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

[teuchter]

Oh sure, apart from the bit about, "cut down some woodland so people can park their cars there"

View attachment 262943

Looks like it's the old caff you need to take your wrath out on.

We both know that a load of the new stuff (like one of the new lakes and whatever other things are cropped out above) could have been put where the carpark is, and then a whole load of woodland could have been kept.
But no, the car parking is sacrosanct, and therefore the trees shall be sacrificed instead.

 

[Spymaster]

But no, the car parking is sacrosanct, and therefore the trees shall be sacrificed instead.

Correctly.

 

[Saul Goodman]

That is one of the most stupid posts I’ve ever seen on here

This is even piss poor as a parody.

I'm trying to beat teuchter at his own game.

 

[sleaterkinney]

If 1/3 of journeys are less than 2k, and even if you managed to convince 100% of those to switch to walking, cycling or public transport, it would still leave 2/3rds of all traffic journeys being longer than that distance, and they far less likely to switch.

The traffic on the stretch of the South Circular directly flanked by LTNs has got unspeakably worse since they were implemented. And that traffic is never going to go away- ever. So all we are achieving is condemning countless amounts of people (the residents along the road as much as the road users, lest we forget) to an eternity of increased traffic fumes and signficantly larger delays, so the lucky residents of some quirky residential triangle get extra tranquility on their already traffic-light streets, while the poor sods living along the main roads, including of course bus users and cyclists endure a semi-perpetual state of chock-a-block traffic. And make no mistake, car traffic will increase not decrese once the pandemic is fully over. Things will only get even worse.

There is a need for reduce car usage and we should aim to do so, but this is not the way to do it. Not when it creates a set of problems on its own and make conditions and quality of life worse for a great many people and is doomed to have a limited effect on vehicle journeys in London anyway.

Don’t you get it. If you get a 100% of them to switch then that’s a third of car traffic off the roads. If you took out all car journeys less than 3k then that’s almost half of the traffic. There would be no congestion at all.

 

[David Clapson]

I know some contributors to this thread think the whole "let's get rid of cars" thing is a kind of fringe lunatic thing. They won't be laughing for long. The guys over at railforums.co.uk are already drawing up a list of roads to shut down.

Beeching Plan 2021: roads to close

Perhaps this should be under speculation, mods feel free to move it. Beeching closing railways is often mentioned here, but what about a Beeching Road report, identifying roads that could be closed? Drove by Shrewsbury and Worcester recently after a few years absence, both seem to have bypasses...

www.railforums.co.uk

How would people outside cities manage without cars?

 

[Saul Goodman]

How would people outside cities manage without cars?

Nobody lives outside cities in teuchter's world. Everybody lives in a nice gated complex in London.

 

[teuchter]

How would people outside cities manage without cars?

In what scenario?

 

[David Clapson]

In the "cars have been got rid of scenario". Presumably the environmental lobby have given this some thought. We hear a lot about urban transport solutions, but not so much about people in rural areas. They often have a 10+ mile drive to local amenities. I can't see bicycles and/or buses as much of a solution.

 

[teuchter]

In the "cars have been got rid of scenario". Presumably the environmental lobby have given this some thought. We hear a lot about urban transport solutions, but not so much about people in rural areas. They often have a 10+ mile drive to local amenities. I can't see bicycles and/or buses as much of a solution.

You can read the first few pages of this thread which I think links to some other threads too which should answer your questions.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I don't care about people who don't live in cities

CFY

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Don’t you get it. If you get a 100% of them to switch then that’s a third of car traffic off the roads. If you took out all car journeys less than 3k then that’s almost half of the traffic. There would be no congestion at all.

Empty roads encourage speeding, you monster.

 

[David Clapson]

You can read the first few pages of this thread which I think links to some other threads too which should answer your questions.

Ok, I've read them. The only reasonable rural car-free solution I can envisage is summoning a shared/hired autonomous vehicle whenever you have an errand. Has anyone modelled the cost and practicality of this? I'm interested to know how it would compare with people in rural areas owning their own self-drive or autonomous vehicle and parking it at home and all of their many destinations.

