Page 16 of 18
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 7:57am
by Edwards
skidd wrote:Edwards. I not sure if your last post was aimed at me, but I for sure, and I would imagine all rational 'car haters', would certainly endorse the use of motor vehicles, but only when the external costs are internalised to the driver. That goes for any activity that is not a natural part of a normal existence. So you are welcome to use the car to pick your wife, kids or grandparents up, just pay the costs.
The post was not aimed at any one person individually but at the people saying private use of cars is selfish as a generalisation.
Thank you for the permission though.
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 8:56am
by kwackers
irc wrote:But the car was a consequence of other technologies you can't take the benefits of all modern technology then say "but I don't want the car".
Why not? Anyway that wasn't my point. My point was "suppose the car hadn't been invented".
All the benefits of industrialisation you mention above would have still happened, they were happening before the car came along!
Where the car has helped is it's allowed that industrialisation to be driven by consumerism in that it's created cheap methods of shifting raw materials and finished goods along with greater mobility of the workforce.
Does anyone seriously think that was a good thing? We've built a society on consumerism and has recent events have shown just the tiniest downturn creates huge havok. What will happen when our consumerism falls to the levels it must? I think you can put the blame for the consequences firmly at the car's door.
irc wrote: The car is the most practical invention that combines personal mobility over long distances, passenger and load carrying capacity and protection from weather. If it is available then people will choose to use it.
Of course they will. As I said car's have made themselves indispensable. Nobody would dream of walking 400 yards to the local shop anymore when they can drive 5 miles to the nearest supermarket. (Or if they're lucky enough to still have a local shop, drive 400 yards and park on the pavement to get to it).
irc wrote:But they do exist so why shouldn't we enjoy their benefits?
Nobodies suggesting we shouldn't. But don't forget their negatives which imo outweigh the positives considerably.
Folk talk about greater mobility as though it's a plus. I'm sure that positive goes through the mind of everyone currently stuck in the daily jam on their way to work, each day and every day.
I'm sure we're all grateful that we can now all work further from home.
We'll be made up that 10's of thousands are KSI'd directly each year and hundreds of thousands indirectly. (Many millions if you consider it worldwide)
That the air stinks of traffic fumes and is loaded with carcinogens.
That it's practically impossible to escape the noise.
That most places have lost a sense of community and we only know our neighbours by the cars they drive as they pass our houses.
That the land is ripped up by large swathes of asphalt with towns and villages being split into segments that may as well be different places.
That they cost us a fortune and have become so indispensable that people who can't afford one still have to buy one.
That we can now live so far from our friends and family that it requires us to plan the journey to see them.
Fundamentally we've built an entire society around them and yet nobody can guarantee that they'll still be around in a few decades. If consumerism drops to the levels it must and presuming this drop doesn't cause society to crash will enough people be able to afford one to make the infrastructure work at the present level? And what of those that can't?
As I said, I can't help but think the society that we would have built had cars never been invented would be better and more viable.
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 8:58am
by Si
irc wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to identify a non motorised society with a lifestyle of the quality we have in the Uk.
Why? Are you making the assumption that it is causal? We could equally well ask: name a society that has the same lifestyle quality that we have in the UK that, for instance, doesn't have biros, or guns, or fast food.
Also, how are you measuring lifestyle quality? Health, happiness, wealth...? If it's health then how do you measure this: life expectancy, fitness, what? If general fitness then loads of societies have been better than ours. If life expectancy then I think that we might soon see this dropping thanks to the obesity problems we now face. We might equally ask: name a society where obesity did not increase with the increased use of the car - you'd be on far firmer ground concerning causal links there.
I'm not trying to argue that cars can't have positive points, but rather that when the overall profit-loss tally is done, cars will come out in the negative. they have allowed us to become lazy in the way that we have changed our society, both socially and geographically, and now that we are finding them increasingly more expensive and unpractical to rely on them we are running into trouble.
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 9:11am
by alanesq
I had 3 motorbikes and a car but I got rid of them all a few years ago and now just use a cycle, so it is possible to exist without owning a car.
and I have to say that I have never looked back - life is so much less stressful without a car
The grip the car gets on you is that it allows you to easily travel much greater distances and once you get used to doing this you can't see how you could possibly exist without one.
I work, shop and basically live locally - which is how it was before the car became popular
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 9:32am
by meic
But the car was a consequence of other technologies you can't take the benefits of all modern technology then say "but I don't want the car".
Well another benefit of the technologies was firearms, like for example the ubiquitous AK47.
Now any individual family is better off if they own an AK47, it is invaluable for protecting yourself and family from paedophiles, rapists, muggers, murders and rapists or on a lesser level burglars, noisy neighbours and troublesome pets.
Who would be without one?
Yet when as a society we choose to give them up we are as a
whole society much better off.
Though personally I could still find good use for one... or at least a nice rifle.
