Residents parking

[pete75]

Funnily enough, I cant seem to see any attraction in cars whatsoever. Even as an engineer who appreciates the elegance of good well thought out design, I think to myself the utter folly of such a selfish invention.

Ah but the horse and carriage they replaced was a far more selfish invention because only the very well off could afford them.

[BakfietsUK]

An interesting observation Pete75 if one assumes that horse traction was replaced by cars. My own assumption is that cars replaced bikes and public transport which is why they are selfish. I would even question the use of "replaced" I would prefer the term "smothered" to be honest.

Both cars and horse drawn vehicles can be seen as selfish if one considers the space they take up, the pollution and the noise. Not only that they put others at risk for the advantage of the few. This few becoming the majority is the symptom to me, of a society which has become pathologically attached to the delusion that there is no other way worthy of consideration.

Even when it seems that everybody has access to a car there are still a vast number of individuals in this country that need cars more than the ones that actually use them. There are plenty who could choose other ways, so another view is that people can be selfish. If cars were only used by those that really need them, then I personally would not consider them a problem. The so called "right" to place a car on the road to the exclusion of someone who may have a greater need, to me is one definition of selfishness.

[Bmblbzzz]

... Not aware of any residents only parking. Residents can pay for permits. Non residents pay at meters. ...

I think the term "residents parking" is being loosely used to cover several different types of scheme.

The first I remember seeing round here were streets with a TRO banning motor vehicles unless they needed access to premises. These are signed with the flying motor bike with "except for access plates." Poorly understood by non-residents, residents expected 100% enforcement. More recently, we've had "residents only" parking, controlled by permits and enforced by local authority enforcement personnel. These permits attract an annual fee. The last time that our local authority hiked up the parking, including introducing evening and Sunday charges in some areas, the results of the "consultation" meant that charges for residents' permits were not increased. (Turkeys and Christmas come to mind. )

I don't remember anything around here where parking was controlled by meters but residents could park free.

Not where you are, but it certainly exists in other places.

[pete75]

An interesting observation Pete75 if one assumes that horse traction was replaced by cars.

If cars and other motor vehicles didn't replace horse traction what on earth did?

[Cyril Haearn]

An interesting observation Pete75 if one assumes that horse traction was replaced by cars.

If cars and other motor vehicles didn't replace horse traction what on earth did?

Railways (iron horses) canals and cycles (Welsh: ceffyl haearn, iron horse)

[BakfietsUK]

Read the whole post Pete75, then maybe your comment would be as redundant as horses and carts appear to be to you. Comments that reflect the context of the discussion are always more helpful. Seems you only pick bits of posts that suit you Pete75. I would assume the areas where you don't make comments meet with your approval.

[pete75]

Read the whole post Pete75, then maybe your comment would be as redundant as horses and carts appear to be to you. Comments that reflect the context of the discussion are always more helpful. Seems you only pick bits of posts that suit you Pete75. I would assume the areas where you don't make comments meet with your approval.

Horses and carts are redundant for most practical purposes in teh UK. Some breweries like Sam Smiths still use them for local deliveries, they being cost effective for local deliveries given that breweries can feed the horses almost for free.

I picked you comment " if one assumes that horse traction was replaced by cars." out because it seemed ludicrous. No idea at all if the rest of your post is right or wrong so didn't comment on it. Interested to know what you do think replaced horse traction if not motor vehicles.

[pete75]

An interesting observation Pete75 if one assumes that horse traction was replaced by cars.

If cars and other motor vehicles didn't replace horse traction what on earth did?

Railways (iron horses) canals and cycles (Welsh: ceffyl haearn, iron horse)

Apparently when the railways spread there was a greater demand for horse transport. Many more goods were being shipped around the country because of them and horses were needed to cart much of the stuff to and from the railways. Ditto for the canals. This is quite informative on the subject http://www.victorianlondon.org/publicat ... rse-03.htm Large scale use of horses continued well into the 20th century.

A good picture of both in use by the GWR

[Cyril Haearn]

GWR - the second best railway, after the Watercress Line. Horses are still used in the woods here in Germany to drag trees out because they do not destroy the soft ground. And of course the Queen and the army keep horses and goats for ceremonial purposes. The 200th anniversary of the invention of the bicycle (Draisine) is being celebrated this year, apparently there was a huge volcanic eruption that darkened the skies all over the earth, harvests failed and many horses were eaten. Thus the invention of the bicycle became necessary.

Of course I know Kirkpatrick Macmillan actually invented the bicycle.

[AlaninWales]

Read the whole post Pete75, then maybe your comment would be as redundant as horses and carts appear to be to you. Comments that reflect the context of the discussion are always more helpful. Seems you only pick bits of posts that suit you Pete75. I would assume the areas where you don't make comments meet with your approval.