If the shared/hired fleet had vehicles of varying sizes, a solo journey could be done in a roofed/cabin two wheeler. That would be sufficient for most trips, so you'd make a huge saving in energy/resources/impact compared to the usual 5-seater-with-boot-personal vehicle. But it all sounds a bit Flash Gordon to me. I can't envisage it happening for several decades. And would the numbers make much sense?

I've always thought that roofed/cabin two wheelers also have massive potential in urban settings, especially if they're autonomous. But you never hear about them. For the last 34 years Peraves cabin motorcycles have been achieving astonishingly high average speeds with low fuel consumption. Only a handful of people have them. They're expensive to buy and need a lot of skill to drive. But if they were autonomous they could be a massive game changer. There are already experimental motorcycles which can drive themselves and, unlike the Peraves, stay upright when stationary.

Peraves:

 

[MickiQ]

The idea of shared autonomous vehicles has some merit but they still raise questions. Shared as in they don't belong to you but will come exclusively for you and yours. Shared in the sense that you would be expected to share journeys with other people. That would be more environmentally friendly and some people would be fine with it but probably not so if you were a woman on her own.
Summoning a robotaxi to take you home on a Saturday night sounds great but how long would people be prepared to wait. As a father of teenage girls I have more than once picked up the phone to hear someone say "Dad I can't get a taxi please can you come and get me"
Would you prepared to have one that someone has just thrown up in?

 

[Elpenor]

I know some contributors to this thread think the whole "let's get rid of cars" thing is a kind of fringe lunatic thing. They won't be laughing for long. The guys over at railforums.co.uk are already drawing up a list of roads to shut down.

Beeching Plan 2021: roads to close

Perhaps this should be under speculation, mods feel free to move it. Beeching closing railways is often mentioned here, but what about a Beeching Road report, identifying roads that could be closed? Drove by Shrewsbury and Worcester recently after a few years absence, both seem to have bypasses...

www.railforums.co.uk

I believe this is called “crayonism”

 

[Saul Goodman]

The idea of shared autonomous vehicles has some merit but they still raise questions. Shared as in they don't belong to you but will come exclusively for you and yours. Shared in the sense that you would be expected to share journeys with other people. That would be more environmentally friendly and some people would be fine with it but probably not so if you were a woman on her own.
Summoning a robotaxi to take you home on a Saturday night sounds great but how long would people be prepared to wait. As a father of teenage girls I have more than once picked up the phone to hear someone say "Dad I can't get a taxi please can you come and get me"
Would you prepared to have one that someone has just thrown up in?

And how would we go about booking one of these communal cars for dogging?

 

[David Clapson]

The idea of shared autonomous vehicles has some merit but they still raise questions. Shared as in they don't belong to you but will come exclusively for you and yours. Shared in the sense that you would be expected to share journeys with other people. That would be more environmentally friendly and some people would be fine with it but probably not so if you were a woman on her own.
Summoning a robotaxi to take you home on a Saturday night sounds great but how long would people be prepared to wait. As a father of teenage girls I have more than once picked up the phone to hear someone say "Dad I can't get a taxi please can you come and get me"
Would you prepared to have one that someone has just thrown up in?

I'm assuming you don't occupy the vehicle with strangers unless you choose to. The shared aspect is mainly the community-society ownership. In the sense that we used to own all the BR trains. I'm assuming the autonomous shared vehicle service would have to be state-wide and nationalised. If it was divided amongst private operators it would be ten times as disastrous as rail franchising. You'd have local operators ruthlessly trying to force each other out of business, as with the Stagecoach/Gloag story.

 

[T & P]

Don’t you get it. If you get a 100% of them to switch then that’s a third of car traffic off the roads. If you took out all car journeys less than 3k then that’s almost half of the traffic. There would be no congestion at all.

Sadly it seems unlikely you’re going to get anywhere near 100% reduction of those short car journeys by just facilitating quieter and safer cycling routes. A lot of people can’t or will not ditch their car for a bicycle regardless of how safe and fully car-free routes, for various reasons.

