Proposal to ban petrol and diesel cars from Scottish cities

[Freddie]

I thought the planet was dying and we need drastic measures to save it. The social injustice of the poor not being able to drive in cities hardly registers when faced with the forecast of a global extinction level event. How is a little suffering now worse than a lot in the future? (and who do you think will be suffering the most in the future, hardly the well off).

If everything has to be equal before action can be taken, the only way that it possible is if almost everyone ends up with nothing (Soviet Union). Of course, even in these very equal places the powerful and influential had far more than the poor, who often starved to death and had it rather worse than in places where things were superficially more unequal.

The new religion of equality is perhaps more of a pollutant than all the CO2 being spewed out into the atmosphere, because when faced with an ability to enact positive change, it can't be done because people will be disproportionately affected.

Everything in nature is disproportionate, there is nothing equal under the sun.

[Wanlock Dod]

I know it won't happen, but if a ban on internal combustion engine cars were implemented in Edinburgh and Glasgow within the next 12 months it would free up the streets of those cities for the comfortably off, who could afford the change to electric, and force the poor out of their cars. While I agree there would be environmental benefits I still feel uneasy about that.

The proposal is that these vehicles would be banned from 2030 which is quite a way off yet, and they are probably expecting that a fairly large proportion of vehicles will already be exempt from such a ban by then. Recent data suggests that 49% of households in Glasgow have no access to a car for private use, and that 73% of journeys in the city are less than 5 km (reported here). Cycling is the main mode of travel for only about 1% of journeys in Glasgow. Road danger (traffic too fast, too many cars, inconsiderate drivers) are reported as the main reason why over a third of people in Scotland don't cycle to work. Driving need not be the only real option available to people, but a longstanding commitment by councils not to provide for any other modes of travel has meant that a lot of people don't consider there to be any realistic alternative.

I wouldn't expect too much to come of it, Scotland is nearing the end of a decade long commitment to increase levels of cycling which has seen almost no progress made, and recently a proposal to make the speed limit on all 30 mph roads 20 mph was rejected. Whilst they might have some nice ideas their track record in implementing them is not especially good.

[pwa]

I thought the planet was dying and we need drastic measures to save it. The social injustice of the poor not being able to drive in cities hardly registers when faced with the forecast of a global extinction level event. How is a little suffering now worse than a lot in the future? (and who do you think will be suffering the most in the future, hardly the well off).

If everything has to be equal before action can be taken, the only way that it possible is if almost everyone ends up with nothing (Soviet Union). Of course, even in these very equal places the powerful and influential had far more than the poor, who often starved to death and had it rather worse than in places where things were superficially more unequal.

The new religion of equality is perhaps more of a pollutant than all the CO2 being spewed out into the atmosphere, because when faced with an ability to enact positive change, it can't be done because people will be disproportionately affected.

Everything in nature is disproportionate, there is nothing equal under the sun.

You know, Freddie, I am half inclined to agree with you. It just irks me that the sacrifice will be made by those struggling to make ends meet while those who are comfortably off end up making very little sacrifice and just carry on driving their cars into city centres, albeit with a different motor that allows them to feel virtuous. And they will have fewer low income drivers clogging their roads so will enjoy smoother travel. Please let there be a more palatable alternative.

[Mike Sales]

Just thinking more on this. There's whole lot of better solutions out there. What about trying to change work patterns? More distance working if possible. Always better to not make a journey in the first place.

Or staggered working hours. Instead of popular working hours try earlier or later starts / finishes. Spread the road burden and use possibly might make more people choose public transport or cycling. I work earlier than a lot of people round my area. That means whether driving or cycling to work the roads are quiet. No traffic jams mean no idling engines and more efficient, slightly less polluting trips whether cars or buses. That's before you consider nearly empty roads for cycling on.

These aren't the solution just something extra to consider. Modern life needs looking at not just traffic. Perhaps there's bit gains all round from changing work habits?

These are good suggestions.
Decades of increasingly cheap motoring and of building faster roads which enable longer commuting have encouraged more people to motor further.
Making motoring more expensive and less convenient would encourage different choices. It is unpleasant that poorer people would suffer higher pressure, but it is poorer people who already suffer the worst effects of high levels of traffic.

[Freddie]

You know, Freddie, I am half inclined to agree with you. It just irks me that the sacrifice will be made by those struggling to make ends meet while those who are comfortably off end up making very little sacrifice and just carry on driving their cars into city centres, albeit with a different motor that allows them to feel virtuous.

Hasn't that always been the way? I wouldn't say that was a problem of rich vs poor, but one of human nature. If a person can feel virtuous while offloading as much responsibility for acting virtuously as possible, then they'll do it, nine times out ten.

And they will have fewer low income drivers clogging their roads so will enjoy smoother travel. Please let there be a more palatable alternative.

Perhaps the positive is that those with the lowest incomes, who likely don't drive and perhaps live in places that are major thoroughfares, will have their lives far less affected by the noise and pollution of cars. If you don't drive (because you are too poor to do so) and the motor traffic in your rat-run street drops by 70%, the air is cleaner and there is less noise as a result, do you really care if the people driving the remaining cars earn £15,000 a year more than you or £50,000 more?

[pwa]

You know, Freddie, I am half inclined to agree with you. It just irks me that the sacrifice will be made by those struggling to make ends meet while those who are comfortably off end up making very little sacrifice and just carry on driving their cars into city centres, albeit with a different motor that allows them to feel virtuous.

