Safe Speed Forums

Paraphrasing glaikie's signature:

The old persection complex kicking in again.
Force is what you're asking for and what you will get. The motoring lobby's (among others) refusal to voluntarily do the right thing means we'll all get a form of Green fascism, of stringent legally enforced caps on our use of non-renewables, of rationing, of obligatory public transport use, of limits to our travel and consumption. You're dragging us all towards such an eventuality at a speed you've probably assessed to be safe! Like tantrum throwing toddlers it's all un-reason and confirmation bias and you've a spanking coming. It's not as if you haven't been warned.

I don't need a saving grace, cheers - not being a safespeed drone isn't a sin, and being anti the ravages wrought by excessive car-dependency is entirely reasonable.

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?

I've read that three times and it still doesn't mean a thing.

How can you say it's a "persecution complex" when you admit with the next sentence that I'm right? People like you have been setting out to persecute motorists for a long time; believe me, I wish I was wrong. It's not a persecution complex, it's the result of several years of experience of car-haters like you, on forums and in the media. They are constantly trying to force things on people. You haven't denied that you would have liked con charging in the places I mentioned, despite people not wanting it, so that proves my point really.


I think you'll find that that's what you'd like to happen, rather than what will. I think you'll find that your problem with cars is more to do with a socialist or Communist agenda (see my signature) than it is any of the things above; they're just excuses to force your agenda onto others, because you know that simply saying "Everyone, please be a socialist/Communist and stop driving, it's really good" quite rightly won't make any difference.

Your hysterical and doom-laden ramblings (e.g. "It's not as if you haven't been warned") sound very similar to those of cults predicting the end of the world. I ignore them for the nutcases that they are, and as of the end of this post, I'm going to ignore you.


If someone doesn't live anywhere near a bus route or railway station, isn't fit enough (or doesn't have the time) to walk or cycle, and can't afford to pay for taxis every time they wish to go anywhere, what are they supposed to do? Not go anywhere?

If someone needs to go between two different places every day, and that takes three times as long by public transport as it does by car, why shouldn't they drive? If it's twice as expensive as it is by car, why shouldn't they drive? If someone needs to travel more than a couple of miles during the night when public transport has stopped, how do you suggest they do it? People don't just use their car to annoy car-hating socialists/Communists/nutcases (although admittedly it's fun annoying them); they do it because they have good reason to.

If you really want to stop people driving (not that I see anything wrong with driving per se, not being a socialist or Communist), the best way is to make public transport more attractive, rather than trying to make driving less attractive with huge numbers of anti-motorist measures. We've had nearly 20 years of them now, and it hasn't worked, has it? Do you see numbers of cars decreasing? Do you see people going round saying "I used to drive, but thanks to draconian punishments for speeding/parking, congestion-causing measures and expensive fuel, I don't drive anymore because my need to drive has suddenly disappeared as a result"? Time to make people want to use public transport because it's better than their cars (although it will never replace the car anywhere near completely). Time for more carrots and more improvements; time for far fewer sticks and much less spite. Something tells me you absolutely hate that idea though. Ask yourself why.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

And the thing that REALLY annoys them is that THEY still have to wait in traffic.
I did a quick calculation. Diesel will have to increase to £3.75 / litre before the car gets more expensive than pubic transport And even then, because the bus uses (rebated, heavily) diesel, it [the bus] will still cost more to travel on than a car.
In any case, labour have no chance of staying in power at the next election, and without them the greenies go as well.
The way things are going for them the forecast is for cons to win and labour to be equal to the lib-dems (who have already said they'd join with the cons)
local council labour seats are disappearing at every election and nobody is accepting their bribes anymore.
To many taxes
Too many liars
Too many arrogant neo-conservative labour wasters
And too many laws that nobody bothers to enforce, except with cameras

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

The thing that concerned me most in glakie's post above was this:

Who says what is "right" and then tries to enforce their views on others?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Mad Doc already has to pay to use the hospital car park - as do the junior medics und nurses und porters


It has not stopped any of them from using their cars .. nor the patients either.