Some will simply can’t be arsed. Others can’t cycle. Others are not physically fit enough. Others cannot accomplish what their trip out requires on a bike (heavy shopping, giving a lift to others, etc). Others might be willing on principle but certainly not on all those days when it’s cold, or raining.

You don’t really need to be an expert in the field or wait for official reports a year down the line to know that, the best, safest cycling conditions possible are never going to achieve more than a small to moderate reduction of those short journeys. A great many people will simply not cycle, end of.

IMO it’d be very wishful thinking to think the LTN zones are ever in a million years going to convert a even third of those people who currently use their cars for short journeys to cycle, let alone all of them. A great many people will never ever cycle, that is the short answer. But I’ll eat my hat on a live feed if I’m wrong and these LTNs manage to convert even half of those making 2km journeys in cars in London to cycling or walking, never mind all of them.

 

[David Clapson]

Your thesis is easy to test by looking at who does or doesn't cycle in an established cycling paradise such as Amsterdam. I'm sure you could find some stats.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Sadly it seems unlikely you’re going to get anywhere near 100% reduction of those short car journeys by just facilitating quieter and safer cycling routes. A lot of people can’t or will not ditch their car for a bicycle regardless of how safe and fully car-free routes, for various reasons.

Some will simply can’t be arsed. Others can’t cycle. Others are not physically fit enough. Others cannot accomplish what their trip out requires on a bike (heavy shopping, giving a lift to others, etc). Others might be willing on principle but certainly not on all those days when it’s cold, or raining.

You don’t really need to be an expert in the field or wait for official reports a year down the line to know that, the best, safest cycling conditions possible are never going to achieve more than a small to moderate reduction of those short journeys. A great many people will simply not cycle, end of.

IMO it’d be very wishful thinking to think the LTN zones are ever in a million years going to convert a even third of those people who currently use their cars for short journeys to cycle, let alone all of them. A great many people will never ever cycle, that is the short answer. But I’ll eat my hat on a live feed if I’m wrong and these LTNs manage to convert even half of those making 2km journeys in cars in London to cycling or walking, never mind all of them.

That sound in the distance is people from The Netherlands laughing at you.

 

[T & P]

Your thesis is easy to test by looking at who does or doesn't cycle in an established cycling paradise such as Amsterdam. I'm sure you could find some stats.

I really don’t think comparisons between different cities in different countries are proof or even indicative of anything, for multiple reasons from city layouts to existing transport infrastructures to travel costs. I’m all for looking at other countries‘ models and trying to import their positive traits, but it’s not going to be as simple as copying it and expecting to get the same outcome.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I really don’t think comparisons between different cities in different countries are proof or even indicative of anything, for multiple reasons from city layouts to existing transport infrastructures to travel costs. I’m all for looking at other countries‘ models and trying to import their positive traits, but it’s not going to be as simple as copying it and expecting to get the same outcome.

 

[David Clapson]

I really don’t think comparisons between different cities in different countries are proof or even indicative of anything, for multiple reasons from city layouts to existing transport infrastructures to travel costs. I’m all for looking at other countries‘ models and trying to import their positive traits, but it’s not going to be as simple as copying it and expecting to get the same outcome.

This is just head-in-sand mode. You can do better.

 

[T & P]

That sound in the distance is people from The Netherlands laughing at you.

So why the fuck aren’t potential cyclists in London not cycling already if physically able? Are you seriously suggesting that all the people who have a car and have never before chosen to switch their car for a cycle in the past are going to do that now because there are LTN zones about? A few undoubtedly, but many, let alone most or all? Bollocks wishful thinking and you know it. Certainly on those LTNs that still allow resident cars, buses, taxis and or deliveries, which is most of them.

As an example in my local area, if someone was afraid enough in the past to cycle from Tulse Hill to Streatham, which already offered an end to end quiet route with multiple with low traffic, wide streets before the LTN came along, it would be fantasist bullshit to pretend the arrival of the LTN, which still allows for cars and buses to travel through it, it’s going to sway the great majority of those. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise, and I suspect you know it just as well as I.

 

[teuchter]

Ok, I've read them. The only reasonable rural car-free solution I can envisage is summoning a shared/hired autonomous vehicle whenever you have an errand. Has anyone modelled the cost and practicality of this? I'm interested to know how it would compare with people in rural areas owning their own self-drive or autonomous vehicle and parking it at home and all of their many destinations.

