuchter's flawed reasoning that I plucked the 1.7m2 surface area figure from the table instead of the correct 0.0664m3 one. This minor error does however have the effect of making my point even more valid.
 
platinumsage said:
You're correct of course, I was so outraged by teuchter's flawed reasoning that I plucked the 1.7m2 surface area figure from the table instead of the correct 0.0664m3 one.
Click to expand...
You also got in a right muddle between m3 and m2 for cars and houses when you did your nonsense calculations, which is why I included the disclaimer "by your metrics" in my reply.
 
I note that no one has yet attempted their own set of calculations to prove me wrong…

Obviously this is because I’m correct and excessive housing space is far more of a problem than excessive car space when considering the environmental impact of humans.
 
If this is about the forthcoming BBC documentary on climate change, transport and housing, which some will no doubt call propaganda, I’d rather wait until it airs to get the satisfaction that my argument on the topic has received widespread endorsement from serious environmentalists, so thanks for using the spoiler tags.
 
There are actually people in cars. Cars aren't enemy robots. "Prioritsing people" means prioritising people in cars as well as those not in cars.

It would be lovley if all of London including the roads, useless office buildings, stupid retail outlets and ugly housing blocks were all turned into parks, but then it would be a park and not a city.
 
platinumsage said:
There are actually people in cars. Cars aren't enemy robots. "Prioritsing people" means prioritising people in cars as well as those not in cars.

It would be lovley if all of London including the roads, useless office buildings, stupid retail outlets and ugly housing blocks were all turned into parks, but then it would be a park and not a city.
Click to expand...
Same people moaned about closing north side of Trafalgar Sq & The Strand as Aldwych - both v successful. No understanding that things could possibly be improved and very easy to ignore.

If you think round Wellington Arch is working well you’re madder than I had you down for Nads.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yossarian
Entirely unashamed ant car propaganda
Replies
7
Views
436
dessiato
dessiato
ska invita
Car diagnostic computer scanners
Replies
8
Views
351
mauvais
mauvais
A
First car / how do people afford cars when in low paid work?
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Chz
Chz
kebabking
Car buying websites?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
colacubes
colacubes
danny la rouge
Car insurance rocketing
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
4K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
Back
Top Bottom