Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Anyone know anything about the fatal collision by the Post Office on the afternoon of Saturday 3rd September?

B9BD6814-57BF-4D69-9EF9-EF1FECF0805B.jpeg
 
Remember: if you in any way defend car use, it's as good as admitting you're one of the most massive Royalists in the UK and absolutely in line with the royal family and an apologist for everything bad any of them ever do, including in the future.

 
Remember: if you in any way defend car use, it's as good as admitting you're one of the most massive Royalists in the UK and absolutely in line with the royal family and an apologist for everything bad any of them ever do, including in the future.


While mourning her late majesty of blessed and glorious memory, it might be worth noting that an elected head of state in the UK would be driven about in a massive Audi. If you're a republican you're endorsing Audi drivers and the promotion of Audis to the populace, and everyone knows Audi drivers cause far more harm to vulnerable road users per mile than JLR drivers. In fact, anti-royal sentiment is basically worse than anti-cycle sentiment when it comes to road safety.

 
Last edited:
While mourning her late majesty of blessed and glorious memory, it might be worth noting that an elected head of state in the UK would be driven about in a massive Audi. If you're a republican you're endorsing Audi drivers and the promotion of Audis to the populace, and everyone knows Audi drivers cause far more harm to vulnerable road users per mile than JLR drivers. In fact, anti-royal sentiment is basically worse then anti-cycle sentiment when it comes to road safety.

This myth about Audi drivers is just one put about by other drivers to make themselves feel better about their terrible driving.
 
While mourning her late majesty of blessed and glorious memory, it might be worth noting that an elected head of state in the UK would be driven about in a massive Audi.

This would not be the case if I were elected head of state in which case the entire transportation budget would be redirected to converting the royal train into a touring re-education facility which would continue the work of this thread.
 
This would not be the case if I were elected head of state in which case the entire transportation budget would be redirected to converting the royal train into a touring re-education facility which would continue the work of this thread.
You'd be the first resident of any such mobile re-education camp
 
Doesn’t seem like this nice polite van driver is quite up on his Highway Code. I suspect he’d appreciate regular retesting to help him improve as a driver.

 
Why do cyclists end up hating most drivers? Because most of them are exactly like this twat.

Most, maybe. But not all.

I was riding home last night and, going through Leamington Spa, I was approaching traffic lights (on red) at some road works. The lights turned green as I approached and as I wasn't hanging about I took the primary position to prevent some guy behind who I could hear accelerating to try to pass me.

After another junction and a good few hundred yards down the road (I really wasn't hanging around) a vehicle pulls alongside me, the driver winds the window down and he shouts "Sorry mate, I misjudged that" before accelerating away.

Made me very happy 😍
 
Most, maybe. But not all.

I was riding home last night and, going through Leamington Spa, I was approaching traffic lights (on red) at some road works. The lights turned green as I approached and as I wasn't hanging about I took the primary position to prevent some guy behind who I could hear accelerating to try to pass me.

After another junction and a good few hundred yards down the road (I really wasn't hanging around) a vehicle pulls alongside me, the driver winds the window down and he shouts "Sorry mate, I misjudged that" before accelerating away.

Made me very happy 😍

I hope you called him a cunt?
 
graphic showing the level of street traffic and it's effect on social interaction
 
Not many women posting anti-car propaganda on this thread I've noticed...

The author of that article seems to have an impressive record on getting things right.


So why would Russia even think of invading? And if it did, would it be a full invasion to take Kiev and bring all of Ukraine back into Russia’s strategic fold, or an occupation of just the mainly Russian-speaking Donbass? Or is Russia just sabre-rattling in the hope of somehow forcing the Kiev government and / or its Western backers to the negotiating table? There has been no clarity whatsoever on this score.


Quite simply, an invasion, and a winter invasion at that, makes no sense. The last thing Russia wants or needs is more territory. It can be argued that there was a strategic imperative for Moscow to annex Crimea – to secure its warm-water base at Sevastopol and its hinterland, which it saw as possibly falling into NATO hands. There is no such imperative to take the Donbass; it would be an unstable drain on Russia’s resources for the foreseeable future. Russia’s prime need is for a stable border region.
 
I deliberately chose an article from such a publisher to see if everyone would studiously ignore the substance of the argument, which of course they did, as I predicted.
 
I deliberately chose an article from such a publisher to see if everyone would studiously ignore the substance of the argument, which of course they did, as I predicted.

The substance of the article is bullshit. I read it, however the clue was that it was posted at spiked.
 
I deliberately chose an article from such a publisher to see if everyone would studiously ignore the substance of the argument, which of course they did, as I predicted.
I read it as well and it’s as worthwhile as everything else published on Spiked. If you’d actually wanted to discuss the content you might have said something about it rather than just posting a link. But arguing cars are feminist because they allow women to pick the kids up from school and look after their elderly relatives isn’t the strong feminist argument you obviously think it is.
 