If the shared/hired fleet had vehicles of varying sizes, a solo journey could be done in a roofed/cabin two wheeler. That would be sufficient for most trips, so you'd make a huge saving in energy/resources/impact compared to the usual 5-seater-with-boot-personal vehicle. But it all sounds a bit Flash Gordon to me. I can't envisage it happening for several decades. And would the numbers make much sense?

I've always thought that roofed/cabin two wheelers also have massive potential in urban settings, especially if they're autonomous. But you never hear about them. For the last 34 years Peraves cabin motorcycles have been achieving astonishingly high average speeds with low fuel consumption. Only a handful of people have them. They're expensive to buy and need a lot of skill to drive. But if they were autonomous they could be a massive game changer. There are already experimental motorcycles which can drive themselves and, unlike the Peraves, stay upright when stationary.

Peraves:

A fully car-free solution for rural areas is less easy to achieve than in urban areas, and it's not something that is likely to happen in the near future. That said I think it's important to point out that a car free existence isn't impossible in rural areas, lots of people do it and many of them because they don't have any choice. Some rely heavily on help from others, some simply accept a restricted lifestyle, some position themselves in places which are rural but d have reasonably good public transport connections.

I think it's important not to view rural transport as something to be solved by a single technological solution. Even giving everyone access to shared autonomous vehicles doesn't remove some of the problems that are caused when everyone wants to go into the local town to do their shopping. You still end up with issues of parking and congestion and so on. I'm not sure that roofed/cabin two-wheelers get around all of the problems that cars create.

There might be some less radical technological game-changers, such as more availability of online ordering/delivery. I'm interested to see how that plays out in rural areas. Also, e-bikes and maybe even e-scooters have the potential to make things that were previously just out of reach for some people, become within reach. For some people. e-bikes are not a solution for everyone, before anyone starts saying I am demanding that OAPs go shopping on electric scooters.

Also important to bear in mind that there are many types of "rural" ranging from a kind of spread-out version of suburbia to truly remote places where there's not a shop nor any public transport for 30 miles. The right solutions will be very different in each case.

My immediate focus for rural areas rather than instantly getting rid of all cars would be a reduction in the vicious cycle of car dependancy and things that make life more equitable for those who aren't able to drive or can't afford to. In some places it makes sense to try and increase bus services and in some places you might have to accept that a bus service is not viable. Transport policy should be linked in with planning policy meaning that you try not to end up working out how to get people to distant out-of-town supermarkets and instead do everything you can to make things like shops viable in small settlements. Try and locate any new rural housing in places that can be served by public transport. There's also plenty of space to reduce the number of car journeys overall without demanding anyone give up access to a private car. There are things you can do which might allow a household to shift a proportion of their journeys to public transport and become a one car household instead of a two car household.

My nationalising everyone's car scheme is to make a point about car dependancy and the way that marginal costs affect journey decisions once you are invested into one mode of transport.

Some day maybe I will try and start a thread specifically on rural transport issues where an attempt can be made to discuss these things seriously. I actually have a reading list of recent stuff on this that I am yet to catch up on. Ignore the people trying to tell you I know nothing beyond central London; I grew up in a rural area, which I'm still very much in touch with and I'm very well aware of what problems exist and how they differ to those in urban places (although there are also plenty of things in common). The first instance of me going on about car dependancy is to be found in the pages of a magazine published by a small school in the scottish highlands in the late 20th century.

 

[teuchter]

So why the fuck aren’t potential cyclists in London not cycling already if physically able? Are you seriously suggesting that all the people who have a car and have never before chosen to switch their car for a cycle in the past are going to do that now because there are LTN zones about? A few undoubtedly, but many, let alone most or all? Bollocks wishful thinking and you know it. Certainly on those LTNs that still allow resident cars, buses, taxis and or deliveries, which is most of them.