By the way - they never did improve the bus services around these hospitals either. They did put a speed cam a couple of miles further down the road though.. - where it safe und serve no other useful purpose than a potential "ker-ching-a-ping"

But wait .. what happen next....

There will ten million bicycles in Nottingham a potential fact! Congested und caught in the tram track...they'll be charged to park und ride the tram as well as the Sherriff of Nottingham will want to rob from the poor und give to the rich...


But back to calmer logic ..

Actually - it costs us £400 each year per child to place on the local school bus
We have the return fares. It does mount up over a school year. We are not actually being overcharged by their School for this service.. und we are paying the same for the fosters to attend the school they have to attend too.

I could thus argue that £185 levy ist still less than the potential tram fares spread over a 5-6 day working week. It still less than Mad Doc pay to park his car at the hospital. The ones hit hardest are the porters/nurses/junior medics in leaner economic times.




Basically - it a soppy greeny idea which do nothing more than irritate folk. It still cheaper than the proposed £16 daily toll tax proposed for Manchester - allowing for inflation.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

As much as I agree with the gist of Glaikie's post I think they could really do with being slightly more diplomatic!

It is true that the motorists has been "on top" for several decades now, the automatic choice of transport is the car, the reason for the road network has ceased to be to allow the movement of goods and people and has now become somewhere to drive. So it isn't really surprising that when the status quo is challenged a significant number of motorist will start to get quite annoyed at the "perceived" victimisation. When in someone else's point of view it is simply the redressing of the balance which has been distorted for so long.




Interesting how sometimes these schemes can be really successful and sometimes terrible. There's a hospital in Nottingham (coincidence, honestly) that has a very successful travel plan, including car parking charges related to salary, they have also introduced a very successful bus service too.



You reckon ten million people commute into Nottingham?? Calmer logic indeed!

Staying in Wildy-land for a bit longer (!), if all the folk currently commuting by car did swap to bikes, there'd be a lot more room on the roads and a lot less congestion!



This is true, unless the car parking management system is properly thought out and implemented. In which case it can be fair and effective at reducing single occupancy car use.



Possibly, but we need these kind of ideas to be raised so the public can debate them, pick holes in them and accept/reject them as necessary.

Could you elaborate on that, I don't follow?

Ha ha! When you put it like that I can see why it doesn't make much sense. My apologies.

What I was getting at was that the car seems to be the only choice that most folk seem to make. It's as if there is no other choice. Yet if 30% of journeys are under 3 miles and 50% are under 5 miles then there is patently a choice for a lot of people. Other forms of transport too often seem to be pushed aside for the perceived convenience of the car. Which kind of pushes society into a viscious circle, i.e. the society revolves around the car and adapts to become something that cannot survive without it.

I didn't mean that the road network wasn't used to transport goods and people, obviously it is. It just seems that it exists purely for one form of transport at the expense of everything else, even society itself in some cases...

...I hope that makes sense, I'm struggling a bit to articulate myself!

I get you now; I'm picturing 'driving' and 'movement of goods and people' in venn-diagram terms which is helping. I was thinking that you considered driving to be something else rather than an element of 'movement of goods and people'.

Cheaper, faster, more pleasant and there when you want it. The perceived advantage is pretty strong and for the most part fact, at least when it comes to my usage. I did use a bus and train last week because it was more convenient though the price was about the same as using a car, I thought I was going to miss the interview though as unexpected engineering works delayed the trains by an hour and ten minutes and many were cancelled, it was just fortunate that one turned up that was effectively only ten minutes late on the route I needed. To be fair roadworks or an accident could cause delay when travelling by car though quite often you can find an alternative route.

