Athos
Well-Known Member
That's pretty much how pluralist societies accommodate all of our desires for personsl freedom. It's a give-and-take, finding the balance between letting people do what they want, and the harms that might cause.
Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
That’s complete bollocks. The fact that all cars have the potential to be dangerous is exactly why extra justification is necessary to decide what is used and when. The fact that all cars have the potential to be dangerous is why they shouldn’t be used recklessly. The fact that all cars are potentially dangerous is exactly why there is no excuse for cars to be on the public road that needlessly increase that potential danger.
You’re arguing that costs and benefits have to be weighed. I agree, and I’m saying that benefits that amount to “it’s fun” are laughably insufficient, when it comes to cars, for the costs associated with that “fun”
Athos
Well-Known Member
That's fair enough. Maybe one day that'll become the majority view, and there will be more and more restrictions on what cars people are allowed to drive. But that doesn't seem very likely to me in the short to medium term - if anything, the trend is in the opposite direction, with more people aspiring to drive cars capable of better and better performance.
The point of discussions is to challenge what is seen as “normal” in the hope of driving long-term change.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Good luck with it.
If it didn’t work, we’d still be living with the assumptions and norms of 500 years ago.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
I will be the first to admit that "contributory factor" is not the same as "was the vehicle speeding". But IME most accidents do occur at low speeds. It's just that the high speed ones are exceptionally dangerous.
liquidindian
Hello
Yes, you need to do that when you crash in a video game to get the full effect.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Of course it can work.
But many of the alternatives to the assumptions and norms of 500 years ago were bonkers, and widely rejected.
Time will tell how society reacts in this instance.
Note the use of the word “driving”. Not “sitting back and hoping others come to agree”. Not “let’s just see what the reaction is”
Athos
Well-Known Member
I did note it; my posts to that into account. I can't see anyone successfully driving such a change in the short to medium term.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
It's a shame you don't recognise the profound changes this thread is prompting in UK society.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
And it goes beyond safety as measured by deaths or injuries - aggressive driving (which includes but isn't limited to speeding) has a major impact on how streets and roads are perceived by pedestrians and cyclists (influencing journey choices), and on the general quality of life of anyone living on, or using them.I will be the first to admit that "contributory factor" is not the same as "was the vehicle speeding". But IME most accidents do occur at low speeds. It's just that the high speed ones are exceptionally dangerous.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I like the fact you can laugh at yourself.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
If only there was a simple 'work around' so that he wouldn't have to get a ticket.
a_chap
When the world came apart, where were you?
Everything’s fine…
www.theguardian.com
‘Entrenched car culture’ leaves millions of Britons in transport poverty
Study finds drivers spending up to a fifth of pre-tax income on running a car as lack of infrastructure deters people from cycling
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Bonkers.Everything’s fine…
View attachment 358881
‘Entrenched car culture’ leaves millions of Britons in transport poverty
Study finds drivers spending up to a fifth of pre-tax income on running a car as lack of infrastructure deters people from cycling
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
I’m sure all urbanites would agree that direct action that they don’t approve of is a very bad thing, and that people shouldn’t take the law into their own hands if they are wrong:
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
You’re tweeting conspiralunacy now, platinumsage
(Even worse, an antisemitic conspiraloon account)
(Even worse, an antisemitic conspiraloon account)
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
I‘ve never tweeted anything. And if we can’t lampoon conspiraloons what’s the point?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
You’ve posted a tweet from an antisemitic antivaxxing conspiraloon.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Yes.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Well don’t
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Why not? You think such content should be censored and not discussed on Urban?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
No, but I also don’t think you needed to post that as you could have easily posted that clip without also giving those loons a platform
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
No I couldn’t have easily posted it, and I wanted to highlight the nature of the debate in Oxford, there’s a big involvement of anti-vaxxers in the congestion charge protests - worth highlighting I think.