As an example in my local area, if someone was afraid enough in the past to cycle from Tulse Hill to Streatham, which already offered an end to end quiet route with multiple with low traffic, wide streets before the LTN came along, it would be fantasist bullshit to pretend the arrival of the LTN, which still allows for cars and buses to travel through it, it’s going to sway the great majority of those. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise, and I suspect you know it just as well as I.

I think this twitter account might be a good one for you.

https://twitter.com/epiphanymotors

 

[T & P]

Funnily enough I was last in Amsterdam in late 2019 and remembered seeing plenty of cars on shit loads of streets, including through the very centre of the city. Are talking about reduced traffic and selected traffic-free streets, or traffic-free cities? We seem to be switching from one proposal to the other as is suitable to the discussion...

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Funnily enough I was last in Amsterdam in late 2019 and remembered seeing plenty of cars on shit loads of streets, including through the very centre of the city.

It's almost as if with correct planning and infrastructure - that puts the needs of people first, not their cars - a city can work and still have cars available for those who actually need them.

(fwiw, cycling rates in Amsterdam are still rising, with a corresponding reduction in car use. They'll be effectively gone eventually)

 

[T & P]

This is just head-in-sand mode. You can do better.

Are you seriously suggesting that the very layout, demographics, geography, size, and existing transport infrastructure of a given city don’t really matter when considering implementing the transport model of a different city with visible differences in all those areas? That the same percentage of regular cyclists is exportable and easily achievable to any other city, just like that?

 

[Spymaster]

A fully car-free solution for rural areas is less easy to achieve than in urban areas, and it's not something that is likely to happen in the near future. That said I think it's important to point out that a car free existence isn't impossible in rural areas, lots of people do it and many of them because they don't have any choice. Some rely heavily on help from others, some simply accept a restricted lifestyle, some position themselves in places which are rural but d have reasonably good public transport connections.

I think it's important not to view rural transport as something to be solved by a single technological solution. Even giving everyone access to shared autonomous vehicles doesn't remove some of the problems that are caused when everyone wants to go into the local town to do their shopping. You still end up with issues of parking and congestion and so on. I'm not sure that roofed/cabin two-wheelers get around all of the problems that cars create.

There might be some less radical technological game-changers, such as more availability of online ordering/delivery. I'm interested to see how that plays out in rural areas. Also, e-bikes and maybe even e-scooters have the potential to make things that were previously just out of reach for some people, become within reach. For some people. e-bikes are not a solution for everyone, before anyone starts saying I am demanding that OAPs go shopping on electric scooters.

Also important to bear in mind that there are many types of "rural" ranging from a kind of spread-out version of suburbia to truly remote places where there's not a shop nor any public transport for 30 miles. The right solutions will be very different in each case.

My immediate focus for rural areas rather than instantly getting rid of all cars would be a reduction in the vicious cycle of car dependancy and things that make life more equitable for those who aren't able to drive or can't afford to. In some places it makes sense to try and increase bus services and in some places you might have to accept that a bus service is not viable. Transport policy should be linked in with planning policy meaning that you try not to end up working out how to get people to distant out-of-town supermarkets and instead do everything you can to make things like shops viable in small settlements. Try and locate any new rural housing in places that can be served by public transport. There's also plenty of space to reduce the number of car journeys overall without demanding anyone give up access to a private car. There are things you can do which might allow a household to shift a proportion of their journeys to public transport and become a one car household instead of a two car household.

My nationalising everyone's car scheme is to make a point about car dependancy and the way that marginal costs affect journey decisions once you are invested into one mode of transport.

Some day maybe I will try and start a thread specifically on rural transport issues where an attempt can be made to discuss these things seriously. I actually have a reading list of recent stuff on this that I am yet to catch up on. Ignore the people trying to tell you I know nothing beyond central London; I grew up in a rural area, which I'm still very much in touch with and I'm very well aware of what problems exist and how they differ to those in urban places (although there are also plenty of things in common). The first instance of me going on about car dependancy is to be found in the pages of a magazine published by a small school in the scottish highlands in the late 20th century.

TL,DR

 

[farmerbarleymow]

After about a week of this I had to remove the nest and destroy it, they hadn't laid any eggs yet though to be honest that wouldn't have stopped me.

That's not very nice.