You can still get by with a bow and arrow but it makes it very hard, especially for the aged, women and children.
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 10:07am
by skidd
Them:
Please stop suggesting that anybody who suggests a rationalisation of car use is stopping y'all from running vital and rare blood transfusions between hospitals and the like. Knock yourselves out. You have my permission. But pay the costs (And if it is for a life saving operation on my one of my kids I'll pay your petrol and bung you an extra £50, that should cover
comprehensive insurance, pollution, behavioral modification, noise, vibration, downstream and upstream costs etc etc).
Peter 99
http://splendidcycles.wordpress.com/tag/plumber/ describes a plumber who does work with a bicycle. Now I do not dispute he may be putting himself at a disadvantage against his competitors, but only because they get a net subsidy on their transport costs and he suffers a net cost imposition on his. But to suggest it can't be done is misleading.
irc
I'm still waiting for someone to identify a non motorised society with a lifestyle of the quality we have in the Uk
You may have to wait a long time for this one, in that, as pointed out, this is open to subjectivity. Yes we can hark back to stressful times without cars, but equally we have had two world wars with them, and it is a non-sequiteur to suggest that 'progress' is directly proportional to motor use. What we can see is that there is an unerring trend to demand for places without motors. Precincts, homezones, congestion charging, in fact any reasonably governed constraint to motor use rarely results in loss of general welfare. Given the subjectivity surrounding quality of life and the fuzziness about what constitutes a society, there are many historical and contemporary examples of motor-less cultures which have a case for delivering a better quality of life. I forsee that any contemporary example cited will illicit the response "Ah but look, if it wasn't for motor cars you would not have had that pint of Stella three weeks ago", so my personal experience of getting rid of the car I am sure would not satisfy you (Because I hired one to take my family to see Bruce Springsteen last Thursday). That leaves societies untouched by the motor car, and given that I am not an anthropologist, archeologist or sociologist I can only suggest that there are many examples of socities prior to the industrial revolution which may in many ways have surpassed ours in many aspects of lifestyle quality (e.g. Aboriginal Australia, Islands, Native American tribes yadda yadda yadda). Again I am tipping you will bring up examples of disembowling to appease the harvest gods, cannibalism and lack of reality TV to suggest that this is not the case, but I imagine it would be very unlikely that during practically the entire 90,000 year history of Homo Sapiens their isn't a small group somewhere who have spent a just a few hours a week huntin' shootin' and fishin and spent the rest of their time getting drunk, telling stories and fornicating, and be judged to have a superior lifestyle to ours. Without cars.
So anyway, I've thought of one. Bonobos.
Us:
You rock. You know I didn't think about the clunge bit until now, but behind that lies another story.
_____
Everybody:
Private use of cars is, given the current costing structure, almost invariably selfish, in that benefits are internalised and costs externalised.
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 9:21pm
by drossall
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 27 Jun 2012, 9:36am
by Edwards
drossall wrote:Private use of cars is, given the current costing structure, almost invariably selfish, in that benefits are internalised and costs externalised.
Ok so now she is home how do I get her to appointments in a safe and caring manor (do not bother saying Taxi as I have also seen how they are driven).
How do others who are not as fortunate as you with their mobility keep their independence and do the things necessary to live.
Because you are able to ride a bike due to your good fortune try being grateful for your good luck and not so judgemental about others not so fortunate as you.
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 27 Jun 2012, 9:46am
by al_yrpal
Well today I have a medical appointment far away, then an alternator recall on my new car, and then I am taking a couple of non cycling motor vehicle less old folk to a lecture.
But... This topic is about The Times campaign, it seems to have been hijacked. Buy The Times today and read about new significant developments and get back on topic. Daft ideas diminish all cyclists. Why bother arguing, just ignore it.
Al
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 27 Jun 2012, 10:22am
by kwackers
Edwards wrote:Ok so now she is home how do I get her to appointments in a safe and caring manor (do not bother saying Taxi as I have also seen how they are driven).
To use the beeb's terminology: didn't she collide with a car? Seems a bit circular to me, she needs a car because she was hit by a car...
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 27 Jun 2012, 3:52pm
by kwackers
al_yrpal wrote:But... This topic is about The Times campaign, it seems to have been hijacked. Buy The Times today and read about new significant developments and get back on topic. Daft ideas diminish all cyclists. Why bother arguing, just ignore it.
Oh I don't know, I find I can cycle pretty well regardless of how daft my idea is.
So has anything new happened? (I don't particularly want to buy The Times just to partake in cycling discussions)
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 27 Jun 2012, 5:02pm
by al_yrpal
"Dear Reader
Over the past few months you have helped us highlight more than 10,000 cycling blackspots as part of our Cities fit for Cycling campaign.
Today, Norman Baker, the Transport Minister, announced that your findings will be used to help allocate £15 million of funding to improve dangerous road junctions outside of London. We couldn't have done this without your contributions.