I read it as well and it’s as worthwhile as everything else published on Spiked. If you’d actually wanted to discuss the content you might have said something about it rather than just posting a link. But arguing cars are feminist because they allow women to pick the kids up from school and look after their elderly relatives isn’t the strong feminist argument you obviously think it is.

Nicely mansplained. :oldthumbsup:
 
I read it as well and it’s as worthwhile as everything else published on Spiked. If you’d actually wanted to discuss the content you might have said something about it rather than just posting a link. But arguing cars are feminist because they allow women to pick the kids up from school and look after their elderly relatives isn’t the strong feminist argument you obviously think it is.

It flies contrary to literally every article I've read on this matter;


To decarbonise transport and democratise the right to safe mobility, our transport systems
must be inclusive and sustainable. This paper discusses four key structural factors that
create gender disparities in transport systems and must be addressed to decarbonise
transport in a just and inclusive way: access to economic resources and free time, car-centric
policy and planning, safety and accessibility, and the technocratic paradigm in transport.
The gendered division of domestic and caring responsibilities means women make more
frequent, short journeys throughout the day, whereas men make fewer but longer journeys
during peak hours. However, transport systems are designed to optimise peak-hour long
distance radial journeys into city centres, which reflects a male bias.
Bus deregulation has
also disproportionately disadvantaged women, who rely more on buses and walking due to
reduced economic resources.
The absence of robust public transport networks and car-centric policy and planning,
especially in towns and rural areas, has created ‘transport deserts,’ where driving is the only
practical way to travel. However, women, BAME people, disabled people and people with
lower incomes are less likely to own a car, which constrains their ability to participate in
public life


Moreover, the research showed that the “mobility of care” (Sánchez de Madariaga, 2009, 2013), a concept
developed by Inés Sánchez de Madariaga referring to the trips related to household and caregiving
activities, is one of the main reasons to travel for women. Women surveyed spent, on average, 42% of
their total commuting time on a typical week on the mobility of care. Additionally, the study confirmed
that women caregivers have a more substantial dependence on public transportation. For instance, out of
total surveyed caregivers between 25 and 50 years old, 75% use public transportation (mostly the bus)
when taking or accompanying someone to the doctor, while others use private or non-motorised
transportation, according to a forthcoming report from IADB. Caregivers participating in the study also
highlighted the poor quality of public transportation services, which is usually evidenced in overcrowding,
non-operating electric stairs, lack of baby changers in the restrooms, and non-existent infrastructure to
travel with strollers, wheelchairs and groceries bags.
Another study conducted in Mexico City confirmed that the infrastructure to access public transportation
also lacks a gender perspective. Moreover, it is not tailored to facilitate the mobility of care (Soto Villagrán,
2019). This research, conducted with the support of the TGL, was focused on assessing the travel needs of
women using three Modal Transfer Centres of the city (CETRAM for its acronym in Spanish), where most
of the transfers between transit modes occur. Based on the mobility barriers identified, the authors
proposed a CETRAM design that put women at the centre. Safety, security, urban accessibility and the
mobility of care are the guiding principles for improving the infrastructure of the CETRAM. Family
bathrooms with baby-changing stations, panic buttons, protected pedestrian crossings, wide spaces to
walk and free of obstacles, development of rest and recreation areas, well-lit and clean infrastructure,


Generally, when compared to men, women show different
travel patterns, characterized as mobility of care. Women tend
to take more and shorter trips, at more varied times. They
use public transport and walk more than men and tend to
make more non-work related trips, traveling to more disperse
locations.
Many trips women have to make on a daily basis,
especially trips to accompany children to and from school, are
fixed in space and time and therefore restrict the possibilities
of women to take on (formal) work, since it pre-structures
their day and only leaves time-windows of a few hours (as
found by Mark, 2017 for Buenos Aires)

As income-generating (productive) trips are more valued
than care-based (reproductive) trips, men usually get access
to motorized transport – both mass and individual – before
women, underpinning a gender imbalance. Thus, the
majority of women especially in the developing world has
to walk or use informal transport and public transport to
fulfil their transport needs, and typically, this influences
their transport horizons.
There is little difference between the way women use public
transport in the developing and the developed world. When
Transport for London (TfL) collected disaggregated data
for their TfL Gender Plan (2007 - 2010), they found that
women without children used trains and the subway more
often, while the majority especially those with children
were considered to be ‘heavy’ users of buses, making 25
per cent of their journeys by bus (see TfL Gender Equality
Scheme). Women use buses in London more, partly because
of cost, but also because of the proximity of the bus stops
to a journey`s beginning and end, the directness of routes,
speed and convenience. However, this may not be out of
choice.

For example, 28% of women walk to work compared to 14% of
men; only 7% of women commute by car as compared to 20%
of men; and 10% of women use transport provided by the
workplace as compared to 20% of men
(World Bank. 1997).
Women’s waiting times are longer than men’s and their
average total journey time is 10 to 15% greater. Women were
also found to have lower incomes. Therefore, improvements
in public transportation, and particularly, in bus and trolley
services were seen to directly serve the needs of women.
 
Back
Top Bottom