Hasn't that always been the way? I wouldn't say that was a problem of rich vs poor, but one of human nature. If a person can feel virtuous while offloading as much responsibility for acting virtuously as possible, then they'll do it, nine times out ten.

And they will have fewer low income drivers clogging their roads so will enjoy smoother travel. Please let there be a more palatable alternative.

Perhaps the positive is that those with the lowest incomes, who likely don't drive and perhaps live in places that are major thoroughfares, will have their lives far less affected by the noise and pollution of cars. If you don't drive (because you are too poor to do so) and the motor traffic in your rat-run street drops by 70%, the air is cleaner and there is less noise as a result, do you really care if the people driving the remaining cars earn £15,000 a year more than you or £50,000 more?

But if we effectively demand that the poor forsake the car when they go into the city centre, why is it not alright to demand the same of wealthier drivers and just ban all cars in the centre, electric or otherwise? That way the streets will be almost car free in the centre and alternative means of getting about will have more space.

[Freddie]

Well, the toss up will be between what is 'alright' and what is practicable. Wealthy people certainly have the ways and means to kick up a stink about things like this in a way that poorer people don't, if they feel it is against their interests. Again, not very fair, but it is what it is.

If you have the choice of reducing traffic by (say) 70% relatively easily or attempting to reduce it by 100% and most likely failing, because lots of powerful, moneyed interests club together to stop such action, which one do you choose?

[pwa]

Well, the toss up will be between what is 'alright' and what is practicable? Wealthy people certainly have the abillity, ways and means to kick up a stink about things like this in a way that poorer people don't, if they feel it is against their interests. Again, not very fair, but it is what it is.

If you have the choice of reducing traffic by (say) 70% relatively easily or attempting to reduce it by 100% and most likely failing, because lots of powerful, moneyed interests club together to stop such action, which one do you choose?

United we stand, divided we fall. A sacrifice that applies to all is going to be easier to sell to the voter than a sacrifice that only applies to some. And wouldn't we all appreciate greatly expanded pedestrianised areas in our city centres?

[Freddie]

Noble as it may be, I think you're swinging back to ideology again - what is it most people are united by? Many poorer drivers dislike "middle class" cyclists clogging up "their" roads, because they "don't pay road tax" and so on....where is the unity, precisely? I think many (most?) would oppose pedestrianising a city centre, if it would impact on their ability to drive (rich or poor).

I think to get things like this done, they often have to be done by increments. I don't know why you would need to appeal to the voter too much to be honest, plenty of things are done by governments in spite of the wishes of their citizens.

And wouldn't we all appreciate greatly expanded pedestrianised areas in our city centres?

No, at least many wouldn't see it that way. Once it happens they may come to, in time, but convincing them of it initially may be next to impossible, as it would inconvenience them.

[pwa]

Well speaking as a visitor, I avoid going to places like Oxford that have relatively little pedestrianised area and I feel drawn to cities such as Cardiff where the traffic-free area is much greater. Once you are on foot the presence of motorised traffic around you, even if running on electric motors, is not welcome.

[Pete Owens]

A quick search found that 26% of British households do not have a car. Many others are single car households, so that not all members have free use of a car, for instance when one is at work.
I would guess that the poorest people are most likely not to have a car.
Does that help?

Spot on.

And not only that, but the poor tend to disproportionately suffer the consequences of motors whether as victims of crashes and poor health due to the pollution. It is the poor that actually use the alternative means of getting about that motorists claim is unavailable (when what they mean is not quite as convenient) making their car use supposedly "essential".

I find it vomit inducing when the car owning classes use faux concern for the poor when defending their privileges against any restriction on the use of their cars.

[Oldjohnw]

Just wondering who the car owning classes are.

[Mike Sales]

Just wondering who the car owning classes are.

I guess, in a society of mass car ownership like ours, they are defined by their car ownership.
It is the smaller number of non car owners who are easier to classify.
They are the poorest of course, but also those too young or too old to drive, or too disabled physically or mentally.

[landsurfer]

Just wondering who the car owning classes are.

I guess, in a society of mass car ownership like ours, they are defined by their car ownership.
It is the smaller number of non car owners who are easier to classify.
They are the poorest of course, but also those too young or too old to drive, or too disabled physically or mentally.

Here in Rotherhamistan it pays to visit the poorer areas.
Eastwood with its population of asylum seekers and Eastern Europeans...
Masbrough, taxi driver and a mixed immigrant community.
Low rent and both low income areas ...
But you won't be able to park for tatty Mercs and all types of car ...
The poor have cars ... believe it ...

[Mike Sales]

Just wondering who the car owning classes are.

I guess, in a society of mass car ownership like ours, they are defined by their car ownership.
It is the smaller number of non car owners who are easier to classify.
They are the poorest of course, but also those too young or too old to drive, or too disabled physically or mentally.

Here in Rotherhamistan it pays to visit the poorer areas.
Eastwood with its population of asylum seekers and Eastern Europeans...
Masbrough, taxi driver and a mixed immigrant community.
Low rent and both low income areas ...
But you won't be able to park for tatty Mercs and all types of car ...
The poor have cars ... believe it ...

So all the 24% of households without cars are too old to drive?
Your poor are the immigrants working hard to make the most of their new opportunities.