As part of our commitment to bring about real change, we have presented those hazards to the worst affected cities and boroughs across the country, including Westminster, Lambeth, Bristol, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Leeds, Cambridge, Sheffield, Newcastle, Manchester and Cardiff.
Now we need your help to pressurise local councillors into taking action.
Wherever you live, please take a minute to go to this page thetim.es/cyclesafe-local, type your postcode into the envelope and email one of your local representatives, asking them to bid for funding to improve key junctions in your area.
Thank you once again for your support.
James Harding Signature
James Harding Editor of The Times "
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 27 Jun 2012, 5:31pm
by kwackers
I guess related:
They've built a quite pleasant new 'urban village' around me, one of it's selling points was off street parking (hidden nicely around the back of the houses) and quiet traffic calmed roads that don't really go anywhere (so no point in racing through to cut off the corner) and of course miles of lovely new cycling facilities. Nice wide paths with little cuts through the pinch points in the traffic calming to make cycling along them a lovely family thing to do (lots of nice duck ponds and parks nearby to cycle to as well).
Of course the idiots that live in the houses can't be bothered driving round the back so they just use the cycle lane as parking - handy that the cycle lane is just the right width for a car!
So I mailed the local MP and got a load of chaff back which after reading several times basically handed the problem over to the builder(!).
So having CC'd the builder they eventually got back and blamed the council. The builder did say they'd brought it up in a residents meeting at which there was a fair bit of opposition to having to drive around to the back of their houses, he suggested that the council would need to implement a traffic order but considering it would need to be put out to public consultation and the current attitude of the residents was such that it might mean it wouldn't get through - and even that would only be possible after the council adopted the roads. They did however apparently manage to get a traffic order banning parking in the bus lanes, (although that still seems to be fairly regular).
The whole thing is pretty annoying, I think I'd have preferred it if they hadn't put the cycle lane there in the first place.
In the meantime I've made it my duty to use that road no matter which way I'm heading out. It's a shame that the residents occasionally have to patiently tootle along behind - but what can I do? There's absolutely nowhere to pull over...
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 27 Jun 2012, 5:41pm
by skidd
Edwards:
I think it was me (Skidd, Steve Kidd), not Drosall, who wrote "Private use of cars is, given the current costing structure, almost invariably selfish, in that benefits are internalised and costs externalised." You have asked a few questions and I will try to answer them. I will try to anticipate somewhat.
Ok so now she is home how do I get her to appointments in a safe and caring manor (do not bother saying Taxi as I have also seen how they are driven).
I have to say that unless you accept Taxis as one of the alternatives because you 'have seen how they are driven' you have your head firmly in the sand, and If you would not accept this as a reasonable suggestion you are likely to be not open to rationality or reason, nevertheless as a courtesy I will continue.
- I am sure that if you made arrangements with a local taxi firm they would make specific arrangements, stick below certain speeds and limit their acceleration and braking.
- Phone a friend.
- Use your car (I believe this is what you do already).
- Push her in a wheelchair (If her condition permits).
- Ask for home visits. I am pretty sure that in neccesary cases these will be accommodated.
How do others who are not as fortunate as you with their mobility keep their independence and do the things necessary to live.
- Shopping home delivery
- Public transport (Yeah I know busses suck, but any port in a storm as they say)
- Reduce demand (e.g. watch a video instead of going to the cinema, tell their kids to take their own children to school, stop going to church and pray at home, Drink at the pub 'round the corner instead of being driven three miles to the Con Club)
- Make friends with the neighbours, keep in regulat contact
- Get a cat when the dog dies
- Use a car when you need to
How do others who are not as fortunate as you with their mobility keep their independence and do the things necessary to live.
See above
_______________
If you could answer my questions now please. You said
Because you are able to ride a bike due to your good fortune try being grateful for your good luck and not so judgemental about others not so fortunate as you.
- How do you know I am not grateful for my good luck?,
- How judgemental am I allowed to be for others not as fortunate as I?
- Is it cool to be judgemental about people as fortunate or more fortunate than I?
Re: The Times Campaign for safer cycling
Posted: 27 Jun 2012, 5:55pm
by skidd
Aargh. Posting twice
Valid point about bringing this thread back. In the recent post above we see.
Today, Norman Baker, the Transport Minister, announced that your findings will be used to help allocate £15 million of funding to improve dangerous road junctions outside of London
That's the whole point about this thread being here in the first place, and how a lot of it has developed. My initial post said I "percieve that although the motives may be admirable, the methodology is fundamentaly flawed,". Six months on and olé.. £15 million quid. A smidge over 2 km of motorway, 3 km of dual carriageway. At 2007 prices. What percentage of that relatively paltry amount will end up benefitting society? Will cyclists be given right of way at any of these junctions or will they be sent on a diversion with enforced stops? Sorry, but it is a pathetic result.