Horses and carts are redundant for most practical purposes in teh UK. Some breweries like Sam Smiths still use them for local deliveries, they being cost effective for local deliveries given that breweries can feed the horses almost for free.

I picked you comment " if one assumes that horse traction was replaced by cars." out because it seemed ludicrous. No idea at all if the rest of your post is right or wrong so didn't comment on it. Interested to know what you do think replaced horse traction if not motor vehicles.

I agree with Bakfiets here Pete, your picking out a part of a sentence to reply to, rather then the whole post seems to point to a deliberate misapprehension. You are being obtuse as B's post clearly did not deny that horses and carts are "redundant for most practical purposes" but gave examples of other forms of transport which were pushed out ("smothered") by by the ICE. His point is clearly that whilst horse transport has become less used since the adoption of the ICE, it was certainly not the only or predominant form of transport before that, so saying that ICE has replaced the horse as transport is misleading as 'replacement' implies a one-for-one substitution.

[pete75]

Read the whole post Pete75, then maybe your comment would be as redundant as horses and carts appear to be to you. Comments that reflect the context of the discussion are always more helpful. Seems you only pick bits of posts that suit you Pete75. I would assume the areas where you don't make comments meet with your approval.

Horses and carts are redundant for most practical purposes in teh UK. Some breweries like Sam Smiths still use them for local deliveries, they being cost effective for local deliveries given that breweries can feed the horses almost for free.

I picked you comment " if one assumes that horse traction was replaced by cars." out because it seemed ludicrous. No idea at all if the rest of your post is right or wrong so didn't comment on it. Interested to know what you do think replaced horse traction if not motor vehicles.

I agree with Bakfiets here Pete, your picking out a part of a sentence to reply to, rather then the whole post seems to point to a deliberate misapprehension. You are being obtuse as B's post clearly did not deny that horses and carts are "redundant for most practical purposes" but gave examples of other forms of transport which were pushed out ("smothered") by by the ICE. His point is clearly that whilst horse transport has become less used since the adoption of the ICE, it was certainly not the only or predominant form of transport before that, so saying that ICE has replaced the horse as transport is misleading as 'replacement' implies a one-for-one substitution.

Just because something has replaced one thing doesn't mean it hasn't replaced others does it? To use your logic to say electricity has replaced most other forms of domestic lighting would imply electricity hasn't replaced anything else.

I maintain it's ludicrous to use an expression like "if one assumes that horse traction was replaced by cars." of course one assumes that because it's what happened. Doesn't mean cars haven't replaced other forms of transport.
Again the phrase "as redundant as horses and carts appear to be to you" implies I'm wrong in thinking they are redundant for most purposes. Bizarre.

Anyhow I think most of his post was because he just doesn't like cars.

[Vorpal]

Horses were , for the most part, replaced by cars. I know because my school books said so Horses just weren't the only thing that was replaced by cars.

150 years ago, most people travelled by foot. And most of those journeys have been replaced, and extended by car journeys.

Houses built pre-car, espeically in working class areas were built for people whose primary form of transport was walking, and maybe the occasional cab (horse & buggy, of course). Bicycles became popular because they were a quick efficient way to get places, compared to walking, and relatively affordable, once they were around in large numbers. Cars became popular because they were a quick, efficient way to get places, compared to cycling or walking. And they became relatively affordable as standard of living improved and cars became ubiquitous.

Now, many people live in areas designed for people who walked everywhere, but they own cars with no place to park them.

Now that's settled can we stop bickering about semantics?

[thirdcrank]

No mention of public transport there. It was and remains significant in the UK.

[BakfietsUK]

I guess when petrol runs out or loses it's cost appeal the ICEs (internal combustion engines ?) and the machinery they power will just be useless junk. So creating a window of opportunity for other forms of power, dare I say it - Horses.

Oh Vorpal, the liveliest and possibly the most fruitful of debates revolve around semantics. especially if they promote a common understanding and new learning. I personally think we need a bit more of that in this country where circular and perverse debates can be stopped in their tracks by a willingness to tackle semantics.

Still, thanks for the reality check

[Vorpal]

No mention of public transport there. It was and remains significant in the UK.

Yes. i didn't forget it, that was, however, one of my reasons for using '150 years ago'. Although public transport was common in some places (IIRC, the tube had it's 150th anniversay a couple of years ago?) most forms of mass public transport (trains, trams, etc.) were still in their infancy. Ships, stage coaches, and things like that were largely reserved for long journeys. Some places had ferries, but even many of those have now been replaced by bridges, or simply taken out of service because with cars, there is no longer so great a need to travel the shortest route.