Public transport has its place, if I was working in London then PT would be the way to go. In the seventies to mid eighties Sheffield/Rotherham had an excellent and cheap PT system with most journeys costing 2-10p and some routes had intervals as low as 2 minutes during peak periods, few routes had intervals of more than 30 minutes even last thing at night. Traffic in Sheffield city centre was usually quite light and the buses were busy, unless you needed to carry around a large amount (I even picked up a Honda xl185 engine from a breaker by bus once) the PT system was the way to travel. The Conservatives deregulated the bus service in the late eighties, prices rose (20 - 50p), service deteriorated, usage dropped and traffic rose.

So make PT cheap and convenient and it will get used and to an extent either will do, if PT was significantly cheaper, say 1/3 of the price[*], and it was actually available I would be tempted to put up with the extra time it takes. If it was quicker, my destination had limited parking and I had no need to transport any items (i.e. commuting into London) then I would use PT again.

[*] I do not mean by artificially increasing the cost of driving!

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I wish people wouldn't always assume just cos you're in London PT is expansive enough to provide for your journey.

PT is great in London IF you are going from the outskirts into town. Or you are in town and going to the outskirts. Getting going between the suburbs on the outskirts (or inner outskirts...) is a nightmare.

For example. Later today I have 3 clients to see. I am in Southfields, Wandsworth. My first client is in Fulham @ 3. The nearest tube is Parsons Green, this involves a 5 minute walk to Southfields, 5-10 Minutes to Parsons Green and 10 minute walk at other end (no bus to the office). By car at this time of day it takes about 10 minutes in total, so a saving of 15-20 minutes.
The next stop is near Hammersmith bridge. I can take a bus from office #1 to Hammersmith bus terminal, then a 10-15 minute walk to the office. At this time of day (now around 4) the bus will take 15-20 minutes to get to Hammersmith, car a similar amount (maybe a couple of minutes less), the next bit to the office by car takes 2 minutes versus the 10-15 walking if I went by bus.
Office #3 is in Barns... by Bus this'll take over an hour including the walking, there isn't a tube option from here. By car it'll take all of 10-15 minutes. Getting home after office #3 (around 5.30-6) is going to take about an hour or more by car, or as much as 2 hours by bus.

No matter what time of the day, office#1-2, and 2-3 is quicker by car than PT by some margin. Home - office#1 would be quicker by tube in rush hour only. This is why even in London people opt for the car. The PT system is not as all encompassing as those outside of London, or those who don't work only in the city centre, think. I can only imagine how bad it must be outside of London as we certainly do have the most extensive PT network in the country, even then it doesnt come close to meeting all our needs which is why the Car remains the #1 choice for a the majority of people.

For the record I'll be cycling the entire journey, as it'll take only 25 minutes to get home from office #3 by bike, and much quicker from #2-3. However, for those who literally can't turn up to each office in shorts + tshirt sweating their tits off this wouldn't be an option and is another reason the car is often #1

Peyote, do you think that local authorities deliberately engineering in congestion (e.g. by rephasing traffic lights or narrowing roads with the sole aim of restricting traffic flow) helps matters? Doesn't that just penalise everyone who's driving, irrespective of how "necessary" their journey is and whether they could do it by public transport? Doesn't the same thing apply to measures such as artificially restricting parking? (And while we're talking about parking, do you think it's right that councils enforce parking restrictions with a view to raising revenue rather than keeping traffic moving?)

Isn't it better to concentrate solely on improving public transport? Then those who can reasonably be expected to choose it are more likely to do so, while those who have to stick with their cars aren't frustrated for no reason whatsoever. That way we get modal shift towards public transport without motorists feeling victimised (which IMHO they are ATM), and without unnecessary resentment building up, which may even potentially irritate drivers enough to cause accidents.

People should be treated like adults and allowed to choose what is most appropriate for them, rather than being told that they're being naughty for choosing their cars even when there's no decent alternative. I don't actually think there's anything wrong with people expecting to be able to use the most comfortable, quick and easy method of transport available to them; it's human nature to want that, and we should work to make public transport fulfill those criteria more often than it does at the moment, rather than telling people that they should put up with crap transport and they're selfish monsters if they expect anything better.

Let's have a positive scenario where people choose public transport because they want to, rather than a negative, prohibitive one where people are forced to do so even though it's nothing like the best option. The likes of glaikie may want that, and may enjoy seeing people suffer and being made to "pay" and "repent" for their years of sinful driving (I think there is a quasi-religious aspect to it), but I don't think that most normal, pleasant, well-intentioned people do.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

The nature of the Safespeed forums means that those who come here, on the whole, will have thought a fair amount about their transport options. They will have taken into account what the journeys purpose is, distance, time, and cost and made a judgement based on these as well as many other factors. It's quite logical really and something to be appluaded and encouraged. In many cases it will be that a car is the only practical option. It is the thinking process that is the important bit.

Personally I think the countrys congestion,social and local environmental problems could be tackled very effectively if everyone did something similar. Unfortunately I don't think the majority of the population do think the way Safespeed forum members do (I'm talking about this one particular aspect, there are aspects I don't agree with I hasten to add!). The majority just seem to hop straight in the car to drive 400yds for a newspaper, which is just creating more problems for that individual, the surrounding environment, and society.

The government/councils/police.

_________________
Andrew.

I wish I could have been so to the point! Apologies for the ramblings

I have heard of this theory of LA's engineering congestion, but Im afraid I'm unconvinced it is actually happening. I do believe that the majority of congestion is caused by the network operating beyond it's capacity and rephasing of traffic lights potentially could just move the problem elsewhere.

If it is true then I would be completely against it on the grounds you've said above. I.e. it is unfairly penalising those who have no choice in their transport options.



Artificially restricting parking is always a balancing act. If an area already has congestion problems, restricting parking for new developments within the area is a positive step in restricting growth on the network. If suitably backed up by other measures it needn't have a detrimental effect on the local economy either.



No I think this is wrong, the function of the councils in this respect should be to enforce any parking restrictions for the reasons they were originally introduced (normally to keep traffic moving). if the prime motivation is raising revenue then I think such a situation would be counter productive (surely the LAs would 'encourage' illegal parking to raise more revenue?) as well as unethical. Besides they've got car parks to raise revenue!



It is difficult to change peoples behaviour once it is engrained. I've seen quite dramatic improvements on PT over the past few years, most notably on the buses in my locality. Yet my neighbours still view them as a dirty, chav ridden lower class form of transport. Simple answer is that yes, your way would be ideal. create a decent PT system them encourage modal shift. The reality of the situation is that both need to happen alongside each other. This is when the resentment starts to happen. there are no easy answers I'm afraid.



I agree, but I think you're expecting too much from the current way things are working. A lot of work is happening on PT, but it's never going to replace the car unless it is nationalised and not run for profit. That's not going to happen in the near future.

We've got to start thinking about even more options than just modal shift from cars to PT, car sharing, bicycle, walking and communications technology to reduce the need to travel in the first place should be used far more.

Society as a whole needs to start paying the full price of transport, if this means the price of goods and services goes up, then that is the price we have to pay for the last three/four decades of pretty much unrestricted motoring freedom.



Lets have a scenario where people think about the journeys they make, why they make them and how they make them (even if they need to make them). That'd be a good starting point and is likely to happen long before the motoring public accept public transport as a viable alternative option!

RE: Glaikie - May be they just enjoy winding motoring folk up? Next time I hire a car (only a couple of weeks away) I'll reread their posts and see how agitated I get!

I read/heard somewhere (and no, I can't reference) that in the years leading up to the introduction of the London Congestion Charge, congestion increased markedly, while traffic levels actually decreased slightly.

It was my understanding that TfL actually admitted to doing this but said it was to make life easier for pedestrians or something along those lines, it just happened to conveniently fall in the months / year leading up to introducing the CCharge